French Higher Education and Research Minister Geneviève Fioraso was among the political victims of a major defeat for the Socialist Party (PS) in local elections last Sunday. In the wake of the electoral disaster, President François Hollande ditched almost half of his Cabinet, including Fioraso; the new prime minister, Manuel Valls, announced yesterday that career politician Benoît Hamon will succeed her in a new superministry that also encompasses primary and secondary education.
But Fioraso’s role may not have ended. There was strong speculation in Paris yesterday that she may be appointed secretary of state under Hamon next week, a position in which she may keep most of the responsibilities she had as minister. Hamon himself hinted at a prolongation at a handover ceremony, according to Le Monde, when he told her: “Thank you very much … see you soon.” Fioraso said that “the adventure hasn’t ended yet.”
BRUSSELS—Researchers who do clinical trials in the European Union will have to make the results public under a bill approved by the European Parliament yesterday. In a sweeping vote held here yesterday, 594 members of the Parliament voted in favor of the plan, while only 17 voted against and 13 abstained.
The vote, which confirms an informal deal reached in December between Parliament and the European Union's 28 member states, is a victory for activist groups who want trials data out in the open. "This is fantastic,” said Sile Lane from Sense About Science, one of the organizations behind the AllTrials campaign in the United Kingdom, in a statement after the vote. “It will mean that researchers will in future know about trials as they are happening and will be able to scrutinize results soon after their end.”
Under the draft reform, trials carried out in the European Union must be registered in a central database, and a summary of results—positive or negative—must be uploaded within 1 year after the end of the trial. In addition, researchers must release a full clinical study report—which contains detailed information about the trial design and analysis, including patient-level data sets—if the medicine is submitted for marketing authorization, irrespective of that application's success. Academic researchers and companies would be fined if they don't comply.
The U.S. Department of Defense’s research arm is making a concerted grasp at biotechnology. On 1 April, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) announced a new division that will consolidate biology research scattered across its existing six divisions and possibly expand the arsenal of projects. “Researchers should see this move as a recognition of the enormous potential of biological technologies,” Alicia Jackson, deputy director of the new Biological Technologies Office (BTO), told ScienceInsider in an e-mail. Whether the agency will devote a larger chunk of the roughly $2.9 billion in its requested 2015 budget to biotech programs is not yet clear.
The Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), Canada’s flagship environmental research center that has been under threat of closure for 2 years, has found a savior. The ELA will leave government hands and will now be managed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), a Winnipeg-based think tank. The 1 April announcement guarantees that the 46-year-old field site in northwestern Ontario will survive, at least for another 5 years, and will expand its research focus beyond that of the Canadian government’s mandate.
The deal will hopefully bring the ELA some “stability,” says Diane Orihel, a freshwater ecologist who since mid-2012 has led a campaign to save the facility. The campaign began after the Canadian government pulled the project’s funding and handed pink slips to its team of 16 scientists and technicians. Last year, the lab, which conducts experiments in a system of 58 lakes, was saved from the bulldozers by a stopgap payment of $2 million from the provincial government of Ontario. Now, IISD has a chance to rebuild the ELA after years of neglect by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Orihel says.
The ELA, the world’s only facility where researchers can intentionally poison whole lakes to monitor ecosystem effects, has an impressive research record: Its scientists were the first to find evidence for acid rain, and to fully diagnose the effects of pollutants such as mercury, phosphate, and synthetic hormones on aquatic life. IISD President Scott Vaughan tells ScienceInsider that he intends to build upon this past research, while looking to expand the scope of the facility’s science to investigate the effects of micropollutants and climate change on aquatic systems.
MOSCOW—After months of turmoil, the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) has emerged from a landmark meeting diminished—but intact. On 27 March, RAS members approved a new charter that redefines its role in Russian science, while its leadership revealed just how little funding the academy has at its disposal.
For years, some biomedical researchers have worried that a push for more bench-to-bedside studies has meant less support for basic research. Now, the chief of one of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) largest institutes has added her voice—and hard data—to the discussion. Story Landis describes what she calls a “sharp decrease” in basic research at her institute, a trend she finds worrisome.
In a blog post last week, Landis, director of the $1.6 billion National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), says her staff started out asking why, in the mid-2000s, NINDS funding declined for R01s, the investigator-initiated grants that are the mainstay of most labs. After examining the aims and abstracts of grants funded between 1997 and 2012, her staff found that the portion of NINDS competing grant funding that went to basic research has declined (from 87% to 71%) while applied research rose (from 13% to 29%).
