Search

Primary Investigators at all levels of their career face a range of challenges related to optimizing their activity within the constraints of deadlines and productive research. These range from enhancing creative thought and keeping track of ideas to organizing and prioritizing the activity of the members of the group. Numerous tools now exist that facilitate the storage and retrieval of information necessary for running a laboratory to advance specific project goals within associated timelines. Here we discuss strategies and tools/software that, together or individually, can be used as is or adapted to any size scientific laboratory. Specific software products, suggested use cases, and examples are shown across the life cycle from idea to publication. Strategies for managing the organization of, and access to, digital information and planning structures can greatly facilitate the efficiency and impact of an active scientific enterprise. The principles and workflow described here are applicable to many different fields., Graphical Abstract, Information Systems; Knowledge Management

Despite its rising position as a first-class research object, scientific software remains a marginal object in studies of scholarly communication. This study aims to fill the gap by examining the co-mention network of R packages across all Public Library of Science (PLoS) journals. To that end, we developed a software entity extraction method and identified 14,310 instances of R packages across the 13,684 PLoS journal papers mentioning or citing R. A paper-level co-mention network of these packages was visualized and analyzed using three major centrality measures: degree centrality, betweenness centrality, and PageRank. We analyzed the distributive patterns of R packages in all PLoS papers, identified the top packages mentioned in these papers, and examined the clustering structure of the network. Specifically, we found that the discipline and function of the packages can partly explain the largest clusters. The present study offers the first large-scale analysis of R packages’ extensive use in scientific research. As such, it lays the foundation for future explorations of various roles played by software packages in the scientific enterprise.

Producing actionable science to improve social and environmental well-being enables the scientific enterprise to uphold expectations that accompany public funding for science. While innovations in the management of science funding may help overcome institutional hurdles to generating actionable science, the role of program managers in implementing such changes is relatively underexamined. Using sustainability science and related fields as a case, this study examines program documents (n = 33) and interviews of program management staff (n = 61) from public science funding programs in the United States and Europe. The results illuminate program management perspectives on the changing relationship between science and society and their own role in shaping it. In many instances, program managers in both regions are actively experimenting with practices that may strengthen links between knowledge and action. In certain contexts, program manager discretion may also amount to a form of science policy formation. However, program managers may still be limited in their ability to enact changes due to capacity constraints and still prevalent norms expressed by the research community. These results provide a window, and basis for future research, into the contemporary practice of science funding program management and its implications for sustainability and the social contract for science.

Significant gaps remain between public opinion and the scientific consensus on many issues. We present the results of three studies (N = 722 in total) for the development and testing of a novel instrument to measure a largely unmeasured aspect of scientific literacy: the enterprise of science, particularly in the context of its social structures. We posit that this understanding of the scientific enterprise is an important source for the public’s trust in science. Our results indicate that the Social Enterprise of Science Index (SESI) is a reliable and valid instrument that correlates positively with trust in science (r = .256, p < .001), and level of education (r = .245, p < .001). We also develop and validate a six question short version of the SESI for ease of use in longer surveys.

The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly disrupted the scientific enterprise, but we lack empirical evidence on the nature and magnitude of these disruptions. Here we report the results of a survey of approximately 4,500 Principal Investigators (PIs) at U.S.- and Europe- based research institutions. Distributed in mid-April 2020, the survey solicited information about how scientists’ work changed from the onset of the pandemic, how their research output might be affected in the near future, and a wide range of individuals’ characteristics. Scientists report a sharp decline in time spent on research on average, but there is substantial heterogeneity with a significant share reporting no change or even increases. Some of this heterogeneity is due to field-specific differences, with laboratory-based fields being the most negatively affected, and some is due to gender, with female scientists reporting larger declines. However, among the individuals’ characteristics examined, the largest disruptions are connected to a usually unobserved dimension: childcare. Reporting a young dependent is associated with declines similar in magnitude to those reported by the laboratory-based fields and can account for a significant fraction of gender differences. Amidst scarce evidence about the role of parenting in scientists’ work, these results highlight the fundamental and heterogeneous ways this pandemic is affecting the scientific workforce, and may have broad relevance for shaping responses to the pandemic’s effect on science and beyond.

The myth, that R. Kahn developed the mathematical and logical theory of the multiplier and then taught J M Keynes about the technical and mathematical properties of the multiplier concept is a myth deeply inbedded in the economics profession. It then leads to another myth that without Kahn’s contribution, there would have been no possibility of Keynes having been able to write and publish the General Theory in February, 1936. This myth, like the myth that there is no IS-LM mathematical model in the General Theory, can be traced directly to deliberate canards originally made up by Joan Robinson repeatedly in her life time and also presented many times by G L S Shackle in his publications. The historical facts are quite different from the concocted mythology. The technical and mathematical properties of the multiplier concept were first developed and applied by Keynes in 1921 in chapter 26 of the A Treatise on Probability in section seven on page 315 in footnote 1. Kahn himself made it quite clear in his 1936 response to H. Neisser in the Review of Economics and Statistics that he had gotten most of his ideas from Mr. J.M Keynes!!!! In 2007. Kent showed that Keynes had constructed an arithmetical, numerical, multiplier example in May,1929. This analysis follows directly from the mathematical and technical exposition contained in 1921 in chapter 26 of the A Treatise on Probability in section seven on page 315 in footnote one, which Kent had and has no inkling of. The current universal belief among economists that Kahn developed the theory of the multiplier himself before he explained it to Keynes in 1932 is simply a fable agreed upon unanimously by an economics profession that has been “played” for ninety years by the fairy tales, yarns, fables, canards, claims, and stories spun by Joan Robinson and supported by the Pseudo Kynesians (Joan Robinson, Austin Robinson, Richard Kahn and Roy Harrod). The appearance of these myths as historical facts in the 2019 book published by Edward Elgar, titled The Elgar Companion to John Maynard Keynes, seriously calls into question the claims of economists to being a science. By definition, there can’t be any myths in a scientific enterprise. That these myths have endured for so many decades does provide evidence that economics is not a science, but simply a type of rhetoric based on the accepted “wisdom” of fairy tales or stories made up by Joan Robinson. The economics profession has incorporated these myths into their official history of economic thought and macroeconomic history, as can easily be seen by visiting Investopedia or Wikipedia. These myths go hand in glove with other myths about Keynes, such as the myth that an 18 year old Frank Ramsey showed up in Cambridge in 1921 and convinced Keynes that his logical theory of probability, based directly on the work of the greatest mathematical logician in history, George Boole, was full of errors and mistakes that then led Keynes to renounce his theory and accept some version of Ramsey’s approach.

On the Ground As funding for rangeland research becomes more difficult to secure, researchers and funding organizations must ensure that the information needs of public and private land managers are met. Usable science that involves the intended end users throughout the scientific enterprise and gives rise to improved outcomes and informed management on the ground should be emphasized. The SRR workshop on Future Directions of Usable Science for Rangeland Sustainability brought together university and agency researchers, public and private land managers and producers, non-governmental organizations, and representatives of funding agencies and organizations to initiate the process of charting a research agenda for future directions of usable science for rangeland sustainability. Workshop outcomes address issues and research questions for soil health, water, vegetation (plants), animals, and socio-economic aspects of rangeland sustainability.

In this paper, I critique a recent claim made by Stokhof and van Lambalgen (2011) (hereafter S&vL) that linguistics and science are at odds as to the models and constructions they employ. I argue that their distinction between abstractions and idealisations, the former belonging to the methodology of science and the latter to linguistics, is not a real one. I show that the majority of their arguments are flawed and evidence they cite misleading. Contrary to this distinction, I argue that linguistics, like some variants of the scientific enterprise, uses a minimalist method of idealisation (Weisberg, 2007b), one which includes abstractions (as defined by S&vL) and other idealisations not uncommon to scientific model-building. Finally, I offer an alternative account of the problems cited by S&vL as a direct result of the modelling choices of linguists as opposed to the methods they use to define such models. I do so through the use of the specific example of the treatment of tense and aspect in the mainstream literature.

