E-Letter responses to:

editorial: Bruce Alberts Science for Science Science 2009; 324: 13 [Summary] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Virtual Collaboratories for Mental Health Research and Training

Joseph G. Perpich   (2 June 2009)

Society's Intersection with Science

Leon M. Lederman, Walter Massey   (13 May 2009)

New Voices for Research

Heather C. Benson   (7 May 2009)

Training Scientists with the Skills Needed to Make Public Policy

Ronald Kalil   (28 April 2009)

Science for Science: Been There, Done That

Jay Siegel, Max Houck - Director: Forensic Science Initiative, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA   (27 April 2009)

New Tires, Not Retreads

Susan K. Pierce   (23 April 2009)

Do We Know What Our Values Are?

James C. Williams   (14 April 2009)

Models for Non-Traditional Career Paths are Sorely Needed

Paul M.E. Bunje   (14 April 2009)

Virtual Collaboratories for Mental Health Research and Training 2 June 2009
Joseph G. Perpich, Psychiatrist JGPerpich, LLC Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Virtual Collaboratories for Mental Health Research and Training	I was spurred to respond to the final paragraph in B. Alberts' Editorial ("Science for science," 3 April 2009, p. 13), where he called for readers with examples of "highly effective communities that have been established electronically" to post those ideas. Through funding from the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) we have recently established three "Virtual Collaboratories" of scientists who work together on mental health co-morbid states (substance abuse and depression), suicide prevention, and international drug abuse research and treatment projects through the use of simple Internet-based tools. These tools include discussion forums, wikis, a virtual meeting room, a collaboration-matching service and a resource center. We now have more than 1200 registered individuals within the three communities. We promote the interactions necessary for successful collaborations so researchers can build strong networks between geographically-dispersed individuals, support working groups, provide training and mentoring programs, and organize scientific conferences and workshops. The first outcome of one working group was the publication of an article on international inhalant abuse standards (1), and for another, the design and production of a virtual seminar series on volatile substance abuse in indigenous peoples (2). To prepare for an upcoming face-to-face meeting this summer, we have helped the meeting organizers pull together critical references for review and discussion prior to the scientific session (3). We would really appreciate hearing from others through this forum about how other online communities of scientists have succeeded in using virtual tools to promote their work agendas and collaborative projects. Joseph G. Perpich JGPerpich, LLC References 1. R. L. Balster et al., Addiction, Published online 10 February, 2009. 2. NIDA International Program, http://nivc.perpich.com/library/?category=youth. 3. NIDA International Program, http://nivc.perpich.com/library/?category=intlwomen.
Society's Intersection with Science 13 May 2009
Leon M. Lederman Science Chicago, Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago, IL 60637-2093, USA, Walter Massey Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Society's Intersection with Science	We were pleased to read the Editorial calling for increased contact between scientists and society ("Science for science," B. Alberts, 3 April 2009, p. 13). Indeed, the role of science in society–and vice versa–is greater now than perhaps at any point in American history. Current concerns over renewable energy, health care, our environment, and our economy all have multiple intersections with science. In the future, these intersections will only multiply. This is why your call to action is so important, and why we must also take responsibility at local levels to encourage young people to pursue science-based careers. We must help our kids believe that becoming a scientist will be just as important and just as lucrative as entering the worlds of business, law, or finance. Here in Chicago, the Museum of Science and Industry is spearheading a group of more than 140 civic, cultural, corporate, and academic institutions in a collaborative, year-long initiative called Science Chicago, aimed at reinforcing the critical value of science and math education, and encouraging pursuit of science careers. Understanding the need to connect both local and world-famous scientists with the public, Science Chicago was designed to provide as much interaction between science and the community as possible. Moreover, Science Chicago helps the public to see science and scientists as more than just researchers in white lab coats. With events that offer hands-on learning for kids, opportunities for students to discover nontraditional science careers, and forums for thoughtful debate among adults, we believe the program is successfully forging vital connections between the scientific community and the community at large. Additionally, through several online communities under the www.sciencechicago.com umbrella, area youth can connect with each other about science topics via social networks, teachers can find expert scientists willing to speak to their classes, and the public can learn about the many scientific resources available in their neighborhoods. Ultimately, what an initiative like Science Chicago proves is that the public awareness side of the equation is solvable. Our society is eager to engage with science, and our youth are ready to explore the science-related jobs of the future. Let’s all get out there and help them discover. Walter Massey and Leon M. Lederman Science Chicago, Museum of Science and Industry, 57th Street and Lakeshore Drive, Chicago, IL 60637-2093, USA. Notes 1. Walter Massey is a Former President, AAAS; Former Director, National Science Foundation; President Emeritus, Morehouse College; and Co-Chair, Science Chicago Board of Advisors. 2. Leon Lederman is a Nobel Laureate; Former President, AAAS; Director Emeritus, Fermi Lab; Pritzker Professor of Science, Illinois Institute of Technology; Resident Scholar, Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy; and Chair, Science Chicago Science Council.
