Search

As the hypersonic arms race revs up, international collaborations are crumbling—sometimes with dire consequences for researchers. Almost 10 years ago, Russian aerospace engineer Victor Kudryavtsev collaborated with Europe on Transhyberian, a €565,000 hypersonic project funded largely by the European Union. But in the summer of 2018, Russia9s Federal Security Service arrested him and, several months later, a colleague, physicist Roman Kovalev. Both have been charged with high treason for allegedly leaking hypersonic secrets to "a NATO research center." If found guilty, they each face up to 20 years in prison. The charges dismay observers, who point out that a military review panel had approved the release of Russia9s contribution to Transhyberian.

Stifling government accounting rules are threatening scientific projects and jobs at several Spanish research bodies. Scientists at both the Spanish Oceanography Institute (IEO) and the Solar Platform of Almeria, a large solar research center, have raised the alarm about what they see as senseless red tape that holds up spending. Some 340 staff at IEO—60% of the total—sent a manifesto to the press last week to warn that the center is "collapsing." The problems compound the plight of Spanish science, which suffered from budget cuts during the country9s recent economic woes and faces a proliferating bureaucracy aimed at controlling spending.

The lab chimp is on the verge of extinction. Fewer than 700 remain in U.S. laboratories, and most are expected to move to sanctuaries over the next decade because of ethical and scientific concerns. But a new opportunity may be opening up for studies of chimpanzee behavior and cognition: A first-of-its-kind partnership between a sanctuary and a research center, announced this month, is designed to bolster the scientific output of facilities that have until now primarily focused on the long-term care of their animals. Proponents hope the agreement will become a model for others. But such partnerships won9t be easy, because sanctuaries, particularly in the United States, have long had a fraught relationship with the research community. Scientists, meanwhile, have questioned whether important, quality studies can be done at facilities that allow little or no interaction between researchers and animals.

Political Science Many commentators have discussed the increase in political polarization in the United States and have blamed it on the internet and social media. Boxell et al. used data from the American National Election Studies and the Pew Research Center to look at demographic changes in polarization between 1996 and 2016. Unsurprisingly, younger people adopted the internet and social media much faster than the elderly. However, by several measures, those older than 65 increased more in polarization between 1996 and 2016 than those aged 18 to 39. Thus, for reasons still not fully understood, the people who tend to use internet and social media the least have undergone the highest increase in polarization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 10.1073/pnas.1706588114 (2017).

Why a 10-centimeter cube? The trademark size of the CubeSat emerged somewhat accidentally, recalls Jordi Puig-Suari, an aerospace engineer at California Polytechnic State University. Student-built satellites date back to the 1980s, but they were often unwieldy. Not only were they expensive to launch, but commercial rocketeers were also wary of packing them alongside primary payloads. But in 1999, Puig-Suari met with Bob Twiggs, at the time an aerospace engineer at Stanford University, to discuss ways of getting more student projects into space. They focused on slimming down the spacecraft. They thought hard about the potential capabilities of a 10-centimeter cube with a mass limit of 1 kilogram and found the perfect life-size demonstration model: a plastic box used for storing Beanie Babies. A standard was born. In 2003, the first six student projects rode a Russian Eurockot into orbit, for about $30,000 a pop; early on, the biggest single expense was the ride, though in recent years, launch prices have stayed put around $100,000 for a 1U CubeSat. Many early CubeSats tackled problems in space weather, but other areas of science are opening up, and some scientists think CubeSats can play a role far beyond low-Earth orbit. CubeSats are also opening space to new participants; Bruce Yost, deputy manager of the small spacecraft integrated product team at NASA9s Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California, calls it "the democratization of space."

AIDS RESEARCHThe Yerkes National Primate Research Center has withdrawn a request to conduct AIDS experiments on sooty mangabeys as it awaits a ruling on whether the species is endangered. [(Read more.)][1] [1]: http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5800/743b

For 2 decades, firearms advocates in Congress have blocked taxpayer-funded research into the causes and consequences of gun violence, which kills more people in the United States than in any other developed nation. Last week, California's state legislature bucked that trend, voting to establish the nation's first publicly funded center for studying gun violence. The new California Firearm Violence Research Center will be run by the University of California system. Its lean budget—$1 million per year over the next 5 years—will likely preclude large-scale studies, but backers hope it will demonstrate the value of publicly funded gun research and perhaps help build support in Congress for a similar federal effort.

The Italian government has announced plans for the launch of the Human Technopole Italy 2040, a brand new research center for the life sciences that will be lavishly funded and housed at the stylish site of a former world expo in Milan. The effort would receive €1.5 billion over the next decade and focus on genomics, personalized medicine, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases. The plans have drawn mostly criticism. Many researchers applaud the government for investing in science, but they object to the lack of transparency with which the new hub was hatched. And some worry that it won't benefit the best researchers and institutes but those with the best connections.

