国家自然科学基金资助微生物组研究的现状与效果分析*

国家自然科学基金项目对科学研究具有扶持、引导作用,其资助和成果情况可在一定程度上反映出我国前沿科技领域的研究重点和发展趋势。选取2010—2021年国家自然科学基金资助微生物组基础研究情况为分析对象,对资助年度、资助金额、资助类别、资助单位、项目成果等内容进行统计分析,反映国家自然科学基金资助微生物组基础研究的现状、特点以及资助效果,为微生物组相关领域的研究和管理人员提供参考和支撑。     

Teetering on the brink

The US Congress must authorize federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research.     

Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective

In an ideal world, funding agencies could identify the best scientists and projects and provide them with the resources to undertake these projects. Most scientists would agree that in practice, how funding for scientific research is allocated is far from ideal and likely compromises research quality. We, nine evolutionary biologists from different countries and career stages, provide a comparative summary of our impressions on funding strategies for evolutionary biology across eleven different funding agencies. We also assess whether and how funding effectiveness might be improved. We focused this assessment on 14 elements within four broad categories: (a) topical shaping of science, (b) distribution of funds, (c) application and review procedures, and (d) incentives for mobility and diversity. These comparisons revealed striking among‐country variation in those elements, including wide variation in funding rates, the effort and burden required for grant applications, and the extent of emphasis on societal relevance and individual mobility. We use these observations to provide constructive suggestions for the future and urge the need to further gather informed considerations from scientists on the effects of funding policies on science across countries and research fields.     

Neuroethology, its roots and future

Scholars in a particular scientific field should be familiar with its historical roots. Such knowledge will put their own research into a historical perspective, and, in addition, will allow them to assess current strengths and weaknesses in their particular area of research. To keep an exciting field like neuroethology alive and close to fast moving scientific frontiers, it is necessary to constantly adapt and broaden its approaches to newly emerging ideas from other fields, and to quickly incorporate new methodologies. The following article tries to expose some of the roots of neuroethology, and, in addition, will present some evidence as to why the authors think this field needs a broader definition than that formulated in the past. Doing so after the 5th International Congress of Neuroethology in San Diego in August 1998 seems to the authors the most appropriate time. Accepted: 17 June 1999     

Outlook for Restrictive Animal Legislation in the 89th Congress

Past records indicate that legislation, be it extreme or moderate in design, will be the goal of the proponents of restrictive animal legislation in the 89th Congress. Bills similar to those introduced in past sessions almost surely will appear again. If the President succeeds in soliciting congressional support for his goals of the Great Society, Congress may have little time for other legislative matters. The medical and scientific forces that oppose the use of federal legislation as a means of upgrading the standards of animal care and improving the validity of the results of biological research can be expected to continue their support of voluntary control through education and research. Continued support of the effective “task forces” and public relations programs that developed during the 88th Congress must come from all segments of the organized health professions.     

Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes

Teleconferencing as a setting for scientific peer review is an attractive option for funding agencies, given the substantial environmental and cost savings. Despite this, there is a paucity of published data validating teleconference-based peer review compared to the face-to-face process.Our aim was to conduct a retrospective analysis of scientific peer review data to investigate whether review setting has an effect on review process and outcome measures.We analyzed reviewer scoring data from a research program that had recently modified the review setting from face-to-face to a teleconference format with minimal changes to the overall review procedures. This analysis included approximately 1600 applications over a 4-year period: two years of face-to-face panel meetings compared to two years of teleconference meetings. The average overall scientific merit scores, score distribution, standard deviations and reviewer inter-rater reliability statistics were measured, as well as reviewer demographics and length of time discussing applications.The data indicate that few differences are evident between face-to-face and teleconference settings with regard to average overall scientific merit score, scoring distribution, standard deviation, reviewer demographics or inter-rater reliability. However, some difference was found in the discussion time.These findings suggest that most review outcome measures are unaffected by review setting, which would support the trend of using teleconference reviews rather than face-to-face meetings. However, further studies are needed to assess any correlations among discussion time, application funding and the productivity of funded research projects.     

