I had just put the finishing touches to my thesis, a weighty tome of developmental neurobiology. My mind was still focused on this highly specific piece of work. I was unprepared, therefore, for the first question:

“What is infinity?”

I was live on air. I couldn’t see the caller or — since I was in a studio 65 miles away — the show presenter. I had no idea how to even start to answer such a question, not least because I did not know the answer. But this was the BBC Radio Norfolk science phone-in with the Naked Scientists, a fortnightly feature, and dead air was not an option. So I started to talk — nonsense at first, but eventually finding a voice among the tangle of complex mathematics and philosophy that I had forged. It was only day one, but my internship with the Naked Scientists had truly begun.

Having met the lead Naked Scientist, Dr Chris Smith, at a science communication workshop early last year, I managed to secure funding from the Genetics Society to join the team for two months. In that time I contributed live and pre-recorded content to a number of stations, and produced a documentary on genetics. I booked guests, conducted interviews and edited features; all of this with no prior experience in radio, just an interest in communicating science.

We all get carried away with the subjects we are passionate about: it is the subjects in which we are not an expert that allow us to better relate to audiences. I was told with two hours’ notice, for example, that I was to go on air to talk about special relativity. I was tasked with stripping down a complex and beguiling topic in three minutes of air time. I had to find a way to explain it with no prior knowledge, just like those listening. This is the very same frame of mind we should all apply to our own research areas when the opportunity for outreach arises.

But what is that audience? For the Naked Scientists, there is a unique challenge presented by its format: the programme initially airs on local radio, to an interested but non-specialist public, but is re-released online to a podcast audience that has sought scientific conversation. As such, the programmes must be approachable and detail must be built up sequentially and clearly for the first audience, but detail must not be skimped for the second. This presents a unique challenge, requiring forethought of the mix of topics included, careful vetting of guests to determine how confidently they can describe their work (and how they respond to an interviewer pretending to know nothing), and a mix of media — different voices, a mixture of live and pre-recorded content, all carefully timed.

A further challenge is, quite simply, that this is radio. Clarity of description is paramount, for diagrams and animations are invisible to the audience, as are flappy hands. On one occasion, I found myself describing what I could see on a computer screen, a curious sensation absent from normal conversation, for the benefit of listeners at home.

The first of the Naked Scientists audiences — as with all television and radio science output — means that detailed and complex topics might often be vetoed. Yet its second audience provides an out. Thus, when I was entrusted with one whole hour of live radio, to do the research, book the guests, write the script and co-present, I chose developmental biology.

Gastrulation and neurulation, the early steps, stages and movements of embryogenesis, are as perplexing to many as special relativity. To fill an hour long show with talk of these pivotal stages of development, in addition to the genetics of the actin cytoskeleton, which controls cell shape; how cells know where they are in the body; and gross morphological development, using the example of limb development and club feet, was a challenge I relished. I cannot claim to have been successful; this must be left to the audience to judge. Yet I am proud of my attempts, and very grateful to the many contributors, including Richard Adams from the University of Cambridge, Helen Matthews at University College London, Neil Vargesson at the University of Aberdeen and Max Heiman, Harvard Medical School. The programme, Super-shape me! is available from the Naked Scientists website.

I learnt much over my short time on the radio. I recommend trying radio as a medium for truly testing science outreach skills — try contacting your local student radio station or one of the many science podcast projects available. But perhaps the skill I would flag for now to readers of The Node is that of interviewing. Researchers with an interest in communication try, given the opportunity, to explain their work. But let’s turn that on its head: first, pick someone unaccustomed to outreach, whose work is on a topic you are entirely unfamiliar with. Second, pretend you know nothing about the topic or how science works. Try to get them to talk for 3, 4 even 7 minutes (radio features are, after all, of variable lengths) on a level the public could follow. What are they doing? How are they doing it? WHY are they doing it? Keeping control of such a conversation, particularly to control the jargon, is a challenge indeed. Give it a try!

This post is part of a series on science outreach. You can read the introduction to the series here and read other posts in this series here.

(5 votes)

Loading...

The following is a re-post of an editorial by Society for Developmental Biology President, Martin Chalfie (Columbia University).  It was originally published in the Winter edition of SDB e-news here.  For more Society for Developmental Biology news check out SDB e-news – Winter 2014.

I think that one of the scariest parts of being President of the Society for Developmental Biology is coming up with topics for these editorials in the Newsletter.