At a meeting on survey data fabrication in Washington, D.C., last week, Michael Robbins and Noble Kuriakose presented an update on their statistical test that has been roiling the survey research community for the past year. When they apply the test to more than 1000 public data sets from international surveys, about one in five of the surveys fail, indicating a high likelihood of fabricated data. At the meeting, they debuted an analysis, focusing on 309 international studies funded by the Pew Research Center, that found a failure rate of 30%. "Robbins and Kuriakose have uncovered a massive problem," says Michael Spagat, an economist at Royal Holloway, University of London, who has investigated high-profile cases of possible survey data fabrication in war zones. But Pew officials dismiss the test, saying it is prone to false positives. The organization has gone so far as to request that Robbins and Kuriakose desist from publishing their original analysis, which is now in press.

ASTROBIOLOGY SCIENCE CONFERENCEMOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA-- About 600 researchers from 30 countries came to NASA's Ames Research Center on 3 to 5 April, eager to help mold a new field. At the First Astrobiology Science Conference every talk, it seemed, touched on a new discipline. Topics ranged from prebiotic chemicals to icy life, but the conference was a story unto itself.

SCIENCE AND THE MEDIABEIJING-- Three Chinese courts have been asked to rule on a libel suit brought by a Chinese research center against media coverage of an international study of the factors that contribute to healthy human longevity. Articles in dozens of local and regional publications have raised questions about the genetic component of the study, for which more than 4000 blood samples have already been collected but not yet analyzed. The controversy led the government last year to temporarily halt the work, and the Chinese Research Center on Aging is asking for $360,000 to cover its legal expenses and the cost of the delays.

INSIGHTS Arun Sharma, 1,2 Vittorio Sebastiano, 1,3 Christopher T. Scott, 4 David Magnus, 4 Naoko Koyano-Nakagawa, 5 Daniel J. Garry, 5,6,7 Owen N. Witte, 8 Hiromitsu Nakauchi, 1,9,10 Joseph C. Wu, 1,2,11,12 Irving L. Weissman, 1,13 * Sean M. Wu 1,2,11 * Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 2 Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 4 Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 5 Lillehei Heart Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. 6 Stem Cell Institute and Paul and Sheila Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. 7 Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. 8 Broad Stem Cell Research Center and Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Molecular Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. 9 Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 10 Center for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 11 Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. *Corresponding author. E-mail: irv@stanford.edu (I.W.); smwu@stanford.edu (S.M.W.) REFERENCES 1. NIH Notice Number NOT-OD-15-158 (https://grants.nih.gov/ grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-158.html). 2. H. T. Greely, M. K. Cho, L. F. Hogle, D. M. Satz, Am. J. Bioeth. 7, 3. O. Brustle et al., Nat. Biotechnol. 16, 1040 (1998). 4. S. C. Zhang, M. Wernig, I. D. Duncan, O. Brustle, J. A. Thomson, Nat. Biotechnol. 19, 1129 (2001). 5. H. Lee et al., Stem Cells 25, 1931 (2007). 6. National Research Council (U.S.), Committee on Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Institute of Medicine (U.S.), Board on Health Sciences Policy, Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2005). 7. O. Gafni et al., Nature 504, 282 (2013). 8. J. Wu et al., Nature 521, 316 (2015). 9. H. Masaki et al., Development 142, 3222 (2015). Making sense of the troubles at NEON IN HIS 25 September News Feature “Ecology’s tough climb” (p. 1436), J. Mervis detailed the problems that have plagued the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). The severity of NEON’s troubles recently led to a congressional hearing in which James Olds, head of NSF’s Biological Sciences Directorate, said that NEON Inc. would be replaced as NEON’s contractor sciencemag.org SCIENCE 6 NOVEMBER 2015 • VOL 350 ISSUE 6261 Published by AAAS Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org on November 10, 2015 Lift NIH restrictions on chimera research in NOT-OD-15-158 serve to impede scien- tific progress in regenerative medicine and should be lifted. PHOTO: HIROMITSU (HIRO) NAKAUCHI the Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research that animals in which human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) have been Edited by Jennifer Sills introduced during development should not breed and that hPSC chimerism with non- human primates is restricted (6). Research involving hPSC complementa- tion in non-human, pre-gastrulation–stage vertebrate embryos represents a special MANY OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS exist for topic with tremendous potential to elucidate research involving human subjects and early human development. Development cells, as well as the transfer of materials of stem and progenitor cells from pre- into other vertebrates, partly to reassure the gastrulation embryos occurs over the weeks public that biomedical research is ethically following blastocyst implantation into conducted. In the recently posted notice appropriate hosts. Currently, it is impos- NOT-OD-15-158, the NIH stated that it “will sible to accurately recapitulate human not fund research in which human pluripo- development in vitro, and there is no ethical tent cells are introduced method to obtain post- into non-human implantation–stage vertebrate animal pre- human fetal tissue for gastrulation–stage isolating tissue and embryos while the organ stem cells for agency considers a regenerative medi- possible policy revision cine. Although early in this area” (1). This chimera studies involv- notice encompasses ing hESCs/iPSCs and human pluripotent non-human vertebrate stem cells (hPSCs), animal blastocysts have including human shown some capac- induced pluripotent ity for contribution stem cell (hiPSC)– to host tissues (7–9), based human/ much work remains to non-human chimera unravel key differences studies. We believe in early development Engraftment of hiPSC (red) into mouse blastocyst-stage embryo that this notice poses between humans and a threat to progress in other vertebrates. If we stem cell biology, developmental biology, succeed in inducing significant chimerism and regenerative medicine. We hope the between hPSCs and pre-gastrulation–stage guideline recommendations that emerge embryos from non-human vertebrates, from the NIH Workshop on 6 November tremendous potential exists to develop will accelerate the decision to reinstate humanized disease models for studying NIH funding for this research area, which drug pharmacology. Similarly, implantation has tremendous promise. We strongly of hPSCs derived from patients with herita- believe that a continued dialogue between ble diseases could illuminate genetic disease scientists and bioethicists regarding pathogeneses in an appropriate in vivo human/non-human chimera studies context. It may even be possible to generate is critical for advancing human health an unlimited supply of therapeutic replace- through basic science. ment organs using porcine or sheep models, Much of the bioethical concern in regard an effort that we (H.N.) have undertaken to human/non-human chimerism arises with support from the California Institute from the possibility of chimeric animals har- for Regenerative Medicine. By eliminating boring human neurons and germ cells. Can federal funding for this research, the NIH human neural cells coexist with those from casts a shadow of negativity towards all animals and establish “humanized” cerebral chimerism studies regardless of whether anatomy and circuitries? Furthermore, human cells are involved. would such chimeras be elevated to a higher Ultimately, we believe that human/ metaphysical state and “think” more like non-human chimerism studies in pre- us (2)? Current scientific data have not sup- gastrulation embryos hold tremendous ported such possibilities, despite hundreds potential to improve our understanding of xenotransplant studies introducing of early development, enhance disease human neurons into the mouse brain (3–5). modeling, and promote therapeutic With regard to germline transmission, the discovery. Given that the objective of the National Academy of Medicine and the NIH is to enable discoveries that advance National Research Council have stated in human health, the restrictions presented LET TERS