Reading the tea leaves of Congress. With a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives, scientific research in the USA might face budget cuts

The increasing influence of the Tea Party in Congress and politics has potential repercussions for public funding of scientific research in the USAIn 2009, Barack Obama became the 44th President of the USA, amid hopes that he would fix the problems created or left unresolved by his predecessor. However, despite his positive mantra, “Yes we can,” the situation was going to get worse: the country was spiralling towards an economic recession, a collapsing residential real-estate market and the loss of millions of jobs. Now, the deficit lingers around US$14 trillion (US Department of the Treasury, 2011). In response to these hardships and the presence of a perceived ‘socialist'' president in office, a new political movement started brewing that would challenge both the Democrats and the Republicans—the two parties that have dominated US politics for generations. Known as the Tea Party, this movement has been gaining national momentum in its denouncement of the status quo of the government, especially in relation to federal spending, including the support of scientific research.The name is a play on the Boston Tea Party, at which more than 100 American colonists dumped 45 tonnes of tea into Boston Harbour (Massachusetts, USA) in 1773 to protest against the British taxation of imported tea. Whereas the 18th century Boston Tea Party formed to protest against a specific tax, the Tea Party of the 21st century protests against taxes and ‘big'' government in general.Many view Tea Party followers as modern muckrakers, but supporters claim their movement is fundamentally about upholding the US Constitution. Tea Party Patriots, a non-partisan organization, considers itself to be the official home of the Tea Party movement. Fuelled by the values of fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets, Tea Party Patriots believe, these three principles are granted by the Constitution, although not necessarily upheld by the administration.“If you read the Constitution, the limits of government involvement in society [are] pretty well-defined and our government has gone farther and farther beyond the specific limits of the Constitution,” said Mark Meckler, one of the co-founders of Tea Party Patriots. “Our Constitution is not designed as an empowering document, but as a limiting document… [and] was intended to be used as a weapon by the people against the government to keep it in the box.” Tea Partiers tend to be especially critical when it comes to spending tax dollars on bank bailouts and health care, but anything goes when it comes to cutting back on public spending—even science. “We believe everything needs to be on the table since the government is virtually bankrupt,” Meckler said. “We need to cut the waste, cut the abuse [and] get rid of the departments that shouldn''t exist.”Tea Partiers tend to be especially critical when it comes to spending tax dollars on bank bailouts and health care, but anything goes when […]cutting […] public spending—even scienceOn 19 February 2011, the US House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by the Republicans, passed a federal-spending bill for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year budget. Among other cuts, the bill called for billions of dollars to be slashed from the budgets of federal science agencies. If the bill is signed into law, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will have $1.6 billion cut from its budget—a 5.2% decrease—and the Department of Energy (DOE) will experience an 18% cut in funding for its Office of Science. Other agencies targeted include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Science Foundation (NSF; Anon, 2011; Cho, 2011). Although the US Senate, which has a Democratic majority, must consider the bill before any definite amendments to the budget are made, it is likely that there will be some cuts to science funding.Although the House is in favour of science-related cuts, President Obama supports spending more on science education, basic research and clean-energy research. He has also proposed an 11.8% increase in the budget of the DOE, as well as an 8% increase in the NSF budget (Office of Management and Budget, 2011).The House is in favour of science-related cuts, but President Obama is in favour of spending more on science education, basic science and clean-energy researchJoann Roskoski, acting assistant director of the Biology Directorate at the NSF, said her institute is strongly in favour of President Obama''s budget proposal. “President Obama is a very strong supporter of fundamental research and STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] education because he perceives it as investing in the future of the country,” she said. “These are just difficult budgetary times and we''ll just have to wait and see what happens. As they say, the president proposes and Congress disposes.”Karl Scheidt, a professor of chemistry at Northwestern University (Evanston, Illinois, USA), has four grants from federal agencies. “A couple of my grants expire this year, which is happening at the worst, worst possible time,” explained Scheidt, whose grants are funded by the NIH and the NSF. He added that although many politicians either do not understand or believe in the fundamentals of science, they still preach to the masses about what they ‘think'' they know. “I think it''s an absolute travesty that many people don''t understand science and that many of the Republicans who don''t fully understand science perpetuate incorrect assumptions and scientific falsehoods when speaking in public,” he said. “It makes the US less competitive and puts us collectively at a disadvantage relative to other nations if we don''t succeed in scientific education and innovative research in the future.”Although the Tea Party is not technically associated with the Republican Party, all Tea-Party representatives and senators ran as Republican candidates in the last election. While only one-third of seats in the Senate are on the ballot every two years for a six-year term, all House seats are for a two-year term. In the most recent Senatorial election, 50% of Tea Party-backed candidates won; 10 in total. 