Strength is in engagement: The rise of an online scientific community during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Many scientists, confined to home office by COVID‐19, have been gathering in online communities, which could become viable alternatives to physical meetings and conferences. Subject Categories: S&S: Careers & Training, Methods & Resources, S&S: Ethics

As COVID‐19 has brought work and travel to a grinding halt, scientists explored new ways to connect with each other. For the gene regulation community, this started with a Tweet that quickly expanded into the “Fragile Nucleosome” online forum, a popular seminar series, and many intimate discussions connecting scientists all over the world. More than 2,500 people from over 45 countries have attended our seminars so far and our forum currently has ~ 1,000 members who have kick‐started discussion groups and mentorship opportunities. Here we discuss our experience with setting up the Fragile Nucleosome seminars and online discussion forum, and present the tools to enable others to do the same.Too often, we forget the importance of social interactions in science. Indeed, many creative ideas originated from impromptu and fortuitous encounters with peers, in passing, over lunch, or during a conference coffee break. Now, the ongoing COVID‐19 crisis means prolonged isolation, odd working hours, and less social interactions for most scientists confined to home. This motivated us to create the “Fragile Nucleosome” virtual community for our colleagues in the chromatin and gene regulation field.

… the ongoing COVID‐19 crisis means prolonged isolation, odd working hours and less social interactions for most scientists confined to home.

While the need to address the void created by the COVID‐19 pandemic triggered our actions, a large part of the international community already has had limited access to research networks in our field. Our initiative offered new opportunities though, in particular for those who have not benefited from extensive networks, showing how virtual communities can address disparities in accessibility. This should not be a stop‐gap measure during the pandemic: Once we come out from our isolation, we still need to address the drawbacks of in‐person scientific conferences/seminars, such as economic disparities, travel inaccessibility, and overlapping family responsibilities (Sarabipour, 2020). Our virtual community offers some solutions to the standing challenges (Levine & Rathmell, 2020), and we hope our commentary can help start conversations about the advantages of virtual communities in a post‐pandemic world.

… once we come out from our isolation we still need to address the drawbacks of in‐person scientific conferences/seminars, such as economic disparities, travel inaccessibility and overlapping family responsibilities…

     

A special issue of the Australian society for Biophysics

On behalf of the Australian Society for Biophysics (ASB) and the Editors of this Special Issue, I would like to express our appreciation to Editor-in-Chief, Damien Hall, for arranging the publication of this Special Issue. The ASB is about five times smaller than our sister the Biophysical Society for Japan (BSJ) and tenfold smaller than the US Biophysical Society (USBS), but our meetings are notable because of the encouragement the Society gives to emerging biophysicists. It can be a terrifying experience for a PhD student to have to face a roomful of professors and senior academics, but invariably they appreciate the experience. Another feature of the ASB meetings is the inclusion of contributions from the Asian Pacific region. We now have formal ties with our New Zealand colleagues and our meetings with the BSJ contain joint sessions (see below). In 2020, despite the impact of COVID-19 (see Adam Hill’s Commentary), there is a joint session with the University of California Davis. This Special Issue comprises 2 Editorials, 3 Commentaries, and 25 reviews.

