Search

It’s been 50 years since Women in Cell Biology (WICB) was founded by junior women cell biologists who found themselves neither represented at the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) presentations nor receiving the information, mentoring, and sponsorship they needed to advance their careers. Since then, gender parity at ASCB has made significant strides: WICB has become a standing ASCB committee, women are regularly elected president of the ASCB, and half the symposia speakers are women. Many of WICB’s pioneering initiatives for professional development, including career panels, workshops, awards for accomplishments in science and mentoring, and career mentoring roundtables, have been incorporated and adapted into broader “professional development” that benefits all members of ASCB. The time has passed when we can assume that all women benefit equally from progress. By strategically, thoughtfully, and honestly recognizing the challenges to women of the past and today, we may anticipate those new challenges that will arise in the next 50 years. WICB, in collaboration with the ASCB, can lead in data collection and access and can promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. This work will be a fitting homage to the women who, half a century ago, posted bathroom stall invitations to the first Women in Cell Biology meetup.

The evidence is clear that climate change is the greatest challenge facing mankind today. Africa is disproportionately burdened by multiple direct and cascading impacts of the climate crisis. Global investments for climate change adaptation, however, have not prioritized Africa adequately and there is a significant knowledge gap in understanding the context and science of climate change and sustainable solutions for the continent’s adaptation. Solutions for adaptation and resilience are made complex by an urgent need for accelerated economic growth, rapid population expansion and urbanization, habitat and biodiversity loss and dwindling financing. There are also challenges in matching policies, wavering commitments and actions with good science that focuses on sustainable lives, livelihoods and ecosystem preservation. The solutions must come from where the impacts are felt. The Science for Africa Foundation supports African researchers and institutions to lead in the science that addresses African priority development areas and has set climate change as a strategic priority. This call to action, by the SFA Foundation, outlines key areas that its strategy addresses through programs that support African scientific excellence, leadership and the best of Africa’s research to understand the science of climate change and its impacts; collate and assess evidence for policy; grow high level technical capacity on the continent; and create innovative priority actions for Africa.

Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include the escalating costs of research and lower research productivity, low public trust in researchers to report the truth, lack of diversity, poor community engagement, ethical concerns over research practices, and irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise of a subset of open practices including open access publication, open data sharing and the absence of restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms, governments and communities are experimenting in order to overcome these concerns. We gathered two groups of international representatives from a large variety of stakeholders to construct a toolkit to guide and facilitate data collection about OS and non-OS collaborations. Ultimately, the toolkit will be used to assess and study the impact of OS collaborations on research and innovation. The toolkit contains the following four elements: 1) an annual report form of quantitative data to be completed by OS partnership administrators; 2) a series of semi-structured interview guides of stakeholders; 3) a survey form of participants in OS collaborations; and 4) a set of other quantitative measures best collected by other organizations, such as research foundations and governmental or intergovernmental agencies. We opened our toolkit to community comment and input. We present the resulting toolkit for use by government and philanthropic grantors, institutions, researchers and community organizations with the aim of measuring the implementation and impact of OS partnership across these organizations. We invite these and other stakeholders to not only measure, but to share the resulting data so that social scientists and policy makers can analyse the data across projects.

The traditional publication process for scholarly journals and consensus books has enabled researchers to build upon past findings, advance knowledge, inspire the transformation of basic research into practical applications, and generate broad human benefits. In the digital age, this process is undergoing new opportunities and sobering challenges. Many journals and some book publishers now open scholarship to the world through the Web. Scholarly content has never been more available to more of our citizens. At the same time, publishing is facing serious challenges that include a better understanding of the weaknesses of peer review, delays to access, irreproducibility of some results, distortion of the journal impact factor, and complications around authorship credit posed by the changing nature and scale of research. In addition, not all scholarship is open access, and some thriving business models charge readers for content instead of disseminating knowledge freely.

