Opportunities and challenges for digital morphology

Abstract  

Advances in digital data acquisition, analysis, and storage have revolutionized the work in many biological disciplines such as genomics, molecular phylogenetics, and structural biology, but have not yet found satisfactory acceptance in morphology. Improvements in non-invasive imaging and three-dimensional visualization techniques, however, permit high-throughput analyses also of whole biological specimens, including museum material. These developments pave the way towards a digital era in morphology. Using sea urchins (Echinodermata: Echinoidea), we provide examples illustrating the power of these techniques. However, remote visualization, the creation of a specialized database, and the implementation of standardized, world-wide accepted data deposition practices prior to publication are essential to cope with the foreseeable exponential increase in digital morphological data.     

Opportunities for web-based indicators in environmental sciences

This paper proposes a set of web-based indicators for quantifying and ranking the relevance of terms related to key-issues in Ecology and Sustainability Science. Search engines that operate in different contexts (e.g. global, social, scientific) are considered as web information carriers (WICs) and are able to analyse; (i) relevance on different levels: global web, individual/personal sphere, on-line news, and culture/science; (ii) time trends of relevance; (iii) relevance of keywords for environmental governance. For the purposes of this study, several indicators and specific indices (relational indices and dynamic indices) were applied to a test-set of 24 keywords. Outputs consistently show that traditional study topics in environmental sciences such as water and air have remained the most quantitatively relevant keywords, while interest in systemic issues (i.e. ecosystem and landscape) has grown over the last 20 years. Nowadays, the relevance of new concepts such as resilience and ecosystem services is increasing, but the actual ability of these concepts to influence environmental governance needs to be further studied and understood. The proposed approach, which is based on intuitive and easily replicable procedures, can support the decision-making processes related to environmental governance.     

Cells in experimental life sciences - challenges and solution to the rapid evolution of knowledge

Cell cultures used in biomedical experiments come in the form of both sample biopsy primary cells, and maintainable immortalised cell lineages. The rise of bioinformatics and high-throughput technologies has led us to the requirement of ontology representation of cell types and cell lines. The Cell Ontology (CL) and Cell Line Ontology (CLO) have long been established as reference ontologies in the OBO framework. We have compiled a series of the challenges and the proposals of solutions in this CELLS (Cells in ExperimentaL Life Sciences) thematic series that cover the grounds of standing issues and the directions, which were discussed in the First International Workshop on CELLS at the the International Conference on Biomedical Ontology (ICBO). This workshop focused on the extension of the current CL and CLO to cover a wider set of biological questions and challenges needing semantic infrastructure for information modeling. We discussed data-driven use cases that leverage linkage of CL, CLO and other bio-ontologies. This is an established approach in data-driven ontologies such as the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO), and the Ontology for Biomedical Investigation (OBI). The First International Workshop on CELLS at the International Conference on Biomedical Ontology has brought together experimental biologists and biomedical ontologists to discuss solutions to organizing and representing the rapidly evolving knowledge gained from experimental cells. The workshop has successfully identified the areas of challenge, and the gap in connecting the two domains of knowledge. The outcome of this workshop yielded practical implementation plans to filled in this gap.This CELLS workshop also provided a venue for panel discussions of innovative solutions as well as challenges in the development and applications of biomedical ontologies to represent and analyze experimental cell data.     

