So you want to be a science writer

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

Science: priceless,but costly

Working as a researcher is very satisfying. However, it comes with a price. This is a story about growing up as a scientist in the field of molecular biology. Starting as a young, rather naive researcher, I learned, step by step, not only the facts about my favorite RNA molecules but also the demands and downsides of academia. Going through my recent “scientific awakening,” I fully acknowledged the rules of the game: to write, to publish, to patent, to apply for grants and awards, and finally, to engage in all forms of coscientific endeavors. After going through a divorce, single parenting, immigration, and being scooped, I became a scientist who finally takes her career in her own hands and navigates through, but does not succumb to, the difficulties in science. This is my monument to resilience.     

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

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

Postdoctoral Researchers in the UK: A Snapshot at Factors Affecting Their Research Output

Postdoctoral training is a typical step in the course of an academic career, but very little is known about postdoctoral researchers (PDRs) working in the UK. This study used an online survey to explore, for the first time, relevant environmental factors which may be linked to the research output of PDRs in terms of the number of peer-reviewed articles per year of PDR employment. The findings showed reliable links between the research output and research institutions, time spent as PDR, and parental education, whereas no clear links were observed between PDRs'' output and research area, nationality, gender, number of siblings, or work environment. PDRs based in universities tended to publish, on average, more than the ones based in research centres. PDRs with children tended to stay longer in postdoctoral employment than PDRs without children. Moreover, research output tended to be higher in PDRs with fathers educated at secondary or higher level. The work environment did not affect output directly, but about 1/5 of PDRs were not satisfied with their job or institutional support and about 2/3 of them perceived their job prospects as “difficult”. The results from this exploratory study raise important questions, which need to be addressed in large-scale studies in order to understand (and monitor) how PDRs'' family and work environment interact with their research output—an essential step given the crucial role of PDRs in research and development in the country.     

Early Prediction of Movie Box Office Success Based on Wikipedia Activity Big Data

Use of socially generated “big data” to access information about collective states of the minds in human societies has become a new paradigm in the emerging field of computational social science. A natural application of this would be the prediction of the society''s reaction to a new product in the sense of popularity and adoption rate. However, bridging the gap between “real time monitoring” and “early predicting” remains a big challenge. Here we report on an endeavor to build a minimalistic predictive model for the financial success of movies based on collective activity data of online users. We show that the popularity of a movie can be predicted much before its release by measuring and analyzing the activity level of editors and viewers of the corresponding entry to the movie in Wikipedia, the well-known online encyclopedia.     

A sustained passion for intracellular trafficking

I am honored to be the first recipient of the Women in Cell Biology Sustained Excellence in Research Award. Since my graduate school days, I have enjoyed being part of a stimulating scientific community the American Society for Cell Biology embodies. Having found myself largely by accident in a career that I find deeply enjoyable and fulfilling, I hope here to convey a sense that one need not have a “grand plan” to have a successful life in science. Simply following one''s interests and passions can sustain a career, even though it may involve some migration.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biomedical Science Ph.D. Career Interest Patterns by Race/Ethnicity and Gender

Increasing biomedical workforce diversity remains a persistent challenge. Recent reports have shown that biomedical sciences (BMS) graduate students become less interested in faculty careers as training progresses; however, it is unclear whether or how the career preferences of women and underrepresented minority (URM) scientists change in manners distinct from their better-represented peers. We report results from a survey of 1500 recent American BMS Ph.D. graduates (including 276 URMs) that examined career preferences over the course of their graduate training experiences. On average, scientists from all social backgrounds showed significantly decreased interest in faculty careers at research universities, and significantly increased interest in non-research careers at Ph.D. completion relative to entry. However, group differences emerged in overall levels of interest (at Ph.D. entry and completion), and the magnitude of change in interest in these careers. Multiple logistic regression showed that when controlling for career pathway interest at Ph.D. entry, first-author publication rate, faculty support, research self-efficacy, and graduate training experiences, differences in career pathway interest between social identity groups persisted. All groups were less likely than men from well-represented (WR) racial/ethnic backgrounds to report high interest in faculty careers at research-intensive universities (URM men: OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.36–0.98, p = 0.04; WR women: OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.47–0.89, p = 0.008; URM women: OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.30–0.71, p<0.001), and URM women were more likely than all other groups to report high interest in non-research careers (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.28–2.90, p = 0.002). The persistence of disparities in the career interests of Ph.D. recipients suggests that a supply-side (or “pipeline”) framing of biomedical workforce diversity challenges may limit the effectiveness of efforts to attract and retain the best and most diverse workforce. We propose incorporation of an ecological perspective of career development when considering strategies to enhance the biomedical workforce and professoriate through diversity.     

