The Cold War Context of the Golden Jubilee,Or, Why We Think of Mendel as the Father of Genetics

In September 1950, the Genetics Society of America (GSA) dedicated its annual meeting to a "Golden Jubilee of Genetics" that celebrated the 50th anniversary of the rediscovery of Mendel's work. This program, originally intended as a small ceremony attached to the coattails of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) meeting, turned into a publicity juggernaut that generated coverage on Mendel and the accomplishments of Western genetics in countless newspapers and radio broadcasts. The Golden Jubilee merits historical attention as both an intriguing instance of scientific commemoration and as an early example of Cold War political theatre. Instead of condemning either Lysenko or Soviet genetics, the Golden Jubilee would celebrate Mendel - and, not coincidentally, the practical achievements in plant and animal breeding his work had made possible. The American geneticists' focus on the achievements of Western genetics as both practical and theoretical, international, and, above all, non-ideological and non-controversial, was fully intended to demonstrate the success of the Western model of science to both the American public and scientists abroad at a key transition point in the Cold War. An implicit part of this article's argument, therefore, is the pervasive impact of the Cold War in unanticipated corners of postwar scientific culture.     

Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content

National educational organizations have called upon scientists to become involved in K-12 education reform. From sporadic interaction with students to more sustained partnerships with teachers, the engagement of scientists takes many forms. In this case, scientists from the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), the Genetics Society of America (GSA), and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) have partnered to organize an essay contest for high school students as part of the activities surrounding National DNA Day. We describe a systematic analysis of 500 of 2443 total essays submitted in response to this contest over 2 years. Our analysis reveals the nature of student misconceptions in genetics, the possible sources of these misconceptions, and potential ways to galvanize genetics education.     

Defending Scientific Freedom and Democracy: The Genetics Society of America’s Response to Lysenko

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the leaders of the Genetics Society of America (GSA) struggled to find an appropriate group response to Trofim Lysenko’s scientific claims and the Soviet treatment of geneticists. Although some of the leaders of the GSA favored a swift, critical response, procedural and ideological obstacles prevented them from following this path. Concerned about establishing scientific orthodoxy on one hand and politicizing the content of their science on the other, these American geneticists drew on democratic language and concepts as they engaged in this political issue. The relatively weak statements that did emerge from the GSA attracted little attention in the scientific or popular press. The intensely politicized atmosphere of American science complicated the GSA’s task, as domestic concerns about protecting democracy were beginning to constrain academic freedom. In the context of American Cold War culture, Lysenko became just one example of the dangers the Cold War world presented to scientific freedom.     

The nitrogen cycle,scientific uncertainty and policy relevant science

Much of the research on the nitrogen cycle aims to improving scientific understanding but is not focused specifically on removing or reducing the scientific uncertainties that constrain policy makers in the formulation of appropriate responses to old or emerging environmental problems. Policy makers, for example, commonly find it difficult to assess the spatial or temporal importance of the various risks to human and ecosystem health that stem from man’s interference with the natural N cycle. This paper will justify this conclusion by reference to the findings of a recent study on non-point pollution from crop production in China. The findings concern the perceived risks of groundwater nitrate to human health; uncertainties about critical NO_x levels and their interactions with other pollutants; various other dimensions of man’s impact on the N cycle. The paper will go on to suggest a more systematic process or pathway by which scientists can select and design their research in a manner that could give more effective support to policy makers.

     

Screening Out Controversy: Human Genetics,Emerging Techniques of Diagnosis,and the Origins of the Social Issues Committee of the American Society of Human Genetics, 1964–1973

In the years following World War II, and increasingly during the 1960s and 1970s, professional scientific societies developed internal sub-committees to address the social implications of their scientific expertise (Moore, Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945–1975. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). This article explores the early years of one such committee, the American Society of Human Genetics’ “Social Issues Committee,” founded in 1967. Although the committee’s name might suggest it was founded to increase the ASHG’s public and policy engagement, exploration of the committee’s early years reveals a more complicated reality. Affronted by legislators’ recent unwillingness to seek the expert advice of human geneticists before adopting widespread neonatal screening programs for phenylketonuria (PKU), and feeling pressed to establish their relevance in an increasingly resource-scarce funding environment, committee members sought to increase the discipline’s expert authority. Painfully aware of controversy over abortion rights and haunted by the taint of the discipline’s eugenic past, however, the committee proceeded with great caution. Seeking to harness interest in and assert professional control over emerging techniques of genetic diagnosis, the committee strove to protect the society’s image by relegating ethical and policy questions about their use to the individual consciences of member scientists. It was not until 1973, after the committee’s modest success in organizing support for a retrospective public health study of PKU screening and following the legalization of abortion on demand, that the committee decided to take a more publicly engaged stance.     

