Biotechnology education for non-scientists in the USA

The focus and funding for science education in the USA is to channel bright students into PhD programs and science research careers. While this goal is necessary to our country's continued technical innovation, the contributions of non-scientist members of our society to the cycle of economic development through technical innovation are usually overlooked. Public support of scientific research, both financial and philosophical, and the commercialization of useful technologies by business people are critical components of the cycle which depend on increasing science education for non-scientists. For the industry's continued success, it must adopt business strategies that maintain public confidence and defuse countermarketing efforts by several small but influential public opposition groups.The author is with Biotechnology Training Programs, Inc., Bryant College, 1150 Douglas Pike, Smithfield, RI 02917 USA     

Effectiveness and technological feasibility of bioherbicide candidates for biocontrol of Green Foxtail (Setaria viridis)

Green foxtail (Setaria viridis), one of the most common and troublesome weeds worldwide, is becoming very difficult to manage because of the lack of registered herbicides and the appearance of herbicide-resistant populations. Among the new and possible environment-friendly strategies, the use of biological control methods seems to have potential. Drechslera gigantea, Exserohilum rostratum and Exserohilum longirostratum have previously proved to be promising bioherbicide agents against several grass weeds in field trials. While previous studies have established the susceptibility of S. viridis under greenhouse conditions, so far no attempt has been made to establish the effectiveness and feasibility of these fungi as bioherbicides for green foxtail. When spore suspensions were applied as foliar sprays to green foxtail seedlings in a greenhouse, all three fungi caused severe damage by 1 day after application, and seedlings in most cases died within 1 week. The fungi were compatible with several agro-chemicals and host specific when tested against major vegetable crop species grown in the Mediterranean. The demonstrated technological feasibility of producing large amounts of quickly germinable conidia (i.e., asexual spores) on inexpensive solid media increases the potential of these fungi to be used as bioherbicides.     

Translational science: past, present, and future

The concept of translational science is at least 15 years old. However, in its most recent incarnation, it represents the identification of a funding category designed to encourage academic participation in a critical stage of the drug discovery and product development process. It is hoped that this will make the process both shorter and more efficient. In this review, the author first considers the historical development of the pharmaceutical R&D process. The place of translational science in the process, the scientific techniques involved, and aspects of the business environment necessary for its success are then considered. Translational science does not displace preclinical development. Both concepts are relevant to the paramount importance of successfully and expeditiously bridging the gap between preclinical science and clinical testing, "from bench to bedside." Translational science is particularly likely to stimulate biomarker research in the universities and related business community and will probably give a modest boost to early clinical testing and commercialization of discoveries within the academic setting. Whether there will be a consequent improvement in the quality and efficiency of the overall process remains to be seen.     

Biotechnology in South Africa

Since adopting the National Biotechnology Strategy in 2001, the South African government has established several regional innovation centres and has put in place initiatives to encourage international partnerships that can spur internal development of life science ventures. This strategy seeks to capitalize on the high quality of research carried out in public research institutions and universities but is hampered, somewhat, by the lack of entrepreneurial culture among South African researchers due to, among other reasons, the expenses involved in registering foreign patents. Although private sector development is still relatively embryonic, start-ups are spinning out of universities and pre-existing companies. These represent a vital source of innovations for commercialization in the future, provided that the challenges facing the emerging South African biotechnology industry can be overcome.     

利用传统生物防治控制外来杂草的入侵

随着国际贸易的日益频繁,外来有害植物入侵,严重威胁我国的自然环境和生物多样性。利用从原产地引入食性较专一的天敌来控制外来杂草是杂草生物防治的主要方式之一,有保护环境一劳永逸的效果。简要介绍了国际生物防治概况,统计表明全世界至少有133种目标杂草进行生物防治,主要分布在菊科、仙人掌科和含羞草科,63科369种无脊椎动物和真菌作为杂草生物防治的天敌,利用最多的天敌是鞘翅目象甲科和叶甲科昆虫,其中大多数项目是治理外来杂草的。杂草生物防治最活跃的国家依次为美国、澳大利亚、南非、加拿大和新西兰。重点论述了利用传统生物防治方法防治外来杂草的经典项目、国内外研究概况,以及目前面临的问题和应用前景。我国杂草生物防治起步晚,传统杂草生防的目标杂草有4种,紫茎泽兰、空心莲子草、豚草和水葫芦,其中,空心莲子草的生物防治获得成功。共引进天敌14种,输出天敌23种,与世界上生物防治先进的国家比尚有距离。中国应充分借鉴国际成功经验,对外来杂草开展生物防治。中国的生物多样性在世界上占有十分独特的地位,将在生物多样性保护中发挥重要作用。     

