Science and inclusion

Paul Aveling Redhead, one of the founders of vacuum technology and surface science, died on 9 July 2005 in Ottawa, Canada, after a long battle with heart disease. Born on 25 May 1924 in Brighton, England, Paul received his BA from Cambridge University in 1944 and joined the British Department of Naval Ordnance, where he worked on tubes for microwaves and proximity fuses. After World War II, he undertook research on experimental vacuum tubes for the Services Electronics Research Laboratories. He was awarded an MA from Cambridge in 1948 for that work; in 1969 he received his PhD from Cambridge.In 1947 Paul joined the division of radio and electrical engineering of the National Research Council of Canada in Ottawa to develop key radar components. Until 1970 he led a distinguished team at NRC in establishing the methods and basis of both ultrahigh vacuum technology—which was to have such impact in many areas, including particle accelerators—and the field of surface science. After a three-year stint in research planning for NRC, he became director of the division of physics in 1973. He believed that the management of science was an important responsibility of scientists. In his last three years at NRC before retirement, he was a key member and secretary of the science and technology policy committee. He also served for many years on the NRC management committee, its tactical committee, the advisory board of TRIUMF, and the advisory committee for fusion-related research. He officially retired from NRC in 1986 but continued to work from an office there.Paul will be remembered for his groundbreaking research in the generation, measurement, and utilization of ultrahigh vacuum, research that paved the way for many other developments in surface science. With NRC colleagues Peter Hobson and Ernie Kornelsen, he coauthored the classic book The Physical Basis of Ultrahigh Vacuum (Chapman and Hall, 1968), the defining book in that field. He developed the magnetron gauge for reliable measurement down to pressures of 10−14 torr, and one version of that gauge went to the Moon in the Apollo missions. He also developed thermal desorption spectroscopy and laid the foundation for electron stimulated desorption. In 1975, he received the American Vacuum Society’s Medard W. Welch Award “in recognition of outstanding current research in the fields of vacuum science and technology, vacuum metallurgy, thin films, and surface science.” He also received the Queen Elizabeth Jubilee Award in 1977 and the Medal for Lifetime Achievement in Physics in 1989, both from the Canadian Association of Physicists. Paul served as president of AVS in 1967–68 and as editor of the Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology from 1970 to 1975. In 1970, he was awarded honorary membership in AVS. He continued to serve the society in many roles, including as both editor and author in recording historical events that he considered important: Vacuum Science and Technology: Pioneers of the 20th Century (AIP, 1994), History of the American Vacuum Society 1953–1994 (AVS, 1995), and 50 Years of Science, Technology, and the AVS (1953–2003), a special issue of the Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology A, 2003.The depth of the impact that Paul had over his career is so remarkable that he has left a tangible imprint on a wide range of scientific and technical endeavors involving the use and understanding of high vacuum. There are entire fields of science and generations of scientists that are dependent on Paul’s contributions to the technology of making high vacuum in the laboratory.During his prolific career as a scientist, technical manager, and historian, Paul had the opportunity to be a mentor for many of his colleagues. We count ourselves privileged members of that group because we had the opportunity to learn from him as our paths crossed in various conferences, committees, collaborations, coauthored papers, and unforgettable chats over a glass of beer. We were very fortunate to have Paul join us in a celebration of his contributions to our scientific community in a special “Symposium to Honor Paul Redhead” organized for the annual AVS symposium in October 2000. He agreed to that celebration if we promised to avoid anything that bordered on being pompous. We could never be pompous when talking about Paul—only grateful. Paul Aveling Redhead NRCPPT|High resolution© 2006 American Institute of Physics.

Background:There is an urgent need to intentionally develop and expand mentoring for junior faculty from underrepresented communities in the area of HIV research. Such a goal is increasingly recognized as essential across all scientific fields because profound disparities exist regarding which doctorally prepared individuals ultimately end up entering research fields in academic settings. The purpose of this article is to describe a novel inter-Center for AIDS Research (CFAR) program designed to support underrepresented scientists in research to address the HIV epidemic in the Mid-Atlantic region.Methods:Three CFARs in the Mid-Atlantic region (the District of Columbia, Johns Hopkins University CFAR, and University of Pennsylvania CFARs) developed a Scholars program designed for underrepresented minority scholars interested in studying the HIV epidemic in the region. The program provided resources for scholarship as well as cross-institutional mentoring and training.Results:Scholars in the first cohort have been successful in implementing novel research that informs our understanding of the HIV epidemic in the region as well as increasing skills, publications, and grant submissions and funded applications. Lessons learned from the first cohort will inform future years of the MACC Scholars Program.Conclusions:The MACC Scholars Program offers a model for other inter-CFAR collaborations wishing to find novel ways to support the next generation of scientists.

