ScienceInsider

Breaking news and analysis from the world of science policy

Read our COVID-19 research and news.

  • For €9500, Nature journals will now make your paper free to read

    eye-glasses resting on a stack of scientific papers

    Some researchers wonder whether anyone but the best funded will be able to afford the cost of Natures top open-access fee.

    Rannev/shutterstock.com

    The elite Nature family of journals, including the flagship Nature, today announced it is taking the plunge into open access in scientific publishing. The journals will become among the first highly selective titles to allow any author to pay a publishing fee to make articles immediately free to read when published. Such open-access arrangements are being required by some European funders and foundations that seek to eliminate subscription paywalls in order to speed the flow of scientific information.

    Nature’s author fee, €9500, is thought to be the highest of any journal. But the Nature Research publishing group says it is necessary to cover the costs of the full-time editors and others who produce Nature and its 32 other primary research journals.

    The Nature group also announced a trial of a lower cost open-access option: when authors submit a manuscript to one of three journals—Nature Genetics, Nature Methods, and Nature Physics—they could pay €4790 or less per paper for open access, if they agree to participate in a process called “guided review.” In that process, if editors of the three journals and colleagues decide a manuscript is worthy enough to send out for peer review, they will ask authors to pay an initial fee of €2190 to cover review costs and then pay an additional fee if the paper is accepted.

  • Another COVID-19 vaccine success? Candidate may prevent further coronavirus transmission, too

    virus illustration

    Artist illustration of adenovirus used in a COVID-19 vaccine from AstraZeneca and University of Oxford

    AstraZeneca

    Science’s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center and the Heising-Simons Foundation.

    A third COVID-19 vaccine candidate has convincing evidence that it works, and it may be easier to distribute and cheaper than the two other vaccines already shown to protect people. Developed by the company AstraZeneca in partnership with the University of Oxford, the vaccine had an average efficacy of 70% in preventing the disease, the developers announce today in press releases. In one dosing scheme, its efficacy was 90%, according to results from the interim analysis of clinical trial data.

    AstraZeneca says about 3 billion doses of the vaccine could be ready in 2021. Whereas the apparently powerful COVID-19 vaccines recently announced by Moderna and the Pfizer/BioNTech collaboration rely on a snippet of messenger RNA coding for the spike surface protein of SARS-CoV-2, the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine stimulates immunity by using a crippled chimpanzee adenovirus as a “vector” to deliver the gene for spike. (A Russian team has also presented evidence its vaccine works, but noted too few COVID-19 cases at the time to persuade many outside scientists.)

  • After scalding critiques of study on gender and mentorship, journal says it is reviewing the work

     illustration of a woman standing between two large silhouettes, one dark and stormy the other bright and sunny.
    Robert Neubecker

    A massive study of mentoring, gender, and career outcomes released by Nature Communications has ignited a firestorm of criticism for its conclusions, which have been labeled as sexist by many scientists on social media. The study is a “black eye” for the popular open-access title, one bioengineer tweeted, adding that she will no longer review papers for the journal.

    In response to the uproar, the journal’s editorial team announced Thursday it is reviewing the study, which concludes that mentorship by women can damage the careers of female students and early-career scientists; it recommends encouraging male mentors for women instead.

    The study, published on 17 November by a trio of researchers at New York University, Abu Dhabi, used a data set of more than 200 million scientific papers published over the course of more than 100 years to identify several million mentor-mentee pairs. It then followed the career achievements of the mentees, based on citations to papers they authored during their first 7 years as “senior scientists”—determined here only by the time since a researcher’s first publication.

  • Worlds collide when three Science reporters—and parents—cover coronavirus and schools

    A teacher stands in front  of her students holding up personal dry-erase tablets.
    Xinhua/Serge Haouzi via Getty Images

    Science’s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center and the Heising-Simons Foundation.