This time, however, I want to write about an issue that has bothered me for many years: how people apply for postdoctoral positions. In my experience most people (around 99%) apply incorrectly for their postdocs, and I suspect that many people do not get the postdoc that they want because of their applications. I’d like to change that situation.

So what do the 99% do that I feel is wrong? These applicants usually send a letter or email (either is fine) saying that they are interested in doing a postdoc and like the research done in the lab. Then they include their CV and the names of three references that can be contacted. Very little thought needs to be put into such applications, and they can be (and probably are) sent to tens if not hundreds of people. I am convinced that the usual reply to such letters is, “Sorry, I don’t have room for anyone else in the lab,” which is really a polite way of saying, “No.”

I think the application should be different, but what I have to suggest requires considerable effort. First, pick two people (or three if you are a masochist) whose work you want to be part of and read their published papers. (At this point you may decide that you not that interested in the research and can stop there.) Second, using the papers and maybe work that you have done for your graduate studies, think about the experiments you want to do. Then, write up these ideas into a two-three-page proposal that you can submit with your application.

Why is a written proposal so important? First, it shows a potential postdoc advisor how you think and what you are interested in. Second, it recognizes that your status as a postdoc is different from that as a graduate student, that you are taking charge of your career. Graduate students are learning how to be scientists; postdocs are colleagues (virtually every practicing scientist you talk to will say that their postdoc was the best part of their career and this is one of the main reasons). Third, it is a document that cannot be ignored. I don’t know anyone that is not impressed that someone outside their lab has thought about their research. (By the way, you can always add to your cover letter that you have based your proposal on published material and that you would be happy to think about other projects that the potential advisor may be working on.) Your ideas will be listened to. Fourth, it means that you are well on your way to having completed an application for funding (another way to show that you are taking charge). Finally (and I have to admit that this reason shows some selfishness on my part), it is your ideas. You may not have said something that your potential sponsor hadn’t thought of, but you came up with the ideas, not him or her. Because they are your ideas (and everyone loves their own ideas), you will work particularly hard to develop them once you are in the lab. Future advisors love this.

In keeping with what I have said about taking charge of your career, I would also add that the line “Here are the names and contact information for three references that can tell you about me,” that appears in most applications should be changed. As it stands the line tells a future employer that he or she needs to do some work. I suggest adding, “I have asked these people to write to you directly. If you do not hear from them in the next two days, please let me know so I can prod them.”

Will this work? I have suggested these steps to all the graduate students in my lab since I was a beginning assistant professor, and virtually every one got the postdoc they wanted. In two cases when graduate students needed to apply to labs in particular cities and happened to choose researchers who were about to move, both of the researchers called me up asking what they needed to do to convince my students to move with them. In one case, the researcher said, “I have never had an application like this,” supporting my contention that few people apply for postdocs this way. I don’t guarantee that following this advice will get you the one postdoc you really want, but I am sure that you will be listened to and in all probability interviewed. Best of luck.

-Marty

(25 votes)

Loading...

Here are the highlights from the current issue of Development:

Integrating integrin signals for neocortical growth

Within the developing neocortex, multiple progenitor cell types contribute to neuronal production, and the properties and relative abundance of these populations help to define the extent of neocortical growth. As well as apically localised radial glial cells (RGCs) that comprise the stem cell compartment, various populations of basal progenitors (BPs) exist – including basal RGCs, with both self-renewal and proliferative capacity, and more restricted progenitors. The stem cell-like properties of RGCs are linked to the fact that these cells are connected to the basal lamina, from which they receive proliferative signals via integrins. Now, Denise Stenzel et al. investigate in rodents the role of integrin α_vβ₃ in regulating the proliferative capacity of BPs (p. 795). They find that activation of this integrin induces BP proliferation both in hemisphere culture and in vivo, promoting proliferative division at the expense of neurogenic division. Moreover, they show that the α_vβ₃ ligand thyroid hormone also regulates BP proliferation via this integrin – providing pro-proliferative signals to progenitor cells that are not connected to the basal lamina.

