The transformative power of story for healing

One of our goals in this session was, not just to talk about the healing power of narrative, but to experience it as well. Louise Profeit-LeBlanc is one of the presenters we invited specifically because of her skills as a storyteller. She has been heavily involved for several years as both an organizer and a participant in the Yukon Storytelling Festival, held every year in late May in Whitehorse. Woven into her presentation is a useful framework for differentiating various kinds of stories. As she tells us a series of stories, she takes us through a wide range of emotions from grief and loss to laughter and awe. For each of her stories, she gives us some personal contextual information that adds to the story’s meaning and helps us appreciate its significance. Her final story, in particular, is the kind of traditional story that has probably existed for a very long time. Such stories may be told with slightly different emphases, depending on the occasion, but they carry wisdom and value for every generation that hears them.     

Words of power: Personal empowerment and healing

This paper examines instances of ritual use of words in a diverse selection of alternative healing groups in a modern society. These words are distinguished by their users' belief that they are endowed with a power, an effectiveness, separate from and in addition to their literal meaning. Three specific features of ritual language contribute to its effectiveness: (1) its function as an objectification of power, (2) its transformative functions — especially its metaphoric and metonymic usages, and (3) its performative aspects. This paper argues that one of the key factors in healing illness is mobilizing resources of power, especially enhancing the ill person's sense of personal empowerment. Ritual language use in alternative healing is one of the foremost elements in this empowerment, because it both represents and objectifies power. Within a belief system in which they are significant, words of power indeed have the power to effect healing.     

The transmission sense of information

Biologists rely heavily on the language of information, coding, and transmission that is commonplace in the field of information theory developed by Claude Shannon, but there is open debate about whether such language is anything more than facile metaphor. Philosophers of biology have argued that when biologists talk about information in genes and in evolution, they are not talking about the sort of information that Shannon’s theory addresses. First, philosophers have suggested that Shannon’s theory is only useful for developing a shallow notion of correlation, the so-called “causal sense” of information. Second, they typically argue that in genetics and evolutionary biology, information language is used in a “semantic sense,” whereas semantics are deliberately omitted from Shannon’s theory. Neither critique is well-founded. Here we propose an alternative to the causal and semantic senses of information: a transmission sense of information, in which an object X conveys information if the function of X is to reduce, by virtue of its sequence properties, uncertainty on the part of an agent who observes X. The transmission sense not only captures much of what biologists intend when they talk about information in genes, but also brings Shannon’s theory back to the fore. By taking the viewpoint of a communications engineer and focusing on the decision problem of how information is to be packaged for transport, this approach resolves several problems that have plagued the information concept in biology, and highlights a number of important features of the way that information is encoded, stored, and transmitted as genetic sequence.     

Community responses to violence in Holman, Northwest Territory

When we talk about narrative, we often focus on the story and the teller, but rarely on the listener. Yet often the first step in healing is finding someone who will listen to you and truly hear your story. Alice Kimiksana and others in the Canadian Arctic village of Holman, who are concerned about the community’s high suicide rate, understand this basic healing principal very well. They have worked together to create a Help Line—a confidential listening and crisis intervention program—for their community. Kimiksana talks about how in Holman, as in other northern communities, trauma led parents to teach their children not to talk about their pain, their fear, or their abusive experiences, including those that occurred in the residential schools. As a result, even years later, the pain, fear, and hurt can become unbearable, leading sometimes to alcohol and drug abuse, and sometimes to violence toward oneself or others. Educational groups, Healing Circles, and youth groups are starting to help. However, unless there are helpers who will listen when people begin to tell their stories, this first step in healing cannot take place and the cycle of intergenerational trauma will not be broken.     

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.     

Response to commentaries on “The Transmission Sense of Information”

Biologists rely heavily on the language of information, coding, and transmission that is commonplace in the field of information theory developed by Claude Shannon, but there is open debate about whether such language is anything more than facile metaphor. Philosophers of biology have argued that when biologists talk about information in genes and in evolution, they are not talking about the sort of information that Shannon’s theory addresses. First, philosophers have suggested that Shannon’s theory is only useful for developing a shallow notion of correlation, the so-called “causal sense” of information. Second, they typically argue that in genetics and evolutionary biology, information language is used in a “semantic sense,” whereas semantics are deliberately omitted from Shannon’s theory. Neither critique is well-founded. Here we propose an alternative to the causal and semantic senses of information: a transmission sense of information, in which an object X conveys information if the function of X is to reduce, by virtue of its sequence properties, uncertainty on the part of an agent who observes X. The transmission sense not only captures much of what biologists intend when they talk about information in genes, but also brings Shannon’s theory back to the fore. By taking the viewpoint of a communications engineer and focusing on the decision problem of how information is to be packaged for transport, this approach resolves several problems that have plagued the information concept in biology, and highlights a number of important features of the way that information is encoded, stored, and transmitted as genetic sequence.     