New Voices for Research 7 May 2009
Heather C. Benson, Manager of Science Outreach Research!America Respond to this E-Letter: Re: New Voices for Research	B. Alberts is to be commended for addressing such an important cultural shift for scientists ("Science for science," Editorial, 3 April 2009, p. 13). The tools and resources that scientists need to succeed include effective communication skills and an understanding of the public policy environment for research and science. To that end, Research!America launched an initiative called New Voices for Research (1). Through daily blog posts, early-career researchers and science enthusiasts are encouraged to improve their communication with the general public and stay aware of important policy issues. Online resources such as this will hopefully reach today's transitioning scientists and open doors to the many career paths available to them. Heather C. Benson, Manager of Science Outreach, Research!America Reference 1. Research!America, http://newvoicesforresearch.blogspot.com.
Training Scientists with the Skills Needed to Make Public Policy 28 April 2009
Ronald Kalil University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Training Scientists with the Skills Needed to Make Public Policy	In his Editorial "Science for science" (3 April 2009, p. 13), B. Alberts writes of the need to increase the contacts between scientists and the rest of society, and he comments on the initiative underway in California to bring scientists together with policy-makers. The University of Wisconsin–Madison recognized the needs mentioned in the Editorial a few years ago, and took a step toward meeting them by establishing an integrated, dual-degree graduate program in Neuroscience and Public Policy, which offers graduate students the opportunity to earn a Ph.D. degree in neuroscience and Master's degree in public policy. The program is based on the conviction that sound science and technology policy is essential for the well-being of society, and one measure to help ensure such policy is to train scientists who are informed about the making of public policy and are prepared to participate in doing so. The program brings together faculty in neuroscience, public policy, bioethics, and sociology to train a new cadre of neuroscientists who will be qualified to help shape public policy that should be informed by discovery in neuroscience. Classroom and laboratory research training in neuroscience is integrated with classroom-based and "hands on" education in the making of public policy. As the impact on society of discovery in neuroscience grows with each passing year, graduates of the program can be expected to play a prominent role in shaping public policy on issues that range from neurotoxins and the environment to the treatment of mental disorders. Although it will take time for the goals of the Neuroscience and Public Policy Program to be realized fully, we are optimistic in the belief that the program represents a timely and sound investment in providing a career path that will be taken by many future scientists. Ronald Kalil University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
Science for Science: Been There, Done That 27 April 2009
Jay Siegel, Director: Forensic and Investigative Sciences Program Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN, USA, Max Houck - Director: Forensic Science Initiative, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Science for Science: Been There, Done That	Bruce Alberts' Editorial ("Science for science," 3 April 2009, p. 13), which concerns projecting science and scientists into the larger world so they can be more effective in influencing other areas such as public policy, is spot on. Forensic science, which is at the crossroads of science and criminal justice/public policy, has been doing this since its inception. Responsible undergraduate and graduate forensic science programs have always made internships in (mostly) public crime laboratories an integral part of the educational program. Many educators feel that the real-world experience is the most important part of the degree. Most graduate programs in sciences such as chemistry and biology, especially Ph.D. programs, frown upon any internship experiences during the program because they do not want to take the student away from doing research, even for a summer. This is shortsighted. Students need to be exposed to a range of possible careers that they can pursue with their science degree, and this exploration should be part of their program as it is with forensic science. The profession of forensic science also encourages the scientists to talk to the policy-makers. The American Academy of Forensic Sciences includes lab directors and lawyers along with scientists under its tent. Annual meetings are rife with discussions, papers, and symposia that explore the public policy side of the field. We encourage other scientific societies to do more of this. Jay Siegel Director, Forensic and Investigative Sciences Program, Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA. Max Houck Director, Forensic Science Initiative, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA.
New Tires, Not Retreads 23 April 2009