Understanding the performance and impact of public knowledge translation funding interventions: Protocol for an evaluation of Canadian institutes of health research knowledge translation funding programs

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has defined knowledge translation (KT) as a dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and ethically-sound application of knowledge to improve the health of Canadians, provide more effective health services and products, and strengthen the healthcare system. CIHR, the national health research funding agency in Canada, has undertaken to advance this concept through direct research funding opportunities in KT. Because CIHR is recognized within Canada and internationally for leading and funding the advancement of KT science and practice, it is essential and timely to evaluate this intervention, and specifically, these funding opportunities. DESIGN: The study will employ a novel method of participatory, utilization-focused evaluation inspired by the principles of integrated KT. It will use a mixed methods approach, drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data, and will elicit participation from CIHR funded researchers, knowledge users, KT experts, as well as other health research funding agencies. Lines of inquiry will include an international environmental scan, document/data reviews, in-depth interviews, targeted surveys, case studies, and an expert review panel. The study will investigate how efficiently and effectively the CIHR model of KT funding programs operates, what immediate outcomes these funding mechanisms have produced, and what impact these programs have had on the broader state of health research, health research uptake, and health improvement. DISCUSSION: The protocol and results of this evaluation will be of interest to those engaged in the theory, practice, and evaluation of KT. The dissemination of the study protocol and results to both practitioners and theorists will help to fill a gap in knowledge in three areas: the role of a public research funding agency in facilitating KT, the outcomes and impacts KT funding interventions, and how KT can best be evaluated.     

Presidential Address 1988 After the first 200 years: The future of ecology and ecologists in Australia

This Address examines the current concerns of ecologists. There is instability in the organization of science at a political level, in funding bodies, and in organizations such as CSIRO and tertiary education institutions. There is less funding for research and development in Australia than in other developed countries, mainly because of poor funding from the private sector, and funds available to the new Australian Research Council are small in relation to applications for support. These factors affect career opportunities for ecologists, although students continue to be attracted to the area. The state of the Australian environment leaves much to be desired, with widespread land degradation (including erosion and salination), deterioration in water quality, and disease in natural ecosystems; many species are endangered, and there is concern about forest management. Widespread environmental problems occur despite the fact that, for more than a century, those concerned with land management have been educated in tertiary institutions. More might be done to equip graduates better for solving Australian problems, for informing the public about methods which can be used to correct environmental degradation, and for disseminating research results more directly to managers. While all scientists should emphasize the importance of basic research, it is argued that more recognition should be given to the application of science to management. Among positive aspect of the present climate are a government commitment to increase numbers in senior school years and in tertiary institutions; entry of graduates into consulting work; use of conservation strategies to enhance interaction between ecology and industry as illustrated by mining, agriculture and forestry; increased activity by organizations which raise funds from the private sector; definition of research priorities; and the identification which Australians have with an image of the countryside. With this framework of closer links between ecology, practical problem-solving, and support from industry and the private sector, it is argued that significant progress will be made in the years ahead.     

合成生物学领域专利竞争态势分析

合成生物学是生物学、工程学、化学和信息技术等相互交叉融合的一个新兴领域,在医学、药物、农业、材料、环境和能源等领域具有广阔的应用前景,甚至可能创造出自然界中没有的新生物,被视为生物科技领域的颠覆性技术。分析了合成生物学领域主要国家和地区的相关发展战略、资助项目和政策措施,总结了合成生物学领域专利技术的发展历程,揭示了该领域的专利研发主题分布情况,综合对比分析了该领域的主要国家和主要机构的专利产出情况,以期为我国合成生物学领域的科研工作者和管理决策者提供参考数据。     

The potential of South African indigenous plants for the international cut flower trade

