Model of development of science by the example of limnology

Limnology—the science about lakes—is the young and relatively closed area of studies; its existence is owing to several hundreds of scientists. The International Society of Limnologists holds its meetings since 1922. We used materials of these meetings to find out the main stages of development of this science; among these stages there were both fast and relatively calm periods. Based on analysis of these data, we constructed a model of development of the science, the same data being used for tuning and verification of the model. We have suggested that the main regularities and mechanisms of development of limnology can be extrapolated to other sciences. The main “acting person” in the model is population of scientists. Each scientist, with some probability, can propose new ideas as well as use in his studies some particular complex of the already accumulated knowledge and ideas. The model also takes into consideration how the scientific information is spreading, as well as some individual peculiarities of model scientists, such as age, experience, communicability. After the model parameters had been chosen in such a way that is described adequately development of limnology, we performed a series of experiments by changing some of the characteristics and obtained rather unexpected results published preliminary in the short work (Levchenko, V.F. and Menshutkin, V.V., Int. J. Comput. Anticip. Syst., 2008, vol. 22, pp. 63–75) and discussed here in the greater detail. It is revealed that development of science occurs irregularly and is sharply decelerated at low level of communication between scientists and the absence of scientific schools, while the age of “scientific youth” of scientist usually begins only after 40 years.     

Robert Chambers and Thomas Henry Huxley, Science Correspondents: The Popularization and Dissemination of Nineteenth Century Natural Science

Robert Chambers and Thomas Henry Huxley helped popularize science by writing for general interest publications when science was becoming increasingly professionalized. A non-professional, Chambers used his family-owned Chambers' Edinburgh Journal to report on scientific discoveries, giving his audience access to ideas that were only available to scientists who regularly attended professional meetings or read published transactions of such forums. He had no formal training in the sciences and little interest in advancing the professional status of scientists; his course of action was determined by his disability and interest in scientific phenomena. His skillful reporting enabled readers to learn how the ideas that flowed from scientific innovation affected their lives, and his series of article in the Journal presenting his rudimentary ideas on evolution, served as a prelude to his important popular work, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Huxley, an example of the new professional class of scientists, defended science and evolution from attacks by religious spokesmen and other opponents of evolution, informing the British public about science through his lectures and articles in such publications as Nineteenth Century. He understood that by popularizing scientific information, he could effectively challenge the old Tory establishment -- with its orthodox religious and political views -- and promote the ideas of the new class of professional scientists. In attempting to transform British society, he frequently came in conflict with theologians and others on issues in which science and religion seemed to contradict each other but refused to discuss matters of science with non-professionals like Chambers, whose popular writing struck a more resonant chord with working class readers. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Scientific investigation in a criminal affair - the interest of a scientific coordinator

Forensic science takes ever more important place in the investigation of crime. From the scene of crime to the Court, scientific stakes are multiple. Many participants are brought into the investigation?: technicians, scientists, forensic pathologists, investigators and judges. Tensions are evident between them and the place of science within the judicial process is unclear. The main reason of this situation arises because physical evidence is poorly considered in the criminal investigation and not clearly established. The training of jurists and investigators does not cater for the supervision of scientific investigation. The role and the place of the scientists must be re-examined. The resolution of the tensions could go through the implementation of a new role, the scientific coordinator. This would consist of a paradigmatic change and a new complex scientific activity. This scientist would be associated to the investigator and to the judge to advise them throughout the judicial process from the scene of crime to the court. This coordinator should be a high-level scientist, having a robust theoretical and practical training.     

Report on 2nd Royan Institute International Summer School on Developmental Biology and Stem Cells Tehran,Iran, 17–22nd July 2011

The 2nd Royan Institute International Summer School was built around the topic of stem cells and grounding in the discipline of developmental biology. The meeting provided not only direct transfer of technical and intellectual information, the normal process in scientific meetings, but was also a forum for the exchange of personal ideas of science as a creative pursuit. This summer school introduced aspiring young Iranian scientists to international researchers and exposed the latter to a rich culture that highly values learning and education, attested by the confident, intelligent young men and women who asked probing questions and who were eager to participate in the workshops. Hossein Baharvand's dedication and passion for science have led to an impressive record of national and international peer-reviewed publications and an increasing number of students who pursue science in Iran, and shows how the right people can create an environment where good science, good science education and motivation will flourish. This report summarizes some of the activities of the workshop in the Royan Institute and the impressions of the visiting scientists in the wider context of the scientific and cultural heritage of Iran.     