Barral Neto, Manoel. Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Goncalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brasil. “Documento produzido em parceria ou por autor vinculado a Fiocruz, mas nao consta a informacao no documento”. Centre for Intellectual Property and Policy (CIPP), Faculty of Law, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 1W9, Canada Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 0C7, Canada Tanenbaum Open Science Institute (TOSI), Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, Montreal, QC, H3A 2B4, Canada F1000, London, W1T 4LB, UK Diseases of the Developing World, Global Health R&D, GlaxoSmithKline, Madrid, Spain Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz - Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21040-900, Brazil Wellcome Trust, London, NW1 2BE, UK Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, Montreal, QC, H3A 2B4, Canada US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, 20024, USA Health Research Board, Dublin, D02 H638, Ireland Arizona State University, Washington, DC, 20006, USA Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, 98121, USA US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, 20894, USA Research England, UK Research and Innovation, Bristol, BS34 8SR, UK Jisc, Bristol, BS2 0JA, UK Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia The Lens, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia African Academy of Sciences, Karen, Nairobi, 00502, Kenya Utrecht University Library, Utrecht, CX, 3584, The Netherlands Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC), University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK Data Science Institute, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904, USA University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3EA, UK Alkermes, Waltham, MA, 02451, USA Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 22904-4400, USA Center for Open Science, Charlottesville, VA, 22903-5083, USA Element AI, Montreal, QC, H2W 2R2, Canada GlaxoSmithKline, Stevenage, Herts, SG1 2NY, UK Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Warwick Research in Nursing, University of Warwick Medical School, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, WV1 1LY, UK

J. Bohannon's News story “Who's afraid of peer review?” (special section on Communication in Science, 4 October, p. [60][1]) incriminates many open-access (OA) journals. Our journal, PLOS ONE , was not implicated. It rejected the fraudulent paper promptly and for the right reasons, as Bohannon acknowledges. Still, the “study” was disappointing: It was not controlled, which would have required seeking to entrap a matched set of closed-access journals, yet it claims that a source of the problem is open access. It then concludes that profitability for OA journals is driven by volume, without acknowledging that the same is true for closed-access journals. The issues raised by Bohannon's exercise are not about open-access journals; they are about science and technical publishing and the peer-review processes used throughout the industry. In the short term, all scientific publishers have a responsibility to reinforce and strengthen prepublication review. We must improve the efficiency of peer review and continue to perform checks that uncover conflicts of interest, identify financial disclosures, confirm author affiliations, and ensure compliance with international standards of animal and human testing. Even with these tools, peer review will never be flawless. As Science Editor-in-Chief Marcia McNutt points out, it is “timehonored” and the “gold standard” (“Improving scientific communication,” Editorial, 4 October, p. [13][2]), but that doesn't mean our methods of evaluation can't and shouldn't be improved. This is the real challenge. And this is why the Public Library of Science (PLOS) is working to transform scientific communication by developing better measures of scientific quality both before publication (currently traditional peer review) and after publication (currently the dreaded impact factor). To this end, PLOS is developing article-level metrics that enable the scientific community itself to confer on a research contribution its credibility, relevance, and importance, independent of the journal in which it is published. Peer review at its best is a continual process of critique and assessment. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.342.6154.60 [2]: pending:yes

Traditional boundaries among basic research, clinical research and patient-oriented research are yielding to a single, continuous, bidirectional spectrum commonly termed 'translational research' or 'translational medicine.' These encompass (i) the definition of guidelines for drug development or for the identification and validation of clinically relevant biomarkers; (ii) experimental nonhuman and nonclinical studies conducted with the intent of developing principles for the discovery of new therapeutic strategies; (iii) clinical investigations that provide a biological foundation for the development of improved therapies; (iv) any clinical trial initiated in accordance with the above goals; and (v) basic science studies that define the biological effects of therapeutics in humans. Although these goals are essentially no different from those of traditional academic clinical research, translational research emphasizes strategies to expedite their successful implementation. Unfortunately, several barriers that delay this process need to be surmounted to make translational research more than just an interesting concept.

The scope of biomedical research in the United States has increased significantly over the last 20 years. At the same time that the number of trainees has proportionately increased, the number of traditional, tenured academic positions has declined.1 This appears to have profoundly changed the profession, at least in the view of the majority of established scientists who took their degrees before 1980. Today’s principal investigators may not be able to provide their trainees with the same clear sense of the future as did their own mentors for them. Throughout the community, there is anxiety and insecurity about the number and nature of the jobs today’s young scientists are likely to find. To address these issues, the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) determined to examine concerns raised by an increasing number of its members.2 The Society initiated a survey of its membership with the purpose of obtaining data that would reveal the extent of real and perceived opportunities in the profession of biomedical science, as well as the perceptions of those at different stages and representing different generations.3 The data set includes both raw data and statistical analysis, which reveals valid correlations for cohort and gender.4 A summary of the survey results was published as an editorial in Science (Marincola and Solomon, 1998 ). It is available in its entirety at www.ascb.org/ascb. The survey instrument was a printed four-page questionnaire, which was distributed in mid-1997 to a random 45% of the ASCB membership, including students, postdoctoral fellows, and “regular” (i.e., investigator) members in the United States. The questionnaire asked for information that was both objective, (e.g., date and institution of training and professional history) and subjective (e.g., satisfaction with one’s career and view of future prospects). The response rate was 65% (n = 2406). Twenty-five percent of the respondents are under age 40; 36% are between 40 and 49, and 28% are between 50 and 59. Twenty percent of respondents identify themselves as still in training, and these are nearly equally divided between men and women. In contrast, 36% of all respondents are women. Eighty-four percent of respondents identify themselves as white, and 9% identify themselves as Asian-American or Asian; very few respondents identify themselves as either Hispanic (2%) or black (1%). The Society acknowledged that by choosing its own membership as the study population, the results would be biased to reflect more favorable conditions than would a true cross-section of biomedical scientists and scientists-in-training. Membership in a scientific society by definition selects for those likely to attend the society’s meetings and to read and publish in its journals. Nonetheless, the ASCB leadership chose its own ranks for its accessibility and because it anticipated that if the survey results were cause for concern, that that concern would be if anything understated, not overstated, by the group selected.

There is a disconnect between the scientific promise of bioscience research and the career prospects facing young bioscientists. Bioscientists work longer hours for less pay, spend many years as lowly paid postdocs, and have greater career uncertainty than most highly educated professionals. We apply the economists' tournament job market model to explain career patterns in bioscience research, which is structured so that the chance of winning a prize--an independent academic position, tenure, scientific renown--motivates researchers. We argue that market forces will not improve career prospects for young bioscientists and suggest policy interventions to make careers more economically rewarding and productive.

The National Science Foundation reports that twice as many full-time academic men as women are full professors (Women, Minorities and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering; NSF, 1998). But this is not just a problem for women — it’s a problem for the future of research and for society.Determined to do something about this inequality, the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB), in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, sponsored a workshop last year called ‘AXXs’99: Achieving EXXcellence in Science’ (see http://www.ascb.org/ascb). The aim was to explore how scientific societies can contribute to science by promoting the careers of women in research. Why societies? Because they have the potential to reach those at all levels in a given scientific field, to inspire and organize social change.An unusual feature of the workshop was that it invited participation from more than 50 scientific societies, representing a wide variety of disciplines, from mathematics to physics, thoracic surgery and genetics. One of the outcomes for the cell biologists was that they quickly realized that, for all their difficulties, they were much better off than many other women scientists. The biological sciences attract many more women than do the physical sciences; more than half of undergraduate biology majors in the US are women, and the membership of the ASCB reflects this, with half the society’s members being women. Furthermore, the ASCB enjoys a solid tradition of female leadership: of the 10 most recent elected presidents, five are women. We're lucky to be able to build on the momentum that comes from having prominent top women in cell biology.But even in biology, women don't seem to progress as readily as their male contemporaries. The percentage of active women biologists declines steadily as one proceeds up the ranks from undergraduate through to department chair, and beyond. An ASCB membership survey indicates that men with tenure outnumber women with tenure by 3:1 (Mol Biol Cell 1998, 9:3003-3006).So what has come out of AXXs’99 (and its successor workshop this year)? The obstacles women face in career advancement have been identified, and solutions refined into four practical aims: increasing the number of women in leadership roles within the societies; implementing effective mentorship, career development programs and support mechanisms for scientists at all levels; promoting women's achievements within scientific societies and to the general public; disseminating information about existing programs that work, in order to change scientific organizational culture.How can these aims, or any real change for women, be achieved by scientific societies? The ASCB has found that several factors have contributed to progress. The first was to recruit a women’s committee that includes highly respected researchers and intellectuals — women to whom men assign credibility. These distinguished women are balanced with younger women who have energy to invest in committee activities, and whose careers may be enhanced by their participation.The committee has created an agenda that is both positive and achievable; too often, when groups who may feel aggrieved come together to share concerns, the environment can degenerate into a gripe session, which poisons the atmosphere, interferes with progress and disaffects the larger organisation. It's important to ensure that most, if not all, of the activities of the women's committee are gender-neutral, or are of some interest to men. For example, the main career networking activity of the ASCB is sponsored by the society's women's committee. So, although the activities are for members of both sexes, the status of women as majority participants is subtly empowering to the hundreds of women present.One way of ensuring that the interests of the women's committee cannot be easily disregarded is to encourage overlapping membership between the society's women's committee and its leadership.The difference between meaning well and doing well is follow-through. When push comes to shove, volunteers must give a higher priority to their careers than to their society contributions. It's therefore vitally important to hire staff for the project, whose own careers depend on seeing intentions become realities.Whatever the ebb and flow within specific career paths, it is clear that a scientifically prepared workforce is essential to continued growth of the global economy. If women continue to be under-represented in the senior ranks of science, young women who may be considering a scientific career will be justifiably discouraged from it. It is incumbent upon scientific societies to serve the interests of their constituencies by identifying and combating the barriers to advancement for all sections of their membership.

The number of biomedical research trainees in the United States has expanded dramatically over the past 20 years, but tenured positions—long a traditional destination for Ph.D. biologists—are declining (National Research Council Survey of Doctorate Recipients 1996). The American Society for Cell Biology surveyed its membership to differentiate real and perceived opportunities in the profession from the perspectives of cohorts at different stages of their careers. Although bias is created by selecting for active scientists, ASCB membership was chosen because it is quantifiable, current, and accessible.[*][1] By many measures, the profession has become harder. The average time to obtain a Ph.D. rose from 4.4 years in the 1970s to 5.6 years in the 1990s. Before 1970, 14% of those who took more than one postdoc did so because they were unable to find a desirable independent position; in the 1980s, that reason applied to 39%. Before 1970, 70% of first-time job seekers obtained a full-time position in less than 6 months; only 36% in the 1980s reported the same success. Among established scientists, more than two-thirds claim that it has become harder to obtain funding over time. Before 1970, 71% of applicants for National Institutes of Health, National Science Federation, or American Cancer Society funding reported success on their first attempt; in the 1980s, that rate dropped to 43%. The only transition that has not become significantly harder is obtaining a postdoctoral position. Qualitative assessments reflect these trends. The cohort before 1970 indicates overwhelmingly (81%) that their jobs are highly satisfying (6 to 7 on a 7-point scale), whereas half (49%) of the 1980s cohort agree. Nine in ten of all respondents who oversee trainees indicate that obtaining a desirable full-time position in biology is more difficult than when they first sought one. This situation may arise because each principal investigator trains many times the single scientist required to replace him- or herself. This intrinsic instability could threaten the profession. Our system of concomitantly training scientists and producing science is a striking success. The implementation of research largely by trainees has produced extraordinary science and a generation of well-trained scientists. NIH peer review is the world model for research funding, and researchers in U.S. laboratories won more than two-thirds of all Nobel Prizes in Physiology or Medicine over the past 20 years. However, the separation is profound between these accomplishments and the anxieties of many scientists, especially students, postdocs, and those who train them. Many researchers perceive that science is thriving at increasing and unacceptable cost to those being trained. In strictly economic terms, it is in the interest of senior investigators to maintain the number of trainees, who work long hours in large numbers for little pay over many years in return for the chance to develop a satisfying career. One solution may be to uncouple scientific productivity from an investigator's ability to attract and employ trainees. Of survey respondents, 61% endorse the creation of permanent research positions for scientists who would neither compete for grants nor train others. They would be supported through investigators who hold traditional academic appointments. For example, the Scripps Research Institute recently created a 3-year position for researchers whose contributions are essential to a research program. The majority of survey respondents who write grants cite the time they take as a major source of job dissatisfaction, which suggests that such a solution may be welcomed by many. Perhaps this different class of researcher has already emerged, embodied in the increasing duration of postdoctoral training. This career track could be recognized explicitly, legitimized, and nourished to become an element of the research enterprise. Part of the compensation for trainees is the prospect of a stable, independent position where they can do the work for which they are trained. When those prospects diminish, the work they perform merits compensation that more closely approximates its real value, as well as stability commensurate with age and experience. [1]: #fn-1