There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

– Charles Darwin

I spent the summer of 2018 at the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, US as a student in the Embryology Course. Here, I will reflect on what was a very transformative experience, and while doing so, I would like to share my insights on the beauty and wonder of diversity in developmental biology.

Prior to coming to Woods Hole, my understanding of developmental biology was limited. I studied biochemistry as an undergrad in the Philippines and trained as a chemist. I was not formally exposed to developmental biology research until recently, when I started my PhD in Alexander Aulehla’s Lab at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) in 2016. The desire to broaden my knowledge of underlying principles, mechanisms, and processes in animal development prompted me to attend the Embryology Course this year.

During the Embryology Course, I was introduced to at least a hundred different animal species, spanning both classical and emerging models of development. I worked on organisms beyond what I imagined. I got the chance to learn about and do experiments on several animals like sea squirts and sea urchins, ctenophores and tardigrades, shrimps and snails, and annelids and flatworms. I was fascinated by how the left-right asymmetry of sea squirt embryos significantly relies on its rotation during embryogenesis, and mesmerized by the symmetry and patterning of the skeleton of the pluteus larva of sea urchins. I was enthused by the coordinated beating of cilia on ctenophores, and excited by the unique cleavage pattern of tardigrade embryos. I was astonished by the differences in segmentation in the dorsal and ventral axes of Triops, a freshwater shrimp, and captivated by the establishment of chirality of the shells of snails. I was thrilled by how Pectinaria, a marine annelid, builds its home from grains of sand, and amazed by the regenerative capacity of flatworms like planaria.

ON THE BEAUTY AND WONDER OF DIVERSE EMBRYOS
An illustration of some of the organisms we worked on during the course, arranged to spell EMBRYOLOGY.
We used this for our banner during the July 4th Parade and also printed it on our batch T-shirt.
Illustration by: Ashley Rasys

Integral to studying embryogenesis and animal diversity, the Embryology Course highlighted the strength of comparative embryology in furthering our grasp of unifying principles in development. For instance, the establishment of diverse body plans was a recurring theme throughout the course. It is fascinating how the same toolkit, a set of genes known as Hox genes, lay down the blueprint in patterning the body of very different animals like cephalopods (e.g., octopus) and insects. While all start as single cells, different embryos develop to form very different organisms. The endless beauty and wonder of animals around us, like tardigrades on lichens, ctenophores in sea water, and butterflies on flowers, is intriguing and inspiring. It is even more intriguing and inspiring how some of the developmental concepts and mechanisms could apply not only to animals, but also plants and microorganisms.

In addition to the diversity in organisms that were available to study embryonic development, I had the privilege to interact and do science with a very diverse group of people, coming from different research backgrounds. I learned a lot about regeneration from Jack Allen and Anneke Kakebeen who work on regeneration in planaria and frogs, respectively. Aastha Garde and Sandra Edwards provided insights on cell migration, cell invasion, and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. This jived very well with Jayson Smith’s expertise on the cell cycle. On another hand, Katherine Nesbit emphasized the interplay between development of embryos and their environment. Meanwhile, Stefania Gutierrez gave fresh perspectives on animal development with her expertise in colonial tunicates. In parallel, Laurel Yohe and Melvin Bonilla offered a distinct evolutionary point-of-view on acquisition of traits. Andrew Fraser and Shinuo Weng, our mechanical engineers, uniquely saw embryogenesis in terms of forces and mechanics, and Bruno Moretti, our physicist, lended his expertise in optics for functional imaging of developmental processes. Anna Yoney was the go-to person on germ layer patterning, while Darcy Mishkind was the in-house expert on left-right asymmetry. We also had people in the batch who worked on development of reptiles, with Ashley Rasys studying eye development in lizards and Boris Tezak investigating sex determination in turtles. Maximilien Courgeon was most keen on studying the development of the brain and the nervous system. Martyna Lukoseviciute and Marla Tharp were the specialists on gene regulation and chromatin dynamics, while Weiyi (Lily) Tang and Andrea Attardi were the experts on gene regulatory networks. Catherine May was particularly interested in the evolution of cell types, and Shiri Kult was most curious about bone and cartilage development.