A broad review is presented of recent developments in the commercialization of southern Africa indigenous flora for the cut flower trade, including potted flowers and foliages (“greens”). The botany, horticultural traits and potential for commercialization of several indigenous plants have been reported in several publications. The contribution of species indigenous and/or endemic to southern Africa in the development of cut flower crop plants is widely acknowledged. These include what is known in the trade as gladiolus, freesia, gerbera, ornithogalum, clivia, agapanthus, strelitzia, plumbago and protea. Despite the wealth of South African flower bulb species, relatively few have become commercially important in the international bulb industry. Trade figures on the international markets also reflect the importance of a few species of southern African origin. The development of new research tools are contributing to the commercialization of South African plants, although propagation, cultivation and post-harvest handling need to be improved. A list of commercially relevant southern African cut flowers (including those used for fresh flowers, dried flowers, foliage and potted flowers) is presented, together with a subjective evaluation of several genera and species with perceived potential for the development of new crops for the florist trade. It is concluded that research should be focused on potential markets rather than on preconceived product concepts. A special national effort is required to maximize the opportunities presented by the rich diversity of the flora and to develop an internationally competitive cut flower industry.     

基于灰色综合关联分析法的粤港澳大湾区生物医药产业效益研究*

生物医药产业是中国医药制造业的第三大产业,也是粤港澳大湾区重点扶持的新兴高技术产业之一。透视产业主营业务收入与各类指标的关联情况是进一步指导粤港澳大湾区生物医药产业建设规划的必要之举。而灰色综合关联分析法是探索指标间关联程度的重要工具。通过多种权威途径获得粤港澳大湾区生物医药产业规模以上企业数量、企业孵化器数量、新增专利数、自然科学基金立项投入总额、非自然科学基金立项数量、产学研合作项数量六大指标数据。采用灰色关联分析法,将所得数据进行建模并求解,得出这六大指标与粤港澳大湾区生物医药产业主营业务收入的关联度。结果显示,规模以上企业数量与粤港澳大湾区生物医药产业主营业务收入的关联度最高,其次为自然科学基金立项投入总额,再次为产学研合作项数量,非自然科学基金立项数量位列第四,企业孵化器数量、新增专利数分别位列第五、第六。因此,谋求粤港澳大湾区生物医药产业的进一步发展应着重从提高规模以上企业数量、重视自然科学基金投入、加强政产学研合作3个层面入手。     

The XI International Conference on AIDS: at the crossroads of hope and urgency.

This month Canada will host the largest conference ever held on the worldwide epidemic of AIDS. More than 12,000 participants from over 130 countries are expected to convene in Vancouver from July 7 to 12 for the XI International Conference on AIDS. As at previous conferences, the program will be organized along four tracks: basic science, clinical science, epidemiology and public health, and social and behavioural science. The author notes that although in each of these areas there is reason to take heart, we must not become complacent in the fight against HIV infection and AIDS. The pandemic is still growing at an alarming rate, and governments need to be reminded that a failure to commit funding and resources to the extension of programs for AIDS research, prevention and care is both cynical and unwise. Now is the time to redouble our efforts, not to abandon them.     

The countries and languages that dominate biological research at the beginning of the 21st century

Traditionally, studies of scientific productivity are biased in two ways: they are based on Current Contents, an index centered in British and American journals, and they seldom correct for population size, ignoring the relative effort that each society places in research. We studied national productivity for biology using a more representative index, the Biological Abstracts, and analyzed both total and relative productivity. English dominates biological publications with 87% (no other individual language reaches 2%). If the USA is considered a region by itself, it occupies the first place in per capita production of biology papers, with at least twice the productivity of either Asia or Europe. Canada, Oceania and Latin America occupy an intermediate position. The global output of scientific papers is dominated by Europe, USA. Japan, Canada, China and India. When corrected for population size, the countries with the greatest productivity of biology papers are the Nordic nations, Israel, Switzerland, Netherlands, Australia, Saint Lucia and Montserrat. The predominance of English as the language of biological research found in this study shows a continuation of the trend initiated around the year 1900. The large relative productivity of the USA reflects the importance that American society gives to science as the basis for technological and economic development, but the USA's share of total scientific output has decreased from 44% in 1983 to 34% in 2002, while there is a greater growth of science in India, Japan and Latin America, among others. The increasing share obtained by China and India may reflect a recent change in attitude towards funding science. The leadership of Nordic nations, Israel, Switzerland, Netherlands and Australia can be explained by cultural attitude. Apparently, a positive trend is emerging in Latin America, where Chile improved its ranking in per capita productivity but Argentina, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Brazil and Cuba fell. Nevertheless, the most productive countries in total number of papers are Brazil, Mexico and Argentina: large countries with a long tradition of funding scientific research.     