Susan K. Pierce NIH / NIAID, 12441 Parklawn Drive, Rockville, MD 20852, USA Respond to this E-Letter: Re: New Tires, Not Retreads	I applaud Science's efforts to promote the movement of young scientists out of the laboratory into '"nontraditional career paths" ("Science for science," B. Alberts, Editorial, 3 April 2009, p. 13). I agree that the attitudes about career paths are changing for this generation of students and fellows. Unfortunately, what has not changed over the past generation is how those of us who have chosen a traditional academic career train our students to enter the fields of public policy, government, education, and law. If we don't change the way we train Ph.D.s, we risk missing out on the opportunity to train scientists who can have a major impact in areas that are of tremendous importance to the social, political, and environmental issues that confront society today. Our mode of training Ph.D.s is woefully outdated. The average length of time in training for a Ph.D. degree in the life sciences is 7.1 years (1), generally requiring students to complete a novel body of publishable work. Only the fraction of students—less than half—who aspire to academic research careers will profit from this length of training. I contend that the majority of students are equipped for nontraditional careers far earlier, and for them the length of time to earn a Ph.D. is only a discouragement. I propose that Ph.D. training be strictly four years: one year of didactic training and three years of research. At the end of four years, students would be granted degrees and be free to begin their careers. Those who aspire to academic careers would have the option to take a two- or three-year fellowship in their graduate laboratories to extend their thesis work or leave for postdoctoral training elsewhere. Ph.D. programs might even begin to track non-research-career students early during graduate training, providing all-important experiences in science-related fields. Until we as trainers welcome students into our Ph.D. programs who have career goals different from our own and tailor their training to enable them to enter those careers, the good-intentioned efforts to promote the movement of young scientists into science-related careers will feel like retreading overtrained Ph.D.s. Susan K. Pierce National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, TWII, Room 200B, 12441 Parklawn Drive, Rockville, MD 20852, USA. Reference 1. V. Welch Jr., "Doctorate recipients from United States universities: selected tables 2007" (National Opinion Research Center, Chicago, 2008). The report gives the results of data collected in the Survey of Earned Doctorates, conducted for six federal agencies (NSF, NIH, USED, NEH, USDA, and NASA) by NORC.
Do We Know What Our Values Are? 14 April 2009
James C. Williams Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Do We Know What Our Values Are?	I appreciate Dr. Alberts' thoughtful Editorial on how it can be good for society to have more science-educated people moving into non-traditional areas like law and the media ("Science for science" by B. Alberts, 3 April 2009, p. 13). However, I have questions about his statement that "...our end goal is to effectively apply science and its values to solving global problems." What are the values of science? I presume that we all agree that the actions of Josef Mengele are heinous, but outside of obvious things like that, do we have a set of common values? It seems like an important question, if journals like Science want to speak out on issues in our society. James C. Williams Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
Models for Non-Traditional Career Paths are Sorely Needed 14 April 2009
Paul M.E. Bunje, Executive Director Center for Climate Change Solutions, UCLA Institute of the Environment, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Models for Non-Traditional Career Paths are Sorely Needed	Since taking over as Editor-in-Chief of Science, Dr. Alberts has done a tremendous job championing the value of scientists to larger societal goals, particularly through non-traditional career paths (Editorial, "Science for science" by B. Alberts, 3 April 2009, p. 13). As a former AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow, I want to applaud both the efforts of AAAS to facilitate these new careers and the efforts of many leading scientists to bring attention to their value. Following my Fellowship, I, like many PhD scientists, have been crafting a new career at the interface of science and society. As Dr. Alberts points out, there are many traditionally-trained scientists doing exactly this. But what is distinctly lacking is a model for such careers. Despite generational shifts in the valued career paths of young scientists, there are few repeatedly successful examples that can serve as a guide for young scientists in non-traditional careers. Much of the development of my career and my compatriot non-traditional scientists has occurred through ad hoc discussions, planning, and not a little experimentation and failure. We will continue to craft careers that interface science with non-research societal needs. But greater institutional support for the development and maintenance of these careers is desperately needed. At the end, to support scientists pursuing valuable careers away from the lab, it is necessary to give them a job. Efforts to network these non-traditional scientists are surely necessary, but job security in a non-traditional career path must be a primary goal. If scientists doing these things are good for science as well as society, then we must put our money where our mouths are. Paul M. E. Bunje Center for Climate Change Solutions, UCLA Institute of the Environment, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.