ПРИНЦИП НЕОПРЕДЕЛЕННОСТИ. СТРАТЕГИИ ИНТЕГРАЦИИ МОЛОДЫХ УЧЕНЫХ ИЗ РЕГИОНОВ В НАУЧНУЮКАРЬЕРУ И НАУЧНЫЕ СООБЩЕСТВА В КОНТЕКСТЕ VUCA-МИРА

Trudy Mackay

Are scientists a workforce? - Or, how Dr. Frankenstein made biomedical research sick: A proposed plan to rescue US biomedical research from its current 'malaise' will not be effective as it misdiagnoses the root cause of the disease.

T. Bruck et al. (“Empowering Young Scientists,” editorial, 2 April, p. [17][1]) support the formation in various countries of young-scientist academies that younger scientists would be eligible to join, along the lines of the already-formed Global Young Academy. The latter will include an elite group of approximately 200 international young scientists around the age of 35. Although I am a proven advocate of young scientists ([ 1 ][2]), I found the Editorial to be off target. The Editorial suggests that most internationally recognized scientists are senior and that “young scientists rarely receive societal recognition for their work.” The reason for this discrepancy is not that young scientists are excluded; it is that most of them haven't yet produced high-impact work or that their recent discoveries need time to mature and make an impact. There are many examples of scientists less than 40 years old who have won Nobel Prizes or have been inducted into regular national academies. Consequently, there should be no reason or indications for discrimination for age, as speculated in the Editorial. The parallel between science and sports is also off target. In sports, such as the 100-meter dash or tennis, the winner is unequivocal. The referees are only there to keep the score and/or make sure that the contestants follow rules of the game. In science, the question of “who is better” cannot be unequivocally answered because the criteria are subjective and the diversity of the scientific disciplines is enormous. It seems likely that the selection of the so-called 200 young international academicians will be based less on actual merit and more on the strength of the nominations by highly influential scientists who, predictably, will push and lobby for their own proteges. The notion that young academicians will play major roles in national science policies is also not convincing. These highly promising young scientists would benefit more at this stage of their career from being shielded from such activities and encouraged to devote all of their time, energy, creativity, and focus on making important discoveries. There will be plenty of opportunities for them in the future to play roles in policy and management issues. I conclude that academies for young scientists are not only unnecessary, but may damage the careers of highly promising young scientists. Necessarily, these promising future stars will need to divert at least part of their activity to conferences, policy, and management issues, which will distract them from creativity and innovation. Such activities could be easily fulfilled by more experienced senior scientists. Let us also not forget that the vast majority of senior scientists have a genuine interest in promoting the careers of younger scientists and not, as hinted in the Editorial, in grabbing their resources or stealing their societal recognition. After all, we are their natural mentors, and the importance of good mentorship has been emphasized repeatedly in this and other journals. 1. [↵][3] E.P.Diamandis, Clin. Cancer Res. 12 , 669 (2006). [[FREE Full Text]][4] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1185745 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [4]: http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/12/2/669.2.full

