Search

The article reports that in December 2011 the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) asked that two research teams redact information papers on papers to be published in "Science" and "Nature" about methods for the engineering of the H5N1 influenza virus to increase its transmissibility between mammals. Critics of the move fear that increased government oversight will hamper vital research and information sharing on a global health concern, while proponents point to the importance of restricting access to sensitive data for bioterrorism prevention. The development of a system for the U.S. government to evaluate the safety of future dual-use scientific research is discussed.

The article reports on the citations of retracted papers in fields from physics to cancer research to plant biology. These citations were found with the help of Thomson Scientific's ISI Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar. Seventeen of 19 retracted papers co-authored by German cancer researcher Friedhelm Herrmann have been cited since being retracted. Together, two of those papers were cited roughly 60 times. Examination of one Nature paper by former Bell Labs physicist Jan Hendrik published in 2000 and retracted in 2003, revealed that it has been noted in research papers 17 times. Prior to being pulled, the paper was cited 153 times. According to Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, it is quite embarrassing. Paul Friedman, a former dean at the University of California, San Diego said that if people cite fraudulent articles then either their research is going to be thrown off or something will be wasted. He oversaw an investigation into papers by radiologist Robert Slutsky in the mid-1980s.

The article reports that a World Health Organization (WHO) group comprised of influenza (flu) scientists, public health officials, and journal editors from 11 countries have recommended the full publication of research that details a highly pathogenic bird flu virus rendered capable of being transmitted easily among mammals. According to the author, the group's recommendation ignores advice from the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity regarding the release of key details only to individuals who have a need to know. Topics include an overview of research by two separate teams of scientists who genetically manipulated the H5N1 bird flu virus, making it easily transmissible to mammals through the air, and the WHO group's influence on the publication of the research papers.

The article discusses the retraction of a scientific paper that was published in an August 31, 2009 online issue of the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)," before the data could be analyzed by the researcher Laura Bierut. Bierut's data had been deposited into the U.S. National Institutes of Health's (NIH) genomic database called dbGaP and was part of Beirut and colleagues addiction research known as SAGE (Study of Addiction: Genetics and Environment).

The article focuses on the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) that has decided to bar submissions to edit and publish manuscripts from countries under the United States trade embargo. The institute says the ban, which falls hardest on scientists from Iran, is necessary to protect national security. As a result, AIAA pulled 24 Iranian-authored submissions from its seven journals and cancelled presentations by Iranian researchers scheduled to attend an AIAA-sponsored fluid dynamics conference in Toronto. The conference, held between June 6, 2005 and June 9, 2005, was subsequently exempted from the ban after protests by Iranian attendees who had already finalized their travel plans. In December, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control clarified that publications did not need the government's permission to edit and print papers from anywhere in the world. The suit cited a 1988 legal amendment that exempts information from trade embargoes.

The article discusses an approval by a U.S. government advisory panel, which included members of the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), to publish the results of two controversial studies regarding laboratory-created versions of the H5N1 avian influenza virus. Reportedly the studies, which were conducted independently by research teams in the Netherlands and the U.S., contained information that the NSABB deemed too dangerous to U.S. national security to publish. Factors that led to a reconsideration to publish the findings are discussed, including a misunderstanding of the original manuscript's intent and brevity, a recognition of the study's usefulness for H5N1 surveillance, and concerns about adequate regulation of dual-use research.

The article discusses scientific controversy regarding a possible causal link between chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV), noting the postponement of associated research publications. The article describes opposing opinions on the role of XMRV between researchers representing the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a team representing the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The article discusses the studies on Orrorin tugenensis as a part of Millenium Ancestor species. According to Brian Richmond of George Washington University, there is a possibility that Orrorin tugenensis is an early ancestor of humans. He explains that its characteristics defined the fossils as hominin, the primate group that includes humans and ancestors. He also mentions that the data defined Orrorin tugenensis as bipedals. From the analysis that Richmond made, it suggests that Orrorin tugenensis is related to australopithecines, a group of hominids from Africa.

