Facilitating open science without sacrificing IP rights: A novel tool for improving replicability of published research

Conditional Access Agreements could improve replicability of research and enhance Open Science without jeopardizing intellectual property rights. Subject Categories: Economics, Law & Politics, Science Policy & Publishing

Replicability is a cornerstone of the scientific enterprise. Validating published scientific findings enhances their credibility and helps to build a self‐correcting cumulative knowledge base. It also increases public trust in science (Wingen et al  ²⁰²⁰). Unfortunately, the scientific community has been facing a considerable problem for at least two decades: the replication crisis (Ioannidis, ²⁰⁰⁵). Scientists in various disciplines have significant difficulties trying to verify published scientific findings (Baker, ²⁰¹⁶). One prominent factor accounting for non‐replicability is diminished access to research materials required for replication (replication materials).

Scientists in various disciplines have significant difficulties trying to verify published scientific findings.

This problem is particularly noticeable in computational studies: research that utilizes computational models, often with an immense amount of data. With the rise of powerful computers, machine learning and big data, computational studies are increasingly used in a variety of disciplines. This trend is evident in biology as well, including in systems biology, genomics, proteomics, and other areas (Markowetz, ²⁰¹⁷). A famous example that demonstrates the importance of computational biology is the Human Genome Project. Developments in computational biology are crucial in advancing promising research prospects in areas such as vaccine antigen design and structural bioinformatics.

The problem of diminished access to replication materials has been reported as a major stumbling block impeding the replicability of computational biology studies.

A scientific paper alone would not typically enable others to replicate the study described therein (Merali, ²⁰¹⁰). Replicating a computational study generally requires access to the code, software documentation, datasets, workflows, and other information regarding the methodology (Easterbrook, ²⁰¹⁴). In most cases, however, authors do not publicly share these elements, which renders such studies impossible to replicate (Merali, ²⁰¹⁰; Stodden et al, ²⁰¹⁸). The problem of diminished access to replication materials has been reported as a major stumbling block impeding the replicability of computational biology studies (Crook et al, ²⁰¹³; Miłkowski et al, ²⁰¹⁸).     

Experts in science communication: A shift from neutral encyclopedia to equal participant in dialogue

Even if the predominant model of science communication with the public is now based on dialogue, many experts still adhere to the outdated deficit model of informing the public. Subject Categories: Genetics, Gene Therapy & Genetic Disease, S&S: History & Philosophy of Science, S&S: Ethics

During the past decades, public communication of science has undergone profound changes: from policy‐driven to policy‐informing, from promoting science to interpreting science, and from dissemination to interaction (Burgess, 2014). These shifts in communication paradigms have an impact on what is expected from scientists who engage in public communication: they should be seen as fellow citizens rather than experts whose task is to increase scientific literacy of the lay public. Many scientists engage in science communication, because they see this as their responsibility toward society (Loroño‐Leturiondo & Davies, 2018). Yet, a significant proportion of researchers still “view public engagement as an activity of talking to rather than with the public” (Hamlyn et al, 2015). The highly criticized “deficit model” that sees the role of experts as educating the public to mitigate skepticism still persists (Simis et al, 2016; Suldovsky, 2016).Indeed, a survey we conducted among experts in training seems to corroborate the persistence of the deficit model even among younger scientists. Based on these results and our own experience with organizing public dialogues about human germline gene editing (Box 1), we discuss the implications of this outdated science communication model and an alternative model of public engagement, that aims to align science with the needs and values of the public.Box 1

The DNA‐dialogue project

The Dutch DNA‐dialogue project invited citizens to discuss and form opinions about human germline gene editing. During 2019 and 2020, this project organized twenty‐seven dialogues with professionals, such as embryologists and midwives, and various lay audiences. Different scenarios of a world in 2039 (https://www.rathenau.nl/en/making‐perfect‐lives/discussing‐modification‐heritable‐dna‐embryos) served as the starting point. Participants expressed their initial reactions to these scenarios with emotion‐cards and thereby explored the values they themselves and other participants deemed important as they elaborated further. Starting each dialogue in this way provides a context that enables everyone to participate in dialogue about complex topics such as human germline gene editing and demonstrates that scientific knowledge should not be a prerequisite to participate.An important example of “different” relevant knowledge surfaced during a dialogue with children between 8 and 12 years in the Sophia Children’s Hospital in Rotterdam (Fig 1). Most adults in the DNA‐dialogues accepted human germline gene modification for severe genetic diseases, as they wished the best possible care and outcome for their children. The children at Sophia, however, stated that they would find it terrible if their parents had altered something about them before they had been born; their parents would not even have known them. Some children went so far to say they would no longer be themselves without their genetic condition, and that their condition had also given them experiences they would rather not have missed.Open in a separate windowFigure 1 Children participating in a DNA‐dialogue meeting. Photographed by Levien Willemse.     

Introducing quality measures in an academic research consortium: Lessons and recommendation from implementing an ad hoc quality management system for organ model research

Lessons from implementing quality control systems in an academic research consortium to improve Good Scientific Practice and reproducibility. Subject Categories: Microbiology, Virology & Host Pathogen Interaction, Science Policy & Publishing

Low reproducibility rates within biomedical research negatively impact productivity and translation. One promising approach to enhance the transfer of robust results from preclinical research into clinically relevant and transferable data is the systematic implementation of quality measures in daily laboratory routines.

Although many universities expect their scientists to adhere to GSPs, they often neither systematically support, nor monitor the quality of their research activities.

Today''s fast‐evolving research environment needs effective quality measures to ensure reproducibility and data integrity (Macleod et al, ²⁰¹⁴; Begley et al, ²⁰¹⁵; Begley & Ioannidis, ²⁰¹⁵; Baker, ²⁰¹⁶). Academic research institutions and laboratories may be as committed to good scientific practices (GSPs) as their counterparts in the biotech and pharmaceutical industry but operate largely without clearly defined standards (Bespalov et al, ²⁰²¹; Emmerich et al, ²⁰²¹). Although many universities expect their scientists to adhere to GSPs, they often neither systematically support, nor monitor the quality of their research activities. Peer review of publications is still regarded as the primary validation of quality control in academic research. However, reviewers only assess work after it has been performed—often over years—and interventions in the experimental process are thus no longer possible.The reasons for the lack of dedicated quality management (QM) implementations in academic laboratories include an anticipated overload of regulatory tasks that could negatively affect productivity, concerns about the loss of scientific freedom, and importantly, limited resources in academia and academic funding schemes.     