While we all worked on the same group of organisms during the course, equipped with our expertise, we tackled the development of these animals at different vantage points. We became more aware of our skill sets, which complemented each other. Being in a diverse group allowed us to challenge dogma, encouraged us to be comfortable with our ignorance, and let us acknowledge the gaps in our knowledge. This created an environment where we embraced naivety, which proved to be conducive in being bold and asking fearless questions. We found ourselves doing classical experiments that were performed by Hilde Mangold and Hans Spemann on frog embryos, Thomas Hunt Morgan on planaria, and Ethel Browne on hydra. We explored the promise of modern approaches in developmental biology research, like advanced and quantitative imaging, 3D printing, and CRISPR-Cas. We took on risky projects, embraced failure (which happened quite often), and celebrated success (when it happened very seldomly). Together with the faculty and the TAs, we relied on each other to supplement our understanding of embryology. Together, we learned beautiful and wonderful things.

ON THE BEAUTY AND WONDER OF DIVERSE RESEARCH BACKGROUNDS
Outdoor Sweat Box (question and answer session) with Susan Strome.
Photo credit: David Sherwood

The enthusiasm, joy, and excitement transcended gender identity and sexual orientation, nationality, and cultural background. This camaraderie went beyond the lab, evident in our Sunday out-of-the-lab trips and spontaneous dance parties, our convergent extension-inspired presentation during the July 4th parade (please see B. Duygu Özpolat’s video here), and our victory during this year’s softball game with the Physiology course. The diversity catalyzed the building of a strong network of scientists and lifelong friends.

The Embryology course also showcased exemplary initiatives to promote inclusive and equitable access to developmental biology research. The microscopes we used, for example, were kindly sponsored by different companies like Zeiss, Nikon, Bruker, and Mizar. During a visit, Manu Prakash, together with Team Foldscope (check out their website here), distributed cheap paper microscopes and highlighted the importance of frugal science. Alexis Camacho-Avila, a very brilliant undergrad from an underrepresented minority group, attended the first two weeks of the course through the Society of Developmental Biology (SDB) Choose Development! Fellowship Program. Moreover, there were generous scholarship grants and fellowships available to cover the expenses of attending the course. Personally, I am grateful for the financial support from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Horace W. Stunkard Scholarship Fund, and The Company of Biologists. These initiatives, among others, ensure barriers to diversity in developmental biology research are overcome. Witnessing and experiencing this was empowering.

ON THE BEAUTY AND WONDER OF DIVERSE DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGISTS
Embryology Course 2018 class photo, taken at the Waterfront Park in Woods Hole.
Photo credit: Bruno Moretti

Like the embryos we study, the community of developmental biologists has evolved to take endless forms. We are biologists, chemists, and physicists. We dance, ride a skateboard, and win softball games. We are parents, sons, and daughters. We come from different parts of the world, speak different languages, and grow from different cultural backgrounds. While being different, we share the passion to push developmental biology research forward.

Before ending, I would like to use this platform to thank various people who made the Embryology Course special. I thank my classmates whom I shared this truly transformative experience. I thank Christopher Pineda, Amber Rock, and Hannah Rosenblatt, our Course Assistants, who made sure the course ran smoothly. Also, I express many thanks to all the faculty and teaching assistants (TAs), who shared their knowledge and wisdom. I am further thankful to Richard Schneider and David Sherwood, our Course Directors, for granting me this life-changing opportunity. Lastly, I am grateful to my family, my lab, and every one who supported me and encouraged me to apply. I am very grateful to be part of #embryo2018 (a Twitter-friendly collective term referring to Embryology Course 2018 and every one who took part in it).

It has been around a month since I left Woods Hole. While I recollect on everything that happened during the Embryology Course and reflect on how it has a significant impact on what I do now and in the future, the weather here in Heidelberg has become cooler and the leaves on trees have started to turn into different shades of red. This summer is ending most beautifully and most wonderfully.

(18 votes)

Loading...

