For Yet Better Science

Avengers for Better Science is a workshop organized to  support young researchers committed to building an inclusive, open and ethical academia . The event will focus on communities related to machine learning and life science.

A positive, solutions-focused animation explaining the current status of animal testing in the UK – and the necessary next steps for science to progress.

Lisa Loseto is a research scientist at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, a federal government department whose regional offices include one in Winnipeg, where she is based. Some of Northern Canada’s Indigenous people have shaped her research into how beluga whales ( Delphinapterus leucas ) interact with their environments, and have taught her to rethink her own part in the scientific method. As co-editor-in-chief of the journal  Arctic Science  since 2017, she is looking at ways to increase Indigenous representation in scientific publishing, including the editorial and peer-review processes.  

A philanthropic organization started by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Wendy Schmidt is to provide $40 million over five years to build a Virtual Institute for Scientific Software,  Science   reports . The aim of the institute is to provide university researchers with the expertise of professional software engineers, who often do not work in academia as they can command a larger paycheck in the private sector, it adds. Currently,   Science   notes, a lot of scientific research relies on programs written by grad students and postdocs, who might not have the know-how to scale it up.  

"She who trolls a troll has a thousand years of forgiveness" - old Ukrainian German saying 

Field research can be challenging.  There are several moving parts and many hurdles to clear before the data-gathering process begins. Questions relating to members of the researched community—regarding the level of their involvement in planning and carrying out the research, and about sharing the results—can be seen as a dreaded inconvenience, and, sometimes, as an obstacle to good science. Community engagement and good science need not be in tension, however. Leaning on my research on Roma/non-Roma relations, and the process through which I came to understand the importance of engaging the researched community in research, I describe a few ways in which such engagement can prove invaluable.   

The impact of data science on science and knowledge production is an important and timely topic. Data Science and AI are changing the way we do science. AI is increasingly used in scientific practices, from data discovery to data analysis, for extracting new knowledge out of research artifacts, generating novel and experimentally testable scientific hypotheses, writing, publication, outreach, and research assessment but its biggest promise is to generate new scientific knowledge and understanding. Data Science, on the other hand, gives value to data for advancing scientific goals. For instance, in studying the human genome (connecting genetic data to people’s behaviors and diseases).  

I’ve been aware of Leonid Schneider’s expose blog ever since the piece on the supposed  fraud of Nobel prize-winner Gregg Semenza  appeared on my Twitter feed. Schneider portrays himself as an  under-dog ; the self-styled “ failed scientist ” has taken a liking to pillaring the hypocrisies of the scientific establishment. To be honest, although criticisms of the undertakings of science are always needed, especially when it concerns matters of data integrity, publishing practices, and perverse incentives in academia, I am a bit weary of uncritically listening to someone who appears to have no established career in either science or science journalism (the only pieces published under his own name appear only on the blog he runs). And his pieces do come off with a bit of crankiness.

In fast-paced crises like COVID-19, making use of scientific discovery in policymaking is challenging. We should learn the lessons of the current pandemic to make science a better partner to decision-makers in future crises, Sandro Galea writes.  

Daniel Stokols , professor emeritus of planning, policy & design, and  Judith Olson , professor of informatics, are co-authors of a new report from the National Research Council that concludes scientific research is increasingly dominated by teams–a promising approach that is also rife with challenges. The report is likely to have major public policy and research funding implications as academic and scientific research communities are still largely structured around an outdated concept of the independent solo investigator. Team science can be difficult, especially when teams or groups are geographically dispersed, include diverse disciplines or experience changing membership. Yet the evidence indicates that innovation and impact are enhanced by multidisciplinary science teams.  

For two decades, Women’s Health Research at Yale (WHRY) Director  Carolyn M. Mazure , Ph.D., has prompted change in how investigators at the university focus on the “who” and “what” of health research. As she looks across research institutions today, she sees that the cause she has championed — the inclusion of women as subjects in health research — has become increasingly recognized in scientific circles. Now, she says, we are at a critical point, and the scientific community needs to decide if it will embrace true transformational change in science.  

Papers are a key currency for academic careers—which is why publication disparities among various groups, such as men versus women, are often a focal point for efforts to increase equity and diversity. Now, a new study quantifies another of these gaps: LGBQ academic scientists who don’t disclose their sexual orientation in the workplace publish fewer papers than their out or non-LGBQ peers. (The same effect of disclosure was not observed among scientists who were gender minorities.)  

This 8th edition of top scientists ranking for Computer Science was published by Research.com, one of the major websites for Computer Science research offering credible data on scientific contributions since 2014. The ranking contains h-index, publications and citations values collected on December 6th, 2021.  

Across disciplines, researchers in the Computational Neuroscience Initiative at Penn put their heads together to better understand the brain.  

