Interpretation of diagnostic data: 4. How to do it with a more complex table.

A more complex table is especially useful when a diagnostic test produces a wide range of results and your patient''s levels are near one of the extremes. The following guidelines will be useful: Identify the several cut-off points that could be used. Fill in a complex table along the lines of Table I, showing the numbers of patients at each level who have and do not have the target disorder. Generate a simple table for each cut-off point, as in Table II, and determine the sensitivity (TP rate) and specificity (TN rate) at each of them. Select the cut-off point that makes the most sense for your patient''s test result and proceed as in parts 2 and 3 of our series. Alternatively, construct an ROC curve by plotting the TP and FP rates that attend each cut-off point. If you keep your tables and ROC curves close at hand, you will gradually accumulate a set of very useful guides. However, if you looked very hard at what was happening, you will probably have noticed that they are not very useful for patients whose test results fall in the middle zones, or for those with just one positive result of two tests; the post-test likelihood of disease in these patients lurches back and forth past 50%, depending on where the cut-off point is. We will show you how to tackle this problem in part 5 of our series. It involves some maths, but you will find that its very powerful clinical application can be achieved with a simple nomogram or with some simple calculations.     

Walking between academia and industry to find successful solutions to biomedical challenges: an interview with Geoffrey Smith

Geoffrey W. Smith is currently the Managing Director of Mars Ventures. He actually started his studies with a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Doctorate in Law but then, in part by chance and in part by following in his family footsteps, he stepped into the healthcare and biotech field. Since then, he has successfully contributed to the birth of a number of healthcare companies and has also held academic positions at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and at The Rockefeller University in New York, teaching about the interface between science and business. During 2014 he served as Senior Editor on Disease Models & Mechanisms, bringing to the editorial team his valuable experience in drug development and discovery. In this interview, Geoff talks to Ross Cagan, Editor-in-Chief of Disease Models & Mechanisms, about how he developed his incredibly varied career, sharing his views about industry, academia and science publishing, and discussing how academia and industry can fruitfully meet to advance bioscience, train the scientists and stakeholders of the future, and drive the successful discovery of new therapeutics to treat human disease.Geoffrey W. Smith was born in 1965. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from Williams College in Williamstown, MA. After a stint as a Research Associate at Harvard Business School, he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Following a federal court clerkship and first job experiences in law, he joined a healthcare services start-up named Advanced Health as one of its first employees. Geoff then co-founded various healthcare and technology companies, including Interbind and Ascent Biomedical Ventures, and is still a Managing Partner at the latter. In 2012, he joined the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, first as Professor in the Department of Population Health Science And Policy, and then as Director and co-founder of the Design, Technology, and Entrepreneurship PhD program. Until December 2014, he was a Senior Editor at Disease Models & Mechanisms. Geoff is now Managing Director of Mars Ventures.Let''s start with your background. You have a Bachelor of Arts degree and a law degree. How is it exactly that you ended up working in biotech and pharma?My career path has been anything other than linear. I was actually pursuing my legal career when two entrepreneurs turned up at the law firm I was working for with an idea for a new technology-based company focused on more effectively managing healthcare services. I was a new associate without much to do, so I got assigned to work with the start-up and after about a year they asked me to come and join the company, Advanced Health. I had grown up in a very medically oriented family – my father was a medical school professor, my older sister was a PhD, and my younger sister is a medical doctor – and so to a certain extent joining a start-up in the healthcare space was a bit like joining the family business.We had a fair amount of success with that company. A little less than 2 years after I joined it, we had a successful initial public offering, and that started me down the road of participating in the start-up environment around healthcare.It sounds like it was not a surprising path for you. Which key people influenced you?Actually, it is somewhat surprising in that I had really prepared for and expected a career in law. Certainly, the work I did in law school and the first jobs I had after that started me on a different career. I was really focused on international relations and international law. The twist was that I got brought back into the healthcare arena, and ultimately the biotech arena, by a serendipitous connection – one of the entrepreneurs who started Advanced Health had trained at Brigham Women''s Hospital where my father was the Chief of Cardiology. It was through this connection that I became more than just an associate drafting legal documents and really began to build a close relationship with the founders, which ultimately led to me joining that business. This taught me that you can spend much of your time preparing, and thinking that your schooling is going to take you in one direction, but individual relationships can change your path and take you somewhere else altogether. In my case, these particular relationships stemmed from my father, who clearly had an enormous influence on me. He was both a practising clinician and a basic researcher, studying basic biology related to the function of sodium and potassium in the heart, but he also did applied research. He helped develop a radioimmunoassay test to measure digitalis levels in the blood and ultimately was involved in developing a drug called Digibind, an antidote to digitalis toxicity, which was one of the first drugs to use antigen-binding fragments [Fab] as the basis for a drug. Watching him manage these different activities in his career had a big influence on me.

“This taught me that you can spend much of your time preparing, and thinking that your schooling is going to take you in one direction, but individual relationships can change your path and take you somewhere else altogether”

I think that each of my sisters – as I said, one of whom went down a PhD route and one of whom went down a medical training route – had a big influence on me, as well. Watching the challenges that they had to face in those areas in some ways pushed me to go off towards law school and take a different path. It also brought me back to one of the aspects that I think is the most rewarding in the bioscience field, which is that you can have a profound impact on a large number of people through your efforts, whether they be purely research-based, academic-based or commercially-based.One of the things I was constantly impressed by is that you always seem to have a good feel for the health field and the biology field. Is this because it is something of a family business?I think so. Growing up at my dinner table, I was just privileged to get to meet and interact with a lot of incredibly successful clinicians and researchers. For me those were comfortable conversations: these were friends and so there was a comfort level being involved in that environment. I didn''t feel a lot of intimidation from it, which I think sometimes people who come from the outside do.One of the aspects I really like about the bioscience field is the impact of ideas. Success is really about one''s ideas and ability to execute them, and that was very appealing to me. It wasn''t about how much money you had or where you went to school, it was really about the ability to think deeply about a problem or a potential advancement and figure out a way to find a way forward. It is also a very people-driven process because it is not only about thinking deeply yourself but also about thinking deeply with those in your field or adjacent to your field. Lots of different personality types can succeed in this field, but I think it is certainly easier for people who have an affinity for sitting with people and thinking about a common area of interest.To that point, you actually have walked between business and scientists. What do you see is the difference? Some of the priorities are obvious, but what are the differences in terms of what motivates people in the two? Are the personalities that you come across different between the basic science world, the translating science world and the business world?I don''t think the personalities are particularly different. I think you find introverts and extroverts and everything in between in each of these areas. I am not sure that personality is necessarily a good predictor of success. I think it''s a question of what toolset you are most comfortable using to get at a problem, and where in the lifespan of a problem you''re interested in working.For example, scientists in academia very often are interested in working at an early stage of a problem. They understand something fairly basic about a process or something earlier in the understanding of a field. People who gravitate towards industry, instead, are more excited about working on the later part of a process, so, rather than trying to understand what the fundamental working mechanism is, they want to understand how to work that mechanism in a way that is predictable and repeatable.Obviously people in the commercial realm are often highly influenced by money, but even that I don''t think is really particularly the differentiator. There are plenty of academics who are driven by money as well. I really think it has much more to do with where on the spectrum of understanding one is interested in working. Industry is geared to solving practical problems and, if a lot is understood about a problem, to getting down to the ability to repeatedly and safely intervene, whereas academia really lends itself more towards understanding the front end of a problem or of an unknown mechanism to understand it first and at a more basic level.What about working in teams versus individually? Do you see a difference there?I think that has changed over time. I think it is very hard in academia today to be the brilliant solo investigator. I''m not saying it''s impossible but, considering the increasing size of the data sets one is working with, the statistical methods one has to use, the complexity of different fields overlapping with each other, it''s just very hard to handle all the necessary aspects of modern science as an individual. Increasingly, working in teams isn''t a choice: I think it''s a necessity in order to be effective. The difference may be that, in academia, often the teams are teams of collaborators (meaning they have influence but not necessarily power over all people participating in the team) who may work for different institutions, whereas, more commonly in industry, teams are working within a single corporate structure. In industry more often there are hierarchical relationships, which may allow for more directive behavior. Again, I''m not sure I would draw as much distinction between team or not team and between industry and academia, but I might draw somewhat of a distinction between how those teams function and how one manages a team. I think they are a bit different between the two realms.

“Increasingly, working in teams isn''t a choice: I think it''s a necessity in order to be effective”

Let''s turn to Disease Models & Mechanisms [DMM], where you have been a Senior Editor. What did your experience at DMM teach you about science publishing that perhaps you hadn''t thought about, and has it made you think more deeply about what goes into a good scientific piece of work? What were some of the surprises?Watching the detailed process that is necessary to take a piece from an initial submission through to a published article gave me comfort and respect for the level of diligence and the level of attention that the reviewers brought to the vast majority of the pieces. It gave me a good feeling that the science community can be a strong self-reinforcing organization that takes its responsibility to heart and only publishes the best of the work available. I think that was very reassuring.An interesting question for me was: is there a different function that the publication process could play in helping to galvanize new ideas or new interactions among different fields? That seemed to be challenging because people don''t want to rush out there without their ideas and data being fully thought-out and fully vetted. But still, somewhere in my mind is this notion that there should be an option in the publishing world to play a little bit earlier in the generation of new ideas.Do you mean journals having an earlier relationship – earlier in the experimental process with a laboratory – to work with them to provide advice?I don''t know if it''s to provide advice. One of the things I was struck by at DMM is that there are these different siloed research communities – for example, the fly and the fish communities – in which interactions and relationships in the individual fields are so well established and routinized. And the outcome from a publishing standpoint is still the canonical academic paper that has been relatively unchanged over a long period of time. Yet, we have had these tremendous changes in information and communication technology such that the manner of knowledge production and the methods of communicating in other parts of society have changed dramatically. It feels like there hasn''t been nearly as big a concomitant communication change in the biomedical sciences, and so the silos and the standard paper remain the way things are done.The publication process, because of its preciseness, can take quite a long time, so the musing here is whether there is a way that the publishing industry could facilitate an earlier, more speculative communication of interesting results in a way that would positively impact the field by turning over new information sooner. If you look at an area like maths, for example, and their pre-print servers, there is more of a notion of putting ideas out in the community that acts as a kind of peer-review process and a way to get the community interacting on new ideas early. That doesn''t seem to get a lot of attention in the life sciences area. It seems to me that even journals like the PLOS journals that are pushing towards a more open world of communication are still ending up being pulled back into the canonical paper form to communicate.