Report on 2nd Royan Institute International Summer School on developmental biology and stem cells Tehran, Iran, 17-22nd July 2011

The 2nd Royan Institute International Summer School was built around the topic of stem cells and grounding in the discipline of developmental biology. The meeting provided not only direct transfer of technical and intellectual information, the normal process in scientific meetings, but was also a forum for the exchange of personal ideas of science as a creative pursuit. This summer school introduced aspiring young Iranian scientists to international researchers and exposed the latter to a rich culture that highly values learning and education, attested by the confident, intelligent young men and women who asked probing questions and who were eager to participate in the workshops. Hossein Baharvand's dedication and passion for science have led to an impressive record of national and international peer-reviewed publications and an increasing number of students who pursue science in Iran, and shows how the right people can create an environment where good science, good science education and motivation will flourish. This report summarizes some of the activities of the workshop in the Royan Institute and the impressions of the visiting scientists in the wider context of the scientific and cultural heritage of Iran.     

On being a (modern) scientist: risks of public engagement in the UK interspecies embryo debate

In 2006, a small group of UK academic scientists made headlines when they proposed the creation of interspecies embryos – mixing human and animal genetic material. A public campaign was fought to mobilize support for the research. Drawing on interviews with the key scientists involved, this paper argues that engaging the public through communicating their ideas via the media can result in tensions between the necessity of, and inherent dangers in, scientists campaigning on controversial issues. Some scientists believed that communicating science had damaged their professional standing in the eyes of their peers, who, in turn, policed the boundaries around what they believed constituted a “good” scientist. Tensions between promoting “science” versus promotion of the “scientist”; engaging the public versus publishing peer-reviewed articles and winning grants; and building expectations versus overhyping the science reveal the difficult choices scientists in the modern world have to make over the potential gains and risks of communicating science. We conclude that although scientists' participation in public debates is often encouraged, the rewards of such engagement remain. Moreover, this participation can detrimentally affect scientists' careers.     

Philip R. White (1901–1968)—a tribute

The groundbreaking research carried out by Philip R. White in the 1930s and 1940s played a critical early role in the development of modern plant biotechnology and the production of biotech crops. He gained instant fame and became a historical figure early in his career by becoming the first person to attain unlimited growth of cultured plant tissues. White was one of the best known and most influential figures of his generation in plant cell culture research. His tireless and lifelong efforts to promote the use of plant cell culture systems inspired a generation of scientists and stimulated much scientific activity. White was not only a brilliant and visionary scientist but also a highly principled man who spoke courageously about the great moral and political issues of his day. He was admired as much for his science as for his humanity. His belief that plant cell culture research was not well represented at national and international meetings, and his deeply held conviction that science had to be international and without borders in order to be of service to humankind led to the founding of the International Association for Plant Biotechnology in 1963, currently the largest forum for the international plant biotechnology community. This tribute honors and celebrates Philip R. White for his inspiring science, for his kind and generous mentoring of young scientists, for his advocacy of plant cell culture research and its applications, for his promotion of international scientific exchange and cooperation, and for his leadership in the founding of the International Association for Plant Biotechnology.     

The interface of natural theology and science in the ethology of W. H. Thorpe

Conclusion It should be clear by now the extent to which many features of Thorpe's interpretation of animal behavior and of the animal mind rested, at bottom, not simply on conventional scientific proofs but on interpretive inferences, which in turn rested on a willingress to make extensions of human experience to animals. This, in turn, rested on his view of evolution and his view of reality. And these were governed by his natural theology, which was the fundamental stratum of his intellectual experience.Contrary to the scientific ethos, which restricts theory choice to scientific issues alone, Thorpe's career suggests that the actual reasons for theory choice among scientists often are not limited to science, but are multiple and may sometimes be difficult to discover. It is largely because Thorpe took a public part in the natural theology enterprise that we can know something about his religious beliefs and so can see their probable influence on his scientific decisions. Similar beliefs of other scientists are sometimes harder to get at. Most may be practically beyond discovery, for the ethos of science has discouraged public professions of personal belief in relation to scientific work.¹⁰¹ Yet does it seem plausible that, for example, the restriction of self-consciousness to humans by some scientists is a purely scientific decision?¹⁰² Surely not, any more than that the strong influence of natural theology on Thorpe's thought means that he was not a good scientist. His natural theology may have led him into incautious enthusiasms regarding the animal mind — such as the potential if unrealizable linguistic ability of chimpanzees — through a bias in favor of the continuity of emergents in a progressive evolutionary system, just as it led him to advocate animal consciousness long before the recent upsurge of interest, but the scientific integrity of his work overall is unimpeachable. And yet, that work is not comprehensible historically as science alone. Personal philosophy must not be discounted in writing the history of recent science. This somewhat obvious conclusion (obvious to historians of science) needs emphasis, for we are still prone to think that the sciences of our own time provide their own internal dynamic that is in itself sufficient to account for their content and development.     