The first motorized vehicle that Vandi Verma ever operated was a tractor. “I must've been 11 years old at the time,” she told Science . During school vacations, she visited her grandparents, who lived in a village in central India. At their farm, her uncle let her take a few turns behind the tractor wheel. Later, when she was a teenager, her father, who was a pilot with the Indian Air Force, taught her how to drive a car. That was unusual in India at that time, where those who could afford a car hired a driver. ![Figure][1] “I am happy to be … pushing the envelope on space exploration.” ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER Today, Verma is one of the few people in the world who is qualified to drive a vehicle on Mars. Verma majored in electrical engineering in India and came to the United States to study artificial intelligence. She was captivated by the landing of the Sojourner Mars rover in 1997 and decided to apply her engineering skill to space exploration. She pursued a Ph.D. in robotics at Carnegie Mellon University and did internships with NASA's Ames Research Center. She also got her first taste of robotic exploration here on Earth by field testing a rover that surveyed South America's Atacama Desert for signs of life. After graduating, in 2005, Verma joined the intelligent systems division at Ames Research Center as a research scientist. Later, she moved to NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL), the command center for the Mars rover missions. There, her robotics expertise and experience with field testing rovers won her a chance to drive the Opportunity rover. Verma drove Opportunity for 3 years before graduating to the nuclear-powered Curiosity rover, which is now prowling Mars, examining its rocks to see whether it is, or was ever, a suitable habitat for life. Each day, before the rover shuts down for the frigid martian night, it calls home, Verma says. Besides relaying scientific data and images it gathered during the day, it sends its precise coordinates. They are downloaded into simulation software Verma helped write. The software helps drivers plan the rover's route for the next day, simulating tricky maneuvers. Operators may even perform a dry run with a duplicate rover on a sandy replica of the planet's surface in JPL's Mars Yard. Then the full day's itinerary is beamed to the rover so that it can set off purposefully each dawn. For the first 3 months after landing, from 5 August to 5 November 2012, the team was working on Mars time. “I loved that we didn't have to wait long after we uplinked our commands to see the results from Curiosity, and every sol (a martian day), we were doing something we'd never done before,” Verma says. Curiosity can scoop dirt, drill rock, and hand off samples to the onboard lab. While a sample is being analyzed, Curiosity is already on its way to the next site. Verma helped write the code that lets Curiosity juggle these tasks. “We have to drive on to find newer things for the slew of instruments to analyze without compromising the rover hardware or the sample,” she says. She loves her day-to-day responsibility for the machine. “You definitely don't want to be the one who drove the rover off a cliff! But I find it energizing rather than stressful. You're completely focused.” But she has not left research behind. One of Verma's key research goals has been to give rovers greater autonomy to decide on a course of action. She is now working on a software upgrade that will let Curiosity be true to its name. It will allow the rover to autonomously select interesting rocks, stopping in the middle of a long drive to take high-resolution images or analyze a rock with its laser, without any prompting from Earth. Originally designed for a 2-year mission, Curiosity is still going strong and has already made many scientifically significant finds. “With every drive, we get to explore new terrain that no human has seen in this kind of detail,” Verma says. Although human spacefaring has stalled, Verma says the spirit of exploration is alive and well in space robots. “I am happy to be working in robotics, pushing the envelope on space exploration,” she says. “We have reached Mars, our neighboring planet. We have only just begun.” [1]: pending:yes

Ideology is not the dominant factor in shaping what Americans think about most science-related issues, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center. Although a person9s political views are a strong predictor of their attitudes on climate change and a handful of energy issues, their gender, age, religion, race, or education play a larger role on many other controversial topics. The Washington, D.C.–based think tank surveyed 2002 U.S. adults last summer on 22 issues ranging from global warming and offshore drilling to the safety of genetically modified foods, the use of animals in research, and the value of the International Space Station. A previous report based on the same survey found striking differences in what scientists and the public think about many topics, including genetically modified foods and animal research.