“…the musing here is whether there is a way that the publishing industry could facilitate an earlier, more speculative communication of interesting results in a way that would positively impact the field by turning over new information sooner”

I guess one of the issues on the biology side is that there is a real emphasis on trying to get your paper into the most prestigious journal, so people don''t want to drop that paper until it is as far along as possible to aim at high-impact journals.That of course becomes a self-reinforcing system. If the yardstick used in the life sciences industry is publication in high-impact-rated journals, then you are going to get that behavior. But if you''re interested in the generation of new knowledge and in moving your field forwards, it is at least plausible that publishing in a quicker fashion or with at least some outlet to move more creative ideas ahead would be attractive.There are clearly challenges to that. But I do think it''s remarkable that if you look at almost every other media area there has been a huge amount of change since the advent of the internet era, but there really has been very limited change around life sciences publishing. It''s been surprisingly conservative to me. I am wishing there would be more experimentation to find other ways to communicate information sooner and in a way that could spur more creativity.Of course, when you tie publishing back to industry, for competitive and intellectual property protection reasons, industry tends to not really want to get out in the front with its most interesting work too early. I think that a lot of things being published out of industry are not the most interesting stuff that is happening. But again it seems to me that another area that science publishing should be thinking about is how they could come up with other solutions that might provide for a more creative interaction between publishing and industry.Talking about old models versus new models, let''s move to issues of training. Another area that you''ve been impressive at is the training of scientists. You''ve had your hand in creating a new PhD track at Mount Sinai called Design, Technology, and Entrepreneurship [DTE]. What is your view about how we train scientists, what we''re doing better these days and what you would like to see being done better to train them?It seemed to me that there was a remarkably small amount of experimentation in academia around thinking about how to train biomedical PhDs, and that academia had missed the opportunity to provide a better set of tools to PhDs to allow them to be effective across a wider range of potential career outcomes. The majority of biomedical PhDs are not ending up in tenure-track faculty positions but rather in the ‘alternative career track’. It seemed to be disingenuous to train them solely for the academic track if in reality the majority were going to some other career track.So what I was really excited about in putting together the DTE program was trying new ways to train PhDs to be effective askers of questions and proposers of solutions, and to create an environment where they could gain experience in how to solve a variety of problems effectively.

“…what I was really excited about in putting together the DTE program was trying new ways to train PhDs to be effective askers of questions and proposers of solutions, and to create an environment where they could gain experience in how to solve a variety of problems effectively”

This meant that our students had to be rigorously trained as scientists, but this was an ‘and’ opportunity and not an ‘or’ opportunity. In addition to being trained as excellent basics scientists, we wanted to give them some training in how engineers think about problems, how designers approach issues, what tools those people use and how that impacts how they try to solve a problem. Hopefully over time this would produce students that are better suited for interacting and influencing other parts of society – be it industry, government or policy – and better positioned to compete in what is a very competitive job market.What were some of the things you did in the DTE training to get at this?We really tried to teach theory in the context of real problems. Virtually all the classes of the DTE curriculum were problem-driven. We created a class that we called ‘The Q.E.D. Project’ that followed along from efforts at Stanford and elsewhere to teach students how to identify an unmet need. We then asked them to form a team to address the unmet need, and then helped them understand how to build a prototype to address that need. Along the way, we also talked about what kind of roles people in their team need to play. Should your team be very diverse or very deep in a given area? How do we integrate people who have different cultural backgrounds or how do we integrate medical students with PhD students? We brought in a lot of people out of the non-academic environment who were practitioners and experts in their various areas and we tried to get students to think about the full range of stakeholders they would have to engage with to bring a solution to bear.We did not want to spend a lot of time lecturing the students in a purely didactic way. We wanted to engage them in a process where they were solving important problems as part of the class. Whether that was a class on modelling or an engineering-focused class, or how to think about scientific problems, the core of DTE was built around getting the students to grapple with a real world problem and let all the learning hang off that.How did the students respond to that? Do you think you were successful?Based on the number of students signing up to take the courses and the student evaluations after the classes were over, I think we really struck a chord. I wouldn''t say it was necessarily the right answer for every student but I think there is clearly a group of students for whom this is a really effective and motivating approach.Let''s now move to drug discovery and development – the focus of the new online Special Collection from DMM. What would you say are some of the most urgent challenges in drug development that you have seen?I think one of the most urgent challenges is to begin to break free of some of our ‘old’ ways of thinking and take advantage of new scientific insights. For example, if you look at the traditional organization in a medical school environment, they are centered around departments devoted to organs (liver, heart, kidney). I think our increasing scientific understanding is that there are disease processes that may impact multiple organ systems but ultimately it is understanding the process, and drugging the process, that becomes important and not drugging the organ.I think that moving towards a process-oriented understanding of what common mechanisms are implicated in a given disease state or therapeutic challenge will help us be a little more creative and a little bit more interdisciplinary in how we think about these challenges.One of the difficulties with those new approaches is that pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions have not had a great track record of working together. Do you think that''s true? And why do you think it''s been so difficult to move ideas from the bench to the clinics?I think this is complicated. If you take the academic researchers'' point of view, their early identification of a problem and early identification of a potential solution feels like they have moved the ball very far forward towards the end solution. If you take industry''s point of view, the identification of the target or even the identification of a potential chemical compound is really just barely beginning to get to the starting line; the bulk of the time and the bulk of the dollars that will ultimately be needed to create a product come after the academic work and these will be spent by industry. I think that this differing point of view around where and how value is created has a lot to do with many of the challenges that arise when academia and industry are speaking to each other.Is it important to bridge this gap or is everybody playing their role?I think there''s an opportunity for academia to continue in its current role but to carry the potential solution further. I think in certain areas the access to tools and to patients allows academics to maybe carry projects further and closer to ‘proof of concept’ than they did historically, and that will continue to add value to the academic institution. That would ultimately help to bridge this gap because if you''ve taken something closer to proof of concept while still within the academic institution, you have created more value, you are able to engage with industry differently, and maybe the value perception gap is closed somewhat.What industry is really good at is organizing and managing late-stage research and clinical trials in an effective manner, and what academia is really good at is understanding basic questions, finding targets and sometimes finding early chemical compounds. Again, I think that the perception in academia of where value has been created is in part related to the fact that many academics haven''t been given the exposure or the training to actually understand the full breadth of the drug-development process. While they may have a general sense of it – we have all seen the same diagrams showing the steps and the funnel narrowing down from a million compounds to something getting onto the market – only those with real exposure to the work in industry understand it at a visceral or experiential level. One of the opportunities for academia is to find better ways to have some cross-talk, whether that''s internships for graduate students to get some experience in industry or other ways to get the students really exposed to the industrial side of drug development. Obviously, all the trained scientists on the industry side have been through academia because they had to go through it to get their PhDs, and thus they understand the academic side of the house pretty well. I really think the challenge is getting to people who have spent their whole career in academia to have a better understanding of what the drivers are on the industry side.

“One of the opportunities for academia is to find better ways to have some cross-talk, whether that''s internships for graduate students to get some experience in industry or other ways to get the students really exposed to the industrial side of drug development”

Between target identification and clinical trials of course there is another piece. At what point does the researcher in academia put down his pipette, walk out and start a biotech company? Should that happen?That''s a fraught question because I think it is an enormous undertaking to start a biotechnology company. Fundraising, intellectual property, regulatory affairs, company management – there are a whole number of disciplines that biotech companies have to take on. It is very rare that an academic scientist is going to have the training, the time and the motivation to do all of those things while also continuing to pursue their academic career in a very challenging funding environment. I think it comes back to this point that we were talking about with teams. I think it is really important for a scientist who is excited about their work and thinks it may be the basis of a company to go out and begin to form a team that is going to increase the likelihood of success. They have to accept the fact that science is a critical component, but it is just a component, and many different disciplines along with many different people are needed to make a successful company. If a scientist can bring that sort of collaborative view point and is open to working closely with an intellectual property attorney, with a business development person and with whomever their funding source is, that will increase their likelihood of success. They have to do it with a certain amount of humility, which is to say that it isn''t just going to be the science that drives the success: all the given pieces have to come together to be successful.You''ve watched a lot of technology coming through, including at your new position at Mars. Which technology excites you?We all have to pay a lot of attention to CRISPR and the gene-editing technologies. There is certainly a number of intellectual property issues that have to get sorted out but that''s clearly an area that will have a huge impact not just on human health but on animal health and plant health as well.The other area I''ve been thinking a lot about lately is the microbiome. As sequencing technology has altered in cost and time, we have begun to be able to explore the microbiome in a way that historically was not possible. And it feels like we are moving towards a tipping point where the explosion of understanding is going to open up a lot of interesting opportunities for us to intervene. Whether that''s through traditional drug modalities or through altered nutrition or through changing the microbial community in soil to produce crops that have higher nutrient value or other approaches, I think that''s another broad area that seems poised to begin to offer really interesting results.Were you surprised that a company like Mars, which has not been a basic research company at all, is now giving you an opportunity to build something that is much more research-orientated?The reality of Mars is that they have actually had a very deep fundamental research program for a number of years. They got involved in the sequencing of the cacao genome and contributed it to the public domain, and they are now also involved in the sequencing of the genomes of a large number of orphan crops in Africa. So they have been very active in their research both in the company and in collaboration with academic scientists around the world. The nature of the company has meant that the work is perhaps not as obvious as others, but it is a remarkably science-driven company in much of what it does.You have done a myriad of things. What are the one or two things that you are most proud of?I am most proud of my efforts to keep a hand in both the commercial and the academic world. It certainly has not been easy but I have received enormous satisfaction from the opportunity to work with bright students at each of the schools I have had the opportunity to teach at. I am not sure there is anything more satisfying than the opportunity to work with students and feel you have helped them towards their goals.At the same time, I think I''ve been effective in doing that because I have managed to keep an active role in the applied world. In some ways, my greatest achievement has been finding a way to balance those two interests in a way that seems to have worked for the various organizations I''ve been affiliated with.How do you relax away from work? Do you have a family?I am married. My wife is a securities litigator so has a very active career of her own. We have two children, one in high school and one in middle school. I''ve had the privilege to coach both of them on their various soccer teams since they were each about 4 years old so that''s been a lot of fun.The other thing that many people will not find relaxing – but for some reason my family does – has been taking backcountry ski trips annually for a number of years. Worrying about navigating through the snow and finding shelter before darkness falls has a way of clearing the mind.     