The article reports on the controversy created by a group of scientists in the U.S. who published a research review on vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) as a treatment for depression in the journal "Neuropharmacology." However, the authors of the article were purportedly paid advisers to a Cyberonics Inc., a company that produces a device for VNS. This incident has stirred the American College of Neuropharmacology which happened to be the journal's publisher and promised to conduct a thorough investigation as soon as the lead author of the article Charles B. Nemeroff returns from a vacation. Meanwhile, Nemeroff admitted that their failure to acknowledge their ties to the manufacturing company was a simple oversight.

This article reports that ending months of uncertainty, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Elias Zerhouni last week unveiled a policy aimed at making the results of research it funds more freely available. But the announcement has injected a new element of controversy into an already bitter debate. That language has stirred worries that NIH is putting authors on the spot by asking them to challenge publishers' own release dates. NIH argued that this would increase public access to research and help it manage research programs. Norka Ruiz Bravo, NIH deputy director for extramural research, expects that researchers will negotiate the timing with the publisher rather than relying on the publisher's policy for when articles can be posted.

Investigates the claim of scientists regarding the evidence for nuclear fusion in a breaker of organic solvent at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Consequences of the claim for nuclear proliferation and energy production; Contradiction of other scientists on the claim; Comparison between nuclear fission and fusion.

Attempts to answer the question of who should own scientific papers. History of scientific publishing; How electronic communication has effected ways in which results are distributed; The assertion that scientists, administrators, and federal science policymakers must reconsider how results of publicly-funded research are best disseminated; Mentions the United States Copyright Act of 1976; Matching scientific research goals to public policy goals; Articulating the public benefits of research publication.

The article looks at a 2013 report by researcher Eric Archambault and team for the European Commission on open-access publishing of research, finding that one-half of peer-reviewed papers become available to the public for free within two years. Efforts by the European Commission and the U.S. to accelerate open access of government-funded research are noted. The study found that biomedical, environmental, and physics produced the most open access work, while engineering had the least.

The article discusses advocacy efforts to enact legislation requiring the mandatory release of research papers. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) began requiring that grantees of research funding send copies of their peer-reviewed, accepted papers to the agency. Topics include an overview of an online forum opened by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and comments by scientists regarding the impact of mandatory release of papers on science publishing.

The article reports that Sook-Hwan Lee, director of the Human Genetics Laboratory at CHA General Hospital in Seoul, Korea, has been banned from publishing in the U.S. journal "Fertility and Sterility" for 3 years. The ban follows revelations that the paper had previously been published in a Korean journal. Lee was listed as corresponding author on both papers. The paper, which involved examining mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in patients with ovarian failure, was first published in the "Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology" by Jeong Hwan Kim in 2004. Then, the English version appeared in the December 2005 issue of "Fertility and Sterility."

The article reports that the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has asked federal agencies to make U.S.-funded research papers free and available online within 12 months after the results appear in a journal. Topics include the factors contributing to the OSTP's decision, the reaction to the policy by such groups as the Association of American Publishers, and its similarity to the U.S. Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR).

The article reports that one of the authors of two plant biology papers that were retracted last year is suing the senior author who withdrew the papers. She is alleging that her former lab chief threatened to ruin her career and then did so with the retractions. In notices published almost a year ago, Daniel Klessig of the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research in Ithaca, New York, and several colleagues said they were retracting two papers, which described a new plant enzyme and had appeared in Cell and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, because they had been unable to reproduce certain results. The retraction notices, however, were not approved or signed by the first author on both papers, Meena Chandok. Chandok has now launched a legal counterattack. In late August, she filed a civil lawsuit in a U.S. district court in Syracuse, New York, seeking more than $1 million in punitive and compensatory damages from Klessig. Among other claims in her lawsuit, Chandok alleges that after she resigned from the lab in March 2004, Klessig threatened to press misconduct charges and withhold support for her visa-extension application if she didn't help him with further research on the enzyme.

