Reflections on the Limits of Science and Technology

SYNOPSIS. Exuberance over insights gained in the infant fieldof genetics early this centuryled scientists to extrapolatebeyond their data to heredity of behavioral traits in people.Oneof the direct consequences was the incarceration of Americansand Canadians of Japanese ancestry during World War II as enemyaliens. Drawing on this personal experience of the misapplicationof science, I describe the process of scientific indoctrinationand blindness to the limitations of this way of knowing. Thisled to my attempt to demystify science through the electronicmedia. Only recently have I come to understand that two assumptionsthat impelled me to use television in the first place are wrong.The first was that with access to more information about science,the general public would be in a position of making better informeddecisions on issues involving science and technology. The problemis that we are overwhelmed with information and most peoplelack the ability to distinguish meaningful "signal" (i.e., credibleinformation) from background "noise" (i.e., garbage). We believein phantoms created by the acceptance of anything because itexists as print or television programs. My second assumption had been that we need a mechanism to doan in-depth "cost/benefit" analysis of new technologies beforethey are actually made available. But history reveals that thebenefits of new technologies are immediate and obvious whilethe costs are usually hidden and completely unpredictable. But in the rush to exploit new scientific insights we ignorethe fact that science must lookat nature in isolated bits andpieces. Knowledge gained in fragments does not yield an understandingof the greater context from which the pieces are taken. Witheach new discovery, we itch to apply it, forgetting how muchwe have yet to learn. Our attempts to manipulate nature areoften illusions of control created by our ability to overpowernature by brute strength. In the area of genetic engineering,this could be truly disastrous.     

Reflections on the history and ethics of the proper attribution and misappropriation of merit

One would expect that the first to arrive at a new observation, discovery, or concept would be properly acknowledged as such. Unfortunately, it is not unusual that someone else receives the credit. This is not just unfair and unethical, but it also distorts the history of science. In addition, the victims of misattribution are deeply affected by losing not only the recognition of being first, but also the credit, kudos, and other benefits that derive from their contribution. This issue deserves far more attention than it currently receives. It continues to cause much mischief in the most unexpected places and under circumstances that should not be tolerated. This article looks at the consequences of some instances of misattribution in the history of science and argues that researchers should make a stronger effort to expose and rectify such cases. In most instances, all that is required is to double-check the data.     

Discovering DNA: Friedrich Miescher and the early years of nucleic acid research

In the winter of 1868/9 the young Swiss doctor Friedrich Miescher, working in the laboratory of Felix Hoppe-Seyler at the University of Tübingen, performed experiments on the chemical composition of leukocytes that lead to the discovery of DNA. In his experiments, Miescher noticed a precipitate of an unknown substance, which he characterised further. Its properties during the isolation procedure and its resistance to protease digestion indicated that the novel substance was not a protein or lipid. Analyses of its elementary composition revealed that, unlike proteins, it contained large amounts of phosphorous and, as Miescher confirmed later, lacked sulphur. Miescher recognised that he had discovered a novel molecule. Since he had isolated it from the cells’ nuclei he named it nuclein, a name preserved in today’s designation deoxyribonucleic acid. In subsequent work Miescher showed that nuclein was a characteristic component of all nuclei and hypothesised that it would prove to be inextricably linked to the function of this organelle. He suggested that its abundance in tissues might be related to their physiological status with increases in “nuclear substances” preceding cell division. Miescher even speculated that it might have a role in the transmission of hereditary traits, but subsequently rejected the idea. This article reviews the events and circumstances leading to Miescher’s discovery of DNA and places them within their historic context. It also tries to elucidate why it was Miescher who discovered DNA and why his name is not universally associated with this molecule today. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

---

Falling giants and the rise of gene editing: ethics,private interests and the public good