Rethinking the life sciences

The life sciences are at loggerheads with society and neither much trusts the other. To unleash the full potential of molecular life science, a new contract with society and more organized ways of doing research are needed.Suppose that an international group of scientists presents a 15-year, €750 million research programme to unravel the molecular mechanisms of metabolic syndrome, a disorder implicated in obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancer and other diseases. The results from this project will neither replace obvious preventive measures—such as reducing food intake or increasing exercise—nor will it magically generate pharmaceutical treatments. Instead, the research aims to gain a systems-level understanding of metabolic syndrome that could lead to more effective prevention schemes, improved food quality, improved early diagnosis of people with higher risk, and better therapies and drugs. From an economic point of view, this is an excellent investment, as the costs of obesity and its co-morbidities in the European Union are estimated to increase to €100 billion per year in 2030 [1]. If the proposed research project helped to lower the costs by only 10%, it would generate a considerable return on investment.Sadly, such a project would be unlikely to receive funding. The reason is not because it would be scientifically unrealistic or unfeasible, or because society does not want to support expensive research programmes. The Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN to identify the Higgs boson and the European Southern Observatory in Chile are all examples of large-scale research programmes that are publicly funded. Rather, the life sciences suffer from a unique set of problems that have developed in the past decades and would prevent such a project receiving popular support and funding. This article explores why this is the case and how modern life sciences could contribute more to society. Specifically, we argue that two areas need rethinking: the embedding of the life sciences in society and the way that research is organized.There are more than seven billion humans on this planet who need food, energy and health care, and life science research has a huge potential to address these needs. However, critics point out that many of the promises made by life scientists in the past have still not materialized. One example is the promises made to justify the US $3 billion spent on the Human Genome Project. It was supposed to provide a ‘blueprint of life'' that would quickly lead to new approaches for curing diseases. In the end, however, despite its success at generating new research fields and knowledge, the Human Genome Project has not (yet) lived up to its promises.…critics point out that many of the promises made by life scientists in the past have still not materializedWorse still, some critics perceive the life sciences as a problem that is creating physical and moral hazards. Rather than writing a blank cheque to allow scientists to pursue their research goals, governments are increasingly demanding control over the direction and application of research. This approach tends to reward short-term applications of scientific resources to help solve societal problems. Moreover, the success of projects has to be demonstrated at the application stage, before any of the research has even begun, which is fundamentally incompatible with the trial-and-error processes at the heart of creative research. Long-term, in-depth investments in research have become unpopular. Ironically, this ‘short-termism'' undermines the potential of the life sciences to be realized. Life sciences and society seem to be in a dead-lock.The life sciences must therefore regain the trust of society. This cannot be done merely by emphasizing academic freedom and the autonomy of science, or by promoting the so-called ‘cornucopia'' of science and technology, implying that both bring only precious gifts. It is also not useful to suggest that morals should follow scientific and technological developments rather than shape them. It is equally counterproductive when scientists deny taking responsibility for how their findings are applied after they leave the laboratory. As Ravetz [2] famously remarked: “Scientists claim credit for penicillin, while Society takes the blame for the Bomb”. In reality, the definition of ends is always influenced by the available means.One approach to restore the trust between the life sciences and society is to create platforms that allow for open and symmetrical dialogue. Fortunately, we do not have to start from scratch, as the recent discussions about responsible research and innovation (RRI; [3,4,5]) have already begun this process. According to René von Schomberg, policy officer at the European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, RRI is “a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products” [5]. An example is the EU ‘Code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research''. The concept is also expected to have a major role in the upcoming EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020'', and national research councils in the UK, Norway and the Netherlands are supporting initiatives under this heading. The National Nanotechnology Initiative in the USA heralds ‘responsible development'', and the Presidential Commission on the Study of Bioethical Issues recommends ‘responsible stewardship'' and ‘prudent vigilance'' in relation to synthetic biology.