Search

Decadal survey says NASA should be frugal and build a series of optical, x-ray, and far-infrared observatories

Move reinstates protections for fossil sites, marine zone

Ancestral RNA-guided nucleases greatly expand the toolbox for gene editing

From audacious space missions and quantum physics, to clean cookstoves and coral nurseries, this year9s finalists for the AAAS/Suburu SB&F Prizes for Excellence in Science Books dare to go where few children9s titles have gone before. Sponsored by Subaru of America and facilitated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the publisher of Science ), the competition celebrates high-quality children9s science books. Read on for reviews written by the staff of the Science family of journals and a few friends.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has made its beloved Science and Engineering Indicators more timely and nimble. The 2020 version of Indicators, which officially came out last week, still offers 2000-plus pages of data covering international trends in science education, the demographics of the technical workforce, funding patterns, the nature of the industrial and academic research, and public attitudes toward science. But NSF now treats the report9s eight chapters as separate products, and it has compressed the time needed to spit out its analysis of the constantly changing scientific landscape. The first chapter, on precollege math and science education, appeared online in fall of 2019, for example, and the final chapter, on public attitudes, will include the latest polling results when it comes out this spring. Last week9s release of a brief summary was intended to satisfy a federal mandate for a biennial report to Congress.

The authors acknowledge financial and programmatic support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Program and institutional staff who assisted with data collection and program operation are acknowledged in the supplementary materials

Now in its 25th year, Entry Point! has placed more than 500 STEM majors in summer internships

The most numerous animals in U.S. research are also the most invisible. Mice and rats comprise the vast majority of lab mammals, yet no one knows exactly—or even approximately—how many are used in scientific experiments every year. Now, for the first time, someone has attempted to calculate this number using data from U.S. labs, and it9s big: Nearly 111 million mice and rats are used annually in U.S. biomedical research, according to a new study. Some say the number argues for more federal protection for these animals, but others question both the number and the validity of the study itself.

Institutions move to drop Matthew Fontaine Maury’s name

In their Policy Forum “Computational social science: Obstacles and opportunities” (28 August, p. [1060][1]), D. M. J. Lazer et al. propose ethical data infrastructures for computational social science research. Concentrating on access to platform trace data, they dismiss third-party market data from such companies as Nielsen and comScore because of “opaque” methods and high cost. We believe both have virtues, but their proper use requires a keener appreciation of each measurement regime. All data result from measurement processes designed and executed to serve a given institutional context ([ 1 ][2], [ 2 ][3]). Platforms profit from shaping usage and they measure toward that end. Using their trace data to understand human conduct remains problematic as long as platforms are themselves opaque about their methods for managing user behavior ([ 3 ][4]). Social Science One and Twitter's COVID-19 application programming interface may be productive precedents of platform data provision, but computational social science should reckon with the effects of platform measurement. Unlike platforms, third-party measurement firms are not invested in how users behave. As with public-sector data (such as the U.S. Census), third-party measurement is periodically audited ([ 4 ][5]). Its procedures and consequences are constantly appraised by actors with competing interests ([ 5 ][6]). Serving industries, policy-makers, and academics, third-party market research has invested for decades in refining what Lazer et al. aspire to: “an administrative infrastructure… enforcing compliance with privacy and ethics rules,” which aligns “with critical research norms” including “transparency, reproducibility, replication, and consent” ([ 3 ][4], [ 6 ][7], [ 7 ][8]). Third-party measurement firms such as Nielsen and comScore supply data to a broad subscriber base of advertising agencies and content publishers, which lowers data costs. Academic institutions worldwide may access numerous such third-party datasets via Wharton Research Data Services and Chicago Booth, brokers that partner with third-party firms for this purpose. Meanwhile, public data can be cost prohibitive (such as CDC's National Death Index). What ensures data's “public accountability” is not a public-sector origin but how the measurement regime is institutionally arranged ([ 3 ][4]). In addition to expanding data collaborations and data infrastructures, attention to the measurement regimes of “found data” and reflexive triangulation across data sources are indispensable to development of computational social science. 1. [↵][9]1. T. M. Porter , Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1995). 2. [↵][10]1. W. N. Espeland, 2. M. L. Stevens , Arch. Eur. Sociol. 49, 401 (2008). [OpenUrl][11] 3. [↵][12]1. A. X. Wu, 2. H. Taneja , New Media Society 10.1177/1461444820933547 (2020). 4. [↵][13]1. P. M. Napoli, 2. A. B. Napoli , First Monday 24, 10.5210/fm.v24i12.10124 (2019). 5. [↵][14]1. N. Anand, 2. R. A. Peterson , Org. Sci. 11, 270 (2000). [OpenUrl][15] 6. [↵][16]Advertising Research Foundation, Member Code of Conduct (2019); . 7. [↵][17]ESOMAR, The ICC/ESOMAR Code (2020); [www.esomar.org/what-we-do/code-guidelines][18]. [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/369/6507/1060 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #ref-5 [7]: #ref-6 [8]: #ref-7 [9]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [10]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [11]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArch.%2BEur.%2BSociol.%26rft.volume%253D49%26rft.spage%253D401%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [12]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [13]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text" [14]: #xref-ref-5-1 "View reference 5 in text" [15]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DOrg.%2BSci.%26rft.volume%253D11%26rft.spage%253D270%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [16]: #xref-ref-6-1 "View reference 6 in text" [17]: #xref-ref-7-1 "View reference 7 in text" [18]: http://www.esomar.org/what-we-do/code-guidelines