The 54th Annual Conference of the Association of Microbiologists of India (AMI-2013) and the Platinum Jubilee Celebrations of the Association was held at Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, Haryana, India during November 17–20, 2013. An International Symposium on ‘Frontier Discoveries and innovations in Microbiology and its Interdisciplinary relevance’ (FDMIR-2013) was held in conjunction with the conference. The premier event was organized in collaboration with the National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management (NIFTEM), Kundli, Sonepat, India. AMI, established in 1938, is one of the oldest and most reputed scientific organizations of the country. The program included plenary and panel sessions with invited speakers and poster presentations. More than 1800 participants including 25 speakers from overseas attended this prestigious conference. Eminent speakers from USA, UK, Australia, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, France, Mexico, Germany, Nigeria, Japan, Finland and South Africa attended this important scientific conference. Further, a specially convened global scientific session was participated by six international societies of microbiology viz. American Society for Microbiology (ASM), Spain-India joint scientific session of the Scientific Board of the European Section on Applied Biocatalysis, South Africa Society of Microbiology (SASM), Japanese Society of Enzyme Engineering (JSEE), Microbiological Society of Korea (MSK) and Nigerian Society of Microbiology (NGM). The conference provided an opportunity for research professionals in microbiology, biotechnology and allied life sciences for novelty to discuss and share the proficiency and familiarities in microbiological research for societal benefits. The program was inaugurated on 17th November, 2013 at Tagore Auditorium of the university by Mr. B.S. Hooda, Chief Minister of Haryana who expressed his satisfaction in bringing together researchers from academia, industry and the government through such conferences to ensure knowledge sharing for societal upliftment. ‘Guest of honour’, Prof. Dinesh Singh, Vice-Chancellor, University of Delhi, reiterated the need for integration of knowledge base among interdisciplinary areas of science and other disciplines for effectively utilizing microbiological research results in the upcoming knowledge driven society. Er. H.S. Chahal, Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, M.D. University, Rohtak and Chief Patron of AMI-2013 in his welcome remarks commented the significance of such conferences and role of AMI in developing research and academic interest amongst young researchers. In his Presidential address Prof. Rup Lal, President AMI, deliberated the growth of AMI and its broader fields with inclusion of newer topics and research areas. He described the role of microbiologists and challenges in front of them towards the excellence of academic and scientific communities. The session was also addressed by Prof. Tapan K. Adhya, General Secretary, AMI, Dr. P. Shukla Organizing Secretary, AMI 2013 and Prof R.C. Kuhad, Chairman, Organizing Committee. The souvenir cum abstract book of AMI 2013 was also released by the Chief Minister of Haryana in the presence of all the dignitaries. In his keynote speech, Prof. Julio Polaina, Institute of Agro-chemistry and Food technology, CSIC, Spain spoke on the molecular engineering of glycoside hydrolases for food applications and discussed recent discoveries on structural and functional studies of relevant industrial enzymes. In this international event twenty technical sessions were organized under different themes viz. Agricultural and soil Microbiology, Algal Biotechnology, Biodiversity, Bio-fuel and Bio-energy, Bioinformatics and Metagenomics, Environmental Microbiology, Enzyme Technology, Food Microbiology, Industrial Microbiology, IPR, Medical Microbiology, Nano-biotechnology and Plant Microbe Interaction. There was also a joint ASM-AMI session on infectious diseases. Each session of the conference consisted of an invited lectures by the chair followed by poster presentations on explicit themes by the participants afterwards discussion with chair, co-chair and delegates. There were more than 30 platinum jubilee lead invited lectures, 9 young scientists’ presentations and 950 posters. In each session, the best poster presentations were awarded by AMI to support the young research students in the form of prize, souvenir and certificates. The conference also witnessed the signing of MoU between AMI, India and ASM, USA to have a formal association between the two sister societies of Microbiology. The valedictory session was presided by Shri Jagannath Pahadia, Hon’ble Governor of Haryana and Chancellor, M.D. University, Rohtak in the presence of Er. H.S. Chahal, Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, M.D. University, Rohtak, Vice Chancellor, Prof. S.S. Sangwan, VC, PBDS Health University, Rohtak, Prof. Victor Di Rita, ASM, USA, Prof. Rup Lal, President, AMI, Prof. T.K. Adhya, General Secretary, AMI, Prof R.C. Kuhad, Chairman, Organizing Committee, Prof. Julio Polaina, CSIC, Spain and AMI officials from the Central Council. The 55th Annual conference of AMI will be organized by Tamilnadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, Tamilnadu.

Waterfall Project: Sport, Science and Society Coming Together

Reviewing manuscripts is a desirable component of academic career development. Scientists should be encouraged to get involved at the earliest opportunity. For those early in their scientific careers, however, reviewing can be a challenging prospect. There is a lack of clear guidance in approaching the reviewing process practically, and young scientists may find it difficult to deliver a concise, balanced review within an acceptable time frame. This article, which is based on a recent report in Nature (1) , provides a summary for the novice referee in navigating the reviewing process. Reviewing presents an opportunity to begin building a scientific publishing career. A large number of journals have a dearth of reviewers available. Young contributors are particularly sought after, because this group tends to be well versed in the current literature. A common pathway for researchers to become reviewers is …