To dig deeper, the staffers divided the grants into four categories—basic/basic; basic/disease-focused; applied/translational; and applied/clinical. Here, the decline in basic/basic research was “striking”: It fell from 52% to 27% of new and competing grants, while basic/disease-focused has been rising (see graph). The same trend emerged when the analysts looked only at investigator-initiated grants, which are proposals based on a researcher’s own ideas, not a solicitation by NINDS for proposals in a specific area.
Apparently bowing to pressure from its members, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) says that patients should be allowed to “opt out” of learning about how their DNA might increase their risk of disease. The policy, announced today, reverses a controversial recommendation that the group made last year. It urged clinicians to tell people undergoing genomic sequencing whether their genes might make them more likely to develop serious disease in the future, even if they didn’t want that information.
The original ACMG policy aimed to offer much-needed guidance in the area of so-called incidental findings, which are increasingly presenting a conundrum in medicine and research. As the cost of gene sequencing drops, DNA being sequenced for one purpose may yield many other secrets, such as the risk of certain cancers and Alzheimer’s disease. Almost exactly a year ago, ACMG proposed a radical shift in how incidental findings are handled. Not only did it say that findings should be shared with patients—it also argued that labs should actively look for certain DNA mutations in someone whose DNA is being sequenced for any medical reason. The recommendations included sharing the DNA finds linked to adult-onset cancers with the parents of pediatric patients.
TOKYO—An investigating committee has concluded that falsification and fabrication mar two recent Nature papers reporting a new, simple way to reprogram mature cells into stem cells. The committee concluded that these acts constitute research misconduct, but it stopped short of calling for the papers to be retracted and will leave the question of disciplinary action to a separate committee. RIKEN President Ryoji Noyori today said he favors one paper's retraction if the committee’s findings are upheld in an appeals process.
“I am filled with feelings of indignation and surprise,” said lead author Haruko Obokata, of the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology (RIKEN CDB) in Kobe, Japan, in a statement. She wrote that she intends to appeal the judgment.
The committee's final report (in Japanese), released today, is the latest blow against a surprisingly simple method for creating stem cells, known as STAP (stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency), published in a Naturearticle and an accompanying letter online on 29 January by Obokata and colleagues at RIKEN CDB, along with other institutions in Japan and at Harvard Medical School in Boston. Their method relied on briefly bathing blood cells from newborn mice in a mildly acidic solution and then tweaking culture conditions to produce stem cells. This method, if it proves viable, would be an alternative to far more complicated but established methods of deriving stem cells, which are prized for possible use in regenerative medicine.
Japan has to stop capturing and killing whales under its whaling program in the Antarctic, called JARPA II, the International Court of Justice has said.
In a judgment issued in The Hague in the Netherlands today, the U.N. court has ordered Japan to revoke existing permits to catch whales for scientific purposes and to stop granting such permits in the future. The ruling is a victory for Australia, which filed court proceedings against Japan's whaling in 2010, arguing that it breached international obligations.
In 1982, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling, allowing the taking and killing of whales for research purposes only. Scientific catch limits are set by each country on a yearly basis, submitted to a review by IWC's scientific committee.
Antiwhaling critics say that Japanese whale research is a fig leaf for commercial hunting, as whale meat can be sold to cover research costs. Japan counters that its whale meat sale is not profitable and that it needs to take and kill whales to study the animals and their potential as a food source.
The court said that JARPA II activities can “broadly be characterized as scientific research,” but found several “shortcomings” with the program's details—saying in particular that Japan had not paid enough attention to nonlethal methods. “The evidence does not establish that the programme’s design and implementation are reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives,” the court said. Therefore, “the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II are not 'for purposes of scientific research,' ” the judges added.
Earth's changing climate is already having an impact on ecosystems, agriculture, coastal infrastructure, and a host of other human and natural systems. And a host of serious risks await as global warming intensifies, although nascent efforts are under way to adapt and prepare for a hotter, more uncompromising planet. Those are the takeaway messages of a major new report released 31 March by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international group of scientists convened by the United Nations to report on the science and policy implications of a changing climate every 7 years or so.
“Climate change has altered systems from the equator to the poles, from the ocean to the mountains," ecologist Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Palo Alto, California, told reporters earlier today from Yokohama, Japan, where hundreds of the report’s authors and government representatives negotiated the final wording of the 44-page summary of the mammoth document.