Joan Heath interviews Suzanne Cory and Joan Steitz: a female perspective of science in the swinging ‘60s

Prompted by the occasion of International Women''s Day, Joan Heath and DMM reunited Professors Suzanne Cory and Joan Steitz via Zoom to discuss their extraordinary careers and joint experiences in science. They also delve into past and present challenges for women in science, and discuss the role of scientists in a post-pandemic world.

Suzanne Cory, Joan Steitz and Joan Heath (from left to right) As one of Australia''s most eminent molecular biologists, with a school in Melbourne bearing her name, Professor Suzanne Cory has been both Director of The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Australia (WEHI) and President of the Australian Academy of Science. She earned her PhD at the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) in Cambridge, UK, with postdoctoral training at the University of Geneva. She continues her research at WEHI as an honorary distinguished research fellow, investigating the genetics of the immune system in the development of blood cancers and the effects of chemotherapeutic drugs on cancer cells.Joan Steitz – currently Sterling Professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale University, and for 35 years the recipient of a Howard Hughes fellowship – is best known for her seminal work in RNA biology. She was the first female graduate student to join the laboratory of James Watson at Harvard University and proceeded with her postdoctoral training at the MRC LMB in Cambridge. Her pioneering research delved into the fundamental mechanisms of ribosome and messenger RNA interactions, as well as RNA splicing, heralding the phenomenon of alternative RNA splicing. A recipient of many awards and honours, she is also involved in international projects aimed at supporting women in science.Host Joan Heath heads a laboratory at WEHI in Australia. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of Cambridge, followed by her PhD at the Strangeways Research Laboratory also in Cambridge, then just across the road from the MRC LMB. After postdoctoral positions in bone biology and osteoporosis research, Joan joined the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research where she became a laboratory head, and changed her focus to cancer research using zebrafish to identify genes that are indispensable for the rapid growth and proliferation of cells during development. She joined the WEHI in 2012. There she showed that the same developmental genes are also required by highly proliferative, difficult-to-treat cancers, including lung, liver and stomach cancer, paving the way for translational research targeting these genes in novel cancer therapies. Joan H: How long have you two known each other? Suzanne: I was calculating that this morning and I was astonished because it seems like only yesterday, but it has been 55 years since we met in Cambridge. It has been a voyage in science and a voyage in the world because we have always made a point to meet up in beautiful places and go hiking. That is how we''ve been able to renew our friendship over all these years. Joan H: Where were you when you first met? Joan S: We both were working at the MRC LMB in Cambridge, England. Suzanne was doing her PhD and I arrived slightly later for a postdoc.Suzanne: We had a pre-meeting in the sense that Joan, Jerry Adams (my future husband) and Tom Steitz (Joan''s husband), were all graduate students together in Harvard. So, when Joan and Tom came to Cambridge, it was natural that we would all start doing things together. And Joan and I ended up sharing a lab bench.Joan S: The reason that I did a postdoc in the mecca of X-ray crystallography was that I had married a crystallographer – and there was no other place that he could possibly go. They very much wanted to have my husband at the Cambridge MRC lab, but there wasn''t a clear plan for me. Francis Crick suggested that I do a literature project in the library, but I knew that theory was not my forte in comparison to experiments. I started talking to the many people working in the lab and found a project that no one wanted, because it was so challenging. But it was a very interesting problem, so I decided to take it on – and it turned out to be a great project.Joan H: That''s amazing. You were obviously determined to overturn other people''s expectations of you.Suzanne, even now, it''s extremely unusual for a young person to leave their home country to do their PhD. It''s still a brave thing to do but all those years ago it was really courageous. You told me that you ended up there because you wrote a simple letter, which was a complete shot in the dark.Suzanne: It certainly was. During my master''s degree at the University of Melbourne, I became more and more interested in doing science and decided I would do a PhD. But I had a counteracting desire to travel and see Europe. So I decided that I would do my PhD overseas to give myself the opportunity of travelling. I had fallen in love with DNA during my undergraduate studies. So, I wrote a letter to Francis Crick in Cambridge, and asked if he would take me on as a PhD student. Much to my amazement, I eventually got a letter back saying yes. I think that my professor of biochemistry might have also visited Cambridge while he was travelling and spoken up for me. However, I was still extraordinarily fortunate that Francis had agreed because there weren''t many PhD students in the LMB at that time. It made such a difference to my entire life. I look back on that letter and think, “How did you have the audacity to write that letter and aim to go to that laboratory?”. I think it was partly naivety.Joan H: That''s a lesson for everyone, to go for your dreams, and don''t assume people won''t take notice of you. It is more difficult now, when scientists receive hundreds of e-mail applications from prospective PhD students in their inbox. You would have written a letter with a stamp on it that probably took three weeks to arrive, but it just shows you that you should be audacious. Did you have a different experience to Joan when you arrived? Was there a proper project already lined up for you?Suzanne: I was interviewed by Francis Crick and Sydney Brenner, who were the joint directors of the department. They decided that I would work on the structure of the methionyl-tRNA that puts methionine into internal positions in polypeptides. After they described the project – which involved doing counter-current distribution fractionation of bulk tRNAs, in which I had no experience whatsoever – Sydney in his very characteristic monotone said, “Do you think you''re up to it?”. I sort of gulped to myself and said, “Yes, I think I could do that”. I then went to Brian Clark''s laboratory, who was going to be my PhD supervisor, and started the project. Like always in life, if you learn from people and just go from one day to the next, you actually get there in the end.Joan H: So, persistence was key. Were there many other women at the LMB at the time?Suzanne: I don''t remember any female scientists who had official senior positions. There were certainly some strong female scientists there, but I don''t think they were given the recognition or the status that they actually deserved.Joan S: Later, some were given more recognition, crystallographers in particular, but not so much the molecular biologists.Suzanne: I think, as women, we both pioneered in that department.Joan H: Given the fact that you both agreed to take on projects you had very little previous experience with and that the male supervisors thought you weren''t going to have the mettle to carry it through, once you were there, did you feel that you had to work the whole time? Or did you still manage to have lots of fun and partake in opportunities that Cambridge had to offer at the time?Joan S: We certainly partook in a lot of those things. My husband and I got interested in antique furniture, antique paintings, and used to scour the countryside for little antique shops. We saw lots of England, then a little bit of Scotland and Wales. It was wonderful. A real adventure.Suzanne: I worked really hard most of the time that I was in Cambridge, as the work was very exciting. But I would take holiday periods, camping and youth hostelling all over Europe with a girlfriend from Melbourne and later, travelling with Jerry. We also would go to London for the opera and looking for amazing clothes on Carnaby Street and Chelsea Road (this was the Beatles era, late 60s). Jerry once came back with a purple velvet suit, which was his prized possession for many years. There was lots of fun but also lots of work.Open in a separate windowJoan Steitz, Tom Steitz, Jerry Adams and Suzanne Cory (from left to right) in the Swiss Alps, 1970. Image courtesy of Mark Bretscher. This image in not reproduced under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. For permission to reproduce, contact the DMM Editorial office. Joan H: Can you remember the first moment in that part of your career that gave you the most pleasure? Joan S: I worked on a project for about a year, and it turned out that I was doing the wrong fractionation method to get the material that I needed to analyse. Then I had a conversation with Sydney Brenner telling him that I was going to give this one more try with a new method, and then I was going to give up. I remember Sydney saying, “Sometimes, like with a bad marriage, you have to give experiments one last try before you give them up.” Then I tried again, and it worked. This is often the case in science, that you try something new, that''s a little bit different, and it makes all the difference. Then you''re running.Suzanne: The same thing happened to me. I was labouring away on the counter current distribution machines fractionating methionine tRNA, with the goal of sequencing it by the laborious procedure recently published by Robert Holley. However, Fred Sanger, in the department upstairs, had invented a totally new method for sequencing using ³²P-labelled RNA. I desperately wanted to try this, so I managed to persuade my supervisor that we should change techniques. That change was key to my future because the approach was successful. I still remember to this day exactly where I was in Cambridge, walking on a Sunday afternoon, when the last piece of the puzzle dropped into place in my mind, and I had the entire sequence. In that moment, I was extremely joyful, because I knew I had my PhD and that I had succeeded. So that was my eureka moment.Joan H: Obviously, these were extremely productive years, and you''ve mentioned several Nobel Prize winners in your midst. It must have been the most inspiring environment, which I''m sure had a big impact on what you did next. By this stage in your career, were you already feeling ambitious or was it still your scientific curiosity that was driving your path?