140 candidates for seats in the House of Representatives were backed by the Tea Party—all of whom were Republicans—but only 40 won. Nevertheless, with around 100 new Republicans in office, a House controlled by a Republican majority and most Congress-based Republicans in agreement with Tea Party ideals, the Tea Party actually has a lot of sway on the voting floor.Of course, as a fundamentally grass-roots movement, their influence is not limited to the halls of power. Since just before the November election last year, Tea Party-backed politicians have received more scrutiny and media exposure, meaning more people have listened to their arguments against spending on science. In fact, Republican politicians associated with the Tea Party have made critical and sometimes erroneous comments about science. Representative Michelle Bachman, for example, claimed that because carbon dioxide is a natural gas, it is not harmful to our atmosphere (Johnson, 2009). Representative Jack Kingston denounced the theory of evolution and stated that he did not come from a monkey (The Huffington Post, 2011). When asked how old he believes the Earth to be, Senator Rand Paul refused to answer (Binckes, 2010). He also introduced a bill to cut the NSF budget by 62%, and targeted the budget of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.Scheidt believes part of the challenge is that many scientists do not properly articulate the importance of their work to the public, and there is limited representation on behalf of science in Washington. “It''s difficult sometimes to advocate for and explain the critical importance of basic research and for the most part, Congress may not always appreciate the basic fundamental mission of organizations like the NIH,” Scheidt said. “Arlen Specter was one of the few people who could form coalitions with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle and communicate why scientific research is critical. Why discovering new ways to perform transplants and creating new medicines are so important to everyone.”…part of the challenge is that many scientists do not properly articulate the importance of their work to the public, and there is limited representation on behalf of science in WashingtonSpecter, a former senator, was Republican until 2009 when he decided to switch political parties. During the last Democratic primary, he lost the Pennsylvania Senate nomination after serving in Congress for more than four decades. The Democratic nominee, Joe Sestak, eventually lost the coveted seat to Pat Toomey, a Tea Party Republican who sponsored an amendment denying NIH funding for some grants while he was a House member. Toomey is also against funding climate science and clean-energy research with federal dollars.Specter was considered a strong supporter of biomedical research, especially cancer research. He was the catalyst that pushed through a great deal of pro-science legislation, such as adding approximately $10 billion to NIH funding as part of the stimulus package in 2009, and doubling NIH funding in the 1990s. As scientific research was so important to him, he served on the US Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies and on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Specter was a popular political champion of science not only because of all he had accomplished, but also because so few scientists are elected to office.Among those Democrats who lost their seats to Tea Party Republicans was Congressman Bill Foster. Foster, who once worked for the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab)—which is funded by the DOE—represented Batavia, Ilinois, which is also where Fermilab has its headquarters. “The new representative in the district where Fermilab resides is Randy Hultgren, a Republican, who has been very supportive of the laboratory since he''s been elected,” said Cindy Conger, Chief Financial Officer at Fermilab. “He''s very interested in us and very interested […] in us having adequate funding.”However, Fermilab is suffering financially. “We will […] have some level of layoffs,” Conger said. “Inadequate federal funding could result in more layoffs or not being able to run our machines for part of the year. These are the things we are contemplating doing in the event of a significant budget cut. Nothing is off the table [but] we will do everything we can to run the [Tevatron] accelerator.”But Fermilab''s desperate appeal for $35 million per year for the next three fiscal years was denied by the Obama administration and not included in the 2012 White House budget request. As a result, the most powerful proton–antiproton accelerator in the USA, the Tevatron, is shutting down indefinitely near the end of this year.Another pro-science Republican is former Congressman John Porter, who studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He encouraged the federal funding of science while serving as chair of the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, as well as on the House Committee on Appropriations and Related Agencies. Like Scheidt, Porter said a problem is that not many members of Congress really understand science or what goes into scientific research.