For established journals, especially nonprofit journals sponsored by scientific societies, the greatest challenge in scientific publishing has been the explosive proliferation of new journals and, relatedly, the rise of the megajournals. These journals rely on Author Processing Charges (APCs) for revenue and are, therefore, financially incentivized to publish as many articles as possible. The two major megajournals published almost 45,000 papers in 2016. Why do authors flock to submit their papers to these mass-produced publications? I find this especially perplexing, given the stated policy of these journals to ignore significance or importance in deciding what to publish. Part of the allure may be that these journals do make it easy for authors to get their papers published and offer a direct pipeline after a paper may have been declined by a more prestigious journal within their corporate stables. As an independent journal, owned by a relatively small society, Biophysical Journal is unable to offer some of these conveniences. However, I’m already detecting that the novelty is wearing off of these scientific publishing factories.Going forward, in the face of the aforementioned disruptive trends in scientific publishing, we need to continue to assure the highest quality and find innovative ways to enhance the journal’s vitality. This means continuing to emphasize that only the best science will be accepted for publication in our journal. It means promoting the outstanding peer review process, led by empathetic volunteer editors who are leaders in their fields. It means finding new ways to enhance the journal content to engage our readers and target a wider readership. And it means continuing to strengthen the connection between Biophysical Journal and the membership of the Biophysical Society.I’m confident that all of these goals will be fully embraced under the able leadership of our incoming Editor-in-Chief, Jane Dyson. I’ve had the pleasure of working closely and collaboratively with her over the last few months as we transition. I am convinced she has the wisdom, commitment, and creativity to take BJ to new heights.Throughout this editorial, I very deliberately used the word “we” to describe the accomplishments of the last five years. For each accomplishment, it was very definitely a collaborative effort both in conceptualization and implementation, and it is a pleasure to close by acknowledging the individuals who comprise Team BJ. Beth Staehle has now been with BJ as Publications Manager for four years. She is a consummate professional who has been an extraordinarily wise, sensitive, and steady hand at managing any issue that comes along. Her dedication is regularly demonstrated by emails appearing in my inbox on weekends or late into the evening. She is willing to respond to any request, no matter how simple or complex, whether from author, editor, reviewer, or reader. Importantly, she is also a crucial resource to both generate and critique new ideas. Our journal is truly fortunate to have Beth in the driver’s seat. The daily operations of the journal are in the able hands of Catie Curry and Tara Singh; they are proactive and conscientious in overseeing interactions with authors, reviewers, and editors. The BPS Executive Officer, Ro Kampman, is always available to give her sage advice; her tireless work for the society is truly remarkable. The quality and integrity of the journal is assured by our outstanding editorial board of 130 volunteer scientists; they have been led by Associate Editors Tamar Schlick, Liz Rhoades, Michael Pusch, Dave Piston, Claudia Steinem, Stas Shvartsman, Mike Ostap, Brian Salzberg, and, until this year, Nathan Baker. It is because of our dedicated editorial board that only the highest quality biophysics gets published in our journal and that authors so often express their appreciation for the constructive review process. The behind the scenes work of the Cell Press team, led by Keith Wollman, generously provides a wealth of resources, expertise, and guidance in marketing, press releases, web technology, webinars, collections, and interactive content. I have had a most productive relationship with the BPS Publications Committee, especially through its leaders Olaf Andersen and Da-Neng Wang. Many of the initiatives undertaken over the last five years were developed through the advice and consent of the Publications Committee and Olaf and Da-Neng were real partners in the leadership of our journal.In these difficult times for science, where not only stable funding support but the very value of the scientific enterprise is being challenged, it has never been more important to assure that scientific findings are published with transparency, accuracy, and after rigorous peer review. Thankfully, the biophysics community can fully rely on its society journal with its volunteer scientist editors to shoulder this important responsibility. My gratitude goes to the Biophysical Society for giving me the privilege of leading our journal for the past five years. Working with the journal staff, editorial board, and the BPS has made this a truly rewarding job.

Although retractions are commonly considered as negative outcomes, the fact remains that they play a positive role in the academic community, for instance, help scientific enterprise perform its self-correcting function; become lessons learned for future researchers; represent social responsibilities or let open review communities offer better "monitoring services" in keeping problematic studies in check. This study provides retraction data, which is believed to give useful insights into retraction and its powerful function. By using RetractionWatch data, a database built based on SQL Server 2016, and some home-made AI, a data set of 18,603 retractions from 1753 to 2019 February covering 127 research field was contributed. The results show a long way of retraction with the popularity of retraction practices since 1999, and the burden in 2010; IEEE, Elsevier, and Springer account for nearly 60% of all retracted papers globally with the record belongs to IEEE even though it is not the organization that publishes most journals; a paper could be retracted for diverse reasons but "fake peer review" becomes a major one.

Internet brain training programs, where consumers serve as both subjects and funders of the research, represent the closest engagement many individuals have with neuroscience. Safeguards are needed to protect participants’ privacy and the evolving scientific enterprise of big data.

We describe the scientific enterprise at the intersection of evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics — a field that could be termed Evolutionary Behavioral Genetics — and how modern genetic data is revolutionizing our ability to test questions in this field. We first explain how genetically informative data and designs can be used to investigate questions about the evolution of human behavior, and describe some of the findings arising from these approaches. Second, we explain how evolutionary theory can be applied to the investigation of behavioral genetic variation. We give examples of how new data and methods provide insight into the genetic architecture of behavioral variation and what this tells us about the evolutionary processes that acted on the underlying causal genetic variants.

The science fiction prototype featured in this article is the second chapter of a novel in progress that contains an omnibus of interventions into physics, queer science, feminism, and intellectual history. The title of the article references the notebooks of Erwin Schrodinger, a Nobel-Prize winning physicist who discovered wave theory that superseded Heisenberg's more complex form of mathematical formalism, therefore changing the way in which interpretation is done. Despite being part of a series, the prototype is written so it could be read as a standalone. The story, combined with a critical explication of its background and intent, produces the contestations illustrating the relationships between physics, the cultures in science and technology, as well as politics extending over the internal and external values of the scientific enterprise. Specifically, the differences between these values are rendered impossible through the epistemic continuity stemming from a shared ontology. At the same time, the prototype also forecasts the possibility of future technologies based on current and possible developments in physics while contesting the notion of a ‘good life’ these technologies supposedly offer. As a politically inclined epistemic move, the prototype will demonstrate points of amplification in the interactions taking place at the microscopic level for manifestation in our macroscopic space. Therefore, the amplified microscopic interactions are in competition with the observables in our ‘meatspace’ dominated by the conventions of classical physics. The prototype also acts as a speculative device for modeling probable outcomes stemming from different constraint sets, thereby acting as an ‘algorithmic’ blueprint for the narration of scenarios produced as an outcome of macro- and micro-entanglement.

Data visualization – that is, the graphical representation of numerical information – is foundational to the scientific enterprise. A broad literature base is available providing rules, guidelines, and heuristics for authors of scientific literature to assist in the production of scientific graphics that are readable and intuitive. However, most of the available recent publications are in the bio-, psycho-, or climate sciences literature. In this paper, we address this deficiency and provide data visualization heuristics tuned to the specific needs of the physical sciences, and particularly materials sciences, community. We enumerate six general rules and provide examples of bad and improved data graphics, and provide source code to illustrate the generation of the improved figures. The six rules we enumerate are: (1) Generate figures programmatically; (2) Multivariate data calls for multivariate representation; (3) Showing the data beats mean ± standard deviation; (4) Choose colormaps that match the nature of the data; (5) Use small multiples; and (6) Don't use vendor exports naïvely. Keywords: Visualization, Data presentation, Scientific publication, Microscopy, Data analytics

The availability of drugs that can cure hepatitis C virus infection provides a wonderful backdrop for the Journal of Hepatology to start its 31st year. It is clear to us all that the landscape of Hepatology will change within the next 10 years and therefore it is very exciting to introduce this supplement. Despite this progress, deaths from liver disease are occurring at a staggering rate (Table 1) [1] and the benefits of the hepatitis C drugs in reducing death rates will take many years. The main culprits of the increasing burden of disease, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and alcohol related liver disease, need to be tackled at a societal and political level. The immediate cause of death in these patients, liver failure and liver cancer require better biomarkers and new therapies for earlier diagnosis and treatment. This supplement is a collection of awe-inspiring, inspirational and must-read articles of exceptional quality written by the world leaders in their own fields, often collaborating across continents to bring together this celebratory issue. The articles not only provide the best current evidence and insights into what the future holds for hepatology but also highlight how we have got to this point. Karlsen, Lammert, and Thompson combine their huge knowledge base into focusing on our current understanding of how genetics is helping us better understand the pathogenesis of liver disease. They extend their article to describe how genetics is being used to identify the cause of hereditary liver diseases and allowing predictions about susceptibility to complex diseases and their re-classification. They extend their paper to highlight that genetic studies suggests new modes of treatment of diseases. Finally, they look a little into the future to define how using genomics may help to customize the management of the individual patient. Hepatic fibrosis underlies the occurrence of chronicity of liver disease. Trautwein, Friedman, Schuppan, and Pinzani combine their immense knowledge and huge scientific enterprise to provide an understanding of the current knowledge of the condition and provide insights into how close we may be in finding a ‘true’ anti-fibrotic. Given the relatively long timelines in the evolution of fibrosis, drug development is challenging. They highlight these potential difficulties and describe some of the many efforts that are being put into place to allow an adequate regulatory environment for drug development.