    Since March, Science has reported on the research—and lack thereof—guiding the hard decisions schools have faced in the coronavirus pandemic. After stories in the spring and summer, an article this week examines schools in countries with high viral transmission. The reporters and editor steering this coverage don’t leave it behind when the workday ends: All three have school-age children. In this conversation, they reflect on the intersection of the personal and the professional.

    Lila Guterman: Gretchen and Jennifer, I’m happy to have the chance to chat with you after editing your stories on this topic! All of our kids are close in age, ranging from eight to 13. But we’ve experienced three very different school environments: I’m in Washington, D.C., where public schools including my kids’ have been closed since March; Gretchen is in Berlin, where the public school her children attend opened this fall with full classes after a limited reopening in April; and Jennifer is in Philadelphia, with two children in private schools that reopened in September.

  • Should researchers shelve plans to deliberately infect people with the coronavirus?

    A male patient receives an injection up his nose

    U.K. scientists are moving ahead with plans to infect volunteers with the virus that causes COVID-19. Such experiments have been done with other pathogens, including flu viruses (pictured here).

    AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

    Science’s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center and the Heising-Simons Foundation.

    In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, tens of thousands of young volunteers offered to risk their health by letting scientists intentionally infect them with the pandemic coronavirus, hoping to speed the hunt for a vaccine or treatment. Several research groups announced plans to run these so-called human challenge trials, even as some scientists questioned whether they could be conducted ethically.

    Now, with the recent news that conventional human trials have produced at least two very promising vaccines, scientists are debating whether planned challenge trials are still needed. In the United States, one nascent effort appears to be on hold. In the United Kingdom, however, researchers say they are moving ahead. “There are still many strong arguments for pursuing” human challenge trials, says Christopher Chiu, an immunologist at Imperial College in London and lead researcher for the proposed U.K. trial.

  • Famed Arecibo telescope, on the brink of collapse, will be dismantled

    Arecibo Observatory dish

    A second cable break on 7 November tore through the Arecibo telescope’s dish panels and brought the suspended instrument platform to the verge of collapse.

    Arecibo Observatory/University of Central Florida

    The Arecibo telescope’s long and productive life has come to an end. The National Science Foundation (NSF) announced today it will decommission the iconic radio telescope in Puerto Rico following two cable breaks in recent months that have brought the structure to near collapse. The 57-year-old observatory, a survivor of numerous hurricanes and earthquakes, is now in such a fragile state that attempting repairs would put staff and workers in danger. “This decision was not an easy one to make,” Sean Jones, NSF’s assistant director for mathematical and physical sciences, said at a news briefing today. “We understand how much Arecibo means to [the research] community and to Puerto Rico.”

    Ralph Gaume, director of NSF’s astronomy division, said at the briefing the agency wants to preserve other instruments at the site, as well as the visitor and outreach center. But they are under threat if the telescope structure collapses. That would bring the 900-ton instrument platform, suspended 137 meters above the 305-meter-wide dish, crashing down. Flailing cables could damage other buildings on the site, as could the three support towers if they fell, too. “There is a serious risk of an unexpected and uncontrolled collapse,” Gaume said. “A controlled decommissioning gives us the opportunity to preserve valuable assets that the observatory has.”

    Over the next few weeks, engineering firms will develop a plan for a controlled dismantling. It may involve releasing the platform from its cables explosively and letting it fall.

  • Fever, aches from Pfizer, Moderna jabs aren’t dangerous but may be intense for some

    Shingles vaccine reaction on adult female arm

    A shingles vaccine created this reaction at the injection site. Some people who received Moderna’s new COVID-19 vaccine also had local redness, swelling, or pain.

    The Photo Works/Alamy Stock Photo

    Science’s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center and the Heising-Simons Foundation.

    This summer, Luke Hutchison, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology–educated computational biologist, volunteered for a trial of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. After he got the second injection, his arm immediately swelled up to the size of a “goose egg,” Hutchison says. He can’t be sure he got the vaccine and not a placebo, but within a few hours, the healthy then-43-year-old was beset by bone and muscle aches and a 38.9°C fever that felt, he says, “unbearable.” “I started shaking. I had cold and hot rushes,” he says. “I was sitting by the phone all night long thinking: ‘Should I call 911?’”