Structural basis of transport and inhibition of the Plasmodium falciparum transporter PfFNT

Subject Categories: Membranes & Trafficking, Microbiology, Virology & Host Pathogen Interaction, Structural Biology

We recently reported the first structures of the Plasmodium falciparum transporter PfFNT, both in the absence and presence of the inhibitor MMV007839 (Lyu et al, 2021). These structures indicated that PfFNT assembles as a pentamer. The bound MMV007839 was found in the middle of the elongated channel formed by each PfFNT protomer, adjacent to residue G107. MMV007839 exists in two tautomeric forms and can adopt either a cyclic hemiketal‐like structure or a linear vinylogous acid conformation (Fig ​(Fig3A).3A). Unfortunately, these two tautomeric forms could not be clearly distinguished based on the existing cryo‐EM data at 2.78 Å resolution. The bound MMV007839 inhibitor was reported as the cyclic hemiketal‐like form in the structure in Figs ​Figs3A3A and ​andF,F, and ​and4C,4C, Appendix Figs S10A and B, and S13 and in the online synopsis image.Open in a separate windowFigure 3Cryo‐EM structure of the PfFNT‐MMV007839 complex

1. Chemical structure of MMV007839. The compound can either be in cyclic hemiketal‐like or linear vinylogous acid tautomeric forms.
2. Cryo‐EM density map of pentameric PfFNT viewed from the parasite’s cytoplasm. Densities of the five bound MMV007839 within the pentamer are colored red. The five protomers of pentameric PfFNT are colored yellow, slate, orange, purple, and gray.
3. Ribbon diagram of the 2.18‐Å resolution structure of pentameric PfFNT‐MMV007839 viewed from the parasite’s cytoplasm. The five protomers of pentameric PfFNT are colored yellow, slate, orange, purple, and gray.
4. Ribbon diagram of pentameric PfFNT‐MMV007839 viewed from the extracellular side of the parasite. The five protomers of pentameric PfFNT are colored yellow, slate, orange, purple, and gray.
5. Ribbon diagram of pentameric PfFNT‐MMV007839 viewed from the parasite’s membrane plane. The five protomers of pentameric PfFNT are colored yellow, slate, orange, purple, and gray. Densities of the five bound MMV007839 are depicted as red meshes.
6. The MMV007839‐binding site of PfFNT. The bound MMV007839 is colored green. Density of the bound MMV007839 is depicted as black mesh. Residues involved in forming the inhibitor binding site are colored yellow. The hydrogen bonds are highlighted with black dotted lines.

Open in a separate windowFigure 4Structure of the central channel in the PfFNT‐MMV007839 protomer

• CA cartoon of the central channel formed within a PfFNT protomer. The channel contains one constriction site in this conformational state. Residues forming the constriction and the K35‐D103‐N108 and K177‐E229‐N234 triads are illustrated as sticks. Residues F94, I97, and L104, which form the first constriction site in the apo‐PfFNT structure, are also included in the figure.

Eric Beitz alerted us to the findings reported by his group that the linear vinylogous acid tautomer of MMV007839 constitutes the binding and inhibitory entity of PfFNT (Golldack et al, 2017).     

The need for sustainable leadership in academia: A survey of German researchers reveals a widespread lack of training for leadership skills

A survey of academics in Germany shows a lack of and a great demand for training in leadership skills. Subject Categories: Careers, Science Policy & Publishing

Success and productivity in science is measured largely by the number of publications in scientific journals and the acquisition of third‐party funding to finance further research (Detsky, 2011). Consequently, as young researchers advance in their careers, they become highly trained in directly related skills, such as scientific writing, so as to increase their chances in securing publications and grants. Acquiring leadership skills, however, is often neglected as these do not contribute to the evaluation of scientific success (Detsky, 2011). Therefore, an early‐career researcher may become leader of a research group based on publication record and solicitation of third‐party funding, but without any training of leadership or team management skills (Lashuel, 2020). Leadership, in the context of academic research, requires a unique list of competencies, knowledge and skills in addition to “traditional” leadership skills (Anthony & Antony, 2017), such as managing change, adaptability, empathy, motivating individuals, and setting direction and vision among others. Academic leadership also requires promoting the research group’s reputation, networking, protecting staff autonomy, promoting academic credibility, and managing complexity (Anthony & Antony, 2017).     

Molecular basis of cross‐species ACE2 interactions with SARS‐CoV‐2‐like viruses of pangolin origin

Correction to: The EMBO Journal (2021) 40: e107786. DOI 10.15252/embj.2021107786 | Published online 8 June 2021The authors would like to add three references to the paper: Starr et al and Zahradník et al also reported that the Q498H or Q498R mutation has enhanced binding affinity to ACE2; and Liu et al reported on the binding of bat coronavirus to ACE2.Starr et al and Zahradník et al have now been cited in the Discussion section, and the following sentence has been corrected from:“According to our data, the SARS‐CoV‐2 RBD with Q498H increases the binding strength to hACE2 by 5‐fold, suggesting the Q498H mutant is more ready to interact with human receptor than the wildtype and highlighting the necessity for more strict control of virus and virus‐infected animals”.to“Here, according to our data and two recently published papers, the SARS‐CoV‐2 RBD with Q498H or Q498R increases the binding strength to hACE2 (Starr et al, 2020; Zahradník et al, 2021), suggesting the mutant with Q498H or Q498R is more ready to interact with human receptor than the wild type and highlighting the necessity for more strict control of virus and virus‐infected animals”.The Liu et al citation has been added to the following sentence:“In another paper published by our group recently, RaTG13 RBD was found to bind to hACE2 with much lower binding affinity than SARS‐CoV‐2 though RaTG13 displays the highest whole‐genome sequence identity (96.2%) with the SARS‐CoV‐2 (Liu et al, 2021)”.Additionally, the authors have added the GISAID accession IDs to the sequence names of the SARS‐CoV‐2 in two human samples (Discussion section). To make identification unambiguous, the sequence names have been updated from “SA‐lsf‐27 and SA‐lsf‐37” to “GISAID accession ID: EPI_ISL_672581 and EPI_ISL_672589”.Lastly, the authors declare in the Materials and Methods section that all experiments employed SARS‐CoV‐2 pseudovirus in cultured cells. These experiments were performed in a BSL‐2‐level laboratory and approved by Science and Technology Conditions Platform Office, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences.These changes are herewith incorporated into the paper.     