When we began to put together an editorial on the contributions to this Special Issue of the 44th meeting of the Australian Society for Biophysics (ASB), we were struck by the sheer diversity of what we call “Biophysics”. Biophysics is actually not easy to define. The glib answer is “Biophysics is what biophysicists do”, but what do they do? If we asked an Australian Minister for Science to tell us what biophysicists do, he or she could tell us what immunologists and virologists do, but would probably have no idea what a biophysicist does. So how should we explain biophysics to the Minister? The US Biophysical Society defines “biophysics” as the field that applies the theories and methods of physics to understand how biological systems work. Operationally, biophysicists analyse the structure of biological molecules like DNA and proteins, they develop computer models to understand how drugs bind to the receptors in the body, and they investigate how gene mutations change the function of proteins.We thought a good example of biophysics research is the article by Boris Martinac at the beginning of this Special Issue. Boris has worked for much of his research life on trying to figure out how a mechanosensitive ion channel works. His “babies” are molecules encoded by the MscL and MscS genes and more recently also by the Piezo1 gene. He realised that bacteria needed to have sensors embedded in their surface membrane so they can quickly produce electrical or chemical signals in response to a mechanical force which occurs in the form of osmotic pressure. This of course is what enables the bacterium to survive when exposed to a hypoosmotic shock. More recently he and his colleagues turned their attention to investigating whether Piezo1 channels are the inherently mechanosensitive channels in vertebrates (Syeda et al. 2016) like MscL and MscS channels are in bacteria. They explained how Piezo receptors respond to changes in mechanical curvature of the cell membranes that open non-specific cation channels, thereby generating an electrical signal. In 2013 Boris was elected to the Australian Academy of Science in recognition of his discovery of bacterial mechanosensitive channels and the physical principles of mechanosensitive channel gating. More recently his work has expanded into the roles of mechanosensitive channels in nerves and heart disease. While we all hope he would get the “big” prize in science, it was his colleague, Ardem Patapoutian, who was awarded a share for the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his research on Piezo1 and Piezo2.The 44th meeting of the Australian Society for Biophysics (ASB) was notable for two other reasons. It was either despite the fact or because it was a virtual meeting that the Society concurrently ran an international symposium with our sister society in Japan the Japanese Society for Biophysics. There is a close connection between the ABS and JSB. For years they have encouraged Australian biophysicists to travel to the large JSB meetings in Japan and they regularly send a strong contingent to Australia. A lot of hard work was put in by Kumiko Hayashi and her colleagues Risa Shibuya and Emi Hibino and the meeting attracted Japanese biophysicists from Tsukuba, Osaka, Kyoto, Shinjuku, Okayama, Kawasaki and Nagoya.The Society also hosted a virtual Early Career Researcher symposium which involved ASB and the University of California Davis. This was chaired by Dr Adam Hill and we refer you to his Commentary where he writes about the challenges and successes of running a virtual meeting “Biophysics in the time of COVID”.The ASB has had a long-standing policy to encourage presentations from early career biophysicists, even as early as PhD students. These young biophysicists prepare carefully and seem to enjoy what can be a terrifying experience. Professor Jamie Vandenberg moderated a session on careers in biophysics where participants discussed the latest technology in ultrasound, the Victor Chang Innovation Centre, strategies for careers outside of traditional biophysics, the importance of scientific communication and advocacy, and the importance intellectual property law, and finally, there were some encouraging words on a career in biophysics from Boris Martinac.Our friends across the “ditch” in New Zealand had a session that discussed calcium imaging in mouse models of disease, the impact fibrosis on Ca signalling, high-content super-resolution microscopy, effects of ryanodine receptor clustering on arrhythmia, the impact of fibrosis on cardiac Ca signalling, how N-glycans affect shear force activation of Na channels, and a fascinating analysis of how insects have managed to adapt their flight muscles to achieve high-frequency flapping flight.The meeting finished with a presentation of the McAuley-Hope prize for a biophysicist who crosses boundaries in biophysics and develops new techniques and methods. It is not always presented but Dr Till Boecking at the University of New South Wales was the well-deserved winner of this much sought-after Prize.     

Searching PubMed during a Pandemic

Background

The 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic has generated thousands of articles and news items. However, finding relevant scientific articles in such rapidly developing health crises is a major challenge which, in turn, can affect decision-makers'' ability to utilise up-to-date findings and ultimately shape public health interventions. This study set out to show the impact that the inconsistent naming of the pandemic can have on retrieving relevant scientific articles in PubMed/MEDLINE.

Methodology

We first formulated a PubMed search algorithm covering different names of the influenza pandemic and simulated the results that it would have retrieved from weekly searches for relevant new records during the first 10 weeks of the pandemic. To assess the impact of failing to include every term in this search, we then conducted the same searches but omitted in turn “h1n1,” “swine,” “influenza” and “flu” from the search string, and compared the results to those for the full string.

Principal Findings

On average, our core search string identified 44.3 potentially relevant new records at the end of each week. Of these, we determined that an average of 27.8 records were relevant. When we excluded one term from the string, the percentage of records missed out of the total number of relevant records averaged 18.7% for omitting “h1n1,” 13.6% for “swine,” 17.5% for “influenza,” and 20.6% for “flu.”

Conclusions

Due to inconsistent naming, while searching for scientific material about rapidly evolving situations such as the influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, there is a risk that one will miss relevant articles. To address this problem, the international scientific community should agree on nomenclature and the specific name to be used earlier, and the National Library of Medicine in the US could index potentially relevant materials faster and allow publishers to add alert tags to such materials.     