This paper considers the tensions created in genomic research by public and private for-profit ideals. Our intent is to strengthen the public good at a time when doing science is strongly motivated by market possibilities and opportunities. Focusing on the emergence of gene editing, and in particular CRISPR, we consider how commercialisation encourages hype and hope—a sense that only promise and idealism can achieve progress. At this rate, genomic research reinforces structures that promote, above all else, private interests, but that may attenuate conditions for the public good of science. In the first part, we situate genomics using the aphorism that ‘on the shoulders of giants we see farther’; these giants are infrastructures and research cultures rather than individual ‘heroes’ of science. In this respect, private initiatives are not the only pivot for successful discovery, and indeed, fascination in those could impinge upon the fundamental role of public-supported discovery. To redress these circumstances, we define the extent to which progress presupposes research strategies that are for the public good. In the second part, we use a ‘falling giant’ narrative to illustrate the risks of over-indulging for-profit initiatives. We therefore offer a counterpoint to commercialised science, using three identifiable ‘giants’—scientists, publics and cultures—to illustrate how the public good contributes to genomic discovery.     

Why is lying about intentions rare during some kinds of contests?

It has been suggested that contesting animals should not exchange information about their intentions except under special and restricted conditions. A version of game theory would predict that such exchanges, in most circumstances, must lead to progressive increases of bluffing and lying—more lying than has been found to exist in the real world. Yet it is also apparent, from field observations, that information about intentions usually is transmitted during many classes of competitive encounters. The supposed paradox would be resolved if signals of intentions were perceived readily but analyzed sceptically by the perceiving individuals. There is evidence that this is indeed the case. The prediction of the game theorists may have to be reversed or stood on its head. Perhaps only statements of intentions are usually truthful.     

iBiology: communicating the process of science

The Internet hosts an abundance of science video resources aimed at communicating scientific knowledge, including webinars, massive open online courses, and TED talks. Although these videos are efficient at disseminating information for diverse types of users, they often do not demonstrate the process of doing science, the excitement of scientific discovery, or how new scientific knowledge is developed. iBiology (www.ibiology.org), a project that creates open-access science videos about biology research and science-related topics, seeks to fill this need by producing videos by science leaders that make their ideas, stories, and experiences available to anyone with an Internet connection.     

Images in the dialogue between science and society

In France, over 45 millions people watch TV every day for more than 3 hours. Science and image get well together since most TV watchers trust this media and rely on it (more than on any other source) for their scientific information. This emphasizes the power of images, which do not always deliver information, but can be naively regarded as creating communication. Image is necessary and an event which does not generate images is a non-event. Images are more than just a support for scientific messages: technologies have produced an enormous amount of images which allow us to uncover the mysteries of the world and Universe, their beauty and delicacy. We can be fascinated by the discovery of the invisible world which surrounds us, and science has truly generated artistic masterpieces even though we should remember that its primary goal is to understand the world rather than to create images.     

An Analysis of Citizen Science Based Research: Usage and Publication Patterns

The use of citizen science for scientific discovery relies on the acceptance of this method by the scientific community. Using the Web of Science and Scopus as the source of peer reviewed articles, an analysis of all published articles on “citizen science” confirmed its growth, and found that significant research on methodology and validation techniques preceded the rapid rise of the publications on research outcomes based on citizen science methods. Of considerable interest is the growing number of studies relying on the re-use of collected datasets from past citizen science research projects, which used data from either individual or multiple citizen science projects for new discoveries, such as for climate change research. The extent to which citizen science has been used in scientific discovery demonstrates its importance as a research approach. This broad analysis of peer reviewed papers on citizen science, that included not only citizen science projects, but the theory and methods developed to underpin the research, highlights the breadth and depth of the citizen science approach and encourages cross-fertilization between the different disciplines.     