Lazy hazy days

Scientists have warned about the looming climate crisis for decades, but the world has been slow to act. Are we in danger of making a similar mistake, by neglecting the dangers of other climactic catastrophes? Subject Categories: Biotechnology & Synthetic Biology, Economics, Law & Politics, Evolution & Ecology

On one of my trips to Antarctica, I was enjoined to refer not to “global warming” or even to “climate change.” The former implies a uniform and rather benign process, while the second suggests just a transition from one state to another and seems to minimize all the attendant risks to survival. Neither of these terms adequately or accurately describes what is happening to our planet''s climate system as a result of greenhouse gas emissions; not to mention the effects of urbanization, intensive agriculture, deforestation, and other consequences of human population growth. Instead, I was encouraged to use the term “climate disruption,” which embraces the multiplicity of events taking place, some of them still hard to model, that are altering the planetary ecosystem in dramatic ways.With climate disruption now an urgent and undeniable reality, policymakers are finally waking up to the threats that scientists have been warning about for decades. They have accepted the need for action (UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, ²⁰²¹), even if the commitment remains patchy or lukewarm. But to implement all the necessary changes is a massive undertaking, and it is debatable whether we have enough time left. The fault lies mostly with those who resisted change for so long, hoping the problem would just go away, or denying that it was happening at all. The crisis situation that we face today is because the changes needed simply cannot be executed overnight. It will take time for the infrastructure to be put in place, whether for renewable electricity, for the switch to carbon‐neutral fuels, for sustainable agriculture and construction, and for net carbon capture. If the problems worsen, requiring even more drastic action, at least we do have a direction of travel, though we would be starting off from an even more precarious situation.However, given the time that it has taken—and will still take—to turn around the juggernaut of our industrial society, are we in danger of making the same mistakes all over again, by ignoring the risks of the very opposite process happening in our lifetime? The causes of historic climate cooling are still debated, and though we have fairly convincing evidence regarding specific, sudden events, there is no firm consensus on what is behind longer‐term and possibly cyclical changes in the climate.The two best‐documented examples are the catastrophe of 536–540 AD and the effects of the Laki Haze of 1783–1784. The cause of the 536–540 event is still debated, but is widely believed to have been one or more massive volcanic eruptions that created a global atmospheric dust‐cloud, resulting in a temperature drop of up to 2°C with concomitant famines and societal crises (Toohey et al, ²⁰¹⁶; Helama et al, ²⁰¹⁸). The Laki Haze was caused by the massive outpouring of sulfurous fumes from the Laki eruption in Iceland. Its effects on the climate, though just as immediate, were less straightforward. The emissions, combined with other meteorological anomalies, produced a disruption of the jetstream, as well as other localized effects. In northwest Europe, the first half of the summer of 1783 was exceptionally hot, but the following winters were dramatically cold, and the mean temperature across much of the northern hemisphere is estimated to have dropped by around 1.3°C for 2–3 years (Thordarson & Self, ²⁰⁰³). In Iceland itself, as well as much of western and northern Europe, the effects were even more devastating, with widespread crop failures and deaths of both livestock and humans exacerbated by the toxicity of the volcanic gases (Schmidt et al, ²⁰¹¹).Other volcanic events in recorded time have produced major climactic disturbances, such as the 1816 Tambora eruption in Indonesia, which resulted in “the year without a summer,” marked by temperature anomalies of up to 4°C (Fasullo et al, ²⁰¹⁷), again precipitating worldwide famine. The 1883 Krakatoa eruption produced similar disruption, albeit of a lesser magnitude, though the effects are proposed to have been much longer lasting (Gleckler et al, ²⁰⁰⁶).Much more scientifically challenging is the so‐called Little Ice Age in the Middle Ages, approximately from 1250 to 1700 AD, when global temperatures were significantly lower than in the preceding and following centuries. It was marked by particularly frigid and prolonged winters in the northern hemisphere. There is no strong consensus as to its cause(s) or even its exact dates; nor even that it can be considered a global‐scale event rather than a summation of several localized phenomena. A volcanic eruption in 1257 with similar effects to the one of 1816 has been suggested as an initiating event. Disruption of the oceanic circulation system resulting from prolonged anomalies in solar activity is another possible explanation (Lapointe & Bradley, ²⁰²¹). Nevertheless, and despite an average global cooling of < 1°C, the effects on global agriculture, settlement, migration and trade, pandemics such as the Black Death and perhaps even wars and revolutions, were profound.Once or twice in the past century, we have faced devastating wars, tsunamis and pandemics that seemed to come out of the blue and exacted massive tolls on humanity. From the most recent of each of these, there is a growing realization that, although these events are rare and poorly predictable, we can greatly limit the damage if we prepare properly. Devoting a small proportion of our resources over time, we can build the infrastructure and the mechanisms to cope, when these disasters do eventually strike.Without abandoning any of the emergency measures to combat anthropogenic warming, I believe that the risk of climate cooling needs to be addressed in the same way. The infrastructure for burning fossil fuels needs to be mothballed, not destroyed. Carbon capture needs to be implemented in a way that is rapidly reversible, if this should ever be needed. Alternative transportation routes need to be planned and built in case existing ones become impassable due to ice or flooding. Properly insulated buildings are not just a way of saving energy. They are essential for survival in extreme cold, as those of us who live in the Arctic countries are well aware—but many other regions also experience severe winters, for which we should all prepare.Biotechnology needs to be set to work to devise ways of mitigating the effects of sudden climactic events such as the Laki Haze or the Tambora and Krakatoa eruptions, as well as longer‐term phenomena like the Little Ice Age. Could bacteria be used, for example, to detoxify and dissipate a sulfuric aerosol such as the one generated by the Laki eruption? Methane is generally regarded as a major contributor to the greenhouse effect, but it is short‐lived in the atmosphere. So, could methanogens somehow be harnessed to bring about a temporary rise in global temperatures to offset short‐term cooling effects of a volcanic dust‐cloud?We already have a global seed bank in Svalbard (Asdal & Guarino, ²⁰¹⁸): It might easily be expanded to include a greater representation of cold‐resistant varieties of the world''s crop plants that might one day be vital to human survival. And, the experience of the Laki Haze indicates a need for varieties capable of withstanding acid rains and other volcanic pollutants, as well as drought and water saturation. An equivalent (embryo) bank for strains of agriculturally important animals potentially threatened by the effects of abrupt cooling of the climate or catastrophic toxification of the atmosphere is also worth considering.It has generally been thought impractical and pointless to prepare for even rarer events, such as cometary impacts, but events that have occurred repeatedly in recorded history and over an even longer time scale (Helama et al, ²⁰²¹) are likely to happen again. We should and can be better prepared. This is not to say that we should pay attention to every conspiracy theorist or crank, or paid advocates for energy corporations that seek short‐term profits at the expense of long‐term survival, but the dangers of climate disruption of all kinds are too great to ignore. Instead of our current rather one‐dimensional thinking, we need an “all‐risks” approach to the subject: learning from the past and the present to prepare for the future.     