Applications are invited for a Postdoctoral Research Associate to study clonal dynamics and the regulatory mechanisms controlling branching morphogenesis in the developing mouse lung. In a multidisciplinary collaboration, this experimental project will be supervised jointly by Dr Emma Rawlins (Gurdon Institute; http://www.gurdon.cam.ac.uk/research/rawlins), in whose lab the work will be based, and Prof. Ben Simons (Gurdon Institute and Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, https://www.gurdon.cam.ac.uk/research/simons). Between the labs, recent research activities have targeted the molecular mechanisms of cell fate decision-making during lung development and the cellular basis of branching morphogenesis in lung and other ductal tissue types(Nikolic et al., Elife, 2017; Scheele et al., Nature, 2017, Hannezo et al., Cell, 2017). We now aim to recruit an outstanding experimental Postdoctoral Research Associate, who is interested indeveloping quantitative experimental approaches tostudy cellular decision-making in the developing mouse lung, with an emphasis on lineage tracing assays.

Applicants should have a PhD in a relevant subject, or be close to completion of their degree. Expertise in general areas of developmental/stem cell biology including lineage tracing and/or live-cell imaging, image analysis and cell signalling mechanisms would be suitable for this position. Experience of in vivomouse experiments would be an advantage.

The successful applicant will learn state-of-the-art clonal analysis mechanisms and the application of quantitative models to biological questions. They will have a strong publication record and an excellent aptitude for research and career development. We are looking for applicants who are collaborative with effective communication skills and enjoy working in a team. Proven capacity to design, execute, and interpret your own experiments is essential.

Limited funding: The funds for this post are available for 2 years in the first instance.

To apply online for this vacancy, please use the University’s Web Recruitment System, where you will need to register an account (if you do not have an account already) and log in before completing the online application form. See http://www.jobs.cam.ac.uk/job/18053/ for more details.

Applications should include a CV and a brief statement outlining key areas of expertise and reasons why you would like to join the project. Informal enquiries can be addressed to Dr Emma Rawlins (e.rawlins@gurdon.cam.ac.uk). Please quote reference PR16060 on your application and in any correspondence about this vacancy.

The University values diversity and is committed to equality of opportunity. The University has a responsibility to ensure that all employees are eligible to live and work in the UK. Benefits include generous maternity/paternity leave, flexible working and funds for returning carers and other family-friendly schemes.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

A postdoctoral position is available in the laboratory of Dr. Sophie Astrof at Thomas Jefferson University to study roles of cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions in cardiovascular development and congenital heart disease. We have recently discovered that progenitors within the second heart field (SHF) give rise to endothelial cells composing pharyngeal arch arteries (Dev Biol 421:102–111, 2017). Projects in the lab focus on the role of ECM in regulating the development of SHF-derived progenitors into endothelial cells and their morphogenesis into blood vessels. The successful candidate will combine genetic manipulation, embryology, cell biology, and confocal imaging to study molecular mechanisms by which cell-ECM interactions and tissue microenvironment regulate cardiovascular development. Additional projects focus on the investigation of cell type-specific and cell-autonomous functions of fibronectin in development and signaling (Development 143:88-100, 2016)
Astrof laboratory is a part of a modern and well-equipped Center for Translational Medicine at Jefferson Medical College (http://www.jefferson.edu/university/research/researcher/researcher-faculty/astrof-laboratory.html) located in the heart of Philadelphia. To apply, please send a letter of interest detailing your expertise, CV and names and contact information of three references to sophie.astrof@gmail.com

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Postdoc Position in Bioinformatic Analysis of
Neural Development in Nematostella

There is a vacancy for a 2 year Postdoc position at the Sars International Centre for Marine Molecular Biology (www.sars.no/) in the research group headed by Dr. Fabian Rentzsch. The position is funded on a TOPPFORSK grant from the Norwegian Research Council, and is available from October 2018. The Sars Centre belongs to the University of Bergen, and is partner of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) www.embl.de/. The place of work will be at the Sars Centre.