“I expected that I would go back to the United States and be a research associate in some man''s lab […]. Then it turned out that people were more impressed than I thought and started offering me junior faculty jobs.”

Joan S: I had gotten a lot of recognition for having sequenced a piece of mRNA, using the same methods that Suzanne used to sequence tRNA. However, I had no expectations, because I had never seen a woman as a science professor, or head of a lab. I expected that I would go back to the United States and be a research associate in some man''s lab, and maybe they''d let me guide a graduate student. Then it turned out that people were more impressed than I thought and started offering me junior faculty jobs.My husband had already secured a junior faculty job in Berkeley before we even went to England, so we went back there after two years. My husband went to the chair of the department in Berkeley and put down letters on his desk of job offers that both of us had received for independent, junior faculty positions from several universities. The Chairman then said to Tom, “But all of our wives are research associates in our labs, and they love it”. This tore at my pride, as there had been a couple of universities that offered us both faculty jobs, and Berkeley was only offering one. So, we didn''t stay at Berkeley, and we came to Yale, which was wonderful.Suzanne: It''s really amazing to think that they gave you up. How foolish they were.Joan H: They''ve lived to regret it a million times over. Suzanne, at that point were you ready to climb this very difficult ladder?Suzanne: Like Joan, I didn''t have any expectations. For me, it was a matter of being able to continue discovering things in science. Jerry had already arranged to start a postdoc in Geneva. So, I applied for a postdoctoral fellowship, and obtained one. We went off together to Geneva to start our married life, and that was the beginning of us doing science together, which we''ve done ever since. I think without Jerry guiding me at that stage in my life, I would have probably drifted out of science. I don''t think I had the scientific confidence to ever think that I would be running a lab. For me, it was just continuing a voyage of discovery; and being lucky to end up in a wonderful scientific partnership and, through that partnership, my confidence grew over the years. Joan H: How many years after your postdoctoral training was it before you looked around your environment and had the confidence to think that you could be a lab or department head or could run an Institute? Joan S: I would say that confidence just grew. Tom and I were part of a departmental overhaul that involved hiring about six new people at Yale. We all stuck together, supported each other and were very collegial even though we worked in different areas. I think the collegial nature of the department in Yale helped me gain confidence. It was very scary at first because I didn''t know if I could write grants or direct people.Suzanne: Cambridge had an incredible influence, certainly over me, and I''m sure over Joan, Tom and Jerry, too. We looked around and saw all these amazing Nobel laureates, but also all these very ambitious, talented postdocs from around the world. I don''t think anyone thought about being the head of a department at that stage. We were simply striving to make discoveries and we gave each other mutual confidence, and stiff competition, too.The other thing that Cambridge gave us, was a new technology. For Joan and me, it was RNA sequencing. Being able to do that technology opened doors all around the world. I now always advise young people to go to the best place in the world to train in your chosen subject and acquire a new technology, because that will open the door to many opportunities in the future.Jerry and I made some excellent discoveries in Geneva, which were published in front-rank journals. Then it was time to move to full independence. I really wanted to go back to Australia but, as Jerry is an American, it was not at all obvious that he should take the big leap of moving to the bottom of the world and starting a lab there. I owe him a tremendous debt because he decided that he would take that risk.Earlier, whilst on our honeymoon, we had visited various labs in Australia. Although WEHI was an institute for immunology, a field we knew little about at that stage, it had the same atmosphere as the LMB in the sense that everyone was striving at the frontiers of science and competing with the rest of the world. We decided this was the only place in Australia that we would work at and that we would attempt to persuade the new director Gus Nossal that he needed molecular biologists. We had an interview with him in Switzerland and he offered us jobs as postdocs. Again, we were probably very naive and audacious but we told him we didn''t want to be postdocs – we wanted to run our own lab. And he agreed and we launched our fledgling lab together in 1971. What drove us was always discovery, rather than career ambitions.Joan H: You''ve both described these amazing sets of circumstances that were challenging but, nevertheless, very satisfying. However, a lot of things have since changed. What do you think are the main remaining barriers to women in science?Joan S: There is an important phenomenon called social identity threat, or stereotype threat, that I think still impedes women in proceeding in their careers. The phenomenon is described by cognitive psychologists as a reaction that all people experience if they feel that they are part of an undervalued minority. And so, by definition, since there are fewer women in science than there are men, women are being subjected to stereotype threat. Cognitive psychologists have studied the physiological manifestations of this, including increased heart rate and perspiration but, psychologically, they''ve also documented that cognitive learning and memory are impaired when one has these feelings.I first learned about this in 2007 and I looked back and realized why, for 30 years, when I''d been on committees as the only woman amongst ten men, I wouldn''t dare say anything – because I was frightened stiff. Men undergo this response, too, if they''re put into the situation of being undervalued. If you understand why you''re reacting the way you''re reacting and know that this is a normal human response, I think it helps you to overcome your own feelings of insecurity and allows you to go ahead. I always tell young women who I''m rooting for in science about this, because I want them to know that they will very likely end up feeling this way, and it''s a normal human response.

“One thing I sometimes get frustrated about is that we often need men to change things […] but what we really need are women in those high-level positions, so that they can be the champions of change.”

Joan H: There are other terms describing other relevant phenomena, such as unconscious bias, imposter syndrome and champions of change. One thing I really relate to is imposter syndrome. I''ve listened to webinars on this topic and they all reach a similar conclusion that we all feel the same. On the one hand, at the end of the webinar, you do feel somewhat elated to know that it''s not just you, and that it''s normal. But, on the other hand, it doesn''t really change things. It''s a recognition of what we feel, and we all get some help from that, but you really need opportunities to change things at a higher level. One thing I sometimes get frustrated about is that we often need men to change things, leading to this concept of male champions of change. I admire those men; but what we really need are women in those high-level positions, so that they can be the champions of change. Not having 50% of university departments and medical research institutes run by women still limits our full potential.Joan S: I certainly agree with you, Joan. It''s very important to have realistic role models. Suzanne being head of the WEHI for all those years has engendered all sorts of admiration.Joan H: During that period, Suzanne not only did fantastic science but our Institute doubled in size.It''s transformative when you have women making up 50% of people around the table. It''s no help just having a token female because that poor person''s not going to be able to change everything on her own. In American scientific institutions, are there any firm quotas for female scientists and other people that are underrepresented in science?Joan S: In recent years there has been a push in that direction. Sometimes it''s successful and sometimes it''s not. It is very different now compared to when there was no consciousness that this was unfair or that things could be better if we had real representation.Suzanne: I agree with both of you in everything that''s been said. While reflecting at this moment, what it says to me is that what''s really needed is societal change, and that we need to give courage to girls from the very earliest age. It should come naturally, they shouldn''t feel inferior, and others should not look at them as inferior. They should expect to have careers as well as families, be able to manage both and have somebody alongside them who helps them manage both.I think that affirmative action for women in science is necessary because the pace of change has been so slow. However, I also think quotas can be detrimental to the cause of women, in the sense that it''s then possible for people to say you only made it because there was a quota – which is very destructive. If I look back on our careers in science, it is clear that things have changed tremendously. Today there are more opportunities for women because many universities and institutes are bending over backwards to equalise things. The downside of this is that talented men may miss out on positions because of this policy and the pendulum could swing back.Joan H: The evidence shows that when more women are involved in things, those things go better. For instance, boards that have more women on them are more productive. Obviously, what you alluded to is there are lots of fantastic male scientists as well. The real issue here is there''s not enough funding to go round to support all the great men and women. But there are clearly enough good women around to be represented at the 50% level, without disproportionately disadvantaging male scientists.Joan S: Men and women are now operating on a more even playing field, which doesn''t mean that the men are missing out. They''re just in a more-competitive situation – as they should be. Joan H: Suzanne previously covered the specific advice she would give to young female researchers. Joan, do you have any other suggestions? Joan S: I encourage them to try lots of different things in science, and when they find something that really grabs them, then go for it and be persistent. We all know that science is very up and down. But if you keep pushing when you''re in a trough, it will always go back up again and you will succeed. That''s harder for a young person, who hasn''t experienced these troughs, to understand.Joan H: Yes, and the period when women scientists start having children is the hardest part. It''s still a choice that some women make, to take some years off and come back with a less ambitious plan for their career. Obviously, things like maternity leave payments and so on are improving but there''s no question that, in most circumstances, the research will slow down during that period.Suzanne: What I say to young women at that stage of their careers is that you have to be very focused, you must spend the time that you do have in a very focused manner, so that you can be the most productive you can be. But you have to be supported at home by your partner. If you''re both scientists it''s easier because you can appreciate why the other person is rushing into the lab late at night, for example, but for most people, that''s not true. So, what is really important is equal sharing of responsibilities from both partners when young families are around. And I think employers need to give both of those partners a longer time to achieve the kind of papers that they need to progress in their careers. That''s a period when it is much harder to be productive, and we need to continue to support people during that difficult phase of their careers because we''ve invested so much in them. They have so much to offer to science and to society, so to let them slip out at that stage is a great waste.Joan H: Let''s change tack a little bit and think about some of the broader challenges in science. What do you think the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us about the importance of clear scientific communication and real engagement with the community?Joan S: Whenever I talk to people about this, I very clearly make the point that it was decades of fundamental research that led to the development of the COVID-19 vaccine. If it hadn''t been for those fundamental discoveries in how cells and mRNA work, it would never have only taken 63 days from sequencing the virus to phase one clinical trials at Moderna. I try to point out to people that all the different discoveries coming in from different angles made that possible. I personally find it absolutely remarkable that all that knowledge could be harnessed, so very quickly. I''ve been doing fundamental research my entire life and I never expected to see it materialise in the way it has. It''s a wonderful reward. Joan H: Do you think this has resulted in the community appreciating scientists more? Joan S: I don''t think we''re far enough downstream to know that. In the US, there has been a congressional vote to abandon our maintenance of vigilance and preparedness for future pandemics – which seems ridiculous. Now we have all these procedures set up, all we have to do is maintain them for the next one. Whereas, if we just let go of these procedures, we''ll have to start over again for future pandemics. I guess we''re not good enough at communicating some of these things at this point.Joan H: Millions of people died from the virus and yet, if we hadn''t had the vaccines, the scale would have been even more horrific. If we were able to convey this information effectively to the public, then, hopefully, people would recognise that – as well as spending a fixed percentage of the gross domestic product on defence, for example – we should spend at least the same amount on science. Not only for pandemics but for tackling climate change and other pressing issues. I like to think this is an auspicious time but I don''t know whether we are really taking advantage of it.Suzanne: The pandemic has brought science and scientists to the forefront, and there has been a period of great respect for scientists having developed the vaccine. It''s an absolute miracle that it was done so fast and effectively. We''re very fortunate but, as Joan said, that was not luck. It was through investment in basic science for decades. We have to keep conveying this message, to our politicians in particular, so that they will keep supporting all kinds of scientists, because we never know what''s around the corner.Joan H: Certainly, people like Anthony Fauci in the US and Catherine Bennett in Melbourne, spoke eloquently and had a real talent for communicating things clearly and in a nutshell. That''s not something we''re all good at and it''s not something that is easy to train into people either. I think we all need to try to capture the attention of the community at large, by speaking plainly. I don''t think people understand that scientists are underfunded and could do so much more if funding was more generous.

