Claim OwnershipPubReading
Subscribed: 2Played: 60
Subscribe
© Mando Mourad 2021
Description
Researchers would love if they can expand time to fit in that publication, article, or review of their topic of interest; if that were true, however, there is no end to bottomless scrolling and missing the important details. PubReading would read out the abstract, results, and discussions to allow hassle-free information and a chance to create connections with like-minded individuals.
343 Episodes
Reverse
A workshop held last June by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director’s Office, Nature Publishing Group, and Science focused on the role that journals play in supporting scientific research that is reproducible, robust, and transparent. The “Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research” that emerged from the workshop have since been endorsed by nearly 80 societies, journals, and associations.VOL.290,NO.50,pp.29692–29694 - 2015
The gender imbalance in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields has remained constant for decades and increases the farther up the STEM career pipeline one looks. Why does the underrepresentation of women endure? This study investigated the role of parenthood as a mechanism of gender-differentiated attrition from STEM employment. Using a nationally representative 8-year longitudinal sample of US STEM professionals, we examined the career trajectories of new parents after the birth or adoption of their first child. We found substantial attrition of new mothers: 43% of women leave full-time STEM employment after their first child. New mothers are more likely than new fathers to leave STEM, to switch to part-time work, and to exit the labor force. These gender differences hold irrespective of variation by discipline, race, and other demographic factors. However, parenthood is not just a “mother’s problem”; 23% of new fathers also leave STEM after their first child. Suggesting the difficulty of combining STEM work with caregiving responsibilities generally, new parents are more likely to leave full-time STEM jobs than otherwise similar childless peers and even new parents who remain employed full time are more likely than their childless peers to exit STEM for work elsewhere. These results have implications for policymakers and STEM workforce scholars; whereas parenthood is an important mechanism of women’s attrition, both women and men leave at surprisingly high rates after having children. Given that most people become parents during their working lives, STEM fields must do more to retain professionals with children.doi/10.1073/pnas.1810862116 - 2019
Human tissues are invaluable resources for pharmaceutical research. They provide information about disease pathophysiology - and equally importantly, healthy function; confirmation (or refutation) of potential drug targets; validation (or otherwise) of other models employed; and functional models for assessing drugs’ effects, whether beneficial or undesirable, in the most appropriate environment that can be replicated outside the human body. While human tissues have long been prized by pathologists in furthering our under- standing of disease processes, there is a growing appreciation of their value at the late pre-clinical stage of drug discovery. Human tissues’ potential to contribute to earlier phases of the process, before significant resources have been expended, is also now gaining recognition. Mounting concern over high rates of clinical stage drug failures mandates exploration of avenues for improving efficiency. Human tissue-based assays could play a key role in improving the translation process, as well as in moving towards stratified or personalised medicines. This editorial highlights some of the potential benefits of introducing human biosamples at each stage of the research process as a drug moves from concept to clinic. Some of the challenges with respect to obtaining tissues, minimising variability and gaining acceptance are also discussed.https://doi.org/10.1517/17460441.2012.689282 - 2012
The movement towards open science is a consequence of seemingly pervasive failures to replicate previous research. This transition comes with great benefits but also significant challenges that are likely to affect those who carry out the research, usually early career researchers (ECRs). Here, we describe key benefits, including reputational gains, increased chances of publication, and a broader increase in the reliability of research. The increased chances of publication are supported by exploratory analyses indicating null findings are substantially more likely to be published via open registered reports in comparison to more conventional methods. These benefits are balanced by challenges that we have encountered and that involve increased costs in terms of flexibility, time, and issues with the current incentive structure, all of which seem to affect ECRs acutely. Although there are major obstacles to the early adoption of open science, overall open science practices should benefit both the ECR and improve the quality of research. We review 3 benefits and 3 challenges and provide suggestions from the perspective of ECRs for moving towards open science practices, which we believe scientists and institutions at all levels would do well to consider.https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246 - 2019
In STEM, and particularly in science, many early career researchers find themselves isolated and lacking guidance. There is an enormous need to connect early career scientists with experienced professionals outside their immediate work environment. A new initiative aims to create a supportive community to foster communication between scientists through all stages of their career.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2019.08.007 - 2019
Early career researchers face uncertainties with respect to their job prospects due to dwindling job markets, decreased availability of funding and undefined career paths. As basic researchers and clinicians tend to have different approaches to scientific problems, there are many advantages from successful collaborations between them. Here, we discuss how collaborations between basic and clinical scientists should be promoted early in their careers. To achieve this, researchers, both basic and clinical, must be proactive during their training and early stages of their careers. Mentors can further augment collaborative links in many ways. We suggest that universities and institutions might reassess their involvement in promoting collaborations between basic and clinical researchers. We hope that this paper will serve as a reminder of the importance of such collaborations, and provide the opportunity for all members of the scientific community to reflect on and ame- liorate their own contributions.DOI: 10.1111/jth.13447 - 2016