About the project/work tasks:
The Rentzsch group studies neurogenesis in the cnidarian Nematostella vectensis with the aim to understand cellular, molecular and evolutionary aspects of nervous system development (see Richards and Rentzsch, Development, 2014 and 2015). The project employs computational analyses of differential gene expression and ATAC seq data to characterize the transcriptional changes that control the development of neural progenitor cells into differentiated neurons. The successful candidate will have the opportunity to further develop the project in line with his/her interests. If desired, contribution to the experimental validation of the computational analyses is possible.

Qualifications and personal qualities:

• The applicant must hold a Norwegian PhD or an equivalent degree within informatics or molecular biology or must have submitted his/her doctoral thesis for assessment prior to the application deadline. It is a condition of employment that the PhD has been awarded.
• Experience in differential gene expression analysis of high-throughput sequencing data, proficiency in a programming language and/or shell scripting is desired.
• Interest in gene regulatory networks, developmental biology or stem cell biology is an advantage.
• Ability to work both independently and in close collaboration with others in a structured manner.
• Personal communication skills to interact with the scientific environment are required.
• Proficiency in both written and oral English

We can offer:

• A good and professionally challenging working environment
• Salary at pay grade 57 upon appointment (code 1352), currently NOK 490.900 gross p.a. Further promotions are made according to length of service in the position
• Enrolment in the Norwegian Public Service Pension Fund
• A position in an inclusive workplace (IA enterprise)
• Good welfare benefits

Applications in English must include:

• A cover letter that includes brief account of the applicant’s research interests and motivation for applying for the position
• CV
• List of publications
• The names and contact information for two reference persons. One of these must be the main advisor for the PhD programme.
• Transcripts and diplomas and official confirmation that the doctoral thesis has been submitted
• Relevant certificates/references

Please send your application with attachments electronically via JobbNorge by clicking on the button “Apply for this job” (choose English page) – see here. If your diploma, grade transcripts and other documentation are in a language other than English, you must upload certified translations of these (diploma and grade transcripts in a Scandinavian language are acceptable). Please note that applications will be assessed only with the information available in JobbNorge when the deadline expires. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that all relevant attachments are submitted by the deadline.

Applications by e-mail only will not be considered.

Closing date for application: September 16th, 2018

General information:
Further information about the position can be obtained from Group Leader Dr. Fabian Rentzsch, tlf +47 55 58 43 04, email fabian.rentzsch@uib.no.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Department of Genetics,

Yale University School of Medicine

The Department of Genetics at Yale University School of Medicine invites applications for junior or senior tenure-track faculty positions. The search is open to investigators from all areas of biological and biomedical research. We are particularly interested in applicants working in one of the following areas Developmental Biology, Imaging, Quantitative Biology, Computational Biology, Genomics, Systems Biology, and Genetics. Applications from investigators working at the interface of these areas will be strongly considered. The rank of the appointment will be commensurate with experience and the positions come with a substantial start-up package.

The Department of Genetics comprises an exceptional group of 31 primary basic science faculty with research interests including fundamental aspects of Developmental Biology, Genetics, Genomics and Epigenetics, using different model systems including flies, worms, fish and mouse, and humans (https://medicine.yale.edu/genetics/). The Department is closely associated with science initiatives at Yale including The Cancer Center, The Center for Neuroscience, The Stem Cell Center and the Yale Center for Genome Analysis

Candidate must hold a Ph.D., M.D., or equivalent degree. Applicants should upload a cover letter, a curriculum vitae, a description of previous research (1 page), a concise statement of research plans (up to 2 pages), reprints of 2 publications, and the names of 3 references to the Interfolio website at: https://apply.interfolio.com/52614). Specific inquiries about the position may be sent to the attention of Dr. Antonio Giraldez, Chair of the Department of Genetics, at genetics.admin@yale.edu. Applications will begin to be evaluated on November 1, 2018.

Interviews will take place as part of a multidisciplinary symposium including candidates for different searches. Please reserve the dates of January 15, January 22 and February 11 (snow date) as potential dates for the symposium in case you are selected for an interview.

Yale University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity employer. Yale values diversity among its students, staff, and faculty and strongly welcomes applications from women, persons with disabilities, protected veterans, and underrepresented minorities.