Developmental-timing differences between species are linked to protein turnover

Stellar data question the notion that the Sun is stemming its magnetic activity cycle

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from American Association for the Advancement of Science via the DOI in this record

A prominent publisher of selective subscription journals has stepped up its commitment to open access and bringing down paywalls. The Nature family of journals announced this week it has struck a deal that will allow scientists at research institutions across Germany to publish papers in Nature and its 54 sister journals that are immediately free to read. Starting in January 2021, institutions can pay an annual fee that allows their scientists to publish an unlimited number of research articles in the journals that will be free to all readers. The fee will also include access to read other types of Nature content. The fee each institution pays will be based in part on Nature9s calculation that it will cost €9500 ($11,200) to publish each open-access paper.

Joe Louis Martinez Jr. died on 29 August at the age of 76. In addition to making extraordinary contributions to the fields of neurobiology and Chicano psychology, Joe was a tireless advocate of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the sciences. He established professional development programs for individuals from underrepresented groups and provided lifelong mentoring as they pursued careers in science and academia. Joe was passionately devoted to expanding opportunities in the sciences well before diversity became a visible goal for scientific organizations and academic institutions. Born in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on 1 August 1944, Joe received his bachelor's degree in psychology from the University of San Diego in 1966; his master's in experimental psychology from New Mexico Highlands University in 1968; and his Ph.D. in physiological psychology from the University of Delaware in 1971. His faculty career began in 1972 at California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB), shortly after the campus was established. He later completed postdocs in the laboratory of neurobiologist James McGaugh at the University of California, Irvine, and with neurobiologist Floyd Bloom at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California. The University of California, Berkeley, recruited Joe in 1982, and he served as a professor as well as the area head of biopsychology and faculty assistant to the vice chancellor for affirmative action. As the highest-ranking Hispanic faculty member in the University of California system, Joe used his voice to help others from underrepresented groups. However, he felt that he could have a greater impact on diversity in the sciences by helping to build a university with a high concentration of Hispanic students, so in 1995 he moved to the University of Texas, San Antonio (UTSA). He began as a professor of biology and went on to assume a range of leadership roles, including director of the Cajal Neuroscience Institute. At UTSA, he worked with colleagues to obtain nearly $18 million in funding for neuroscience research and education. In 2012, he moved to the University of Illinois at Chicago where he served as professor and psychology department head until his retirement in 2016. At each institution, he embraced the opportunity to provide guidance and mentoring to innumerable students, faculty, and staff. In 1976, upon realizing that the psychological health and well-being of Hispanics was being overlooked at CSUSB, Joe organized the First Symposium on Chicano Psychology. The following year, he edited Chicano Psychology , a book highlighting papers from the conference, which established him as a founder of the field of Chicano psychology. The book, rereleased in 1984, remains essential reading for both researchers and health care providers. Joe's work in this area continues to influence thought on bilingual education and culturally sensitive mental health services. Despite the success of his psychology work, Joe yearned to return to the lab. His preclinical research on the neurobiology of learning and memory had begun at the behavioral level, exploring the neurobiological substrates of learning and memory, and had moved into electrophysiological, neurochemical, and molecular mechanisms. He was at the forefront of demonstrating that drugs and neurotransmitters have the ability to modulate memory processes by acting on targets outside as well as inside the brain. He contributed to the finding that endogenous opioids are involved in learning and memory. His work also showed that long-term potentiation (LTP) is associative in nature, thereby helping to establish LTP as a potential physiological basis for associative learning. Joe's relentless dedication to diversity, equity, and inclusion by mentoring scientists around the country in career training programs made him stand out in the field. Committed to offering extraordinary professional development to students from underrepresented backgrounds, he was constantly seeking funding and developing programs in career awareness, lifelong mentorship, and professional networking. He cofounded the American Psychological Association's Diversity Program in Neuroscience and the Summer Program in Neuroscience, Excellence and Success (SPINES) at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Through these programs, for more than 20 years, he guided nearly 300 graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to careers in neuroscience and academia. He was also a founding member of the National Hispanic Science Network (NHSN), which is dedicated to improving the health equity of Hispanics by increasing interdisciplinary translational research and fostering the development of Hispanic scientists. Through the NHSN, Joe influenced the careers of hundreds more young scientists. Students would often walk away from a pleasant conversation with Joe, only to realize later that he had shared a profound and inspiring message, as well as guidance that would serve them for years or decades to come. We all appreciated his low-key, understated approach to mentoring. K.A.T. met Joe in the 1980s, A.Q.-H. trained as an undergraduate researcher in Joe's laboratory in the early 1990s, and K.J.T. began as a postdoctoral fellow on Joe's research team in the late 1990s. Each of us remembers Joe fondly, not only for his mentorship and the opportunities he created for us, but also for his kind heart, extraordinary intellect, and his inspiring friendship. Joe made us all feel like family. Joe was an elected fellow of multiple scientific societies, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the publisher of Science ). He was on the editorial board of 10 different psychology and neuroscience journals and held senior editorial positions for several others. Joe's accomplishments have been recognized with several prestigious awards, including the AAAS Lifetime Mentor Award in 1994. An extraordinary scientist, mentor, and activist, Joe was devoted to scientific excellence and to providing guidance and opportunities to others. His quiet yet strong presence will not be forgotten.