Some personal and historical notes on the utility of “deep-etch” electron microscopy for making cell structure/function correlations

This brief essay talks up the advantages of metal replicas for electron microscopy and explains why they are still the best way to image frozen cells in the electron microscope. Then it explains our approach to freezing, namely the Van Harreveld trick of “slamming” living cells onto a supercold block of metal sprayed with liquid helium at −269ºC, and further talks up this slamming over the alternative of high-pressure freezing, which is much trickier but enjoys greater favor at the moment. This leads me to bemoan the fact that there are not more young investigators today who want to get their hands on electron microscopes and use our approach to get the most “true to life” views of cells out of them with a minimum of hassle. Finally, it ends with a few perspectives on my own career and concludes that, personally, I''m permanently stuck with the view of the “founding fathers” that cell ultrastructure will ultimately display and explain all of cell function, or as Palade said in his Nobel lecture,electron micrographs are “irresistible and half transparent … their meaning buried under only a few years of work,” and “reasonable working hypotheses are already suggested by the ultrastructural organization itself.”     

From Chattel to Consenter: Adolescents and Informed Consent: 2009 Grover Powers Lecture

Angela Holder was to give the Grover Powers Memorial Lecture at the weekly Grand Rounds conducted by the Yale Department of Pediatrics on Wednesday, May 27, 2009, but unfortunately, she died one month earlier, on April 22, leaving behind her prepared address, “From Chattel to Consenter: Adolescents and Informed Consent,” which she had regarded as the pinnacle of a remarkable career, much of it spent at Yale. As the Grover Powers honoree, the department’s highest honor, Ms. Holder was only the fourth woman of 46 recipients and the first who was not a physician. On the date scheduled for her address, tributes were presented by her son, John Holder, and her longtime colleague, Dr. Robert Levine, co-founder of Yale’s Interdisciplinary Bioethics Center. Their comments follow Angela Holder’s completed but undelivered Grover Powers address. — Myron Genel, MD, Professor Emeritus of PediatricsUnder the common law of England and in the early years of the United States, a minor (defined as anyone under 21) was a chattel or possession of his or her father [1-4]. A father had the right to sue a physician who treated his son or daughter perfectly properly but without the father’s permission because such an intervention contravened the father’s right to control the child. Beginning in the early years of the 20th century, by the end of World War II and into the 1950s, the notion that a 16-year-old was a legally different entity from a 6-year-old gradually became law in all states.¹ The first hospital unit for adolescents was created in 1951 at Boston Children’s Hospital, and the concept of “adolescent medicine” was born [5].As the law in this area currently defines “adolescent,” we are discussing someone 14 or older who may be (1) living at home with his or her parents; (2) Not living at home but still dependent on parents (i.e., a 16-year-old college freshman living in a dorm); (3) an “emancipated minor” who is married, emancipated by a court order, or a parent (other than in North Carolina), living away from home and self-supporting; or (4) a runaway or throwaway. At any time in this country, there are about 200,000 adolescents living on the streets with no adult supervision or involvement [6].Regardless of the age of the patient, informed consent consists of five elements: (1) An explanation of what will happen; (2) explanation of the risks; (3) explanation of the projected benefits; (4) alternatives (including doing nothing); and (5) why the physician thinks it should be done, which I interpret as a right to know one’s diagnosis. While the doctrine of “therapeutic privilege” means that in rare cases a physician may withhold some information from an adult patient if she or he believes the patient cannot “deal with the information,” there can never be any withholding of information from an adolescent. If the patient can’t deal with the information to be presented, then parents have to be involved and give permission to treat the adolescent.In some cases, when parents are involved, they do not want their adolescent to know his or her diagnosis. While this is usually not a good idea, it normally falls under the rubric of “professional judgment,” and the physician has every right to decide to follow the parents’ instruction if she agrees with it. In some situations, however, the adolescent must be told what his or her illness is, whether parents like it or not. For example, if a teenager is HIV positive, he or she must be told, must be instructed about safe sex, and must be asked to divulge the names of any sex partners. Parents who say, “Oh, no, don’t tell him, he would never do anything like that, so it doesn’t matter,” should be tactfully but firmly led to accept the fact that he may well have and if he hasn’t yet, he will certainly in the future. There has been at least one successful malpractice case in which the physician did not, at the request of the parents, tell his adolescent patient that he had HIV. The patient’s girlfriend caught it and sued the physician [7]. I feel sure there are many more cases like this that have been quietly settled and no one will ever hear about.Usually, questions about adolescents giving consent to treatments that their parents don’t know about involve outpatient treatment. In the first place, hospital administrators, who are much more interested in getting paid than they are in advancing the rights of autonomous adolescents, are not going to admit for a non-emergency problem a minor whose parent has not made some sort of financial arrangement to pay for it. Secondly, in most households, if Little Herman doesn’t show up for supper or throughout the evening, someone notices and a few telephone calls later discovers that Little Herman is in the hospital.     