“All I can say to young people is, if you really love science and have a passion for it, keep trying – because you will succeed if you put your whole heart and soul into this career path.”

Suzanne: I think the general public has no appreciation of how tenuous the life of a scientist can be, and how we are losing so many great minds entering the field because young people just finishing their PhDs look with dismay at how hard it is to support a career in science and get enough funding. There''s a tremendous waste of talent. All I can say to young people is, if you really love science and have a passion for it, keep trying – because you will succeed if you put your whole heart and soul into this career path.Joan H: This has been an absolutely fantastic discussion and it''s such a delight to talk to women who, after all these years, are still as passionate as ever and are pursuing their scientific subjects with the same vigour as they have all along.Suzanne: It''s been wonderful to talk with you, Joan, and I hope that we see each other soon, no matter what continent. And thank you, Joan Heath for getting us together and giving us this opportunity.     

Finding autophagy

To tell the truth, I find it difficult to work when flying, or even when sitting in an airport for an extended period of time. So, typically I take along a book to read. And when I truly cannot concentrate, for example when a flight is considerably delayed, I have even been known to resort to word puzzles. Depending on the type, they do not require much attention (that is, you can pick up right where you left off after you glance at the flight status screen for the twentieth or so time, even though you know nothing has changed), or effort (although you need to use a pen or pencil, not a keyboard), but nonetheless they can keep your mind somewhat occupied. I even rationalize doing them based on the assumption that they are sharpening my observational/pattern-finding skills. One type of word puzzle that is particularly mindless, but for that very reason I still enjoy in the above circumstances, is a word search; you are given a grid with letters and/or numbers, and a list of “hidden” terms, and you circle them within the grid, crossing them off the list as you go along. I do admit that the categories of terms used in the typical word searches can become rather mundane (breeds of dog, types of food, words that are followed by “stone,” words associated with a famous movie star, words from a particular television show, etc.). Therefore, on one of my last seminar trips I decided to generate my own word search, using the category of autophagy.     

Finding autophagy: It’s a question of how you look at it

To tell the truth, I find it difficult to work when flying, or even when sitting in an airport for an extended period of time. So, typically I take along a book to read. And when I truly cannot concentrate, for example when a flight is considerably delayed, I have even been known to resort to word puzzles. Depending on the type, they do not require much attention (that is, you can pick up right where you left off after you glance at the flight status screen for the twentieth or so time, even though you know nothing has changed), or effort (although you need to use a pen or pencil, not a keyboard), but nonetheless they can keep your mind somewhat occupied. I even rationalize doing them based on the assumption that they are sharpening my observational/pattern-finding skills. One type of word puzzle that is particularly mindless, but for that very reason I still enjoy in the above circumstances, is a word search; you are given a grid with letters and/or numbers, and a list of “hidden” terms, and you circle them within the grid, crossing them off the list as you go along. I do admit that the categories of terms used in the typical word searches can become rather mundane (breeds of dog, types of food, words that are followed by “stone,” words associated with a famous movie star, words from a particular television show, etc.). Therefore, on one of my last seminar trips I decided to generate my own word search, using the category of autophagy.     

EXISTENCE: WHO NEEDS IT? THE NON‐IDENTITY PROBLEM AND MERELY POSSIBLE PEOPLE

In formulating procreative principles, it makes sense to begin by thinking about whose interests ought to matter to us. Obviously, we care about those who exist. Less obviously, but still uncontroversially, we care about those who will exist. Ought we to care about those who might possibly, but will not actually, exist? Recently, unusual positions have been taken regarding merely possible people and the non‐identity problem. David Velleman argues that what might have happened to you – an existent person – often doesn't merit moral consideration since the alternative person one would have been had what might have happened actually happened is a merely possible person about whom one has no reason to care. He argues that his way of thinking can eliminate the non‐identity problem. Caspar Hare argues that merely possible people have interests and are morally relevant. He argues that we can solve the non‐identity problem by rejecting the view that merely possible people are morally irrelevant. Both Hare and Velleman argue that focusing on one's de dicto rather than on one's de re children can help us avoid the non‐identity problem. I analyze the role that merely possible, nonexistent hypothetical entities ought to play in our moral reasoning, especially with regard to procreation. I refute both Velleman's and Hare's views and demonstrate the difficulties we encounter when we try to apply their views to common non‐identity cases. I conclude with the common‐sense view regarding who matters, morally: only those who do, did, or will exist.     

In conversation with the Chief Editor

An interview with Facundo D Batista, The EMBO Journal new Editor‐in‐Chief.