(1 votes)

Loading...

Department/Location: Wellcome Trust – Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute

University of Cambridge, UK

Salary: £25,728-£29,799

Reference: PS16474

Category: Research

Closing date: 11 September 2018

The Wellcome Trust – Medical Research Council Cambridge Stem Cell Institute is an international centre of excellence for stem cell research and regenerative medicine. Scientists in the Institute collaborate to advance our knowledge of various stem cell types and to perform pioneering work in translational research areas, providing the foundation for new medical treatments (https://www.stemcells.cam.ac.uk/).

Applications are invited for an MRC-funded Research Assistant position to join the research team of Dr. Brian Hendrich (https://www.stemcells.cam.ac.uk/research/pis/hendrich). The successful applicant will integrate with a team working to understand how chromatin remodelling proteins control gene expression during cell fate decisions in pluripotent cells.

The ideal candidate will have considerable laboratory experience in biochemistry (western blots, immunoprecipitations), molecular biology (real time PCR, RT-PCR, transfections, gene cloning), and mammalian cell culture, and be familiar with the principles of good laboratory practice. Communication and note-keeping skills are essential, as is the ability to work independently as well as within a laboratory team, as required. You may be required to give oral presentations of your research work to other lab members and prepare written reports for your supervisor.

You must be able to follow procedures and methodologies. You should be able to organise, perform and analyse experiments with minimal instruction and supervision. The post will require frequent weekend work and a flexible approach to working hours. Careful observation and accurate record keeping are essential.

You should have been awarded a Bachelor’s degree or equivalent.

Fixed-term: The funds for this post are available until 31 December 2020 in the first instance.

To apply online for this vacancy and to view further information about the role, please visit: http://www.jobs.cam.ac.uk/job/18507/. This will take you to the role on the University’s Job Opportunities pages. There you will need to click on the ‘Apply online’ button and register an account with the University’s Web Recruitment System (if you have not already) and log in before completing the online application form.

Please include details of your referees, including email address and phone number, one of which must be your most recent line manager.

The closing date is Tuesday, 11 September 2018, with interviews expected to take place the week commencing 24 September 2018.

Please quote reference PS16474 on your application and in any correspondence about this vacancy.

The University values diversity and is committed to equality of opportunity.

The University has a responsibility to ensure that all employees are eligible to live and work in the UK.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

The Duke Regeneration Next Initiative (RNI) is partnering with the Duke Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology (PCB) to hire a tenure-track faculty member at the rank of Assistant Professor. We invite applications from accomplished candidates with expertise in developmental and cell biology, stem cell biology, mechanisms of tissue regeneration, quantitative biology, imaging, signaling, chemical biology, or related areas. Candidates must have a PhD, MD, or equivalent degree. Women and underrepresented minority candidates are especially encouraged to apply. Applicants should submit a curriculum vitae, a 3-page total summary of accomplishments and research plans, and at least 3 letters of recommendation by November 1, 2018 to: https://academicjobsonline.org/ajo/jobs/11605

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

The new Center for Stem Cell & Organoid Medicine (CuSTOM) at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) is launching a major new initiative to recruit outstanding tenure-track or tenured faculty at the Assistant to Associate Professor level.

CuSTOM (www.cincinnatichildrens.org/custom) is a multi-disciplinary center of excellence integrating developmental and stem cell biologists, clinicians, bioengineers and entrepreneurs with the common goal of accelerating discovery and facilitating bench-to-bedside translation of organoid technology and regenerative medicine. Faculty in CuSTOM benefit from the unique environment and resources here to accelerate their studies of human development, disease and regenerative medicine using pluripotent stem cell and organoid platforms.

CCHMC is a leader in organoid biology and one of the top ranked pediatric research centers in the world, providing a unique environment for basic and translational research. Among pediatric institutions CCHMC is the third-highest ranking recipient of research grants from the National Institutes of Health. CCHMC continues to make major investments in research supporting discovery with 1.4 million square feet of research space and subsidized state-of-the-art core facilities including a human pluripotent stem cell facility, CRISPR genome editing, high-throughput DNA analysis, biomedical informatics, a Nikon Center of Excellence imaging core and much more.