“Many members of Congress don''t realize that the money appropriated for the funding of scientific research through NIH, NSF […] is sent out to research institutes in their districts and states where the research is conducted,” said Porter, who retired from Congress in 2001 after serving for more than 20 years. “They simply haven''t been exposed to it and that''s the fault of the science community, which has a great responsibility to educate about the mechanisms on how we fund scientific research.”Today, Porter is vice-chair of the Foundation for the NIH and also chairs Research!America, a non-profit organization which aims to further medical, health and scientific research as higher national priorities. He also noted that industry would not fund scientific research in the way the government does because there would essentially be no profits. Therefore, federal funding remains essential.“Let''s take away the phones, iPads and everything else [those against the federal funding of science] depend on and see what''s left,” Porter said. “The US is the world leader in science, technology and research and the way we got there and the way we have created the technology that makes life easier […] is a result of making investments in that area.”For now, Scheidt said the best approach is to educate as many people as possible to understand that scientific research is a necessity, not a luxury. “We unfortunately have a very uneducated population in regard to science and it''s not 100% their fault,” he said. “However, if people took a real interest in science and paid as much attention to stem-cell or drug-discovery research as they did to the Grammy Awards or People magazine I think they would appreciate what''s going on in the science world.”…the best approach is to educate as many people as possible to understand that scientific research is a necessity, not a luxuryInstead, the USA is lagging behind its competitors when it comes to STEM education. According to the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the USA is ranked 17th on science and 25th on maths out of 34 countries (US Department of Education, 2010). “We''re in a cluster now, we''re no longer the leading country,” said D. Martin Watterson, a molecular biologist who sits on NIH peer-review committees to evaluate grant proposals. The reason, according to Watterson, is that the first things to be cut after a budget decrease are training grants for continuing education efforts. Moreover, the USA already lacks highly trained workers in the field of science. “In some disciplines, employers now look to other places in Europe and Asia to find those trained personnel,” Watterson said.Ultimately, most people at least want a final budget to be passed so that there is sufficient time to plan ahead. However, Georgetown University political science professor Clyde Wilcox thinks that a compromise is not so simple. “The problem is that it''s a three-way poker game. People are going to sit down and they''re going to be bargaining, negotiating and bluffing each other,” he said. “The House Republicans just want to cut the programs that they don''t like, so they''re not cutting any Republican programs for the most part.”As a result, institutions such as the EPA find themselves being targeted by the Republicans. Although there is not a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats in the Senate, they still are a majority and will try to preserve science funding. Wilcox said that it is not necessarily a good thing to continue negotiating if nothing gets done and the country is dependent on continuing resolutions.Although there is not a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats in the Senate, they still are a majority and will try to preserve science funding“What the real problem is, when push comes to shove, someone has to blink,” he said. “I don''t think there will be deep cuts in science for a number of reasons, one is science is consistent with the Democratic ideology of education and the Republican ideology of investment. And then, we don''t really spend that much on science anyway so you couldn''t come remotely close to balancing the budget even if you eliminated everything.”Although during his time in Congress representatives of both parties were not as polarized as they are today, Porter believes the reason they are now is because of the political climate. “The president has made [science] a very important issue on his agenda and unfortunately, there are many Republicans today that say if he''s for it, I''m against it,” Porter said. In fact, several government officials ignored repeated requests or declined to comment for this article.“It''s time for everybody from both parties to stand up for the country, put the party aside and find solutions to our problems,” Porter commented. “The American people didn''t just elect us to yell at each other, they elected us to do a job. You have to choose priorities and to me the most important priority is to have our children lead better lives, to have all human beings live longer, healthier, happier lives and to have our economy grow and prosper and our standard of living maintained—the only way to do that is to invest where we lead the world and that''s in science.”     