The regulation of human blastoid research: A bioethical discussion of the limits of regulation

The creation of human blastoids holds great potential for research on early human development but also raises considerations about the ethics of such research and its regulation. Subject Categories: Development, Economics, Law & Politics

Developmental research has made considerable progress modeling either part of or the entire embryonic development of both humans and non‐human animals. A major step forward was the ability to grow blastocyst‐like structures from pluripotent stem cells: these structures, known as “blastoids,” mimic early embryonic development up to and potentially beyond the blastocyst stage 5–6 days after the first cell division. Blastoids have attracted considerable attention as an effective research tool to understand early human development and to elucidate the causes of infertility, teratogenesis, and other developmental abnormalities.

… many scientists see the use of human blastoids as an exciting scientific opportunity, as it may help to reduce the need for human embryos in research.

Until now, research with blastoids has mainly studied early development in mice, but, as of 2021, research results are also being reported from human blastoids (see “Further Reading”). Indeed, many scientists see the use of human blastoids as an exciting scientific opportunity, as it may help to reduce the need for human embryos in research (Ravindran, ²⁰²¹). However, as with any research that uses human embryos or human stem cells derived from embryos, human blastoid research raises ethical questions and is subject to regulation and approval. The latest ISSCR guidelines state that “[f]orms of research with embryos … and stem cell‐based embryo models … are permissible only after review and approval through a specialized scientific and ethics review process” (ISSCR, ²⁰²¹). Thus, although blastoids are models of embryonic development, they are currently considered to require the same or similar ethical considerations as blastocysts or cells derived from human embryos. In fact, Australia made a decision to regulate blastoid research in the same manner as research on human embryos (Australia NHMRC, ²⁰²¹).     

Reply to Bronstein and Vinogradov

The response by the author. Subject Categories: S&S: Economics & Business, S&S: Ethics

I thank Michael Bronstein and Sophia Vinogradov for their interest and comments. I would like to respond to a few of their points.First, I agree with the authors that empirical studies should be conducted to validate any approaches to prevent the spread of misinformation before their implementation. Nonetheless, I think that the ideas I have proposed may be worth further discussion and inspire empirical studies to test their effectiveness.Second, the authors warn that informing about the imperfections of scientific research may undermine trust in science and scientists, which could result in higher vulnerability to online health misinformation (Roozenbeek et al, 2020; Bronstein & Vinogradov, 2021). I believe that transparency about limitations and problems in research does not necessarily have to diminish trust in science and scientists. On the contrary, as Veit et al put it, “such honesty… is a prerequisite for maintaining a trusting relationship between medical institutions (and practitioners) and the public” (Veit et al, 2021). Importantly, to give an honest picture of scientific research, information about its limitations should be put in adequate context. In particular, the public also should be aware that “good science” is being done by many researchers; we do have solid evidence of effectiveness of many medical interventions; and efforts are being taken to address the problems related to quality of research.Third, Bronstein and Vinogradov suggest that false and dangerous information should be censored. I agree with the authors that “[c]ensorship can prevent individuals from being exposed to false and potentially dangerous ideas” (Bronstein & Vinogradov, 2021). I also recognize that some information is false beyond any doubt and its spread may be harmful. What I am concerned about are, among others, the challenges related to defining what is dangerous and false information and limiting censorship only to this kind of information. For example, on what sources should decisions to censor be based and who should make such decisions? Anyone, whether an individual or an organization, with a responsibility to censor information will likely not only be prone to mistakes, but also to abuses of power to foster their interests. Do the benefits we want to achieve by censorship outweigh the potential risks?Fourth, we need rigorous empirical studies examining the actual impact of medical misinformation. What exactly are the harms we try to protect against and what is their scale? This information is necessary to choose proportionte and effective measures to reduce the harms. Bronstein and Vinogradov give an example of a harm which may be caused by misinformation—an increase in methanol poisoning in Iran. Yet, as noticed by the authors, misinformation is not the sole factor in this case; there are also cultural and other contexts (Arasteh et al, 2020; Bronstein & Vinogradov, 2021). Importantly, the methods of studies exploring the effects of misinformation should be carefully elaborated, especially when study participants are asked to self‐report. A recent study suggests that some claims about the prevalence of dangerous behaviors, such as drinking bleach, which may have been caused by misinformation are largely exaggerated due to the presence of problematic respondents in surveys (preprint: Litman et al, 2021).Last but not least, I would like to call attention to the importance of how veracity of information is determined in empirical studies on misinformation. For example, in a study of Roozenbeek et al, cited by Bronstein and Vinogradov, the World Health Organization (WHO) was used as reliable source of information, which raises questions. For instance, Roozenbeek et al (2020) used a statement “the coronavirus was bioengineered in a military lab in Wuhan” as an example of false information, relying on the judgment of the WHO found on its “mythbusters” website (Roozenbeek et al, 2020). Yet, is there a solid evidence to claim that this statement is false? At present, at least some scientists declare that we cannot rule out that the virus was genetically manipulated in a laboratory (Relman, 2020; Segreto & Deigin, 2020). Interestingly, the WHO also no longer excludes such a possibility and has launched an investigation on this issue (https://www.who.int/health‐topics/coronavirus/origins‐of‐the‐virus, https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel‐coronavirus‐2019/media‐resources/science‐in‐5/episode‐21‐‐‐covid‐19‐‐‐origins‐of‐the‐sars‐cov‐2‐virus); the information about the laboratory origin of the virus being false is no longer present on the WHO “mythbusters” website (https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel‐coronavirus‐2019/advice‐for‐public/myth‐busters). Against this backdrop, some results of the study by Roozenbeek et al (2020) seem misleading. In particular, the perception of the reliability of the statement about bioengineered virus by study participants in Roozenbeek et al (2020) does not reflect the susceptibility to misinformation, as intended by the researchers, but rather how the respondents perceive reliability of uncertain information.I hope that discussion and research on these and related issues will continue.     