DNA has emerged as an attractive medium for archival data storage due to its durability and high information density. Scalable parallel random access to information is a desirable property of any storage system. For DNA-based storage systems, however, this still needs to be robustly established. Here we report on a thermoconfined polymerase chain reaction, which enables multiplexed, repeated random access to compartmentalized DNA files. The strategy is based on localizing biotin-functionalized oligonucleotides inside thermoresponsive, semipermeable microcapsules. At low temperatures, microcapsules are permeable to enzymes, primers and amplified products, whereas at high temperatures, membrane collapse prevents molecular crosstalk during amplification. Our data show that the platform outperforms non-compartmentalized DNA storage compared with repeated random access and reduces amplification bias tenfold during multiplex polymerase chain reaction. Using fluorescent sorting, we also demonstrate sample pooling and data retrieval by microcapsule barcoding. Therefore, the thermoresponsive microcapsule technology offers a scalable, sequence-agnostic approach for repeated random access to archival DNA files.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-023-01377-4 - 2023
Improving the reproducibility of neuroscience research is of great concern, especially to early-career researchers (ECRs). Here I outline the potential costs for ECRs in adopting practices to improve reproducibility. I highlight the ways in which ECRs can achieve their career goals while doing better science and the need for established researchers to support them in these efforts.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.11.030 - 2019
High dropout rates, delay, and dissatisfaction among PhD students are common problems in doctoral education. Research shows that many different factors are associated with doctoral success, but these factors have not often been studied simultaneously. Moreover, characteristics of the PhD project are mostly neglected. In this study, we investigate which supervision, psychosocial, and project characteristics are related to satisfaction, progress, and quit intentions in a sample of 839 PhD candidates at a university in the Netherlands. Results of regression analyses show that experienced workload was negatively related to satisfaction and progress and positively to quit intentions. The quality of the supervisor-PhD candidate relationship, the PhD candidate’s sense of belonging, the amount of freedom in the project, and working on a project closely related to the supervisor’s research were positively related to satisfaction and negatively to quit intentions. The high workload of PhD candidates should be a major point of attention for universities who wish to increase their rates of PhD completion and PhD candidates’ satisfaction. In addition, the ‘match’ between PhD candidate and supervisor is crucial, both personally – a good relationship – and academically, i.e. that the PhD candidate works on a topic closely related to the supervisor’s research.https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2019.1652158 -2021
Artificial deep neural networks (DNNs) initially inspired by the brain enable computers to solve cognitive tasks at which humans excel. In the absence of explanations for such cognitive phenomena, in turn cognitive scientists have started using DNNs as models to investigate biological cognition and its neural basis, creating heated debate. Here, we reflect on the case from the perspective of philosophy of science. After putting DNNs as scientific models into context, we discuss how DNNs can fruitfully contribute to cognitive science. We claim that beyond their power to provide predictions and explanations of cognitive phenomena, DNNs have the potential to contribute to an often overlooked but ubiquitous and fundamental use of scientific models: exploration.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.01.009 - 2019
In 2006, to address the global inequitable access to influenza vaccines in the event of an influenza pandemic, WHO, with support of donors and partners, embarked on an ambitious project, the Technology Transfer Initiative (TTI), to facilitate influenza vaccine production capacity-building in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This commentary briefly summarizes the high-level lessons learned, key challenges encountered, and critical components needed for success.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.06.057 - 2022
The methods section of a research paper provides the information by which a study’s validity is judged. Therefore, it requires a clear and precise description of how an experiment was done, and the rationale for why specific experimental procedures were chosen. The methods section should describe what was done to answer the research question, describe how it was done, justify the experimental design, and explain how the results were analyzed. Scientific writing is direct and orderly. Therefore, the methods section structure should: describe the materials used in the study, explain how the materials were prepared for the study, describe the research protocol, explain how measurements were made and what calculations were performed, and state which statistical tests were done to analyze the data. Once all elements of the methods section are written, subsequent drafts should focus on how to present those elements as clearly and logically as possibly. The description of preparations, measurements, and the protocol should be organized chronologically. For clarity, when a large amount of detail must be presented, information should be presented in sub-sections according to topic. Material in each section should be organized by topic from most to least important.49 (10) 1229-1232; - 2004
The May 2012 Sackler Colloquium on “The Science of Science Communication” brought together scientists with research to communicate and scientists whose research could facilitate that communication. The latter include decision scientists who can identify the scientific results that an audience needs to know, from among all of the scientific results that it would be nice to know; behavioral scientists who can design ways to convey those results and then evaluate the success of those attempts; and social scientists who can create the channels needed for trustworthy communications. This overview offers an introduction to these communication sciences and their roles in science-based communication programs.
