Dragging scientific publishing into the 21st century

Scientific publishers must shake off three centuries of publishing on paper and embrace 21st century technology to make scientific communication more intelligible, reproducible, engaging and rapidly available.The Internet has massively disrupted how we communicate - primarily for the better. Many business sectors, however, have struggled to adapt to online platforms, with many simply resisting change. The newspaper industry is an example of a centuries-old industry persisting in the face of new conditions - until it can’t. In the early 1990s the Web began displacing traditional information delivery. By the mid 2000s it had become a widespread facet of life in many countries. Web 1.0 journalism translated ink to pixels, but as technology advanced the slow erosion of print became a landslide [1].Scientific publishing is following a similar path, with its hesitance to adapt and slow (or no) adoption of the many advantages the Internet affords.For now, scientific publishing remains profitable. Nevertheless, its sustainability rests upon antiquated pillars. Scholarly print journals date back hundreds of years to the availability of a cheap distribution method with the introduction of the printing press.Most journals have made only incremental changes. A few have taken some advantage of the Internet and experimented with multimedia, but use of the medium has been limited primarily to extra content, such as unsearchable encyclopedic online supplements to accompany articles that maintain print page limits; or publishing many more articles by relaxing peer-review requirements for ‘novelty’, as exemplified by PLoS ONE, which has published 30,000 articles in 2013 alone [2]. Overall print-era anachronisms still persist through the continuation of page limits and surcharges and the release of discrete issues, as if all articles remain subject to print-only production schedules.So how do we imagine the future of scientific publishing?     

Research Blogging: Indexing and Registering the Change in Science 2.0

Increasing public interest in science information in a digital and 2.0 science era promotes a dramatically, rapid and deep change in science itself. The emergence and expansion of new technologies and internet-based tools is leading to new means to improve scientific methodology and communication, assessment, promotion and certification. It allows methods of acquisition, manipulation and storage, generating vast quantities of data that can further facilitate the research process. It also improves access to scientific results through information sharing and discussion. Content previously restricted only to specialists is now available to a wider audience. This context requires new management systems to make scientific knowledge more accessible and useable, including new measures to evaluate the reach of scientific information. The new science and research quality measures are strongly related to the new online technologies and services based in social media. Tools such as blogs, social bookmarks and online reference managers, Twitter and others offer alternative, transparent and more comprehensive information about the active interest, usage and reach of scientific publications. Another of these new filters is the Research Blogging platform, which was created in 2007 and now has over 1,230 active blogs, with over 26,960 entries posted about peer-reviewed research on subjects ranging from Anthropology to Zoology. This study takes a closer look at RB, in order to get insights into its contribution to the rapidly changing landscape of scientific communication.     

An integrated signal transduction network of macrophage migration inhibitory factor

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is a glycosylated multi-functional protein that acts as an enzyme as well as a cytokine. MIF mediates its actions through a cell surface class II major histocompatibility chaperone, CD74 and co-receptors such as CD44, CXCR2, CXCR4 or CXCR7. MIF has been implicated in the pathogenesis of several acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. Although MIF is a molecule of biomedical importance, a public resource of MIF signaling pathway is currently lacking. In view of this, we carried out detailed data mining and documentation of the signaling events pertaining to MIF from published literature and developed an integrated reaction map of MIF signaling. This resulted in the cataloguing of 68 molecules belonging to MIF signaling pathway, which includes 24 protein-protein interactions, 44 post-translational modifications, 11 protein translocation events and 8 activation/inhibition events. In addition, 65 gene regulation events at the mRNA levels induced by MIF signaling have also been catalogued. This signaling pathway has been integrated into NetPath (http://www.netpath.org), a freely available human signaling pathway resource developed previously by our group. The MIF pathway data is freely available online in various community standard data exchange formats. We expect that data on signaling events and a detailed signaling map of MIF will provide the scientific community with an improved platform to facilitate further molecular as well as biomedical investigations on MIF.     

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.     

GLYDE-an expressive XML standard for the representation of glycan structure

The amount of glycomics data being generated is rapidly increasing as a result of improvements in analytical and computational methods. Correlation and analysis of this large, distributed data set requires an extensible and flexible representational standard that is also ‘understood’ by a wide range of software applications. An XML-based data representation standard that faithfully captures essential structural details of a glycan moiety along with additional information (such as data provenance) to aid the interpretation and usage of glycan data, will facilitate the exchange of glycomics data across the scientific community. To meet this need, we introduce GLYcan Data Exchange (GLYDE) standard as an XML-based representation format to enable interoperability and exchange of glycomics data. An online tool (http://128.192.9.86/stargate/formatIndex.jsp) for the conversion of other representations to GLYDE format has been developed.     

