{"id":8174,"date":"2013-05-03T11:28:35","date_gmt":"2013-05-03T10:28:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/ofschemesandmemes\/?p=8174"},"modified":"2013-05-03T13:48:31","modified_gmt":"2013-05-03T12:48:31","slug":"best-of-nature-com-blogs-scilogs-com-and-scitable-20-3-may","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/ofschemesandmemes\/2013\/05\/03\/best-of-nature-com-blogs-scilogs-com-and-scitable-20-3-may","title":{"rendered":"Best of nature.com blogs, SciLogs.com and Scitable: 20 \u2013 3 May"},"content":{"rendered":"

What Can Be Done About Glass Ceilings in Science?<\/strong><\/p>\n

This week’s Soapbox Science guest post <\/a>is by freelancer Ben Thomas, he looks at \u00a0biases in scientific fields and how they can develop against men or women:<\/p>\n

According to many experts,\u00a0the unifying principles that inform these biases aren\u2019t always intentional, and they \u00a0emerge when differing professional expectations and corporate cultures meet.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cA lot of bias-influenced decisions aren\u2019t malicious decisions or even discriminatory decisions,\u201d says Betty Shanahan, executive director and CEO of the\u00a0Society of Women Engineers<\/a>. \u201cBut the net result is the same: they prevent some talented people from getting ahead.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

So how can differences, for example, in communication styles, \u00a0bubble up into concrete distinctions among career paths and promotion levels?,\u00a0A 2010 study<\/a>\u00a0funded by the National Science Foundation learned that recommendation letters written by women tended to focus on adjectives like \u201caffectionate, helpful, kind, sympathetic, nurturing, tactful and agreeable,\u201d whereas recommendation letters composed by men leaned towards behavior-oriented descriptions and adjectives like \u201cconfident, aggressive, ambitious, dominant, forceful, independent, daring, outspoken and intellectual.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Do you agree with Ben? Share your experiences in the comment thread.<\/a><\/p>\n

Cancer vaccine pioneer<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Nature Jobs Blog<\/a>\u00a0hosts a Q&A with\u00a0Dr Helen Sabzevari, a pioneer in the field of immuno-oncology and\u00a0Senior Vice President of Immuno-Oncology at pharmaceutical company EMD-Serono:<\/p>\n

\n
\"helen1-200x300\"<\/a>

{credit}Dr Helen Sabzevari{\/credit}<\/p><\/div>\n

What are you working on at the moment?<\/b><\/em><\/p>\n

I head-up the immuno-oncology reseach at EMD-Serono, and part of the portfolio is cancer vaccines. We already have one in the clinic and we are working on second and third generation vaccines.<\/em><\/p>\n

What are the biggest challenges in developing a cancer vaccine?<\/b><\/em><\/p>\n

Unfortunately, I think the biggest challenge for the cancer vaccine has been the failures so far over the past two decades. There is a stigma as a result of these failures which has led to the thinking that immunotherapy in general cannot work for cancer. But this isn\u2019t unique to immunology or cancer vaccines \u2013 if you look at the history of drug development or even scientific achievements in general, usually it starts with tremendous amounts of failures and then those failures become lessons and generate a lot of knowledge. This leads to progression and eventually success \u2013 and this is exactly what we are seeing right now.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hear more from Helen on the\u00a0possibility\u00a0of developing a vaccine for cancer in the post<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Obama calls for peer-review autonomy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Beth Mole reports in the News Blog,<\/a> in a brief\u00a015-minute speech<\/a>\u00a0this week, US President Barack Obama championed independence for the peer-review process, in front of an audience of elite researchers at the 150th annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences in Washington DC:<\/p>\n