The article reports on the publishing of the journal "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) as of July 14, 2005. The study, led by Stanford mathematician Lawrence Wein, models a terrorist attack on the U.S. milk supply using botulinum toxin and discusses possible preventive measures. PNAS has released the paper on May 25, 2005, to reporters under embargo but delayed publishing it after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services official Stewart Simonson suggested that the information could aid terrorists and asked National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts to hold off. The paper is being published with only copy editing changes, writes Alberts in an editorial accompanying an online version of the paper. Data useful to a terrorist--such as the lethal dose of botulinum toxin to humans--are available on the Internet, he says, and the modeling can be valuable for biodefense.

The article reports that in an unprecedented move, officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asked the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences" to pull a bioterrorism-related paper that the journal planned to publish online on 30 May, 2005. The journal took the paper off its publication schedule and was reviewing it internally when this issue of Science went to press. The paper, by mathematician Lawrence Wein of Stanford University and graduate student Yifan Lu, models how bioterrorists could wreak havoc by slipping a small amount of botulinum toxin into the U.S. milk supply, and it spells out interventions that the government and the dairy industry could take to prevent this nightmare scenario. Stewart Simonson, HHS's assistant secretary for public health emergency preparedness, acknowledges that the idea of using botulinum as a bioweapon has already been widely discussed.

The article informs that the U.S.'s National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) new push to expand public access to papers it funds kicks in this week. As of 2 May, NIH-funded investigators are requested to submit copies of final, accepted journal manuscripts to NIH (www.nihms.nih.gov), which will post them in NIH's PubMed Central papers archive no more than 12 months after they're published in the journal. NIH announced the policy in February after a 6-month battle between open-access advocates and journal publishers, who say the policy violates copyrights and will put them out of business.

Reports on the retraction of papers of the former physics prodigy Jan Hendrik Schön at Bell Laboratories Inc. in Murray Hill, New Jersy. Warning given by the journal 'Nature' to Schön; Retraction of his papers by the American Institute of Physics.

The article reports on a proposed bill that would require federally funded scientists to make their accepted papers freely available online for public within 6 months of publication. The bill, introduced last week by senators John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas and Joseph Lieberman, a Democrat from Connecticut, would make mandatory a voluntary National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy and extend it to every major federal research agency, from the National Science Foundation to the Department of Defense. The House and Senate appropriations committees had asked NIH to develop such a policy after patient groups insisted they should have free access to biomedical studies. The request has been ignored by most NIH grantees. Meanwhile, an NIH advisory committee has recommended that the policy be mandatory and that the 12-month limit be reduced to 6 months for most journals. The Cornyn-Lieberman bill would require NIH to incorporate those changes. But the bill also would mandate a similar plan at any U.S. agency funding at least $100 million a year in extramural research. The manuscripts could be posted in existing archives, such as a university server or arXiv, the physics preprint server.

The article informs that lawmakers in the U.S. are expected this year to consider whether the National Institutes of Health (NIH) should require researchers to send their accepted manuscripts to a free full-text archive. The voluntary policy, in effect since May, is meant to make freely available the results of NIH-funded studies and guide the NIH management. An NIH advisory panel recently recommended that the NIH make submission mandatory and post papers 6 months after publication in journals. The current guideline is 12 months.

The article reports that the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) last week permanently ended a ban on papers submitted to its journals and conferences by authors living in countries under a U.S. embargo. After protests from Iranian scientists, AIAA suspended the policy that was instituted in May to avoid assisting a nation such as North Korea in its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them, in June.

The U.S. Department of Treasury has ruled that scientific journals based in the U.S. cannot edit papers submitted by authors from Iran unless they have the government's permission. The policy, described in a letter sent last week to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), stems from rules prohibiting U.S. organizations from engaging in trade with Iran. Editing is a "service" that requires a special license, notes the department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which enforces trade sanctions. No license is needed for reviewing submissions, the letter states, or for publishing them if no revisions are made. IEEE officials, who plan to apply at once for a license, say they pursued the issue to clarify the matter for all publishers. IEEE stripped its 1700 members in Iran of several benefits in January 2002 after deciding that providing these services could be illegal. Michael Adler, president of IEEE says the association plans to restore electronic access to its journals, which is exempt under the regulations, once it separates journal access from other Web-based membership services.