It's a Wonderful Life: A Career as an Academic Scientist

Many years of training are required to obtain a job as an academic scientist. Is this investment of time and effort worthwhile? My answer is a resounding “yes.” Academic scientists enjoy tremendous freedom in choosing their research and career path, experience unusual camaraderie in their lab, school, and international community, and can contribute to and enjoy being part of this historical era of biological discovery. In this essay, I further elaborate by listing my top ten reasons why an academic job is a desirable career for young people who are interested in the life sciences.Students are attracted to careers in academic science because of their interest in the subject rather than for financial reward. But then they hear messages that make them think twice about this career choice. It is difficult to find a job: “Hear about Joe? Three publications as a postdoc and still no job offers.” The NIH pay line is low: “Poor Patricia, she is now on her third submission of her first NIH grant.” Publishing is painful: “Felix''s grad school thesis work has been rejected by three journals!” Academic jobs are demanding: “Cathy has spent her last three weekends writing grants rather than being with her family.”Such scenarios do take place, but if you think that this is what a career in academic science is about, then you need to hear the other side of the story. And this is the purpose of this article—a chance to reflect on the many good things about the academic profession. In the classic movie It''s a Wonderful Life, George Bailey is at the point of despair but regains his confidence through the wisdom and perspective of a guardian angel, Clarence. Doubt and setbacks also are bound to happen in science (as is true of other careers), but pessimism should not rule the day. It is a great profession and there are many happy endings. I would like to share my top ten reasons of why being an academic professor is a “wonderful life,” one that bright and motivated young people should continue to aspire to pursue.     

Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results (results that fail to support the tested hypothesis). Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments. This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of positive results in a large random sample of papers with a corresponding author based in the US. Across all disciplines, papers were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced more academic papers per capita. The size of this effect increased when controlling for state''s per capita R&D expenditure and for study characteristics that previous research showed to correlate with the frequency of positive results, including discipline and methodology. Although the confounding effect of institutions'' prestige could not be excluded (researchers in the more productive universities could be the most clever and successful in their experiments), these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists'' productivity but also their bias. The same phenomenon might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high.     

Freelancer

What long‐term changes can we expect, in how academic work is conducted and remunerated, in the post‐pandemic world? Subject Categories: S&S: Economics & Business, S&S: History & Philosophy of Science, S&S: Ethics