We are delighted to introduce our next installment of our series “Profiles of Women in Science” (Helmreich, Bolam, & Foxe, 2017). It is our intention to bring well-deserved and long-overdue recognition and accessibility to successful women throughout our community, and perhaps insight and advice for young scientists trying to make their way in this very competitive time. Our current featured scientist is Dr. Lisa Marshall. Dr. Marshall completed her Doctoral Thesis at the Medical Faculty of the Humboldt-University of Berlin (Charité) in 1997 and conducted postdoctoral research at both Rutgers University and at the University of Lübeck. She then went on to become a Professor for Behavioral Neurobiology at the University of Lübeck, first in the Department of Neuroendocrinology (2009), and then in the Department of Experimental & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology (2014). Her latest work published in EJN (Koo, Molle, & Marshall, 2018), “Efficacy of slow oscillatory-transcranial direct current stimulation on EEG and memory –contribution of an inter-individual factor” can be found here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ejn.13877 She also will be speaking at FENS Forum - EJN Special Feature Lecture, on Saturday, July 7th, 2018. Our research group is interested in the interaction between brain electrical rhythms and cognition, particularly in memory processes. The focus is on macroscopic brain rhythms during sleep, such as the sleep slow oscillation and sleep spindles, and their contribution to memory consolidation, but our interests also extend to learning and associated theta activity. One important aspect of our research is to use behavioral protocols which are closely comparable between humans and rodents. A relevant approach of ours is the use of noninvasive brain stimulation protocols to investigate the role of endogenous brain electrical activity (reflected in EEG and local field potentials) in neuroplasticity and behavioral performance. Because the magnitude of fields induced by weak oscillatory and constant currents (tDCS, oscillatory-tDCS, tACS) lies in the same order of magnitude as endogenous brain electrical activity, this form of noninvasive manipulation is hypothesized to simulate potential effects of endogenous brain rhythms on neuroplasticity. Of increasing interest is the bidirectional interaction between brain electrical activity and behavior. This is the basis for both our use of weak electrical stimulation to investigate the impact of manipulating brain rhythms on cognitive activity, and conversely the effect of cognitive events on the expression of oscillatory network activity. https://www.cbbm.uni-luebeck.de/en/forschung/research-groups/marshall.html I had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Marshall in February 2018. The gender relationship at universities is definitely changing, as more effort toward gender equality is being made. Interestingly, I was talking to our Equal Opportunity Commissioner, and she was saying that sometimes there is a greater acceptance of gender equality at the University than in society. I do remember times when it seemed society was not that accepting. Once, when my daughter was still in kindergarten, I came home at 5 or 6 o’clock in the evening. My next door neighbor, who was in the garden lying on her lounger, actually scolded me for having a child and coming home so late. Another mother once said, that if one decides to have a child, then you step back with your work. As for coming home late, my husband (who is also in science) and I were lucky to have had a kindergarten, which was open till 5 or even 6 p.m. At that time, about 12–14 years ago, there were many families like us who worked and had kids, but it was a rarity for both to work full-time. Now, especially with the greater possibility for a home office, I suspect a greater proportion of parents work full-time. But, back then I/we definitely did feel like an oddball. Another thing about the gender topic that also comes up in discussions with friends is how much is biologically based. I do believe that biology plays a role. I would say for women, on average, care-taking/child care is in more of a conflict with a career than for men. This then indirectly diminishes our freedoms in “career-oriented behavior.” In addition, we just also do not have quite as long as men to decide about having a child (biological clock). Already, academics, in particular, those in natural sciences, are a profession with one of the lowest average number of children (Siems, 2018). I would say there are 2–3 most important things, at least with the present university structure as it is (in Germany). One good way to stay in science is to aim to be at the very top, for instance department chair, as early as possible. That is in retrospect how I would interpret the statement of a female professor at a gender talk when she said: “you really have to want to proceed with your science career.” This is mainly because permanent positions are presently (unfortunately) mostly at higher levels. I say “as early as possible” because it used to be that many grants for “young scientists” had a cutoff age. So, if you were/are later and subsequently older in deciding your career path, opportunities would decrease. Secondly, one activity that can be advantageous (and used to be a strong prerequisite) for obtaining a professorship is to go intermittently abroad, or at least change locations for an extended time period. So it is important to think way in advance, as far as one can, about the logistics of your life and the logistics of your work. I actually wonder whether this “rule”—developed initially with the best intent for advancing science—is still completely up-to-date or maybe even indirectly favored career-making of males. I