The article discusses the virus called XMRV, its role in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) as reported in a 2009 study authored by scientist Judy Mikovits and team, and confirmatory research conducted by Harvard Medical School, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The article discusses medical research on the diagnosis of psychopathy that was withheld from publication for 3 years. The article focuses on variations in libel laws in the U.S., Great Britain, and Canada that may not have protected forensic psychologist and coauthor Jennifer Skeem from a libel suit that could have been filed by forensic psychologist Robert Hare.

The article reports on the new law which requires grantees of the National Institute of Health (NIH) to publish their biomedical manuscripts in the U.S. To comply with the new law, NIH informed its grantees to begin sending copies of their accepted, peer-reviewed manuscripts to NIH for posting in a free online archive. NIH warns grantees that failure to send the copies of their manuscripts could delay a grant or jeopardize new research funding. This public-access law is designed to enable taxpayers to learn about research they fund as a part of a spending bill Congress passed in December 2007.

This article reports that in the most extensive scientific misconduct case the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has seen in decades, a researcher formerly at the University of Vermont College of Medicine in Burlington has admitted in court documents to falsifying data in 15 federal grant applications and numerous published articles. Eric Poehlman, an expert on menopause, aging, and metabolism, faces up to 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine and has been barred for life from receiving any U.S. research funding. Last week the Department of Justice announced that the total was 17, and that NIH and the U.S. Department of Agriculture had given Poehlman $2.9 million in grants based on fraudulent applications. In addition to pleading guilty to making a false statement on a federal grant application, Poehlman agreed to pay $180,000 to settle a civil suit with the government.

This article reports that the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has released a draft policy aimed at increasing public access to the results of NIH-funded research. In July, a congressional spending panel recommended that NIH post Mill-funded manuscripts within 6 months of publication, or immediately if NIH grants were used to pay publication costs. Librarians, patient organizations, and scientists who think taxpayers should have easier access to NIH-funded research urged NIH to follow the House language.

Aimed at streamlining the grants process, Grants.gov is a new central listing of available awards from all 26 federal agencies that dole out money for research and other programs. The site will eventually allow one to download an application and submit the completed package online, using free software.

Reports that the number of multiauthor research papers in the fields of life sciences has increased according to the study by the Philadelphia-based Institute for Scientific Information. Number of life science papers submitted in 1994; Nature of life science researches; Results of clinical trials; Emphasis on the recognition of people who contributed to the study; Comparison with other areas of studies.

The extent to which scientific advances support marketplace inventions is largely unknown. We study 4.8 million U.S. patents and 32 million research articles to determine the minimum citation distance between patented inventions and prior scientific advances. We find that most cited research articles (80%) link forward to a future patent. Similarly, most patents (61%) link backward to a prior research article. Linked papers and patents typically stand 2 to 4 degrees distant from the other domain. Yet, advances directly along the patent-paper boundary are notably more impactful within their own domains. The distance metric further provides a typology of the fields, institutions, and individuals involved in science-to-technology linkages. Overall, the findings are consistent with theories that emphasize substantial and fruitful connections between patenting and prior scientific inquiry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Informs about mounting doubt concerning a study by Arnold et al. in the June 7, 1997 issue of `Science' which indirectly called into question the safety tests of chemicals by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Failure to duplicate the team's findings; Possibility that hormonelike chemicals in the environment could be contributing to cancer and reproductive problems in humans; Debate.

Reports that a coalition of American Association for the Advancement of Science and several partner groups is seeking proposals for oral presentations and sessions for a fall 1996 conference on errors in health care and how to prevent them.

Reports on the revival of the cold fusion debate on the `Technology Review' publication of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Indignation of MIT researchers who had previously refuted the technique; Claim of reports of energy-releasing nuclear reactions at room temperature.

Comments on the reassessment of the United States Environmental Protection Agency of the risks of dioxin, implicating paper bleaching plants as a source of the toxic chemical. Measures taken by paper mills to reduce dioxin output; Regulation issued by the agency.

The article reports that according to Japan's National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP), China gained the first position in the number of most cited papers, which is an important measure of research impact. It mentions the statistics related to this report and about the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) addressing the problem with the NISTEP's selection criteria.