Notes on Contributors

Scientists who can communicate across disciplines are essential to fluid translation and must be developed systematically through targeted training.

Notes on Contributors

This brief commentary considers the relation between science communicationresearch and practice and the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS). Itoutlines some key aspects of STS approaches, from an emphasis on exploratoryresearch to considerations of normativity and the political, and discusses whatthey can bring to science communication. It ends by arguing for methodologicaland disciplinary diversity in science communication research.

Introduction. The relevance of the analysis of the development of political science in the Republic of Mordovia is associated with the 90th anniversary of the National Research Ogarev Mordovia State University, the 30th anniversary of the creation of the Department of Political Science in its structure and the 20th anniversary of political science education in the region. Methods. Historical, comparative retrospective and systems analysis were applied in the work. Results. Over the thirty-year period, political science in the Republic of Mordovia has come a long way in the field of educational and scientific activities. The article identifies three stages of its development: 1) 1991–2000; 2) 2001–2014; 3) since 2015. At present, the university, on the basis of the graduating department of general history, political science and regional studies, is training professional political scientists within the framework of bachelor’s, master’s and postgraduate studies. Fundamental and applied political science research is conducted in this department. Research in certain areas of political science is being conducted today in other educational and scientific institutions of the Republic of Mordovia. Discussion and Conclusion. Political science in the Republic of Mordovia from 1991 to 2021 has come a long way and achieved noticeable results in the field of science and education. An original political science school was formed in the region, which is based on the study of territorial aspects of politics. Currently, there is an expansion of thematic areas in accordance with the Strategy of Scientific and Technological Development of the Russian Federation.

In this chapter, we describe how a new trend of materials “nano” and its composites preferential grown as different sizes of small crystallites of structures using varied synthesis routes for photocatalytic dye degradation. Here, we will discuss about the different synthesis methods “traditional and trending” for the purification of water by degradation of dyes using photocatalytic techniques. To support the main outline of this chapter, we have supported various characterizations done to confirm the presence of nanomaterials like XRD for its crystal structure, SEM/TEM for morphology and XPS for elemental analysis; confirming with some functional groups using FTIR and Raman analysis. The modulation of parameters for the purification of water/effluents is pivotal in such work. So, we have compared the new novel techniques and materials trending all over research community as compared to the conventional ones. Certain nanomaterials synthesized are even doped with metals like rare-earth ions and transition metal ions to bring an effective output when illuminated to UV or visible light. Photocatalytic degradation has grown in last 20 years because of the impurities added to water bodies as source from industries and sewage, mainly comprising of waste like chemical dyes. This has paved way for lot of research in the fields of materials science, chemistry, environmental science and energy. Majorly synthetic dyes used in clothes, plastic, leather and other accessories are biggest motif behind this research. Our aim in this chapter is to summarize the whole scenario in compact but covering all relevant information. Usually, the procedure for photocatalytic dye degradation is step-wise process, involving choice of catalyst, concentration of dyes, light illumination and time taken for degradation of dye. Time taken for degradation of dye and choice of materials are inter-related, however efficiency of catalyst for certain dyes is better than other dyes. To make it clearer we will first give a brief introduction on the dyes, photocatalysis process, materials used as catalysts and purification.KeywordsPhotocatalysisDye degradationAdvanced oxidation

Despite recent notable progress in medical sciences, cancer remains a leading cause of human death worldwide, accounting for about one-quarter of human deaths in wealthy countries and about one-eighth worldwide (Ferlay et al. 2010). In fact, the progress in cancer research has been slower compared with that achieved related to other pathologies, such as cardiovascular disorders. This is mainly because of the enormous complexity of this disease, which exhibits sophisticated cellular mechanisms that are the targets of evolutionary processes driven by random genetic and epigenetic mutations.