Although still two years away, my looming “retirement” from university employment is inevitably going to herald a major change of life. “Of course, you''ll become ‘Emeritus’”, most colleagues have opined. My answer to all of them has been a firm “No. I''ll become a freelancer”. The concept of a freelance scientist is obviously so alien to most of them that they invariably change the subject immediately. However, my gut feeling is that in 20 years or less, almost all of us will be freelancers of some kind.The COVID‐19 pandemic has altered the world of work in very obvious ways. There has been much talk of how the changes are likely to carry over to the future, even if more traditional patterns will probably reassert themselves in the short to medium term. Working from home, conducting meetings remotely, not wasting days travelling between continents for a few precious hours of face‐time and being free to structure workdays around our own priorities: these are the most obvious novelties that many believe will continue long after the effects of the pandemic on health and wealth have faded. But I have a slightly different take.Major disruptive events of worldwide import—world wars, global economic slumps, cataclysmic volcanic eruptions and pandemics—have often been harbingers of profound social change. This is not only due to their direct and immediate effects, but more so because the disruption accelerates and facilitates changes that were already happening. In the case of COVID‐19, one may place in this category the demise of cash, the rise of streaming services in place of live entertainment, online grocery shopping and even virtual dating. Another is paying people to stay home and do nothing, otherwise known as the universal basic income (or, in the USA, “stimulus cheques”).Inefficient practices in academia are equally ripe for change. Why bother with classes for 500 first‐year students when a much better edition of the lecture by an expert communicator is available on the internet? What’s the use of an ageing PhD advisor 20 years away from bench science, who struggles to guide the next generation of experimentalists in the lab, when the expertise of a plethora of specialists can easily be accessed online? What’s the value in published papers that are read by fewer people than wrote them? Or in seminars delivered to a roomful of attentive postdocs and PhD students who lack the courage or the time to address even a single question to the speaker?Yes, there is still great value in small‐group teaching and mentorship, in the creative verve of a close‐knit laboratory team, and in good writing and oratory: but the required skills are already different from those in which we were schooled. Thus, even if I do not hold in my palm the crystal ball to predict exactly which changes will happen and how fast, I believe that our traditional jobs are going to melt away very fast in the post‐pandemic world. Universities and research institutes may still exist, but I expect that their practices will be different, reshaped by rational need more than by tradition. Today’s academic science is already quite unlike that of 1920, but it has evolved so slowly during that century—spanning a much longer time period than the lifetime of a scientific career—that we barely perceive the changes that have occurred. In contrast, the changes now afoot will certainly happen much faster, especially since the funds to support the current “inefficient” model are likely to diminish rapidly.So, I predict that university teaching and science communication in general will be the first to evolve into freelance activities, where universities will invite bids from individuals or their agents and award commissions on a fee‐paying basis rather than using salaried employees. But these are not the only component parts of academia facing such a shake‐up. The practices of laboratory science are also likely to be rebuilt. When discussing with colleagues how research might be undertaken on a freelance basis, they usually raise issues such as bricks and mortar and the complex infrastructure that is needed to sustain cutting‐edge research, especially in the life sciences: how, they ask, could a freelancer access state‐of‐the‐art imaging, mass spectrometry or DNA sequencing? How could their acquisition of such expensive hardware possibly be financed, especially if they had to somehow acquire it personally and set it up in the garage or carry it around with them?But the answers to these questions are already evident in the practices of some major research agencies, most notably in Europe’s pioneering funder of single‐investigator grants for blue‐skies science, the European Research Council (ERC). The ERC already treats its awardees as freelancers, in the sense that it encourages them to shop around for the most attractive venue in which to embed and implement their research project. The quest for the best host institution takes place not only at the preparatory step of an ERC application: it also happens after the grant is awarded, since the grant money is considered inherently portable and can even be moved later on from one institution to another. This encourages potential host universities to compete for providing the best research environment, in which many factors come into play, not just but not least, the quality of its research infrastructure. How well it supports, rather than burdens its staff with administrative tasks, the nature of its recruitment and personnel policies, how it handles relocation issues for incoming researchers and their families, what opportunities it provides for further training in relevant skills and career development: these are just some of the factors in play.In recent years, universities have seen their primary role in this process as encouraging their own tenured or tenure‐track staff to apply for ERC grants. But I foresee the emphasis shifting increasingly to investigators who seek out universities that can make the most appealing offer, whilst universities and government agencies standing behind them will shape their policies so as to remain competitive. Moreover, in such a landscape there is no reason why a scientist cannot operate research projects on multiple sites if this offers the most convenient arrangement. The tools for remote meetings and cloud computing to which we have all become accustomed mean that there is no longer any need for a research group to be located in one building or even in one country, to operate efficiently as a team.At the same time, many of the tasks involved in running a research institute or department can be efficiently outsourced to the most competitive bidder—to be assessed on the basis of value‐for‐money, not just minimum cost. As a society, we should be asking ourselves why we continue to waste the talents of highly specialized scientists on performing admin tasks for which they are neither properly trained nor motivated, instead of just engaging a smart‐software developer. Why should we fund creative thinkers to undertake laboratory projects in host institutions that do not have the required state‐of‐the‐art facilities to perform them? Or allocate budgets that are so pared down that grantholders cannot even afford to purchase such services elsewhere? Why should we expect them to make do with poorly paid trainees instead of a team of professionals? And why should we continue to organize research in pyramid structures where everything depends on commands from the top, where all findings are announced using an institutional slide template, where colleagues elsewhere are considered as untrustworthy “competitors”, and where credit for individual creativity is usurped by seniors who barely know the contents of the papers they “write”?In the “old system”, we have all gotten used to making do with sub‐optimal working arrangements and grumbling about them, whilst considering them an immutable fact of life. But I envisage a time coming soon where we scientists will have the edge in reshaping the market for teaching and research in a way that is much more to our liking and properly aligned with our skills. At the same time, our individual success in accomplishing our professional goals will have a direct effect on our income and job satisfaction, and steer us towards activities where our talents are most effectively deployed. In short, I believe that we, as freelance scientists, will be much more firmly in control of science in the future and that time is not far off.     

Dogs (Canis familiaris) Evaluate Humans on the Basis of Direct Experiences Only

Reputation formation is a key component in the social interactions of many animal species. An evaluation of reputation is drawn from two principal sources: direct experience of an individual and indirect experience from observing that individual interacting with a third party. In the current study we investigated whether dogs use direct and/or indirect experience to choose between two human interactants. In the first experiment, subjects had direct interaction either with a “nice” human (who played with, talked to and stroked the dog) or with an “ignoring” experimenter who ignored the dog completely. Results showed that the dogs stayed longer close to the “nice” human. In a second experiment the dogs observed a “nice” or “ignoring” human interacting with another dog. This indirect experience, however, did not lead to a preference between the two humans. These results suggest that the dogs in our study evaluated humans solely on the basis of direct experience.     