Tracing the origin of epidermal immune cells

Langerhans cells (LCs) are antigen-presenting cells of the epidermis, and play a key role in detecting pathogens in the skin and coordinating the immune response. However, the precursors of LCs during embryonic development are poorly characterised, particularly in humans. Here (p. 807), Adelheid Elbe-Bürger and colleagues analyse the characteristics of early LC precursors in human first-trimester foetal skin, and explore the potential of different populations of haematopoietic precursors to colonise the developing epidermis. They find an unexpected diversity in LC precursors in terms of cell-surface markers, contrasting with the homogeneous adult LC population. The authors then used in vitro skin equivalent cultures to test the ability of different cord blood-derived precursor populations to colonise the epidermis and differentiate as LCs. Various precursor subtypes show LC potential, and the data suggest that the skin equivalents produce those signals necessary to direct LC differentiation. Together, these data suggest a heterogeneous origin for human embryonic LC precursors during early stages of development.

How to make a heart: insights from machine learning

The Drosophila heart provides a relatively simple system for the analysis of gene regulatory networks (GRNs), as it comprises just two cell types – contractile cardial cells (CCs) and non-muscle pericardial cells (PCs). Moreover, many transcription factors (TFs) that regulate Drosophila heart development have been identified and shown to play conserved roles in mammals. On p. 878, Alan Michelson and co-workers take a machine learning approach to identify new cardiac enhancers. The methodology, which integrates chromatin immunoprecipitation data with TF motif mapping, is highly successful at predicting enhancers that drive expression in cardiac cells, including PC- or CC-specific enhancers. Among the highly over-represented TF motifs in putative cardiac enhancers are motifs for the Myb and Su(H) TFs; the authors show that Myb regulates progenitor cell division, while Su(H) controls the PC/CC lineage decision. This work demonstrates the utility of machine learning to identify novel players regulating organ formation, and to piece together the GRNs underlying cell fate specification.

Controlling meristem activity

The shoot apical meristem (SAM) of higher plants contains the stem cell population that contributes to all above-ground organs. During vegetative growth, leaf primordia emerge from the periphery of the SAM, and the SAM transitions to an inflorescence meristem to initiate the reproductive phase. The WUSCHEL transcription factor specifies stem cell fate, and hence controls the size and activity of the SAM. A gene network involving the CLAVATA signalling pathway, the microRNA miR166g and HD-ZIPIII transcription factors is responsible for regulating WUSCHEL levels. On p. 830, Leor Eshed Williams and colleagues add another layer to this regulatory system, defining a role for the ERECTA receptor kinase in restricting WUSCHEL expression. Plants overexpressing miR166g and carrying a mutation in ERECTA display a massively enlarged SAM, disrupted phyllotaxis patterns and defects in floral meristem formation. ERECTA acts independently of the CLAVATA system, and although the mechanisms by which it functions are not fully clear, this work adds another important player to the complex regulatory network underlying meristem activity.

Mcr connects cell connections with innate immunity

The Drosophila Mcr protein is a member of the thioester protein (TEP) family of proteins, which includes key regulators of innate immunity. Mcr is an unusual member of this family, possessing a putative transmembrane domain and lacking a key residue in the thioester motif. It has, nevertheless, been shown to be involved in phagocytic uptake in cultured Drosophila cells, although its putative immune functions have not been assessed in vivo. Two papers, from Stefan Luschnig and colleagues (p. 899) and Robert Ward and colleagues (p. 889), now identify Mcr as a new component of septate junctions (SJs), the invertebrate equivalent of tight junctions that form the paracellular barrier in epithelia.

Both studies identify lethal EMS mutations inMcr in independent genetic screens, finding mutant phenotypes typical of SJ components. Consistent with a putative role in SJ formation, the protein colocalises with other SJ proteins at the lateral membrane. They further find that Mcr localisation is dependent on core SJ components and that, conversely, SJ proteins are mislocalised in Mcr mutants. At the morphological and ultrastructural level, SJs are disrupted in the absence of Mcr, and functional assays demonstrate that Mcr is required to form an effective paracellular barrier. As well as identifying a new SJ protein essential for barrier integrity, these two studies suggest an intriguing link between SJs and innate immunity. The epithelial barrier represents the first line of defence against pathogen invasion, andDrosophila haemocytes are known to undergo an epithelialisation-like process when encapsulating pathogens in the haemolymph. The identification of Mcr as a protein involved in both SJ formation and innate immunity now provides a molecular connection, and opens up new avenues for investigating potential functional links, between these two seemingly disparate processes.

