Collections‐based science in the 21st Century

Discoveries from collections‐based science change the way we perceive ourselves, our environment, and our place in the universe. The 18^th Century saw the beginning of formal classification with Linnaeus proposing a system to classify all of life. The 19^th Century ushered in the age of exploration as naturalists undertook large‐scale collecting expeditions leading to major scientific advances (the founding of Physical Geography, Meteorology, Ecology, Biogeography, and Evolution) and challenging long held beliefs about nature. In the 20^th Century collections were central to paradigm shifts, including theories of Continental Drift and Phylogenetic Systematics; Molecular Phylogenetics added testable hypotheses, and computerized specimen records gave rise to the field of Biodiversity. In the first 15 years of the 21^st Century we have seen tree‐thinking pervade the life sciences, leading to the emergence of Evolutionary Medicine, Evolutionary Ecology, and new Food Safety methods. More advances are on the way: (i) Open access to large amounts of specimen data & images, (ii) Linking of collections and climate data to phylogenies on a global scale, and (iii) Production of vast quantities of genomic data allowing us to address big evolutionary questions. As a result of collections‐based science people see themselves not as the center of all things but rather as part of a complex universe. It is essential that we integrate new discoveries with knowledge from the past (e.g., collections) in order to understand this planet we all inhabit. To ensure the health of collections‐based science we must come together and plan for the future.     

Fish gut content from biological collections as a tool for long-term environmental impact studies

Most of the world’s fish fauna is suffering from different types of human impacts and new conservation tools are required. The fish diet analysis is a tool that has been used to evaluate degradation processes of aquatic environments, however, few long-term studies are performed by several reasons (e.g., lack of funding, opportunity). Our aim was to test whether the fish gut content from biological collections can be used for comparisons with current data and, consequently, be used as a tool for long-term environmental impact studies. We compared the gut content of fish preserved for fifteen years in a biological collection with recently sampled fish, considering the factors size of the specimen, preservation time and preservation form. We did not find differences in the gut content percentage of preservation between fish size classes and preservation time. However, we found differences between preservation form, in which the fish fixed in formalin kept the digestive content preserved while the fish preserved directly in alcohol did not. Thus, we encourage the use of fish gut content from biological collections fixed in formalin for long-term ecological studies. Our findings may help elucidate some long-term effects of human impacts on fish fauna.     

Biological collections and ecological/environmental research: a review,some observations and a look to the future

Housed worldwide, mostly in museums and herbaria, is a vast collection of biological specimens developed over centuries. These biological collections, and associated taxonomic and systematic research, have received considerable long‐term public support. The work remaining in systematics has been expanding as the estimated total number of species of organisms on Earth has risen over recent decades, as have estimated numbers of undescribed species. Despite this increasing task, support for taxonomic and systematic research, and biological collections upon which such research is based, has declined over the last 30‐40 years, while other areas of biological research have grown considerably, especially those that focus on environmental issues. Reflecting increases in research that deals with ecological questions (e.g. what determines species distribution and abundance) or environmental issues (e.g. toxic pollution), the level of research attempting to use biological collections in museums or herbaria in an ecological/environmental context has risen dramatically during about the last 20 years. The perceived relevance of biological collections, and hence the support they receive, should be enhanced if this trend continues and they are used prominently regarding such environmental issues as anthropogenic loss of biodiversity and associated ecosystem function, global climate change, and decay of the epidemiological environment. It is unclear, however, how best to use biological collections in the context of such ecological/environmental issues or how best to manage collections to facilitate such use. We demonstrate considerable and increasingly realized potential for research based on biological collections to contribute to ecological/environmental understanding. However, because biological collections were not originally intended for use regarding such issues and have inherent biases and limitations, they are proving more useful in some contexts than in others. Biological collections have, for example, been particularly useful as sources of information regarding variation in attributes of individuals (e.g. morphology, chemical composition) in relation to environmental variables, and provided important information in relation to species' distributions, but less useful in the contexts of habitat associations and population sizes. Changes to policies, strategies and procedures associated with biological collections could mitigate these biases and limitations, and hence make such collections more useful in the context of ecological/environmental issues. Haphazard and opportunistic collecting could be replaced with strategies for adding to existing collections that prioritize projects that use biological collections and include, besides taxonomy and systematics, a focus on significant environmental/ecological issues. Other potential changes include increased recording of the nature and extent of collecting effort and information associated with each specimen such as nearby habitat and other individuals observed but not collected. Such changes have begun to occur within some institutions. Institutions that house biological collections should, we think, pursue a mission of ‘understanding the life of the planet to inform its stewardship’ ( Krishtalka & Humphrey, 2000 ), as such a mission would facilitate increased use of biological collections in an ecological/environmental context and hence lead to increased appreciation, encouragement and support from the public for these collections, their associated research, and the institutions that house them.     