Playing dice with mice: building experimental futures in Singapore

This short paper adds to debates on the unfolding spaces and logics of biotechnological development bought together in the 2009 special issue of New Genetics and Society on ‘Biopolitics in Asia’. Though an unlikely comparison between the development of the genomic sciences and the building of gambling casinos in the city state of Singapore, it reflects on the nature of political and technological investments in this South-East Asian city. It argues that Western expectations of a link between scientific practices, and civic epistemologies linked to democratic decision-making, are replaced by a rather different future orientation to scientific experimentation, economic investment and social development in Singapore.     

Language and values in the human cloning debate: a web-based survey of scientists and christian fundamentalist pastors

Over the last seven years, a major debate has arisen over whether human cloning should remain legal in the United States. Given that this may be the ‘first real global and simultaneous news story on biotechnology’ (Einsiedel et al., 2002, p. 313), nations around the world have struggled with the implications of this newly viable scientific technology, which is often also referred to as somatic cell nuclear transfer. Since the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep in 1997, and with increasing media attention paid to the likelihood of a successful human reproductive clone coupled with research suggesting the medical potential of therapeutic cloning in humans, members of the scientific community and Christian fundamentalist leaders have become increasingly vocal in the debate over U.S. policy decisions regarding human cloning (Wilmut, 2000). Yet despite a surfeit of public opinion polls and widespread opining in the news media on the topic of human cloning, there have been no empirical studies comparing the views of scientists and Christian fundamentalists in this debate (see Evans, 2002a for a recent study of opinion polls assessing religion and attitudes toward cloning).

In order to further investigate the values that underlie scientists' and Christian fundamentalist leader's understanding of human cloning, as well as their differential use of language in communicating about this issue, we conducted an open-ended, exploratory survey of practicing scientists in the field of molecular biology and Christian fundamentalist pastors. We then analyzed the responses from this survey using qualitative discourse analysis. While this was not necessarily a representative sample (in quantitative terms, see Gaskell & Bauer, 2000) of each of the groups and the response rate was limited, this approach was informative in identifying both commonalities between the two groups, such as a focus on ethical concerns about reproductive cloning and the use of scientific terminology, as well as significant differences including concerns over ‘playing God’ for the Christian pastors, focus on therapeutic cloning by scientists, and subtle but informative differences between the two groups in their use of scientific terminology and their interpretations of human cloning as scientific progress.     

Investigating the effect of paralogs on microarray gene-set analysis

Background  

In order to interpret the results obtained from a microarray experiment, researchers often shift focus from analysis of individual differentially expressed genes to analyses of sets of genes. These gene-set analysis (GSA) methods use previously accumulated biological knowledge to group genes into sets and then aim to rank these gene sets in a way that reflects their relative importance in the experimental situation in question. We suspect that the presence of paralogs affects the ability of GSA methods to accurately identify the most important sets of genes for subsequent research.     

More topics from the tropics: additional thoughts to Mammides et al.

Most studies on tropical conservation questions are conducted by researchers of developed countries from the north. This geographic disconnection was recently criticised by Mammides et al. Here, we reflect on their findings and add further views from scientist’s and journal editor’s perspectives. We argue that journals are, a priori, most strongly interested in research questions and approaches that will likely increase their scientific impact and prestige. This is rarely compatible with publishing articles on questions with restricted global impact or based on single taxa. We question whether small changes in the editorial policy of international conservation journals will considerably improve the geographic diversity in key conservation publications. Rather, thematic scopes of the leading conservation journals should be modified, preferably in close collaboration with leading conservationists from the south. We are convinced that long-term investments in the tropics will create a stronger local scientific community, thus bolstering academic morale, and finally may lead to an increase in the submission and acceptance rate of articles written from scientists from these regions.     

Managing the boundaries between maverick cloners and mainstream scientists: the life cycle of a news event in a contested field

Abstract

In January 2004, the ‘maverick cloner’, Dr Panos Zavos called a press conference in London to announce that he had implanted a freshly cloned human embryo in the womb of an infertile woman. Reports of this press conference gained prominent coverage in the national newspapers the following day and led television bulletins that evening. This article discusses the ways in which expertise was claimed by or attributed to Dr Zavos and other key media sources. It argues that three key boundaries were demarcated in the coverage as journalists framed the stories in terms provided by Zavos's antagonists, ‘mainstream scientists’. It also discusses the engagement in tactics of news management by an organised grouping of UK scientists who attempted to shape the terrain of news coverage on the subject of cloning. The question of the extent to which interested scientists should be able to set the terms of media debate is explored.     

Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions?