Categorizing Ideas about Trees: A Tree of Trees

The aim of this study is to explore whether matrices and MP trees used to produce systematic categories of organisms could be useful to produce categories of ideas in history of science. We study the history of the use of trees in systematics to represent the diversity of life from 1766 to 1991. We apply to those ideas a method inspired from coding homologous parts of organisms. We discretize conceptual parts of ideas, writings and drawings about trees contained in 41 main writings; we detect shared parts among authors and code them into a 91-characters matrix and use a tree representation to show who shares what with whom. In other words, we propose a hierarchical representation of the shared ideas about trees among authors: this produces a “tree of trees.” Then, we categorize schools of tree-representations. Classical schools like “cladists” and “pheneticists” are recovered but others are not: “gradists” are separated into two blocks, one of them being called here “grade theoreticians.” We propose new interesting categories like the “buffonian school,” the “metaphoricians,” and those using “strictly genealogical classifications.” We consider that networks are not useful to represent shared ideas at the present step of the study. A cladogram is made for showing who is sharing what with whom, but also heterobathmy and homoplasy of characters. The present cladogram is not modelling processes of transmission of ideas about trees, and here it is mostly used to test for proximity of ideas of the same age and for categorization.     

Academic labour shortages. A lack of trained scientists could slow down research in Europe