[Figure][1] CREDIT: DAVID SHARPE, INC. There is a wide opinion gap between scientists and the general public in the United States when it comes to their attitudes about the state of science and science-related policy. According to survey results released this week by the Pew Research Center, in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS),[*][2] when asked whether U.S. scientific achievements are either the best or among the world's best, only 54% of the public said “yes,” compared to 92% of the scientists. Such disparity is alarming because it ultimately affects both science policy and scientific progress. How can we bridge this gap? Forget the staged “town hall” meetings—studies show that they are not very effective. What does work is respectful bidirectional communication, where scientists truly listen, as well as speak, to the public. ![Figure][1] “Speaking up for the importance of science to society is our only hope…” CREDIT: ENISAKSOY/[ISTOCKPHOTO.COM][3] What accounts for this large opinion gap? Hot topics such as the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods, the importance of using animals in scientific research, the reality of human-caused climate change, the safety of vaccinations, and human evolution are among the issues that cause substantial disquiet among the public. Most scientists (88%) said that eating GM foods is generally safe, for example, whereas a mere 37% of the public agreed. Similarly, the 2014 survey reports that the public's stance on climate change has become “increasingly contentious,” as a greater percentage of the public (25% in 2014 versus 11% in 2009) believes that there is no solid evidence that Earth is getting warmer—a result that is inconsistent with the broad scientific consensus. These findings should come as no real surprise, given increasing public attention to relatively rare events that, even though infrequent, undermine the public's trust of science, such as conflicts of interest, the failure to replicate certain results, or “silly-sounding” grant titles that imply wasteful spending. Among scientists, life is seen as being much more difficult than it appeared to be 5 years ago, when Pew Research conducted a similar survey. Only 52% of scientists say this is “a good time for science,” down from 76% in 2009. This discouragement is not surprising either, given the long-standing threats to research and development funding and the resultant very low success rates for grant proposals. But complaining about these difficulties does nothing to improve respect or support for science among policy-makers or the public. Speaking up for the importance of science to society is our only hope, and scientists must not shy away from engaging with the public, even on the most polarizing science-based topics. Scientists need to speak clearly with journalists, who provide a great vehicle for translating the nature and implications of their work. Scientists should also meet with members of the public and discuss what makes each side uncomfortable. In these situations, scientists must respond forthrightly to public concerns. In other words, there needs to be a conversation, not a lecture. The public's perceptions of scientists' expertise and trustworthiness are very important, but they are not enough. Acceptance of scientific facts is not based solely on comprehension levels. It can be compromised whenever information confronts people's personal, religious, or political views, and whenever scientific facts provoke fear or make people feel that they have no control over a situation. The only recourse is to have genuine, respectful dialogues with people. Good venues are community clubs, science museums, science fairs, and religious institutions. Working with small groups is more effective than working with large groups. Fortunately, there is a growing science base to help guide more effective public engagement of this kind.[†][4] The opinion gap must not be allowed to swell into an unbridgeable chasm. There is ample opportunity to do something about the situation now. Hopefully, a survey 5 years from now will bear better news. [1]: pending:yes [2]: #fn-1 [3]: http://ISTOCKPHOTO.COM [4]: #fn-2

BEIJING-- Microsoft Corp. is making a major research investment to help it capture and retain a large chunk of China9s fast-growing computer business. Last week, the software giant announced that it will open a research center in Beijing, and it pledged to spend $80 million over 6 years to make computers more user friendly for speakers of Chinese, including voice recognition, information retrieval, and machine translation systems. The Beijing facility is the second overseas venture established by Microsoft Research, a $200 million division of the Redmond, Washington-based company.

SEATTLE-- Microsoft is building a star-studded research department in the mold of such famous corporate research laboratories as IBM, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, and Bell Laboratories. It is a $200-million-a-year bet that research in esoteric areas of physics and mathematics will yield breakthroughs in personal computing, the ultimate goal of which is a computer (or operating system) that will be as easy to interact with as a human--just by talking.

COLOGNE, GERMANY-- This year, Germany found it could not support a separate space agency and folded it into its aerospace research center. If downward budget trends continue, some of its basic space science may not survive, either. Adding to the concerns of basic researchers is the research ministry9s initiative to increase the focus on applied space research and closer ties to German industry. And while Germany has pledged to continue its role in the international space station, it will be unable to pay for any cost overruns, nor will it be able to contribute to a proposed international crewed space mission to Mars.