Lost in translation

Some view social constructivism as a threat to the unique objectivity of science in describing the world. But social constructivism merely observes the process of science and can offer ways for science to regain public esteem.Political groups, civil organizations, the media and private citizens increasingly question the validity of scientific findings about challenging issues such as global climate change, and actively resist the application of new technologies, such as GM crops. By using new communication technologies, these actors can reach out to many people in real time, which gives them a huge advantage over the traditional, specialist and slow communication of scientific research through peer-reviewed publications. They use emotive stories with a narrow focus, facts and accessible language, making them often, at least in the eyes of the public, more credible than scientific experts. The resulting strength of public opinion means that scientific expertise and validated facts are not always the primary basis for decision-making by policy-makers about issues that affect society and the environment.The scientific community has decried this situation not only as a crisis of public trust in experts but more so as a loss of trust in scientific objectivity. The reason for this development, some claim, is a postmodernist perception of science as a social construction [1]. This view claims that context—in other words society—determines the acceptance of a scientific theory and the reliability of scientific facts. This is in conflict with the more traditional view held by most scientists, that experimental evidence, analysis and validation by scientific means are the instruments to determine truth. ‘Social constructivism'', as this postmodernist view on science has been called, challenges the ‘traditional'' view of science: that it is an objective, experiment-based approach to collect evidence that results in a linear accumulation of knowledge, leading to reliable, scientifically proven facts and trust in the role of experts.However, constructivists maintain that society and science have always influenced one another, thereby challenging the notion that science is objective and only interested in uncovering the truth. Moderate social constructivism merely acknowledges a controversy and attempts to provide answers. The extreme interpretation of this approach sustains that all facts and all parties—no matter how absurd or unproven their ‘facts'' and claims—should be treated equally, without any consideration for their interests [2].…scientific expertise and validated facts are not always the primary basis for decision-making by policy-makers about issues that affect society and the environmentThe truth might actually be somewhere in the middle, between taking scientific results as absolute truths at one extreme, and requiring that all facts and all actors should be given equal attention and consideration at the other. What is needed, however, is a closer connection and mutual appreciation between science and society, especially when it comes to science policy and making decisions that require scientific expertise. To claim that all perspectives are equally important when there is a lack of absolute facts—leading to an ‘all truths are equal'' approach to decision-making—is surely ridiculous. Nonetheless, societies are highly complex and sufficient facts are often not available when policy-makers and regulatory bodies have to make a decision. The aim of this essay is to argue that social construction and scientific objectivity can coexist and even benefit from one another.The question is whether social constructivism really caused a crisis of objectivity and a change in the traditional view of science? A main characteristic of the traditional view is that science progresses in isolation from any societal influences. However, there are historical and contemporary examples of how social mores influence the acceptability of certain areas of research, the direction of scientific research and even the formation of a scientific consensus—or in the words of Thomas Kuhn, of a scientific paradigm.Arrival at a scientific consensus driven by non-scientific factors will probably happen in a new research field when there is insufficient scientific information or knowledge to make precise claims. As such, societal factors can become determinants in settling disputes, at least until more information emerges. Religious and ethical beliefs have had such an impact on science throughout history. One could argue, for example, that the focus on research into induced pluripotent stem cells and the potency of adult stem cells is driven, at least in part, by religious and ethical objections to using human embryonic stem cells. Similarly, the near universal consensus that scientists should not clone humans is not based on scientific reason, but on social, religious and ethical arguments.Another example of the influence of non-scientific values on the establishment of a scientific consensus comes from the field of artificial intelligence. In the 1960s, a controversy erupted between the proponents of symbolic processing—led by Marvin Minsky—and the proponents of neural nets—who had been led by the charismatic Frank Rosenblatt. The publication of a book by Minsky and Seymour Papert, which concluded that progress in neural networks faced insurmountable limitations, coincided with the unfortunate death of Rosenblatt and massive funding from the US Department of Defense through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for projects on symbolic processing. DARPA''s decision to ignore neural networks—because they could not foresee any immediate military applications—convinced other funding agencies to avoid the field and blocked research on neural nets for a decade. This has become known as the first artificial intelligence winter [3]. The military, in particular, has often had a major influence on setting the direction of scientific research. The atomic bomb, radar and the first computers are just some examples of how military interests drove scientific progress and its application.The traditional perception of science also supposes a gradual and linear accumulation of scientific knowledge. Whilst the gradual part remains undisputed, scientific progress is not linear. Theories are proposed, discussed, rejected, accepted, sometimes forgotten, rediscovered and reborn with modifications as part of an ever-changing network of scientific facts and knowledge. Gregor Mendel discovered the laws of inheritance in 1865, but his finding received scant attention until their rediscovery in the early 1900s by Carl Correns and Erich von Tschermak. Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian obstetrician, developed the theory that puerperal fever or childbed fever is mainly transmitted by the poor hygiene of doctors before assisting in births. He observed that when doctors washed their hands with a chlorine solution before obstetric consultations, deaths in obstetrics wards were drastically reduced. The medical community ridiculed Semmelweis at the time, but the development of Louis Pasteur''s germ theory of disease eventually vindicated him [4].Another challenge to the traditional view of science is the claim that scientific facts are constructed. This does not necessarily imply that they are false: it acknowledges the process of independently conducted experiments, ‘trial and error'' approaches, collaborations and discussions, to establish a final consensus that then becomes scientific fact. Critics of constructivism claim that viewing scientific discovery this way opens the gate to non-scientific influences and arguments, thereby undermining factuality. However, without consensus on the importance of a discovery, no fact is sufficient to change or establish a scientific theory. In fact, classical peer review treats scientific discoveries as constructions essentially by taking apart the proposed fact, analysing the process of its determination and, based on the evidence, accepting or rejecting it.‘Social constructivism'' […] challenges the ‘traditional'' view of science: that it is an objective, experiment-based approach to collect evidence…Ultimately, then, it seems that social constructivism itself is not the sole or most important factor for changing the traditional view of science. Social, religious and ethical values have always influenced human endeavours, and science is no exception. Yet, there is one aspect of traditional science for which constructivism only has the role of an observer: public trust in scientific experts. Societies can resist the introduction of new technologies owing to their potential risks. Traditionally, the potential victims of such hazards—consumers, affected communities and the environment—had no input into either the risk-assessment process, or the decisions that were made on the basis of the assessment.The difficulty is that postmodern societies tend to perceive certain risks as greater compared with how they were viewed by modern or premodern societies, ostensibly and partly because of globalization and better communication [5]. As a result, the evaluation of risk increasingly takes into account political considerations. Each stakeholder inevitably defines risks and their acceptability according to their own agenda, and brings their own cadre of experts and evidence to support their claims. As such, the role of unbiased experts is undermined not only because they are similarly accused of having their own agenda, but also because the line between experts and non-experts is redrawn [5]. In addition, the internet and other communication technologies have unprecedentedly empowered non-expert users to broadcast their opinions. The emergence of so-called ‘pseudo-experts'', enabled by “the cult of the amateur” [6], further challenges the position of scientific experts. Trust is no longer a given for anyone, and even when people trust science, it is not lasting, and has to be earned for new information. This erosion of trust cannot be blamed entirely on the “cult of the amateur”. The German sociologist Ulrich Beck argued that when scientists make recommendations to society on how to deal with risks, they inevitably make assumptions that are embedded in cultural values, moving into a social and cultural sphere without assessing the public view of those values. Scientists thus presuppose a certain set of social and cultural values and judge everything that comes against that set as irrational [5].…without consensus on the importance of a discovery, no fact is sufficient to change or establish a scientific theoryRegardless of how trust in expertise was eroded, and how pseudo-experts have filled the gap, the main issue is how to assess the implications of scientific results and new technologies, and how to manage any risks that they entail. To gain and maintain trust, decision-making must consider stakeholder involvement and public opinion. However, when public participation attempts to accommodate an increasing number of stakeholders, it raises the difficult issue of who should be involved, either as part of the administrative process or as producers of knowledge [7,8]. An increasing number of participants in decision-making and an increasing amount of information can result in conflicting perspectives, different perceptions of facts and even half-truths or half-lies when information is not available, missing or not properly explained. There is no dominant perspective and all evidence seems subjective. This seems to be the nightmare scenario when ‘all truths are equal''.It is important to point out that the constructivist perspective of looking at the interactions between science and society is not an attempt to impose a particular world-view; it is merely an attempt to understand the mechanisms of these interactions. It attempts to explain why, for example, anti-GMO activists destroy experimental field trials without any scientific proof regarding the harm of such experiments. In