We invite applications from innovative and collaborative investigators focused on basic or translational research in human development and/or disease using stem cells or organoid models. A focus on neurobiology, pulmonary, vascular or cardiac biology would synergize with existing institutional strength. Successful candidates must hold the PhD, MD, or MD/PhD degrees, and will have a vibrant research program with an outstanding publication record.

Applicants should submit their curriculum vitae, two to three page research statement focused on future plans, and contact information for three people who will provide letters of recommendation to CuSTOM@cchmc.org. Applications must be submitted by November 16th, 2018.

The Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and the University of Cincinnati are Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employers. Qualified women and minority candidates are especially encouraged to apply.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Carmen Adriaens¹, Gautam Dey², Amanda Haage³, Wouter Masselink⁴ *, Sundar Ram Naganathan⁵, Lauren Neves⁶, Teresa Rayon⁷, Samantha Seah⁸, Srivats Venkataramanan⁹.

1. Center for Cancer Biology, VIB, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium & Center for Cancer Research, NCI/NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

2. MRC Lab for Molecular Cell Biology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK

3. Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

4. Research Institute of Molecular Pathology (IMP), Vienna Biocenter (VBC), Campus-Vienna-Biocenter 1, 1030 Vienna, Austria.

5. Ecole Polytechnique Federale Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

6. Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

7. The Francis Crick Institute,1 Midland Road, London NW1 1AT, UK  

8. European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Genome Biology Unit, Meyerhofstrasse 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany, Collaboration for joint PhD degree between EMBL and Heidelberg University, Faculty of Biosciences

9. Cell and Tissue Biology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

All authors contributed equally to this article.

*Correspondence should be addressed to: wouter.masselink@imp.ac.at;

‘How can we have preprints and support good journalism?’ Tom Sheldon, a senior press manager at the Science Media Centre, recently asked this question in a news article in the journal Nature (Sheldon, 2018). Preprints, manuscripts made publicly available prior to peer review and publication, are a relatively new addition to scientific communication in the biological sciences. Together with the push for open access, preprints have begun to challenge the status-quo in scientific publishing. This early and open sharing of information enhances peer-to-peer communication and ultimately, speeds up scientific advancement. In his article, Mr. Sheldon argues that preprints could promote confusion and distort public understanding of science. Here, we would like to counter this argument, highlighting the potential of preprints to drive scientific understanding and innovation, while we believe that preprints does not threaten, and can even support good journalism.

In a first argument, Mr. Sheldon suggests that the lack of peer review might lead journalists to misconstrue sensationalist and shoddy works that are posted as preprints. To start, one should note that preprints visibly state that the deposited manuscripts have not been reviewed, an argument also pointed out by Sarabipour et al. in their response to Mr. Sheldon’s article (Sarabipour et al., 2018). In addition, journalists reporting on non-peer-reviewed material is not a new phenomenon – they have been doing it on conference proceedings for years. Although with preprints there may be a difference in the number of non-peer-reviewed works that are now accessible, we do not see a qualitative distinction for the lay reporting of these works.

On the other hand, Mr. Sheldon makes a valid point in that the reporting of preprints with implications for human health could be dangerous. For instance, patient data could inadvertently be made public, and early dissemination of medical advances could mislead prospective patients. Therefore, we agree that the premature reporting on data and conclusions from these preprints could have a negative effect. However, preprint service providers are aware of these dangers and, for instance, both bioRxiv and the upcoming medRxiv actively screen preprints before they are posted to alleviate these risks and restrict the dissemination of preprints including these types of sensitive data.

Moreover, we would argue that the problem Mr. Sheldon is referring to is partly caused by the perception of peer review as the only model for scientific legitimacy. As evidenced by the example he supplies (Séralini et al., 2012), the misinterpretation or sensationalization of scientific papers is hardly constrained by the peer review process. We acknowledge that peer review is an important step to ensure scientific validity and relevance, but we would like to point out it is not a magic bullet separating the truth from fiction, and its contribution to the scientific process has never been quantified. In fact, preprint servers now provide an unprecedented opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of peer review on a large scale (Klein et al., 2018), laying the groundwork to refine and improve the process. Peer reviewed or not, it is primarily incumbent upon the scientific community to ensure the robustness and validity of the results that are posted. Subsequent responsibility in preventing the misinterpretation or sensationalization of the work is shared by the readers and journalists who choose to further disseminate the findings.