Introduction The term “scientist” lacks a universally accepted definition, reflecting the evolving, interdisciplinary nature of scientific work and posing challenges for recognition, communication, and policy. This study aims to develop consensus-based definitions of the term “scientist” by engaging experienced scholars across diverse fields. Methods This study involved 156 scholars, each with at least 1,000 citations, recruited via convenience sampling. Fourteen scientist definitions, derived from literature and expert input, were assessed using a nine-point Likert scale via a structured google forms survey. The sample size was calculated using G*power (effect size = 0.5, power = 0.95), requiring at least 80 participants. Content Validity Index (CVI) was used for analysis. Definitions scoring ≥0.78 were accepted and included for final analysis, 0.70–0.78 were revised and re-evaluated, and <0.70 were excluded. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, ensuring ethical compliance and confidentiality. Results Of the 14 proposed definitions, six (42.9%) were excluded (CVI < 0.70), seven (50.0%) were accepted (CVI > 0.78), and one (7.1%) underwent revision (CVI 0.70–0.78). The highest-rated definitions were refined into two consensus-based versions: a short definition (“A scientist is a person who conducts research”) and a detailed one emphasizing hypothesis formulation and knowledge dissemination. Final validation yielded CVIs of 0.82 and 0.84, respectively, confirming strong expert agreement on both definitions. Conclusion This study developed two validated definitions of “scientist” emphasizing systematic research and knowledge dissemination. These definitions clarify the concept of scientific identity, providing a flexible yet rigorous framework applicable across academic, interdisciplinary, and policy-making contexts. Introduction The term "scientist" has undergone significant transformation since its inception, reflecting the dynamic nature of scientific inquiry and the evolving landscape of knowledge. This lack of clarity stems from the diverse roles and contributions of individuals in scientific fields, the evolving nature of research, and the interdisciplinary scope of modern science. Historically, figures such as Galileo and Newton were regarded as natural philosophers, a reflection of an earlier framework for knowledge production that has evolved alongside modern scientific advancements. Before twentieth century, the term "scientist" was commonly referred to as a "man of science," "natural philosopher," or by various other designations [1,2]. In contemporary contexts, scientists operate across a broad spectrum of fields, including medicine, biology, chemistry, physics, and social sciences, each employing methodologies tailored to their specific inquiries. For instance, biologists may design experiments to test hypotheses about living organisms, while social scientists might use qualitative methods to explore human behavior [3]. The Science Council defines a scientist as an individual who methodically collects and applies research and evidence to develop hypotheses, performs experiments, and shares results to advance knowledge in their field [4]. While National Cancer Institute defines a scientist as an individual with a background in science, particularly someone actively engaged in a specific area of research [5]. This diversity in practices underscores the challenge of defining "scientist" in a way that captures the breadth of their contributions. The plurality of definitions extends to global organizations and frameworks. For example, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization highlights the critical role of scientists in addressing global challenges and promoting sustainable development. This definition broadens the scope to include individuals working in multidisciplinary teams or applying scientific knowledge to public policy and societal issues. Similarly, some academic discussions focus on the characteristics of a scientist, such as curiosity, skepticism, and a commitment to evidence-based conclusions, rather than formal qualifications or job titles [6]. Unlike well-defined professions such as medicine or engineering, where specific educational pathways and professional titles (e.g., "doctor" or "engineer") confer clear identities, the term "scientist" lacks a universally recognized credentialing system. This absence can lead to underrepresentation or misrepresentation of scientific expertise, especially in interdisciplinary and collaborative contexts [7]. For example, the growing integration of data science in biology or physics illustrates the importance of understanding who qualifies as a scientist to ensure effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders. The absence of a standardized definition poses practical challenges for scientific communication, policymaking, and inclusivity. This study aims to address this gap by engaging scholars across disciplines to develop a consensus-based definition of "scientist." By recognizing the diverse and interdisciplinary contributions of scientists, such a definition could enhance collaboration, improve public understanding, and inform policies that support the scientific community. Methods Study design and participants A total of 156 scholars (out of 300 invited) participated in this study. Eligibility was determined based on the scholars' substantial academic expertise, evidenced by the achievement of at least 1,000 citations within their respective fields. This criterion ensured that participants had significant research experience and were highly