基于学科类别和富集分析的生物安全研究领域学科交叉研究*

随着合成生物学、基因编辑等典型两用性新兴生物技术的发展,生物安全作为一个具有显著交叉性的研究领域引起了国际各界的广泛关注。利用Web of Science数据库的论文数据,基于期刊学科类别分析了生物安全研究的学科交叉现状和时序演化,并采用富集分析方法研究了不同国家的学科交叉倾向差异。结果表明,20世纪以来,生物安全研究与其他学科的交叉融合日益广泛,动植物科学、环境和生态学、社会科学、微生物学、农业科学是其交叉融合最多的学科领域。不同国家生物安全研究的学科交融情况有所差异,欧美主要国家的学科交叉情况对我国有很好的借鉴之处。以期为生物安全特定研究领域的学科交叉研究提供一种新的方法探索,并为强化我国生物安全研究领域学科交叉和探索新的科研方向提供参考。     

生态系统文化服务研究进展——基于Web of Science分析

随着社会经济的发展,人类对精神层面产品的需求越来越多。生态系统具有文化服务功能,因此近年来学者对文化服务的研究和关注越来越多,发表的文献数量也在持续增加。通过收集与生态系统文化服务相关的文献资料,运用统计分析方法,试图理清国际生态系统文化服务研究脉络。利用Web of Science核心合集数据库,共析出样本文献1530篇,分别对文化服务的研究趋势、时段特征、作者分布、机构分布和文献期刊分布等进行分析。研究发现,生态系统文化服务研究逐渐从以生态学为主,演变为融合生态学、地理学、管理学、社会学等众多学科的综合研究。未来文化服务的研究将集中在文化服务价值的货币化评估、文化服务管理与应用、文化服务指标体系构建、文化服务价值制图、游憩功能和美学功能6大方向。     

我国生物多样性保护自然-社会科学交叉融合与发展

保护科学前沿研究重视克服单一学科的局限而向超越自然科学和社会科学跨学科交叉融合转型。基于世界自然保护联盟-世界保护区委员会(IUCN-WCPA)自然保护地管理有效性框架,从规划制定、执行和评估三个方面系统梳理了我国保护科学的研究进展,分析了保护自然科学和社会科学在研究内容、方法和视角等方面的差异,识别出潜在的跨学科综合研究领域。结果表明,我国保护自然科学与社会科学研究大多相互独立、缺乏融合协作,少有的跨学科研究在整体性、系统性、兼容性、深入性和规范性上有待提高。自然科学家在介入社会科学研究时缺乏对现实制度的科学理解,所提出的保护政策和行动建议偏向理想主义,阻碍保护科学跨学科知识生产;社会科学家则缺乏自然科学方法和数据的知识积累,所提出的政策和行动建议脱离事实和证据,偏向主观主义,不利于保护科学知识进步。为此,构建了基于自然保护地适应性管理逻辑下的保护科学跨学科整合框架,以推动保护科学共同话语的形成,实现社会与生态的耦合协调发展。     

The future of interdisciplinary research and training: how to conquer the silo guardians

We have entered a new era in biomedical research in which large interdisciplinary teams are being established to answer important scientific questions. Scientists of multidisciplinary backgrounds within universities are combining forces and inter-institutional consortia that include alliances between academia and industry are springing up around the country to generate breakthrough advances. A number of driving forces are at work to establish these collaborative research approaches. By contrast, there also are barriers to be surmounted by institutions with silo mentalities for effective partnerships to be established. In order for this new era of research to reach maximal effectiveness, new approaches to education of the young and retraining of established administrators and scientists must take place. These issues were explored thoroughly at the 2006 annual meeting of the Association of Anatomy, Cell Biology and Neurobiology Chairpersons (AACBNC) that was held in Aruba from January 18 to 21. The theme of this historic meeting was the Future of Interdisciplinary Research and Training: Breaking Down the Barriers. In this introductory article, we discuss the formation of a trendsetting Institute of Biomedical Sciences and Technology, the concept of the AACBNC meeting, and the influence of the Institute on the content of the meeting. The proceedings of this meeting, including Nobel Laureate Papers and Nobel Round-Table Discussions on the future of interdisciplinary research and training, are contained in this special issue of Experimental Biology and Medicine, a journal dedicated to the publication of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research in the biomedical sciences.     