An interview with Facundo D. Batista, The EMBO Journal new Chief Editor. Facundo D. Batista has shaped our understanding of the molecular and cellular biology of B‐cell activation. In 2016, he relocated his lab to Massachusetts General Hospital/M.I.T./Harvard’s Ragon Institute to explore the translational potential of two decades of basic research in B‐cell biology. The interview was conducted by Thiago Carvalho. Thiago Carvalho (TC): What inspired you to pursue a career in science? Facundo D Batista (FDB): I was very inspired by my undergraduate course on molecular biology at the University of Buenos Aires. The course was given for the first time, and we were taught the basic techniques of handling DNA, producing insulin, and so forth. Two professors in the course, Daniel Goldstein and Alberto Kornblihtt, really primed us to open our horizons and encouraged training in centers of excellence abroad. I did not speak any English at all, and applying to graduate school in the United States and doing the GRE was impossible for me. I would not have passed. Then, an opportunity to go to Italy and get experience in institutes that could provide me with better training came up. If I recall correctly, we were the first generation of Argentinian biology graduates—myself, Pablo Pomposiello, and many others—that left Argentina looking for a PhD. In general, people would try for a postdoc.I applied to a PhD program in Italy. I went with an open ticket for a year. If I had not passed the ICGEB/SISSA (Trieste) examination, I had three thousand dollars to travel around, and then I would go back to Argentina. I had never been in Europe before. So, for me it was an experience. What happened was that I was very lucky to be admitted in probably the first generation of this new institution, the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology in Italy. In three years, I finished my PhD, and then, to be honest, as an Argentinian in Europe, I did not have many postdoctoral funding opportunities either. TC: How did you move from Trieste to Cambridge’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology? FDB: I found Michael Neuberger’s laboratory to be very appealing, and I wrote to Michael. He replied to me, in a letter that I still keep, that—if I was able to obtain a fellowship—he would take me in his laboratory. A wonderful thing about EMBO was that it would recognize the country where you did your PhD when considering postdoctoral fellowship applications, giving me access to this important funding support. ¹ It was the very early days of diversity—the notion that people could be eligible for support based not only on their nationality, but also on their “scientific nationality”. It gave me a unique opportunity. TC: It was also an opportunity to meet another source of inspiration for you, César Milstein FDB: César was not well at the time, he had heart problems. But I met him, and I felt very close because Michael was working with César, and he worked next door. For me, walking in those corridors with César Milstein and several other Nobel Prize winners—you know, Aaron Klug and Max Perutz—it was a dream. I could not believe that you could have lunch with these wonderful people, and they would come and talk to you, not as Dr. Klug or Dr. Milstein, but they would be César, Aaron, and Max. That for me was totally mind‐changing, together with my relationship with Michael, whom I love. They completely changed my perspective on science. TC: What do you remember most about Michael Neuberger as a mentor? FDB: What was incredible about Michael was his clarity. You would present any biological problem to him, and he would crystallize in one sentence what the real question behind it was. He was amazing. Michael would enter into a state of thinking where he would stop looking at you and would start looking up at a wall and would start to concentrate for those 10, 20 minutes that you’d explain the problem. Then, he would come up with critical questions and he would be critical to the bones. I think that that is something that science has lost these days. I think that this notion of going deep into critically asking the right scientific questions has been lost as a tradition. It is something that I try to transmit to my postdocs and PhD students: Scientific criticism is not about personal or emotional evaluation. It is really about trying to nail down what the question is and how a project develops. I think that is what I remember most of Michael, his commitment to the people that worked with him and who surrounded him and that deep thinking and constant challenging about what is the next step. TC: In 2002, you started your laboratory at the London Research Institute FDB: I was at one stage considering staying at the LMB with my independent lab, and César and Michael were very supportive of that. But then came the opportunity to join the LRI—which at the time was still the ICRF. I was the last employee recruited (to the ICRF), and it was wonderful. The notion of changing environments again, changing colleagues. The LMB was not an immunology institute. It was a general research institute and the ICRF at that time was similar, with very little immunology. I have always valued the whole spectrum of biology from mathematical modeling to quantitative biology to biochemistry to technological inputs, to development, and so forth. TC: Your LRI laboratory revealed entirely new aspects of the molecular and cellular biology of B lymphocytes—one was the existence of organized membrane structures reminiscent of the immunological synapse first described in T cells that were crucial for activation. What are the implications of the immunological synapse for B‐cell function? FDB: It was a concept that was resisted by the B‐cell field. The notion at the time was that B cells would get activated by soluble antigens. But if you think about it, that does not make any sense. You will never reach a physiological concentration of a ligand that will allow you to engage a receptor in vivo at a low affinity. So in order to reach that concentration, you need to aggregate antigen on the surface of other cells first. And that makes the whole process much more efficient. It not only localizes the process into lymph nodes or spleens, but it also allows focusing the response into what the arrangement of a membrane is. I was not the first—the notion that antigens are on follicular dendritic cells was well‐established by early experiments. But I think our work transformed the field. A lot of laboratories have incorporated the notion that stimulating cells at the level of membranes changes the way that receptors perceive signals. This does not apply only to the B‐cell receptor, it applies to chemokines too, many of them are also coating the surface of other cells and that helps guide the signals that cells receive.I think that it is an important concept that is likely to be applicable to vaccines. There are several papers now showing that helping to aggregate antigens on the surface of macrophages or dendritic cells makes antigens more potent by driving them more efficiently into where they are used in follicles and lymph nodes. TC: What prompted your pivot to translational research? FDB: I had learned a lot about basic principles of B‐cell biology and antibody responses, but on model antigens. I felt at the time that translating that into humans and trying to understand how vaccines could be improved was an important step. I always like to recognize mentors or people who influenced me and one person who really influenced me in this thinking was Dennis Burton at Scripps. He was very early to incorporate into his HIV vaccine and antibody research people like me or Michelle Nussenzweig that were coming from basic B‐cell immunology to try to help to think about how vaccines can be improved. I decided to take a risk. I left a tenured, core‐funded position at the best institution in Europe to lead the Ragon Institute with Bruce Walker—I am the Associate Director and he is the Director—and brought my years of expertise at the ICGEB, LMB, LRI, and CRICK to a unique environment that is based on translational research. There is the incredible ecosystem of Harvard, MIT, and MGH, and the notion is to incorporate technologies and to incorporate immunology to tackle incredible challenges, like COVID‐19 is today. TC: Are there any major initiatives that you plan to focus on at The EMBO Journal? FDB: One of the things that I would really like to do is to involve the younger generations in the journal. I think that we have an opportunity for direct “translation”. I mean, EMBO has EMBO postdoctoral fellowships and EMBO young investigators, involving early career European scientists, but also scientists across the globe. We are discussing initiatives like, for example, inviting postdocs from different laboratories to present at the editorial meetings. The EMBO Journal has an open‐door policy in terms of people wanting to participate in the editorial meetings.I think that we have amazing scientists around the world that can really bring new views as to where the journal should be going. I feel strongly about that and about keeping a real sense of diversity in the journal, in terms of fields, in terms of gender, in terms of race, in getting people involved from Brazil, getting people involved from China, getting people involved from Japan, from across the globe. EMBO is no longer a European journal. EMBO is a journal whose office faces Europe, but it has a global outlook. TC: Early in their career, many researchers do not feel comfortable engaging with editors FDB: I sent one of my first papers as an independent P.I. to EMBO. That paper was editorially rejected. I replied to that rejection, saying that EMBO should stop publishing just biochemistry, and that they needed to appreciate the importance of quantitative cell biology. The paper was ultimately sent to review and accepted. What was also very positive was that a later review of the scope of The EMBO Journal came to a similar conclusion. That resulted in my appointment to the editorial advisory board of The EMBO Journal (I was not an EMBO member at the time). The positive message is that the journal very much welcomed receiving feedback. That was what made me like the journal. I felt that the journal was ready to listen, to change.This is not my journal. It is the community’s journal. I am just playing a role, putting in some time and effort. There are a lot of things that I do not see and other young people could see, and I am looking for inspiration there, to listen and translate those things into good policies for the journal. I think that this is important and I think that this is at the basis of what I want to be as a chief editor.     

RVBs Are Required for Assembling a Functional TIP60 Complex

RVB1/RVB2 (RuvBL1/RuvBL2 or pontin/reptin) are enigmatic AAA⁺ ATPase proteins that are present in multiple cellular complexes. Although they have been implicated in many cellular functions, the exact molecular function of RVB proteins in the various complexes is not clear. TIP60 complex (TIP60.com) is a tumor suppressor chromatin-remodeling complex containing RVB proteins. RVBs are required for the lysine acetyltransferase activity of TIP60.com but not for that of the pure recombinant TIP60 polypeptide. Here we describe two molecular functions of RVBs in TIP60.com. First, RVBs negate the repression of catalytic activity of TIP60 by another protein in TIP60.com, p400. RVBs competitively displace the SNF2 domain of p400 from the TIP60 polypeptide. In addition RVBs are also required for heat stability of TIP60.com by a p400-independent pathway. RVB1 and RVB2 are redundant with each other for these functions and do not require their ATPase activities. Thus, RVB proteins act as molecular adaptors that can substitute for one another to facilitate the optimal assembly, heat stability, and function of the TIP60 complex.     

Dr. Manners

Good manners make a difference—in science and elsewhere. This includes our social media etiquette as researchers. Subject Categories: S&S: History & Philosophy of Science, Methods & Resources, S&S: Ethics

Elbows off the table, please. Don’t chew with your mouth open. Don’t blow your nose at the table. Don’t put your feet up on the chair or table. And please, do not yuck my yum. These are basic table manners that have come up at some of our lab meals, and I have often wondered if it was my job to teach my trainees social graces. A good fellow scientist and friend of mine once told me it was absolutely our place as mentors to teach our trainees not only how to do science well, but also how to be well‐mannered humans. While these Emily Post‐approved table manners might seem old‐fashioned (I’m guessing some readers will have to look up Emily Post), I strongly believe they still hold a place in modern society; being in good company never goes out of style.Speaking of modern society: upon encouragement by several of my scientist friends, I joined Twitter in 2016. My motivation was mainly to hear about pre‐prints and publications, conference announcements and relevant news, science or otherwise. I also follow people who just make me laugh (I highly recommend @ConanOBrien or @dog_rates). I (re)tweet job openings, conference announcements, and interesting new data. Occasionally, I post photos from conferences, or random science‐related art. I also appreciate the sense of community that social media brings to the table. However, social media is a venue where I have also seen manners go to die. Rapidly.It is really shocking to read what some people feel perfectly comfortable tweeting. While most of us can agree that foul language and highly offensive opinions are generally considered distasteful, there are other, subtler but nonetheless equally—if not more—cringe‐worthy offenses online when I am fairly certain these people would never utter such words in real life. In the era of pandemic, the existence of people tweeting about not being able to eat at their favorite restaurant or travel to some destination holiday because of lockdown shows an egregious lack of self‐awareness. Sure it sucks to cancel a wedding due to COVID‐19, but do you need to moan to your followers—most of whom are likely total strangers—about it while other people have lost their jobs? If I had a nickel for every first‐world complaint I have seen on Twitter, I’d have retired a long time ago; although to be honest, I would do science for free. However, these examples pale in comparison with another type of tweeter: Reader, I submit to you, “the Humblebragger.”From the MacMillan Buzzword dictionary (via Google): a humblebrag is “a statement in which you pretend to be modest but which you are really using as a way of telling people about your success or achievements.” I would further translate this definition to indicate that humblebraggers are starved for attention. After joining Twitter, I quickly found many people using social media to announce how “humble and honored” they are for receiving grant or prize X, Y, or Z. In general, these are junior faculty who have perhaps not acquired the self‐awareness more senior scientists have. Perhaps the most off‐putting posts I have seen are from people who post photos of their NIH application priority scores right after study section, or their Notice of Awards (NOA). When did we ever, before social media, send little notes to each other—let alone to complete strangers—announcing our priority scores or NOAs? (Spoiler: NEVER)Some of you reading this opinion piece might have humblebragged at one or time or another, and might not understand why it is distasteful. Please let me explain. For every person who gets a fundable score, there are dozens more people who do not, and they are sad (I speak from many years of experience). While said fundable‐score person might be by someone we like—and I absolutely, positively wish them well—there are many more people who will feel lousy because they did not get funding from the same review round. When has anyone ever felt good about other people getting something that they, too, desire? I think as children, none of us liked the kid on the playground who ran around with the best new Toy of the Season. As adults, do we feel differently? Along these lines, I have never been a fan of “best poster/talk/abstract” prizes. Trainees should not be striving for these fleeting recognitions and should focus on doing the best science for Science’s sake; I really believe this competition process sets people up for life in a negative way—there, I’ve said it.Can your friends and colleagues tweet about your honors? Sure, why not, and by all means please let your well‐wishers honor you, and do thank them and graciously congratulate your trainees or colleagues for helping you to get there. But to post things yourself? Please. Don’t be surprised if you have been muted by many of your followers.It is notable that many of our most decorated scientists are not on Twitter, or at least never tweet about their accomplishments. I do not recall ever seeing a single Nobel laureate announce how humbled and honored they are about their prize. Of course, I might be wrong, but I am willing to bet the numbers are much lower than what I have observed for junior faculty. True humility will never be demonstrated by announcing your achievements to your social media followers, and I believe humblebragging reveals insecurity more than anything. I hope that many more of us can follow the lead of our top scientists both in creativity, rigor, and social media politeness.     