Bridging Restoration Science and Practice: Results and Analysis of a Survey from the 2009 Society for Ecological Restoration International Meeting

Developing and strengthening a more mutualistic relationship between the science of restoration ecology and the practice of ecological restoration has been a central but elusive goal of SERI since its inaugural meeting in 1989. We surveyed the delegates to the 2009 SERI World Conference to learn more about their perceptions of and ideas for improving restoration science, practice, and scientist/practitioner relationships. The respondents' assessments of restoration practice were less optimistic than their assessments of restoration science. Only 26% believed that scientist/practitioner relationships were “generally mutually beneficial and supportive of each other,” and the “science–practice gap” was the second and third most frequently cited category of factors limiting the science and practice of restoration, respectively (“insufficient funding” was first in both cases). Although few faulted practitioners for ignoring available science, many criticized scientists for ignoring the pressing needs of practitioners and/or failing to effectively communicate their work to nonscientists. Most of the suggestions for bridging the gap between restoration science and practice focused on (1) developing the necessary political support for more funding of restoration science, practice, and outreach; and (2) creating alternative research paradigms to both facilitate on‐the‐ground projects and promote more mutualistic exchanges between scientists and practitioners. We suggest that one way to implement these recommendations is to create a “Restoration Extension Service” modeled after the United States Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service. We also recommend more events that bring together a fuller spectrum of restoration scientists, practitioners, and relevant stakeholders.     

Memorial museum to Academician O.V. Palladin (on the 25th anniversary of the foundation

In the article the short information about A.V. Palladin Memorial Museum, displaying some documentary materials on the life, scientific, scientific-administrative and enlightenment activity of the founder of the Institute of Biochemistry and Ukrainian Biochemical school, President of UkSSR Academy of Sciences (1946-1962), outstanding scientist and public figure, Academician Alexander Vladimirovich Palladin (1885-1972). The Museum created according to the Resolution of the UkSSR Soviet of Ministers due to the efforts of the Institute personnel, is officially considered as an affiliate of the State Historical Museum of Kiev and acquired a wide-spread reputation as a center of propagation and study of the history of Ukraine biochemical science, its achievements, contribution of the native scientists into the world treasury of the life sciences.     

Mirko Drazen Grmek: the genesis of scientific fact and archaeology of disease

Professor Mirko Drazen Grmek (Krapina 1924--Paris 2000) was one of the most prominent Croatian scientists. Work in history of science directed him to the crossroads of various fields placing his approach in anthropological perspective. Two models will serve as illustrations of his main theories. The historical reconstruction of scientific discovery (mostly on examples of 17th century) will be presented as well as Grmek's ideas on a concept of disease. The introduction of the term "memoricide" within his activities during aggression on Croatia is mentioned.     

Ethical implications of genetic analysis of individual susceptibility to diseases

Ethics can be regarded as a reflection or reconsideration of existing moral codes in the search of good and goes beyond moral conduct. This means that ethics is a never-ending process, which in science must develop with the development of science itself. Thus, the process of seeking better ethics is as integral within science as the development of new methods. Along these lines of thought it can be argued that (1) poor science cannot be ethically sound, (2) every scientist has a personal responsibility to develop ethics in his area of expertise, (3) the development of solid ethical background in science requires education in ethics as well as in methodology and scientific thinking and (4) research ethics cannot develop in solitude, but needs input from other scientists, other fields (including philosophy) and society. Several burning questions can be identified within genetic analysis for individual susceptibility. These ethical aspects can be viewed from three different perspectives: practice of research, patient/research subject personally and long-term implications in society. This paper tries more to awaken thoughts than give clear answers.     

Citizen Science

Citizen science Citizen science is performed on a honorary basis. Citizen scientists (”Citizen Science proper“) have no professional employment in the relevant field of research and differ very much in their educational background, specific knowledge and amount of time dedicated to the subject of research. Today, citizen science has become especially important in some fields neglected by professional science, e.g. regional research. Recently, another form of citizen science has gained much attention, in which usually many citizen scientist are active (”Citizen Science light“). Internet, smartphone and georeferencing by GPS are important tools for collecting, documenting and communicating the observation data. Besides the scientific results, social relevance through participation and information of citizens (e.g. for conservation issues) play a very important role in these projects. The recently strongly increasing interest in and contribution to citizen science plays an important role to strengthen the link and communication between science and society.     