addition, constructivism does not attempt to destroy the credibility of science, nor to overemphasize alternative knowledge, but to offer possibilities for wider participation in policy-making, especially in contentious cases when the lines between the public and experts are no longer clear [8]. In this situation, expert knowledge is not meant to be replaced by non-expert knowledge, but to be enriched by it.Nonetheless, the main question is whether scientific objectivity can prevail when science meets society. The answer should be yes. Even when several seemingly valid perspectives persist, objective facts are and should be the foundation of decisions taken. Scientific facts do matter and there are objective frameworks in place to prove or disprove the validity of information. Yet, in settling disputes, the decision must also be accountable to prevent loss of trust. By establishing frameworks for inclusive discussions and acknowledging the role of non-expert knowledge, either by indicating areas of public concern or by improving the communication of scientific facts, consent and thus support for the decision can be achieved.Moreover, scientific facts are important, but they are only part of an informational package. In particular, the choice of words and the style of writing can become more important than the factual content of a message. Scientists cannot communicate to the wider public using scientific jargon and then expect unconditional trust. People tend to mistrust things they cannot understand. To be part of a decision-making process, members of the public need access to scientific information presented in an understandable manner. The core issue is communication, or more specifically, translation: explaining facts and findings by considering the receiver and context, and adapting the message and language accordingly. Scientists must therefore translate their work. Equally important, they must do this proactively to take advantage of social constructivism and its view of science. By understanding how controversies around new scientific discoveries and scientific expertise arise, they can devise better communication strategies.…the internet and other communication technologies have unprecedentedly empowered non-expert users to broadcast their opinionsSome examples show how better interaction between science and society—such as the involvement of more stakeholders and the use of appropriate language in communication—can raise awareness and acceptability of previously contentious technologies. In Burkina Faso in 1999, Monsanto partnered with Africare to provide farmers with GM cotton to address pest resistance to pesticides and to increase yields. The plan was originally met with suspicion from the public and public research institutes, but the partners managed to build trust among the different stakeholders by providing transparent and correct information. The project started with a public–private partnership. By being open about their motives, including profit-making, and acknowledging and discussing any potential risks, the project gradually achieved the full support of the main partners [9]. Another challenge was the relationship between scientists and journalists. By using scientific communicators that were both open to dialogue and careful to maintain the discussion within scientific boundaries, the relationship with the press improved [10]. In this case, efforts to translate scientific knowledge included transparency of information and contextualizing its delivery, as well as an increasingly wider participation of stakeholders in the development and commercialization of GM cotton.…scientists[…]should consider proactively translating their research for a wider audience […] in an inclusive and contextualized mannerWhen the Philippines, the first Asian country to adopt a GM food, approved Bt maize, environmental NGOs and the Catholic Church opposed the crop with regular protests. These slowly dissipated as farmers gradually adopted Bt maize [11] and the reporting media focused less on sensationalist stories [12]. Between 2000 and 2009, media coverage contributed substantially to a mostly positive (41%) or neutral (38%) public perception of biotechnology in the Philippines [12]. Most newspaper reports focused on the public accountability of biotechnology governance and analysed the validity of scientific information, together with the way in which conflicts in biotechnology research were managed. Science writers translated scientific facts into language that the wider public could understand. In addition, sources in which the public placed trust—either scientists or environmentalists—were cited in the media, which helped to facilitate public discussion [12]. In this case, the efforts of science writers to provide balanced, well-informed coverage, as well as a platform for public discussions, effectively translated the scientific facts and improved public opinion of Bt maize.Constructivism is not a threat to science. It is a concept that looks at the components and the processes through which a scientific theory or fact emerges; it is not an alternative to these processes. In fact, scientists should consider embracing constructivism, not only to understand what happens with the products of their labour beyond the laboratory, but also to understand the forces that determine the fate of scientific developments. We live in a complex world in which individual actors are empowered through modern communication tools. This might make it more challenging to prove and maintain scientific objectivity, but it does not make it unnecessary. Public decision-making requires an objective fact base for all decisions concerning the use of scientific discoveries in society. If scientists want to prevent their messages from being misunderstood or hijacked for political purposes, they should consider proactively translating their research for a wider audience themselves, in an inclusive and contextualized manner.? Open in a separate windowMonica Racovita     