see it as positive that there is indeed greater flexibility here. And then it is important to find out, as soon as possible, which direction fits you the best, personally. Do you want to stay in the same field? Do you need more input from different methodologies? Should you then go to this place or that place as soon as possible? Or do you wish to give yourself x-amount of time to first establish yourself in the lab where you are—but also remain flexible. I do believe young scientists now are stronger in these latter traits (perhaps it is from reading Yay, You! By Boynton (2001). And lastly, be aware that if you take a complete break, because of child care, parental care, or other, you will probably need to put great effort into catching up again. After studying biology, it was the enthusiasm of my thesis supervisor for neurophysiology, specifically for the brain and neocortical functions that spilled over to me. Animal physiology, to some extent also plant physiology. Event-related potentials, processes of attention and gamma band activity: Investigating the stimulus-induced gamma band activity, and how it was related to attention or to pre-attentional processes. That was in the 80s when the functional relevance of gamma oscillations was being (re-) discovered. So here we had a rhythm detectable in the human EEG that was shown in parallel to be associated with neuronal processing (cognitive or sensory, depending on the conditions, and generating either evoked or induced gamma band activity). It is usually the ones that one is more intensely working on at the moment. But generally spoken, a favorite topic is to relate EEG activity to behavior, whether at the group level, dependent upon condition, or on state differences. It is actually both. The main concept is to bridge them both together, which is often a bit tricky, that is, attempting to find close to equivalent behavioral paradigms in human and rodent. We want to look closely into the mechanisms of the sleep and memory concept in animals. One main focus is to see how one can enhance memory consolidation through different kinds of stimulation procedures, and also, if we assume exogenous stimulation induces (or inhibits) natural endogenous brain electrophysiological activity, what impact this has on behavior. At the moment, we have just completed our first optogenetics study, and it is very, very interesting. As it is still in the manuscript stage, I do not want to give away much now. It is basically the same topic, hippocampal-cortical interactions, sleep and memory. It is technically quite challenging, as starting up most new set-ups are, but I have a very good female postdoc working on it. I think there are two directions. One is a stronger translational focus, and the other one is going to be more basic research—really going into details about neuron-neuron or cell-cell interactions, based on the great increase in technological knowledge and techniques that we have. There may be more of a shift to investigating really basic mechanisms in “lower” invertebrate species, while in addition to trying to learn more about human brain activity from combinations of imaging and EEG/MEG—using complex analyses and computational modelling. So it is increasingly important to see in which way results from humans and animals are truly equitable or complimentary. Finally, as already initiated by supporting bodies and local ethics committees, genders should be studied equally. I was thinking more of psychiatric, neurological, disorders. I actually find the basic brain function most interesting—trying to find out the basic function of things is in part really fun, and it is also really important. But it can get to be more predominated by what one wants to do rather than what maybe really necessary for society as a whole. But this comment can be made to many work fields which are as a whole serving humanity far less than Neuroscience. The best part is that one is flexible—being pretty flexible within limits of one’s knowledge and some framework of the university. It is very nice, in principle, to pick your research topic and delve into a scientific field or a neuroscientific question. So it is freedom, within limits. Along these lines, not having a uniform, strict schedule is nice. Well, job wise, the least favorite parts are the administrative kind of jobs that need to performed: Having to keep track of project finances, and then sometimes having unexpected and not really plausible inconsistencies or problems coming up—but thank-you to the funding bodies! Good teaching is challenging… and deadlines can be beneficial, but not if they all coincide in time. Actually not. On average, I would not say that I felt either advantaged or disadvantaged. Well, one program was offered once that was specifically for women, and there are scientific consortiums when women (as well as young scientists) are encouraged to participate. Otherwise, I would not really say so. But I know other female scientists who do or did feel discriminated against. Well, aside from Germany, or not so-far away European areas, I actually always like going to the United States. And, honestly, as I feel obliged to watch my carbon foot print, that is enough. It would be advantageous, if work-related visits and longer vacations could be more easily combined, without completely losing compensation for travel. Nonscientifically, I feel that we as a very large group of international co-operating people should find some means to be more active in maintaining or improving our societies and planet, in regard to peace and environmental issues. Maybe such international meetings as FENS could have a session on “scientific–plus,” in which discussions, brain storming and/or joint stands and demands on a current topic are organized. Photo courtesy of René Kube.