Protecting subjects' interests in genetics research

Biomedical researchers often assume that sponsors, subjects, families, and disease-associated advocacy groups contribute to research solely because of altruism. This view fails to capture the diverse interests of many participants in the emerging research enterprise. In the past two decades, patient groups have become increasingly active in the promotion and facilitation of genetics research. Simultaneously, a significant shift of academic biomedical science toward commercialization has occurred, spurred by U.S. federal policy changes. The concurrent rise in both the roles that subjects play and the commercial interests they have presents numerous ethical challenges. We examine the interests of different research participants, finding that these interests are not addressed by current policies and practices. We conclude that all participants should be given a voice in decisions affecting ownership, access to, and use of commercialized products and services, and that researchers and institutions should negotiate issues relating to control of research results and the sharing of benefits before the research is performed.     

At the crossroads of ubiquitin signaling and mass spectrometry

Ubiquitin signaling regulates a wide variety of cellular events, although it is mostly known to mediate protein degradation by the proteasome complex. The rapid development in mass spectrometry offers state-of-the-art technologies for addressing biological challenges in ubiquitin signaling. The First Conference on Proteomics of Protein Degradation & Ubiquitin Pathways in Vancouver, Canada, covers the latest progress in key topics of the field and fosters collaborative interactions among researchers.     

At the crossroads of ubiquitin signaling and mass spectrometry

Ubiquitin signaling regulates a wide variety of cellular events, although it is mostly known to mediate protein degradation by the proteasome complex. The rapid development in mass spectrometry offers state-of-the-art technologies for addressing biological challenges in ubiquitin signaling. The First Conference on Proteomics of Protein Degradation & Ubiquitin Pathways in Vancouver, Canada, covers the latest progress in key topics of the field and fosters collaborative interactions among researchers.     

Ecological,practical, and political inputs into selection of weed targets: What makes a good biological control target?

The topic of ecological, practical, and political considerations in the selection of weed targets for biological control has been widely discussed during the past two decades, mostly from the perspective of insect herbivores. For conceptual and practical purposes, plant pathogens have been treated in these discussions as if they are a subset of inoculative biocontrol agents, with little said about the inherent differences between pathogens and insects as biocontrol agents or the selection of weed targets for control by the inundative, bioherbicide strategy. Herein, I attempt to address the question of what makes a good biological control target for plant pathogens used as inoculative as well as inundative agents, basing my analysis on examples from the past three decades. Despite the small number of examples available for this analysis, the following generalizations can be made: (1) Weeds with robust capacity for vegetative regeneration are more difficult to control with pathogens than those that lack this trait. (2) A plant’s growth habit is not a reliable guide for target selection; weeds that have been successfully controlled include annual and biennial herbs, perennial shrubs, perennial vines, and trees, while numerous failures have been reported irrespective of the target’s growth habit or reproductive mode. (3) It is more challenging to control species with genetic heterogeneity and capacity for introgression than genetically homogeneous and reproductively conserved species. (4) Matching the target host’s susceptibility with the candidate pathogen’s virulence is of utmost importance for biocontrol success since host–pathogen interactions at the species and subspecies levels are often governed by single-gene differences (e.g., varietal specificity). (5) Practical and political considerations are central to the selection of targets for control with pathogens. (6) Demand from influential stakeholders for control and/or for a nonchemical or economically sustainable control typically drives the initiative as well as the continuance of biocontrol projects to their completion. (7) In the case of inundative, bioherbicide agents, the continuity and ultimate implementation of a project will be dictated by the prospects of economic returns from developing and using a pathogen. (8) The stakeholders’ perceptions of the effectiveness of a biocontrol program can be unpredictable, leading to conflicting views of “success.” In the final analysis, a good weed target for control by a pathogen is one that has strong stakeholder backing and the list of available pathogens for the target suggests a possibility of acceptable control at a cost that is competitive with those of other control options. While this conclusion is also applicable to target selection for insect biocontrol agents, it is more relevant for pathogens because of limited funding and personnel available for development of pathogens and the added cost and technological complexity of implementing bioherbicides compared to classical biocontrols.     