Commercializing medical technology

As medicine moves into the 21st century, life saving therapies will move from inception into medical products faster if there is a better synergy between science and business. Medicine appears to have 50-year innovative cycles of education and scientific discoveries. In the 1880’s, the chemical industry in Germany was faced with the dilemma of modernization to exploit the new scientific discoveries. The solution was the spawning of novel technical colleges for training in these new chemical industries. The impact of those new employees and their groundbreaking compounds had a profound influence on medicine and medical education in Germany between 1880 and 1930. Germany dominated international science during this period and was a training center for scientists worldwide. This model of synergy between education and business was envied and admired in Europe, Asia and America. British science soon after evolved to dominate the field of science during the prewar and post World War (1930’s–1970’s) because the German scientists fled Hitler’s government. These expatriated scientists had a profound influence on the teaching and training of British scientists, which lead to advances in medicine such as antibiotics. After the Second World War, the US government wisely funded the development of the medical infrastructure that we see today. British and German scientists in medicine moved to America because of this bountiful funding for their research. These expatriated scientists helped drive these medical advances into commercialized products by the 1980’s. America has been the center of medical education and advances of biotechnology but will it continue? International scientists trained in America have started to return to Europe and Asia. These American-trained scientists and their governments are very aware of the commercial potential of biotechnology. Those governments are now more prepared to play an active role this new science. Germany, Ireland, Britain, Singapore, Taiwan and Israel are such examples of this government support for biotechnology in the 21st century. Will the US continue to maintain its domination of biotechnology in this century? Will the US education system adjust to the new dynamic of synergistic relationships between the education system, industry and government? This article will try to address these questions but also will help the reader understand who will emerge by 2015 as the leader in science and education.     

Rethinking the links between systematic studies and ex situ living collections as a contribution to the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation

The Muséum national d’histoire naturelle (MNHN) in Paris holds ca. 70 million specimens. The collections were in need of a strategy to ensure their long-term conservation. We discuss how the Department of Botanical and Zoological Gardens (DJBZ; tropical living collections), and the Department of Systematics and Evolution (DSE; herbarium) contribute to achieving GSPC’s Target 1 (‘a widely accessible working list of known plant species as a step towards a complete world flora’). The DJBZ started encouraging better management of the collections, evolving towards focused reference collections, where all specimens have well-documented collection data. The objective is to link all collections to a scientific referee. This has already been achieved for a number of taxa. The herbarium of the DSE (acronym P) is among the world’s largest (11 million specimens, including 400,000 types). The collection’s heterogeneity impedes access to its data, since P is a mix of recent well-documented collections and historical collections at various curational levels. P is currently under renovation, which started by mounting all ca. 2 million unmounted specimens. The project also includes databasing and imaging of every specimen. The database now holds around 1,000,000 records. For taxonomic studies, living collections are crucial, especially for plants that are not easily preserved as herbarium specimens. Living collections also enable studies impossible to forecast at the time of collecting. Herbaria and living collections should therefore be conceived as interoperable entities requiring common scientific curation. Through a combination of its assets and the expertise of its researchers, the MNHN is well prepared to tackle the new objectives of the GSPC beyond 2010.     

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.     

Milestones and rates of growth in the development of biology.

An attempt has been made to examine the exponetial rate of increase of the great discoveries, the "milestones," in the rise of biology from the beginning of the seventeenth century, and particularly in the rise of genetics from the beginning of the twentieth century. The biological sciences in general, during the three centuries named, exhibit a doubling of the number of great discoveries in each fifty years. Genetics, in the twentieth century, has risen much faster. Its doubling time for the most significant discoveries has been about twenty-two and a half years. Either of these rates is of course far slower than the exponential rise in the total output of biological science, the number of scientists, or the cost of science, which have been generally reported to double about every ten years or less. It follows that, as time passes, and until these exponetial rates become considerably altered, a relationship of diminishing returns is quite evident. As time passes, even though the most significant discoveries continue to increase exponetially, it takes a greater total output, a greater number of (assisting?) scientists, and greater amounts of money to yield a set quantity of major new findings. The rapid rise of the life sciences cannot continue its present course into the twenty-first century without meeting ineluctable limits to expansion. It may be argued that as in other human spheres of activity, so too in natural science there are limits to growth which we are rapidly approaching. From the predictable asymptote only unpredictable breakthroughs might deliver us.     