COVID-19 threatens faculty diversity: postdoctoral scholars call for action

Despite substantial investment and effort by federal agencies and institutions to improve the diversity of the professoriate, progress is excruciatingly slow. One program that aims to enhance faculty diversity is the Institutional Research and Academic Career Development Award (IRACDA) funded by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences. IRACDA supports the training of a diverse cohort of postdoctoral scholars who will seek academic research and teaching careers. The San Diego IRACDA program has trained 109 postdoctoral scholars since its inception in 2003; 59% are women and 63% are underrepresented (UR) Black/African-American, Latinx/Mexican-American, and Indigenous scientists. Sixty-four percent obtained tenure-track faculty positions, including a substantial 32% at research-intensive institutions. However, the COVID-19 pandemic crisis threatens to upend IRACDA efforts to improve faculty diversity, and academia is at risk of losing a generation of diverse, talented scholars. Here, a group of San Diego IRACDA postdoctoral scholars reflects on these issues and discusses recommendations to enhance the retention of UR scientists to avoid a “lost generation” of promising UR faculty scholars.     

So you want to be a science writer

The Internet destroyed the ecology of traditional science journalism, drying up ad revenues and pushing “old school” mass media toward extinction. But the new technology opened a wider landscape for digital science writers, online “content curators,” and scientists to chronicle the wonders and worries of modern science. For those thinking of a career in science writing, here is a flash history, a quick overview, some advice, and a few cautions.     

When a Text Is Translated Does the Complexity of Its Vocabulary Change? Translations and Target Readerships

In linguistic studies, the academic level of the vocabulary in a text can be described in terms of statistical physics by using a “temperature” concept related to the text''s word-frequency distribution. We propose a “comparative thermo-linguistic” technique to analyze the vocabulary of a text to determine its academic level and its target readership in any given language. We apply this technique to a large number of books by several authors and examine how the vocabulary of a text changes when it is translated from one language to another. Unlike the uniform results produced using the Zipf law, using our “word energy” distribution technique we find variations in the power-law behavior. We also examine some common features that span across languages and identify some intriguing questions concerning how to determine when a text is suitable for its intended readership.     

The Selection of Medical Students in Western Canada

The methods employed in the selection of medical students for the 1964-65 class of freshmen at the four Western medical schools are described and recommendations are made for improving the procedure. The structure and functions of the various selection committees varied from school to school but their prime purpose was the same—the selection of “good students” who would later become “good physicians”. Not surprisingly, academic achievement and confidence in estimating this ranked highest in importance, and while non-intellectual characteristics ranked almost as high, committee members had no confidence that they could evaluate these qualities.It is suggested that the ideal selection committee would be a “high-priority” committee consisting of six to eight members who would meet at least twice a year, have tenure of at least four years, be trained in interviewing applicants, consider Medical College Admission Test scores, review applications before each meeting, and establish research committees to investigate the students they choose.     

Moving academic conferences online: Aids and barriers to delegate participation

In‐person academic conferences are important to disseminate research and provide networking opportunities. Whether academics attend in‐person conferences is based on the cost, accessibility, and safety of the event. Therefore, in‐person conferences are less accessible to academics and stakeholders that are unable to overcome some of these factors, which then act as a barrier to equal and inclusive participation. Additionally, the carbon footprint of conference travel is increasingly becoming a factor in deciding on whether to attend a conference. Online conferences may provide opportunities to mitigate these challenges. Here, we illustrate how a learned society can move their conference online. Then, comparing data acquired from the virtual conference and previous in‐person conferences, we explore the aids and barriers influencing the decision of delegates to attend the meetings. Ultimately, moving meetings online aids delegate participation by removing concerns about travel, cost, and carbon emissions, but there remains a barrier to participation as online meetings are perceived as less effective for networking and social opportunities.     

Enhancements to the Rosetta Energy Function Enable Improved Identification of Small Molecules that Inhibit Protein-Protein Interactions

Protein-protein interactions are among today’s most exciting and promising targets for therapeutic intervention. To date, identifying small-molecules that selectively disrupt these interactions has proven particularly challenging for virtual screening tools, since these have typically been optimized to perform well on more “traditional” drug discovery targets. Here, we test the performance of the Rosetta energy function for identifying compounds that inhibit protein interactions, when these active compounds have been hidden amongst pools of “decoys.” Through this virtual screening benchmark, we gauge the effect of two recent enhancements to the functional form of the Rosetta energy function: the new “Talaris” update and the “pwSHO” solvation model. Finally, we conclude by developing and validating a new weight set that maximizes Rosetta’s ability to pick out the active compounds in this test set. Looking collectively over the course of these enhancements, we find a marked improvement in Rosetta’s ability to identify small-molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions.     