Diffusive insights: on the disagreement of Christian Bohr and August Krogh at the Centennial of the Seven Little Devils

The year 2010 is the centennial of the publication of the "Seven Little Devils" in the predecessor of Acta Physiologica. In these seven papers, August and Marie Krogh sought to refute Christian Bohr's theory that oxygen diffusion from the lungs to the circulation is not entirely passive but rather facilitated by a specific cellular activity substitute to secretion. The subjects of the present reevaluation of this controversy are Christian Bohr, Professor and Doctor of Medicine (1855-1911), nominated three times for the Nobel Prize; August Krogh, Doctor of Philosophy (1874-1949), Christian Bohr's assistant and later Nobel Prize laureate (1920); and Marie Krogh, née J?rgensen, Doctor of Medicine and wife of August Krogh (1874-1943). The controversy concerned is the transport of oxygen from the lungs into the bloodstream: are passive transport and diffusion capacity together sufficient to secure the oxygen supply in all circumstances or is there an additional specific ("energy consuming" or "active") mechanism responsible for the transport of oxygen from the alveoli into the bloodstream? The present discussion purports to show that the contestants' views were closer than the parties themselves and posterity recognized. Posterity has judged the dispute unilaterally from the Nobel laureate's point of view, but it is evident that August Krogh's Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery of a cellular activity (Christian Bohr's expression), represented by Krogh's discovery of capillary recruitment. Christian Bohr appears to have been correct in the narrower sense that the diffusion capacity at rest is not great enough to explain the transport during work; a special mechanism intervenes and optimizes the conditions under which diffusion acts. August Krogh, of course, was right in the wider sense that the transport mechanism itself is always entirely passive.     

Surplus killing by carnivores

In several field observations, foxes, Spotted hyaenas and other carnivores killed many more prey individuals than they could eat. Functional and causal aspects of this phenomenon are discussed and the conclusion is reached that these surplus kills are the consequence of behavioural compromises in both predator and prey to meet opposing environmental requirements.  

Summary:

(1) Observations are reported in which carnivores killed considerably more prey animals than they could possibly eat, and causal and functional aspects of this behaviour are discussed. The species concerned were especially foxes and Spotted hyaenas, and references are quoted about surplus killing by other Canidae, Felidae and Ursidae.
(2) It is argued that satiation in carnivores does not inhibit further catching and killing , but it probably does inhibit searching and hunting. Thus carnivores are able to procure an "easy prey" but normally satiation limits numbers killed.
(3) Many, if not all, carnivores possess behaviour patterns which allow utilization of a kill at a later time, or allow other members of the same social unit or offspring to use the food.
(4) Several prey species showed a lack of anti-predator reaction under particular climatological circumstances; it is argued that this lack of response usually has survival value. Sometimes anti-predator behaviour is accidentally made ineffective.
(5) Surplus kills are made possible by (2) and (4) above, and only very rare circumstances give a predator access to so many prey that (3) is ineffective. It is suggested that surplus kills are the consequence of behavioural compromises in both predator and prey to meet opposing environmental requirements.     

Identifying the Science and Technology Dimensions of Emerging Public Policy Issues through Horizon Scanning

Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security.     