Expert predictions can be used as a tool for making research stronger, as my co-authors Stefano DellaVigna, Devin Pope and I argue in a new article published in  Science .   The way we interpret research results depends on what we already believe. For example, if we saw a study claiming to show that smoking was healthy, we would probably be pretty sceptical. If a result surprises experts, that fact itself is informative. It could suggest that something may have been wrong with the study design. Or, if the study was well-designed and the finding replicated, we might think that result fundamentally changed our understanding of how the world works.

I’ve been aware of Leonid Schneider’s expose blog ever since the piece on the supposed  fraud of Nobel prize-winner Gregg Semenza  appeared on my Twitter feed. Schneider portrays himself as an  under-dog ; the self-styled “ failed scientist ” has taken a liking to pillaring the hypocrisies of the scientific establishment. To be honest, although criticisms of the undertakings of science are always needed, especially when it concerns matters of data integrity, publishing practices, and perverse incentives in academia, I am a bit weary of uncritically listening to someone who appears to have no established career in either science or science journalism (the only pieces published under his own name appear only on the blog he runs).   It’s all too easy to make baseless accusations, especially with a medium like Twitter, which Schneider seems to do happily even going as far as  calling respected publishing journals he doesn’t like “predatory”.  Yes, science needs to be more open and transpar

“Citizen science,” or the participation of people outside academia in the production of scientific research, is on the rise. While citizen science projects have existed for decades, several enterprises  have appeared in the last decade alone. These platforms allow anyone to participate in data collection and classification for academic or government research projects.

A new paper, published recently in  PLOS Computational Biology  by a team including UMass Amherst researchers, seeks to help scientists structure their lab-group meetings so that they are more inclusive, more productive and, ultimately, lead to better science.  

Science is evolving. New tools and ideas are changing how discovery happens. Science Better is a collection of interviews with the vanguard — a repository of their best ideas and personal research habits.  

Much work has been done to promote sex and gender-based analyses in health research and to think critically about the influence of sex and gender on health behaviours and outcomes. However, despite this increased attention on sex and gender, there remain obstacles to effectively applying and measuring these concepts in health research. Some health researchers continue to ignore the concepts of sex and gender or incorrectly conflate their meanings. We report on a primer that was developed by the authors to help researchers understand and use the concepts of sex and gender in their work. We provide detailed definitions of sex and gender, discuss a sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA), and suggest three approaches for incorporating sex and gender in health research at various stages of the research process. We discuss our knowledge translation process and share some of the challenges we faced in disseminating our primer with key stakeholders. In conclusion, we stress the need for continue

Nature launchs  Nature Italy , a new digital magazine focused on Italian research and on the Italian scientific community. Written in both Italian and English, it will highlight the best and most impactful results coming out of Italian science, follow research policy and politics in the country, and give Italian researchers a new platform to debate and to make their voice heard.  

I’ve been aware of Leonid Schneider’s expose blog ever since the piece on the supposed  fraud of Nobel prize-winner Gregg Semenza  appeared on my Twitter feed. Schneider portrays himself as an  under-dog ; the self-styled “ failed scientist ” has taken a liking to pillaring the hypocrisies of the scientific establishment. To be honest, although criticisms of the undertakings of science are always needed, especially when it concerns matters of data integrity, publishing practices, and perverse incentives in academia, I am a bit weary of uncritically listening to someone who appears to have no established career in either science or science journalism (the only pieces published under his own name appear only on the blog he runs). It’s all too easy to make baseless accusations, especially with a medium like Twitter, which Schneider seems to do happily even going as far as  calling respected publishing journals he doesn’t like “predatory”.  Yes, science needs to be more open and transparen

“Better Science, Better Health” was established by Vital Transformation to facilitate international collaboration in new clinical regulatory pathways, sources of evidence, and harnessing real world data to improve the access of needed new medicines by patients.  

Welcome to Better with Science! My name is Jason. Here we’ll discuss how critical thinking, common sense, and exploration of the natural world can inform and improve our quality of life. We’ll see how everyone could benefit from thinking like a scientist (no matter who you are), and indeed how everything is simply better with science.  

Workplace crèches and nursing rooms feature, alongside calls for more generous parental leave policies to keep women in science.  

Free guides to promote research excellence – ideal for those embarking on a career in research or for those needing a useful refresher. Each guide offers plenty of practical tips from a wide range of ecologists – an invaluable resource for students and their supervisors all around the world.  

The country has been increasing research funding for decades, but its rigid, time-bound approach to research assessment is stifling basic science.  

For obvious reasons,  Singapore  is investing heavily in educating and training its young people. From a little-known island to a vibrant technology, manufacturing, and financial center, Singapore has come a long way from where it was in the postindependence mid-1960s. Ranked the world's second-most competitive economy for seven consecutive years since 1994 by the International Institute for Management Development (IMD), Singapore has long been a member of the league of great cities, but with a unique identity of its own.