Randomisation is the process of assigning clinical trial participants to treatment groups. Randomisation gives each participant a known (usually equal) chance of being assigned to any of the groups. Successful randomisation requires that group assignment cannot be predicted in advance.DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2002.tb04955.x - 2002
The Covid-19 pandemic disrupted many clinical trials that were potentially bringing new therapeutics to market—an additional untallied cost of the pandemic in lives and quality of life owing to delays in releasing potentially beneficial therapeutics to patients in need. A separate side effect of the pandemic has been swift adoption of virtual interactions between physicians and patients to provide continuity of care while maintaining social distancing. This comes at a time of rapid advancement of technology permitting those interactions, such as enhanced internet connectivity, electronic health records, real-time video conferencing, smartphone health applications, and remotely connectable health monitoring devices that are becoming both more accurate, practical, and affordable. Interest in decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) that use “virtual elements” like these has grown in parallel with acceptance of “virtual medicine,” accelerating shifts in clinical trial design that many feel are long overdue.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacbts.2021.01.011 - 2021
In this era of a pandemic, why do we need the placebo controls for regulatory agency or Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved clinical trials aimed at COVID-19 patients? The answer is always that we have to establish a ruler with a baseline onto which efficacy measurements can be statistically judged.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-021-00612-x - 2021
Advocates bring unique and important viewpoints to the cancer research process, ensuring that scientific and medical advances are patient-centered and relevant. In this article, we discuss the benefits of engaging advocates in cancer research and underscore ways in which both the scientific and patient communities can facilitate this mutually beneficial collaboration. We discuss how to establish and nurture successful scientist-advocate relationships throughout the research process. We review opportunities that are available to advocates who want to obtain training in the evaluation of cancer research. We also suggest practical solutions that can strengthen communication between scientists and advocates, such as introducing scientist-advocate interactions at the trainee level. Finally, we highlight the essential role social media can play in disseminating patient-supported cancer research findings to the patient community and in raising awareness of the importance of promoting cancer research. Our perspective offers a model that Georgetown Breast Cancer Advocates have found effective and which could be one option for those interested in developing productive, successful, and sustainable collaborations between advocates and scientists in cancer research.DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-1600 - 2018
The rapid and exponential growth of genome editing has posed many challenges for bioethics. This article briefly explains the nature of the technique and the particularly rapid development of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat (CRISPR) technology. The international and, specifically, European-level systems for assessing the ethical issues consequent on these developments are outlined and discussed. The challenges posed by cases in China are summarized to raise concerns about how a more shared, universally consistent appraisal of bioethical issues can be promoted.https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2019.020202 - 2019
Our current economic and political structures have an increasingly devastating impact on the Earth's climate and ecosystems: we are facing a biospheric emergency, with catastrophic consequences for both humans and the natural world on which we depend. Life scientists - including biologists, medical scientists, psychologists and public health experts - have had a crucial role in documenting the impacts of this emergency, but they have failed to drive governments to take action in order to prevent the situation from getting worse. Here we, as members of the movement Scientist Rebellion, call on life scientists to re-embrace advocacy and activism - which were once hallmarks of academia - in order to highlight the urgency and necessity of systemic change across our societies. We particularly emphasise the need for scientists to engage in nonviolent civil resistance, a form of public engagement which has proven to be highly effective in social struggles throughout history.doi: 10.7554/eLife.83292 - 2022
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low-quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low-barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low-barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem.doi: 10.1002/leap.1214 - 2018
Comments
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States