植物引种驯化对近500年人类文明史的影响及其科学意义

近500年来, 植物引种驯化及其广泛栽培深刻改变了世界农业生产的格局, 对促进人类社会文明进步产生了深远的影响。无论在西方殖民地发展史还是在我国明清发展史中, 每一种重要栽培植物的成功引种和驯化, 都对历史进程产生了不可估量的作用。活植物收集是植物园的核心和“灵魂”, 传承了现代植物园几个世纪科学研究的脉络和成就。活植物收集是植物园科学研究的基础和支撑平台, 也是当前和未来发展的根本。基于活植物收集的植物园研究工作具有多学科综合的特征, 既对基础生物学研究具有重要意义, 也与经济繁荣、社会发展和人类日常生活密切相关。     

The contribution of the Millennium Seed Bank Project to <Emphasis Type="Italic">ex situ</Emphasis> plant conservation in Chile

For a long time in situ conservation has been the main approach used to protect Chilean plant diversity. However, due to the high level of endemism of its flora (50%) and an increasing human impact on wild areas, ex situ conservation has become an urgent requirement to avoid the extinction of plant populations and species. Since 2001, the Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA), Chile, has been working in partnership with the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, (Kew) through the Millennium Seed Bank Project (MSB) with the objective of conserving 20% of the Chilean flora as seeds in long-term storage. This seed conservation effort has focussed mainly on the endangered and endemic plants of the Chilean drylands. Towards the end of the first phase of the MSB some 1482 seed collections representing 850 species and subspecies have been collected and safely preserved in the INIA Seed Base Bank and duplicated at Kew. Almost 70% of the total species collected are endemic to Chile and several of them are endangered. Additionally, seed germination research has been conducted for nearly 400 species and seed collections have been used to propagate several threatened species. Germination protocols have been published and disseminated online. Over 4,500 herbarium vouchers have been collected, largely duplicated at Kew and at the national herbarium in Chile. As a result of the inputs of INIA and the MSB, collaboration has been extended to other national stakeholders, mainly for plant taxonomy and seed collecting. In this context two training courses have been run for 70 staff/students. This training has contributed to the raising of general awareness of the need for the long-term protection of Chilean plant diversity and to demonstrate the key role that ex situ seed conservation can play in meeting this need.     

Facing the credit crunch. Politics sends mixed messages for science in the wake of the global financial crisis