Two discredited papers have subjected a leading Japanese research center to an extraordinary form of collective punishment. On 27 August, chemist Ryoji Noyori, president of RIKEN, Japan9s biggest research institution, announced that its Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe will be stripped of half of its 500-plus staff, renamed, and put under new management. The hammer blow to the 14-year-old center is coming under heavy fire. Some outsiders see it as an overreaction to the research fiasco, in which the center9s Haruko Obokata and colleagues announced what would have been a revolutionary new way to produce stem cells. They say RIKEN is needlessly sacrificing a research powerhouse that has produced groundbreaking results.

Heat and sand. A restrictive culture. Saudi Arabia didn't seem to have much to offer compared with other countries I had visited. So, after decades spent happily working in laboratories, how did I end up in the Saudi desert, trying to do science at a petrochemical plant? My long career with a developer of petrochemical processing technology began as a research chemist at its main research center near Chicago, Illinois. It was—is—a very fine laboratory. We were able to turn out accurate results quickly. An array of pilot plants ran smoothly, cranking out data 24/7. Complex experiments were designed, and definitive conclusions were drawn efficiently. ![Figure][1] “Things that are easy in the research lab … are hard in the field.” ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER In time I took on a new role, helping develop collaborations with other companies in the United States and abroad. This was a fundamental shift for me: While I was still deeply involved in solving scientific problems, there was a new focus on building relationships. Then, a few years ago, someone got the bright idea that I should join a technical team to diagnose and solve performance problems at a customer's propane dehydrogenation facility, which my company had designed, while the plant remained up and running. It was a formidable challenge, and a lot was on the line. In some ways, I was not an obvious choice. I knew little about the technology. I had never worked in the field, in a production unit. No one cared. Those encouraging me to join the team praised my “vast expertise and experience.” They said my “fresh eyes” would be a benefit to the team. I fell for the flattery and signed on. After a crash review of the technology, I embarked on the first of three 2-week site visits to Al Jubail on the Persian Gulf coast. Major culture shock. All women there wear full burqas; no faces are seen and no interaction permitted, so you are cut off from half of society. Everything is forced to close during prayer times. Inappropriate dress, even by men, results in a public reprimand from a local cop. I had been to Muslim countries before, but this was far more intense. It was jarring and isolating but also fascinating. And it was HOT. You'd think that removing two little hydrogen atoms from propane to make propylene would be simple. It is not. Propane wants to keep them. The dehydrogenation facility is big and incredibly complicated: huge, hot catalytic reactors, multiple gas separation towers, gas purification units, and cooling systems, together covering four city blocks. It's loud and scary, and a lot different from the state-of-the-art laboratory I was used to. I knew going in that to succeed I must build respectful, somewhat personal, working relationships with the local staff. Pretending to know everything (or anything) would be a bad idea; it's much better to ask questions and dig for answers together. Cultural sensitivity was crucial. My first visit, during the fasting month of Ramadan, required some particularly difficult adaptations: If you must eat or drink water during the day, please be discrete. Things that are easy in the research lab, I learned, are hard in the field. Reliable data are crucial in any investigation, but much harder to obtain in an operational industrial facility. A research pilot plant designed for liters per day is way different than a facility producing hundreds of tons per day. There is much you cannot do: You can't take samples from just any point in the process, or change operating conditions just to see what happens. Staff members may lack the experience necessary to avoid subtle problems in sampling and analysis. Data are often so uncertain, so clouded by events, that interpretation becomes more art than science, or impossible. I organized a series of conference calls with our analytical experts back home, reviewing and improving procedures alongside local staff. We made progress and improved relationships. When troubleshooting complex systems—systems that encompass not just science and technology but also people and relationships—there may be many culprits. By addressing root causes of disparate problems, our team made important improvements. And I learned plenty. [1]: pending:yes

Last month, researchers working out of an abandoned McDonald9s restaurant on the grounds of NASA Ames Research Center recovered data collected by NASA9s Nimbus II satellite on 23 September 1966. The satellite soared over Earth in a polar orbit every 108 minutes, taking pictures of cloud cover and measuring heat radiated from the planet9s surface, and creating a photo mosaic of the globe 43 years ago. The resulting image is the oldest and most detailed from NASA9s Earth-observing satellites. It9s also the latest success story in what researchers call techno-archaeology: pulling data from archaic storage systems. Once forgotten and largely unreadable with modern equipment, old data tapes are providing researchers with new information on changes in the surfaces of Earth and the moon.

Opinion PollsThe U.S. public respects scientists and thinks what they do is important. But few think U.S. science outperforms the rest of the world. And neither do a majority of scientists. Three surveys conducted this spring by the Pew Research Center offer some fresh insights into what both the public and scientists think about science and its impact on society.

NASA has told several Chinese students at U.S. universities that they cannot attend an astrophysics conference next month at its Ames Research Center. Scientists say they were surprised to learn about the NASA policy, aimed at thwarting military and economic espionage, and some want their colleagues to boycott the meeting.

Harvard Medical School abruptly announced last week that it is closing a major primate research center that has been funded by the National Institutes of Health for 50 years. Although the center had been under investigation for its handling of animals, Harvard said that it is closing the center within 2 years because the outlook for federal research funding is bleak. Many in the small community of researchers who work with nonhuman primate research were dismayed, noting that their colleagues will have to find new homes for their projects, slowing work on AIDS and other diseases.