The purpose of LCA in environmental labels and concepts of products

This very interesting Discussion Forum showed the different points of view of basic science and applied science in practice concerning environmental labeling and the lacking comparability between them. Practitioners and consumers stated the large amount of labels. At this point environmental key-parameter models like the one presented for green electricity could be an option. For LCA-researchers it was clear that environmental labeling ought to be connected to an LCA or a comparable environmental valuation method. ISO offers four types of labels and if every label on the market would be ISO-conform and declared as such, comparisons would be much easier. Practitioners from companies stated that a lot of environmental data about there products gained from LCA or similar methods is available, but that the consumer is not yet interested in this kind of information. But in any case their companies will go on issuing environmental declarations for products, hoping that in the long run consumer’s interest and choice will include environmental performance. The discussion in the panel also showed that social aspects are not preferably integrated in an environmental declaration but separate in a social declaration because the evaluation methods are totally different. In any case, the interest of the consumer in the social circumstances of the production of goods is steadily increasing.     

Preparation, reconstruction and interpretation of seven human skeletons from the late Bronze age (urn-field-culture) found at a storage pit in Stillfried/March, lower Austria.

In the first published paper "Stillfried-Arch?ologie-Anthropologie" (Felgenhauer, Szilvássy, Kritscher & Hauser 1988) emphasis of study was laid on morphological, metric and radiological analyses of the 7 skeletons from the late Bronze age (urn-field-culture) found at a storage pit in Stillfried/March in Lower Austria. The present publication deals with the methods of reconstruction of this spectacular discovery. When the skeletal material was disinterred in 1976 it was decided to make appropriate arrangements for an in-situ-presentation at a later stage. After the preparatory work and the scientific investigations were concluded, an in-situ presentation of the 7 skeletons was placed as a key-exhibit in the anthropological displays in the Natural History Museum in Vienna. The 7 skeletons represent three grown-ups and four children i.e. a man about thirty years of age, a woman of forty and one of forty five years of age, as well as a girl of nine and three boys eight, six and three years of age. The reconstruction of this outstanding discovery demanded not only an answer to the genealogical question but also an interpretation of the circumstances of death making use of forensic evidence. Additionally, the personal state of the seven individuals, their physical shape, state of health, and their racial attachment were discussed.     

The Importance of the History of Science to the American Society of Zoologists

As the history of science has developed as a professional intellectualdiscipline, it has had and will continue to have an importantrole in defining science and its place in our culture. Suchdefinitions should be based on as much information as possible.Scientists can help supply some of this information throughparticipation in symposia on the history of science. In addition,scientists can learn much about the nature of their disciplineby becoming aware of the concepts of science which are derivedfrom the careful analysis of its history. Efforts should bemade to bring historians of science and scientists togetherfor their mutual benefit.     

Natural history and information overload: The case of Linnaeus

Natural History can be seen as a discipline paradigmatically engaged in 'data-driven research.' Historians of early modern science have begun to emphasize its crucial role in the Scientific Revolution, and some observers of present day genomics see it as engaged in a return to natural history practices. A key concept that was developed to understand the dynamics of early modern natural history is that of 'information overload.' Taxonomic systems, rules of nomenclature, and technical terminologies were developed in botany and zoology to catch up with the ever increasing amount of information on hitherto unknown plant and animal species. In our contribution, we want to expand on this concept. After all, the same people who complain about information overload are usually the ones who contribute to it most significantly. In order to understand this complex relationship, we will turn to the annotation practices of the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778). The very tools that Linnaeus developed to contain and reduce information overload, as we aim to demonstrate, facilitated a veritable information explosion that led to the emergence of a new research object in botany: the so-called 'natural' system.     