The breakthrough paradox: How focusing on one form of innovation jeopardizes the advancement of science

Research needs a balance of risk‐taking in “breakthrough projects” and gradual progress. For building a sustainable knowledge base, it is indispensable to provide support for both. Subject Categories: Careers, Economics, Law & Politics, Science Policy & Publishing

Science is about venturing into the unknown to find unexpected insights and establish new knowledge. Increasingly, academic institutions and funding agencies such as the European Research Council (ERC) explicitly encourage and support scientists to foster risky and hopefully ground‐breaking research. Such incentives are important and have been greatly appreciated by the scientific community. However, the success of the ERC has had its downsides, as other actors in the funding ecosystem have adopted the ERC’s focus on “breakthrough science” and respective notions of scientific excellence. We argue that these tendencies are concerning since disruptive breakthrough innovation is not the only form of innovation in research. While continuous, gradual innovation is often taken for granted, it could become endangered in a research and funding ecosystem that places ever higher value on breakthrough science. This is problematic since, paradoxically, breakthrough potential in science builds on gradual innovation. If the value of gradual innovation is not better recognized, the potential for breakthrough innovation may well be stifled.

While continuous, gradual innovation is often taken for granted, it could become endangered in a research and funding ecosystem that places ever higher value on breakthrough science.

Concerns that the hypercompetitive dynamics of the current scientific system may impede rather than spur innovative research have been voiced for many years (Alberts et al, 2014). As performance indicators continue to play a central role for promotions and grants, researchers are under pressure to publish extensively, quickly, and preferably in high‐ranking journals (Burrows, 2012). These dynamics increase the risk of mental health issues among scientists (Jaremka et al, 2020), dis‐incentivise relevant and important work (Benedictus et al, 2016), decrease the quality of scientific papers (Sarewitz, 2016) and induce conservative and short‐term thinking rather than risk‐taking and original thinking required for scientific innovation (Alberts et al, 2014; Fochler et al, 2016). Against this background, strong incentives for fostering innovative and daring research are indispensable.     

Involving society in science: Reflections on meaningful and impactful stakeholder engagement in fundamental research

Open Science calls for transparent science and involvement of various stakeholders. Here are examples of and advice for meaningful stakeholder engagement. Subject Categories: Economics, Law & Politics, History & Philosophy of Science

The concepts of Open Science and Responsible Research and Innovation call for a more transparent and collaborative science, and more participation of citizens. The way to achieve this is through cooperation with different actors or “stakeholders”: individuals or organizations who can contribute to, or benefit from research, regardless of whether they are researchers themselves or not. Examples include funding agencies, citizens associations, patients, and policy makers (https://aquas.gencat.cat/web/.content/minisite/aquas/publicacions/2018/how_measure_engagement_research_saris1_aquas2018.pdf). Such cooperation is even more relevant in the current, challenging times—even apart from a global pandemic—when pseudo‐science, fake news, nihilist attitudes, and ideologies too often threaten social and technological progress enabled by science. Stakeholder engagement in research can inform and empower citizens, help render research more socially acceptable, and enable policies grounded on evidence‐based knowledge. Beyond, stakeholder engagement is also beneficial to researchers and to research itself. In a recent survey, the majority of scientists reported benefits from public engagement (Burns et al, 2021). This can include increased mutual trust and mutual learning, improved social relevance of research, and improved adoption of results and knowledge (Cottrell et al, 2014). Finally, stakeholder engagement is often regarded as an important factor to sustain public investment in the life sciences (Burns et al, 2021).

Stakeholder engagement in research can inform and empower citizens, help render research more socially acceptable and enable policies grounded on evidence‐based knowledge

Here, we discuss different levels of stakeholder engagement by way of example, presenting various activities organized by European research institutions. Based on these experiences, we propose ten reflection points that we believe should be considered by the institutions, the scientists, and the funding agencies to achieve meaningful and impactful stakeholder engagement.     

Structural basis of transport and inhibition of the Plasmodium falciparum transporter PfFNT

In “Structural basis of transport and inhibition of the Plasmodium falciparum transporter PfFNT” by Lyu et al (2021), the authors depict the inhibitor MMV007839 in its hemiketal form in Fig 3A and F, Fig 4C, and Appendix Figs S10A, B and S13. We note that Golldack et al (2017) reported that the linear vinylogous acid tautomer of MMV007839 constitutes the binding and inhibitory entity of PfFNT. The authors are currently obtaining higher resolution cryo‐EM structural data of MMV007839‐bound PfFNT to ascertain which of the interconvertible isoforms is bound and the paper will be updated accordingly.     

The EU’s GM crop conundrum: Did the EU policy strategy to convert EFSA GMO guidance into legislation deliver on its promises?

Efforts by the EU to improve its regulatory framework for importing GM food and feed have done nothing to make the process easier and more predictable for applicants. Subject Categories: Biotechnology & Synthetic Biology, Economics, Law & Politics, Plant Biology

The first genetically modified (GM) crops were introduced more than two decades ago and have been planted globally on more than 190 million hectares (ISAAA, 2020), a surface area larger than all the arable land in the EU. Thousands of risk assessments have consistently concluded that they are as safe as conventional crops in regard to human and animal health (Smyth et al, 2021) and many countries have been growing GM crops for years. Despite political commitments to innovation and investments into research (EC, 2010), the EU is still lagging behind in adopting this technology on a wider scale owing to diverging views among its member states, the European Commission (EC) and the European parliament. Various attempts to resolve this tension by legal and regulatory means have created the most cumbersome and byzantine regulatory system for GM crops in the world. The Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013, meant to ease the regulatory process, has made things even more complicated.