Last February, a group of Korean scientists led by W. S. Hwang and S. Y. Moon surprised the world by deriving a human embryonic stem cell line (SCNT hES-1) from a cloned blastocyst (“Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst,” Reports, 12 Mar., p. 1669; published online 12 Feb., 10.1126/science.1094515). This is the first example of success in what might be considered a first step to human “therapeutic cloning,” and it captured the attention of the world media. In response to the announcement, many have raised questions about the ethical and social environment of Korea with regard to such biotechnological investigations. In December 2003, the Korean National Assembly passed the “Bioethics and Biosafety Act,” which will go into effect in early 2005. According to the Act, human reproductive cloning and experiments such as fusion of human and animal embryos will be strictly banned [([1][1]), Articles 11 and 12]. However, therapeutic cloning will be permitted in very limited cases for the cure of serious diseases. Such experiments will have to undergo review by the National Bioethics Committee (NBC) [([1][1]), Article 22]. According to the Act, every researcher and research institution attempting such experiments must be registered with the responsible governmental agency [([1][1]), Article 23]. Since the Act is not yet in effect, the research done by Hwang et al. was done without any legal control or restriction. The Korean Bioethics Association ( ), a leading bioethics group in Korea, consisting of bioethicists, philosophers, jurists, and scientists, announced “The Seoul Declaration on Human Cloning” ([2][2]) in 1999, demanding the ban of human reproductive cloning and the study of the socio-ethical implications of cloning research. Many nongovernment organizations and religious groups in Korea agreed with and supported the declaration. We regret that Hwang and Moon did not wait until a social consensus about reproductive and therapeutic cloning was achieved in Korea before performing their research. Indeed, Hwang is Chairperson of the Bioethics Committee of the Korean Society for Molecular Biology, and Moon is President of the Stem Cell Research Center of Korea and a member of its Ethics Committee. They argue that their research protocol was approved by an institutional review board (IRB). However, we are not convinced that this controversial research should be done with the approval of only one IRB. We believe that it was premature to perform this research before these issues had been resolved. The Korean government is working to prepare regulations, guidelines, and review systems for biotechnology research in keeping with global standards ([3][3]). We hope that there will be no more ethically dubious research reports generated by Korean scientists before these systems are in place. 1. 1.[↵][4]Biosafety and Bioethics Act, passed 2003. 2. 2.[↵][5]1. The Korean Bioethics Association , J. Kor. Bioethics Assoc. 1(no. 1), 195 (2000). [OpenUrl][6] 3. 3.[↵][7]Korean Association of Institutional Review Boards, Guidelines for IRB Management, 10 Feb. 2003. # Response {#article-title-2} We recognize that our report changed the ethical, legal, and social implications of therapeutic cloning from a theoretical possibility to the first proof of principle that human embryonic stem cells can be derived from cloned blastocysts. Stem cell researchers and society at large must consider all the implications associated with therapeutic cloning. Conversations on this important topic must be all-inclusive. However, it is important to reiterate that the experiments included in our manuscript complied with all existing institutional and Korean regulations. In accordance with both Korean government regulation, as well as our own ethics, we neither have nor will conduct “human reproductive cloning and experiments such as fusion of human and animal embryos.” We concur that all human embryo experiments should be overseen by appropriate medical, scientific, and bioethical experts. In Korea, as in other countries, there is a great diversity of opinions regarding the newest scientific discoveries and when or if they should be translated into clinical research. The Korean Bioethics Association (KBA) is, in our opinion, not neutral and advocates restricting the pace of biomedical advancements, viewing new techniques as threats to society. For example, they have spoken publicly against the study of transgenic mouse models for human disease and preimplantation genetic diagnosis to help parents have healthy children. Although we respect the opinions of the KBA, we, as members of a leading Korean stem cell and cloning laboratory, are committed to discovering the medical potential of stem cells and to participating in conversations with ethical and religious groups regarding matters of bioethical concern. Our research team has always and will continue to comply with ethical regulations and any laws or guidelines promulgated by the Korean government. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1. in text" [5]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2. in text" [6]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BKor.%2BBioethics%2BAssoc.%26rft.volume%253D1%26rft.issue%253Dno.%2B1%26rft.spage%253D195%26rft.atitle%253DJ%2BKOR%2BBIOETHICS%2BASSOC%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 [7]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3. in text"

A flagship government biodefense laboratory set to be built in Kansas is facing critical funding troubles—in part because of fierce opposition from cattle ranchers the facility is supposed to help. Last week, the Obama Administration announced that it is requesting no new money in its 2013 budget plan for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), a highly secure veterinary research center that is supposed to study viruses and other agents that could threaten livestock and human health. The announcement delighted NBAF opponents, including livestock interests who fear a devastating disease could escape from the facility into the heart of cattle country.