AAAS (the publisher of Science ) recently launched [www.forceforscience.org][1], a new website to facilitate science advocacy. The site offers news, resources, and information about upcoming events for both scientists and the public. By way of introduction, we asked these questions: Why is science

Flossie Wong-Staal, a leader in HIV research at the onset of the AIDS epidemic, died on 8 July at the age of 73. A pioneer in the genetic structure and regulatory mechanisms of HIV, Wong-Staal played a key role in showing that HIV causes AIDS. She was also a trailblazer for female scientists. Born in Guangzhou, China, on 27 August 1946 as Yee Ching Wong, Wong-Staal moved to Hong Kong with her family when she was 7 years old. At the age of 18, she westernized her name (taking the name “Flossie” from a typhoon that had recently hit southern China) and emigrated to the United States. The first woman in her family to obtain a higher education, she graduated with a bachelor's degree in bacteriology in 1968 and a Ph.D. in molecular biology in 1972, both from the University of California, Los Angeles. In 1973, Wong-Staal began a postdoctoral position at the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology, led by biomedical researcher Robert C. Gallo, in the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. She was promoted to section chief within a few years, and in the next decade she co-authored more than 100 journal articles. In 1990, Wong-Staal left the NIH to accept an appointment as the Florence Seeley Riford Chair in AIDS Research at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). She was named director of the newly created UCSD Center for AIDS Research in 1994 and began pioneering the investigation of gene therapy approaches for HIV/AIDS. After her retirement from UCSD in 2002, she became vice president of Immusol, a biopharmaceutical company she cofounded, now known as iTherX Pharmaceuticals, where she pursued treatments for hepatitis C. Throughout her career, Wong-Staal trained a large number of postdoctoral fellows, many of whom went on to be leaders in their fields. When Gallo's team cultured the first human retrovirus in the late seventies, Wong-Staal was focused on retroviruses that caused leukemia in animals. She quickly pivoted to follow up on Gallo's work, and her section became the leading group working on the molecular biology of human retroviruses. In these early years of research on human retroviruses, the skepticism regarding their existence was widespread. Gallo later framed a letter from a reviewer who, citing the “fact” that there were no human retroviruses, rejected the initial human T cell leukemia virus (HTLV) paper. But Wong-Staal was among those who thought there was a connection between retroviruses and human diseases, and she was proved right. The molecular virology skills Wong-Staal brought to her laboratory were critical to her ability to apply state-of-the-art molecular biology techniques to quickly unravel the HIV genome organization and its replication strategies. In the early 1980s, Wong-Staal discovered molecular evidence of variations in HIV within and among infected individuals, which led to a fundamental realization: HIV is constantly mutating in response to immune pressures, so every isolation of the virus results in different virus clones. This understanding shaped the development of effective antiviral therapies to manage AIDS. Wong-Staal also provided the molecular biology necessary for the development of the second-generation blood test for HIV, one based on detection of the viral genome rather than antibodies to the virus. Her groundbreaking work on the molecular biology of HIV inspired scientists worldwide to join the field of human retrovirology, an entirely uncharted but increasingly exciting area of research in the 1980s and early 1990s. Wong-Staal's contributions were not limited to HIV. She had a keen interest in the molecular virology of HTLV-1, the retroviral causative agent of human adult T cell leukemia. Her work on nonstructural viral factors such as the HTLV-1 and HIV-1 transcriptional activators Tax and Tat and the posttranslational regulators Rex and Rev also had far-reaching implications in areas of basic biology, including transcription regulation and RNA transport. I joined Wong-Staal's lab in 1979 as a postdoctoral fellow. She was a very talented scientist who had an exceptional ability to sharply analyze data, focus, and move quickly to address the most essential research questions. She was willing to take risks and propose daring hypotheses, always expanding her knowledge and moving research forward. This mindset extended beyond her lab work. Decades ago, for a presentation at an AIDS meeting, she told the audience that instead of using the standard slides, she was