The Peptaibiotics Database – A Comprehensive Online Resource

In this work, we present the ‘Peptaibiotics Database’ (PDB), a comprehensive online resource, which intends to cover all Aib‐containing non‐ribosomal fungal peptides currently described in scientific literature. This database shall extend and update the recently published ‘Comprehensive Peptaibiotics Database’ and currently consists of 1,297 peptaibiotic sequences. In a literature survey, a total of 235 peptaibiotic sequences published between January 2013 and June 2014 have been compiled, and added to the list of 1,062 peptides in the recently published ‘Comprehensive Peptaibiotics Database’. The presented database is intended as a public resource freely accessible to the scientific community at peptaibiotics‐database.boku.ac.at. The search options of the previously published repository and the presentation of sequence motif searches have been extended significantly. All of the available search options can be combined to create complex database queries. As a public repository, the presented database enables the easy upload of new peptaibiotic sequences or the correction of existing informations. In addition, an administrative interface for maintenance of the content of the database has been implemented, and the design of the database can be easily extended to store additional information to accommodate future needs of the ‘peptaibiomics community’.     

AIDS Research and Its Role in China＇s AIDS Prevention and Control Policies

By the end of 2005, the estimated number of HIV infected people in China was 650,000. The seriousness of the epidemic calls for effective control measures to tackle the problems in order to avoid the tragedy in Africa from happening in China. ＂Prevention First＂ is the cornerstone of the country＇s health policy. On 2003 World AIDS Day, Premier Jiabao Wen announced a new national AIDS control policy, ＂Four Frees and One Care＂. This policy clearly shows that the Chinese government has once again taken full responsibility to solve public health problems and has profound impact far beyond the AIDS field. In early 2006, the central government put scientific and technology innovation as a national priority and set the target to build an innovative China by year 2020. Since then, the government has been increasing investment in science and technology with major emphasis on both infectious diseases control and new drug research and development. For the first time, development of 100 new drugs and control of major infectious diseases （AIDS, HBV, TB and other emerging infectious diseases） have been selected as national key scientific projects. China＇s best minds in related fields will be pooled to work together in order to remove the technical barriers blocking efficient control of the major infectious disease in China. Knowledge on molecular epidemiology, immunology, pathogenesis, HAART, as well as HIVDR strains will certainly provide urgently needed scientific information for China＇s AIDS control program. Only evidence-based strategy from good research will provide long-term effective control of AIDS.     

Dizeez: An Online Game for Human Gene-Disease Annotation

Structured gene annotations are a foundation upon which many bioinformatics and statistical analyses are built. However the structured annotations available in public databases are a sparse representation of biological knowledge as a whole. The rate of biomedical data generation is such that centralized biocuration efforts struggle to keep up. New models for gene annotation need to be explored that expand the pace at which we are able to structure biomedical knowledge. Recently, online games have emerged as an effective way to recruit, engage and organize large numbers of volunteers to help address difficult biological challenges. For example, games have been successfully developed for protein folding (Foldit), multiple sequence alignment (Phylo) and RNA structure design (EteRNA). Here we present Dizeez, a simple online game built with the purpose of structuring knowledge of gene-disease associations. Preliminary results from game play online and at scientific conferences suggest that Dizeez is producing valid gene-disease annotations not yet present in any public database. These early results provide a basic proof of principle that online games can be successfully applied to the challenge of gene annotation. Dizeez is available at http://genegames.org.     

Workshops Without Walls: broadening access to science around the world

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Astrobiology Institute (NAI) conducted two "Workshops Without Walls" during 2010 that enabled global scientific exchange--with no travel required. The second of these was on the topic "Molecular Paleontology and Resurrection: Rewinding the Tape of Life." Scientists from diverse disciplines and locations around the world were joined through an integrated suite of collaborative technologies to exchange information on the latest developments in this area of origin of life research. Through social media outlets and popular science blogs, participation in the workshop was broadened to include educators, science writers, and members of the general public. In total, over 560 people from 31 US states and 30 other nations were registered. Among the scientific disciplines represented were geochemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology and evolution, and microbial ecology. We present this workshop as a case study in how interdisciplinary collaborative research may be fostered, with substantial public engagement, without sustaining the deleterious environmental and economic impacts of travel.     

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     

Biotechnology and the popular press: hype and the selling of science

The popular media has emerged as an important source of scientific information. It has been suggested that the portrayal of genetics by the media is often inaccurate--a phenomenon branded 'genohype'--and, as a result, is having an adverse impact on public understanding and policy development. However, emerging data suggest that, in some circumstances, the media reporting of science is surprisingly accurate and portrays a message created by the scientific community. As such, there are reasons to believe that the hyping of research results might be part of a more systemic problem associated with the increasingly commercial nature of the research environment.     

Online tools to support literature-based discovery in the life sciences

In biomedical research, the amount of experimental data and published scientific information is overwhelming and ever increasing, which may inhibit rather than stimulate scientific progress. Not only are text-mining and information extraction tools needed to render the biomedical literature accessible but the results of these tools can also assist researchers in the formulation and evaluation of novel hypotheses. This requires an additional set of technological approaches that are defined here as literature-based discovery (LBD) tools. Recently, several LBD tools have been developed for this purpose and a few well-motivated, specific and directly testable hypotheses have been published, some of which have even been validated experimentally. This paper presents an overview of recent LBD research and discusses methodology, results and online tools that are available to the scientific community.     