qualified to contribute to the formulation of a consensus-based definition of "scientist." Participants were recruited through a convenience sampling method, and data were collected via a structured survey administered through google forms. While convenience sampling was used due to the accessibility of high-citation scholars, efforts were made to ensure disciplinary diversity to mitigate potential bias. Personalized invitations were sent via email to each scholar to facilitate their inclusion in the study. Sample size determination The sample size was determined using G*power statistical software (version 3.1.9.7), employing a two-tailed goodness of fit test with an effect size of 0.5, an alpha error probability of 0.05, and a statistical power of 0.95. According to the calculations, a minimum of 80 participants were required to achieve statistically valid results. Consequently, 156 scholars were recruited to participate in the study, ensuring robust representation and adequate statistical power. Data collection Fourteen proposed definitions of "scientist," curated from existing literature and expert contributions, were presented to the enrolled scholars for evaluation (Table 1). Each definition included a Likert scale with nine response options, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." Responses were systematically recorded and compiled in an Excel sheet for subsequent analysis. This process facilitated the systematic capture of scholarly consensus on each definition. Table 1. Respondent Agreement on Various 'Scientist' Definitions. Proposed Definitions Options A person studying or has expert knowledge of one or more natural or physical sciences. (Oxford Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert who studies or works in one of the sciences. (Cambridge Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person learned in science and especially natural science. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge. (Science Council) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who has studied science and whose job is to teach or do research in science. (Collins Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences. (Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person with some kind of knowledge or expertise in any of the sciences. (Vocabulary dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems. (Britannica Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who has studied science, especially one who is active in a particular field of investigation. (National Cancer Institute) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone who works or is trained in science. (Longman Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person whose profession is investigating in one of the natural sciences. (Your Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science. (Free Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone whose job or education is about science. (LanGeek Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person who researches to advance knowledge in an area of the natural sciences. (Wikipedia) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Data analysis The Content Validity Index (CVI) was employed to assess the relevance and agreement of the definitions. Definitions with a CVI below 0.70 were excluded, as they failed to meet the minimum threshold for consensus. Definitions with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 underwent a second round of evaluation, with refined wording sent back to the same scholars for further review. Definitions achieving a CVI above 0.78 were deemed sufficiently valid for inclusion in the final analysis [8]. These definitions formed the foundation for the development of a unified, consensus-based definition of "scientist." Ethical considerations Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and all responses were anonymized to preserve participant confidentiality. Results Initially, out of the 14 proposed definitions of the term "scientist," six (42.9%) received a CVI score below the threshold of 0.70 and were consequently excluded from further consideration. In contrast, seven definitions (50.0%) demonstrated strong content validity with CVI scores equal to or exceeding 0.78 and were therefore retained for subsequent synthesis and analysis. Only one definition (7.1%) fell within the intermediate range, with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 (Table 2). Table 2. Comparison of Agreement and CVI Across Proposed Definitions of 'Scientist'. Proposed Definition Agree Disagree Undecided CVI Status Science Council Definition 146 8 2 0.94 Accepted Britannica Dictionary Definition 136 16 4 0.87 Accepted Cambridge Dictionary 130 20 6 0.83 Accepted Wikipedia Definition 125 27 4 0.80 Accepted Free Dictionary Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted National Cancer Institute Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted Collins Dictionary Definition 122 31 3 0.78 Accepted Oxford Dictionary Definition 120 31 5 0.77 Revised Longman Dictionary Definition 104 42 10 0.67 Excluded Your Dictionary Definition 103 48 5 0.66 Excluded Dictionary (generic) Definition 91 52 13 0.58 Excluded Vocabulary dictionary Definition 88 58 10 0.56 Excluded Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition 81 64 11 0.52 Excluded LanGeek Dictionary Definition 79 67 10 0.51 Excluded CVI: Content Validity Index, CVI Thresholds: Accepted: ≥ 0.78, Revised: 0.70–0.78, Excluded: < 0.70 Through a rigorous, iterative evaluation process involving expert feedback, the definitions with the highest CVI scores (those above 