Here, we present an analysis of the changing performance of the largest “research centers” of the world. Of the total 2,790,179 papers listed by the Science Citation Index (SCI) for the period 1996–98, 38.3% have at least one author from the top 40 research centers. This formidable concentration pattern of research output is reinforced in 1999–2001, with 39.6% of the 2,929,977 papers associated with the world's 40 largest research centers. Here, we define a center as a “greater urban region” by a uniform logic where the objective was to identify units (cities and surrounding suburbs) by the way they function as daily labor markets. We combined neighboring cities where the distance between cities is less than 45 minutes by ground transport. We then determined how many papers were published by authors from each research center. The 1999–2001 top 40 list includes 22 European and 14 North American centers, along with three Asian centers and one Australian center. Africa and South America are not represented. Japanese centers have prominent positions on the list. Tokyo-Yokohama is the research center with the world's highest number of papers published in the period studied, and Osaka-Kobe is third. London is in second place, and the top two are far ahead of the other centers on the list. The highest-scoring North American centers are the San Francisco Bay Area (4), Boston (6), New York (7), and Los Angeles (9). From Europe, Paris (5), Moscow (8)—the only representative from the former Soviet Union—and Amsterdam (10) are among the top 10 research centers. There is a considerable gap in publications between the centers in the top 10 and those in the lower ranks. It is notable that Beijing is ranked 12th; that U.S. centers show a very compact pattern, with most of the represented centers having high ranks; that Northern European centers hold higher ranks than Southern European ones; and that the United Kingdom is represented by no less than six centers in the top 40. We compared data from 1996 to 1998 with data from 1999 to 2001 to identify “winners” and “losers.” The weighted arithmetic mean change is +8.5%. Half of the cities are within a range from +6.3 to +11.1%, which is an average change. We classify nine centers as winners—an increase of 11.6% or more—and 10 cities as losers—an increase of 4.8% or less. Large research nations with multiple centers in the top 40 are the United States with 12 centers, the United Kingdom with six, and Germany with five. Of these nations, only the United States has one winner. The traditional top research nations include seven of the 10 losing regions. To find the successes, one must look outside those nations traditionally seen as research heavyweights. The big winner is Beijing, with a more than 60% increase in research output from 1996–98 to 1999–2001. All four Southern European research centers (Milan, Barcelona, Madrid, and Rome) on the top 40 list are winners, which shows a pattern of advancement for a large part of Southern Europe. Only one U.S. center, Baltimore, and one Canadian center, Toronto, are members of the high-growth category, which also includes Sydney. The big losers are Moscow and St. Petersburg. Other members of this category include some larger European and North American cities with long histories as research centers, e.g., Paris, London, Washington, DC, and the capital-like city Frankfurt near the former German capital Bonn. If the growth pattern from 1996–98 to 1999–2001 continues, a shift in the rank of major research centers can be envisaged, although the overall pattern is rather stable. Centers located in the Pacific Rim will increase in importance together with Southern European centers. The traditional heavyweight centers of Northern Europe and the United States will decrease in importance, as will Russia.

GENETICSMUNICH-- Germany's top research organization, the Max Planck Society, inked a multimillion dollar deal this week to form a joint institute with one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. GlaxoSmithKline will establish a new Genetic Research Center on the campus of the Munich-based Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry, dedicated to finding genetic links to common diseases.

For 7 years, IBM researchers toiled to build a machine that could understand and answer spoken questions. In 2007, the company invited computer scientists from Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) to two workshops at its research center in Yorktown Heights, New York. For CMU graduate student Nico Schlaefer, the workshops were a turning point. As an undergraduate at the University of Karlsruhe, Germany, and a visiting scholar at CMU in 2005, Schlaefer had built a question-answer system called Ephyra. Impressed, IBM offered Schlaefer a summer internship with the project — the first of three he spent working on Watson. Last week, Schlaefer, now a Ph.D. candidate in computer science at CMU and an IBM Ph.D. Fellow, told Science about the algorithm he contributed to the now-world-famous computer. * Karen A. Frenkel is a science writer in New York City.

BELTSVILLE, MARYLAND-- A tornado struck here in the early evening on 24 September, dealing a serious blow to research at the U.S. Department of Agriculture9s Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), the world9s largest agricultural research complex. BARC9s director estimates the destruction at $20 million, including extensive damage to one-third of BARC9s 8400 square meters of greenhouses. In addition to plants damaged by the flying debris, high winds, and exposure to the elements, a power outage of nearly 48 hours may have ruined numerous frozen tissue samples and collections.

Four of Russia9s most prominent physics labs are to be merged into a new national research center. The institutes, which have languished in the post-Soviet era, have cautiously welcomed the raised profile the merger will bring. But a different reform aimed at separating basic and applied research at one of the institutes—the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow, Russia9s premier lab for nuclear energy research—has researchers up in arms.

Biochemist Robert Tjian, 59, took the helm of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) in April at a challenging time, after its endowment, which had stood at $17.5 billion last August, had been battered by the economic recession. One of his first actions was difficult: He notified HHMI9s 350 investigators at universities and scientists at its research center, Janelia Farm, that their budgets will likely be trimmed 5.5% in 2010. But Tjian points out that the blow, which won9t affect new and early-career scientists, will be softened by federal stimulus money for biomedical research. The trim also pales compared with the 10% cut his predecessor, Thomas Cech, made in the budget in 2002 after the dot-com bubble burst. On 25 June, Tjian spoke with Science in his office in Chevy Chase, Maryland. His comments have been edited for brevity and clarity.