Toward Sustaining Women in Careers in Core Laboratories—A Workshop Review Including Recommendations from the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities

Review of “From Doctorate to Dean or Director: Sustaining Women Through Critical Transition Points in Science, Engineering, and Medicine” (workshop held by the Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine of the National Academies, Washington DC, September 18–19, 2008).Approximately 50% of the membership in the Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities (ABRF) includes scientists working in core facilities, i.e., a biological resource facility. A core facility, whether it resides in an academic, government, or industrial sector, provides affordable access to technologies and expertise in such fields as proteomics-related techniques, mass spectrometry, DNA sequencing and analysis, bioinformatics, and N-terminal protein sequence analysis, whih would otherwise be too expensive for most individual labs to acquire. Careers in core facilities, unless integrated into a tenure line, are distinct from traditional academic jobs. The critical transition point in a core facility career is from bench scientist to core facility director. The role of bench scientists is to maintain a high working level of technological proficiency in the techniques offered by the laboratory, while continuing to expand their skill set to incorporate the latest technological advances. The role of the director encompasses those of the bench scientist in addition to responsibilities for personnel and budget management, obtaining competitive grants, and developing and maintaining a satisfied customer base. In a workshop entitled “From Doctorate to Dean or Director: Sustaining Women Through Critical Transition Points in Science, Engineering, and Medicine” (held by the Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine of the National Academies, Washington DC, September 18–19, 2008), the ABRF and sixteen other professional societies presented data relating to field-specific gender issues as well as recommendations to sustain women through transition points in their scientific careers.In an ABRF survey study published in Nature Biotechnology in 2000,¹ the percentage of male employees holding MDs or PhDs across all core facility sectors was significantly greater than the percentage of female employees (24% and 9%, respectively). The government core facilities showed the highest level of disparity: 39% of males with an MD or PhD vs. 7% of females with these degrees (N = 42 government employee respondents). Of all the male employees hired by government-run core facilities, 54.6% held MDs or PhDs; among female employees, 19.4% held MDs or PhDs. However, in contrast to national trends, there is no significant difference in salaries for men and women at the same degree level at core facilities¹ in all sectors. Since compensation for men and women holding PhDs in core facilities is equal, why do the numbers of men and women at the PhD level working in core facilities differ significantly? This discrepancy raises the important question as to whether women with PhDs are represented in the job applicant pool in the expected ratio, and whether women are selected for core facility director positions in numbers that reflect their overall numbers within the field. If women with PhDs are found not to be represented in the applicant pool in the expected ratio, then one potential reason for the disparity could be gender hiring biases. Alternatively, the number of years on the job could also have skewed the results if more female PhDs were newer hires (data not reported), as newer employees feel increased job stress and might be less likely to respond to such a survey. The critical question remaining is whether these skews translate into fewer female core facility scientists entering director positions, as most facility directors hold advanced degrees. Since this study is somewhat dated, it is important to readdress, perhaps with a new comprehensive survey, whether these disparities still exist in core facilities, especially now when women and men in the sciences are earning their PhDs at nearly equal rates.²This study was discussed at the workshop and overall there was great enthusiasm for a new survey to address the issues. At the workshop, the observation that the number of women scientists decreases with advancing professional rank was coined the “leaky pipeline.” The leaky pipeline itself may also be a mitigating factor for the skewed gender statistics in core facility laboratories, and the workshop panelists explored this phenomenon in great detail. Joan Girgus, Professor of Psychology and Special Assistant to the Dean of the Faculty for issues concerning faculty diversity at Princeton University, attributes the leaky pipeline in part to competing family commitments. To address this specifically, Princeton has a comprehensive family-benefits program that includes (1) travel awards to offset childcare expenses when scientific conferences are attended, and (2) a dependent-care backup program. Dr. Phoebe Leboy, President of the Association for Women in Science, attributes the leaky pipeline in part to family issues, self-confidence, and more entrenched obstacles of a “chilly climate” or “locker-room mentality” where women are demeaned and undervalued, and suggests that the culture of science is designed for men, in the sense that to succeed in the environment of a normal 12-hour-plus work day relies on there being a woman at home to take care of the family and family business. She offered thought-provoking ideas for culture change including basing hiring decisions on the quality of publications and grant scores, rather than the sheer numbers of publications and grants obtained. Pardis Sabeti, a young and enthusiastic new Assistant Professor of Systems Biology at Harvard University, attributes the leaky pipeline to self-confidence issues, claiming that women in general must feel “100% prepared to apply to a new position,” whereas men may be bolder and “apply if they feel only 60% qualified.” This type of discrepancy in gender psychology may well explain gender skews in job applicant pools.One other mitigating factor that was discussed is the length of time it takes to obtain a PhD degree. Michelle Cilia, a Postdoctoral Associate with the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service at Cornell University, pointed out an exemplary new PhD program that is aimed at shortening the length of time to get the degree by changing the culture of the PhD program without sacrificing the quality of education. This graduate school, The Watson School of Biological Sciences at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, combines innovative coursework, bi-yearly committee meetings organized by the graduate school administrators, and a two-tier mentoring system to assist students toward the goal of a 4-year PhD. Thus, while there are many “leaks in the pipeline,” both individuals and organizations are sealing these leaks to foster improvement in retaining women in their fields. What role can the ABRF play in helping to sustain women in their scientific professions?The ABRF as an organization could potentially provide the resources, such as a mentoring program, to help women scientists along the career track from bench scientist to core facility director in the absence of other institutional support such as tenure reviews and departmental support. Currently, no such programs are established. Female core facility scientists are not alone in feeling the adverse effects of the lack of resources such as mentoring programs, for the current cohort of women chemists in academia has reported mentoring gaps and gender biases at some point during their careers.³ It is not clear whether the lack of such programs indicates that there is limited interest in mentoring female scientists who wish to become core directors or if few female scientists are on such a track and seek assistance. With the growing need for proteomics, bioinformatics, and genome sequencing services, core facilities are in high demand and are now found at almost every major research university and medical center. This growth translates into more job opportunities for women scientists. Given the rapid growth of this relatively young career path, the absence of mentorship support, and the unequal numbers of male and female employees holding advanced degrees in core facilities, the ABRF and its members would benefit from learning about and implementing proven strategies to help female members rise from the ranks of scientist to core facility director. There are numerous things the ABRF as a professional society can do to directly address issues that disproportionately affect women:

1. Gather data through the ABRF Survey Committee to identify gaps between the genders in areas that might contribute to the leaky pipeline such as the job applicant pool, promotions, job satisfaction, number of years on the job, number of women in core director positions, and the availability of family-friendly benefits packages. The Survey Committee might consider enlisting the services of a survey research specialist in designing the survey.
2. Institute a mentoring program that encourages networking and additional training to tackle the added job responsibilities of a core facility director. This can be done at annual meetings in the form of professional development workshops. For example, the American Society for Cell Biology has two programs associated with their annual meeting: one geared toward new faculty, which helps new assistant professors tackle the demands of the pre-tenure phase, and “Reboot Camp” for older faculty who might be left behind advances in technology or policies.
3. Elevate the status of the profession. Core directors are critical to the advancement and achievement of research goals and technology in all sectors. However, many feel underappreciated and not fully recognized for their work, especially if their positions are not clearly defined by the university. Through the Survey Committee, the ABRF might gather data on how core facility directors feel they are perceived by their colleagues. Local meetings, such as the Northeast Regional Life Sciences Core Directors meeting, provide networking opportunities and a great platform for core facility directors to discuss specific issues pertaining to their position.
4. Encourage undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers to use core facilities for interdisciplinary aspects of their research. Doing so will expose young scientists to alternative career options and give them networking opportunities outside their field of study. The ABRF began this tradition at last year’s 2008 annual meeting when they presented two postdoctoral scientists with awards for collaborating with core facilities, and also gave them the opportunity to present their research at the annual meeting.