A shortage of skilled science labour in Europe could hold back research progress. The EU will increase science funding to address the problem, but real long-term measures need to start in schools, not universities.Scientists have always warned about the doom of research that could result from a shortage of students and skilled labour in the biomedical sciences. In the past, this apocalyptic vision of empty laboratories and unclaimed research grants has seemed improbable, but some national research councils and the European Union (EU) itself now seem to think that we may be on the brink of a genuine science labour crisis in Europe. This possibility, and its potential effects on economic growth, has proven sufficiently convincing for the European Commission (EC) to propose a 45% increase to its seven-year research and development budget of 45%—from €55 billion, provided under the Framework Programme (FP7), to €80 billion—for a new strategic programme for research and innovation called Horizon 2020 that will start in 2014.This bold proposal to drastically increase research funding, which comes at a time when many other budgets are being frozen or cut, was rigorously defended in May 2012 by the EU ministers responsible for science and innovation, against critics who argued that such a massive increase could not be justified given the deepening economic crisis across the EU. So far, the EU seems to be holding to the line that it has to invest more into research if Europe is to compete globally through technological innovation underpinned by scientific research.Europe is caught in a pincer movement between its principle competitors—the USA and Japan, which are both increasing their research budgets way ahead of inflation—and the emerging economies of China, India, Brazil and Russia, which are quickly closing from behind. The main argument for the Horizon 2020 funding boost came from a study commissioned by the EU [1], which led the EC to claim that Europe faces an “innovation emergency” because its businesses are falling behind US and Japanese rivals in terms of investment and new patents. As Martin Lange, Policy Officer for Marie Curie Actions—an EU fellowship programme for scientists—pointed out, “China, India and Brazil have started to rapidly catch up with the EU by improving their performance seven per cent, three per cent and one per cent faster than the EU year on year over the last five years.”According to Lange, Europe''s innovation gap equates to a shortage of around 1 million researchers across the EU, including a large number in chemistry and the life sciences. This raises fundamental issues of science recruitment and retention that a budget increase alone cannot address. The situation has also been confused by the economic crisis, which has led to the position where many graduates are unemployed, and yet there is still an acute shortage of specialist skills in areas vital to research.This is a particularly serious issue in the UK, where around 2,000 researcher jobs were lost following the closure of pharmaceutical company Pfizer''s R&D facility in Kent, announced in February 2011. “The travails of Pfizer have affected the UK recruitment market,” explained Charlie Ball, graduate labour market specialist at the UK''s Higher Education Careers Services Unit. The closure has contributed to high unemployment among graduates, particularly chemists, who tend to be employed in pharmaceutical research in the UK. “Even among people with chemistry doctorates, the unemployment rate is higher than the average,” he said.The issue for chemists, at least in the UK, is not a skills shortage, but a skills mismatch. Ball identified analytical chemistry as one area without enough skilled people, despite the availability of chemists with other specialties. He attributes part of the problem to the pharmaceutical industry''s inability to communicate its requirements to universities and graduates, although he concedes that doing so can be challenging. “One issue is that industry is changing so quickly that it is genuinely difficult to say that in three or four years time we will need people with specific skills,” Ball explained.So far, the EU seems to be holding to the line that it has to invest more into research […] to compete globally through technological innovation underpinned by scientific researchAlongside this shortage of analytical skills, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) has identified a lack of people with practical research knowledge, and in particular of experience working with animals, as a major factor holding back fundamental and pre-clinical biomedical research in the country. It has responded by encouraging applications from non-UK and even non-EU candidates for doctoral studentships that it funds, in cases where there is a scarcity of suitable UK applicants.But, the underlying problem common to the whole of Europe is more fundamental, at least according to Bengt Norden, Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. The issue is not a shortage of intellectual capital, Norden argues, but a growing lack of investment into training chemists, which in turn undermines life sciences research. Similarly to many other physical chemists, Norden has worked mainly in biology, where he has applied his expertise in molecular recognition and function to DNA recombination and membrane translocation mechanisms. He therefore views a particularly acute recruitment and retention crisis in chemistry as being a drag on both fundamental and applied research across the life sciences. “The recruitment crisis is severe,” Norden said. “While a small rill of genuinely devoted‘young amateur scientists‘ still may sustain the recruitment chain, there is a general drain of interest in science in general and chemistry in particular.” He attributes this in part to sort of a ‘chemophobia'', resulting from the association of chemistry with environmental pollution or foul odours, but he also blames ignorant politicians and other public figures for their negative attitude towards chemistry. “A former Swedish Prime Minister, Goran Persson, claimed that ‘his political goal was to make Sweden completely free from chemicals'',” Norden explained by way of example.Scientists themselves also need to do a better job of countering the negative perceptions of chemistry and science, perhaps by highlighting the contribution that chemistry is already making to clearing up pollution. Chemistry has been crucial to the development of microorganisms that can be used to break down organic pollutants in industrial waste, or clear up accidental spillage during transport. In fact, chemistry has specifically addressed the two major challenges involved: the risk that genetically engineered microorganisms could threaten the wider environment if they escape, and the problem that the microorganisms themselves can be poisoned if the concentration of pollutants is too high.A team at the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina has solved both problems by developing a material comprising an alginate bead surrounded by a silica gel [2]. This container houses a fungus that produces enzymes that break up a variety of organic pollutants. The pores of the hydrogel can limit the intake of toxic compounds from the polluted surroundings, thus controlling the level of toxicity experienced by the fungus, whilst the fungus itself is encapsulated inside the unit and cannot escape. Norden and others believe that if such examples were given more publicity, they would both improve the reputation of chemistry and science in general, and help to enthuse school students at a formative age.