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.     

Resilience indicators: prospects and limitations for early warnings of regime shifts

In the vicinity of tipping points—or more precisely bifurcation points—ecosystems recover slowly from small perturbations. Such slowness may be interpreted as a sign of low resilience in the sense that the ecosystem could easily be tipped through a critical transition into a contrasting state. Indicators of this phenomenon of ‘critical slowing down (CSD)’ include a rise in temporal correlation and variance. Such indicators of CSD can provide an early warning signal of a nearby tipping point. Or, they may offer a possibility to rank reefs, lakes or other ecosystems according to their resilience. The fact that CSD may happen across a wide range of complex ecosystems close to tipping points implies a powerful generality. However, indicators of CSD are not manifested in all cases where regime shifts occur. This is because not all regime shifts are associated with tipping points. Here, we review the exploding literature about this issue to provide guidance on what to expect and what not to expect when it comes to the CSD-based early warning signals for critical transitions.     

How to safely maintain equipment where hazardous materials may lurk

The best protection is preparation. Assess any equipment/device that requires repair or maintenance for potential contamination or source of injury, such as sharp edges. Know where your protective apparel is located and use it. Review decontamination procedures and keep disinfectants available. Know your employee report of injury program and seek medical care whenever you have concerns regarding potential injury or exposure. Know your policies and procedures and where to find them if you need further information. Your infection control staff should be available 24 hours a day. The standard personal protective equipment that your employer is required to make available to you should include gloves, masks, eye protection, and gowns. In addition, if you are expected to enter a negative pressure room while a patient is in Airborne Precautions, you must be properly fit tested with an N95 respirator prior to entering the room. This respirator is very similar to a normal mask, but is able to filter out particles such as the TB bacterium. Infection control boils down to 2 commandments: 1. Wash your hands! 2. Use your head/common sense: If it looks soiled--clean it. If you have concerns--ask for clarification. If you think you have been exposed--seek medical assistance.     

Move,Stop, Learn: Illustrating Mitosis through Stop-Motion Animation

Learning about microscopic things, such as cells, can often be mundane to students because they are not able to see or manipulate what they are learning about. Students often recall learning about cell division through memorization—thus they find it tedious and dull. Few opportunities exist that allow students to explore and manipulate cells or the process of cellular division. This activity attempts to combat the monotony that is often associated with learning mitosis by engaging students in creating a stop-motion animation video using iPads. Our students found the activity fun, enjoyed it more than learning mitosis through traditional methods, and believed making the video helped them understand cell division.     

From irreversible thermodynamics to network thermodynamics

Whenever the subject of the thermodynamics of irreversible processes TIP is brought up among biologists, there seems to be a very polarized reaction: some have found it a useful tool, others reject it utterly, and for some reason which I do not understand, even fervently. For the present school, Professor Aharon Katchalsky had suggested that we try together to point out some ways in which TIP has been useful, to discuss limitations and shortcomings, and, finally, to show the direction and first results of present efforts, mainly in network thermodynamics¹. It would have been my task to show you the darker side of the coin, but now Aharon is not with us to show you the shining side in his unique way, to carry you along with his enthusiasm. I believe it is in Aharon's spirit that I do not attempt to evaluate or commemorate his contributions and achievements, but just talk science and try to convey a little of what was at the center of his interest during the last years.     

Local Environmental Knowledge,Talk, and Skepticism: Using ‘LES’ to Distinguish ‘LEK’ from ‘LET’ in Newfoundland

The actual evidence observed in studies of LEK (local environmental knowledge) is nearly always talk about the environment, or what we refer to as LET (local environmental talk), with the claim of studying LEK usually being built upon the implicit assumption that talk about the environment is the expression of knowledge about the environment. We suggest that it is critically important for researchers to question this assumption, especially when the distinction between LET and LEK is also emphasized by local people themselves. In the case we present here, residents of small fishing villages on the Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland are routinely skeptical about what other local residents say about the environment; that is, they engage in LES (local environmental skepticism). We suggest that paying explicit attention to LES can help distinguish LEK from LET.     

Transgressive Little Pests: Hiker Descriptions of “Shelter Mice” on the Appalachian Trail

Running between Springer Mountain in the state of Georgia, and Mount Katahdin in Maine, the Appalachian Trail (AT) is a more than 2,000 mile long “wilderness” corridor in the United States. People aiming to undertake a trek of the entire length of the trail can expect to spend approximately six months of their lives on it, sleeping outdoors or in the rudimentary, three-sided shelters that are dotted along it. This paper looks at hiker narratives that described unpleasant encounters between themselves and the mice (Mus musculus and Peromyscus maniculatus) who inhabit these shelters. Many people who attempt to hike the entire length of the AT also choose to blog about their experiences on the trail, thereby creating a parallel community online of AT “thru hikers” as they are known. The data for this study were retrieved from blogs posted by AT thru hikers over the years 2015 and 2016. The most common response to shelter mice was one expressing deep discomfort. This paper asks what it was like to live in close proximity to a species that people usually avoid, what about mice meant that they were perceived as distasteful and even disgusting, and how hikers thought about these nonhuman animals and made sense of their encounters with them afterwards. It is found that hiker reactions to shelter mice were informed largely by their perception of them as being transgressive.     