ID-EPTRI project, coordinated by CVBF-TEDDY (Consorzio per Valutazioni Biologiche e Farmacologiche European Network of Excellence for Paediatric Clinical Research), has been submitted on March 29th, 2017, with-in the INFRADEV-01–2017 single-stage call for proposals with the aim to create the framework for a new Research Infrastructure (RI) intended to enhance technology-driven paediatric research in discovery and early develop-ment phases to be translated into clinical research and paediatric use of medicines. The project arises from the need to find answers to the serious lack of medicines for children in EU and world-wide and to propose development models for paedi-atric medicines that integrates technology-driven as-pects with clinical trials. The interest for Paediatrics was indeed mentioned in the ESFRI Road Map 2016 (<inter-ref locator="http://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/20160309_ROADMAP_browsable.pdf" locator-type="url">http://www.esfri.eu/sites/default/files/20160309_ROADMAP_browsable.pdf</inter-ref>) where it was recognised that a similar RI should be included into the landscape of the research in Europe. The main idea underpinning the project is to provide the European scientific community with a new Research <b>Infrastructure: EPTRI, the European Paediatric Trans-lational Research Infrastructure</b> aimed to harnessing the research and services for the development of med-icines for children, as well as identify gaps in paediatric medicines research which prevent efficient use of re-search technologies across pertinent medicine research fields, from discovery and preclinical phase, all the way to ameliorate the therapeutic use of medicines in clini-cal practice. Sharing understanding of patients’ needs and concerted efforts in critical areas of research will end in further enhancing the health of children and will also have a positive impact on European competitiveness in the pharmaceutical sector. EPTRI will be a complementary RI in the context of the existing RIs covering the current gaps in paediatric medi-cines. The new RI will represent a ‘one-stop-shop’ and will act as a paediatric common service with three already es-tablished Research Infrastructures (BBMRI, EATRIS, ECRIN) strengthening collaboration within the scientific paediat-ric community. The project is aimed to prepare ‘on field’ a whole <b>Con-ceptual Design Report (CDR)</b> of EPTRI, describing the scientific and technical requirements as well as the key components of this new RI. To prepare the CDR, the proj-ect will encompass three phases. During the <b>Context Analysis phase</b>, that will be per-formed in 5 technical and scientific domains (1-Paediatric Medicines Discovery, 2-Biomarkers, 3-Paediatric Pharma-cology, 4-Formulation Science, 5-Underpinning Paediat-ric Studies), the perceived value and the possible gaps to be covered will be estimated, by enquiring the scientific Communities, the concerned national Authorities and many other Stakeholders. During the <b>Operational phase</b>, the different compo-nents of the new RI will be organised, including gover-nance model, strategies for interaction with national Au-thorities and the existing RIs, the IT-architecture model, services to be provided and a business plan. Finally, a <b>Feasibility phase</b> is proposed to develop virtu-al exercises simulating the operations of the RI.