going to give her presentation using a program called PowerPoint that she had learned about from her daughter. By the next meeting, there was not a slide presentation in sight; everyone was using PowerPoint. A stylish, elegant, and confident woman with a great sense of humor, Wong-Staal was competitive and tenacious. When she submitted her first grant application from UCSD after leaving the NIH, the reviewers did not give her a fundable score because they thought that, as a molecular biologist, she did not have the immunology experience required to carry out the proposed studies. In response, she conducted the study anyway, published the data, and sent the publication with her next grant application. In this way, Wong-Staal taught me persistence and resilience, skills that I have found to be invaluable in my career. Flossie Wong-Staal held her own and gained respect in a male-dominated scientific world through her strength, intelligence, kindness, and grace. She was a member of the National Academy of Medicine. In 2002, Discover magazine named her one of the 50 most important women in science. In 2019, she was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame, along with Angela Davis, Jane Fonda, and Sonia Sotomayor. It was a well-deserved honor for an influential researcher, who served as a role model to mentees and colleagues and will continue to inspire future generations of scientists.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is pushing the world into a humanitarian crisis that will have devastating, long-term consequences for development. One of the casualties will be research capacity, and the recovery will be most challenging in the Global South. Over the past two decades, great strides have been made in creating research capacity to address health and development in those countries most in need ([ 1 ][1]). This has been made possible through a range of funding sources, including national research councils and philanthropic donors as well as overseas development assistance of multilateral funders such as the UN agencies and bilateral foreign aid agreements. Research institutions in low- and middle-income countries have used this support to improve infrastructure, governance, and human capital. Now, the pandemic is substantially disrupting funding streams ([ 2 ][2], [ 3 ][3]). Some institutions are already preparing to lay off or furlough staff ([ 4 ][4]). If they cannot maintain or quickly rehire staff, researchers will drift away, and institutional memory, relationships, and skills will fade. Although these challenges are universal, the Global South is particularly vulnerable given that its gains have been made only recently. The countries in this region cannot afford to hemorrhage the limited human resources that are the foundation of research and scholarship. Funders of scientific research, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, can contribute to preserve research capacity. Supplementary funding will be required to cover the costs of the delays likely to result from movement restrictions and deadline extensions. Deliverables on existing grants should be reconfigured to support virus-safe research. Investment should be made in the creation of collaborative platforms to enable virtual collaboration. Finally, new funds should be committed in anticipation of the post–COVID-19 implementation of planned or revised research projects. These changes will help all research institutions, but they will be most vital to retain capacity in the Global South, where the recovery from the loss to funding could take much longer than in regions with long-established research institutions and infrastructure. [science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6492/725/suppl/DC1][5] List of signatories 1. [↵][6]1. D. Beran et al ., Lancet Glob. Health 5, e567 (2017). [OpenUrl][7] 2. [↵][8]1. M. Pai , “‘Covidisation’ of academic research: Opportunities and risks,” Nature Research Communities: Microbiology (2020). 3. [↵][9]1. T. Riley, 2. E. Sully, 3. Z. Ahmed, 4. A. Biddlecom , Int. Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health. 46, 73 (2020). [OpenUrl][10] 4. [↵][11]1. W. Worley , “NGOs lay off, furlough staff as financial crisis bites,” Devex (2020). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #ref-4 [5]: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6492/725/suppl/DC1 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%2BGlob.%2BHealth%26rft.volume%253D5%26rft.spage%253D567e%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [10]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DInt.%2BPerspect.%2BSex.%2BReprod.%2BHealth.%26rft.volume%253D46%26rft.spage%253D73%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [11]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text"

