Scientists in Europe have won a major battle over access to personal health data. A research coalition had worried that draft E.U. legislation would have sharply restricted scientific use of such data. This week, however, scientist-friendly amendments emerged from negotiations between the European Parliament, the European Council, and the European Commission.
“We are delighted with the outcome,” says Beth Thompson, a policy adviser at the Wellcome Trust in London who helped organize a months-long campaign to persuade politicians and officials to revise the legislation. The “compromise solution,” she says, “works for both the research community and the people.”
Three years ago, scientists had embraced the commission’s initial draft of the legislation, which strives to harmonize privacy rules for data collection, storage, and exchange across the continent. But last March, the European Parliament amended the legislation to mandate specific consent for the use of any data in medical research. The provision would force researchers to obtain permission from research subjects for any new direction of research, with rare exception; subjects would not be able to grant broad consent even if they wanted to do so. Thompson and others claimed that would have endangered large investments in disease registries, cohort studies, and biobanks.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—A 2-day National Academy of Sciences (NAS) workshop here last week exposed just how far scientists, ethicists, and regulators are from agreeing on the best way to move forward with genome editing in animals. Following on the heels of this month’s NAS summit on genome editing in humans, the workshop attracted much less attention, even though the work has more immediate regulatory and scientific implications. It also has the potential to shape how these technologies may one day be used in humans.
In one sense, gene editing has been going on for nearly 10,000 years. The selective breeding of livestock leads to changes in a breed’s genetic makeup similar to what can be done with modern techniques. The big difference, say genome-editing advocates, is that these new molecular tools make the process much more efficient, with precise ways of deleting, inserting, or regulating genes. One approach, called CRISPR, has made gene editing so easy that in little more than 2 years, researchers have used it to change the genomes of more than a dozen plants and animals. With CRISPR, researchers have modified or disabled multiple genes at once, in some cases leaving no trace of the foreign DNA that makes it possible.
Congress today overwhelmingly passed the 2016 spending bill. The House of Representatives this morning voted 316 to 113, with a majority of Republicans and nearly all Democrats favoring the $1.1 trillion package for all federal agencies. The Senate concurred a few hours later with a vote of 65 to 33. President Barack Obama is expected to sign it into law later today.
Early on 16 December, congressional leaders released the text of an omnibus spending bill that will fund all federal agencies for the rest of the 2016 fiscal year. We’ve taken a look at how individual agencies fared under the bill (see bullets below). Science has also compiled a table showing the budgets of key research agencies and programs.
These days in Congress, not even strong bipartisan support seems to guarantee a bill’s success. But the Republicans and Democrats who backed a U.S. Senate bill to overhaul the nation’s environmental safety law for industrial chemicals refused to give up. Overcoming a thicket of procedural barriers, they won a signature victory tonight as the Senate unanimously approved, on a voice vote, an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The vote puts Congress close to reforming one of the nation’s most maligned environmental laws for the first time in nearly 40 years. Both environmentalists and industry have assailed the TSCA, first passed in 1976, for being unwieldy and ineffective.
SHANGHAI, CHINA—China's space science efforts got a boost today with the launch of the first of four planned scientific missions. The Dark Matter Particle Explorer (DAMPE) rode into space on a Long March 2D rocket from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in the Gobi desert, about 1600 kilometers west of Beijing, at about 8:12 a.m. local time.
"This is an exciting mission," says theoretical astrophysicist David Spergel of Princeton University. If dark matter annihilates, as some theories predict, "DAMPE has an opportunity to detect dark matter annihilation products," Spergel says. The launch also marks China’s new commitment to scientific space missions. "DAMPE is the first Chinese space mission for astronomy and astrophysics," says Yizhong Fan, an astrophysicist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences's (CAS's) Purple Mountain Observatory in Nanjing who is one of the mission scientists.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) today released its first agency-wide strategic plan in more than 20 years. Although the document is largely a roundup of what the agency is already doing, it has some NIH advisers wondering whether the plan promises too much.
Despite reservations from some NIH advisers, one lawmaker who called for the plan thinks it is just what Congress ordered. In a statement, Representative Andy Harris (R–MD) called the strategic plan “groundbreaking” and “an important first step toward increasing accountability and resource prioritization at NIH.”
CAMBRIDGE, U.K.—With roughly 2000 exoplanets confirmed and more added every month, the problem of providing names for these orbiting bodies outside our solar system is becoming pressing.
The scientific monikers such as OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb just aren’t going to cut it. So the International Astronomical Union (IAU), which has the responsibility of naming heavenly bodies, held a competition. And today it announced the results—names for 14 stars and 31 planets around them.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA -- Uncharted volcanoes, unimagined species, unanticipated treatments for disease – scientists have many guesses but little actual data on what lies in the 95% of the ocean that remains unexplored. But now Shell and the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have teamed up to sponsor a $7 million XPrize that they say will hopefully provide some answers by promoting the development of new sensors, robotic submerisbles, and other technologies. The prize was announced today at the American Geophysical Union’s fall meeting here.
When confronted with the difficulties of space exploration, oceanographers tend to have a snappy retort. “I love to have this conversation with my NASA friends,” said Rick Spinrad, NOAA’s chief scientist, at a press conference accompanying the announcement. Exploring the ocean is harder than space, Spinrad said, due to crushing pressures, a harsh chemical environment, the inability to communicate with radio frequencies, and no light. As a result, not only is the majority of the ocean floor unmapped, but an estimated 60% to 90% of marine species are still unknown to science.
The ocean discovery XPrize, intended to speed up the development of new technologies to illuminate the deep ocean, is actually the third in a series of five ocean-related competitions, part of XPrize’s 10-year ocean initiative. Two earlier prizes focused on oil spill cleanup and ocean health. Like those earlier prizes, the new prize is designed to draw new players into the game of ocean exploration, “democratizing” the ocean.
Scientists don't like to admit it, but they love attention from the media. Stories about their work raise their professional profile, leading to better grants and better jobs. And as both scientists and their funders move to ditch impact factor as the main metric for judging the value of published research, media attention has emerged as one of many alternative metrics.
One of the most prominent scoring systems is run by an outfit called Altmetric, now a division of the London-based publishing technology startup Digital Science. Rather than scoring journals by their impact within the scientific community, Altmetric scores individual articles based on buzz: stories in the media and references on blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and even Wikipedia. And each December, the company releases a list of the top 100 buzz-generating scientific papers over the past year.
This year's buzziest studies were mentioned a total of 112,492 times in Altmetric's online sources. Contrary to the myth that the media gets most of its science stories from just a few traditional powerhouse journals, the top 100 papers were published in a broad range of 34 journals. Their authors hailed from 105 different countries, working together in 52 international collaborations. (You can download the data here.)