In this article, Lucas Bergkamp discusses the erosion of the ethical and social norms of science. Such erosion is occurring in what he calls ‘new science.’ New science is caught in an ‘iron triangle’ of ‘policy-science-valorization’ that renders it impervious to scrutiny and revision. New science is both a product and a cause of the redefined relations between politics and science, which have resulted in harmful politicization of science and scientization of politics. In this new symbiosis, scientists have captured policy-makers (regulatory capture), and policy-makers have captured scientists (scientific capture) for mutual benefit. Both politics and science can claim to be drivers of a ‘social justice’ movement ostensibly aimed at improving the world. As they cover each other’s backs, each is able to avoid effective accountability. This article looks at one side of the iron triangle, and attempts to answer the question how the politicization of new science has become possible. How have some scientists come to serve political ends, acting like aids to policy-makers, while still claiming to be scientists? Science is held in high regard, and claims that science is ideologically or politically biased are generally treated with skepticism. New science is fundamentally different, however, and amenable to ideological or political appropriation. Several factors have contributed to new science’s politicization, including post-modernism, the rise of risk society, the precautionary principle and victimhood culture, infiltration of social institutions, including the progressives’ dominance in universities, and changes in the ethos of science. Here, the focus is on the latter, in particular the erosion of the ethical and social norms of science, and the rise of the so-called ‘counter-norms’ of science (particularism, individualism, self-interestedness, and organized dogmatism). This degeneration of the scientific enterprise has allowed scientists to act as suppliers of policy support, to advocate for a cause, and to suppress dissent. It has enabled new science to be exploited for political purposes, and to become an integral part of a social movement. New science is a method not for predicting the future, but for shaping the future; as such, it is part of a vision for a better world. Adopting a macro-level perspective, the first part of this article discusses the iron triangle and the resulting pressure towards political use of science. It highlights the crisis and overextension of science, which have rendered it vulnerable to ideologies. The second part explains at the micro-level how it was possible that science became a political instrument. Here, the changing social and ethical norms of science are discussed. At the micro-level, the explanation of new science’s rise hinges on the dominance of the counter-norms of science. Attention is also paid to the strategies and tactics deployed by new science to gain political influence, which reinforce its politicized status. Throughout the discussion, climate science serves as a prime example of these developments.

Michael Friedman defines the scientific enterprise as an ongoing project with a dynamics of reason that persists through scientific revolutions: The coherence and continuity of science owes to a communicative rationality that is operative at all times. It assures us of our shared objective world by transforming subjective points of view into intersubjectively binding agreements. Though it takes a very broad approach epistemologically, this conception of science may yet be too narrow in respect to notions of objectivity. It excludes a prominent mode of knowledge production that might be called technoscientific. This exclusion becomes particularly evident in Friedman’s discussion of Heidegger as a critic of Cassirer and Carnap and as a critic of objectivity as “universal validity” of scientific propositions. If one tends to Heidegger’s own account of objectivity, one encounters a non-propositional notion of truth. Science is seen as a technology that brings forth phenomena and processes. Accordingly, even where modern physics appears to be concerned primarily with the formulation of theories and the testing of hypotheses, it uses mathematical and representational techniques to conceive and create the modern world. And more powerfully than intersubjective agreement, technologies assure us of the unity and objectivity of our simultaneously social as well as natural world. There may be good reasons to hold fast to the close affiliation of communicative rationality, science, and enlightenment. However, to the extent that it turns a blind eye to technoscientific knowledge production and the technological character of science, a philosophy of technoscience needs to develop an alternative perspective on questions of objectivity, explanation, inference, or validation.

Goldman and Rosenberg comment on US Pres Donald Trump's proposed funding cuts for science agencies. The cuts would end four NASA Earth Science missions set to make measurements that improve greenhouse gas estimates; detect harmful algal blooms, volcanic ash and oil spills; and Improve air pollution checks. It is likely that such a strategy will fail to adequately protect public health and safety in the face of emerging threats. The research community must not allow this. The scientific enterprise depends on it.

The latest figures published by the Science and Engineering Indicators report reveals that in 2003, 33% of faculty in science and engineering departments at research universities were foreign-born, a number that has more than doubled in thirty years. Foreign-born faculty members comprise an important part of the scientific enterprise that has been understudied. The purpose of this study is to examine the job satisfaction patterns of scientists and engineers by status of birth using a very large and comprehensive National Science Foundation (NSF) dataset, the Survey of Doctoral Recipients (SDR). The results of the study indicate that foreign-born scientists and engineers are less satisfied in several areas of their work life as compared to their US-born peers.

In the past several decades, decision makers in the United States have increasingly called upon publicly funded science to provide “usable” information for policy making, whether in the case of acid rain, famine prevention or climate change policy. As demands for usability become more prevalent for publicly accountable scientific programs, there is a need to better understand opportunities and constraints to science use in order to inform policy design and implementation. Motivated by recent critique of the decision support function of the US Global Change Research Program, this paper seeks to address this issue by specifically examining the production and use of climate science. It reviews empirical evidence from the rich scholarship focused on climate science use, particularly seasonal climate forecasts, to identify factors that constrain or foster usability. It finds, first, that climate science usability is a function both of the context of potential use and of the process of scientific knowledge production itself. Second, nearly every case of successful use of climate knowledge involved some kind of iteration between knowledge producers and users. The paper argues that, rather than an automatic outcome of the call for the production of usable science, iterativity is the result of the action of specific actors and organizations who ‘own’ the task of building the conditions and mechanisms fostering its creation. Several different types of institutional arrangements can accomplish this task, depending on the needs and resources available. While not all of the factors that enhance usability of science for decision making are within the realm of the scientific enterprise itself, many do offer opportunities for improvement. Science policy mechanisms such as the level of flexibility afforded to research projects and the metrics used to evaluate the outcomes of research investment can be critical to providing the necessary foundation for iterativity and production of usable science to occur.

ContextComparing and contrasting evidence from multiple studies is necessary to build knowledge and reach conclusions about the empirical support for a phenomenon. Therefore, research synthesis is at the center of the scientific enterprise in the software engineering discipline. ObjectiveThe objective of this article is to contribute to a better understanding of the challenges in synthesizing software engineering research and their implications for the progress of research and practice. MethodA tertiary study of journal articles and full proceedings papers from the inception of evidence-based software engineering was performed to assess the types and methods of research synthesis in systematic reviews in software engineering. ResultsAs many as half of the 49 reviews included in the study did not contain any synthesis. Of the studies that did contain synthesis, two thirds performed a narrative or a thematic synthesis. Only a few studies adequately demonstrated a robust, academic approach to research synthesis. ConclusionWe concluded that, despite the focus on systematic reviews, there is limited attention paid to research synthesis in software engineering. This trend needs to change and a repertoire of synthesis methods needs to be an integral part of systematic reviews to increase their significance and utility for research and practice.

This critique is divided into three sections. The first section is a review of my positions on three core issues regarding the nature of the human sciences (particularly cross-cultural and acculturation psychology) that have been raised throughout these articles. Knowledge of these positions is essential background to understanding my comments in the second section. In the second section are some comments on specific claims and assertions about my work that have been made in the articles. I believe that many of these assertions do not represent my views, nor my empirical research, on acculturation. Of necessity, I have had to select certain themes among all of these assertions. Although the special issue is a critique of acculturation theory and research in general, the majority of the comments are addressed to my work in the area. Hence, I have concentrated on criticisms directed at my own work, rather than attempting to address the field as a whole. However, my comments likely have more general import for the field of acculturation psychology as a whole. I invite readers to consider these very contrasting sets of views about how we are to understand individual human beings within the context of cultures, and of culture contact and change. A third section returns to some of the basic issues regarding the nature of the scientific enterprise. I advocate a dual approach, accepting both the natural sciences and cultural sciences ways of advancing our knowledge of human behaviour in context. I argue that dismissing the positivist traditions of the natural sciences, and replacing them with social constructionist concepts and methods is a regressive step in our search to improve our understanding of acculturation. Moreover, I have found little in these articles that advances our knowledge of acculturation, or our potential for making applications for the betterment of acculturating individuals and groups.

Humans are unique among all species of terrestrial history in both ecological dominance and individual properties. Many, or perhaps all, of the unique elements of this nonpareil status can be plausibly interpreted as evolutionary and strategic elements and consequences of the unprecedented intensity and scale of our social cooperation. Convincing explanation of this unique human social adaptation remains a central, unmet challenge to the scientific enterprise. We develop a hypothesis for the ancestral origin of expanded cooperative social behavior. Specifically, we present a game theoretic analysis demonstrating that a specific pattern of expanded social cooperation between conspecific individuals with conflicts of interest (including non-kin) can be strategically viable, but only in animals that possess a highly unusual capacity for conspecific violence (credible threat) having very specific properties that dramatically reduce the costs of coercive violence. The resulting reduced costs allow preemptive or compensated coercion to be an instantaneously self-interested behavior under diverse circumstances rather than in rare, idiosyncratic circumstances as in actors (animals) who do not have access to inexpensive coercive threat. Humans are apparently unique among terrestrial organisms in having evolved conspecific coercive capabilities that fulfill these stringent requirements. Thus, our results support the proposal that access to a novel capacity for projection of coercive threat might represent the essential initiating event for the evolution of a human-like pattern of social cooperation and the subsequent evolution of the diverse features of human uniqueness. Empirical evidence indicates that these constraints were, in fact, met only in our evolutionary lineage. The logic for the emergence of uniquely human cooperation suggested by our analysis apparently accounts simply for the human fossil record.