Pedagogy of the Black academic

I am just starting my career as a cancer biologist, but I have always been a Black man in America. This means that I have always inhabited a world that generally disregarded my existence in some form or another. It is June 17th, 2020 and protests have been happening for weeks since the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The current state of America may be uneasy for some, but for many Americans, the looming threat of exclusion and violence has been an unwelcome companion since birth. This letter is not about a single person, but the Black academic’s experience of race inside and outside of the academy during a time of social upheaval. I have trained in a variety of institutions, big and small, and all the while acutely aware of the impact of my Blackness on my science. The intent of the following is to provoke the reader to reflect on how we as a nation can move toward radically positive change and not incremental adjustments to the status quo. The views expressed are my own and are the result of years of personal experience observing the anti-Black standard in America.

About the AuthorI am currently a cancer biologist at the University of Minnesota Medical School. My lab works to eliminate cancer health disparities in African Heritage communities and investigates the roles of lipids in modifying the immune response in tumors. This is what I do, but not all of who I am. I am also the eldest child of a mother, who managed to convince me that she had eyes in the back of her head (thank you, Mom; it kept me honest). I am a big brother, a husband, and a father. I also consider myself a fortunate Black man in America. I grew up in places where many of my friends did not live to adulthood. If they managed to survive past adolescence, it was usually their dreams that died prematurely. I was lucky to have survived and to continue chasing my dream of becoming a scientist. I never considered myself the fastest, strongest, or even smartest kid growing up, but I was the most determined. Determined, despite the lack of access to role models in science that looked like me or shared my life experience. Now my mission is to increase the number of dreams achieved and impact as many young minds as my time on this planet permits.As a Black scientist, I sometimes have to remind myself that I have never been immune to racism. Because as you spend thousands of hours delving into the microscopic world, the macroworld starts to fade into the background like white noise. And if you get good at it, you almost forget about the strange looks, the excessive questioning, or even the obligatory “tailing” in stores, on campus, or at home. But it is strange to realize how much you have grown accustomed to discrimination and the fact that you unconsciously prepare for it daily, before it ever shows its ugly head, like a prize fighter training months before a fight.This past month, amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the rest of the world has decided to say police are bad, and oh, by the way, Black lives matter too—as if the oppression of Black bodies was new, or as though the recent string of names added to the ever-growing list of innocent Black Americans killed by authorities is an atypical occurrence. Well sadly it is not, and it never has been in this country or any other place with colonial origins. That is the truth, and there is no other way to state it. America is a country built on and driven by racist ideology.So, as a Black American in an “essential” worker role (I am now working on COVID–19-related research), I have physically been at work daily during the pandemic, as the spirit of solidarity sweeps the globe. As much as I want to say this is progress, I find myself asking “why now, and not then?” Why didn’t this happen when Trayvon Martin was murdered; why didn’t this happen when Rodney King was beaten (Alvarez and Buckley, 2013; Mullen and Skitka, 2006)? Is it a sign of the end times, or is it just that racism/White supremacy has finally run its course?I have a theory about why we are now seeing a mass movement against discrimination and police brutality (a.k.a. state-sanctioned murder). My theory states that had it not been for COVID-19 and the nationwide shutdown of normal life, none of this protesting would even be feasible. Why do you ask? The simple answer is that some people with the financial means can normally find ways to distract themselves with various activities, some noble and some … not so much, whereas other folks are less able to disconnect from the drudgery of hand-to-mouth living. Leave it to a global health crisis to reprioritize everyone’s entire life in one fell swoop. Suddenly, people who had vacation plans are stuck at home, whereas people who were just making ends meet are now unable to make those ends meet anymore. The haves and the have-nots are now both in an altered reality. Does this make them equal now? No, but it does allow people to see who their real friends, allies, and enemies are. I suspect that it’s the pulling back of the curtain that has made many people ready to fight, not to mention it is also very likely that many folks, after experiencing weeks of cabin fever, just needed some way to let off all that pent-up energy.Before COVID-19 became a full-time concern, tensions in the United States were already high as the recent killings of unarmed Black Americans (Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery) had gone viral and cries for justice echoed from coast to coast (Lovan, 2020). Once the reality of the pandemic set in and shelter-in-place orders were issued nationally, the situation became a powder keg waiting for just the right moment. That moment happened in North Minneapolis on May 25, 2020. With the release of the video showing the killing of George Floyd, the entire country and much of the world had a reason to go on a “righteous rampage” that has seemed to get the results some thought impossible to achieve. It cannot be overstated how critical social media has been in displaying the oppression of Black Americans at the hands of authorities to the entire world.Now, several months into the protests, the possibility of a “new’’ new normal has people dreaming of singing Kumbaya in technicolor. Yet, as one of the few Black faculty on my campus, I still feel like people are watching me, but for a different reason now. As various reforms are broadcast across the university, the random wellness “check-ins” start creeping in, and the requests for feedback on “new initiatives’’ seem to be like a new flavor of spam in my inbox.Now, I do appreciate the fact that people are starting to notice the oppressive nature of not being White in today’s world (in particular being Black in America), but I have been doing this for a while now, and I am not sure if hashtagged initiatives are healthy for anyone. Plus, it’s kind of creepy watching all of these people jump on the social justice bandwagon, when they weren’t here 4 mo ago or 4 years ago. For many Black academics, it is not about being involved with something when it’s trending; it’s about being “about that life” when it is inconvenient as hell. Again, I do appreciate the fact that more people are willing to fight oppression, racism, and White supremacy (even if only digitally), but you will have to forgive me if I do not trust you just yet. I mean, you are just checking in during what could be the last leg of a marathon, and we’ve been running this whole damn time!Here is a short answer to every wellness check-in email that many of the Black academics I know have received in the last 2 mo: “we were never okay in the first place, but thanks for FINALLY asking!” We don’t need any more bias training, hashtags, or email check-ins. It was a nice start, but it too has become a part of the status quo. The work now and always has been the eradication of underrepresentation, hurtful socialization, and ridiculously skewed power dynamics, not just the awareness of the fact. I don’t have all the answers, but if real change is desired, I think we can first start by teaching history accurately to EVERYONE, no more whitewashing the reality of America’s story and ignoring the contributions of Black academics (and Black Americans in general). Second, stop being silent when you see or hear racism at work or home. If you do nothing when racism shows up, you ARE a racist! Third, the privileged class must relinquish their “privilege” once and for all. That means the powers that were inherited based on historical (and present day) theft and oppression have to dissipate, with the ultimate goal of power sharing. The country club atmosphere of academia and the “fit culture” must erode in favor of true meritocracy. The best person for the job and not “the person who won’t make me uncomfortable by making me see my own deeply held prejudices and fears.”Honestly, Black academics SHOULD not be charged with the task of fixing broken systems, along with protecting themselves and mentees, while working toward tenure. But if we (Black academics) are not driving the car, progress will likely go the wrong way again (getting rid of Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima does not correct the underlying pathology). Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed speaks to this in saying, “the violence of the oppressors prevents the oppressed from being fully human, the response of the latter to this violence is grounded in the desire to pursue the right to be human … the oppressed, fighting to be human, take away the oppressors’ power to dominate and suppress, they restore to the oppressors the humanity they had lost in the exercise of oppression.” (Friere, 1972, p. 56). This means that if we (Black academics) want to be treated as humans and as scholars, we must show you what that humanity looks like FIRST. Now the question is, are you willing to learn or are you going to co-opt this moment, this movement to make it into something that fits your preconceived notion of the acceptable levels of Blackness in the academy?     

After 2 years of a pandemic,students are struggling to find strong reference letters

Writing and receiving reference letters in the time of COVID. Subject Categories: Careers

“People influence people. Nothing influences people more than a recommendation from a trusted friend. A trusted referral influences people more than the best broadcast message.” —Mark Zuckerberg.