Various attempts to resolve this tension by legal and regulatory means have created the most cumbersome and byzantine regulatory system for GM crops in the world.

A major conundrum for the EU is the need to import large quantities of protein‐rich crops such as soybean to supply the continent’s livestock industry with high‐quality feed.In the light of the current Russia–Ukraine situation, which has added a layer of instability to already tense markets, the importance of the global agricultural market to ensure food security is even more pronounced.Given the high adoption rate of GM crops outside the EU, most of these imported commodities inevitably contain GM crops. Under EU law, food and feed products that contain or were produced from GM crops need an import authorisation by the European Commission (EC), which is a lengthy, costly and unpredictable process.In 2002, the EU set up a centralised review system under Regulation (EC) 178/2002 (the General Food Law Regulation) and an independent scientific body to conduct this review: the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA is responsible for performing the risk assessment for food and feed regulated products, including GM crops; their advice “opinion” is used by the EC to draft a decision whether or not to authorise import. EU member states then vote whether or not to follow the EC’s draft decision. To date, not a single GM product has received a qualified majority decision for authorisation. The EC then makes the final decision based on EFSA’s risk assessment.There are many reasons why the member states disagree, mostly owing to political and economic agendas. Some members with a large and important agri‐food sector tend to vote in line with EFSA’s opinions, while others consistently vote against authorisation or abstain their vote mainly for political reasons. This ongoing disagreement has made it very difficult to establish an EU‐wide policy for agricultural biotechnology.

…the continuous proliferation, update and reinterpretation of EU requirements means that studies that were conducted in compliance with the guidelines at a particular time may no longer comply with changed requirements…

     

Towards best practices in research: Role of academic core facilities

Academic Core Facilities are optimally situated to improve the quality of preclinical research by implementing quality control measures and offering these to their users. Subject Categories: Methods & Resources, Science Policy & Publishing

During the past decade, the scientific community and outside observers have noted a concerning lack of rigor and transparency in preclinical research that led to talk of a “reproducibility crisis” in the life sciences (Baker, ²⁰¹⁶; Bespalov & Steckler, ²⁰¹⁸; Heddleston et al, ²⁰²¹). Various measures have been proposed to address the problem: from better training of scientists to more oversight to expanded publishing practices such as preregistration of studies. The recently published EQIPD (Enhancing Quality in Preclinical Data) System is, to date, the largest initiative that aims to establish a systematic approach for increasing the robustness and reliability of biomedical research (Bespalov et al, ²⁰²¹). However, promoting a cultural change in research practices warrants a broad adoption of the Quality System and its underlying philosophy. It is here that academic Core Facilities (CF), research service providers at universities and research institutions, can make a difference.It is fair to assume that a significant fraction of published data originated from experiments that were designed, run, or analyzed in CFs. These academic services play an important role in the research ecosystem by offering access to cutting‐edge equipment and by developing and testing novel techniques and methods that impact research in the academic and private sectors alike (Bikovski et al, ²⁰²⁰). Equipment and infrastructure are not the only value: CFs employ competent personnel with profound knowledge and practical experience of the specific field of interest: animal behavior, imaging, crystallography, genomics, and so on. Thus, CFs are optimally positioned to address concerns about the quality and robustness of preclinical research.     

Biodiversity 2030: a road paved with good intentions: The new EU Commission's biodiversity Strategy risks to remain an empty husk without proper implementation

The EU''s Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 makes great promises about halting the decline of biodiversity but it offers little in terms of implementation. Subject Categories: S&S: Economics & Business, Ecology, S&S: Ethics

Earth is teeming with a stunning variety of life forms. Despite hundreds of years of exploration and taxonomic research, and with 1.2 million species classified, we still have no clear picture of the real extent of global biodiversity, with estimates ranging from 3 to 100 million species. A highly quoted—although not universally accepted—study predicted some 8.7 million species, of which about 2.2 million are marine (Mora et al, 2011). Although nearly any niche on the surface of Earth has been colonized by life, species richness is all but evenly distributed. A large share of the known species is concentrated in relatively small areas, especially in the tropics (Fig 1). Ultimately, it is the network of the interactions among life forms and the physical environment that make up the global ecosystem we call biosphere and that supports life itself.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Biological hotspots of the worldA total of 36 currently recognized hotspots make up < 3% of the planet''s land area but harbor half of the world''s endemic plant species and 42% of all terrestrial vertebrates. Overall, hotspots have lost more than 80% of their original extension. Credit: Richard J. Weller, Claire Hoch, and Chieh Huang, 2017, Atlas for the End of the World, http://atlas‐for‐the‐end‐of‐the‐world.com/. Reproduced with permission.Driven by a range of complex and interwoven causes–such as changes in land and sea use, habitat destruction, overexploitation of organisms, climate change, pollution, and invasive species–biodiversity is declining at an alarming pace. A report by the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) issued a clear warning: “An average of around 25 per cent of species in assessed animal and plant groups are threatened, suggesting that around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken to reduce the intensity of drivers of biodiversity loss. Without such action, there will be a further acceleration in the global rate of species extinction, which is already at least tens to hundreds of times higher than it has averaged over the past 10 million years” (IPBES, 2019) (Fig 2). Although focused on a smaller set of organisms, a more recent assessment by WWF has reached similar conclusions. Their Living Planet Index, that tracks the abundance of thousands of populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians around the world, shows a stark decline in monitored populations (WWF, 2020). As expected, the trend of biodiversity decline is not homogeneous with tropical areas paying a disproportionately high price, mostly because of unrestrained deforestation and exploitation of natural resources.Open in a separate windowFigure 2The global, rapid decline of biodiversity(A) Percentage of species threatened with extinction in taxonomic groups that have been assessed comprehensively, or through a “sampled” approach, or for which selected subsets have been assessed by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Groups are ordered according to the best estimate, assuming that data‐deficient species are as threatened as non‐data deficient species. (B) Extinctions since 1500 for vertebrate groups. (C) Red List Index of species survival for taxonomic groups that have been assessed for the IUCN Red List at least twice. A value of 1 is equivalent to all species being categorized as Least Concern; a value of zero is equivalent to all species being classified as Extinct. Data for all panels from www.iucnredlist.org. Reproduced from (IPBES, 2019), with permission.