Contribution of R. V. Chagovets, member of the Ukrainian SSR Academy of Sciences, to the development of biochemistry

The paper is concerned with the main stages of scientific activity of R.V. Chagovets (1904-1982). Member Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR in the field of biochemistry of muscles, metabolism and biochemical functions of vitamins and their derivatives. The creative heredity of the scientist served as a theoretical ground of the present-day vitaminology, base for development of the nutrition theory, practical recommendations and suggestions in public health and husbandry opened the pathways for experimental solution of the problems concerning vitamin and coenzyme metabolism regulation, elucidation of molecular mechanisms of vitamin and coenzyme functioning in the cell.     

Heads in the clouds: On the carbon footprint of conference‐seeded publications in the advancement of knowledge

The carbon footprint of flying overseas to conferences, meetings, and workshops to share and build knowledge has been increasingly questioned over the last two decades, especially in environmental and climate sciences, due to the related colossal carbon emissions. Here, we infer the value of scientific meetings through the number of publications produced either directly or indirectly after attending a scientific conference, symposium, or workshop (i.e., the conference‐related production) and the number of publications produced per meeting (i.e., the conference‐related productivity) as proxies for the academic value of these meetings, and relate them to both the number of meetings attended and the related carbon emissions. We show that conference‐related production and productivity, respectively, increase and decay with the number of meetings attended, and noticeably that the less productive people exhibit the largest carbon footprint. Taken together, our results imply that a twofold decrease in the carbon footprint FCO2 of a given scientist would result in a twofold increase in productivity through a fivefold decrease in the number of meeting attended. In light of these figures, we call for both the implementation of objective and quantitative criteria related to the optimum number of conferences to attend in an effort to maximize scientific productivity while minimizing the related carbon footprint, and the development of a rationale to minimize the carbon emission related to scientific activities.     

Safe and Sound? Scientists’ Understandings of Public Engagement in Emerging Biotechnologies

Science communication is a widely debated issue, particularly in the field of biotechnology. However, the views on the interface between science and society held by scientists who work in the field of emerging biotechnologies are currently insufficiently explored. Therefore filling this gap is one of the urgent desiderata in the further development of a dialogue-oriented model of science-public interaction. Against this background, this article addresses two main questions: (1) How do the persons who work in the field of science perceive the public and its involvement in science? (2) What preferred modes of communication are stressed by those scientists? This research is based on a set of interviews with full professors from the field of biotechnology with a special focus on synthetic biology. The results show that scientists perceive the public as holding a primarily risk-focused view of science. On the one hand, different forms of science communication are thereby either seen as a chance to improve the public acceptance of science in general and one field of research in particular. On the other hand, the exchange with the public is seen as a duty because the whole of society is affected by scientific innovation. Yet, some of the stakeholders’ views discussed here conflict with debates on public engagement in technological innovation.     

How to succeed in science

Adherence to these principles will not guarantee success, but the testimony of many famous scientists supports the hypothesis that these guidelines can significantly (p less than .05, Wilcoxon unpaired X-test run at pH 5.6) increase your chances of achieving recognition, acquiring wealth, and ultimately being known as a successful scientist. At the very least, they should prevent you from falling too far outside the boundaries of "normal" science where you could easily be branded for life as a troublemaker or heretic.     

In Silico Analysis of Crop Science： Report on the First China-UK Workshop on Chips, Computers and Crops

A workshop on ＂Chips, Computers and Crops＂ was held in Hangzhou, China during September 26-27, 2008. The main objective of the workshop was to bring together China and UK scientists from mathematics, bioinformatics and plant molecular biology communities to exchange ideas, enhance awareness of each others＇ fields, explore synergisms and make recommendations on fruitful future directions in crop science. Here we describe the contributions to the workshop, and examine some conceptual issues that lie at the foundations and future of crop systems biology.     

In memoriam: Lauri Saxén (1927-2005)

Dr. Lauri "Tupu" Saxen died last October (2005) at the age of 78. He was a physician, a scientist, a photographer, a naturalist, a great story-teller and a man who enjoyed science enormously. His name has become synonymous with the Finnish school of Developmental Biology, a school that focuses on reciprocal inductive interactions during vertebrate organogenesis. But many biologists probably don't know the full extent of his importance to the field. A few years ago, I had the occasion to outline some of his contributions which are so varied and important that it is difficult to believe that they are the work of one person, and I have included them in this brief eulogy. One could divide his scientific contributions into five categories: (1) the threshold hypothesis of amphibian metamorphosis; (2) the double-gradient hypothesis of primary embryonic induction; (3) the analysis of reciprocal induction during kidney development; (4) the integration of developmental biology with epidemiology and (5) the maintenance of a national infrastructure for science.