I regularly teach undergraduate courses in genetics and genomics. Sure enough, at the end of each semester, after the final marks have been submitted, my inbox is bombarded with reference letter requests. “Dear Dr. Smith, I was a student in your Advanced Genetics course this past term and would be forever grateful if you would write me a reference for medical school…” I understand how hard it can be to find references, but I have a general rule that I will only write letters of support for individuals that I have interacted with face‐to‐face on at least a few occasions. This could include, for example, research volunteers in my laboratory, honors thesis students that I have supervised, and students who have gone out of their way to attend office hours and/or been regularly engaged in class discussions. I am selective about who I will write references for, not because I am unkind or lazy, but because I know from experience that a strong letter should include concrete examples of my professional interactions with the individual and should speak to their character and their academic abilities. In today''s highly competitive educational system, a letter that merely states that a student did well on the midterm and final exams will not suffice to get into medical or graduate school.However, over the past 2 years many, if not most, students have been attending university remotely with little opportunity to foster meaningful relationships with their instructors, peers, and mentors, especially for those in programs with large enrollments. Indeed, during the peak of Covid‐19, I stopped taking on undergraduate volunteers and greatly reduced the number of honors students in my laboratory. Similarly, my undergraduate lectures have been predominantly delivered online via Zoom, meaning I did not see or speak with most of the students in my courses. It did not help that nearly all of them kept their cameras and microphones turned off and rarely attended online office hours. Consequently, students are desperately struggling to identify individuals who can write them strong letters of reference. In fact, this past spring, I have had more requests for reference letters than ever before, and the same is true for many of my colleagues. Some of the emails I have received have been heartfelt and underscore how taxing the pandemic has been on young adults. With permission, I have included an excerpt from a message I received in early May:Hi Dr. Smith. You may not remember me, but I was in Genome Evolution this year. I enjoyed the class despite being absent for most of your live Zoom lectures because of the poor internet connection where I live. Believe it or not, my mark from your course was the highest of all my classes this term! Last summer, I moved back home to rural Northern Ontario to be closer to my family. My mom is a frontline worker and so I''ve been helping care for my elderly grandmother who has dementia as well as working part‐time as a tutor at the local high school to help pay tuition. All of this means that I''ve not paid as much attention to my studies as I should have. I''m hoping to go to graduate school this coming fall, but I have yet to find a professor who will write a reference for me. Would you please, please consider writing me a letter?I am sympathetic to the challenges students faced and continue to face during Covid‐19 and, therefore, I have gone out of my way to provide as many as I can with letters of support. But, it is no easy feat writing a good reference for someone you only know via an empty Zoom box and a few online assignments. My strategy has been to focus on their scholarly achievements in my courses, providing clear, tangible examples from examinations and essays, and to highlight the notable aspects of their CVs. I also make a point to stress how hard online learning can be for students (and instructors), reiterating some of the themes touched upon above. This may sound unethical to some readers but, in certain circumstances, I have allowed students to draft their own reference letters, which I can then vet, edit, and rewrite as I see fit.But it is not just undergraduates. After months and months of lockdowns and social distancing, many graduate students, postdocs, and professors are also struggling to find suitable references. In April, I submitted my application for promotion to Full Professor, which included the names of 20 potential reviewers. Normally, I would have selected at least some of these names from individuals I met at recent conferences and invited to university seminars, except I have not been to a conference in over 30 months. Moreover, all my recent invited talks have been on Zoom and did not include any one‐on‐one meetings with faculty or students. Thus, I had to include the names of scientists that I met over 3 years ago, hoping that my research made a lasting impression on them. I have heard similar anecdotes from many of my peers both at home and at other universities. Given all of this, I would encourage academics to be more forthcoming than they may have traditionally been when students or colleagues approach them for letters of support. Moreover, I think we could all be a little more forgiving and understanding when assessing our students and peers, be it for admissions into graduate school, promotion, or grant evaluations.Although it seems like life on university campuses is returning to a certain degree of normality, many scholars are still learning and working remotely, and who knows what the future may hold with regard to lockdowns. With this uncertainty, we need to do all we can to engage with and have constructive and enduring relationships with our university communities. For undergraduate and graduate students, this could mean regularly attending online office hours, even if it is only to introduce yourself, as well as actively participating in class discussions, whether they are in‐person, over Zoom, or on digital message boards. Also, do not disregard the potential and possibilities of remote volunteer research positions, especially those related to bioinformatics. Nearly, every laboratory in my department has some aspect of their research that can be carried out from a laptop computer with an Internet connection. Although not necessarily as enticing as working at the bench or in the field, computer‐based projects can be rewarding and an excellent path to a reference letter.If you are actively soliciting references, try and make it as easy as possible on your potential letter writers. Clearly and succinctly outline why you want this person to be a reference, what the letter writing/application process entails, and the deadline. Think months ahead, giving your references ample time to complete the letter, and do not be shy about sending gentle reminders. It is great to attach a CV, but also briefly highlight your most significant achievements in bullet points in your email (e.g., Dean''s Honours List 2021–22). This will save time for your references as they will not have to sift through many pages of a CV. No matter the eventual result of the application or award, be sure to follow up with your letter writers. There is nothing worse than spending time crafting a quality support letter and never learning the ultimate outcome of that effort. And, do not be embarrassed if you are unsuccessful and need to reach out again for another round of references—as Winston Churchill said, “Success is stumbling from failure to failure with no loss of enthusiasm.”     

A spectroscopic study of the membrane interaction of tuberoinfundibular peptide of 39 residues (TIP39)

The membrane interaction of tuberoinfundibular peptide of 39 residues (TIP39), which selectively activates the parathyroid hormone 2 (PTH2) receptor (PTH2-R), has been studied by fluorescence and NMR spectroscopic techniques. Membrane binding would be the first step of a potential membrane-bound activation pathway which has been discussed for a number of neuropeptides and G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs). Here, the orientation of TIP39 on the surface of membrane mimicking dodecyl-phosphocholine (DPC) micelles was monitored by Photo-CIDNP (chemically-induced dynamic nuclear polarization) NMR which indicates that both Trp25 and Tyr29 face the membrane surface. However, the PTH2 receptor is located in the hypothalamus membrane, for which a more realistic model is required. Therefore, liposomes containing different mixtures of 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphatidylcholine (POPC), 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphatidylserine (POPS) and cholesterol were used for fluorescence and solid-state NMR spectroscopy. Fluorescence spectroscopy showed that a large proportion of TIP39 added to these liposomes binds to the membrane surface. Proton-decoupled ³¹P-MAS NMR is used to investigate the potential role of individual lipid headgroups in peptide binding. Significant line-broadening in POPC/cholesterol and POPC/POPS liposomes upon TIP39 association supports a surface binding model and indicates an interaction which is slightly mediated by the presence of POPS and cholesterol. Furthermore, smoothed order parameter profiles obtained from ²H powder spectra of liposomes containing POPC-d31 as bulk lipid in addition to POPS and cholesterol show that TIP39 does not penetrate beyond the headgroup region. Spectra of similar bilayers with POPS-d31 show a small increase in segmental chain order parameters which is interpreted as a small but specific interaction between the peptide and POPS. Our data demonstrate that TIP39 belongs to a class of signaling peptides that associate weakly with the membrane surface but do not proceed to insert into the membrane hydrophobic compartment.     

Why accept submission? Rethinking asymmetrical ideology and power

People not always do what they say that they do, nor do they always say what they really do, an opaqueness that seems to be a necessary condition for the production and reproduction of their mutual relations in society. This lesson about the discrepancy between people’s words and their deeds, between verbally expressing social norms for the well-being of everybody while simultaneously striving for individual or group interests, was already taught by Malinowski (Argonauts of the western Pacific: an account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. Routledge, London, 1922). He may have learned it himself during his own lengthy fieldwork in New Guinea, but it may also have been an anthropological operationalization of the dictum of Freud, with whom Malinowski was struggling intellectually (at least from his side), that people are not always conscious of the motives of their own words and behavior. It also happens, however, that politicians, business, and church people alike consciously create stories or myths in which they hide their own personal our group intentions. These stories or myths are not only works of art of the human mind, but when they are successfully told within the context of, or directly concern power relationships, the narrator may be attributed mana. At least, this is what many Polynesians would do. In this paper, I will give several ethnographic examples from Polynesia, where I have been working for the last 28 years, in order to defend my theoretical stance concerning asymmetrical ideology and power.     

Epistemology, necessity, and evolution: a critical review of Michael Ruse��s Philosophy After Darwin

Michael Ruse??s new anthology Philosophy After Darwin provides great history and background in the major impacts Darwinism has had on philosophy, especially in ethics and epistemology. This review focuses on epistemology understood through the lens of evolution by natural selection. I focus on one of Ruse??s own articles in the collection, which responds to two classic articles by Konrad Lorenz and David Hull on the two major forms of evolutionary epistemology. I side with Ruse against Lorenz??s account of the necessity we think our principles of reasoning have, though I disagree with Ruse??s particular example. I also argue that Ruse??s alternative explanation is lacking. Against Hull, I side with Ruse in his doubts that a sociobiological approach to science will prove fruitful, though I point out that it has certain advantages other approaches do not have. Although I side with Ruse on the issue, I conclude that the two views do not really come into direct conflict and so one needs not reject either. Finally, I discuss Ruse??s positive view and raise questions for his conception of evolutionary epistemology. I conclude that his arguments are insufficient to overcome opposing views and his view has at least as many unintuitive conclusions as the alternatives.     

Aquaporin Water Channels

Thank you very much. I am humbled, I am delighted; I am honored. This is every scientist’s dream: to give the Nobel Lecture in Stockholm. But I would not be honest if I did not tell you that I am having a little anxiety being on this platform. I have lectured a number of times in Sweden, and I thought I would share with you some events preceding a special lecture that I gave here a few years ago. Arriving at Arlanda Airport, I waited in line at the Pass Control behind a group of businessmen in suits with briefcases. I heard the first in line asked by the control officer to state the purpose of his visit to Sweden. When the man replied “business,” the officer approved and stamped his passport. One at a time, each stepped forward and was asked the same thing; each answered “business” and was approved. Eventually it was my turn, and I was dressed in rumpled clothes after spending the night in the Economy Minus section of an SAS jetliner. The officer asked me the purpose of my visit, and I said “I am here to give the von Euler Lecture at Karolinska Institute.” The officer immediately looked up, stared at me, and asked, “Are you nervous?” At that point I became intensely nervous and said “Yes, I am a little nervous.” The officer looked up again and stated “Well, you should be!“ So if the lecturers look a little nervous, the problem is at Arlanda.     

Epidemiology of reindeer parasites

Every Christmas we sing about Rudolph the red-nosed Reindeer, but do we give much thought to why his nose is red? The general consensus is that Rudolf has caught a cold, but as far as I know no proper diagnosis has been made of his abnormal condition. I think that, rather than having a cold, Rudolf is suffering from a parasitic infection of his respiratory system. To some this may seem a bit far-fetched as one would not expect an animal living with Santa Claus at the North Pole to be plagued by parasites, but I shall show otherwise.     

TIP47 protects mitochondrial membrane integrity and inhibits oxidative-stress-induced cell death

We found that overexpression of tail interacting protein of 47 kDa (TIP47), but not its truncated form (t-TIP47) protected NIH3T3 cells from hydrogen-peroxide-induced cell death, prevented the hydrogen-peroxide-induced mitochondrial depolarization determined by 5,5′,6,6′-tetrachloro-1,1′,3,3′-tetraethyl-benzimidazolylcarbocyanine iodide (JC1), while suppression of TIP47 in HeLa cells facilitated oxidative-stress-induced cell death. TIP47 was located to the cytoplasm of untreated cells, but some was associated to mitochondria in oxidative stress. Recombinant TIP47, but not t-TIP47 increased the mitochondrial membrane potential (Δψ), and partially prevented Ca²⁺ induced depolarization. It is assumed that TIP47 can bind to mitochondria in oxidative stress, and inhibit mitochondria mediated cell death by protecting mitochondrial membrane integrity.