Driven by a range of complex and interwoven causes […] biodiversity is declining at an alarming pace.

Against this dire background, the EU has drafted a Biodiversity Strategy 2030, an ambitious framework aimed to tackling the key reasons behind biodiversity loss. The plan hinges around a few main elements, such as the establishment of protected areas for at least 30% of Europe''s lands and seas (Fig 3); a significant increase of biodiversity‐rich landscape features on agricultural land by establishing buffer zones like hedges and fallow fields; halting and reversing the decline of pollinators; and planting 3 billion trees by 2030 (https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities‐2019‐2024/european‐green‐deal/actions‐being‐taken‐eu/eu‐biodiversity‐strategy‐2030_en). The budget for implementing these measures was set at €20 billion per year.Open in a separate windowFigure 3Natura 2000, the EU''s network of protected areasIn 2019, 18% of land in the EU was protected as Natura 2000, with the lowest share of protected land in Denmark (8%) and the highest in Slovenia (38%). In 2019, the largest national network of terrestrial Natura 2000 sites was located in Spain, covering 138,111 km², followed by France (70,875 km²) and Poland (61,168 km²). Reproduced from Eurostat: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics‐explained/index.php?title=Main_Page “Nature is vital for our physical and mental wellbeing, it filters our air and water, it regulates the climate and it pollinates our crops. But we are acting as if it didn''t matter, and losing it at an unprecedented rate”, said Virginijus Sinkevičius, Commissioner for the Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, at the press launch of the new EU action (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_884). “This new Biodiversity Strategy builds on what has worked in the past, and adds new tools that will set us on a path to true sustainability, with benefits for all. The EU''s aim is to protect and restore nature, to contribute to economic recovery from the current crisis, and to lead the way for an ambitious global framework to protect biodiversity around the planet”.Environmental groups and other stakeholders have welcomed the EU''s pledge in principle. “This is a unique opportunity to shape a new society in harmony with nature”, applauded Wetlands International. “We must not forget that the biodiversity and climate crisis is a much bigger and persistent challenge for humanity than COVID‐19”, (https://europe.wetlands.org/news/welcoming‐the‐eu‐biodiversity‐strategy‐for‐2030/). EuroNatur, a foundation focused on conservation, stated that the goals set out by the new strategy provide a strong basis for improving the state of nature in the EU (www.euronatur.org).Alongside the voices of praise, however, many have expressed concerns that the strategy could turn into a little more than a wish list. “The big issue of the strategy is that while setting a goal for financial funds, the EU does not specify where the money is supposed to come from. It only says it should include ‘EU funds and national and private funding’”, commented the European Wilderness Society, an environmental advocacy non‐profit organization headquartered in Tamsweg, Austria. “Goals are important, but do not create change without an organized and sustainable implementation. It''s a good and ambitious document, but what is also obvious is the lack of strategy of how to implement it, and a lack of discussion of why previous documents of this type failed” (https://wilderness‐society.org/ambitious‐eu‐biodiversity‐strategy‐2030/).

Alongside the voices of praise, however, many have expressed concerns that the strategy could turn into a little more than a wish list.

The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) is on the same page. The sustainability think‐tank based in Brussels and London noted that the outgoing EU 2020 biodiversity strategy showed major implementation problems, especially because of lack of engagement at national level and of ad hoc legislation supporting the meeting of key targets. Therefore, “[it] can be argued that a legally binding approach to the biodiversity governance framework is urgently needed unless Member States and other key stakeholders can show greater intrinsic ownership to deliver on agreed objectives”, (https://ieep.eu/news/first‐impressions‐of‐the‐eu‐biodiversity‐strategy‐to‐2030). In addition, IEEP remarked that money is an issue, since the €20 billion figure appears more as an estimate than a certified obligation.“The intentions of the Commission are good and the strategy contains a number of measures and targets that can really make a difference. However, implementation depends critically on the member states and experiences with the Common Agricultural Policy the past decade or so have taught us that many of them are more interested in short‐term economic objectives than in safeguarding the natural wealth of their country for future generations”, commented David Kleijn, an ecologist and nature conservation expert at the Wageningen University, the Netherlands. “I think it is important that we now have an ambitious Biodiversity Strategy but at the same time I have little hope that we will be able to achieve its objectives”.

I think it is important that we now have an ambitious Biodiversity Strategy but at the same time I have little hope that we will be able to achieve its objectives.

There is further criticism against specific measures, such as the proposal of planting 3 billion trees. “To have lots of trees planted in an area does not necessarily translate into an increase of biodiversity. Biodiverse ecosystems are the result of million years of complex multi‐species interactions and evolutionary processes, which are not as easy to restore”, explained plant ecologist Susana Gómez‐González, from the University of Cádiz, Spain. Planting a large number of trees is a too simplistic approach for saving European forests from the combined effects of excessive anthropic pressure and climate change, and could even have detrimental effects (see Box 1). More emphasis should be placed instead in reducing tree harvesting in sensitive areas and in promoting natural forest renewal processes (Gómez‐González et al, 2020). “For a biodiversity strategy, increasing the number of trees, or even increasing the forest area, should not be an objective; priority should be given to the conservation and restoration of natural ecosystems, forests and non‐forests”, Gómez‐González said.In other cases, it could be difficult, if not impossible, to reach some of the goals because of lack of information. For example, one of the roadmap''s targets is to restore at least 25,000 km of Europe''s rivers back to free‐flowing state. However, the number of barriers dispersed along European rivers will probably prevent even getting close to the mark. An international research team has collected detailed information on existing instream barriers for 147 rivers in 36 European countries, coming up with the impressive figure of over 1.2 million obstacles that inevitably impact on river ecosystems, affecting the transport and dispersion of aquatic organisms, nutrients, and sediments (Belletti et al, 2020). Existing inventories mainly focused on dams and other large barriers, while, in fact, a large number of artificial structures are much smaller, such like weirs, locks, ramps, and fords. As a result, river fragmentation has been largely underestimated, and the models used to plan flow restoration might be seriously flawed. “To avoid ‘death by a thousand cuts’, a paradigm shift is necessary: to recognize that although large dams may draw most of the attention, it is the small barriers that collectively do most of the damage. Small is not beautiful”, concluded the authors (Belletti et al, 2020).