A new paradigm for graduate research and training in the biomedical sciences and engineering

98Emphasis on the individual investigator has fostered discovery for centuries, yet it is now recognized that the complexity of problems in the biomedical sciences and engineering requires collaborative efforts from individuals having diverse training and expertise. Various approaches can facilitate interdisciplinary interactions, but we submit that there is a critical need for a new educational paradigm for the way that we train biomedical engineers, life scientists, and mathematicians. We cannot continue to train graduate students in isolation within single disciplines, nor can we ask any one individual to learn all the essentials of biology, engineering, and mathematics. We must transform how students are trained and incorporate how real-world research and development are done-in diverse, interdisciplinary teams. Our fundamental vision is to create an innovative paradigm for graduate research and training that yields a new generation of biomedical engineers, life scientists, and mathematicians that is more diverse and that embraces and actively pursues a truly interdisciplinary, team-based approach to research based on a known benefit and mutual respect. In this paper, we describe our attempt to accomplish this via focused training in biomechanics, biomedical optics, mathematics, mechanobiology, and physiology. The overall approach is applicable, however, to most areas of biomedical research.     

Long-Distance Interdisciplinarity Leads to Higher Scientific Impact

Scholarly collaborations across disparate scientific disciplines are challenging. Collaborators are likely to have their offices in another building, attend different conferences, and publish in other venues; they might speak a different scientific language and value an alien scientific culture. This paper presents a detailed analysis of success and failure of interdisciplinary papers—as manifested in the citations they receive. For 9.2 million interdisciplinary research papers published between 2000 and 2012 we show that the majority (69.9%) of co-cited interdisciplinary pairs are “win-win” relationships, i.e., papers that cite them have higher citation impact and there are as few as 3.3% “lose-lose” relationships. Papers citing references from subdisciplines positioned far apart (in the conceptual space of the UCSD map of science) attract the highest relative citation counts. The findings support the assumption that interdisciplinary research is more successful and leads to results greater than the sum of its disciplinary parts.     

Community Structure and the Evolution of Interdisciplinarity in Slovenia's Scientific Collaboration Network

Interaction among the scientific disciplines is of vital importance in modern science. Focusing on the case of Slovenia, we study the dynamics of interdisciplinary sciences from to . Our approach relies on quantifying the interdisciplinarity of research communities detected in the coauthorship network of Slovenian scientists over time. Examining the evolution of the community structure, we find that the frequency of interdisciplinary research is only proportional with the overall growth of the network. Although marginal improvements in favor of interdisciplinarity are inferable during the 70s and 80s, the overall trends during the past 20 years are constant and indicative of stalemate. We conclude that the flow of knowledge between different fields of research in Slovenia is in need of further stimulation.     

Perspectives of clinician and biomedical scientists on interdisciplinary health research

Background

Interdisciplinary health research is a priority of many funding agencies. We surveyed clinician and biomedical scientists about their views on the value and funding of interdisciplinary health research.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews with 31 biomedical and 30 clinician scientists. The scientists were selected from the 2000–2006 membership lists of peer-review committees of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We investigated respondents’ perspectives on the assumption that collaboration across disciplines adds value to health research. We also investigated their perspectives on funding agencies’ growing support of interdisciplinary research.

Results

The 61 respondents expressed a wide variety of perspectives on the value of interdisciplinary health research, ranging from full agreement (22) to complete disagreement (11) that it adds value; many presented qualified viewpoints (28). More than one-quarter viewed funding agencies’ growing support of interdisciplinary research as appropriate. Most (44) felt that the level of support was unwarranted. Arguments included the belief that current support leads to the creation of artificial teams and that a top-down process of imposing interdisciplinary structures on teams constrains scientists’ freedom. On both issues we found contrasting trends between the clinician and the biomedical scientists.

Interpretation

Despite having some positive views about the value of interdisciplinary research, scientists, especially biomedical scientists, expressed reservations about the growing support of interdisciplinary research.Collaboration between health disciplines is a new priority of research institutions and funding agencies. Many of these agencies have undergone restructuring and have developed programs specifically to intensify interdisciplinary research. In 2007, the US National Institutes of Health created 9 interdisciplinary research consortia “as a means of integrating aspects of different disciplines to address health challenges that have been resistant to traditional research approaches.”¹ In 2000, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) was established with an express mandate “to forge a health research agenda across disciplines, sectors, and regions that embraces scientific opportunity and reflects the emerging health needs of Canadians, the evolution of the health care system and the information needs of health policy decision-makers.”²This change in priority has been attributed to 3 main factors: the need to answer complex health problems, the need to explore questions that are not confined to a single discipline and the need to provide effective solutions to societal problems.^3,4 Although the arguments advocating for interdisciplinary health research have evoked many kinds of promises, scientists undertaking collaborative research can also face many challenges. The past 10 years have seen a growing body of literature examining the impediments and facilitators to interdisciplinary collaboration.^3,5–14Despite this growing interest, little is known about scientists’ opinions on the prevalent assumption that working across disciplines adds value to health research. Moreover, little consideration has been given to how scientists perceive the growing support of interdisciplinary research by funding agencies. In a survey commissioned by the CIHR, 36% of funded researchers indicated that their collaboration across disciplines had increased as a result of the agency’s establishment.¹⁵ Whether this shift reflects researchers’ scientific interests or their attempts to secure funding by appealing to the agency’s policy of promoting interdisciplinary research is unknown.As part of a broad research program investigating the integration of social science in health research,¹⁶ we conducted this study to examine to what extent, and why, biomedical and clinician scientists are for or against the promotion of interdisciplinary research. We targeted these types of scientists because they were predominantly affected by the move toward interdisciplinary research that occurred after the creation of the CIHR.     