PLUS…

Cytonemes as specialized signaling filopodia

Thomas Kornberg and Sougate Roy review the evidence that establishes a fundamental and essential role for cytonemes as specialized filopodia that transport signaling proteins between signaling cells. See the Primer article on p. 729

Pax genes: regulators of lineage specification and progenitor cell maintenance

Pax genes encode a family of transcription factors that orchestrate complex processes of lineage determination in the developing embryo. Here, Judith Blake and Melanie Ziman review the molecular functions of Pax genes during development and detail the regulatory mechanisms by which they specify and maintain progenitor cells across various tissue lineages. See the Primer article on p. 737

How to make an intestine

James Wells and Jason Spence review how recent advances in developmental and stem cell biology have made it possible to generate complex, three-dimensional, human intestinal tissues in vitro through directed differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells. See the Primer on p. 752

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Having celebrated its 120th anniversary last year, the Woods Hole embryology course is back in 2014!

The course will consist of 6 intense weeks of lectures and laboratory work, from the 7th of June to the 20th of July, and applications are open to graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and senior researchers seeking a broad view of developmental biology and the methodologies used to study it. Deadline for application is this Friday, the 7th of February.

Check out the course’s website, as well as the application page, for more details.

You can read about last year’s course here on the Node:

– Exploring Embryology at the Woods Hole MBL, by Lara Linden

– Discovery at the MBL, by Kazutaka Hosoda

– Six weeks in Woods Hole, by Alice Accorsi

Also read our interview with one of the current co-directors of the course, Prof. Alejandro Sánchez Alvarado, and check last years’ image competitions for a taster of the beautiful images produced by the attendees of the course (round 1, 2, 3 and 4).
 
 

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Until last year, I was a bioinformatician post-doc in the laboratory of Prof. Richard Harvey, at the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute in Sydney. My project consisted of deciphering the regulatory network that controls heart development and how this network might be perturbed in disease conditions, such as congenital heart disease (which in Australia affects one in a hundred newborn babies). For this, we used a mouse cell line (HL-1 cells) which was a great system to rapidly obtain all the genome-wide information that we needed for the project, but had its limitations since it is an adult cell line that is cultured in vitro. In the meantime, the laboratory of Dr. Eileen Furlong at EMBL Heidelberg in Germany published a new method, BiTS-ChIP-seq (Bonn et al., 2012), that allows to obtain genome-wide information from tissue specific cell-types in vivo. Using this method in the developing zebrafish, in a transgenic line that specifically labels heart nuclei (cf image), would be the perfect experiment to gain insight into the nature of this gene regulatory network in vivo.

When I started to plan the experiment, I was daunted by the detailed published protocol due to its length and complexity, but mainly due to my own limitations- it included many techniques that I had never performed before. My time was limited, as my post-doc was ending at the end of the year. The quickest way to get these experiments going was to get “hands-on” experience on this protocol. These are the times when I miss Europe, where I could just hop on a train and visit a large number of diverse laboratories nearby. Yes, I am in Australia, and “popping-in” to visit any European laboratory involves a 24-hour flight (one way) and lots of $$. Fortunately, our grants management officer encouraged me to apply for a Development travelling fellowship from the Company of Biologists to support this visit. Thanks to this fellowship, I had the hands-on experience to learn the protocol and its “tricks” that I wanted, which probably saved me months of trials to get it right.

Far beyond the technical knowledge that I gained, receiving the fellowship also had great repercussions on my career path. At the time I was doing this work, I was also in the process of looking for independent positions and writing grants to fund it. I submitted a proposal to the Australian Research Council that included the BiTS-ChIP-seq experiments, in collaboration with Dr. Furlong’s laboratory. An important criterion for the grant was to provide evidence of this collaboration, ideally by showing co-authored publications. Since we had not published together at that time, the visits to Dr. Furlong’s laboratory definitely testified for the feasibility of these experiments in my hands, which was essential for the success of the grant.

In summary, receiving the Development travelling fellowship allowed me to save time on experiments, strengthen my collaborations around the world, and help to win my first grant to start my lab at the Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute in Melbourne.

(7 votes)

Loading...

January was a busy month on the Node, particularly our jobs page, which included several new postdoctoral positions, as well as PhD studentships, group leader and technician positions.

Here are some of the other highlights:

Research:

– Yan Yun wrote about his recent Development paper examining the origins of aneuploidy by tracking chromosomes and their kinetochores in oocytes from young and aged mice.