The global response to the credit crunch has varied from belt tightening to spending sprees. Philip Hunter investigates how various countries react to the financial crisis in terms of supporting scientific research.The overall state of biomedical research in the wake of the global financial crisis remains unclear amid growing concern that competition for science funding is compromising the pursuit of research. Such concerns pre-date the credit crunch, but there is a feeling that an increasing amount of time and energy is being wasted in the ongoing scramble for grants, in the face of mounting pressure from funding agencies demanding value for money. Another problem is balancing funding between different fields; while the biomedical sciences have generally fared well, they are increasingly dependent on basic research in physics and chemistry that are in greater jeopardy. This has led to calls for rebalancing funding, in order to ensure the long-term viability of all fields in an increasingly multidisciplinary and collaborative research world.For countries that are cutting funding—such as Spain, Italy and the UK—the immediate priority is to preserve the fundamental research base and avoid a significant drain of expertise, either to rival countries or away from science altogether. This has highlighted the plight of postdoctoral researchers who have traditionally been the first to suffer from funding cuts, partly because they have little immediate impact on on a country''s scientific competitiveness. Postdocs have been the first to go whenever budgets have been cut, according to Richard Frankel, a physicist at California Polytechnic State University in Saint Luis Obispo, who investigates magnetotaxis in bacteria. “In the short term there will be little effect but the long-term effects can be devastating,” he said.…there is a feeling that an increasing amount of time and energy is being wasted in the ongoing scramble for grants, in the face of mounting pressure from funding agencies…According to Peter Stadler, head of a bioinformatics group at the University of Leipzig in Germany, such cuts tend to cause the long-term erosion of a country''s science skills base. “Short-term cuts in science funding translate totally into a brain drain, since they predominantly affect young researchers who are paid from the soft money that is drying up first,” said Stadler. “They either leave science, an irreversible step, or move abroad but do not come back later, because the medium-term effect of cuts is a reduction in career opportunities and fiercer competition giving those already in the system a big advantage.”Even when young researchers are not directly affected, the prevailing culture of short-term funding—which requires ongoing grant applications—can be disruptive, according to Xavier Salvatella, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Molecular Biophysics at the Institute for Research in Biomedicine in Barcelona, Spain. “I do not think the situation is dramatic but too much time is indeed spent writing proposals,” he commented. “Because success rates are decreasing, the time devoted to raise funds to run the lab necessarily needs to increase.”At the University of Adelaide in Australia, Andrew Somogyi, professor of pharmacology, thinks that the situation is serious: “[M]y postdocs would spend about half their time applying for grants.” Somogyi pointed out that the success rate has been declining in Australia, as it has in some other countries. “For ARC [Australian Research Council] the success rate is now close to 20%, which means many excellent projects don''t get funding because the assessment is now so fine cut,” he said.Similar developments have taken place in the USA at both the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—which provides US$16 billion funding per year and the American Cancer Society (ACS), the country''s largest private non-profit funder of cancer research, with a much smaller pot of US$120 million per year. The NIH funded 21% of research proposals submitted to it in 2009, compared with 32% a decade earlier, while the ACS approves only 15% of grant applications, down several percentage points over the past few years.While the NIH is prevented by federal law from allowing observers in to its grant review meetings, the ACS did allow a reporter from Nature to attend one of its sessions on the condition that the names of referees and the applications themselves were not revealed (Powell, 2010). The general finding was that while the review process works well when around 30% of proposals are successful, it tends to break down as the success rate drops, as more arbitrary decisions are made and the risk of strong pitches being rejected increases. This can also discourage the best people from being reviewers because the process becomes more tiring and time-consuming.Even when young researchers are not directly affected, the prevailing culture of short-term funding—which requires ongoing grant applications—can be disruptive…In some countries, funding shortfalls are also leading to the loss of permanent jobs, for example in the UK where finance minister George Osborne announced on October 20 that the science budget would be frozen at £4.6 billion, rather than cut as had been expected. Even so, combined with the cut in funding for universities that was announced on the same day, this raises the prospect of reductions in academic staff numbers, which could affect research projects. This follows several years of increasing funding for UK science. Such uncertainty is damaging, according to Cornelius Gross, deputy head of the mouse biology unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Monterotondo, Italy. “Large fluctuations in funding have been shown to cause damage beyond their direct magnitude as can be seen in the US where the Clinton boom was inevitably followed by a slowdown that led to rapid and extreme tightening of budgets,” he said.Some countries are aware of these dangers and have acted to protect budgets and, in some cases, even increase spending. A report by the OECD argued that countries and companies that boosted research and development spending during the ‘creative destruction'' of an economic downturn tended to gain ground on their competitors and emerge from the crisis in a relatively stronger position (OECD, 2009). This was part of the rationale of the US stimulus package, which was intended to provide an immediate lift to the economy and has been followed by a slight increase in funding. The NIH''s budget is set to increase by $1 billion, or 3% from 2010 to 2011, reaching just over $32 billion. This looks like a real-term increase, since inflation in the USA is now between 1 and 2%. However, there are fears that budgets will soon be cut; even now the small increase at the Federal level is being offset by cuts in state support, according to Mike Seibert, research fellow at the US Department of Energy''s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “The stimulus funds are disappearing in the US, and the overall budget for science may be facing a correction at the national level as economic, budget, and national debt issues are addressed,” he said. “The states in most cases are suffering their own budget crises and will be cutting back on anything that is not nailed down.”