Turkish scientists are eagerly awaiting the completion of the new Eastern Anatolia Observatory (DAG), a 4-meter optical and infrared telescope expected to come online next year. Its main structure is scheduled to be shipped to the site, a 3170-meter mountaintop in northeastern Turkey, this month. Despite its modest $34 million price tag, DAG will be one of Asia9s largest telescopes and Turkey9s largest science project. Turkish scientists have little access to the world9s largest telescopes; DAG9s developers hope the project will make Turkey a regional astronomy hub and help nurture its astronomy community.

The attached document is the author(’s’) final accepted/submitted version of the journal article. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it.

Science Community Are there quantifiable patterns behind a successful scientific career? Sinatra et al. analyzed the publications of 2887 physicists, as well as data on scientists publishing in a variety of fields. When productivity (which is usually greatest early in the scientist's professional life) is accounted for, the paper with the greatest impact occurs randomly in a scientist's career. However, the process of generating a high-impact paper is not an entirely random one. The authors developed a quantitative model of impact, based on an element of randomness, productivity, and a factor Q that is particular to each scientist and remains constant during the scientist's career. Science , this issue p. [596][1] [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/aaf5239.full

A prominent Chinese scientist is facing questions about possibly doctored images in up to 60 publications. The handling of an investigation, by the Chinese Academy of Engineering, could be a test of China9s pledges to crack down on research misconduct. The scientist, immunologist Cao Xuetao, is president of Nankai University in Tianjin and has headed and in some cases still heads a number of China9s leading biomedical laboratories. The questions first surfaced on PubPeer, the publications review website, on 14 November. Cao posted a response on 17 November, promising to re-examine manuscripts, data, and lab records, and to notify journals if there is any risk to the published record. He also apologized for any oversight on his part.