– Oguz discussed the development of Raeppli, a new technique that allows whole tissue labelling in Drosophila.

– and Christele’s stem cell image choice this month is from a Cell Reports paper showing that the junctional adhesion molecule JAM-A is essential for the survival and growth of the cancer stem cells found in glioblastoma.

Science life:

– Erin kicked off our model organism series in 2014 with her post ‘A day in the life of a Parhyale lab’– make sure to read it to learn all about using beach hoppers in developmental biology.

– Máté discusses the experience of returning to his home country Hungary to establish his own lab after a PhD and postdoc abroad.

– And Sonia, a postdoc at the National Centre for Biological Sciences in India, wrote about her recent collaborative visit to a lab in California.

Also on the Node:

– If you are keen in writing on the Node but have never blogged before, we collated a list of handy tips to get you started.

– We had a look at our stats to find the top posts of 2013.

– And there is less than a month left to participate in our outreach competition!

Happy reading!

 Writing image: Wellcome Library, London

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Physics and Biology were the media darlings last week. Earlier, one of my favorite physicists Professor Stephen Hawking claimed through his paper that there are no black holes! Well… later I realized he actually insist in calling it with different name, “Metastable bound states of the gravitational field”!!! I know I am not meant to explore the nature of black holes. Nevertheless, While I was contemplating over the yes-or-no event horizon, there came hey-remember-you-are-a-biologist kind of reminder articles in Nature and makes a sensation. I first read about it from a random free newspaper on London Tube. Now you know how quickly it hit the media!

By now, most of people who work in the research field which uses key word “stem cells” should be aware of these two articles. So me not going into much details. Apparently, Haruko Obokata and Charles Vacanti’s team has done amazing job in showing a new method to derive iPS-like cells (as Yamanaka calls it). The method involves exposing the cells to stress, like comfortable acidic pH. And the rest of the story is well known.

Now, the lesson for me from these two articles is not only how I can reprogram cells in a new way but also how an alternative thinking can lead to breakthrough discoveries. Most of the scientists often plunged into narrow topics that often restricts to think outside the lab. As the lead author says, the original idea occurred to her when she thought about plants how they regenerate missing parts when it get chopped off. Obviously plants do not need to overexpress Yamanaka factors-like factors or any genetic manipulation to regenerate. In plants, mostly the regeneration is induced by stress. By inspired by this, the authors tried various stress applications including to squeeze the cells through narrow capillary pipettes (of course, without killing) and see if it could make the cells to do something different. And the ingenious idea of dipping cells in low pH worked out! Inspirations all around us, we need to keep eyes open, a bit wider.

Lateral thinking is vital in biology and science in general, I say!

This post is also available in our lab blog – wattlab blog. Please visit for more interesting topics and discussions.

Further reading

S. W. Hawking (2014) Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761.

Obokata et al., (2014) Stimulus-triggered fate conversion of somatic cells into pluripotency. Nature. 505, 641–647.

Obokata et al., (2014) Bidirectional developmental potential in reprogrammed cells with acquired pluripotency. Nature. 505, 676–680.

(3 votes)

Loading...

This two-week course combines lectures and practical sessions to leading edge technologies and questions in stem cells biology in the context of organogenesis and regeneration in different organisms.

This course is intended for research scientists and PhD students who already have laboratory experience and a good knowledge (equivalent to a Master level) in developmental and cell biology. It provides a wide scope of how stem cells have adopted strategies to effect organogenesis and regeneration in different organisms.

The practical part covers methods and techniques that will allow participants to reproduce state of the art technologies in their own research activities. Leading-edge approaches in identification, derivation, analysis and imaging of stem cells will be presented. Distinct model systems and organisms have been chosen to expose the participants to the advantages and challenges in each paradigm and to provide added insights into the biology of stem cells. The models include mouse, zebrafish, Drosophila, and ES and iPS cells.

Lectures will be presented by selected speakers who investigate not only stem cells but also use innovative technologies.

Networking and discussion opportunities will be enhanced by the convivial formal and ad hoc discussion sessions in the teaching facilities.