…countries and companies that boosted research and development spending during the ‘creative destruction'' of an economic downturn tended to gain ground on their competitors…In Germany, the overall funding situation is also confused by a split between the Federal and 16 state governments, each of which has its own budget for science. In contrast to many other countries though, both federal and state governments have responded boldly to the credit crisis by increasing the total budget for the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft)—Germany''s largest research funding agency—to €2.3 billion in 2011. Moreover, total funding for research and education from the BMBF (Federal Ministry for Education and Research) is expected to increase by another 7% from €10.9 billion in 2010 to €11.64 billion, although the overall federal budget is set to shrink by 3.8% under Germany''s austerity measures (Anon, 2010). There have also been increases in funding from non-government sources, such as the Fraunhofer Society, Europe''s largest application-oriented research organization, which has an annual budget of €1.6 billion.The German line has been strongly applauded by the European Union, which since 2007 has channelled its funding for cutting-edge research through the European Research Council (ERC). The ERC''s current budget of €7.5 billion, which runs until 2013, was set in 2007 and negotiations for the next period have not yet begun, but the ERC''s executive agency director Jack Metthey has indicated that it will be increased: “The Commission will firmly sustain in the negotiations the view that research and innovation, central to the Europe 2020 Strategy agreed by the Member States, should be a top budgetary priority.” Metthey also implied that governments cutting funding, as the UK had been planning to do, were making a false economy that would gain only in the short term. “Situations vary at the national level but the European Commission believes that governments should maintain and even increase research and innovation investments during difficult times, because these are pro-growth, anti-crisis investments,” he said.Many other countries have to cope with flat or declining science budgets; some are therefore exploring ways in which to do more with less. In Japan, for instance, money has been concentrated on larger projects and fewer scientists, with the effect of intensifying the grant application process. Since 2002, the total Japanese government budget for science and technology has remained flat at around ¥3,500 billion—or €27 billion at current exchange rates—with a 1% annual decline in university support but increased funding for projects considered to be of high value to the economy. This culminated in March 2010 with the launch of the ¥100 billion (€880 million) programme for World Leading Innovative Research and Development on Science and Technology.But such attempts to make funding more competitive or focus it on specific areas could have unintended side effects on innovation and risk taking. One side effect can be favouring scientists who may be less creative but good at attracting grants, according to Roger Butlin, evolutionary biologist at the University of Sheffield in the UK. “Some productive staff are being targeted because they do not bring in grants, so money is taking precedence over output,” said Butlin. “This is very dangerous if it results in loss of good theoreticians or data specialists, especially as the latter will be a critical group in the coming years.”“Scientists are usually very energetic when they can pursue their own ideas and less so when the research target is too narrowly prescribed”There have been attempts to provide funding for young scientists based entirely on merit, such as the ERC ‘Starting Grant'' for top young researchers, whose budget was increased by 25% to €661 million for 2011. Although they are welcome, such schemes could also backfire unless they are supported by measures to continue supporting the scientists after these early career grants expire, according to Gross. “There are moves to introduce significant funding for young investigators to encourage independence, so called anti-brain-drain grants,” he said. “These are dangerous if provided without later independent positions for these people and a national merit-based funding agency to support their future work.”Such schemes might work better if they are incorporated into longer-term funding programmes that provide some security as well as freedom to expand a project and explore promising side avenues. Butlin cited the Canadian ‘Discovery Grant'' scheme as an example worth adopting elsewhere; it supports ongoing programmes with long-term goals, giving researchers freedom to pursue new lines of investigation, provided that they fit within the overall objective of the project.To some extent the system of ‘open calls''—supported by some European funding agencies—has the same objective, although it might not provide long-term funding. The idea is to allow scientists to manoeuvre within a broad objective, rather than confining them to specific lines of research or ‘thematic calls'', which tend to be highly focused. “The majority of funding should be distributed through open calls, rather than thematic calls,” said Thomas Höfer from the Modeling Research Group at the German Cancer Research Center & BioQuant Center in Heidelberg. “Scientists are usually very energetic when they can pursue their own ideas and less so when the research target is too narrowly prescribed. In my experience as a reviewer at both the national and EU level, open calls are also better at funding high-quality research whereas too narrow thematic calls often result in less coherent proposals.”“Cutting science, and education, is the national equivalent of a farmer eating his ‘seed corn'', and will lead to developing nation status within a generation”Common threads seems to be emerging from the different themes and opinions about funding: budgets should be consistent over time and spread fairly among all disciplines, rather than focused on targeted objectives. They should also be spread across the working lifetime of a scientist rather than being shot in a scatter-gun approach at young researchers. Finally, policies should put a greater emphasis on long-term support for the best scientists and projects, chosen for their merit. Above all, funding policy should reflect the fundamental importance of science to economies, as Seibert concluded: “Cutting science, and education, is the national equivalent of a farmer eating his ‘seed corn'', and will lead to developing nation status within a generation.”     

