“Everything I love. The room behind me. A thousand heartbreaks, a thousand wonderings. A thousand lifetimes to tame it.”
[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]
This last week the Biomed Central publishing group, publishers of such journals like Genome Biology, announced the merger of BMC Biology and Journal of Biology. Plus ça change is the editorial piece that explains the merger. Of more interest is Petsko’s edgy commentary on why this merger is good, and that there should be fewer specialty journals.
Petsko writes:
“Think of the places that people long to get their work published in; aren’t all of them pretty general in their coverage of biology (or science as a whole)? Isn’t the whole point of being published in such places that a great many people from a variety of fields will see the work and, ipso facto, it must be important?”
I’d like to point out that quite a few important papers, yes as important as those in some of the juggernaut general journals, are relegated by editors to specialized journals because the scope is too specific for the general readership. Take the area of missing heritability, an unknown that occupies a plurality of my mind cycles. Where will one find the key papers that ultimately dissects the relationship between genotype and phenotype? In general journals like Science, Nature, and the newly consolidated BMC Biology? Or more specialized journals like Genome Research, Genetic Epidemiology, and PLoS Genetics? Your thoughts?
Interestingly, the lines between scientifically important and sensationalism can sometimes be murky. How many times have you heard some of these general journals be called “tabloid journals?”
Petsko further writes:
“And wouldn’t more general journals help break the hegemony of the existing ones?”
I remember when Journal of Biology first came out. The creators stated the journal was meant to compete toe for toe with the likes of Nature and Science. I’ve long thought that BMC Biology and Journal of Biology were a bit redundant for the BMC publishing group. Perhaps this consolidation of readerships will allow BMC to better fulfill their original mission.
I’ve also long wondered whether the various PLoS journals particularly, PLoS Biology, PLoS Genetics, PLoS ONE, had a bit of cannibalism in them. Your thoughts are welcome.
Never knew we could do this … allergy-free landscaping. I think every major city should invest in this. Humans have basically created hotbeds of allergens to try and beautify their cities. Nature doesn’t plant miles of allergenic species alongside roads, etc. As the author has pointed out, there are plenty of options for less allergenic species that would easily fit the beautification bill. Let’s do this! Uh, like now.
I wonder how many undergraduate programs teach like this today:
“Science was no longer about memorizing the steps of the Krebs cycle, but learning the basic mechanisms that underlie biology and chemistry and applying them to new situations,’’ Rudolf said.
As science becomes a household theme, I do agree it is coming time for folks to understand some fundamental knowledge of science and technology:
“Science has too often been taught as a mode of exclusion, as a way of sorting people out,’’ Harvard president Drew Faust, who is a historian, said in an interview. “Science education isn’t just for people who are going to be Nobel Prize-winning scientists. We need to have an education that enables a wide range of students to be excited by the sciences. People who go into policy fields need to understand science. They can’t just say, ‘That isn’t for me.’ ’’
Just finished Acquiring Genomes. I feel so alive. The fibers of so-called organic and inorganic essence vibrating exquisitely in my every cell. Our potentially thermodynamic imperative. Our microbial antecedents. Can hardly contain my own spirit with its heart pounding so forcefully. A soul provoked.
An existential itch to scratch … scratch scratch claw claw rub rub
I haven’t read the book yet, but it’s written by Darwin’s great-great-grandson. Curious to watch the movie. Jennifer Connelly as Darwin’s wife?! Anyone seen this film yet?
I met a kind man today.
This article reminds me of a thought I have had for sometime. An arguable perspective is that scientists’ mistakes outweighs the mistakes of their detractors. Detractors such as politicians for instance. These detractors make outlandish statements that are far less checked. How sturdy is the system for keeping these detractors straight and faithful to fact-based arguments? The system scientists have in place is an old tradition of publishing articles that are not just subjected to keen analysis by their peers, but also left for the entire community to read and respond to post publication. The system for these detractors is too weak.
Why the angry face? I have an invective of sorts today. I will get straight to the point. All too often I see non-scientists in positions where they control too much influence on an organization that is fundamentally a research organization. Research groups are to be managed by scientists for scientists period. Scientists should wield the most influence on research entities. The tired arguments that in order to manage funds one needs an MBA or financial background is preposterous. Scientists win the grants, and they should have the most influence over how those funds are dispensed.
Hmmm, I wonder if I feel better now.
Today, Secretary Geithner appeared before the Senate Finance Committee. Lots of news reports on this obviously, but the bit I listened to intently on CSPAN was the portion when the Treasury Secretary linked future economic growth to funding for basic research. He spoke for a bit regarding the administration’s push of this fundamental idea. Last year as you all know, the Obama administration provided the largest investment in basic research funding in history.
I eagerly await to see what Congress has to say about the basic science funding portion of the executive branch’s budget proposal.
Here is a portion of Geithner’s written testimony:
“At the very core of the Administration’s efforts to build a new foundation for growth are our efforts to encourage American innovation. We already made the largest investment in basic research funding in history last year, and we propose to build on that. Even with our tight fiscal constraints for discretionary spending, our Budget for the next fiscal year will increase civilian research and development (R&D) by 6.4 percent.”
Where is the NIH budget? Anyone see it?
NSF has a proposed 8.1% increase to $7.36 billion.
A bedfellow with Fiction