…Europe''s innovation gap equates to a shortage of around 1 million researchers across the EU, including a large number in chemistry and the life sciencesUnfortunately, this is not happening in schools, according to Norden, where the curriculum is failing both to enthuse pupils through practical work, and to inform them of the value of chemistry across society: “school chemistry neither stimulates curiosity nor does it promote understanding of what is most important to everybody,” he said. “It should be realized that well-taught chemistry is a necessary tool for dealing with everyday problems, at home or at work, and in the environment, relating to function of medicines, as well as what is poisonous and what is less noxious. As it is, all chemicals are presented simply as poisons.”Norden believes that a broader cultural element also tends to explain the particular shortage of analytical skills in chemistry. He believes that young people are more inclined than ever before to weigh up the probable rewards of a chosen profession in relation to the effort involved. “There seems to be a ‘cost–benefit'' aspect that young people apply when choosing an academic career: science, including maths, is too hard in relation to the jobs that eventually are available in research,” he explained. This ‘cost–benefit'' factor might not deter people from studying subjects up to university level, but can divert them into careers that pay a lot more. Ball believes that there is also an issue of esteem, in that people tend to gravitate towards careers where they feel valued. “Our most able graduates don''t see parity in esteem between research and other professions being represented by the salary they are paid,” he explained. “That is an issue that needs to be resolved, and it is not just about money, but working hard to convince these graduates that there is a worthwhile career in research.”Our most able graduates don''t see parity in esteem between research and other professions being represented by the salary they are paid,Lange suggests that it would be much easier to persuade the best graduates to stay in science if they were able to pursue their ideas free from bureaucracy or other constraints. This was a main reason to start the Marie Curie Actions programme of which Lange is a part, and which will be continued under Horizon 2020 with a new name, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, and an increased budget. “The Marie Curie Actions have been applying a bottom-up principle, allowing researchers to freely choose their topic of research,” Lange explained. “The principle of ‘individual-driven mobility'' that is used in the Individual Fellowships empowers researchers to make their own choices about the scientific topic of their work, as well as their host institutions. […] It is a clear win–win situation for both sides: researchers are more satisfied because they are given the opportunity to take their careers in their own hands, while universities and research organizations value top-class scientists coming from abroad to work at their institutes.”Lange also noted that although Marie Curie Fellows choose their own research subjects, they tend to pursue topics that are relevant to societal needs because they want to find work afterwards. “More than 50% of the FP7 Marie Curie budget has been dedicated to research that can be directly related to the current societal challenges, such as an ageing population, climate change, energy shortage, food and water supply and health,” he said. “This demonstrates that researchers are acting in a responsible way. Even though they have the freedom to choose their own research topics, they still address problems that concern society in general.” In addition, Marie Curie Actions also encourages engagement with the public, feeding back into the wider campaign to draw more people into science careers. “Communicating science to the general public will be of importance as well, if we want to attract more young people to science,” Lange said. “Recently, the Marie Curie Actions started encouraging their Fellows to engage in outreach activities. In addition, we have just launched a call for the Marie Curie Prize, where one of the three Prize categories will be ‘Communicating Science''.”Another important element of the EU''s strategy to stimulate innovative cutting edge research is the European Research Council (ERC). It was the first pan-European funding body for front-line research across the sciences, with a budget of €7.5 billion for the FP7 period of 2007–2013, and has been widely heralded as a success. As a result, the ERC is set to receive an even bigger percentage increase than other departments within Horizon 2020 for the period 2014–2020, with a provisional budget of €13.2 billion.Leading scientists, such as Nobel laureate Jean-Marie Lehn, from Strasbourg University in France, believe that the ERC has made a substantial contribution to innovative research and, as a result, has boosted the reputation of European science. “The ERC has done a fantastic job which is quite independent of pressures from the outside,” he said. “It is good to hear that taking risks is regarded as important.” Lehn also highlighted the importance of making it clear that there are plenty of opportunities in research beyond those funded, and therefore dictated, by the big pharmaceutical companies. “There is chemistry outside big pharma, and life beyond return on investment,” he said. Lehn agreed that there must be a blend between blue sky and goal-oriented research, even if there is an argument over what the blend and goals should be.…the ERC has made a substantial contribution to innovative research and, as a result, has boosted the reputation of European scienceThere is growing optimism that Europe''s main funding bodies, including the national research councils of individual countries, have not only recognized the recruitment problem, but are taking significant steps to address it. Even so, there is still work to be done to improve the image of science and to engage students through more stimulating teaching. Chemistry in particular would benefit from broader measures to attract young people to science. Ultimately, the success of such initiatives will have much broader effects in the life sciences and drug development.     

