Wonder Drake knows how being poor can hinder someone’s dream of becoming a biomedical researcher.
Raised in rural Alabama by a single mother who never graduated from high school, Drake overcame those obstacles by finding mentors willing to take her under their wing. Now a professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Drake has repeatedly returned that favor by participating in a National Institutes of Health (NIH) program aimed at improving the diversity of the biomedical workforce.
Under the program, NIH grantees such as Drake can win additional funding, called diversity supplements, to aid students from one of several groups underrepresented in biomedical research. Some 90% of the awards made in 2018 serve students who are Hispanic or African American, whereas fewer than 1% of investigators cite the category of economically “disadvantaged” when applying for a diversity supplement.
An advisory group yesterday issued a sweeping set of recommendations to crack down on sexual harassment in labs funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The panel’s advice included mandating that NIH-funded institutions report confirmed harassers to NIH as well as broad changes aimed at changing the culture of biomedical science to make it less dominated by white men.
NIH Director Francis Collins said he was “supportive of these solid recommendations” and would move immediately to follow up on several of them. “NIH will make every effort to adhere to the vision of the working group,” he said in a statement following the report’s release. However, Collins said NIH does not have the legal authority to take some key steps, such as the reporting requirement.
Still, observers welcomed the report from a 21-member working group that included NIH officials, NIH-funded researchers, and victims of sexual harassment. “I really appreciate your attention to these issues,” neuroscientist and #MeTooSTEM movement leader BethAnn McLaughlin, formerly of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, told the panel, calling its report “awesome.”
Publishing giant Elsevier has signed a national license deal with Couperin, France’s consortium of universities and research organizations, but critics say it doesn’t do enough to advance open access (OA) to scientific journal articles. Its terms are at odds with Plan S, a mandate to make publications immediately free to read starting in 2021, which France’s National Research Agency has backed.
The 4-year agreement includes a discount on subscription costs, bringing them down to 2009 levels by the end of 2022, Couperin announced last month. The French government says the agreement, which is retroactive to January, will save €1.5 million this year. The deal does not provide that all articles be published OA immediately; instead, it includes a 25% rebate on charges that researchers pay if they elect to publish individual articles OA. “For the first time, there is a decrease of expenditure, and it is a significant one,” says a spokesperson for France’s research ministry.
But critics take issue with how the agreement handles papers for which researchers don’t pay the OA fee. The agreement says these papers would become free to read, hosted on Elsevier’s servers 1 year after publishing. This is longer than the 6-month delay defined in a 2016 French law. The French government says the deal does not break the law, which gives authors the right to make their papers freely available in an online archive after 6 months but does not force publishers to do so.
There’s a running joke in academia about Reviewer 2. That’s the reviewer that doesn’t bother to read the manuscript a journal has sent out for evaluation for possible publication, offers condescending or outright offensive comments, and—of course—urges the irrelevant citation of their own work. Such unprofessional conduct is so pervasive there’s even a whole Facebook group, more than 25,000 members strong, named “Reviewer 2 Must Be Stopped!” But it is no laughing matter, concludes a new study that finds boorish reviewer comments can have serious negative impacts, especially on authors belonging to marginalized groups.
Peer reviewers are supposed to ensure that journals publish high-quality science by evaluating manuscripts and offering suggestions for improvement. But often, referee comments stray far from that mission, found the new PeerJ study, which surveyed 1106 scientists from 46 countries and 14 disciplines. More than half of the respondents—who were promised anonymity—reported receiving at least one “unprofessional” review, and a majority of those said they had received multiple problematic comments.
Those comments tended to personally target a scientist, lack constructive criticism, or were just unnecessarily harsh or cruel, the authors report. For example, one author received a review that stated: “The phrases I have so far avoided using in this review are ‘lipstick on a pig’ and ‘bullshit baffles brains.’” Another reported receiving this missive: “The author’s last name sounds Spanish. I didn’t read the manuscript because I’m sure it’s full of bad English.”
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA—Earlier today, after a successful rocket launch from India, the beginnings of a new satellite constellation for Earth observation took place. An existing flotilla of more than 80 microsatellites owned by the startup Spire Global, based here, captures signals that have traversed the atmosphere from GPS satellites to measure key properties such as temperature and humidity. Now, two new microsatellites from the same company will collect GPS signals after they bounce off land or ocean to probe conditions at the surface.
Unlike the microwaves used by traditional weather satellites, the long wavelengths of GPS can peer through clouds and heavy rain to measure the winds of hurricanes and other storms. The reflected signal can also reveal sea ice cover and, critically, soil moisture, which can indicate drought and guide storm forecasts. “We’re trying to produce data that will be used for the long term,” says Dallas Masters, Spire’s director of Earth observations, who announced the launch this week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union here.
Over the past few years, a constellation of eight NASA microsatellites, called the Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System (CYGNSS), has proved that harvesting GPS reflections can work from space, providing measures of hurricane wind speed that could measurably improve hurricane forecasts. The mission has also proved adept at gauging soil moisture, to the point that half of its science team now focuses on the topic.