For more detailed information the program of the 2013 course can be dowloaded (at http://www.pasteur.fr/sites/www.pasteur.fr/files/programme_ascb.pdf); some topics and practical sessions might change from year to year, without altering the general frame and means of the course.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

Of all the types of stem cells, there is a kind than can be a lot more scary than beautiful: the cancer stem cell. Although the concept of cancer stem cell is still controversial among the scientific community, it is of great medical interest to further understand these cells so that we develop better strategies to tackle them. Cancer stem cells are described as cells with regular stem cell characteristics, they can – self renew (make identical copies of themselves) and – differentiate (give rise to multiple cell types). However, contrary to normal stem cells, they can also give rise to malignant tumors.

Since normal stem cells and cancer stem cells share many characteristics, it is a major challenge to identify molecules (also called markers) that are specifically located on malignant cells and not healthy ones, or mechanisms that are important for the function of malignant cells but not for the function of healthy ones.

In a recent study published in Cell Reports, Lathia and colleagues showed that the junctional adhesion molecule JAM-A was essential for the survival and growth of the cancer stem cells found in glioblastoma, a type of brain tumor; but dispensable for normal brain stem cell function.

In this image, you can observe cancer stem cells obtained from a patient’s glioblastoma and grown in-vitro. In green is JAM-A protein, in red is α-6 integrin protein, and in blue are cell nuclei. Overlap of the green and red (yellow) shows that cells that express α-6 integrin also express JAM-A. Since α-6 integrin was shown to be a marker for glioblastoma cancer stem cells in a previous study by the same group, this picture confirms that JAM-A, being located on the same cells as α-6 integrin, can also be used as a marker for glioblastoma cancer stem cell.

Further down in the study, Lathia and colleagues show that JAM-A is almost undetectable on healthy brain stem cells. Also, blocking of JAM-A reduces cancer stem cell growth but does not affect the growth and function of other healthy brain stem cells. Altogether, since JAM-A is specifically important to glioblastoma cancer stem cell function, it could a promising therapeutic target for treating this type of cancer, making those stem cells a little less scary.

Lathia, J. D., Li, M., Sinyuk, M., Alvarado, A. G., Flavahan, W. A., Stoltz, K., Rosager, A. M., Hale, J., Hitomi, M., Gallagher, J. et al. (2014) ‘High-throughput flow cytometry screening reveals a role for junctional adhesion molecule a as a cancer stem cell maintenance factor’, Cell Rep 6(1): 117-29.

doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.11.043

(2 votes)

Loading...

Young Group Leader Positions

in Stem Cell Biology

The Institut Pasteur (Paris, France) announces an international call for candidates wishing to establish independent research groups. The recruitments are part of the Revive Laboratory of Excellence (LabEx) programme on “Stem Cells and Regenerative Biology and Medicine”. Candidates will be integrated into the cutting edge interdisciplinary environment provided by the Department of Developmental & Stem Cell Biology. Candidates specializing in the field of stem cells in the context of developmental and cell biology, genetics, epigenetics, regeneration, translational research and ageing are encouraged to apply.

To be eligible, candidates must have defended their PhD on or after June 15, 2006 (women with children are eligible up to 11 yrs after their Ph.D). Successful candidates will be appointed as head of a group of up to 6 people for a period of 5 years. The budget (up to €1,500,000 over 5 years) includes the salary for the group leader, a three-year postdoctoral position, a technician’s position, part-time secretarial assistance, a substantial contribution to running costs and equipment, and access to on-campus facilities including state-of-the-art technology core facilities. Candidates should send their formal applications by E-mail to the Director of Scientific Evaluation, Prof. Alain Israël, at the Institut Pasteur (g5revive@pasteur.fr).

Application deadline: June 15, 2014

Short-listed candidates will be contacted for interview to be scheduled for beginning of September 2014 and recruitment decisions announced by October 2014. Further information on the Revive program can be found at http://www.pasteur.fr/revive

Applicants should provide the following (in order) in a single pdf file:

1. A brief introductory letter of motivation, including the name of the proposed group. Candidates are encouraged to contact the coordinator of the Revive programme Shahragim Tajbakhsh (shaht@pasteur.fr).

2. A Curriculum Vitae and a full publication list.

3. A description of past and present research activities (up to 5 pages with 1.5 spacing; Times 11 or Arial 10 font size).

4. The proposed research project (up 10 pages with 1.5 spacing; ; Times 11 or Arial 10 font size).

5. The names of 3 scientists from whom letters of recommendation can be sought, together with the names of scientists with a potential conflict of interest from whom evaluations should not be requested.

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...