The link between species invasions and the extinction of natives is widely accepted by scientists as well as conservationists, but available data supporting invasion as a cause of extinctions are, in many cases, anecdotal, speculative and based upon limited observation. We pose the question, are aliens generally responsible for widespread extinctions? Our goal is to prompt a more critical synthesis and evaluation of the available data, and to suggest ways to take a more scientific, evidence-based approach to understanding the impact of invasive species on extinctions. Greater clarity in our understanding of these patterns will help us to focus on the most effective ways to reduce or mitigate extinction threats from invasive species.     

Defining Seaward Boundaries in a Domestic Context: Norway and the Svalbard Archipelago

Abstract

This article analyzes a little-noticed aspect of the international legal controversy pertaining to Svalbard’s maritime zones. It concerns where and by which method Norway should draw the boundaries between Svalbard’s continental shelf and the 200-mile zone, on the one hand, and other maritime zones subject to Norwegian jurisdiction, on the other. The assumption upon which the discussion rests is that the Spitsbergen Treaty signatories enjoy treaty rights in the maritime zones beyond Svalbard’s territorial waters. The law of the sea does not contain rules on the drawing of maritime boundaries between different parts of a state’s territory, but the rules on delimitation between states offer a strong analogy. In the search for an equitable solution, primacy should be given to geographical factors. The article argues that Norway could do more to enhance the openness regarding the Svalbard delimitation question since its outcome will be of significant interest to other states.     

Promoting RRI and active citizenship in an inquiry-based controversial socio-scientific issue: the case of cholesterol regulation with statins

ABSTRACT

Science education is an important dimension of the European Commission’s Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) objectives; however, RRI is not an explicit focus of biology teaching and few biology teachers have experience in integrating RRI in classroom practice. This study examines the impact of a three 80-minute RRI and active citizenship module on 11th grade biology students, based on the SSIBL pedagogical framework. A representative national sample of 11th grade biology students in Cyprus (n = 398) participated. A pre-post research design examined impact in relation to students’ conceptual understanding regarding cholesterol and its regulation, their understanding of the controversy about cholesterol regulation, awareness of RRI components, feeling of responsibility and willingness to act. Analyses indicated statistically significant gains in conceptual understanding and the understanding of the controversy about cholesterol regulation and awareness of RRI components, as well as in students’ socio-scientific accountability (feeling of responsibility and willingness to act). Conceptual understanding showed increased correlations with Controversy understanding and RRI understanding forming the three of them the cognitive elements of individuals understanding. All of the examined variables are deemed, as of great importance for the design, implementation and evaluation of innovative biology RRI and active citizenship modules.     

The Interplay between Scientific Overlap and Cooperation and the Resulting Gain in Co-Authorship Interactions

Considering the importance of scientific interactions, understanding the principles that govern fruitful scientific research is crucial to policy makers and scientists alike. The outcome of an interaction is to a large extent dependent on the balancing of contradicting motivations accompanying the establishment of collaborations. Here, we assembled a dataset of nearly 20,000 publications authored by researchers affiliated with ten top universities. Based on this data collection, we estimated the extent of different interaction types between pairwise combinations of researchers. We explored the interplay between the overlap in scientific interests and the tendency to collaborate, and associated these estimates with measures of scientific quality and social accessibility aiming at studying the typical resulting gain of different interaction patterns. Our results show that scientists tend to collaborate more often with colleagues with whom they share moderate to high levels of mutual interests and knowledge while cooperative tendency declines at higher levels of research-interest overlap, suggesting fierce competition, and at the lower levels, suggesting communication gaps. Whereas the relative number of alliances dramatically differs across a gradient of research overlap, the scientific impact of the resulting articles remains similar. When considering social accessibility, we find that though collaborations between remote researchers are relatively rare, their quality is significantly higher than studies produced by close-circle scientists. Since current collaboration patterns do not necessarily overlap with gaining optimal scientific quality, these findings should encourage scientists to reconsider current collaboration strategies.     

The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review,the Impact Factor,and the Number of Citations

The assessment of scientific publications is an integral part of the scientific process. Here we investigate three methods of assessing the merit of a scientific paper: subjective post-publication peer review, the number of citations gained by a paper, and the impact factor of the journal in which the article was published. We investigate these methods using two datasets in which subjective post-publication assessments of scientific publications have been made by experts. We find that there are moderate, but statistically significant, correlations between assessor scores, when two assessors have rated the same paper, and between assessor score and the number of citations a paper accrues. However, we show that assessor score depends strongly on the journal in which the paper is published, and that assessors tend to over-rate papers published in journals with high impact factors. If we control for this bias, we find that the correlation between assessor scores and between assessor score and the number of citations is weak, suggesting that scientists have little ability to judge either the intrinsic merit of a paper or its likely impact. We also show that the number of citations a paper receives is an extremely error-prone measure of scientific merit. Finally, we argue that the impact factor is likely to be a poor measure of merit, since it depends on subjective assessment. We conclude that the three measures of scientific merit considered here are poor; in particular subjective assessments are an error-prone, biased, and expensive method by which to assess merit. We argue that the impact factor may be the most satisfactory of the methods we have considered, since it is a form of pre-publication review. However, we emphasise that it is likely to be a very error-prone measure of merit that is qualitative, not quantitative.