This essay is concerned with the epistemic roles of error in scientific practice. Usually, error is regarded as something negative, as an impediment or obstacle for the advancement of science. However, we also frequently say that we are learning from error. This common expression suggests that the role of error is not - at least not always - negative but that errors can make a fruitful contribution to the scientific enterprise. My paper explores the latter possibility. Can errors play an epistemically productive role in scientific research? The paper begins with a review of several twentieth-century approaches to error and the various agendas behind them. It is shown that only very few scholars have considered whether errors can be productive. The main part of the paper examines a concrete debate in early nineteenth-century on this material, the article offers some terminological clarifications of the common notion 'learning from error'. The conclusion argues that error can indeed play epistemically productive roles in scientific practice.

The Biophysical Journal is committed to rigorous and fair peer review. Peer review serves our authors by helping them improve their research and how it is presented. Peer review serves our scientific community by assuring that the papers published in the Biophysical Journal have been carefully evaluated for both technical validity and scientific significance. Finally, prepublication peer review serves the general societal good by helping guard against bad science, which could lead to poor or even dangerous public policy. Indeed, in this age of rapid dissemination of both facts and fiction, publishing bad science actually provides cover to the enemies of rational science-based decision making (e.g., the politicization of climate change or the myth of an association between childhood vaccination and autism).But why am I writing an editorial about an idea that should be so self-evident and has been a bedrock of the scientific enterprise for 200 years? Unfortunately, the value of prepublication peer review has been questioned recently in very provocative blogs, tweets, and editorials, often by prominent scientists. The primary argument against peer review is that it may delay the dissemination of important science and that it can be capricious. But the attack is also often promoted by publishers of an expanding list of new journals advocating “postpublication peer review.” These are driven to publish as many papers as possible, because their business models rely on a high number of contributing authors and/or a large volume of published articles.I am proud of Biophysical Journal’s fair and thorough review process, which is overseen by an outstanding Editorial Board composed of working scientists rather than professional editors. We also pride ourselves on the speed of our review process. Of course, peer review is not perfect. We simply cannot guarantee that every single decision will be completely fair and quick. But it is the best system we have to assure that published science is valid, replicable, and important. It is also the best system to deter political agenda-driven or snake oil “science.”But is there more that the biophysics community and Biophysical Journal can do to promote the rapid and free exchange of ideas prior to peer review? We can certainly learn from the successful track record of the arXiv (https://arxiv.org/) preprint server, which has established itself over the last 25 years as a valued medium for the dissemination of ideas and results in the physics community. Indeed, Biophysical Journal has long had the policy of accepting submission of papers that had been previously deposited in arXiv. Recently, we enhanced the Biophysical Journal submission site so authors of articles posted on arXiv may enter their article ID number to autopopulate their submission to Biophysical Journal with the appropriate metadata for that paper. However, not all papers produced by the biophysics community are appropriate for arXiv, and even those that are deposited there may not be noticed by scientists who are more focused on biology.For these reasons, we have welcomed the new bioRxiv (http://biorxiv.org/) repository established by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL). Indeed, in January of this year, Biophysical Journal was among the first pilot group of six journals that enabled direct submission of papers from the bioRxiv website. After depositing your paper on bioRxiv, you may click a button to automatically submit the paper to Biophysical Journal. CSHL is, of course, a venerable not-for-profit research institute. They have offered bioRxiv as a free service to the life sciences research community.Deposition of manuscripts in bioRxiv (or arXiv) eliminates the concern that the peer review process can be long and capricious; research is available to the world within a day of submission for all to study, praise, or criticize. In fact, deposition on preprint servers has the collateral benefit of providing immediate and permanent open access to research results. There are some scientists who might worry that their ideas will be stolen if circulated prematurely in this manner. But the long track record of arXiv demonstrates this is not generally a concern; indeed, I see no reason why the date of preprint submission shouldn’t serve as evidence of priority after a paper is ultimately published in a peer reviewed journal. For these reasons, I intend to deposit papers from my own lab in bioRxiv and have recently completed my first pleasant experience doing so.But, at the same time, the value of blind peer review should not be compromised. I believe that only peer-reviewed work should be considered in personnel decisions and grant reviews. Any relaxation of this standard would lead to chaos. Also, bioRxiv will need to carefully consider the societal impact of papers they expose to the public. The potential for danger in this regard will be stronger for bioRxiv than it has been for arXiv. As an extreme example, drug trials should simply never be published without rigorous peer review. But there may also be more subtle problems. A study claiming a link between cell phone use and brain cancer (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/23/055699) appeared recently in bioRxiv and was widely reported in the lay press and social media, despite clear shortcomings. Thankfully, some experienced science writers recognized that the work was not peer reviewed and that it followed on a long history of previously debunked claims of this sort. So, after the initial flurry, there was a quick series of articles and blogs critical of the study (e.g., the thoughtful piece by Aaron E. Carroll in the New York Times: “Why It’s Not Time to Panic About Cellphones and Cancer”; http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/upshot/why-its-not-time-to-panic-about-cellphones-and-cancer.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1). On the one hand, it is reassuring that the lay press ultimately got this story right. But it also raises questions. How many people were influenced by the initial news of this study, never seeing any of the later skeptical articles? How would a preprint with similar sensational public health implications, but without the history of previous bad science, be reported by the mainstream media? I urge the publishers and Advisory Board of bioRxiv at CSHL to consider these issues and develop policies to deal with them. I also applaud them for undertaking this bold and noble initiative to serve the life science research community.

A diverse array of stakeholders supports biomedical investigation, the major goal of which is to improve human health. For patients with dermatological disease, the Coalition of Skin Diseases (CSD) has for more than two decades provided a base from which public advocacy, education, fund-raising, and communication have flourished. Their efforts, combined with that of investigators and national funding agencies, have advanced scientific enterprise and, ultimately, human health.

Robert Solow's seminal work of the 1950s showed that science and technology are major sources of long-term global economic growth. But we have recently changed the ways that science and technology are managed. Industrial and academic research once thrived on individual freedom and flair. Progressively for the past three decades or so, however, research has been focused on short-term objectives selected by consensus. Global per-capita growth has steadily declined. Scientific enterprise is losing diversity. Blue Skies Research can help to restore diversity and to create the new technologies that can stimulate growth, but funding agencies nowadays rarely allow total freedom. A new coefficient of adventurousness is described. Its use, or other means, may help restore economic growth to its former levels.

Until the 1930s Germany had been the international leader in biochemistry, chemistry, and areas of biology. After WWII, however, molecular biology as a new interdisciplinary scientific enterprise was scarcely represented in Germany for almost 20 years. Three major reasons for the low performance of molecular biology are discussed: first, the forced emigration of Jewish scientists after 1933, which not only led to the expulsion of future distinguished molecular biologists, but also to a strong decline of “dynamic biochemistry”, a field which contributed greatly to molecular biology. Second, German university structures that strongly impeded interdisciplinary research. Third, the international isolation and self-isolation of German scientists that was a major obstacle to the implementation of new fields of research developed elsewhere. Despite the fact that there was no official boycott against Germany as there had been after WWI and despite the Cold War policy of integrating Germans into the West, as a consequence of National Socialism and WWI for many years only very few German scientists gained access to the international community of molecular biologists. Max Delbruck played an important role in helping the Germans establish modern, mostly molecular, biology because he retained strong connections to Germany. Most importantly, it required a new generation of young scientists who had received part of their training in the US to establish modern molecular biology at German universities and Max Planck Institutes.

To mark the 20th anniversary of the publication of Brain, Behavior, and Immunity (BBI), the current editors have arranged for a yearlong series of historical papers on research areas that have matured during the past 20 years. The papers will be written by investigators who were and continue to be active in the field of psychoneuroimmunology. This will be the second Named Series in the journal and is entitled, “Twenty Years of Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.” Dr. Eric Smith at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston will serve as Guest Editor of this Named Series. Dr. Smith and colleagues were at the cutting edge of psychoneuroimmunology in 1987, and his active research program continues today. As the current President of the PsychoNeuroImmunology Research Society, Dr. Smith is ideally positioned to guide this series to successful completion. In some ways, this brief commentary is an analogous statement on the maturation of BBI. Psychoneuroimmunology has, in the past 20 years, passed through stages of greater and then lesser opposition. The field has now reached the point where, if it is not totally accepted as being self evident, it is a bonafide specialized area of interdisciplinary research characterized by societies, journals, books, international meetings and NIH research grants. These are the trappings of a viable and important scientific enterprise.