0.78) were integrated and refined into two distinct, consensus-based definitions of the term "scientist." The first was a concise definition: “A scientist is a person who conducts research.” The second was a more comprehensive and elaborated definition: “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These two final definitions were subsequently circulated among the panel of scholars for a second round of evaluation, during which they were asked to rate the definitions for content validity. The short definition received a CVI of 0.82, while the more detailed definition attained a slightly higher CVI of 0.84, reflecting strong agreement among the experts. Although no additional formal qualitative feedback was solicited at this stage; minor wording adjustments were made based on informal suggestions received during this validation round. Discussion The role of a scientist extends far beyond the stereotypical image of an individual in a white coat working exclusively in a laboratory setting. Careers grounded in scientific expertise are remarkably diverse, encompassing domains such as research, education, industry, and regulatory affairs. The Science Council categorizes scientists into 10 different types, highlighting the diversity of scientific roles beyond the stereotypical lab-based researcher. It includes types such as experimental scientists, theoretical scientists, data scientists, and more, reflecting the broad spectrum of scientific work today [9]. Definitions of the term “scientist” vary, yet they generally converge on the principles of systematic inquiry, evidence-based investigation, and the pursuit of knowledge across various disciplines. For instance, the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and the Britannica Dictionary emphasize formal training and research functions, typically within the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry, or physics [10,11]. In contrast, contemporary perspectives, such as those discussed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2024, recognize a broader spectrum of scientific engagement, encompassing both professional researchers and individuals committed to understanding the world through observation, experimentation, and analysis [12]. In light of this diversity, the present study aimed to clarify and formalize the definition of a "scientist" through expert consensus. Two definitions were developed: a concise definition “A scientist is a person who conducts research”, and a comprehensive definition “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These definitions encapsulate the core activities and guiding principles of scientific inquiry, emphasizing both methodological rigor and the essential role of knowledge dissemination across disciplines. A key finding of this study lies in its recognition of the evolving tension between disciplinary specialization and the increasing importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. As highlighted in contemporary analyses of interdisciplinary research and development, scientists now frequently operate at the intersection of multiple fields, such as nanomedicine, where the diversity and dissimilarity of collaborators’ knowledge can significantly enhance research productivity [13]. The concise definition, "A scientist is a person who conducts research" captures this shift by avoiding constraints tied to specific disciplinary boundaries. In contrast, the more detailed definition explicitly incorporates the systematic formulation and testing of hypotheses, along with the dissemination of knowledge, thereby reinforcing the structured and communicative nature of scientific inquiry. These elements align closely with UNESCO’s 2019 call for stronger science-society engagement and underscore the ethical responsibilities inherent in modern scientific practice [14]. The study’s findings also contribute to ongoing debates surrounding professional identity within the scientific community. In contrast to regulated professions such as medicine, the absence of a universal credentialing system for scientists complicates formal recognition, particularly in non-academic and interdisciplinary contexts. This ambiguity is reflected in the National Cancer Institute’s pragmatic definition of a scientist, which emphasizes active participation in research rather than reliance on formal titles or qualifications [15]. By anchoring the term “scientist” in core research activities rather than occupational labels, the consensus-based definitions proposed in this study offer a more inclusive framework. This approach accommodates emerging roles in fields such as data science and applied research, thereby addressing the risk of under recognition in collaborative and cross-sector environments. The dual definitions, concise and comprehensive, offer flexibility for different contexts, a strategy aligned with the Science Council’s emphasis on methodological diversity [4]. The detailed definition’s focus on systematic inquiry and dissemination aligns with studies of interdisciplinary science, where “impassioned commitment” to shared goals drives innovation [13]. Simultaneously, the availability of a concise definition enhances clarity in public discourse and science communication, while the more detailed version provides the specificity necessary for institutional contexts such as policy development, research funding, and professional accreditation. Notably, the study’s findings also challenge enduring stereotypes of the “lone genius” scientist by highlighting the inherently collaborative and iterative nature of scientific practice. Contemporary