In line with this, if peer review is deemed to be the sole factor by which a journalist can judge whether a body of research is trustworthy, the spread of predatory journals should be of much larger concern to Mr. Sheldon. While, as we mention above, preprint servers clearly state that preprint papers lack peer review, predatory journals only create the illusion of peer review without it actually taking place (Bohannon, 2013). In fact, we argue that the visibility and transparency of a preprinted study can help to verify the final manuscript and increase its robustness, by enabling (timely) replication studies and open dialogue. Preprint servers provide an equanimous forum for these validation studies and further discussions, a service not provided by many journals. Additionally, because all preprint versions are permanently archived online, potential errors or questionable changes are documented and may be rapidly exposed. To summarize, while we wish to acknowledge that some misreporting can and will happen, we are not convinced that this is due to or increased by the lack of peer review of preprints. Instead, scientists and journalists alike need to communicate openly with each other to ensure accurate reporting, regardless of the peer review status of the reported research.

Next, Mr. Sheldon argues that the lack of an embargo system for preprints disadvantages journalists and publishers. In scientific publishing, the press embargo is the time restraint put in place by the journal in which both journalists and scientists are prohibited from talking about a piece of work publicly. This system appears to confer advantages to various stakeholders, but the embargo system for scientific publishing has been hotly debated for years (https://theconversation.com/the-logic-of-journal-embargoes-why-we-have-to-wait-for-scientific-news-53677, https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200703/backpage.cfm), mostly because it further delays the dissemination of scientific findings that may be of interest to the public. We would like to take a look at how embargoes appear to benefit the parties involved, and propose that preprints can instead confer similar and alternative advantages to both the journalists and the scientific community.

First, embargoes provide journalists with sufficient time to prepare, fact-check and obtain views from other scientists. Mr Sheldon argues that preprints put this process at risk. Reporting the nuanced complexities of science accurately and in a timely manner is not easy, and we acknowledge that even the scientific community itself sometimes suffers from the same flaws of hyperbole and laxity. However, the absence of an embargo shouldn’t prevent the due diligence that necessarily accompanies good journalism. In contrast, we would like to argue that preprints and especially the resulting discussions, freely accessible to all, can act as a potential source of information and expertise for journalists. Community-driven initiatives highlighting preprints of broad interest (such as preLights), or supporting preprint journal clubs that share feedback with authors directly (PREreview), can thus help promote the discussion of science and raise awareness of potential flaws and limitations of the study.

Further, Mr. Sheldon argues that due to the lack of embargoes for preprints, the popularization of preprint servers could reduce the exposure for a journal. In his reasoning, preprinted findings already covered by the news would lose their perceived novelty by the time they are peer-reviewed, causing them to be reported to a lesser extent or not at all when published in their final form. As a consequence, the journal would not be mentioned in the news and loses views and prestige. However, we need to consider several counterarguments. Firstly, a number of journals (for example, eLife) do not have embargoes, and yet journalists are not discouraged to report on their stories (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44680255 , https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36888541). Further, only a small proportion of the research papers a journal publishes receives a press release. Pertinent to the non-media covered articles, preprints can increase their visibility and ultimately the traffic to the journal websites, by virtue of forward links to the final published articles once manuscripts have gone through peer review. This particularly benefits smaller society journals that do not currently have the name recognition or penetrance of the larger publishing houses. Third, from preprints not covered by the media, the journal could use the visibility of the preprint to their advantage and directly invite authors to submit to them for peer review and eventual publication. This could give journals a greater hand in the science that gets published with them, allowing them to outline the novelty they would get from the final version. Finally, the absence of an appended journal name ensures that the reader judges the work not on the prestige of the journal, but on the papers’ own merit, which is an important step towards quality-based and not prestige-based judging of the scientific work. On an ideological note, we believe that the primary goal of scientific publishers should be to communicate results to both the scientific community and the public. While currently scientists depend on the publisher to broadly disseminate results while benefiting from its network and the structural organization of the peer review process, in the future, the landscape of scientific publishing may evolve more towards a peer-to-peer system in which these benefits are enhanced by preprinting, and transparency and timely communication prevail.