Contrary to analyses of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as a warning about the danger of science and technology taken too far, the classic story can be assessed as a cautionary about the undermining of a worthy scientific enterprise by the flaws of a particular scientist. Thus, Dr. Frankenstein's seduction by the pursuit of fame rather than knowledge, and his irresponsible attitude towards the subject and result of his experiment, are seen as the true villains in the piece—rather than the quests to extend and revive and improve human life, which are as noble and appropriate at the end of the 20th century as at the beginning of the 19th, when Mary wrote her novel. Two editions of the novel and a recent major film version are intensively analyzed in support of this interpretation. The moral for current work in gene-splicing, cloning, and organ transplants is that perils reside not in where our science is taking us—for our human condition cries out for these improvements—but in how we make the journey.

On September 21st, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan announced a $600 million commitment to fund research at the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub in San Francisco. One of its first projects will apply single-cell sequencing and CRISPR gene editing to construct an atlas of all cell types in the human body. A few weeks later, investigators from the Broad Institute and the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute convened to discuss a Human Cell Atlas project that also seeks to use single-cell genomics to map the cells in the human body. The meeting was an outcome of a request for information for characterizing and understanding the organization of individual cells within human tissues by the US National Institute of Health in May 2016.As this journal goes to press, the Human Protein Atlas project is preparing to release a new Cell Atlas in December at the annual American Society of Cell Biology meeting. The atlas is expected to contain images showing the subcellular distribution of the human proteome. Complementing these efforts, earlier this year the Allen Institute for Cell Science announced the appointment of four scientific directors to lead its efforts to use automated microscopy to comprehensively image fluorescently tagged proteins in human stem cells and cardiomyocytes.These four efforts are strikingly similar in their emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly between experts in biology, engineering, and computing. The projects also exemplify a trend toward large funding sums, often from philanthropic sources, directed to massive-scale science projects. These alternative sources of funding circumvent recognized limitations of traditional funding mechanisms for getting interdisciplinary work off the ground (Bromham et al., Nature 534, 684–687).The challenges involved in evaluating interdisciplinary work have been studied in depth. The Institute of Advanced Study at Durham University published a 2015 report by experts in interdisciplinary research from the UK and EU funding organizations and from several British Universities. They note the practical challenges of “getting submissions reviewed by peers experienced in interdisciplinarity (and able to discern its particular merits).” In May 2016, the Global Research Council issued a survey report on interdisciplinarity, in which it noted, “Many interviewed funding agencies admitted that even with adapted approaches, the review process remains challenging. This is partly due to a lack of reviewers who understand how to evaluate interdisciplinary research, and the related circular problem that there is a need to expose more reviewers to interdisciplinary projects.”To address these challenges, the Global Research Council recommended increased sharing of experience and best practice to recognize and evaluate interdisciplinary work. Such capacity building efforts should recognize that interdisciplinary research is a means to an end and should be driven by scientific demand. Bromham et al. proposed a metric, inspired by techniques developed to measure biodiversity, to quantify just how interdisciplinary a piece of work is. In response to this study, Gabriele Bammer from the Australian National University noted the potential benefit of having funding review-panel members with interdisciplinary research experience, and Daniel Hebenstreit from the University of Warwick (see his research on pp. 467–479 this issue) highlighted the historical role interdisciplinary knowledge has played in the recognition of scientific breakthroughs.Returning to the four Cell Atlas endeavors, it thus seems clear that although a new crop of big-bet projects may be addressing funding obstacles, there is still a way to go to build capacity within individuals, institutions, and the global scientific enterprise to evaluate interdisciplinary research.From the vantage of this journal as a nexus of interdisciplinary research, we have begun to identify helpful practices used by peer reviewers of interdisciplinary papers. For example, it is helpful when reviewers state the limitations of their expertise (e.g., “I do not feel qualified to judge the mathematical aspects of the computational model.”). It is also useful for reviewers to highlight what is, and what is not, the primary contribution of a study, given their view of the literature, with citations to key related papers. Additionally, reviewers can help by articulating why a study has the potential to be a game-changing advance, in addition to assessing the technical rigor of the results. Oftentimes comments along these lines are extremely helpful for objectively understanding the contribution of a paper, its relationship to the scientific literature, and how to improve it through peer review.Yet arguably the authors of a research study are in a unique position to recognize which peer review feedback is most helpful in improving a study. (As an aside, it is our belief at Cell Systems that peer review is at its best when it is a collaborative rather than adversarial process). With this in mind, we are introducing the Cell Systems Reviewer Letter of Commendation.A Reviewer Letter of Commendation is written by the authors of a study. It should briefly highlight specific comments provided during peer review, why they were helpful for improving a paper, and concrete outcomes, such as key data added to the paper, substantive improvements to the paper’s presentation, or insights gained from the comments. The journal, acting as an impartial intermediary during the peer review process, will verify the specifics of the letter and provide it to the reviewer.It is our aim that these letters will serve as a peer-to-peer positive feedback mechanism to build among our community of authors and reviewers a greater capacity for the review of interdisciplinary work. Perhaps they will be useful for career advancement. Over time, we hope to mine these letters for trends and best practices and disseminate these back to the research community in novel ways. Please send all letters as Word documents by email to systems@cell.com with subject line “Reviewer Letter of Commendation.” We are open to publishing the letters if both the writer and recipient agree, and are pleased to share the first such letter from Benam and Ingber (pp. 456–466).

The notion of the ‘productivity puzzle,’ referring particularly to gender disparities in science and technology publication rates, raises a variety of critical issues for understanding related workforce development and capacity. However, such issues typically are framed relative to an increasingly outdated cultural and technological landscape in which scientific productivity is viewed principally as an outcome. We argue instead that characterizing scientific productivity as a multifaceted dynamic, highly networked, and interactive process, rather than just an outcome, might provide greater insight into the gendered nature of science and lead to a re-framing of the gender-differentiated productivity puzzle. By rethinking how we engage related questions, we might gain ground on explaining and unraveling the productivity puzzle in ways that will benefit the scientific enterprise and society in general.

The National Institute of Mental Health recognizes the importance that creative development of technology and methodology play in brain and behavioral science research. This institute is making major efforts to- support such development through specific initiatives, like the Human Brain Project. In addition, this Institute is actively building bridges between business and academic research communities to make optimal use of funds for the research and development of commercially viable technologies relevant to all aspects of the Institute's mission through the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Programs. Together, these efforts will culminate in a more vigorous scientific enterprise, and ultimately benefit the entire mental health community and society.

The evaluation of research work is an essential element of the scientific enterprise. In general, the evaluation of researchers and their work is highly dependent on the social and economic condition of the country in which the researchers work. The most-used model to evaluate research was based on peer review, but when this method became inefficient In Romania, the alternative was the quantitative model. One of the quantitative model who mix the evaluate research with information and communication technology is DEXi: The program for Multi-Attribute Decision Making. Katerina Taskova and Jožef Stefan used the software tool DEXi to construct a qualitative multi-attribute model aimed at evaluating and analyzing researchers. DEXi is particularly suitable for a hierarchical decomposition of evaluation problems that require judgment and qualitative reasoning. I used this software to evaluate more then 100 Romanian research entities, including: National Research Institutes, Universities, Research institutes of the Romanian Academy, Medical Units and Companies.

Synopsis Many calls for a feminist science have ended with the disclaimer that there is no way to imagine such a science from within an androcentric society. Making the attempt requires dealing with two broad questions: “Is all or some of science socially constructed?” and “By what features is science recognized?” The strategy used here involves defining the components as we know them, asking if they are socially constructed, and, if they are, how they could be changed to be less androcentric. The conclusion is that all of science may be androcentric, and the approach to attaining feminist science may need to be radical, a total replacement of the scientific enterprise with one not based on the scientific method. Alternatively, we may accept a modification of current science, a “feminized” science (defined as doing the same science differently), as consistent with the political goal for feminist scientists.

This article reviews the main themes of Dewey's various logical writings. It contends that Dewey's project was to determine the logical condition necessary for science. The scientific enterprise requires the satisfaction of both correspondence and coherence criteria. This means that the logic of science must have a verificationist and a transformational aspect. In addition, a logic of science must also be able to account for certain essential non-truth functional activities. The unique feature of Dewey's logic is the central place it accords to these pragmatic operations.

Born 250 years ago on 2 February 1743, Sir Joseph Banks organised and participated in the scientific enterprise of Cook's Endeavour voyage (1768–1771). He became scientific advisor to the King, unofficial Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and President of the Royal Society for 32 years. He instituted many important developments which have been continued and expanded by his successors to make the Royal Botanic gardens, Kew, an unrivalled centre for botanical research today.