Two years ago, the Heising-Simons Foundation launched a grants program designed to attract and retain more women in the male-dominated disciplines of physics and astronomy. It also started a postdoctoral fellowship aimed at developing talent in the emerging field of planetary astronomy.
Foundation officials assumed the two efforts would be synergistic, in that the fellowship would not only lead to more people studying objects outside the Solar System but would also contribute to the foundation’s goal of erasing the gender imbalance in physics and astronomy. They were wrong: Only two of the 12 awardees in the fellowship’s first two cohorts were women.
That low ratio sent shock waves through the small family charity, which is based in Los Altos, California. “We realized we needed to self-reflect before we went any further,” says the foundation's Cyndi Atherton. She oversees both the women in physics and astronomy initiative and, together with Camellia Pham, the 51 Pegasi b Fellowship program—named for the first exoplanet discovered orbiting a Sun-like star. “We wanted to understand some of the biases that go into how people evaluate candidates so we could create a cohort that would be both excellent and diverse. And we recognized that we are not the experts in this area.”
U.S. scientists who violate government rules on disclosing foreign research ties should be investigated for research misconduct, says an independent group of prominent scientists asked to examine the threat of foreign influences on the U.S. research enterprise. Although the report concludes that the threat is real, it says the government should not impose new restrictions on the pursuit of basic research in the name of protecting national security.
These and other recommendations come from Jason, a free-standing group based in McLean, Virginia, that has advised the government on national security issues since the early days of the Cold War. The National Science Foundation (NSF) hired Jason to tackle the politically sensitive issue of foreign influence on U.S.-funded research amid calls from Congress and the White House to crack down on the open exchange of scientific information.
Those calls are largely a response to China’s no-holds-barred approach to acquiring the latest technology and intellectual property on its way to becoming a global scientific superpower. Its decade-old Thousand Talents Program of recruiting prominent scientists—including ethnic Chinese who are now U.S. citizens—has come under special scrutiny. Among federal agencies, the National Institutes of Health has been especially aggressive, flagging nearly 200 scientists it believes have failed to disclose their ties to foreign entities or improperly shared confidential information with overseas researchers.
Congress is set to approve a major defense bill that would establish two new high-level bodies aimed at preventing foreign governments from unfairly exploiting the U.S. research enterprise. University and science groups are breathing a quiet sigh of relief after persuading lawmakers to drop related provisions that they considered problematic.
One, based in the White House, would work to coordinate action by more than a dozen government agencies to protect federally funded research projects from cyberattacks, theft, and other foreign threats. The other group, a round table run by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), will bring together officials from academia, government, and industry to advise the government on ways to achieve national security without undermining valuable international collaborations.
The legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), also includes a provision requiring the director of national intelligence to produce an annual report that identifies “sensitive research … that could affect national security” that is being conducted at U.S. universities and that could be of interest to foreign entities.
A complicated effort to convert an Iranian military site into a civilian research center has hit a major snag. On 5 December, Russia’s TVEL nuclear fuel company announced it has suspended work to produce stable isotopes for medicine and research at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, a once-clandestine nuclear site near Iran’s holy city of Qom.
The project’s suspension is the latest casualty of the gradual unraveling of the nuclear deal that world powers struck with Iran in 2015 to deter it from pursuing nuclear weapons. After the United States pulled out of the agreement in May 2018, the other parties sought to preserve the accord, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). But discussions foundered, prompting Iran to resume some nuclear activities the agreement had curtailed.
The JCPOA had prohibited using equipment at Fordow to enrich uranium for 15 years. The deal called for developing one wing of the two-wing, bunkerlike facility, which sits under a mountain, as an international physics center. But that concept that gained little traction as signatories puzzled over what might be installed in the cramped space. Ultimately, Iran moved on its own to install instrumentation for an analytical laboratory dubbed the Material Engineering Development and National Research Center.
When Samantha Budd Haeberlein, Biogen’s head of clinical development, took the stage in San Diego, California, before a room full of Alzheimer’s disease researchers and physicians this morning, she knew she had some explaining to do. In October, the pharmaceutical company, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, unexpectedly revived an experimental Alzheimer’s drug that it had declared a failure 7 months earlier. Ever since, scientists and industry analysts have been hungry for more detail about two large clinical trials meant to prove that Biogen’s drug, an antibody called aducanumab, slows down cognitive decline in the early stages of disease.
At the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease congress today, Budd Haeberlein tried to clarify what has emboldened the company to apply to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for market approval for aducanumab early next year. After analyzing more patient data than were available at the time of a discouraging preliminary analysis, she explained, the company found evidence that the higher of two tested doses led to 22% less cognitive decline after 78 weeks than a placebo in one trial. However, the other trial failed to show any benefit, leaving some researchers with a grim outlook on the drug.
“I surely don’t think that it should be given market approval on the basis of these data,” says Robert Howard, a psychiatrist at University College London who has run clinical trials of potential Alzheimer’s treatments. More positive results from a subset of patients that weren’t preselected at the trial’s launch are not convincing, he says. “[Biogen has] broken all the rules, really, about how you analyze data and report it.”