Career insurance: Enabling intellectual risks

Professional science has become risk-averse. In terms of papers per dollar science is more productive than ever, but, in terms of pushing through new, applicable understanding of life, it has stagnated. This is because the career structure in professional science rewards cautious, me-too productivity over investment in long-term, high-risk programmes. Exploring new fields requires that the investigator forgo papers, grants, students, and other measurables on which their future promotion will be based. The potential reward is not sufficient to balance this downside. I suggest that funding bodies could help to remedy this by creating a ‘Career Insurance’ scheme for young, imaginative scientists who want to take career risks to protect them against the downside of those risks. Most plausibly this could be by providing back-up funding for the investigator so that, if the speculative path fails, they have resources to return to ‘normal’ science and rebuild their productivity.     

Implications for health services.

Health services for older people in the NHS have developed pragmatically, and reflect the nature of disease in later life and the need to agree objectives of care with patients. Although services are likely to be able to cope with the immediate future, the growth of the elderly population anticipated from 2030 calls for long-term planning and research. The issue of funding requires immediate political thought and action. Scientifically the focus needs to be on maximizing the efficiency of services by health services research and reducing the incidence of disability in later life through research on its biological and social determinants. Senescence is a progressive loss of adaptability due to an interaction between intrinsic (genetic) processes with extrinsic factors in environment and lifestyle. There are grounds for postulating that a policy of postponement of the onset of disability, by modifications of lifestyle and environment, could reduce the average duration of disability before death. The new political structures of Europe offer under exploited-unexploited opportunities for the necessary research.     

Codifying Collegiality: Recent Developments in Data Sharing Policy in the Life Sciences

Over the last decade, there have been significant changes in data sharing policies and in the data sharing environment faced by life science researchers. Using data from a 2013 survey of over 1600 life science researchers, we analyze the effects of sharing policies of funding agencies and journals. We also examine the effects of new sharing infrastructure and tools (i.e., third party repositories and online supplements). We find that recently enacted data sharing policies and new sharing infrastructure and tools have had a sizable effect on encouraging data sharing. In particular, third party repositories and online supplements as well as data sharing requirements of funding agencies, particularly the NIH and the National Human Genome Research Institute, were perceived by scientists to have had a large effect on facilitating data sharing. In addition, we found a high degree of compliance with these new policies, although noncompliance resulted in few formal or informal sanctions. Despite the overall effectiveness of data sharing policies, some significant gaps remain: about one third of grant reviewers placed no weight on data sharing plans in their reviews, and a similar percentage ignored the requirements of material transfer agreements. These patterns suggest that although most of these new policies have been effective, there is still room for policy improvement.     

小线虫,大发现:Caenorhabditis elegans在生命科学研究中的重要贡献

自20世纪60年代开始,秀丽线虫作为重要的模式生物在生命科学的发展过程中发挥着举足轻重的作用。线虫中的许多重大发现为人们理解复杂的细胞生命活动做出了极大的贡献。本文对秀丽线虫的研究历史、重要成果及研究前景作一简要综述。     

Viruses, definitions and reality

Viruses are known to be abundant, ubiquitous, and to play a very important role in the health and evolution of life organisms. However, most biologists have considered them as entities separate from the realm of life and acting merely as mechanical artifacts that can exchange genes between different organisms. This article reviews some definitions of life organisms to determine if viruses adjust to them, and additionally, considers new discoveries to challenge the present definition of viruses. Definitions of life organisms have been revised in order to validate how viruses fit into them. Viral factories are discussed since these mini-organelles are a good example of the complexity of viral infection, not as a mechanical usurpation of cell structures, but as a driving force leading to the reorganization and modification of cell structures by viral and cell enzymes. New discoveries such as the Mimivirus, its virophage and viruses that produce filamentous tails when outside of their host cell, have stimulated the scientific community to analyze the current definition of viruses. One way to be free for innovation is to learn from life, without rigid mental structures or tied to the past, in order to understand in an integrated view the new discoveries that will be unfolded in future research. Life processes must be looked from the complexity and trans-disciplinarity perspective that includes and accepts the temporality of the active processes of life organisms, their interdependency and interrelation among them and their environment. New insights must be found to redefine life organisms, especially viruses, which still are defined using the same concepts and knowledge of the fifties.     