This paper is an overview of the author's ongoing reflections on the need for a new paradigm of complexity capable of informing all theories, whatever their field of application or the phenomena in question. Beginning with a critique of General System Theory and the principle of holism with which it is associated, the author suggests that contemporary advances in our knowledge of organization call for a radical reformation in our organization of knowledge. This reformation involves the mobilization of recursive thinking, which is to say a manner of thinking capable of establishing a dynamic and generative feedback loop between terms or concepts (such as whole and part, order and disorder, observer and observed, system and ecosystem, etc.) that remain both complementary and antagonistic. The paradigm of complexity thus stands as a bold challenge to the fragmentary and reductionistic spirit that continues to dominate the scientific enterprise.

Recently reported in Science: a German hematologist with a bibliography of 347 papers has been shown to have included fraudulent data in 52 of these papers, with another 42 raising strong suspicions of fraud [1]. It appears this gentleman will be joining the list of notorious researchers who, motivated presumably by unrestrained ambition, falsified and manipulated data in numerous publications before being discovered and exposed. Names such as William Summerlin, John Darsee, Robert Slutsky and Roger Poisson will forever remind us that those who enter the realm of scientific research are not always inspired solely by the desire to seek truth [2, 3]. Each new instance of research fraud that makes its way into the public consciousness eats away at public confidence in the scientific enterprise. This is particularly true for fraud in clinical investigations because the results of clinical research have a more direct impact on the treatment of patients. For example, much more media attention was devoted to Roger Poisson, who falsified data on women with breast cancer to make them appear eligible for clinical trials, than to any prior uncovering of fraud. As a consequence, this case had a more explosive impact than others, garnering the attention of the U.S. Congress and ultimately affecting the careers of senior scientists and leading to changes in the management of sponsored research [3]. It is surely in the best interest of science that fraudulent results be detected before they can be disseminated. One might hope that the peer review process would identify such distortions, but major fraud seems unlikely to be readily detected by the typically limited attention given by peer review. Horton, commenting on another recent case of data falsification in a breast cancer trial performed in South Africa [4], suggests that increasing the burden on the review process to improve the chance of detecting fraud is not warranted [5]. Those in the best position to ferret out data falsification or other manipulation prior to publication of results are probably the scientific collaborators of the individual attempting to perpetrate fraud. These individuals have in-depth knowledge of the investigation in progress and an extended time period during which they may become aware of the acts of fraud. Data from a review of cases of alleged misconduct in academic institutions during 1980 to 1987 support this speculation; half of the 26 cases analyzed were initially detected by coworkers, while only 3 cases were identified by editorial peer review [6]. The paper by Ranstam et al. in this issue of Controlled Clinical Trials suggests the frightening scenario that fraud in clinical research may be much more prevalent than

As the international scientific community faces increasingly complex global problems, there is a growing need for closer cooperation between scientists. This can only be achieved if it is based on an understanding of the cultural elements involved in the scientific enterprise, which determine how scientists interpret and strive towards the future. This article describes a research project undertaken to investigate the nature of scientists' worldviews by surveying their images of the future. No single scientific worldview emerged, but rather a structured set of alternative views of the future, running along demographic, social and cultural lines. Such diversity may theoretically provide a healthy basis for scientific enterprise, but only if used creatively; otherwise it may hinder international, ] multidisciplinary collaboration.

New advances in science invariably rest on the foundation of previous work and, therefore, the reliability of published work is fundamental to the scientific enterprise. Consequently, research should be well designed, rigorously analyzed, and reproducible.In response to a number of high profile cases in which published data could not be reproduced, as well as a mandate from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) leadership has moved to address the issue of research reproducibility (1xPolicy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Collins, F.S. and Tabak, L.A. Nature. 2014; 505: 612–613Crossref | PubMed | Scopus (205)See all References1). Toward this end, the NIH, together with the editors of Science and Nature, convened a meeting of scientific journal editors, including the editor of the Biophysical Journal (BJ), in June of 2014 to address the issue. As a follow-up to the meeting, in November of 2014 the NIH released Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research (http://www.nih.gov/about/reporting-preclinical-research.htm) and requested that publishers sign on to the document.The Biophysical Society (BPS), publisher of BJ, agrees wholeheartedly with the intent of the guidelines—to encourage reproducible, robust, and transparent research. However, in their specifics, these guidelines are primarily directed at large correlative statistical preclinical and clinical studies and are not pertinent or applicable to the types of science published by BJ. Therefore, BJ, along with several other basic science journals, did not sign on to the document.Basic and applied sciences in general, and biophysics in particular, can require the use of diverse, highly specialized research instrumentation and techniques along with complex customized computational analysis. The diversity of the research methods and the types of data that are produced requires a flexible approach to the important issues of reproducibility of scientific results, transparency, and data sharing. BJ, through its Biophysical Journal Author Guidelines, has already established requirements in support of transparency, rigor, and data sharing that also take into account the need for flexibility based on specific research areas. To ensure the continued health of the field in the face of changes in how biophysicists generate and analyze data, the BPS and BJ have updated those guidelines and will work with the biophysical community so that these guidelines reflect the specific needs of the different research areas. As research and techniques evolve, so too will the guidelines. The two basic principles that these Guidelines for the Reproducibility of Biophysics Research (http://www.cell.com/biophysj/authors) will strive to ensure are:1.Research results should be reported with sufficient detail to enable replication of the study in other laboratories (using supporting information as necessary); and2.Data or material produced in a published study should be readily disseminated and openly accessible whenever feasible (either as supporting information or through the author’s website and laboratory).BPS and BJ welcome this opportunity to help craft reproducibility guidelines that are both realistic and appropriate for the basic and applied research community, and will work with the various biophysics communities to establish appropriate data-sharing standards for each.

Dr. Michael K. Racke and Amy E. Lovett-Racke in their laboratory in Columbus, OH. Whenfirst confrontedwith the opportunity of becoming Editor-inChief of The Journal of Neuroimmunology, my first reaction was “is this another thing that I need on my plate.” Having a family with six children, a very demanding job as a researcher, clinician, and now department chairman, it just seemed like the last thing I needed to do was to become editor of a journal. It would also be a daunting task to try tofill the shoes of the founding Editor-in-Chief (Dr. Cedric S. Raine), who really has been one of the giants in the field of neuroimmunology and really helped form the field from its infancy through his efforts as President of the International Society of Neuroimmunology (ISNI) and as the head of its journal. Then I began to think about what “the Journal”, as Cedric likes to refer to it, had meant to me. The first article I ever reviewed was for the Journal of Neuroimmunology in 1990. That was a full three years before I ever reviewed a paper for the Journal of Immunology. I remember taking the job of reviewing these articles on with a sense of doing something important for the multiple sclerosis (MS) and experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) community. In those days, if you wanted to check other sources or references, you had to go to the library and pull the articles from the stacks, so reviewing an article meant spending some time in the library at the National Institutes of Health, where I did my postdoctoral training. However, I did get a sense of pride in doing something important for the scientific enterprise and felt that it was part of a valuable learning experience for myself as well. As I became part of the MS/EAE/Neuroimmunology community, I attended my first Neuroimmunology Congress in Jerusalem in 1996. One of the things I really enjoyed about subsequent ISNImeetings was seeing the photographic documentation of what had occurred in “the Journal.” How many of us cringed to see us documented for posterity with a silly face as we interacted with our colleagues at these international gatherings. More importantly, the pages also reflected the important bonds and friendships made among those of us in the neuroimmunology community, bonds and friendships that last a lifetime. Being part of the neuroimmunology community has been a huge part of my life and that of my family. The interactions I had with my wife Amy in Amsterdam at the ISNI Congress in 1994 led to our eventual marriage and the start of what has been an exciting and productive career. Some of you may recall the neuroimmunology congress in Venice, which we attended with our son, Luke, who was 6 months old at the time. Our first paper published together was in “the Journal.” It was one of my first papers that actually dealt with MS patient samples and was the start of an amazing collaboration between Amy and myself that continues to this day. “The Journal” has been an important sounding board for our neuroimmunology community. After the death of my mentor Dale