The ABRF presented these suggestions at the workshop so as to highlight a distinct, new career path for women scientists and some of the unique barriers they may have to overcome while pursuing the career as core director, and to highlight what the ABRF can do to help sustain women through their career transitions. During the transition from scientist to director, a woman faces the same professional challenges as faculty members and university administrators, while also having to deal with the personal challenges that confront all working female scientists.² Women would thus benefit greatly from the same training and mentoring programs available to these other professionals.To address the issues facing women in core facility careers, the ABRF has taken the important first step of organizing a workshop at the upcoming 2009 annual meeting. Much can be learned from the workshop reviewed here—“From Doctorate to Dean or Director: Sustaining Women Through Critical Transition Points in Science, Engineering, and Medicine”—and its lessons might be useful as discussion points for the ABRF 2009 workshop. The overall themes that guided the panelist’s discussions and the suggestions offered by other professional societies mirror the concerns of the ABRF. Gathering information and disseminating the results of studies on issues pertaining to women, in particular women of color, is critical to the success of any workshop examining the lives of women in the world of science. Professional societies must be engaged as a vehicle for bringing change about in the culture of science; however, administrators must also be brought on board for change to occur in any systematic way. Basic issues like self-confidence, learning how to prioritize at work, and how to manage the work–family juggle have a big impact on a woman’s decision to stay in science. Outreach and education are important so senior women scientists can serve as examples for the aspiring youth, in particular with regard to teaching young women how to advantageously use their professional network. Mentorship and family-friendly benefit programs can can have a profound effect on the effort to retain women in science. Even more than a mentor, women need champions who will go to bat for them for the big promotion at the critical transition. An example of such a champion is Dr. Eugene P. Orringer, Professor of Medicine at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill, and the school’s Executive Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs. As the principal investigator of a $2.5-million grant from the National Institutes of Health—“Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health” (BIRCWH, pronounced “birch”)—he has directly helped, through instituting a mentorship program, 24 young faculty (22 of them women) obtain National Institutes of Health “K” or “R” grants at a rate of nearly 100%. Finally, leadership and inspiration are vital to success in every scientific endeavor and the ABRF is in a unique position, being an active professional society with a significant membership population of core facility directors, to provide such leadership and inspiration to their core facilities scientists who aspire to directorships or beyond.     

Evolution of root nodule symbiosis: Focusing on the transcriptional regulation from the genomic point of view

Since molecular phylogenetics recognized root nodule symbiosis (RNS) of all lineages as potentially homologous, scientists have tried to understand the “when” and the “how” of RNS evolution. Initial progress was made on understanding the timing of RNS evolution, facilitating our progress on understanding the underlying genomic changes leading to RNS. Here, we will first cover the different hypotheses on the timings of gains/losses of RNS and show how this has helped us understand how RNS has evolved. Finally, we will discuss how our improved understanding of the genetic changes that led to RNS is now helping us refine our understanding on when RNS has evolved.     

From imaging to understanding: Frontiers in Live Cell Imaging, Bethesda, MD, April 19-21, 2006

A recent meeting entitled Frontiers in Live Cell Imaging was attended by more than 400 cell biologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, and engineers. Unlike typical special topics meetings, which bring together investigators in a defined field primarily to review recent progress, the purpose of this meeting was to promote cross-disciplinary interactions by introducing emerging methods on the one hand and important biological applications on the other. The goal was to turn live cell imaging from a “technique” used in cell biology into a new exploratory science that combines a number of research fields.     

Increasing Accessibility to the Blind of Virtual Environments,Using a Virtual Mobility Aid Based On the "EyeCane": Feasibility Study

Virtual worlds and environments are becoming an increasingly central part of our lives, yet they are still far from accessible to the blind. This is especially unfortunate as such environments hold great potential for them for uses such as social interaction, online education and especially for use with familiarizing the visually impaired user with a real environment virtually from the comfort and safety of his own home before visiting it in the real world. We have implemented a simple algorithm to improve this situation using single-point depth information, enabling the blind to use a virtual cane, modeled on the “EyeCane” electronic travel aid, within any virtual environment with minimal pre-processing. Use of the Virtual-EyeCane, enables this experience to potentially be later used in real world environments with identical stimuli to those from the virtual environment. We show the fast-learned practical use of this algorithm for navigation in simple environments.     

The Chilling Effect: How Do Researchers React to Controversy?

Background

Can political controversy have a “chilling effect” on the production of new science? This is a timely concern, given how often American politicians are accused of undermining science for political purposes. Yet little is known about how scientists react to these kinds of controversies.

Methods and Findings

Drawing on interview (n = 30) and survey data (n = 82), this study examines the reactions of scientists whose National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded grants were implicated in a highly publicized political controversy. Critics charged that these grants were “a waste of taxpayer money.” The NIH defended each grant and no funding was rescinded. Nevertheless, this study finds that many of the scientists whose grants were criticized now engage in self-censorship. About half of the sample said that they now remove potentially controversial words from their grant and a quarter reported eliminating entire topics from their research agendas. Four researchers reportedly chose to move into more secure positions entirely, either outside academia or in jobs that guaranteed salaries. About 10% of the group reported that this controversy strengthened their commitment to complete their research and disseminate it widely.

Conclusions

These findings provide evidence that political controversies can shape what scientists choose to study. Debates about the politics of science usually focus on the direct suppression, distortion, and manipulation of scientific results. This study suggests that scholars must also examine how scientists may self-censor in response to political events.