BISHKEK, KYRGYZSTAN-- In the mountains of Kyrgyzstan, a research station that monitors earthquakes and nuclear tests--and serves as a base for Western geophysicists to study the tectonic forces shaping the region--faces an uncertain future. The Kyrgyz Broadband Seismic Network is currently operating with stopgap funds from the U.S. State Department, which run out on 1 July. In addition, the U.S. government last year helped set up an International Geodynamics Research Center, based at a Russian field station here; initial funding for the center is also drying up. Now, geophysicists are waiting to hear whether the U.S. National Science Foundation or other agencies will ante up funds to help keep the center afloat.

FACILITIESRather than allow politics to hold sway, the three cities vying to host a €1 billion neutron beam research center called the European Spallation Source will this week submit bids to a specially created, independent panel of "wise people."

ARCHAEOLOGYAt the Ravenna meeting ([see main text][1]), Hassan Fazeli-Nashali, the new chief of the Archaeology Research Center in Tehran, laid out a bold plan for engaging more foreign scientists and honing the skills of Iranian academics. [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/317/5838/586

Italy's government is poised to rescue the Biomedical Research Center in Palermo. The project in regenerative medicine was jointly sponsored by the University of Pittsburgh and Palermo's ISMETT organ transplantation research center ( Science , 27 October 2006, p. [577][1]). More than 100 Italian scientists living abroad protested a government plan to withdraw support last year. Now the government has submitted a finance bill that would provide $340 million rather than the $410 million first proposed. The downsizing has forced a project review, but ISMETT says it hopes to begin recruiting staff later this month. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.314.5799.577c

Budget troubles at NASA will likely nix plans to send a series of sophisticated robotic rovers to the moon after the agency sends an orbiter there next year. NASA officials blame a tight exploration budget and the rising cost of the rovers, which were meant to find possible human landing sites and gather scientific data. Industry and agency sources say that up to half of the roughly $800 million set aside over the next 3 years for rover development at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, could go to Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California, to design smaller and cheaper spacecraft that could do similar jobs. The decision to cancel the original set of rovers comes just a few months after NASA chief Michael Griffin moved the program from Ames to Marshall. That decision, sources say, was made to please Congress's Republican-dominated Alabama delegation, but the recent election, which put Democrats in the driver's seat, took pressure off the agency. The remainder of the would-be rover funding would cover budget shortfalls in NASA's effort to develop a launcher to replace the space shuttle, slated for retirement in 2010. The proposed cuts are part of the agency's 2009 budget request to be announced on 5 February.

GENETICSA public brawl has broken out between deCODE Genetics, the Icelandic firm that created a country-wide DNA database to investigate diseases and develop drugs, and a U.S. hospital that recently announced the launch of the world's largest genotyping project focused on children's health. ([Read more][1].) [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5796/30

Japan9s research budget has grown dramatically since 1995, and both the government and scientific community consider the appropriate distribution of these funds to be of critical importance. The Research Center for Science Systems seeks to be a good mediator between active scientists and such policy-making bodies as the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT). Honjo describes recent initatives by the Center to improve the grant-review process--from selecting reviewers to providing feedback to applicants, as well as balancing the research needs of various communities.

Four of the U.K.'s leading medical and scientific organizations have decided to review the scientific and ethical basis for using nonhuman primates in biomedical research. Last year, activists forced Cambridge University to abandon plans for a primate research center ( Science , 30 January 2004, p. [605][1]) and halted construction of an animal research facility at Oxford University ( Science , 23 July 2004, p. [463][2]). But a spokesperson for the Royal Society, one of the groups involved, says the impetus for the review is scientific advances in alternatives to animal testing, not increasing pressure from animal-rights groups. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust are also participating. In a statement, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection welcomed the effort but worried that it “will be little more than propaganda to alleviate growing scepticism amongst the general public.” [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.303.5658.605b [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.305.5683.463b

Tokyo—Japan is thinking small in science—on a grand scale. The goal is to squeeze the capabilities of high-power lasers into a new generation of lasers that can fit on a table top. A $100 million a year project is gearing up to build an Advanced Photon Research Center that will extend the abilities of short-pulse lasers and turn them into new tools for accelerating particles, creating x-ray holograms of living cells, and exploring ultrahigh-speed phenomena.

TRIESTE, ITALY — Italy will host a new Euro-Mediterranean Center for Climate Change Study (CMCC) to operate from the National Institute for Geophysics and Vulcanology (INGV) in Bologna, with headquarters and a dedicated supercomputer at the University of Lecce. Officials made the announcement

PRIMATE RESEARCHCAMBRIDGE, U.K.-- A controversial primate research center to be built on the edge of this academic city may now be sited at a tightly guarded military facility, where it would presumably be sheltered from protests by animal activists.

Langley Research Center in Virginia is one of the few places with the facilities to shed light on what happens when a vehicle travels at Mach 18. Engineers and physicists there have begun conducting tests for the federal commission investigating the 1 February disaster that killed the crew of the space shuttle Columbia.