The complementarity of single-species and ecosystem-oriented research in conservation research

There has been much debate about the relative merits of single-species vs ecosystem-oriented research for conservation. This debate has become increasingly important in recent times as resource managers and policy makers in some jurisdictions focus on ecosystem-level problems. We highlight the potential strengths and limitations of both kinds of research, discuss their complementarity and highlight problems that may arise where competition occurs between the two kinds of research.
While a combination of approaches is ideal, a scarcity of funding, time, and expertise means it is impossible to study and manage each species, ecological process, or ecological pattern separately. Making decisions about priorities for the kinds of research, priorities for the kinds of conservation management, and associated allocation of scarce funds is a non-trivial task. We argue for an approach whereby limited resources for conservation research are targeted at projects most likely to close important knowledge gaps, while also promoting ongoing synergies between single-species and ecosystem-oriented research.     

蛋白质棕榈酰化修饰及其研究方法

蛋白质棕榈酰化是蛋白质翻译后脂质共价修饰的一种重要形式,对象主要是胞质蛋白质,对蛋白质功能产生多重影响。近年来由于相关新技术引入,对蛋白质棕榈酰化主要修饰酶及其对靶蛋白功能调节方面的研究已渐成为新热点。本文主要对近几年来蛋白质棕榈酰化修饰及其研究方法作了综述。     

Motivated research

While Europe is locked in the debate about basic versus applied research, Louis Pasteur solved the problem more than 100 years ago. Antoine Danchin comments on Pasteur''s notion of ‘motivated research'' and how it leads both to new discoveries and to new applications.Three years ago, a senior politician attended his country''s Annual Congress for the Advancement of Science to give the introductory lecture. He asked the attending scientists to make science and research more attractive to young students and the general public, and asked his countrymen to support scientists to address the urgent challenges of global climate change, energy needs and dwindling water resources. It was neither a European nor a US politician, but the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who made this speech about the relationship between research and its practical applications. This is such an important topic that one might think it deserves appropriate attention in Europe, yet we fail to address it properly. Instead, we just discuss how science should serve society or contribute to the ‘knowledge-based economy'', or how ‘basic'' or ‘fundamental'' research is opposed to ‘applied'' or ‘industrial'' research and how funding for ‘big science'' comes at the expense of ‘little academic'' research.This dichotomy between the research to generate knowledge and the application of that knowledge to benefit humankind seems to be a recent development. In fact, more than 100 years ago Louis Pasteur avoided this debate altogether: one of his major, yet forgotten, contributions to science was the insight that research and its applications are not opposed, but orthogonal to each other (Stokes, 1997). If Niels Bohr ‘invented'' basic academic research—which was nevertheless the basis for many technological inventions and industrial applications—Pasteur developed what we might call ‘motivated'' research.How is research motivated and by what? By definition, scientists are citizens and members of the general public and, like the public, they are motivated by two forces: on the one hand, in Rudyard Kipling''s words, “man''s insatiable curiosity”; on the other hand, a desire for maintaining and improving their well-being. These are not contradictory to one another; curiosity nourishes dreams of a brighter future and leads to discoveries that contribute to well-being.Pasteur understood that it is essential to take account of society''s demands and desires; that science must be motivated by what people want. Still, there are severe misgivings about the nature of research. These stem from the mistaken but popular assumption that the scientists'' main task is to find solutions to current problems or to fulfil our desires. Problems and desires, however, are not enough, because finding solutions also requires creativity and discovery, which, by their very nature, are unpredictable. Often we do not even know what we need or desire and it is only through curiosity and more knowledge that we find new ways to improve our well-being. Motivation by itself is, therefore, not enough to lead to discovery. Motivation simply helps us choose between many different goals and an infinite number of paths to gain novel knowledge. Subsequently, each path, once chosen, must be explored using the scientific method, which is the only way to new discoveries.Motivation helps us to ask relevant questions. For example, why do wine and beer go sour without any apparent reason? Pasteur set out to design experiments that showed that fermentation is caused by microorganisms. A few years later, silkworms were suddenly dying of a terrible disease in the silk factories of southern France. The French government called on Pasteur for help, who eventually found that a parasite had infected silkworm eggs and proposed solutions to eradicate the disease. The original question therefore led to germ theory and bacteriology, helped to develop solutions to infectious diseases, and eventually created the whole field of microbiology.Motivation leads to conceptual and experimental research, which generates discoveries and new technologies. Discoveries, in turn, are the basic resource for the creation of general knowledge and the development of new products, services and other goods that fulfil public demands and generate jobs. The study of the ‘diseases'' of beer and wine also led to the development of fermentation processes that are still in use today. The same motivation that drove Pasteur in the nineteenth century now enables us to tackle current problems, such as pollution, by studying microbial communities that make compost or thrive in garbage dumps. Motivated research therefore reconciles our curiosity with the creation of knowledge and enables us to address pressing needs for humanity.Because it is strongly inspired by—even rooted in—society''s demands and desires, motivated research also raises accompanying ethical, legal, social and safety issues that should be compelling for all research. As mentioned above, scientists are members of the public who share the same concerns and demands as their fellow citizens and therefore participate with a general, public intelligence that, too often, is absent from academic research. This absence of ‘common sense'' or societal expectations generates the misunderstandings concerning research in biology and the development of biotechnology. These misconceptions—whether about the purported risks of genetically modified organisms or the exaggerated expectations for cancer therapies—can create real suffering in society and inefficient allocation of limited resources. It is therefore advisable for researchers to listen more to the public at large in order to find the motivation for their work.     

Survey research

SUMMARY: Survey research is a unique methodology that can provide insight into individuals' perspectives and experiences and can be collected on a large population-based sample. Specifically, in plastic surgery, survey research can provide patients and providers with accurate and reproducible information to assist with medical decision-making. When using survey methods in research, researchers should develop a conceptual model that explains the relationships of the independent and dependent variables. The items of the survey are of primary importance. Collected data are only useful if they accurately measure the concepts of interest. In addition, administration of the survey must follow basic principles to ensure an adequate response rate and representation of the intended target sample. In this article, the authors review some general concepts important for successful survey research and discuss the many advantages this methodology has for obtaining limitless amounts of valuable information.     

我的科研和科研管理生涯

陆如山教授为中国医学科学院医学信息所名誉所长、卫生部国际卫生咨询委员会副主任、中华医学会医学信息学分会顾问,曾致力创建我国的放射医学研究基地,担任医学科学院放射医学研究所所长。在任世界卫生组织（WHO）助理总干事时,为国际卫生事业作出了重要贡献。他曾作为我国医学信息工作的牵头人,指导和协调全国医学信息工作,积极组建并参与中国医学信息网络和中文生物医学文献库等医学信息领域的基础建设,在放射医学和医学信息学方面发表论文近百篇。陆教授服从大局,敢为人先的精神,值得我们学习。[编者按]