Managing the Human–Ecological Interface: Marine Resources as Example and Laboratory

The field of resource management integrates human and ecological systems. It is currently undergoing a difficult transition as it broadens to accommodate new values and interests. Some of the problems associated with this transition are evident in marine ecosystems, where the management of the ecological–human interface has been hindered by a lack of basic understanding. Using marine fisheries as examples, this paper describes the proximate and underlying causes of the human–ecological problem. It identifies areas in which basic research is needed on the behavioral dynamics of marine resource use, including incentives, feedbacks, management scale, monitoring and evaluation, alternative management approaches, the role of history, and human capital. It discusses the cost of failing to invest in social science research and identifies barriers to interdisciplinary research. Priorities for interdisciplinary research are listed. Received 30 November 2000; accepted 20 April 2001.     

Finding your way in the interdisciplinary forest: notes on educating future conservation practitioners

We explore the challenges of educating interdisciplinary thinkers who can address the management of complex socio-ecological systems, such as forests, by sharing our experiences from several perspectives. Five contexts for interdisciplinarity are explored along with examples related to: the department, advising, integrated research collaborations, a graduate working group, an interdisciplinary class, and trans-academic research. These experiences demonstrate the importance of safe space and patience, the need for adequate time to build trust and respect, and the recognition that interdisciplinary thinking is developed and reinforced in multiple contexts. Interdisciplinarity is always a work in progress that differs in its particulars according to the research or management question at hand and the kinds of specializations involved. Thus, there are no hard and fast rules for its creation but only guiding principles that must be adapted in the course of their implementation.     

Coexistence research requires more interdisciplinary communication

Coexistence theories develop rapidly at the ecology forefront, outpacing their experimental testing. I discuss the reasons for this gap, call on interdisciplinary researchers to construct a road map for coexistence research, and recommend the actions that should be implemented therein.

Coexistence theories outpace their experimental testing. I argue that this imbalance results from a combination of interdisciplinary gaps, a disparity in research approaches, and the limited accessibility of the theory to experimentalists. I call on interdisciplinary researchers to construct a road map for coexistence research, recommend the actions that should be implemented therein, and illustrate how multiple mechanisms can be integrated under the same coexistence terms, thus constructing a research landscape that can create uniformity in their experimental designs.     

Tackling the challenges of interdisciplinary bioscience

The ultimate goal for biology is to become a science that formulates our understanding of subcellular, cellular and multicellular systems in terms of quantitative, holistic models that are underpinned by the rigorous principles of the physical sciences and mathematics. This can only be achieved through interdisciplinary research that draws heavily on the expertise and technologies of the physical sciences, engineering, computation and mathematics. Here, I discuss the benefits and challenges (both intellectual and practical) of interdisciplinary bioscience.     

Building the contractile ring from the ground up: a lesson in perseverance and scientific creativity

This contribution to the Festschrift for Professor Thomas (Tom) D. Pollard focuses on his work on the elucidation of the protein organization within the cytokinetic nodes, protein assemblies, precursors to the contractile ring. In particular, this work highlights recent discoveries in the molecular organization of the proteins that make the contractile machine in fission yeast using advanced microscopy techniques. One of the main aspects of Tom’s research philosophy that marked my career as one of his trainees is his embrace of interdisciplinary approaches to research. The cost of interdisciplinary research is to be willing to step out of our technical comfort zone to learn a new set of tools. The payoff of interdisciplinary research is the expansion our realm of possibilities by bringing new creative tools and ideas to push our research program forward. The rewarding outcomes of this work under Tom’s mentorship were the molecular model of the cytokinetic node and the development of new techniques to unravel the structure of multi-protein complexes in live cells. Together, these findings open a new set of questions about the mechanism of cytokinesis and provide creative tools to address them.     