Sir Peter Ratcliffe grew up in north Lancashire and won an open scholarship to study medicine at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. He undertook clinical training at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, and after series of posts at the London postgraduate hospitals, moved to Oxford to train in nephrology. In 1990 he obtained a Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship to work on cellular responses to hypoxia, retrained in molecular biology and founded a new laboratory working on hypoxia biology in cancer and circulatory diseases.  He was appointed Nuffield Professor and Head of the Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine in 2003, a position he held until 2016. He is currently Director of the Target Discovery Institute, and a Distinguished Scholar of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research.  He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences and is an honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In the 2014 New Year’s Honours List, he was knighted for s

Researchers worldwide are working together to create a common reference map of all human cells that will allow us to better understand and treat disease: the  Human Cell Atlas  (HCA). The HCA is already making an impact. For example, researchers used initial cell atlas data from the nose and airway to identify cells that may be entry points for SARS-CoV-2. Scientists have also used reference data from many organ systems to begin to clarify the complex pathology associated with COVID-19. Yet to be truly useful as a reference atlas for the human body, the HCA must be broadly representative of determinants of health, including race, ethnicity and ancestry.  

As scientists at heart, we’ve been amazed at the rapid advancements in vaccine research over the past year. To help champion science and promote vaccine education, we're launching the Science for Better Bracelet.  100% of profits will support COVID-19 vaccine education,  through the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) Vaccine Education Center and the promotion of up-to-date medical science. Bracelets will also be freely available to the healthcare workers who have put their lives on the line throughout this pandemic.  

Benjamin List, Director at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kohlenforschung, is honoured with the 2021 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, together with David MacMillan from Princeton University, for their work on asymmetric catalysis. They have established for the first time that small organic molecules are suitable as mediators of chemical reactions. Previously, science assumed that only enzymes and metals, including often toxic heavy metals or expensive and rare precious metals, could accelerate chemical reactions and steer them in a desired direction. The small organic molecules that Benjamin List and David MacMillan introduced as catalysts are particularly suitable for asymmetric synthesis. In this process, only one of two enantiomers is produced - these are molecules that are like the left and right hand, which means they cannot be spatially aligned. Such molecules are involved in all biological processes and also play an important role as medical agents.  

Every morning during my frenetic walk through the main corridor of the hospital, I kept seeing display screens congratulating Dr. Gregg Semenza on the Nobel Prize in Medicine. Even before this monumental feat, I had always wanted to meet Dr. Semenza to go over burning questions most young doctors, with an inclination to research, would have. While composing an email to request an interview with him for CLOSLER, I wondered how I could even start it with “Congratulations on the Nobel Prize”—just to type those words felt unreal.  

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2019 Born: 12 July 1956, New York, NY, USA Affiliation at the time of the award: Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA Prize motivation: “for discoveries of how cells sense and adapt to oxygen availability”  

One of today’s preeminent researchers on the molecular mechanisms of oxygen regulation, Dr. Semenza has led the field in uncovering how cells adapt to changing oxygen levels. He is best known for his ground-breaking discovery of the HIF-1 (hypoxia-inducible factor 1) protein, which controls changes in gene expression in response to changes in oxygen availability. The discovery of HIF-1 has far-reaching implications for understanding and treating conditions, such as cancer and ischemic cardiovascular disease, in which hypoxia plays an important role in disease pathogenesis.  

In a lecture entitled "Meta-research and the quest for better science", John Ioannidis  highlighted elements of the research world that he believes can be improved. For example, while 95% of research papers published since 1990 claim to have statistically significant results, most of them have low statistical credibility, often due to small data sets and non-reproducible methods, thus reducing the reliability of these results.

I’ve been aware of Leonid Schneider’s expose blog ever since the piece on the supposed  fraud of Nobel prize-winner Gregg Semenza  appeared on my Twitter feed. Schneider portrays himself as an  under-dog ; the self-styled “ failed scientist ” has taken a liking to pillaring the hypocrisies of the scientific establishment. To be honest, although criticisms of the undertakings of science are always needed, especially when it concerns matters of data integrity, publishing practices, and perverse incentives in academia, I am a bit weary of uncritically listening to someone who appears to have no established career in either science or science journalism (the only pieces published under his own name appear only on the blog he runs).

In fast-paced crises like COVID-19, making use of scientific discovery in policymaking is challenging. We should learn the lessons of the current pandemic to make science a better partner to decision-makers in future crises, Sandro Galea writes.  

During Pride month, we recognize and celebrate the contributions of our LGBTQ+ community. We are committed to taking deliberate action to create a culture of allyship where all voices are heard, respected and people feel they can be their authentic selves.

Field research can be challenging.  There are several moving parts and many hurdles to clear before the data-gathering process begins. Questions relating to members of the researched community—regarding the level of their involvement in planning and carrying out the research, and about sharing the results—can be seen as a dreaded inconvenience, and, sometimes, as an obstacle to good science. Community engagement and good science need not be in tension, however.