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.     

The geometry of multisite phosphorylation

Reversible protein phosphorylation on multiple sites is a key regulatory mechanism in most cellular processes. We consider here a kinase-phosphatase-substrate system with two sites, under mass-action kinetics, with no restrictions on the order of phosphorylation or dephosphorylation. We show that the concentrations of the four phosphoforms at steady state satisfy an algebraic formula—an invariant—that is independent of the other chemical species, such as free enzymes or enzyme-substrate complexes, and holds irrespective of the starting conditions and the total amounts of enzymes and substrate. Such invariants allow stringent quantitative predictions to be made without requiring any knowledge of site-specific parameter values. We introduce what we believe are novel methods from algebraic geometry—Gröbner bases, rational curves—to calculate invariants. These methods are particularly significant because they make it possible to treat parameters symbolically without having to specify their numerical values, and thereby allow us to sidestep the parameter problem. We anticipate that this approach will have much wider applications in biological modeling.     

Too much common sense,not enough critical thinking!

This paper explores two different views about common sense—those of Clifford Geertz and Antonio Gramsci. It examines their presuppositions, assesses their utility for archaeologists, and considers the implications of current common-sense explanations of the past. It points out that common sense is both historical. Yesterday’s common sense sometimes morphs into today’s good sense or scientific truth. Today’s common sense or scientific truth often becomes tomorrow’s false consciousness or folklore. Common sense is also relational. Groups with different positionalities in hierarchically organized societies may have widely divergent views about what is common sense. Finally, it raises the question of why particular “common sense” explanations of the present—buttressed with claims that they are rooted historically in a fixed, unchanging human nature and morality—are repeatedly resurrected by fundamentalists and conservatives in both hemispheres to justify political arguments and to reassert or impose or particular power relations.     

Internet access

A 65-year-old man undergoes a routine checkup before retiring. His wife has urged him to have his prostate examined, because she has read about testing for prostate cancer and a friend has just died of this disease. During the rectal examination, the man''s physician discovers some firmness in the right lobe of the prostate gland. The patient has had no urinary symptoms and is in excellent general health. Sexual function is normal. There is no history of prostate cancer; his father died of a stroke at age 86 years. Testing shows that the patient''s prostate-specific antigen level is 9.3 ng/mL, and he is referred to a urologist. Transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsy reveals adenocarcinoma with a Gleason score of 7 (intermediate grade). At a follow-up meeting with his physician, the patient says, "I have been doing some research, and it appears that I should have treatment. However, what is less clear to me is what form of therapy is best--surgery or radiation treatment. Please tell me what you can about the state of the art with respect to surgery."     

Genetics and personal responsibility for health

Advances in genetic medicine may have implications for how we should think about personal responsibility for health, because they may show how it is possible to exert some control over risk factors that were previously thought as beyond the individual's control. Although we cannot control the genes that we are born with, we can often make decisions concerning genetic testing, disease prevention, and treatment. One might argue, therefore, that individuals should be treated as morally responsible for taking effective action in response to genetic risks factors, since genetically based health risks are similar to other health risks. While this argument makes sense as an abstract, philosophical position, it is not a useful guide to public policy. Given these concerns, there is little society can or should do to encourage individuals to address their genetic risk factors, other than praising those who make prudent choices.     

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.     

Transgenerational and developmental plasticity at the molecular level: Lessons from Daphnia

Listen to the news and you are bound to hear that researchers are increasingly interested in the biological manifestations of trauma that reverberate through the generations. Research in this area can be controversial in the public realm, provoking societal issues about personal responsibility (are we really born free or are we born with the burden of our ancestors’ experience?). It is also a touchy subject within evolutionary biology because it provokes concerns about Lamarckianism and general scepticism about the importance of extra‐genetic inheritance (Laland et al., 2014 ). Part of why the research in this area has been controversial is because it is difficult to study. For one, there is the problem of how long it takes to track changes across generations, making long‐term, multi‐generational studies especially tricky in long‐lived species. Moreover, there are presently very few (if any) known molecular mechanisms by which environmental effects can be incorporated into the genome and persist for multiple successive generations, casting doubt on their evolutionary repercussions. Fortunately, you only have to look in your local pond to find the creatures that are teaching us a great deal about how and why the experiences of parents are passed down to their offspring. In this issue of Molecular Ecology, Hales et al. (Hales et al., 2017 ) illustrate the power of Daphnia (“water fleas”) for making headway in this field.