Box 1: Why many trees don''t (always) make a forestForests are cathedrals of biodiversity. They host by far the largest number of species on land, which provide food and essential resources for hundreds of millions of people worldwide. However, forests are disappearing and degrading at an alarming pace. The loss of these crucial ecosystems has given new impulses to a variety of projects aimed at stopping this devastation and possibly reversing the trend.Once it is gone, can you rebuild a forest? Many believe the answer is yes, and the obvious solution is to plant trees. Several countries have thus launched massive tree‐planting programs, notably India and Ethiopia, where 350 million trees have been planted in single day (https://www.unenvironment.org/news‐and‐stories/story/ethiopia‐plants‐over‐350‐million‐trees‐day‐setting‐new‐world‐record). The World Economic Forum has set up its own One Trillion Tree initiative (https://www.1t.org/) “to conserve, restore, and grow one trillion trees by 2030”. Launched in January last year at Davos, 1t.org was conceived as a platform for governments, companies and NGOs/civil society groups to support the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030). The initiative has been christened by renowned naturalist Jane Goodall, who commented: “1t.org offers innovative technologies which will serve to connect tens of thousands of small and large groups around the world that are engaged in tree planting and forest restoration”, (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/one‐trillion‐trees‐world‐economic‐forum‐launches‐plan‐to‐help‐nature‐and‐the‐climate/).However, things are way more complicated than they appear: large‐scale tree planting schemes are rarely a viable solution and can even be harmful. “[A] large body of literature shows that even the best planned restoration projects rarely fully recover the biodiversity of intact forests, owing to a lack of sources of forest‐dependent flora and fauna in deforested landscapes, as well as degraded abiotic conditions resulting from anthropogenic activities”, commented Karen Holl from the University of Caliornia, Santa Cruz, and Pedro Brancalion from the University of São Paulo (Holl & Brancalion, 2020). A common problem of tree plantations, for example, is the low survival rate of seedlings, mostly because the wrong tree species are selected and due to poor maintenance after planting. Moreover, grasslands and savannas, which are often targeted for establishing new forests, are themselves treasure troves of biodiversity. Ending indiscriminate deforestation, improving the protection of existing forests, and promoting their restoration would therefore be a more efficient strategy to preserve biodiversity in the shorter term. If tree planting is indeed necessary, it should be well planned by selecting the right areas for reforestation, using suitable tree species that can maximize biodiversity, and involving local populations to maintain the plantations, Holl and Brancalion argue (Holl & Brancalion, 2020).

…even the best planned restoration projects rarely fully recover the biodiversity of intact forests, owing to a lack of sources of forest‐dependent flora and fauna in deforested landscapes…

The health of soil, where a high proportion of biodiversity is hosted, is another problem the new strategy should address in a more focused manner. “In my opinion, the EU Biodiversity Strategy is already a leap forward in terms of policy interest in soils in general and in soil biodiversity in particular. Compared with other nations/regions of the world, Europe is by far in the forefront regarding this issue”, commented Carlos António Guerra at the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) in Leipzig, Germany, and Co‐leader of the Global Soil Biodiversity Observation Network (https://geobon.org/bons/thematic‐bon/soil‐bon/). “Nevertheless, the connection between soil biodiversity and ecological functions needs further commitments. Soils allow for horizontal integration of several policy agendas, from climate to agriculture and, very importantly, nature conservation. This is not explicit in the EU Biodiversity Strategy in regard to soils”. It remains to be seen if EU restoration plan will emphasize soil biodiversity, or consider it as a mere side effect of other initiatives, Guerra added. “A soil nature conservation plan should be proposed”, he said. “Only such a plan, that implies that current and future protected areas have to consider, describe and protect their soil biodiversity would make a significant push to help protect such a valuable resource”.More generally, research shows that the current paradigm of protection must be shifted to prevent further losses to biodiversity. In fact, an analysis of LIFE projects—a cornerstone of EU nature protection—found that conservation efforts are extremely polarized and strongly taxonomically biased (Mammola et al, 2020). From 1992 to 2018, investment in vertebrates was sixfold higher than that for invertebrates, with birds and mammals alone accounting for 72% of the targeted species and 75% of the total budget. In relative terms, investment per species for vertebrates has been 468 times higher than for invertebrates (Fig 4). There is no sound scientific reasoning behind this uneven conservation attention, but just popularity. “[T]he species covered by a greater number of LIFE projects were also those which attracted the most interest online, suggesting that conservation in the EU is largely driven by species charisma, rather than objective features”, the researchers wrote (Mammola et al, 2020).Open in a separate windowFigure 4Taxonomic bias in EU fauna protection effortsBreakdown of the number of projects (A) and budget allocation (B) across main animal groups covered by the LIFE projects (n = 835). (C) The most covered 30 species of vertebrates (out of 410) and invertebrates (out of 78) in the LIFE projects analyzed (n = 835). The vertical bar represents monetary investment and the blue scatter line the number of LIFE projects devoted to each species. Reproduced from (Mammola et al, 2020), with permission.     

LncRNA‐PAGBC acts as a microRNA sponge and promotes gallbladder tumorigenesis

Correction to: EMBO Reports (2017) 18: 1837–1853. DOI: 10.15252/embr.201744147 ¦ Published online 8 September 2017The authors contacted the journal after becoming aware of duplications between Figs 3 and 6 and identified additional errors in the process of reanalysing their data. Figure 3B: The authors state that the representative images of the migration and invasion assays of EH‐GB1 cells in the Lv‐Control groups had been incorrectly selected from images belonging to the control groups. The figure is herewith corrected. Figure 6B: The authors state that they had incorrectly displayed representative images for the vector group of SGC‐996, and the vector and PAGBC‐mut (miR‐133b) groups of EH‐GB1. The figure is herewith corrected.In addition, the authors are adding a demarcating line to the PCR product of the 5′‐RACE in Fig EV2B, separating the marker lane, which had been inadvertently omitted. Source data for Fig EV2 were published in the original paper.The source data and replicate data for Figs 3B and 6B are published with this corrigendum.The authors apologize for this oversight and any confusion it may have caused and declare that the conclusions of the study are not affected by these changes.