frameworks, such as those emerging from computational biology, suggest that scientific identity is increasingly dynamic, pluralistic, and shaped by collective knowledge production [16]. The process undertaken in this study, involving successive refinement and expert validation of definitions, closely mirrors the recursive logic of the scientific method itself. This methodological alignment is particularly salient in fields like nutritional epidemiology, where the replication of findings remains a persistent challenge and iterative inquiry is essential for refining evidence [17]. Despite the methodological rigor and expert involvement, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study employed convenience sampling, which may introduce selection bias and limit the generalizability of the findings. Although participants were selected based on a minimum citation threshold to ensure scholarly expertise, this criterion may have inadvertently excluded emerging researchers or experts with significant practical contributions who have not yet achieved high citation metrics. Second, the use of an online survey format may have constrained participant engagement, as scholars with limited availability or preference for alternative formats may have been underrepresented. Additionally, response bias cannot be ruled out, as those with a particular interest in the topic or in defining scientific identity may have been more inclined to participate, potentially skewing the results. Future refinements of the definition should also consider voices from non-academic scientific contexts including those in industry, policy, and community-based science who are increasingly central to addressing complex global challenges. Conclusion By engaging experienced scholars across disciplines, this study establishes two validated definitions of “scientist” that emphasize systematic research activity and knowledge dissemination. These definitions offer a structured yet adaptable framework for understanding scientific identity, balancing clarity with flexibility. They help address the ambiguity surrounding the term “scientist,” providing a foundation for improved communication, interdisciplinary collaboration, and evidence-informed policy development. Importantly, they remain open to future refinement as scientific practice continues to evolve. Declarations Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Ethical approval: Not applicable. Patient consent (participation and publication): Not applicable. Funding: The present study received no financial support. Acknowledgements: None to be declared. Authors' contributions: JG, MM, SB, BS, VS, ASN, SHM, HAH, AGH, ADS, RAK, WRR, AB, GB, SS, SN, CJ, PL, MSS, ZK, MC, AM, SK, FCT, FB, FRK, MAM, AA, VK, DH, PM, VRM, MSA, EA, and RV were significant contributors to the conception of the study, voting for the items. FHK, BAA, and AMM were involved in the literature review, manuscript writing, and data analysis and interpretation. FHK and AMM Confirmation of the authenticity of all the raw data. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Use of AI: ChatGPT-3.5 was used to assist in language editing and improving the clarity of the manuscript. All content was reviewed and verified by the authors. Authors are fully responsible for the entire content of their manuscript. Data availability statement: Not applicable.

Problems of Subject Integration in Environmental Science

The indoor air science community is familiar with both the research and community hygiene efforts of Max Joseph von Pettenkofer (1818-1902). Among his many great achievements and contributions to the science, policy, and practice of hygiene,1 Pettenkofer first observed and demonstrated how carbon dioxide could be used as the main indicator of indoor air quality when determining the required ventilation rate in a building. Today, this indicator remains in use as industry standard practice. To honor the pioneering contributions of Pettenkofer to building ventilation, the International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ) established the Pettenkofer Gold Medal in the late 1990s. This medal has been awarded at each of the Indoor Air conferences since 1999, in recognition of an individual's outstanding work toward advancing the indoor air sciences.2 One of the most frequently told stories of Pettenkofer is a germ swallowing drama. Pettenkofer did not believe in the germ theory set forth by Robert Koch (1843-1910), having developed his own soil miasma theory of cholera. To prove his theory, he requested a sample of Vibrio cholerae bacteria from Koch's team and, on October 7, 1892, at the age of 74, he swallowed an estimated 109 bacteria in front of an audience after emptying and neutralizing his stomach. Remarkably, Pettenkofer suffered only mild symptoms after swallowing this pathogenic solution. Earlier writers suggested that he was lucky and have offered various unverifiable explanations.3 Why would such a leading pioneer and thinker in the field of hygiene have missed the new era of the successful germ theory of disease? Locher 1 summarized that “Pettenkofer postulated the existence of a cholera germ that bred in the intestine and spread by means of human excrement, but that was not contagious. This germ, incapable of triggering an epidemic by itself, had to coincide with certain putrescent materials existing in the soil to produce a highly infectious agent that caused cholera.” In other words, although Pettenkofer did not deny the existence of the microbe, he denied its direct infectivity. Accordingly, the soil miasma theory was a result of a conceptual