…‘short-termism'' undermines the potential of the life sciences to be realizedThe starting point of RRI is that society, science, technology and morality comprise a single system. If one component changes, the others are also affected. The traditional division of labour—science provides knowledge and instruments, whilst society determines values and application—therefore does not work anymore. Life scientists have to acknowledge and accept that society is co-shaping their agenda. Scientists should also realise that vice versa they co-shape society, rather than just offering knowledge and tools. In other words, science and society co-evolve [6]. Bringing life sciences and society closer together requires the concerted efforts of life scientists, social scientists, ethicists, legal experts, economists, policy-makers, market parties and laypeople.Research and technology are rational activities at the micro level. Science is superior to other methods for creating reliable, testable knowledge, and technology is unmatched in providing solutions to many problems. But both tend to become irrational at higher levels of organization—we drive highly sophisticated cars and still get stuck in traffic jams, nuclear waste remains a huge problem for generations to come, and knowledge and technology have enabled increasingly lethal weaponry. Science and technology therefore need moral guidelines—such as ‘the precautionary principle''—to direct what kind of knowledge is worth pursuing and should be applied, why and for whom. This is a one-sided view, however, that ignores the perspective of the scientific method. As science proceeds by trial and error, it must be fundamentally open to pursue any avenue of knowledge. As such, new scientific insight and technological opportunities can often necessitate a reappraisal of established morals. Keeping science, technology and morality in contact with each other requires more than rules and prohibitions that can be ticked off on a form. It needs a culture of attentiveness and reflection to avoid tunnel vision whilst allowing flexibility and improvisation to learn from mistakes and change course if needed.During the past two decades, many experiments in public understanding, awareness and participation in science and technology have been conducted. In the Netherlands, for instance, this has included science cafes, citizen panels [7], nation-wide public debates about nuclear energy [8], biotechnology and food in 2001 [9], and public participation (http://www.nanopodium.nl). It is yet to be determined how effective these efforts have been. Appreciating that science and technology, as well as society and morality, constitute parts of a larger system demands skills, institutions and procedures that have not as yet been adequately developed. Indeed, many scientists continue to adhere to a ‘knowledge deficit'' model of public outreach that has scientists ‘explaining'' scientific developments to an audience that is perceived to be ignorant at best and technophobic at worst. On the other hand, NGOs have sometimes hijacked discussions by simply being ‘against'', rather than contributing to the debate in an open and constructive manner. Another problem is that the life sciences are poorly organized. They lack an organization that represents the community and can professionalize the relationship between society and life sciences.What are the requirements for developing responsibly the relationship between society and the life sciences? First, it is important that scientists are explicit about the trial-and-error character of research, and are honest and transparent about the results they expect, rather than inducing unrealistic expectations. Laypeople should be made aware of how the life sciences function and what they might achieve. It is also important that citizens understand that science produces theories that can be corroborated to some degree rather than absolute certainties, and that technology offers solutions that can do both more or less than expected. This should also make clear that the distinction between fundamental science and applied technology is both real and illusionary. It is real because it is important to allow space for unfettered curiosity. It is illusionary because even the most ‘fundamental'' research is usually embedded in a general normative vision about its possible use. Moreover, even truly applied research can generate new fundamental insight.Second, it is important to engage societal actors as early as possible in the research enterprise, so that they can determine the research agenda rather than be confronted with final results and products. A specific suggestion would be to attach a ‘layman advisory board'' to large research programmes. Although the tasks of such boards should be defined carefully to avoid tying them up in minutiae, such boards can help to enhance the involvement of society in the life sciences. Engaging interested individuals and stakeholders early on in the process and offering them an opportunity to influence the research agenda would help to foster a constructive attitude.These boards should put the definitions, visions and goals of scientific research to the social test and set research priorities accordingly. Research is inevitably conducted with reference to priorities—such as advancing knowledge, improving public health, economic development and military use—but setting these priorities exceeds the authority of science. We need social scientists, philosophers, lawyers, policy-makers, politicians, companies, opinion-makers, NGOs and patient organizations to discuss with life scientists how scientific results can be developed to benefit society. For example, because knowledge can be viewed as an economically valuable resource, we have to consider whether intellectual property laws are adequate to deal with new forms of knowledge. The ongoing debate about the legal and moral problems of intellectual property [10] also highlights issues of fairness and justice. How will science and technology influence prevailing ideas about the meaning of a ‘healthy life''? How much do we value physical and mental health, how much are we willing to invest in this value, and how will society react to choices made by individuals? The life sciences are creating enormous data collections about individuals, which raises issues about access, privacy, ownership and consent. Discussing these issues would neither put the life sciences in a strait jacket nor would it curtail curiosity-driven research. On the contrary, we should be more worried about the current situation, in which governments set the agenda by choosing which areas are funded without consulting the life sciences community or other stakeholders.The sequencing of the human genome and the rapid development of new technologies and research fields—genomics, proteomics, advanced light microscopy, bioinformatics, systems biology and synthetic biology—have not yet paid off in terms of highly visible applications that provide a significant benefit to society. However, there are many examples of progress both scientifically and clinically, such as the ongoing Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements project (ENCODE; http://encodeproject.org), the stratification of patients for anti-cancer therapies based on molecular markers or the creation of genetically modified disease-resistant plants. Notwithstanding, applying the new technologies made scientists realize that biological systems are much more complex than anticipated. The multi-layered and multi-scale complexity of cells, organisms and ecosystems is a huge challenge for research in terms of generating, analysing and integrating enormous amounts of data to gain a better understanding of living systems at all levels of organization.However, and remarkably, the life sciences have not adapted accordingly to tackle bigger challenges with larger teams comparable with their colleagues in physics and astronomy. Most research is still carried out by small groups or collaborations that are woefully inadequate to address the full complexity of living systems. This type of research is grounded in the history of molecular biology when scientists focused on individual genes, proteins and metabolic pathways. Scientists hope that many small discoveries and advances made by many individual research groups will eventually add up to a more complete picture, an approach that clearly does not work and must change. The new challenge is to systematically acquire and integrate comprehensive data sets on the huge number of components at the cellular level and that of tissues, organs and complete organisms. This requires the life sciences to scale up their research efforts into larger projects.The putative research programme described at the beginning of this paper could help to reduce the health and economic burden of metabolic syndrome. This multifactorial disorder is an excellent example of the complex interplay between organs, tissues, cells, molecules, lifestyle, genetic factors, age and stress. Unravelling this daunting but finite complexity requires a major and well-coordinated effort. It would have to combine diverse skills and disciplines, including biology, chemistry, medicine, mathematics, physics and engineering. Similar considerations are true for research into areas such as cancer, Alzheimer disease or the development of efficient biofuels. Why, then, are we not making the necessary investments? The answer to this question has four components that we address below: scaling and management of research programmes, the academic culture and funding.First, one could argue that many national and European research programmes already focus on many aspects of metabolic syndrome. Together, they probably represent an investment of several hundred million Euros. So why spend another €750 million? The problem is that the results from individual research efforts simply do not add up due to a lack of standardization in regard to experiments, the use of model systems and protocols. Given the complexity of the disease, defining standard operation protocols (SOPs) is not a trivial task and requires a considerable research effort. However, experience shows that developing SOPs should be an integral part of larger research programmes. Moreover, SOPs change as our knowledge increases. SOPs can only be effective and stimulate research in the context of a sufficiently large and receptive research community, dedicated to a common well-defined research goal. An example of the successful development and implementation of SOPs in a ‘learning-by-doing'' setting is the German Virtual Liver Network (VLN) programme (http://www.virtual-liver.de). Obviously, a considerable fraction of the €750 million should come from regrouping and readjusting existing research in the field of metabolic syndrome.Second, we have remarkably little experience in managing concerted large-scale research efforts in the life sciences in the range of €100–1,000 million. The Human Genome Project cost US $3 billion. However, genomes are just DNA sequences, and it is relatively easy to define SOPs and integrate the contributions of many research groups. In terms of research management it was relatively straightforward compared with, for instance, a metabolic syndrome programme, which would have many more dimensions and components. It would require a highly coordinated approach, as the experiments of the participating research groups from different institutes and countries are strongly interdependent and the results must add up to a larger picture.To keep such a complex research programme on track, on time and within budget, strategic decisions will inevitably need to be made at a central level, rather than by individual researchers. A serious risk is that scaling-up coordinated research efforts will result in excessive bureaucracy and inflexibility that could kill creativity. Avoiding this problem is a major challenge. The life sciences could learn here from large, long-term projects in other fields, such as high-energy physics, astronomy and ecology. An instructive example is the Census of Marine Life programme [11] that successfully measured the diversity, distribution and abundance of marine life in the oceans over ten years. It involved 80 countries and 640 institutions and had a budget of US $650 million [12]. A recent overview and analysis of large-scale research efforts in the life sciences has been presented and discussed in [13,14,15].A third aspect is academic culture, which cherishes freedom, independence and competition and will not necessarily mesh well with the idea of large, tightly managed research programmes. Even so, research institutions will probably compete to participate in goal-oriented, large-scale research programmes. In fact, this is largely similar to the way most research is funded presently, for instance, through the Framework Programmes of the European Commission, except that the total collective effort is scaled up by one to two orders of magnitude. Moreover, as large-scale efforts involve longer timescales of between 10 and 15 years, it would offer a more stable basis of financing research. However, as the cooperation between parties and their interdependency will need to increase, participating research institutes and consortia will be held much more accountable for their contribution to the overall goals. ‘Take-the-money-and-run'' is no longer an option. This will obviously require explicit agreements between a programme director and participating institutions.In addition, academic institutions should rethink their criteria for selecting and promoting researchers. The impact factor, h-factor and citation scores [16] will have to be abandoned or modified as large-scale research efforts with an increasing number of multi-author publications will decrease their ability to assess individuals. Consequently, less emphasis will be put on first or last authorships, whilst project and team management skills might become more relevant.Academic freedom and creativity will be just as essential to a collective research enterprise as it is to small projects and collaborations. Large-scale research programmes will create new scientific questions and challenges, but they will not tell investigators how to address these. Academics will be free to choose how to proceed within the programme. Moreover, researchers will benefit from tapping into well-structured, large, knowledge bases, and they will have early access to the relevant data of others. Hence, being part of a large, well-organized research community brings benefits that might compensate for a perceived decrease in independence. Again, all of this depends strongly on how a large-scale programme is organized and managed, including the distribution of responsibilities, data-sharing policies and exchanges of expertise. Competition will probably remain part of the scientific endeavour, but it is important that it does not hamper collaboration and data sharing.Whilst we stress the need for larger-scale research efforts in the life sciences to have an impact on society, we also want to acknowledge the crucial role of classical curiosity-driven research programmes. It is essential to develop a reasonable and effective balance between different types of research in life sciences.A fourth issue is the lack of adequate funding mechanisms for international, large-scale research efforts. Given the ambiguous relationship between the life sciences and society—as argued in the first part of this essay—this problem can only be solved if life scientists convince policy-makers, funders and politicians that research can significantly contribute to solving societal problems and at reasonable costs. If not, life sciences will not flourish and society will not profit. As argued above, research efforts should be scaled to the complexity of the systems they intend to investigate. There are only a few problem-focused research programmes with a volume of more than €50 million. The VLN, funded to the tune of €43 million over five years by the German ministry for education and research, comes close. Its aim is to deliver a multi-scale representation of liver physiology, integrating data from the molecular, cellular and organ levels. The VLN involves 69 principal investigators dispersed throughout Germany and is headed by a director who is responsible for keeping the programme on track and on time. Issues such as standardization, division of responsibilities between the director and principal investigators, and decision-making procedures are tackled as the programme develops.If it is possible to rekindle the trust between society and the life sciences, will society be more willing to fund expensive, large-scale research programmes? Previous examples of publicly funded scientific and technological programmes in the multi-billion Euro range are the Large Hadron Collider, the Apollo programme and the Human Genome Project. Amazingly, none of these contributed directly to human well-being, although the Human Genome Project did make such promises. Hence, a life science programme that targets a crucial societal problem convincingly, such as metabolic syndrome, should have a fair chance of being acceptable and fundable.The above four issues must be addressed before the life sciences can successfully tackle major societal problems. It will need action from the research community itself, which is painfully lacking an organization to speak on behalf of life scientists and that can take the lead in discussions, internally and between society and science. Any such organization could learn from other areas, such as high-energy physics (CERN), astronomy (European Southern Observatory) and space research (European Space Agency). It would be tremendously helpful if a group of life scientists would get this issue on the agenda. This paper is meant to stimulate that process.In summary, we argue that if society wants to benefit from what the modern life sciences have to offer, we must act on two parallel tracks. One is to bring the life sciences closer to society and accept that society, science and morality are inseparable. The other is to rethink how we organize research in the life sciences. Both tracks create major challenges that can only be tackled successfully if the life sciences get organized and create a body that can lead the debate. At a more fundamental level, we need to decide what type of knowledge we want to acquire and why. Clearly, the value of generating knowledge for the sake of knowledge itself is important, but it must constantly be balanced with the values of society, which requires a dialogue between researchers and society.? Open in a separate windowTsjalling SwierstraOpen in a separate windowNiki VermeulenOpen in a separate windowJohan BraeckmanOpen in a separate windowRoel van Driel     

Opportunities and challenges of implementing life cycle assessment in seafood certification: a case study for Spain

Purpose

Eco-labelling has become part of the business strategy of companies thanks to numerous advantages in terms of engaging with consumers and gaining market quota. The aim of this article is to present a critical discussion on the development and implementation of a new eco-label named pescaenverde, registered in Spain, as the first type III eco-label in the Spanish fishing sector that is based on life cycle approaches for seafood products.

Methods

More specifically, it aims to complement ecosystem-based eco-labels with the computation of the carbon footprint and the energy return on investment (EROI) of seafood products. Furthermore, it proposes to discuss the ecological criteria, certification process or the opportunities and challenges of the market implementation of this eco-label in detail. Finally, the authors argue that life cycle eco-labels should be considered important complements for more specific sector- or ecosystem-oriented labels already in use, rather than direct competitors.

Results and discussion

There has been much criticism towards the eco-labelling sector as regards the transparency and scientific rigour of its standards. The fishing and seafood sector, which has experienced a boom in eco-labelling in recent years, due mainly to the strength of the Marine Stewardship Council certification scheme, is not alien to this controversy, since critics advocate expanding the concept of sustainable fisheries beyond an ecosystem approach in order to account for global environmental concerns such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or energy use. Not surprisingly, the European Union and other authorities currently encourage eco-labels to base their ecological criteria on life cycle approaches. Therefore, the current study discusses the ecological criteria, certification process or the opportunities and challenges of the market implementation of this eco-label in detail.

Conclusions

The specificity of the life cycle inventory scheme used in pescaenverde delivers an accurate computation of environmental impacts for the specific case of Spanish fisheries. However, the geographical expansion of this scheme to other nations or regions will be conditioned by an important software adaptation to the particular inventory characteristics of the new fisheries, fleets and products.

Recommendations

Adapting ecological criteria to other situations would also need substantial discussion, since the use of this certification scheme is not intended to contrast or compare seafood products against each other but to provide consumers with an easily identifiable label through which they can detect environmentally sustainable practices in terms of GHG emissions and energy use in the fishing fleets supporting the seafood products purchased.

     

New essential trace elements for the life sciences

Biological Trace Element Research - The possible importance of some new essential trace elements in nutrition is discussed. Most likely, insufficient intake of a specific trace element becomes...     

GWAS 2011: Opportunities and challenges

The wide adoption of genome-wide association study (GWAS) has dramatically changed the landscape of the genetic studies of human diseases.Banking on the study design that employs large and multiple-independent samples,linkage disequilibrium (LD) -based systematic genome-wide interrogation,and vigorous statistical standard for declaring genetic association,GWAS has greatly advanced the genetic studies of human disease by successfully identifying over 4 thousands of genetic susceptibility SNPs or loci for 210 diseases/traits in human.Besides its unrivaled scientific achievements,GWAS has also transformed the communities of human genetics by stimulating unprecedented broad and large-scale collaboration and data sharing across different groups and countries,which has enabled some mega genetic studies where dozens or hundreds of thousands of samples were investigated through mete-analysis,providing enormous statistical power for discovering genetic variants,even the ones with very moderate effect on disease phenotype or physiological trait.While the success of GWAS has been widely recognized,there are many concerns on GWAS that are being passionately debated.In particular,there ate heated discussions on why only a limited proportion,quiet often a small proportion,of genetic heritability can be explained by the GWAS findings,and whether and how the GWAS findings have really advanced the biological investigation and understanding of disease mechanisms.Concerning these shortcomings of GWAS,many have genuinely questioned the perspective of translating the GWAS findings into clinical practice.To provide a platform to discuss the progresses and shortcomings of GWAS,a nature conference,titled “GWAS 2011:Opportunities and Challenges”,was organized through the collaboration between the Nature Genetics and Anhui Medical University,which was held in Hefei,China on May 19-21,2011.     

Opportunities and challenges for mesenchymal stem cell-mediated heart repair

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Mesenchymal stem cells (or multipotent stromal cells) are emerging as a potent cell type for cardiac cell therapy. This review describes the potential of cardiac mesenchymal stem cell therapy, but also highlights some recently discovered less favorable mesenchymal stem cell characteristics. RECENT FINDINGS: Mesenchymal stem cells exert a beneficial effect on cardiac function upon administration to the ischemic myocardium. The mode of action does not seem to involve differentiation into cardiomyocytes and vascular cells. A robust effect on revascularization and remodeling is observed, however, most likely mediated by paracrine factors. Recently identified drawbacks associated with cardiac mesenchymal stem cell therapy include differentiation into unwanted mesenchymal cell types such as osteocytes and adipocytes, the occurrence of cytogenetic instability upon prolonged expansion, and immunization when used in an allogeneic setting. SUMMARY: The application of mesenchymal stem cells is a novel strategy with therapeutic potential for cardiac repair. Strategies are needed, however, to optimize their therapeutic potential while minimizing their potential clinical risks.     

基因组研究与生命科学工业的崛起

人类基因组的全序列测定预计可提前两年于２００３年完成，特别是基因组内的蛋白质编码序列将更早测定。私人财团斥巨资进入这个领域，并望抢得先手，这意味着基因组研究可创造巨大财富。在过去几年里，国际上一批知名的大型制药集团和化学工业公司已在基因组研究领域内投入大量资金，并形成了一个新的产业部门，即生命科学工业。制药工业是生命科学工业的主要支柱之一，与基因组研究的关系特别密切。药物基因组学研究表明，药物的疗效与患者的基因型相关，因此，今后的药物生产要考虑到药物投放地区人群中有关的等位基因的频率，医疗处方也将因人而异而趋向个人化。比较基因组学研究则有助于从模式生物的资料指出与疾病可能相关的基因，可以此作为靶标来设计药物。     

Data issues in the life sciences

We review technical and sociological issues facing the Life Sciences as they transform into more data-centric disciplines - the "Big New Biology". Three major challenges are: 1) lack of comprehensive standards; 2) lack of incentives for individual scientists to share data; 3) lack of appropriate infrastructure and support. Technological advances with standards, bandwidth, distributed computing, exemplar successes, and a strong presence in the emerging world of Linked Open Data are sufficient to conclude that technical issues will be overcome in the foreseeable future. While motivated to have a shared open infrastructure and data pool, and pressured by funding agencies in move in this direction, the sociological issues determine progress. Major sociological issues include our lack of understanding of the heterogeneous data cultures within Life Sciences, and the impediments to progress include a lack of incentives to build appropriate infrastructures into projects and institutions or to encourage scientists to make data openly available.     

Diversifying the biological sciences: past efforts and future challenges

I am honored to receive the E. E. Just Award for 2010. In my invited essay, I have opted to discuss the state of diversity in the biological sciences with some recommendations for moving forward toward a more positive and inclusive academy. The need to develop cohorts of minority scientists as support groups and to serve as role models within our institutions is stressed, along with the need to ensure that minority scientists are truly included in all aspects of the academy. It is imperative that we increase our efforts to prepare for the unique challenges that we will face as the United States approaches a "majority minority" population in the next 50 years.