In his Editorial “Quo vadis, Mexican science?” (26 July, p. [301][1]), A. Lazcano expressed concern about cuts to the budget of the Mexican National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT) and questioned my leadership of the organization. The data summarized here should allay Lazcano's concerns. In Mexico, the total budget for science, technology, and innovation (STI) in 2019 (77.3 billion MP) was the highest it has been in 7 years ([ 1 ][2]–[ 3 ][3]). Despite the 2.4 billion MP cut to CONACYT's funding in 2019, an efficient administration and coordination among federal sectors that receive STI resources have redirected other funds to support the scientific community more than ever ([ 1 ][2]–[ 3 ][3]). During previous years, there was limited or no support for basic science, and many high-quality proposals went unfunded. In 2019, 1.6 billion MP have been assigned to be transferred to fund high-rated peer-reviewed basic science projects ([ 3 ][3]). Calls for novel technological development and innovation approaches were recently announced. In addition, interdisciplinary projects geared toward the UN Sustainable Development Goals will be published soon; they address pressing challenges such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the most common cause of mortality in Mexican children ([ 4 ][4]–[ 6 ][5]). CONACYT allocated 5.65 billion MP to support Mexico's 27 public research centers in 2019 ([ 1 ][2]–[ 3 ][3]). By optimizing the use of such public resources, we are committed to improving conditions at these research centers. Additionally, all Mexican scientists are protected by the social health insurance system, and their private health insurance has been maintained in public universities. Lazcano worries that our changes could “extinguish international collaborations… and fuel a brain drain.” However, all students and scientists may continue to travel for scientific and educational goals as usual. Moreover, CONACYT has allocated more than 10 billion MP (41% of the total budget) to fund ongoing and new fellowships for Mexican graduate students and postgraduate researchers in national and international programs and to continue supporting international graduates and postgraduates to study in Mexico ([ 1 ][2]–[ 3 ][3]). Furthermore, 1.11 billion MP have been directed to support early career scientists. Finally, the National System of Researchers, administrated by CONACYT, complements the salary of over 30,000 colleagues at all levels of career development. This year, CONACYT has accepted over 3000 additional members through collegiate procedures ([ 1 ][2]–[ 3 ][3]). As a scientist, I would have never dared to ask for restrictions or, even worse, to exclude peer review or collegiate decisions, as Lazcano alleges. In contrast, we are proposing more rigorous evaluation mechanisms and regulations. These will be included in the new legal framework under discussion among scientists, students, technologists, entrepreneurs, and the public. Lazcano claims that I am opposed to “hegemonic rational Western science.” Proudly trained in Mexican and U.S. universities, I am convinced of the fundamental role of (Western) STI to face global challenges. However, in some cases where western development has fallen short, the diverse and deep cultures at the roots of our country could provide new approaches and valuable knowledge. 1. [↵][6]Presupuesto de Egresos de la Federacion para el Ejercicio Fiscal (PEF) 2018, Anexo 12 “Programa de Ciencia, Tecnologia e Innovacion”, Ramo 38 CONACYT (2018); [www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5506080&fecha=29/11/2017][7] [in Spanish]. 2. Presupuesto de Egresos de la Federacion para el Ejercicio Fiscal (PEF) 2019, Anexo 12 “Programa de Ciencia, Tecnologia e Innovacion”, Ramo 38 CONACYT (2019); [in Spanish]. 3. [↵][8]CONACYT, Transparencia focalizada: Avances del CONACYT 2013–2019 ([www.conacyt.gob.mx/index.php/transparencia/transparencia-focalizada][9]) [in Spanish]. 4. [↵][10]Centro Nacional para la Salud de la Infancia y Adolescencia. “Cancer infantil en Mexico” (2019); [www.gob.mx/salud%7Ccensia/articulos/cancer-infantil-en-mexico-130956][11] [in Spanish]. 5. 1. F. Bray , Cancer J. Clin. 68, 394 (2018). [OpenUrl][12] 6. [↵][13]Secretaria de Salud, “Cubos Dinamicos-poblacion: Proyecciones de la Poblacion municipal de Mexico 2010–2018” (CONAPO, 2019). [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/365/6451/301 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #ref-4 [5]: #ref-6 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [7]: http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5506080&fecha=29/11/2017 [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [9]: http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/index.php/transparencia/transparencia-focalizada [10]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text" [11]: http://www.gob.mx/salud%7Ccensia/articulos/cancer-infantil-en-mexico-130956 [12]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCancer%2BJ.%2BClin.%26rft.volume%253D68%26rft.spage%253D394%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [13]: #xref-ref-6-1 "View reference 6 in text"

Three decades after it began, the most successful program in the United States for preparing minority students for careers in academic research, the Meyerhoff Scholars Program, is beginning to be replicated on a large scale. In September, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) will announce a competition to fund as many as six research universities that want to embrace the model pioneered at the University of Maryland in Baltimore County (UMBC). Six years ago, its enviable record prompted HHMI to give two schools—Pennsylvania State University in State College and the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill—a $7.7 million grant to work with UMBC to create a Meyerhoff-like program on their campus. Now, HHMI hopes to broaden that success by giving institutions up to $2.5 million apiece over 5 years in seed money. HHMI is not the only funder trying to spread the word about Meyerhoff. In April, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative announced a $6.9 million award to two University of California schools, Berkeley and San Diego, to work with UMBC to create their own versions.

New program to deliver evidence to policy-makers ahead of 2020 elections

Thyroid hormones tip the balance between regeneration and temperature regulation

In 2017, Indonesia9s Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education introduced the Science and Technology Index (SINTA), which uses data from two publication and citation databases, Scopus and Google Scholar, to capture the individual research performance of Indonesian academics and rank them. But last year, scientists showed that some of the highest-ranking academics had inflated their SINTA scores by publishing large numbers of papers in low-quality journals, citing their own work excessively, or forming networks of scientists who cited each other. Some say SINTA should no longer be used to produce rankings, or should even be abandoned. But the government is sticking with the controversial metric; it recently announced the rollout later this year of an improved version of SINTA.