    Hutchison’s symptoms resolved after 12 hours. But, he says, “Nobody prepared me for the severity of this.”

  • In blistering letter, Democrats demand answers on controversial appointee to U.S. standards agency

    NIST headquarters

    The headquarters of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland

    National Institute of Standards and Technology

    The new second-in-command at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is unfit for the job, say top Democrats on an influential congressional science panel.

    In a scalding letter yesterday to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose department oversees NIST, Representatives Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–TX) and Haley Stevens (D–MI) assert that Jason Richwine holds “beliefs and actions [that] are plainly disqualifying from federal service.” The lawmakers, who chair the science committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and its research subcommittee, respectively, also argue that Richwine’s “educational and professional background are plainly inadequate for carrying out the responsibilities of senior leadership at NIST.” They ask Ross to answer a series of questions about the newly created position, including who authorized it, within 2 weeks.

    Richwine, an independent public policy scholar, began his new job as deputy undersecretary of commerce for standards and technology (DUS) on 9 November. The science committee’s opposition to the appointment is based on what it describes as his “anachronistic IQ-based ranking of races in order to support his anti-immigration beliefs, leaning on debunked pseudoscience that has been used for centuries to justify colonialism, slavery, and segregation.”

  • More people are getting COVID-19 twice, suggesting immunity wanes quickly in some

    Sanne de Jong, a nursing assistant

    “You’re kidding me!” Sanne de Jong, a nursing assistant, said when she was told she had COVID-19 again in July.

    MIRANDA DE JONG

    Sciences COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center and the Heising-Simons Foundation.

    In late June, Sanne de Jong developed nausea, shortness of breath, sore muscles, and a runny nose. At first, she thought it might be lingering effects from her COVID-19 infection in the spring. De Jong, 22, had tested positive on 17 April and suffered mild symptoms for about 2 weeks. She tested negative on 2 May—just in time to say farewell to her dying grandmother—and returned to work as a nursing intern in a hospital in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

    But when her symptoms re-emerged, her doctor suggested she get tested again. “A reinfection this soon would be peculiar, but not impossible,” she told De Jong, who by then had again lost her sense of smell and had abdominal pains and diarrhea.

  • ‘Incredible milestone for science.’ Pfizer and BioNTech update their promising COVID-19 vaccine result

    Vaccine vial

    The Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine candidate has 95% efficacy according to the latest analysis offered by the companies.

    BioNTech

    Science’s COVID-19 reporting is supported by the Pulitzer Center and the Heising-Simons Foundation.

    Not to be outdone by a rival with a similar product, Pfizer and BioNTech today provided an update on the previously announced success of their COVID-19 vaccine. The U.S. pharma giant and its German biotech partner now report 95% efficacy for their vaccine candidate, drawing on the final analysis of a 43,000-person study. And don’t worry about the elderly not responding to the vaccine; the efficacy only drops to 94% in people older than 65, the companies said in a press release.

    As opposed to the vague initial report last week that their vaccine had greater than 90% efficacy, Pfizer and BioNTech are providing more specific data now that the study has reached enough COVID-19 cases to end. In all, the trial had 162 confirmed cases of symptomatic COVID-19 in the placebo group versus eight among those who received the two scheduled doses of the vaccine. The efficacy, which was measured 7 days after the second dose of the vaccine, was the same in different races and ethnicities, the companies say—although subgroup analyses always have more uncertainty. Nine of the 10 people who had severe cases of COVID-19 during the trial received the placebo, which indicates that even if the vaccine fails to prevent symptomatic disease, it still offers powerful protection from serious harm. No serious side effects surfaced, the companies report, although 3.7% of the vaccinated reported fatigue after the injections.

  1. « 1
  2. ‹ previous
  3. 1
  4. 2
  5. 3
  6. 4
  7. 5
  8. 6
  9. 7
  10. next ›
  11. 785 »