Book Reviews Integrated Land Use and ‘Ransport Modelling: Decision Chains and Hierarchies. Tomas de la Barra. (Cambridge Urban and Architectural Studies Series, Vol. 12). Cambridge University Press, 33 East 57th Street, New York, NY 10022, U.S.A., 1989. 179 pp. + xii. ISBN O-521-24318-1. The analysis of the ways in which human activities bring about spatial patterns of land use and interactions has a tradition that goes back to early civilization. What is new about it in modern times is the scientific conceptualization and methodology by which it is carried out; it consists of concepts and techniques that in part have been borrowed from other areas of scientific endeavor and in part represent the accomplishment of original research by those who have developed the field over the last few decades. At least from this viewpoint it makes good sense that the author starts out with a major chapter on what is usually not part of a specialized text: a review and discussion of the scientific method and what he argues to be a growing similarity between the paradigmatic foundations and methodologies of the natural and social sciences. When planning is dealt with as a formal-scientific-technical exercise, the broader anthropological framework of history, of cultural values and sentiments, of belief systems and political-educational forces usually do not command much attention nor do the peculiar roles of the modern scientist and planner within this setting. The author’s treatment of this enormous topic is (necessarily) incomplete and sketchy, and (less necessarily) positivistic. The main objective of the chapter is an attempt to construct a firm conceptional base for social scientific research and planning by translating and adapting Popper’s scheme of the construction of scientific knowledge from the domain of natural to that of social phenomena. Especially for the young reader who has never been confronted with the principal assumptions and foundations of the scientific enterprise in general (and its implications for him/her as a citizen in particular) this is a welcome introduction. The second chapter of the book reviews a series of early land use models-Thuenen, Wingo, Alonso, Christaller, and Loesch-none of which is capable of modeling real-world land use patterns at a level of accuracy that would be minimally adequate for actual planning decisions. Yet, all of them demonstrate the essential prerequisite for scientific progress, that is, the great intellectual accomplishments of conceptualization and abstraction, and of structural insights and their transla- tion into formal language, that lead to the emergence of comprehensive theories. On the down side, these models are derived from classical microeconomic theory; thus, they are primarily deductive in design and tend to be based on a set of simplifying assumptions that are unrealistic to a degree that they virtually ensure poor test performance of the model. Part of this problem is the representation of relations and processes by continuous functions which again restrict the range of these models. The following chapter on spatial interaction models briefly reviews gravity-type approaches. It then provides a detailed coverage of the well-known model by Wilson in which the interaction between different zones is formally interpreted as an entropy-maximizing process subject to the constraints of total trip origins and trip destinations for each zone and an overall transport cost constraint. From among the various theoretical efforts to model the location of urban activities, the author presents the Lowry model; based on the distribution of basic employment, land, and accessi- bility this model estimates for each zone the number of residents and service jobs. However, the subject matter of this chapter is not merely a rev& of models on interactions as they relate to land use; rather, the author presents them as a dramatic contrast to the preceding land use models with regard to basic modeling strategies: the contrast of(i) axiomatic-deductive theory building based on the assumption of rational behavior, versus inductive model construction combining random com- ponents with relatively weak operationalized hypotheses so as to closely reproduce observed data distributions; (ii) theorizing about the individual behavior of suppliers and consumers versus the study of supply and consumption activities after they have been aggregated by type and location into clusters which generates internal variability; and (iii) modeling based on the familiar set of differen- tiable functions versus modeling based on discrete formulations and algorithms, that is on sets of calculating instructions that are implemented by means of a computer. This methodological compar- ison goes far beyond the particular interaction models reviewed and constitutes an excellent discus- sion of some of the fundamental considerations, difficulties and options of formal modeling; thus, it should be read as an eztension%f th;-rfirst chapter’s presentation of this important topic. Chapter Four on random utility theory and discrete choice models is a rather uneven discussion of this subject matter. In particular it is puzzling that the author discusses at length the obvious (e.g. that the aggregated utilities of the members of a group lead to a utility distribution the variability of which is the result of a host of sources). On the other hand, the reader is expected to be able to appreciate the operational advantages of choosing the Weibull over, say, the Cauchy distribution in modeling variability and, generally, to follow some concentrated theoretical discussions that require

Investigative Pathways: Patterns and Stages in the Careers of Experimental Scientists By Frederic Lawrence Holmes New Haven, CT: Yale University Press (2004) 256 pp. $35.00What are preconditions for scientific creativity? Can we regard changes in scientific knowledge as occurring as sudden shifts, as a series of revolutionary moments, or is the main feature of scientific development better described as a process of continuity? What is a scientific discovery? Do so-called Eureka moments exist—experiences in which scientists have flashes of new insights that reveal the essence of a new theory? Or should we think of a new discovery as the outcome of a long-term daily routine of scientific experimentation?These questions that lead to the central problems addressed by historians of science are raised and discussed by Frederic Holmes in his latest book. Investigative Pathways is a book that both analyzes biographical patterns of several outstanding experimental scientists from the 18th to the 20th century and also provides a stimulating discussion of the main epistemic approaches taken up by history of science of the last decades.With the term “investigative pathway,” Holmes introduces a concept that lies at the center of his historical and epistemological approach: “The investigative pathway may be, at its most basic level, only the scientist version of the metaphor of life as a journey” (p. xviii). Written shortly before his death, Holmes' last book is itself a reflection of his own 45-year-long journey as a historian of science. Thus, for all readers who do not know Holmes' important books on Claude Bernard and Animal Chemistry ([1974] Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press); on Lavoisier and the Chemistry of Life ([1985] Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press); his detailed reconstruction of the work of biochemist Hans Krebs on the intermediary metabolism (Hans Krebs: The Formation of a Scientific Life, 1900-1933. [1991] Vol. I, Oxford University Press; Architect of Intermediary Metabolism, 1933-1937. [1933] Vol. II, Oxford University Press); or, more recently, his exhaustive analysis of the research of three molecular biologists, Seymour Benzer, Matthew Meselson, and Frank Stahl (Meselson, Stahl, and the Replication of DNA. [2001] New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), this book offers a dense introduction into what Jed Buchwald has called in his afterword the “Holmsian pattern” (p. 193): the reader will gain insight into the work of one of the preeminent scholars in the recent history of science, whose own research life was devoted to understanding the complexity of how novelty emerges in experimental science, whose books have set standards, and whose methodological approach has been shaping the direction of the history of science decisively during the last decades.Science is a collective as well as an individual endeavor. Holmes emphasizes that the metaphor of “investigative pathways” provides a framework to understand the development of scientific research, taking into account this double character of the scientific enterprise. For exploring the scientific endeavor, from the level of broad investigative streams formed by the collective work of scientists engaged in a specific discipline, up to the finer level of the daily research activities of an individual scientist, Holmes differentiates three analytical scales of reconstructing the investigative pathways of experimental scientists: (1) a broad scale that examines different phases over the lifetime of a career, such as apprenticeship, mastery, distinction, and maturity; (2) a middle scale that deals with episodes of a shorter time span within such a career; and (3) a fine scale that tries to reconstruct the day-to-day research operations in laboratories. Whereas the first scale draws on the research biographies within their broader historical and disciplinary context, the last scale deals with the relationship of scientific practice and theory formation. It concerns the relationship of thought and operation within the daily laboratory life of scientists. According to Holmes, at this level of fine resolution, we find not only the starting point for the historical analysis, but also the most challenging adventure for historians of science: to reconstruct with as much detail as possible the series of experimentations and the stepwise generation of scientific concepts from scientists' notebooks, laboratory records, professional correspondence, and drafts of research papers.By analyzing the patterns in the career of certain well-known experimental scientists, Holmes explores comprehensively how scientific investigations have been done. The reader learns a lot from Holmes' intimate and extraordinary knowledge about Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier, the 18th century founder of modern chemistry; Claude Bernard, his mentor Magendie, and 19th century physiology; and Hans Krebs and the way he investigated the citric acid cycle in the 1930s, an investigation that soon became the model on which the general conception of metabolic cycles was built. Holmes also draws a dense picture of the work of Matthew Meselson and Frank Stahl, whose 1957 experiment on the semiconservative replication of DNA became a classic reference point in molecular biology, and of Seymour Benzer's research on bacteriophage during the 1950s, which introduced the mapping method of classical genetics into molecular biology. Although these case studies range over three centuries, Holmes argues that one can find general patterns. One of these patterns, maybe the most forceful one, concerns the importance of mentorship. Each of these scientists was involved in powerful personal networks, exemplified either by the relation of a mentor-apprenticeship as in the case of Magendie and Bernard, or the influence of two or more mentors as in the case of 20th century molecular biologists. In order for these scientists to achieve a distinct place within their respective research communities, each of them had to find the way through these influences to the status of independence. Holmes argues against common and widespread images of science, like the heroic “genius scientist.” He clearly demonstrates that the picture of the scientist as an outsider who makes important contributions by entering a new field is simply wrong. Instead, Holmes stresses that in science, as in the arts, it is steady work at the discipline that allows the scientist to make advancements in the field in which he or she has developed expertise. Another common image of science concerns the vision of a single decisive experiment that leads to a major scientific breakthrough. Holmes shows how this vision is misleading. Instead, his detailed case studies demonstrate that it is mostly through a long series of experiments that new knowledge slowly emerges.Investigative Pathways is, above all, a book about continuities. Holmes wants to convince the reader that the metaphor of an “investigative pathway” is not only a concept for describing a scientific career. Rather, on a deeper level the concept implies that there exist certain research strategies that guide successful scientists, or as Holmes put it: “The pathway changes direction, but does not lose continuity” (p. xvii). The unpredictable, the unforeseen, or chance events are, of course, essential parts of the scientific adventure, but Holmes emphasizes that the unpredictability of research is not without limits. The unexpected occurs within certain parameters. The experimental setting has its own dynamics, that can generate new directions, but the experimental system does not in the end have a life of its own. It is embedded in a long-term goal, a path, where each step is guided by those taken previously and by uncertain intimations about what lies ahead. Thus, experimental systems are part of a broader scientific story—and in this story, it is the scientist who is the principal agent, and it is his or her decisions that create successful investigative pathways.The emphasis Holmes put on the aspect of continuity is a critical departure from a Kuhnian perspective that described scientific changes as sudden Gestalt switches, an idea that dominated 1970s approaches to the history of science. In addition, with the emphasis Holmes has put on the scientist as principle agent, he is also arguing against more recent movements in the history of science based on sociological approaches and ethnomethodological studies of daily laboratory work. Critical of the reduced focus on experimental practice in recent science studies, Holmes encourages younger historians of science to rediscover what he thinks lies at the heart of the historical enterprise, namely to reach a deep historical understanding of the complexity of processes of scientific investigation. With this emphasis, the book will initiate a debate that will extend beyond the field of history of science. Both scientists as well as historians will find this book exceedingly stimulating.

Welcome to the special issue marking the fifth anniversary of the launch of Cell Stem Cell. The inaugural issue of the journal, dated July 2007, was published in early June for the ISSCR annual meeting in Cairns, Australia. We have therefore chosen to celebrate the anniversary in June, and to distribute this issue at the ISSCR annual meeting in Yokohama, Japan. We are very grateful to Stemgent, Life Technologies, Lonza, and StemCell Technologies for providing the sponsorship support that enables us to send a copy for every attendee at the meeting. For this special issue, we have focused on progress in the stem cell field over the past 5 years and outstanding issues that remain through a series of Perspective and Forum articles. For the Perspectives, we asked the authors to summarize key developments in different areas of stem cell research since Cell Stem Cell launched. The approaches they have chosen to take vary—some have focused on one or two key points and discuss them in depth, while others have provided more of an overview of major areas of progress. In the Forum section, we gave each author free rein to express their opinion on a topic that they consider important for the field. Again, the contributions in this section vary, in terms of subject covered and degree of speculation involved. We hope that all of these articles from leaders in the field will prove thought-provoking and informative, and that together they provide a snapshot of the current status and future directions. In honor of the location of the 2012 ISSCR meeting, we have also chosen to feature three research articles from Japan. These papers, from the groups of Akira Onishi, Yoshiki Sasai, and Jun Yamashita, provide a fitting illustration of the strong contributions that Japanese scientists are making to the stem cell field. The cover of the issue has a connection to Japan as well, because the winning entry from the competition we held earlier this year is from Mai Kimoto, a doctoral student at Hokkaido University. Mai's beautiful hand-drawn image depicts a broad range of tissues in which stem cells have been identified and characterized in a design inspired by marine ecosystems.As Leonard Zon discusses in his accompanying editorial, this 5 year anniversary for Cell Stem Cell coincides with the 10 year anniversary of the founding of the ISSCR. Like the journal, the society has evolved significantly since its first inception, and has become a major force within the stem cell field and beyond as society at large grapples with how to support and regulate the stem cell field. You will see a short montage depicting the society's activities in this issue, and information about the winners of the society's 2012 awards, all of whom we heartily congratulate. We at Cell Stem Cell very much appreciate the mutually supportive relationship that we have with the ISSCR, and look forward to it continuing in the future.In running a journal for the stem cell field, our primary goal at all times is to make a positive contribution to scientific progress. We are well aware that all scientists, but particularly those working in a fast-moving field such as stem cells, want the process of publication to be as rapid and straightforward as possible. There are many factors to balance, including author and reviewer time commitment and the desire to ensure that we hold papers to appropriate scientific standards without having unreasonable expectations about experimental content. It has always been our policy to take papers through just one major round of revision to avoid protracted review processes, and the supplemental material guidelines that Cell Press introduced 2 years ago have helped rein in expectations about the amount of information needed for a given publication. We strive to ensure that our consideration processes are timely and thoughtful, and that we both explain our decisions and minimize the time spent for everybody involved. We also aim to be accessible to authors and to provide appropriate advice to help navigate the publication process as smoothly as possible. We have therefore been very happy about the amount of positive feedback we have received from the community about the quality of the editorial service provided by Cell Stem Cell and the role that the journal has played in the stem cell field, both anecdotally and through a broader survey that Cell Press sent out earlier this year.Our ability to make this type of positive contribution depends on support and assistance from many different members of the scientific community, and we are very grateful to everyone who has helped Cell Stem Cell over the past 5 years. The journal would be nothing without the articles it contains, so we appreciate all of the authors who entrusted us with presenting their work to the broader community. The members of the editorial board and ISSCR advisory committee have provided valuable support and guidance as we have developed Cell Stem Cell and its coverage. Peer reviewers are also a vital component of any journal's operation. Over 1,300 individuals have acted as referees for research and review articles submitted to Cell Stem Cell since early 2007, and we are grateful to each and every one of them for the time and effort they put in. Because they are anonymous, for good reason, reviewers are often “unsung heroes” in the publication process. In an effort to redress that balance, I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize their contribution. Rapid, discerning, thoughtful, and constructive reviews help us as editors decide which papers are appropriate for publication and help the authors involved improve their work. The scientific enterprise benefits as a result.I am often asked where Cell Stem Cell, and the field more generally, will go in the future. The honest answer is that I don't know, but that is part of what makes it so exciting! All of the articles in this issue serve to illustrate the rapid pace of progress in the stem cell field, and the energy that surrounds it as it continues to grow. I personally have felt and continue to feel privileged to be part of this vibrant and fascinating area of science. I am sure I speak for Christina, Sheila, and everyone else involved in Cell Stem Cell when I say that we very much look forward to continuing to work with the research community and to doing our part in helping the stem cell field continue to succeed. Please come and visit us during the ISSCR meeting in Yokohama at booth 208 to learn more about Cell Stem Cell and the many exciting initiatives going on at Cell Press.

From its discovery in the Columbia River three years ago, reporter Roger Downey has chronicled the epic adventures of the skeleton called "Kennewick Man": first as a pretext for a media feeding-frenzy, then as the centerpiece of a legal circus pitting celebrated scientists against Native Americans, the Corps of Engineers, and the Clinton White House, finally, at long last, as an object of rational scientific study. The saga of Kennewick Man offers abundant opportunity to explore today's rapidly-changing scientific theories about how the Americas first came to be settled, and by whom. But it also casts much light on the deep divisions within the fields of anthropology and archeology concerning the role of politics and race in the pursuit of scientific goals, what constitutes ethical procedure in dealing with ancient human remains and living individuals, and the very purpose and direction of the scientific enterprise itself. With an easy style that keeps you hooked from beginning to end, Downey describes the major players in this continuing debate and details the controversial scientific, religious, and political arguments surrounding Kennewick Man.

During the last decade, a variety of criminal justice system reforms have been implemented in the United States. A number of these reforms appear to be associated with the justice model of punishment. This model purports to solve several of the major problems which beset the antecedent rehabilitative model. The analysis presented in this article attempts to relate the justice model to early legal codes, the emergence of scientific enterprise, and the shift to incarcerative punishment. More specifically, the discussion suggests that the new quantification of punishment represented by the justice model reflects the influence of these three historical predecessors. The implications of the analysis for future penal policy based upon the justice model are considered.

Part I of this paper presented the basic concepts of behavior settings and eco-behavioral science originated by the psychologist Roger Barker, showed how they could be linked with standard economic data systems, and suggested their use as a basis for time-allocation matrices and social system accounts. Part II discusses the relationships of behavior settings and eco-behavioral science to established disciplines, describes applications of mathematics to the new concepts by Fox and associates, and points out some major areas in need of mathematical and theoretical development. These areas include representation and measurement of patterns of relationships among roles within behavior settings, relationships among behavior settings within communities and organizations, and the evolution of large, heterogeneous populations of behavior settings over time. We hope some readers will be motivated to participate in this new scientific enterprise.

By the dawn of the 'Century of the Pacific', Japan will be the hub of industrial power, and the yen, the driving force of global economy. Europe and the USA are already happily accustomed to the influx of Japanese investment capital, shrewdly placed abroad to expand the country's foreign markets. Japan is now one of the hot spots of international economics and technological competition. On this shifting front, Western experts (scientists included), who are alert to Japan's economic astuteness and scientific enterprise will, therefore, have the edge on the many apparently indifferent bystanders. Surprisingly, very few western scientists pay much attention to trans-Pacific opportunities: most sabbaticals are spent in the USA or Europe. This article attempts to kindle more interest and to explain the measures being taken in Japan to encourage sabbatical leave for foreign scientists; biotechnology receives particular coverage.