Funding options for research: facing the market as well as government.

Parasitology is a challenge. At one level, the structural and genetic complexities of parasites provide ample technical challenges in regard to an understanding of parasite variability and adaptability, epidemiological diversity, drug resistance, etc. The intricacies of host parasite relationships including the immunology of parasitism will continually surprise yet frustrate the vaccine developer and keep the bravest immunoparasitologist busy and creative for decades. As if the technical considerations were not challenging enough, we see difficulties arising in sustaining a research endeavour and preserving a critical mass of researchers through the generation of high-level, long-term funding support. Contributing to this situation is the fact that most parasitic diseases of major impact in humans are largely centred around the rural poor in tropical, less industrially-developed countries and therefore of little or of fickle interest to the strictly commercially oriented. Moreover, the focus in the rural industries has moved away from aspects of on-farm production with lower priority given to studies on even the 'economically-important' parasites of livestock. It is contended that this may change again with pressures and clear marketing advantages to preserving a 'clean and green' image for Australia's primary industries. Overall, the extraordinary technical and conceptual advances in recent times have been tempered by uncertainties in research funding and severe cuts from some traditional sources for both fundamental and strategic/applied research in Parasitology. Several have highlighted the fact that deliverables in terms of new methods of disease control have been sparse and some claims made in the past have certainly been exaggerated. Yet the prospects and achievements at the front end of the long R&D pathway have never been brighter. In this article we examine the merits of a 'portfolio approach' to generating research funds in Parasitology and Science and Technology in Australia more generally, with an emphasis on strategies that, through welding good science with clear, medium-term product objectives, increase research funding opportunities.     

Blood,sweat and plaster casts: Reviewing the history,composition, and scientific value of the Raymond A. Dart Collection of African Life and Death Masks

This paper addresses the history, composition and scientific value of one of the most comprehensive facemask collections in Africa, the Raymond A. Dart Collection of African Life and Death Masks. Housed within the School of Anatomical Sciences at the University of the Witwatersrand (South Africa), it comprises 1110 masks (397 life, 487 death, 226 unknown). Life masks represent populations throughout Africa; death masks predominately southern Africa. Males preponderate by 75%. Recorded ages are error prone, but suggest most life masks are those of <35 year-olds, death masks of 36+ year-olds. A total of 241 masks have associated skeletons, 209 presenting a complete skull.Life masks date between 1927 and c.1980s, death masks 1933 and 1963. This historical collection presents uncanny associations with outmoded typological and evolutionary theories. Once perceived an essential scientific resource, performed craniofacial superimpositions identify the nose as the only stable feature maintained, with the remaining face best preserved in young individuals with minimal body fat. The facemask collection is most viable for teaching and research within the history of science, specifically physical anthropology, and presents some value to craniofacial identification. Future research will have to be conducted with appropriate ethical considerations to science and medicine.     

REHABILITATION AND RELEASE OF MARINE MAMMALS IN THE UNITED STATES: RISKS AND BENEFITS

Rehabilitation of stranded marine mammals elicits polarized attitudes: initially done alongside display collections, but release of rehabilitated animals has become more common. Justifications include animal welfare, management of beach use conflict, research, conservation, and public education. Rehabilitation cost and risks have been identified that vary in degree supported by data rather than perception. These include conflict with fisheries for resources, ignorance of recipient population ecology, poor understanding of long-term survival, support of the genetically not-so-fit, introduction of novel or antibiotic-resistant pathogens, harm to human health, and cost. Thus facilities must balance their welfare appeal against public education, habitat restoration, human impact reduction, and other conservation activities. Benefits to rehabilitating marine mammals are the opportunity to support the welfare of disabled animals and to publish good science and so advance our understanding of wild populations. In specific cases, the status of a population may make conservation the main reason for rehabilitation. These three reasons for rehabilitation lead to contrasting, and sometimes conflicting, management needs. We therefore outline a decision tree for rehabilitation managers using criteria for each management decision, based on welfare, logistics, conservation, research, and funding to define limits on the number of animals released to the wild.