A career pathway in protein folding: from model peptides to postreductionist protein science

This review discusses the inherent challenge of linking "reductionist" approaches to decipher the information encoded in protein sequences with burgeoning efforts to explore protein folding in native environments-"postreductionist" approaches. Because the invitation to write this article came as a result of my selection to receive the 2010 Dorothy Hodgkin Award of the Protein Society, I use examples from my own work to illustrate the evolution from the reductionist to the postreductionist perspective. I am incredibly honored to receive the Hodgkin Award, but I want to emphasize that it is the combined effort, creativity, and talent of many students, postdoctoral fellows, and collaborators over several years that has led to any accomplishments on which this selection is based. Moreover, I do not claim to have unique insight into the topics discussed here; but this writing opportunity allows me to illustrate some threads in the evolution of protein folding research with my own experiences and to point out to those embarking on careers how the twists and turns in anyone's scientific path are influenced and enriched by the scientific context of our research. The path my own career has taken thus far has been shaped by the timing of discoveries in the field of protein science; together with our contemporaries, we become part of a knowledge evolution. In my own case, this has been an epoch of great discovery in protein folding and I feel very fortunate to have participated in it.     

EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM IN MIDDLE EASTERN EDUCATION: A NEW PERSPECTIVE

Statements made in a recent outcry against a creationist in the Israeli Ministry of Education starkly illuminated Western misconceptions about Iranian science education. These misconceptions are perpetuated not only among the general public but also within the international scientific community, where investigations of "Islamic creationism" often incorporate misleading assumptions regarding Islamic religious attitudes toward science as well as the nature of secularism in non‐Western states. In turn, these assumptions have led to superficial analyses that overly rely on state religiosity to explain the treatment of evolution in national science education. Therefore, a new framework accounting for local political and social circumstances is crucial and urgently needed to effectively analyze science education in the Middle East.     

Stop-Signaling Reduces Split Decisions without Impairing Accuracy in the Honeybee Nest-Site Selection Process

In the honeybee swarm nest-site selection process, individual bees gather information about available candidate sites and communicate the information to other bees. The swarm makes an agreement for a candidate site when the number of bees that supports the site reaches a threshold. This threshold is usually referred to as the quorum threshold and it is shown by many studies as a key parameter that is a compromise between the accuracy and speed of decisions. In the present work, we use a model of the honeybee Apis mellifera nest-site selection process to study how the quorum threshold and discovery time of candidate sites have major impact on two unfavorable situations in selecting a nest site: decision deadlock and decision split. We show that cross-inhibitory stop-signaling, delivered among bees supporting different sites, enables swarms to avoid the decision split problem in addition to avoiding the decision deadlock problem that has been previously proposed. We also show that stop-signaling improves decision speed, but compromises decision accuracy in swarms using high quorum thresholds by causing the swarms to be trapped in local optima (e.g., choosing a sub-optimal option that is encountered first). On the other hand, we demonstrate that stop-signaling can reduce split decisions without compromising decision accuracy in swarms using low quorum thresholds when it is compared to the accuracy of swarms using the same threshold values but not exhibiting stop-signaling. Based on our simulations, we suggest that swarms using low quorum thresholds (as well as swarms with large population sizes) would benefit more from exhibiting the stop-signaling activity than not exhibiting it.     

On the computational architecture of the neocortex

This paper is a sequel to an earlier paper which proposed an active role for the thalamus, integrating multiple hypotheses formed in the cortex via the thalamo-cortical loop. In this paper, I put forward a hypothesis on the role of the reciprocal, topographic pathways between two cortical areas, one often a higher area dealing with more abstract information about the world, the other lower, dealing with more concrete data. The higher area attempts to fit its abstractions to the data it receives from lower areas by sending back to them from its deep pyramidal cells a template reconstruction best fitting the lower level view. The lower area attempts to reconcile the reconstruction of its view that it receives from higher areas with what it knows, sending back from its superficial pyramidal cells the features in its data which are not predicted by the higher area. The whole calculation is done with all areas working simultaneously, but with order imposed by synchronous activity in the various top-down, bottom-up loops. Evidence for this theory is reviewed and experimental tests are proposed. A third part of this paper will deal with extensions of these ideas to the frontal lobe.