Commentary: Personal Renewal

After John Gardner''s presentation on “Self-Renewal” to THE WESTERN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Editors'' Meeting, ^* Joseph Murphy, MD, Special Editor for Wyoming, asked the former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, “Where are you in your life''s cycle?” Dr Gardner, who is 80 years old, answered, “When Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, was in his 90s, he was asked a similar question and said, `I''m like a race horse cantering along after the race is over, cooling down.'' Well, I''m nowhere near cantering! I''m still in the race, pushing the world.” race, pushing the world.”John Gardner, who received his undergraduate degree from Stanford and PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, taught at the college level for several years before he joined the Carnegie Foundation. As president of Carnegie Corporation and Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, he began to “push the world” toward education and in 1964 received the country''s highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He has also pushed it toward political reform by founding Common Cause, toward grass-roots political action by founding the Urban Coalition, toward leadership training by founding the White House Fellows program, and toward volunteerism by founding the Independent Sector (a coalition of for-profit and not-for-profit organizations and foundations). His books, including Excellence, Self-Renewal, No Easy Victories, and On Leadership, have pushed readers to new understanding of themselves and of organizations to higher levels of creativity and energy to get important work done. His current research focuses on discovering and defining the characteristics of healthy, vital communities. His call to “keep on keeping on,” indeed, to push the world, leads to constructive change. Active people become effective people, infused with the energy and optimism that good hard work inspires. I think you will find this paper as invigorating to read as it was to hear.     