The article reports insufficient funding for ancient DNA research has caused a brain drain from U.S. to European research facilities. It states of the top 18 high-impact ancient DNA research published from 2011-2015, only one U.S. and one Australian lab had a paper in the top 18, while the rest were from Europe. It mentions only the National Science Foundation provides ancient DNA research funding in the U.S. with awards ranging from 100,000 to 350,000 dollars a year for three years.

This paper examines the relationship between scientific research and public policy. After explaining why the simple conversion of research into public law is unlikely, several factors are identified that can promote the use of research by public officials. Examples of use and non-use are cited from early childhood education, where empirical evidence on program effects is relatively strong. Some specific suggestions are offered for improving the connection between science and public policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Informs that genetics researcher Francis Collins has discovered that a junior scientist in his lab, most likely Amitav Haija, fabricated data in a paper that went out for publication under Collins' name. Five additional papers in the literature to be corrected or withdrawn; Collins' standing in the scientific community; How the fraud was discovered; Comments from Collins. INSET: Doubts cast on leukemia papers..

The article reports that sex and gender are missing in COVID-19 data in the U.S., pointing out that most clinical trials do not report results by sex, as of July 2021. Topics include the paper published in "Nature Communications" which noted that only eight out of 45 COVID-19 randomized controlled trials reported the impact of sex or gender, the lack of attention to sex effects as indicated in several studies and the why suggesting a sex difference where one might not exist can be harmful.

The article focuses on research examining scientific papers and patents in the U.S. on factors critical to making breakthroughs including patents and papers citing literature of an age range of around five years are nearly twice as likely to be within the top five percent of citations, and papers mix typical and novel ideas at around a 90/10 ratio.

The article presents science-related news briefs as of May 29, 2015. It states that the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved the 21st Century Cures Act, which creates an Innovation Fund within the National Institutes of Health. It mentions the Mark2Cure initiative which will have volunteers scan papers to seek out key terms for use in a searchable database to discover hidden connections in biomedical research. It reports that mathematician John Forbes Nash Jr. died on May 23.

Discusses the discovery of two peaks at the Organization for Heavy-Ion Research laboratory in Germany, between 1983 and 1987. Number of experimental papers that were published on the phenomenon; View that the phenomenon was non-existent before 1983; Response of the discovers to claims of scientists from the decade of the 1990s; Detailed examination of the discovery, and experimentation into the phenomenon.

Assesses the way Caltech handled two apparently unrelated cases of alleged scientific research fraud in the lab of biologist Leroy Hood. Comparisons to how the so-called Baltimore scientific fraud case was handled; Apparently falsified research paper figure of two research postdocs, Vipin Kumar and James Urban; Kumar's defense of his actions; Hood's decision to notify various agencies and universities involved with Kumar; Lingering concerns about Caltech's handling of cases.

The article discusses open-access scientific journals and the evolution of the Public Library of Science (PLoS). Under this system, authors are charged a fee to have their research papers copyrighted and placed online for immediate access. The philosophy of the founders of PLoS is discussed, one of whom is Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and head of the National Cancer Institute. Several open access publishers are noted in addition to PLoS including BioMed Central, Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and PubMed Central of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The article focuses on the 75th anniversary of Vannevar Bush's paper, "Science—The Endless Frontier" that is based on funding science in the U.S. It mentions that medical research has always had bipartisan support, and Bush's framing ensured that fundamental understanding of biology always had support; and the ability of academic institutions to make the case for knowledge as a public good. It mentions proferring Bush and his essay as symbols of nonpolitical science during Covid-19 pandemic.

The article offers information related to American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual election. It announces that the 2006 AAAS election of general and section officers will be held on September in the U.S. It elaborates what kind of ballots that a certain type of member receives. It presents a list of candidates that are qualified for the election including president-elect James McCarthy from Harvard University for the general election, chair-elect Roger N. Beachy from Washington University for the agriculture, food, and renewable resources section election, and chair-elect George D. Nelson from Western Washington University, for the education section election. Other information related to the election are discoursed in the paper.