In conclusion, considering the many advantages of preprints, it seems drastic to reject them simply because a few of them may be reported (and even fewer misreported) in the press. We can also draw experience from other fields, because while the biological sciences are a relative newcomer to the world of preprints, the same cannot be said for other fields. With preprint servers such as arxiv.org now in use for close to three decades, we are unaware of any indication that journalists lose their capacity to accurately report on research, or that journals are strongly negatively impacted by preprinted works. Since most manuscripts on preprint servers eventually end up in peer reviewed journals, we believe that preprints are part of a healthy publication/reporting ecosystem and, rather than impede, encourage the rapid and open dissemination of science.

From the strong discussions and opinions on both sides, it is clear that preprints do, and will continue to revolutionize scientific communication in biology. Naturally, these changes may initially be confusing, but we believe that with open dialogue between scientists and journalists, we will be able to clarify and define how preprints can support good journalism, and vice versa.

[Disclaimer: the authors volunteer as community curators for the preprint highlighting platform preLights, but have contributed to this piece in a personal capacity; the views presented here do not necessarily reflect the views of preLights, the Company of Biologists, or the individual academic organisations each author is affiliated with (listed above).]

References

Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s Afraid of Peer Review? Science 342, 60–65.

Klein, M., Broadwell, P., Farb, S.E., and Grappone, T. (2018). Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions. International Journal on Digital Libraries.

Sarabipour, S., Wissink, E.M., Burgess, S.J., Hensel, Z., Debat, H., Emmott, E., Akay, A., Akdemir, K., and Schwessinger, B. (2018). Maintaining confidence in the reporting of scientific outputs.

Séralini, G.-E., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., Gress, S., Defarge, N., Malatesta, M., Hennequin, D., and de Vendômois, J.S. (2012). RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. 50, 4221–4231.

Sheldon, T. (2018). Preprints could promote confusion and distortion. Nature 559, 445.

(21 votes)

Loading...

The Department of Genetics at Yale University School of Medicine invites applications for junior or senior tenure-track faculty positions. The search is open to investigators from all areas of biological and biomedical research. We are particularly interested in applicants working in one of the following areas Developmental Biology, Imaging, Quantitative Biology, Computational Biology, Genomics, Systems Biology, and Genetics. Applications from investigators working at the interface of these areas will be strongly considered. The rank of the appointment will be commensurate with experience and the positions come with a substantial start-up package.

The Department of Genetics comprises an exceptional group of 31 primary basic science faculty with research interests including fundamental aspects of Developmental Biology, Genetics, Genomics and Epigenetics, using different model systems including flies, worms, fish and mouse, and humans (https://medicine.yale.edu/genetics/). The Department is closely associated with science initiatives at Yale including The Cancer Center, The Center for Neuroscience, The Stem Cell Center and the Yale Center for Genome Analysis

Candidate must hold a Ph.D., M.D., or equivalent degree. Applicants should upload a cover letter, a curriculum vitae, a description of previous research (1 page), a concise statement of research plans (up to 2 pages), reprints of 2 publications, and the names of 3 references to the Interfolio website at: https://apply.interfolio.com/52614). Specific inquiries about the position may be sent to the attention of Dr. Antonio Giraldez, Chair of the Department of Genetics, at genetics.admin@yale.edu. Applications will begin to be evaluated on November 1, 2018.

Interviews will take place as part of a multidisciplinary symposium including candidates for different searches. Please reserve the dates of January 15, January 22 and February 11 (snow date) as potential dates for the symposium in case you are selected for an interview.

Yale University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity employer. Yale values diversity among its students, staff, and faculty and strongly welcomes applications from women, persons with disabilities, protected veterans, and underrepresented minorities.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...