Interview with professor Fotis C. Kafatos, president of the European Research Council. Interviewed by Francesco Lescai

The European Research Council (ERC) is the first European funding body set up to support investigator-driven frontier research. Its main aim is to stimulate scientific excellence by supporting and encouraging the very best, truly creative scientists, scholars and engineers to be adventurous and take risks in their research. The scientists should go beyond the established frontiers of knowledge and the boundaries of disciplines. Being 'investigator-driven', or 'bottom-up', in nature, the ERC approach allows researchers to identify new opportunities and directions in any field of research. By challenging Europe's brightest minds, the ERC expects to bring about new and unpredictable scientific and technological discoveries-the kind that can form the basis of new industries, markets and broader social innovations of the future. Ultimately, the ERC aims to make the European research base more prepared to respond to the needs of a knowledge-based society and provide Europe with the capabilities in frontier research necessary to meet global challenges.     

Recommendation of short tandem repeat profiling for authenticating human cell lines, stem cells, and tissues

Cell misidentification and cross-contamination have plagued biomedical research for as long as cells have been employed as research tools. Examples of misidentified cell lines continue to surface to this day. Efforts to eradicate the problem by raising awareness of the issue and by asking scientists voluntarily to take appropriate actions have not been successful. Unambiguous cell authentication is an essential step in the scientific process and should be an inherent consideration during peer review of papers submitted for publication or during review of grants submitted for funding. In order to facilitate proper identity testing, accurate, reliable, inexpensive, and standardized methods for authentication of cells and cell lines must be made available. To this end, an international team of scientists is, at this time, preparing a consensus standard on the authentication of human cells using short tandem repeat (STR) profiling. This standard, which will be submitted for review and approval as an American National Standard by the American National Standards Institute, will provide investigators guidance on the use of STR profiling for authenticating human cell lines. Such guidance will include methodological detail on the preparation of the DNA sample, the appropriate numbers and types of loci to be evaluated, and the interpretation and quality control of the results. Associated with the standard itself will be the establishment and maintenance of a public STR profile database under the auspices of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. The consensus standard is anticipated to be adopted by granting agencies and scientific journals as appropriate methodology for authenticating human cell lines, stem cells, and tissues.     

Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding

Agencies that fund scientific research must choose: is it more effective to give large grants to a few elite researchers, or small grants to many researchers? Large grants would be more effective only if scientific impact increases as an accelerating function of grant size. Here, we examine the scientific impact of individual university-based researchers in three disciplines funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We considered four indices of scientific impact: numbers of articles published, numbers of citations to those articles, the most cited article, and the number of highly cited articles, each measured over a four-year period. We related these to the amount of NSERC funding received. Impact is positively, but only weakly, related to funding. Researchers who received additional funds from a second federal granting council, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, were not more productive than those who received only NSERC funding. Impact was generally a decelerating function of funding. Impact per dollar was therefore lower for large grant-holders. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that larger grants lead to larger discoveries. Further, the impact of researchers who received increases in funding did not predictably increase. We conclude that scientific impact (as reflected by publications) is only weakly limited by funding. We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more productive.     

A Two-Ocean Bouillabaisse: Science,Politics, and the Central American Sea-Level Canal Controversy

As the Panama Canal approached its fiftieth anniversary in the mid-1960s, U.S. officials concerned about the costs of modernization welcomed the technology of peaceful nuclear excavation to create a new waterway at sea level. Biologists seeking a share of the funds slated for radiological-safety studies called attention to another potential effect which they deemed of far greater ecological and evolutionary magnitude – marine species exchange, an obscure environmental issue that required the expertise of underresourced life scientists. An enterprising endeavor to support Smithsonian naturalists, especially marine biologists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, wound up sparking heated debates – between biologists and engineers about the oceans’ biological integrity and among scientists about whether the megaproject represented a research opportunity or environmental threat. A National Academy of Sciences panel chaired by Ernst Mayr failed to attract congressional funding for its 10-year baseline research program, but did create a stir in the scientific and mainstream press about the ecological threats that the sea-level canal might unleash upon the Atlantic and Pacific. This paper examines how the proposed megaproject sparked a scientific and political conversation about the risks of mixing the oceans at a time when many members of the scientific and engineering communities still viewed the seas as impervious to human-facilitated change.     

Sampling and analytical strategies for biomarker discovery using mass spectrometry

There is an often unspoken truth behind the course of scientific investigation that involves not what is necessarily academically worthy of study, but rather what is scientifically worthy in the eyes of funding agencies. The perception of worthy research is, as cost is driven in the simplest sense in economics, often driven by demand. Presently, the demand for novel diagnostic and therapeutic protein biomarkers that possess high sensitivity and specificity is placing major impact on the field of proteomics. The focal discovery technology that is being relied on is mass spectrometry (MS), whereas the challenge of biomarker discovery often lies not in the application of MS but in the underlying proteome sampling and bioinformatic processing strategies. Although biomarker discovery research has been historically technology-driven, it is clear from the meager success in generating validated biomarkers that increasing attention must be placed at the pre-analytic stage, such as sample retrieval and preparation. As diseases vary, so do the combinations of sampling and sample analyses necessary to discover novel biomarkers. In this review, we highlight different strategies used toward biomarker discovery and discuss them in terms of their reliance on technology and methodology.     

植物科学画在植物科学研究发展中的重要性

植物科学画是一门专业技术性较强的学科,所描绘出的画面内容,是艺术性与科学性的有机结晶。植物科学绘画以其特殊的应用和辅助功能,能科学、客观、真实、艺术地表达植物科学内容。随着人们对植物科学研究的不断深入和发展,植物科学画已经形成了独特的、直观性的艺术语言表达方式,在世界各国不同时期编著的各类植物学研究志书、专著、期刊和杂志中,植物科学绘画具有了举足轻重的地位。该文对植物科学绘画的特性进行了研究,并分析其科学性与艺术性的内涵; 阐述了植物科学画在欧洲各国和中国本草药学时期和植物分类学研究时期的发展与应用。研究表明植物科学画在植物科学研究发展过程中发挥了重要作用。     

Industry's challenge to academia: changing the bench to bedside paradigm

The need for interdisciplinary collaboration is arising as a result of accelerating advances in basic science, including massive research and development funding by both government and industry, which has spurred the so-called "nanotechnology revolution" and developments at the intersection of the life and physical sciences, increasing emphasis by federal research funding agencies on interdisciplinary and inter-institutional research and by market influences. A number of barriers presently limit the interaction between academics and industry, including the typically very time-consuming and slow pace of technology transfer, which is compounded in the case of interdisciplinary and inter-institutional licensing, as well as the natural, and understandable, antipathies that exist between academia and industry as a result of their differing missions and approaches to scientific discovery. Moreover, if mechanisms are not in place at the outset of an inter-university collaboration, then the transition of inventions to clinical applications can be fraught with additional complexities and barriers. Policies suggested by the National Nanotechnology Initiative offer a number of ideas for overcoming barriers to multidisciplinary and inter-institutional research and illustrate some of the ways in which academia can structure partnerships with industry that will not only provide needed funding for multidisciplinary and inter-institutional biomedical research in an era of diminishing federal resources, but may permit academia, on the one hand, and industry, on the other, to benefit from the strengths provided by the other without compromising either academia's or industry's basic missions.     

生物多样性数据共享和发表: 进展和建议

生物多样性研究、保护实践、自然资源管理及科学决策等越来越依赖于大量数据的共享和整合。虽然关于数据共享的呼吁和实践越来越多, 但很多科学家仍然主动或被动地拒绝共享数据。关于数据共享, 现实中存在一些认知和技术上的障碍, 比如科学家不愿意共享数据, 担心同行竞争, 认为缺少足够的回报, 不熟悉相关数据保存机构, 缺少简便的数据提交工具, 没有足够时间和经费等。解决这些问题及改善共享文化的关键在于使共享者获得适当的回报(比如数据引用)。基于同行评审的数据发表被认为不但能够为生产、管理和共享数据的科学家提供一种激励机制, 并且能够有效地促进数据再利用。因而, 数据发表作为数据共享的方式之一, 近来引起了较多关注, 在生物多样性领域出现了专门发表数据论文的期刊。在采取数据论文的模式上, 数据保存机构和科技期刊采用联合数据政策在促进数据共享方面可能更具可行性。本文总结了数据共享和发表方面的进展, 讨论了数据论文能在何种程度上促进数据共享, 以及数据共享和数据发表的关系等问题, 提出如下建议: (1)个体科学家应努力践行数据共享; (2)使用DOI号解决数据所有权和数据引用的问题; (3)科技期刊和数据保存机构联合采用更加合理和严格的数据保存政策; (4)资助机构和研究单位应当在数据共享中起到更重要的作用。     

The involvement of European industry in developing regulations

In the belief that the release of genetically engineered organisms will provide significant benefits to our society, European industry is taking an active role in the development of regulations which make both economic and scientific sense. Such regulations will have public support and enable industry to predict the cost of satisfying the requirements for risk assessment and hence be more confident in funding research and development programmes.     

The evolution of British Biology: Presidential Address to the Linnean Society delivered at the Anniversary Meeting, 24 May 1983

British biology is multiply divided between 115 national societies and 900 local ones, as well as divisions between amateurs and professionals, pure and applied, universities and research institutes. It is in fact composed of four strands, three of them (natural history, scientific biology and preservation/conservation) having arisen independently, and all having given rise to the fourth (international) strand. Natural history declined at the end of the nineteenth century with the growth of professional biology, government funding, and new techniques imported from abroad; it has recovered spectacularly since the 1939–45 war. Scientific biology grew mainly from continental science, and came of age as a professional discipline around 1900. Concern for conservation has risen as human pressures on the environment have increased.
The question asked is whether this serendipitous structure is the most efficient one, in a time when the conditions which gave rise to much of it have changed: personal motivation, the role of scientific meetings, ease of travel, accessibility of libraries, sources of funding, etc. The trends have always been to split, and virtually all attempts at co-ordination have failed. This process leads to long-term inefficiency, and for scientific, political and personal advantage, the future will almost inevitably require some foci for biologists beyond narrow subject societies. The Linnean Society is peculiarly fitted to become an active focus, perhaps catalysing an amalgamation or federal sybiosis along the lines of the Royal Society of Chemistry.     

Human genome diversity: Ethics and practice in Australia

Researchers who propose projects about the human past frequently fail to distinguish between scientific value and the impact of both the proposal and the possible outcome for participant groups. It is only in recent years, and still in relatively few cases, that Aboriginal Australians have been directly involved in projects about themselves. The legacy of previous research experiences is a lingering distrust of ‘white’ researchers who visit communities briefly, take material/information, publish papers, and are rarely seen again. This distrust is understandable but in turn becomes a barrier which many well-intentioned researchers are unable or unwilling to overcome. The expectations of the scientific community, particularly in the field of molecular biology, simply do not make allowances in terms of time or funding to build a trusting relationship between the researchers and the researched. Sensitivity to indigenous rights and expectations with regard to scientific research brings obligations to scientific investigators with which few are well prepared to deal. The direct involvement of indigenous people in research about themselves is essential to the development of trusting working relationships likely to result in valuable outcomes for all participants and increased opportunities for ongoing research. Well negotiated, co-operative research can provide information of value to both scientific investigators and local participants, but adequate and ongoing consultation, as well as the return of results to the communities in an accurate and appropriate form must be part of research strategy. For example, information about mitochondrial DNA studies may assist Indigenous Australian people, whose families were dispersed during colonisation by Europeans, to trace links with the past, find ‘stolen children’ and by association with other anthropological, linguistic and archaeological data, repossess some remnants of traditional knowledge, but researchers must ensure that participants have a realistic understanding of the limitations of the research.