A call for transparency in tracking student and postdoc career outcomes

There is a common misconception that the United States is suffering from a “STEM shortage,” a dearth of graduates with scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical backgrounds. In biomedical science, however, we are likely suffering from the opposite problem and could certainly better tailor training to actual career outcomes. At the Future of Research Symposium, various workshops identified this as a key issue in a pipeline traditionally geared toward academia. Proposals for reform all ultimately come up against the same problem: there is a shocking lack of data at institutional and national levels on the size, shape, and successful careers of participants in the research workforce. In this paper, we call for improved institutional reporting of the number of graduate students and postdocs and their training and career outcomes.We and our fellow postdocs across the Boston area (from institutions including Tufts, Harvard Medical School, MIT, Brandeis, and Boston University) organized the Future of Research Symposium (http://futureofresearch.org). In so doing, we sought to give young scientists in Boston a voice in discussions of fundamental challenges facing the research enterprise, such as hypercompetition, skewed incentives, and an unsustainable workforce model (Alberts et al., 2014 ). During the symposium, attendees (largely postdocs and graduate students) participated in workshops designed to identify the most pressing concerns for trainees and to solicit their thoughts on possible solutions. While the complete outcomes of those sessions are listed in our meeting report (McDowell et al., 2015 ) and the supporting data (McDowell et al., 2015 , Data set 1), the organizing committee identified three principles crucial to building a more sustainable scientific enterprise, among them transparency in collecting and sharing information on the research workforce.Our culture is affected by a deeply ingrained notion that there is a “STEM shortage”—a dearth of graduates with scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical backgrounds— an assertion that has been repeated too many times to count (Teitelbaum, 2014 ). For example, the President''s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology called for an additional one million science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) trainees in 2012 (PCAST, 2012 ). Yet a recent report by the Center for Immigration Studies using U.S. census data is one of a chorus of recent publications asserting that STEM graduates are actually struggling to get relevant jobs (Camarota and Zeigler, 2014 ). For example, only 11% of those who hold a bachelor''s degree in science actually work in a science field (table 2 in Camarota and Zeigler, 2014 ). This rhetoric is also blatantly misleading for PhD holders in biomedical science and probably lulls students interested in this path into a false sense of job security. The number of graduate students has roughly doubled from 1990 to 2012 along with a comparable increase in the number of postdocs (figures 1 and 5 in National Institutes of Health [NIH], 2012 ). Yet there is little evidence to suggest that permanent research positions, whether in academia or industry, have increased concomitantly. The problem has been eloquently summed up by Henry Bourne, referring to the swelling postdoc pool (Bourne, 2013a ) that becomes a “holding tank” (Bourne, 2013b ) from which PhD holders find great difficulty transitioning into permanent positions. Tellingly, in the National Science Foundation''s (NSF) Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 report, the most rapidly growing reason cited for starting a postdoc is “other employment not available” (table 5-19 in National Science Board, 2014, p. 5-34 ). Recent efforts to make PhD programs broadly applicable outside academia (through the NIH BEST grants and other efforts) have bolstered the argument that a PhD in biomedical sciences is broadly applicable for many careers, but a culture still exists in academia that graduate students should be training only for academic tracks. While there may be some argument for maintaining current levels of graduate student numbers, on the condition that they receive training relevant to their own career goals, the benefits of a large postdoctoral workforce are still being called sharply into question.Despite this, many leading officials have yet to take a position on the issue of the size of the workforce. For example, Sally Rockey and Francis Collins have written that “there is no definitive evidence that PhD production exceeds current employment opportunities” (Rockey and Collins, 2013 ).Technically, this is correct, but only because there are no definitive data at all. Take, for example, a very basic metric: How many postdocs are there in the U.S. research system? This is clearly a statistic that the NIH should have on hand to make the bold assertion that PhD numbers do not exceed employment opportunities: after all, many PhDs simply transition into becoming postdoctoral researchers. Except, the NIH does not know how many postdocs there are. The Boston Globe recently reported that, “The National Institutes of Health estimates there are somewhere between 37,000 and 68,000 postdocs in the country,” a tolerance of 15,500 (Johnson, 2014 ). The NIH''s Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report gives no concrete numbers, and it qualifies data it does show with “the number of postdoctoral researchers … may be underestimated by as much as a factor of 2” (National Institutes of Health, 2012, p. 2 ) One estimate puts the number at a little more than 50,000 (National Research Council, 2011 ), while the NSF, using data from the Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering, estimates 63,000 postdocs, 44,000 of whom are in science and engineering (National Science Board, 2014 ). From data from Boston-area postdoctoral offices, we are certain the number of postdocs in the Boston area alone approaches 9000, and so we agree with the National Postdoctoral Association that all these estimates are too low and that the number of postdoctoral researchers in the United States is close to 90,000 (www.nationalpostdoc.org/policy-22/what-is-a-postdoc). But the fact that this number is up for debate at all speaks to a need for better accounting practices, especially since alarms have sounded at the pyramidal nature of the workforce for more than a decade (National Research Council, 1998 ; Kennedy et al., 2004 ).While data on the biomedical research workforce are still incomplete, anecdotal evidence suggests graduate students are finally becoming savvier about their professional futures. We conducted an informal poll of a dozen students from across the United States, asking them what they thought of the job market for PhDs at the time they accepted the offer to go to graduate school (Figure 1). Those who entered graduate school earlier reported not considering the job market before starting their PhD; by contrast, those who matriculated more recently reported low expectations, especially for academic careers. While our extremely small survey would suggest that some students are entering graduate school with no expectation of staying in academia whatsoever, their choices are by necessity based on hearsay rather than concrete information.Open in a separate windowFIGURE 1:Excerpted quotes from survey respondents. The question posed was “What did you think of the job market for PhDs at the time you accepted the offer to go to graduate school?” The year of matriculation is listed below each quote. Full responses are listed in Supplemental Table 1.Therefore we believe that graduate programs and postdoc offices have a moral imperative to inform students and fellows of what they are getting into. We call for increased efforts in collecting and sharing data on student and fellow demographics and career outcomes, such as by conducting thorough exit and alumni surveys. We also encourage our recently graduated peers to cooperate fully with such requests from our alma maters. In biomedical science, some institutions are leading the way on this front, with the University of California–San Francisco and Duke University''s Program in Cell and Molecular Biology posting some statistics online (UCSF Graduate Division, 2013 ; Duke University, 2015 ). We believe that there is an obligation for other institutions to follow their lead. In addition, we believe that a culture supporting transparency will ultimately strengthen the scientific enterprise.First, clear communication of career information may increase student and postdoc productivity down the road. While research shows that postdocs are able to accurately estimate their chances of attaining a faculty position (Sauermann, 2013 ), our experience suggests that many current graduate students do not gain this awareness until later in their careers. When rosy illusions are shattered only after an investment of many years, the ensuing disgruntlement can negatively impact trainees themselves, others in the lab, and even entire communities at particular institutions. Instead, making student outcomes more readily available is likely to select for students with realistic expectations of their training. Much like Orion Weiner''s finding that students with prior research experience subjectively perform better in graduate school, trainees who “know what they are getting into” may be more likely to display sustained motivation (Weiner, 2014 ).Second, disclosure of these data will act as a catalyst for change. Increased transparency of program outcomes will help hold institutions and programs accountable for the quality of training they provide. Also, increased awareness of the actual career paths chosen by trainees will encourage programs to offer training in skills apart from those required to conduct academic research. Increased instruction in writing, management, and leadership will benefit all trainees, including those who do stay in academic research.Students'' motivations for entering graduate school are already changing; academic institutions must now discard old rhetoric about the purpose of graduate school and confront this new landscape. It can no longer be acceptable to drive graduate programs purely toward academic career paths. While critics may worry that honesty could discourage some trainees from applying, it will also encourage those whose goals are better in line with their likely outcome. While the research enterprise is changing shape, students and postdocs deserve to enter it with their eyes open.     

Ten simple rules for creating a brand-new virtual academic meeting (even amid a pandemic)

The increased democratization of the creation, implementation, and attendance of academic conferences has been a serendipitous benefit of the movement toward virtual meetings. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated the transition to online conferences and, in parallel, their democratization, by necessity. This manifests not just in the mitigation of barriers to attending traditional physical conferences but also in the presentation of new, and more importantly attainable, opportunities for young scientists to carve out a niche in the landscape of academic meetings. Here, we describe an early “proof of principle” of this democratizing power via our experience organizing the Canadian Computational Neuroscience Spotlight (CCNS; crowdcast.io/e/CCNS), a free 2-day virtual meeting that was built entirely amid the pandemic using only virtual tools. While our experience was unique considering the obstacles faced in creating a conference during a pandemic, this was not the only factor differentiating both our experience and the resulting meeting from other contemporary online conferences. Specifically, CCNS was crafted entirely by early career researchers (ECRs) without any sponsors or partners, advertised primarily using social media and “word of mouth,” and designed specifically to highlight and engage trainees. From this experience, we have distilled “10 simple rules” as a blueprint for the design of new virtual academic meetings, especially in the absence of institutional support or partnerships, in this unprecedented environment. By highlighting the lessons learned in implementing our meeting under these arduous circumstances, we hope to encourage other young scientists to embrace this challenge, which would serve as a critical next step in further democratizing academic meetings.     

A special issue of the Australian society for Biophysics

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

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