生物信息学跨学科研究

目的:研究生物信息学起源、发展趋势,与其他学科相互交叉渗透关系的发展及强度。方法:利用美国《科学引文索引》(SCI)数据库web of science,运用文献计量学方法对8种权威生物信息学期刊2001年至2010年于2011年1月15日之前上传至webof science的全部文献进行统计及分析。通过研究生物信息学相关论文的主题分类,被引情况及施引文献的分类,寻找其跨学科的趋势及相关研究领域的进展情况、主要内容。结果:生物信息学的相关文献数在2001-2010间逐年增加,在2009-2010年达到高峰。跨学科领域广泛,并以生物化学、分子生物学、计算生物学、微生物学、数学、统计学等学科为主要交叉学科。各交叉学科与生物信息学之间跨学科研究的文献数也呈逐年递增趋势。结论:生物信息学的跨学科范围广泛,发展迅速。     

Industry's challenge to academia: changing the bench to bedside paradigm

The need for interdisciplinary collaboration is arising as a result of accelerating advances in basic science, including massive research and development funding by both government and industry, which has spurred the so-called "nanotechnology revolution" and developments at the intersection of the life and physical sciences, increasing emphasis by federal research funding agencies on interdisciplinary and inter-institutional research and by market influences. A number of barriers presently limit the interaction between academics and industry, including the typically very time-consuming and slow pace of technology transfer, which is compounded in the case of interdisciplinary and inter-institutional licensing, as well as the natural, and understandable, antipathies that exist between academia and industry as a result of their differing missions and approaches to scientific discovery. Moreover, if mechanisms are not in place at the outset of an inter-university collaboration, then the transition of inventions to clinical applications can be fraught with additional complexities and barriers. Policies suggested by the National Nanotechnology Initiative offer a number of ideas for overcoming barriers to multidisciplinary and inter-institutional research and illustrate some of the ways in which academia can structure partnerships with industry that will not only provide needed funding for multidisciplinary and inter-institutional biomedical research in an era of diminishing federal resources, but may permit academia, on the one hand, and industry, on the other, to benefit from the strengths provided by the other without compromising either academia's or industry's basic missions.     

Human evolutionary research in eastern germany

Human evolutionary research in Eastern Germany, limited in this paper to the origins and evolution of Pleistocene man, has mainly focused during the last decade on theoretical aspects of the evolution of man and human society from multiple and interdisciplinary perspectives. An interdisciplinary working group ‘Probleme der Menschwerdung’ was founded in 1977. About 30 specialists from various fields have discussed problems of the origins and evolution of man and human society under interdisciplinary aspects. The activities, difficulties and results of this cooperation will be outlined in this paper. There will also be given a progress report on the disciplinary initiated research on local sites as well as on general aspects and problems. Paper dedicated to Professor Dr. rer. nat. Dr.sc.med. Hans Grimm, Berlin, on his 80th birthday, February 7, 1990.     

Quantitative Analysis of the Interdisciplinarity of Applied Mathematics

The increasing use of mathematical techniques in scientific research leads to the interdisciplinarity of applied mathematics. This viewpoint is validated quantitatively here by statistical and network analysis on the corpus PNAS 1999–2013. A network describing the interdisciplinary relationships between disciplines in a panoramic view is built based on the corpus. Specific network indicators show the hub role of applied mathematics in interdisciplinary research. The statistical analysis on the corpus content finds that algorithms, a primary topic of applied mathematics, positively correlates, increasingly co-occurs, and has an equilibrium relationship in the long-run with certain typical research paradigms and methodologies. The finding can be understood as an intrinsic cause of the interdisciplinarity of applied mathematics.     

Future research in weight bias: What next?

The 2015 Canadian Weight Bias Summit disseminated the newest research advances and brought together 40 experts, stakeholders, and policy makers in various disciplines in health, education, and public policy to identify future research directions in weight bias. In this paper we aim to share the results of the Summit as well as encourage international and interdisciplinary research collaborations in weight bias reduction. Consensus emerged on six research areas that warrant further investigation in weight bias: costs, causes, measurement, qualitative research and lived experience, interventions, and learning from other models of discrimination. These discussions highlighted three key lessons that were informed by the Summit, namely: language matters, the voices of people living with obesity should be incorporated, and interdisciplinary stakeholders should be included.     

颅面复原技术在体质人类学中的应用

面貌是人类最重要的特征,其形态受到颅骨几何形态、面部软组织分布以及性别、年龄、身体质量指数、营养状况等多种因素的影响。考古遗址出土的古代人类遗骸,其面部软组织大多已经消失,如何根据颅面形态关系推测古人类颅骨的生前面貌已成为人类学家和考古学家关注的热点问题之一。传统手工颅面复原是由人类学家和艺术家使用雕塑技艺在颅骨上用可塑物质生成其生前面貌的技术。近年来,随着医学影像采集和计算机技术的发展,计算机颅面复原技术已经成为信息科学、体质人类学、法医人类学交叉研究的前沿技术之一。本文通过梳理和归纳相关文献的研究方法,对手工颅面复原技术、计算机颅面复原技术和颅面复原结果评价方法作简要综述,并对颅面复原技术在体质人类学中的应用进行了回顾和展望。