以融合式教学促进“普通植物病理学”一流课程建设

建设一流课程是新时代高校加强教育教学、提高人才培养质量的必然要求。融合式教学是促进一流课程建设的有效途径。“普通植物病理学”课程教学团队通过思政教育与知识传授融合、线上教学与线下教学融合、理论教学与实践创新融合、教学环节与信息技术融合、多元考核与教学过程融合,不断深化融合式教学改革,并着力打造教学团队、丰富课程资源、编写课程教材、建立评价体系,有效促进了一流课程建设,课程被评为首届国家级线上线下混合式一流课程。     

Reporting science and conflicts of interest in the lay press

Background

Forthright reporting of financial ties and conflicts of interest of researchers is associated with public trust in and esteem for the scientific enterprise.

Methods/Principal Findings

We searched Lexis/Nexis Academic News for the top news stories in science published in 2004 and 2005. We conducted a content analysis of 1152 newspaper stories. Funders of the research were identified in 38% of stories, financial ties of the researchers were reported in 11% of stories, and 5% reported financial ties of sources quoted. Of 73 stories not reporting on financial ties, 27% had financial ties publicly disclosed in scholarly journals.

Conclusions/Significance

Because science journalists often did not report conflict of interest information, adherence to gold-standard recommendations for science journalism was low. Journalists work under many different constraints, but nonetheless news reports of scientific research were incomplete, potentially eroding public trust in science.     

Gender on the Brain: A Case Study of Science Communication in the New Media Environment

Neuroscience research on sex difference is currently a controversial field, frequently accused of purveying a ‘neurosexism’ that functions to naturalise gender inequalities. However, there has been little empirical investigation of how information about neurobiological sex difference is interpreted within wider society. This paper presents a case study that tracks the journey of one high-profile study of neurobiological sex differences from its scientific publication through various layers of the public domain. A content analysis was performed to ascertain how the study was represented in five domains of communication: the original scientific article, a press release, the traditional news media, online reader comments and blog entries. Analysis suggested that scientific research on sex difference offers an opportunity to rehearse abiding cultural understandings of gender. In both scientific and popular contexts, traditional gender stereotypes were projected onto the novel scientific information, which was harnessed to demonstrate the factual truth and normative legitimacy of these beliefs. Though strains of misogyny were evident within the readers’ comments, most discussion of the study took pains to portray the sexes’ unique abilities as equal and ‘complementary’. However, this content often resembled a form of benevolent sexism, in which praise of women’s social-emotional skills compensated for their relegation from more esteemed trait-domains, such as rationality and productivity. The paper suggests that embedding these stereotype patterns in neuroscience may intensify their rhetorical potency by lending them the epistemic authority of science. It argues that the neuroscience of sex difference does not merely reflect, but can actively shape the gender norms of contemporary society.     

Decade of the brain. An agenda for the nineties.

On July 25, 1989, President George Bush, in response to reports written by the National Advisory Councils of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute of Mental Health and at the urging of Congress, signed a presidential declaration designating the 1990s to be the "Decade of the Brain" and called on the United States to observe the decade with appropriate activities. At mid-decade, scientific accomplishment has been spectacular; however, both public support and increases in research resources have been minimal. It can be anticipated that scientific progress will continue to be impressive for the remainder of the decade, but many research opportunities will either not be addressed or will be postponed. At mid-decade, the time has come to re-evaluate the research agenda and the public strategy for the remainder of the decade.     

Make Histri: reconstructing the exchange history of bacterial and archaeal type strains

Each transfer of a microbial strain between a Biological Resource Center (BRC) and an individual researcher or another BRC imposes a risk of contamination or human error. Such artifacts jeopardize the quality of scientific results. In order to trace back possible scientific discrepancies that can be linked to failure of authenticity of the biological material involved, we launched the 'Make Histri' project that aims at reconstructing the exchange history ('Histri') of all bacterial and archaeal type strains as can be deduced from the information contained in BRC online catalogs. A Histri, visualized as a rooted tree, contains all known strain numbers attributed to the various cultures of a given strain, annotated with additional information about each transfer of microbial material.     

Understanding Vaccines: A Public Imperative

Though once a discovery greatly celebrated by the nation, the vaccine has come under fire in recent decades from skeptics, critics, and a movement set into motion by fraudulent scientists and fueled by frustrated parents looking for answers to the autism conundrum. There is enough denialist resistance to vaccination to bring upon renewed fear of young children and infants becoming infected with diseases, the threats of which had been functionally eradicated from the United States. In more recent years, the surge in independent online journalism and blogging has invited many to rapidly share their opinions with millions of readers and, importantly, has appeared to open the door for opinion to be portrayed as fact. As a result, many parents are inundated with horror stories of vaccine dangers, all designed to eat away at them emotionally while the medical and scientific communities have mounted their characteristic response by sharing the facts, the data, and all of the reliable peer-reviewed and well-cited research to show that vaccines are safe and effective. It has become clear to me that facts are no match for emotion, but perhaps an understanding behind vaccine methodology will help parents overcome these fears of vaccinating. By helping those who doubt vaccines better understand what vaccines really are and how they work in such an incredibly engineered fashion, we may have a stronger weapon than we realize in battling the emotional arsenal that comes from the fear and skepticism of vaccinating.