In the article, the issues of normalization of scientometric indicators of the publication level were studied. An integrated approach to the evaluation of research results was formalized. The similarities and differences between professional and scientific communities were considered. The concept of a professional scientific community was introduced. Local and network subtypes of scientific communities were identified. A method has been developed for obtaining the values ​​of scientometric indicators normalized by both local and network scientific communities, the distinguishing feature of which is the use of linguistic variables and production rules of fuzzy logic. The testing of the proposed methodology was carried out based on the example of a scientometric database.

Rewarding young scientists

The article presents a sociological analysis of the experienced academic career building by young scientists of Kazakhstan. Young scientists as a social and professional community play an important role in modern research and innovation systems. In general, based on a survey of personal formalized interviews and in-depth interviews a holistic view of the status and career of young scientists, an understanding of how young researchers can succeed and contribute to the development of the country’s scientific landscape, and the obstacles they face in this is presented. Particular attention is paid to the living space and values, as well as to the conditions in the context of which early-career researchers work today, such as modern challenges, risks, opportunities and motivation that determine and shape their career trajectories in Kazakhstan’s scientific space.

Scientific monograph Świat w perspektywie sztuki, sztuka w perspektywie świata #Rysunek (The World in the Perspective of Art, Art in the Perspective of the World #Drawing) is the fourth volume of the publishing series of the Faculty of Fine Arts of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. Both the previous volumes and the current one aim to create a convenient space for the creative exchange of views, opinions and presentation of knowledge on broadly understood culture, art and education by representatives of the scientific, artistic and educational communities. What distinguishes this volume is the main theme, which is the issue of broadly understood drawing. Representatives of various scientific disciplines and fields of art, as well as authors who moved freely on the borders of these fields, commented on this topic. In addition, researchers from different generations – those who shared their many years of artistic, scientific or educational experiences, as well as young scientists, artists and teachers who are just looking for their artistic and research paths – spoke up in the articles. The chapters presented in the volume revolve around three main thematic areas, which constitute three parts of the monograph. The first part – Drawing in the perspective of artistic practice – concerns the drawing work of selected artists. The second one – Drawing in the perspective of art and creative biography – contains reflections of artists, art theoreticians and educators on the place of drawing as an artistic and biographical experience. The third part – Drawing in the perspective of education – is the voice of theoreticians and practitioners of artistic education

There’s something special about working for a charitable organisation. As with any job, there is the satisfaction of setting and maintaining the highest standards of professionalism, but in addition there’s the knowledge that the fruits of our labour help feed the community in which we work. >

Science communicators, including journalists and experts in the field of public relations in science, are often seen as an external and optional addition to the scientific community. Their influence on scientific practices and public perception of science is often underestimated, and their role is understood as a technical one: as a simple retelling of scientific research in a language understandable to the public. In this paper, using the example of such a criterion as “creativity”, we propose to reconsider the role of science communicators more broadly. The paper shows that it is science communicators, rather than representatives of the scientific community, who should be the primary subjects of evaluating articles according to the criterion of creativity. The authors argue that the creativity of scientific research is an essential element in the development of science as a social phenomenon, rather than just a component of its internal operation. Science communicators are not considered as “external” actors in relation to science – their work has a significant impact on the fundamental criteria for scientific success, such as the establishment of scientific reputation, and influences the perception of science among the general public. They do not just describe research, they form ideas about the value aspects of science in society and influence the image of science, which is broadcast into the public space, selecting articles according to certain criteria that are not always the most significant in science, endowing scientific results with a special, socially relevant significance that is not explicitly presented in the texts of scientific articles. The activities of science communicators can influence the funding and development of a scientific field, its public and government support, its popularity among applicants, students and young scientists – and, consequently, the quality of scientific personnel involved in this field. In fact, science communicators turn out to be key architects of public, and often intrascientific, ideas about science and various scientific fields.

In final form 25 February 2014 ©2014 American Meteorological Society H ere we report on the first Interdisciplinary Conference of Young Earth System Scientists (ICYESS), which focused on understanding and interpreting uncertainty. Funded by a variety of German research organizations and hosted by the climate research cluster KlimaCampus of the University of Hamburg, ICYESS was organized and chaired by young Earth system scientists, partially from the graduate School of Integrated Climate System Sciences (SICSS) as well as the Young Earth System Scientists (YESS) community. The ICYESS followed upon a series of graduate conferences of the northern German excellence clusters for marine and climate research and extended the focus to more disciplines and an international audience. A big portion of the available travel money was spent to enable young scientists from Africa and Asia to join ICYESS, a move that enabled discussions on the North–South gap in climate science and politics from the inside and was highly beneficial toward the idea of a global community of young Earth system scientists. WHY DO WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT UNCERTAINTY? The motivation of the ICYESS was foremost to enable interdisciplinary capacity building in the diverse field of Earth system science and to improve the exchange between the variety of scientific disciplines that are part of it. The conference focus on uncertainties in Earth system sciences was chosen as a focal point to illustrate the problems that appear when historically and methodologically very distant sciences try to work together. There are a multitude of causes for uncertainties in different research fields and they are often multiplied in interdisciplinary research. Examples include: