Science Magazine: Network redesign could boost liver implants

Keyword(s):  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tage Rai

Letter to the community Oct 1 2018 social and behavioral sciences Science magazine


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. A54-A54
Author(s):  
J. F. L.

A. Bartlett Giamatti, the president of Yale University has deplored the "mounting wave of regulation" and "requirements for massive amounts of paperwork" that he said Federal agencies heaped upon researchers supported by Government grants. Echoing a strong note of discontent voiced by many active in university-based scientific research, Mr Giamatti said "excessive or unthinking regulation" had damaged the relationship between government and universities. "There is a powerful resentment on all sides, and distrust," he told 500 people at the opening dinner of the annual Association of Yale Alumni assembly. "A radical skepticism bordering on open contempt for our centers of learning surfaces again." Researchers at universities across the country have been protesting strongly against a government regulation, put into effect three months ago, that requires them to complete detailed "personnel activity reports" before they are reimbursed for "indirect costs"–overhead expenses–incurred during their work. Of $68 million Yale received in federal funds last year, Mr Giamatti said, $21 mfflion was for "indirect costs." Under the new rule, researchers at Stanford University say they will have to complete 80,000 reports instead of the present 3,000, at a cost of between $250,000 and $300,000, Mr. Giamatti told the assembly, quoting from an article in Science magazine. Critics also point to a 1968 Bureau of the Budget report evaluating time and effort reports when the original A-21 regulation, written in 1958, was revised in 1967 to include these reports. "Time or effort reports now required of faculty members are meaningless and a waste of time," the 1968 report says.


Author(s):  
Vlatko Vedral

Spring 2005, whilst sitting at my desk in the physics department at Leeds University, marking yet more exam papers, I was interrupted by a phone call. Interruptions were not such a surprise at the time, a few weeks previously I had published an article on quantum theory in the popular science magazine, New Scientist, and had since been inundated with all sorts of calls from the public. Most callers were very enthusiastic, clearly demonstrating a healthy appetite for more information on this fascinating topic, albeit occasionally one or two either hadn’t read the article, or perhaps had read into it a little too much. Comments ranging from ‘Can quantum mechanics help prevent my hair loss?’ to someone telling me that they had met their twin brother in a parallel Universe, were par for the course, and I was getting a couple of such questions each day. At Oxford we used to have a board for the most creative questions, especially the ones that clearly demonstrated the person had grasped some of the principles very well, but had then taken them to an extreme, and often, unbeknown to them, had violated several other physical laws on the way. Such questions served to remind us of the responsibility we had in communicating science – to make it clear and approachable but yet to be pragmatic. As a colleague of mine often said – sometimes working with a little physics can be more dangerous than working with none at all. ‘Hello Professor Vedral, my name is Jon Spooner, I’m a theatre director and I am putting together a play on quantum theory’, said the voice as I picked up the phone. ‘I am weaving elements of quantum theory into the play and we want you as a consultant to verify whether we are interpreting it accurately’. Totally stunned for at least a good couple of seconds, I asked myself, ‘This guy is doing what?’ Had I misheard? A play on quantum theory? Anyway it occurred to me that there might be an appetite for something like this, given how successful the production of Copenhagen, a play by Michael Freyn, had been a few years back.


2019 ◽  
pp. 136754941985682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qian (Sarah) Gong

This article analyses the representation of parental practices in Parenting Science, the first and longest running parenting magazine published in China since 1980. Drawing on Foucault’s work on governmentality and biopolitics as well as their current development in cultural studies and sociology of health, this article critically investigates the cultural frames that surround parental practices relating to the health and development of young children. It explores how issues of medicalisation, intensive parenting, responsibility and self-management are represented in the magazine, ‘reflecting’ as well as ‘reinforcing’ dominant cultural ideas of parenting and childrearing in China. Based on a qualitative content analysis of 2295 items from 37 issues of the magazine (1980–2016), including editorials, feature stories, standard articles, Q&As, adverts and other short items, this article has identified three major frames of parental practices in monitoring and facilitating children’s health, development and wellbeing: (1) the medicalisation of children’s health problems, (2) the rise of expert authority and (3) the responsibilisation of parents. This article argues that these frames underpin the construction of an intensive and anxious parenting culture in China and serve as powerful tools of biopolitical control.


1979 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
I Berkovitch
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha Myers

In 2008 Science Magazine and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science hosted the first ever Dance Your PhD Contest in Vienna, Austria. Calls for submission to the second, third, and fourth annual Dance Your PhD contests followed suit, attracting hundreds of entries and featuring scientists based in the US, Canada, Australia, Europe and the UK. These contests have drawn significant media attention. While much of the commentary has focused on the novelty of dancing scientists and the function of dance as an effective distraction for overworked researchers, this article takes seriously the relationship between movement and scientific inquiry and draws on ethnographic research among structural biologists to examine the ways that practitioners use their bodies to animate biological phenomena. It documents how practitioners transform their bodies into animating media and how they conduct body experiments to test their hypotheses. This ‘body-work’ helps them to figure out how molecules move and interact, and simultaneously offers a medium through which they can communicate the nuanced details of their findings among students and colleagues. This article explores the affective and kinaesthetic dexterities scientists acquire through their training, and it takes a close look at how this body-work is tacitly enabled and constrained through particular pedagogical techniques and differential relations of gender and power. This article argues that the Dance Your PhD contests, as well as other performative modalities, can expand and extend what it is possible for scientific researchers to see, say, imagine and feel.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-141
Author(s):  
Magdalena Makowska

Popular-science magazines occupy an important place amidst numerous areasof journalistic activity. Their aim is to convey scientific knowledge that is easily digestible and attractive in its form also when it comes to non-specialists. Authors of such texts facea difficult task of reconciling what is typically scientific with what is journalistic. The purpose of the article is a media-linguistic analysis of phenomena which constitute the journalistic transfer of scientific knowledge, taking place both in the verbal as well as visual sphere.The research corpus is based on the texts published in the Polish edition of the popular science magazine FOCUS. In the centre of research interest there are processes of hybridization and differentiation which are employed by authors of multimodal texts in order to optimizethe transfer of information.


Author(s):  
Donald Bastin ◽  
Brynn Petras Charron ◽  
Saffire Krance

The past decade saw great excitement over cancer immunotherapy, reaching a fever pitch, with the discovery being heralded as a “game changer”.1 In 2013 Science magazine dubbed immunotherapy the “breakthrough of the year”,2 and in 2018 the Nobel prize in physiology and medicine was awarded for contributions to the field.3 Throughout the 2010s unprecedented clinical results were seen with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy,4–6 and the first FDA approvals were obtained for CAR T-cell products,7 oncolytic viruses,8 and checkpoint blockade.9 Despite rapid advances, cancer immunotherapy progress has not been without its hurdles. New toxicities and high costs continue to challenge the field, alongside uncertainties regarding the durability of responses and widespread applicability of these therapies across different tumour types.10,11 Now, at the close of the decade we provide herein a brief overview of the history and current state of immunotherapy, reflecting on whether this treatment modality has truly “changed the game”.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document