Author summary

Subjective assessments of the merit and likely impact of scientific publications are routinely made by scientists during their own research, and as part of promotion, appointment, and government committees. Using two large datasets in which scientists have made qualitative assessments of scientific merit, we show that scientists are poor at judging scientific merit and the likely impact of a paper, and that their judgment is strongly influenced by the journal in which the paper is published. We also demonstrate that the number of citations a paper accumulates is a poor measure of merit and we argue that although it is likely to be poor, the impact factor, of the journal in which a paper is published, may be the best measure of scientific merit currently available.     

A Difficult Time with the Permit Process

In the 1970s, new forms of public scrutiny were applied to the research methods of field biologists in the United States, particularly those studying endangered species and marine mammals. This paper shows how such scrutiny affected researchers’ choice of research methods through an analysis of a key moment in a decade-long controversy over the conservation of bowhead whales. In 1978, researchers at the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory received funding from the Bureau of Land Management to radio-tag bowhead whales. Although this promising but still largely untested technique might have answered one of the central scientific questions in the controversy, it ultimately went unused. Technical considerations played a role in the decision not to use the technique, but the most important factor was scientists’ concerns about potential backlash from Iñupiat whalers and animal protectionists. The same forces that had made marine mammalogists more influential than ever and that had put into their hands the resources necessary to develop more effective research techniques also placed serious constraints on where, when, and how they could do their research.     

The nitrogen cycle,scientific uncertainty and policy relevant science

Much of the research on the nitrogen cycle aims to improving scientific understanding but is not focused specifically on removing or reducing the scientific uncertainties that constrain policy makers in the formulation of appropriate responses to old or emerging environmental problems. Policy makers, for example, commonly find it difficult to assess the spatial or temporal importance of the various risks to human and ecosystem health that stem from man’s interference with the natural N cycle. This paper will justify this conclusion by reference to the findings of a recent study on non-point pollution from crop production in China. The findings concern the perceived risks of groundwater nitrate to human health; uncertainties about critical NO_x levels and their interactions with other pollutants; various other dimensions of man’s impact on the N cycle. The paper will go on to suggest a more systematic process or pathway by which scientists can select and design their research in a manner that could give more effective support to policy makers.     

Current Problems In The Psychology Of Understanding And The Creation Of "Understanding Systems"

In the Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee entitled "On the journal Kommunist," the creation of "artificial intelligence" is pinpointed as one of the most important sociophilosophical and methodological problems of scientific and technical progress ([Resolution…]. P. 5). The psychological aspects of "artificial intelligence" have been studied fruitfully for a long time in our domestic psychology (see, for example, [Artificial intelligence…]), but the steady refinement of computer technology imposes upon scientists the task of deeper study of the interaction between man and computers.     

Unanticipated Success Stories: An Interview with Angelika Amon

THE Genetics Society of America Medal is awarded to an individual for outstanding contributions to the field of genetics in the past 15 years. Recipients of the GSA Medal are recognized for elegant and highly meaningful contributions to modern genetics. The 2014 recipient, Angelika B. Amon, has uncovered key principles governing the cell cycle and was the first to demonstrate a connection between the physical completion of anaphase and the initiation of mitotic exit. More recently, her research has focused on the consequences of aneuploidy. GENETICS spoke with Dr. Amon about her approach to science and what is next on the horizon.Open in a separate windowAngelika B. Amon     

In pursuit of a science of agriculture: the role of statistics in field experiments

Since the beginning of the twentieth century statistics has reshaped the experimental cultures of agricultural research taking part in the subtle dialectic between the epistemic and the material that is proper to experimental systems. This transformation has become especially relevant in field trials and the paper will examine the British agricultural institution, Rothamsted Experimental Station, where statistical methods nowadays popular in the planning and analysis of field experiments were developed in the 1920s. At Rothamsted statistics promoted randomisation over systematic arrangements, factorisation over one-question trials, and emphasised the importance of the experimental error in assessing field trials. These changes in methodology transformed also the material culture of agricultural science, and a new body, the Field Plots Committee, was created to manage the field research of the agricultural institution. Although successful, the vision of field experimentation proposed by the Rothamsted statisticians was not unproblematic. Experimental scientists closely linked to the farming community questioned it in favour of a field research that could be more easily understood by farmers. The clash between the two agendas reveals how the role attributed to statistics in field experimentation defined different pursuits of agricultural research, alternately conceived of as a scientists’ science or as a farmers’ science.