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

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

Is bigger better?

To close the gap between research and development, a number of funding organizations focus their efforts on large, translations research projects rather than small research teams and individual scientists. Yet, as Paul van Helden argues, if the support for small, investigator-driven research decreases, there will soon be a dearth of novel discoveries for large research groups to explore.What is medical science all about? Surely it is about the value chain, which begins with basic research and ends—if there is an end—with a useful product. There is a widespread perception that scientists do a lot of basic research, but neglect the application of their findings. To remedy this, a number of organizations and philanthropists have become dedicated advocates of applied or translational research and preferentially fund large consortia rather than small teams or individual scientists. Yet, this is only the latest round in the never-ending debate about how to optimize research. The question remains whether large teams, small groups or individuals are better at making ‘discoveries''.To some extent, a scientific breakthrough depends on the nature of the research. Einstein worked largely alone, and the development of E = mc² is a case in point. He put together insights from many researchers to produce his breakthrough, which has subsequently required teams of scientists to apply. Similarly, drug development may require only an individual or a small team to make the initial discovery. However, it needs many individuals to develop a candidate compound and large teams to conduct clinical trials. On the other hand, Darwin could be seen to have worked the other way around: he had an initial ‘team'' of ‘field assistants''—including the crew of HMS Beagle—but he produced his seminal work essentially alone.Consortium funding is of course attractive for researchers because of the time-scale and the amount of money involved. Clinical trials or large research units may get financial support for 10 years or even longer and in the range of millions of dollars. However, organizations that provide funding on such a large scale require extensive and detailed planning from researchers. The work is subject to frequent reporting and review and often carries a large administrative burden. It has come to the point where this oversight threatens academic freedom. Principal investigators who try to conduct experiments outside the original plan, even if they make sense, lose their funding. Under such conditions, administrative officials are often not there to serve, but to govern.There is a widespread perception that small teams are more productive in terms of published papers. But large-scale science often generates outcomes and product value that a small team cannot. We therefore need both. The problem is the low level of funding for individual scientists and small teams and the resulting cut-throat competition for limited resources. This draws too many researchers to large consortia, which, if successful, can become comfort zones or, if they crash and burn, can cause serious damage.Other factors should also inform our deliberations about the size of research teams and consortia. Which is the better environment in which to train the next generation of scientists? By definition, research should question scientific dogmas and foster innovative thinking. Will a large consortium be able to achieve or even tolerate this?Perhaps these trends can be ascribed to generational differences. Neil Howe described people born between 1943 and 1980 as obsessed with values, individually strong and individualistic, whereas the younger folks born after 1981 place more trust in strong institutions that are seen to be moving society somewhere. If this is true, we can predict that the consortium approach is here to stay, at least for some time. Perhaps the emergence of large-scale science is driven by strong—maybe dictatorial—older individuals and arranged to accommodate the younger generation. If so, it is a win–win situation: we know the value of networking and interacting with others, which comes naturally in the ‘online age''.A down side of large groups is the loss of individual career development. The number of authors per paper has increased constantly. Who does the work and who gets the honour? There is often little recognition for the contribution of most people to publications that arise from large consortia, and it is difficult for peer-reviewers to assess individual contribution. We must take care that we measure what we value and not value what we measure.While it is clear that both large and small groups are essential, good management and balance is required. An alarming trend in my opinion is the inclination to fund new sites for clinical trials, to the detriment of existing facilities. This does not seem to be reasonable or the best use of scarce resources.In the long-term interest of science, we need to consider the correlation of major breakthroughs compared to incremental science with the size of the research group. This is hard to measure, but we must not forget that basic research produces the first leads that are then developed further into products. If the funding for basic science decreases, there will soon be a dearth of topics for ‘big science''.Is there a way out of this dilemma? I would like to suggest that organizations currently funding large consortia allow investigators to set aside a percentage of the money to support basic, curiosity-driven research within these consortia. If they do not rethink their funding strategy, these organizations may find with time that there are few novel discoveries for large groups to explore.