error even though it was developed following extensive epidemiological investigations, according to Evans.3 But why did Pettenkofer feel the need to perform a dramatic and potentially fatal act such as swallowing a lethal pathogen? On this topic, he said, “I would have died in the service of science like a soldier on the field of honor”.3 This leads to the following question: What are the major differences between his theory, which he defended so passionately, and that of Robert Koch? When some of us first began to learn about the science and engineering of ventilation, we may have read the excellent review written by Jan Sundell, a former editor-in-chief of theIndoor Air journal. Sundell wrote that, “indoor air was believed to be a major environmental factor for more than a hundred years, from the start of the hygienic revolution, around 1850, until outdoor environmental issues entered the scene, and became dominant around 1960”.4 A new researcher in the field of indoor air sciences might wonder why society experienced a sudden shift then in focus away from such an important element as indoor air. What were the major issues with indoor air in Europe around 1850 that are not with us today? This question can be answered by reference to the miasma theory and also to recognizing the role of crowding. People died at much younger ages in the 18th and 19th centuries than at present, and, accordingly, both physicians and the community focused strongly on public health. At that time, foul or polluted air was suspected to spread disease among people, and lethal diseases were given priority. In light of the hypothesis that disease is spread by corrupted air and pollution, improved sanitation standards in all buildings, streets, and cities, which included improving the indoor air quality via better ventilation, comprised one of the major efforts to escape from disease. Indoor air hygiene efforts in Western countries in the 19th century also coincided with the need for improved sanitation in urban areas and for reducing the incidence of disease as urban populations grew. According to Ekici,5 “Starting in the 1830s and 1840s, a growing number of middle-class reformers in Germany, Britain, France, and the United States raised public awareness of health issues. Their agenda included all aspects of urban design, from sewers and water supplies to street layouts and the construction of healthy buildings…When hygiene first emerged as a new science, it was closely associated with physiology. The physiology of the human body dominated nineteenth-century scientific thought, providing visual theoretical models for the laws of life and mind.” Tuberculosis, smallpox, and cholera were probably among the top microbial killers of the 19th century. In 1864, Pasteur demonstrated that the theory of spontaneous generation was incorrect. Specifically, he showed that microscopic life could only originate from other life and could not be generated from inorganic substances or non-living organic debris. This discovery was a major scientific milestone. In the late 19th century, some laboratories began to culture pathogens specifically responsible for different diseases. For example, Robert Koch identified the causal bacterium of tuberculosis in 1882 andVibrio cholera, the causative agent for cholera, in 1883. Humans now understood that each infectious disease resulted from a particular microbe. This discovery was powerful, as it enabled the identification of any location, person, or item harboring a particular infectious microbe as a potential health hazard and target for intervention. This discovery ushered in a new era of targeted interventions for preventing infectious diseases in humans. As described by Barnes,6 “the new public health” since the 1880s “narrowed the range of factors identified as potential causes of disease. Just as clearly, it broadened the range of official interventions that could be brought to bear on the prevention of infectious disease, as well as the laws, regulations, and institutions that could facilitate those interventions.” The old miasma theory was concerned with possible associations between environmental factors (eg, polluted air) and diseases, whereas the new germ theory addressed the causation of disease by a particular pathogen. Accordingly, once the specific pathogen was well controlled, the disease spread could be stopped. It was difficult to believe that a highly intelligent person such as Pettenkofer could not appreciate such a simple but powerful idea. Therefore, one might ask: Was he preoccupied with a more powerful idea? The development of germ theory was indeed rapid in the late 19th century, and scientists were excited about its potential applications for disease control. People quickly realized that germs were present not only invisibly in the air but also, importantly, to a greater extent in some environments more than others. In this context, indoor air quality became important. In the late 1870s and early 1880s, researchers at the Montsouris Observatory measured the airborne microbe concentrations at various locations in Paris (6, Page 42). Since then, humans have not only identified the microbes, but have also determined how to count these organisms. In Paris, indoor air from hospitals was found to harbor 100,000 microbes per cubic meter, compared to 10,000 and 1000 per cubic meter in outdoor air from the city center and from a park on the southern edge of the city, respectively (6, Page 129). Chauvel thus estimated that a tenth of the city air microbes detected in Paris were derived from the countryside (6, Page 130). Chauvel also reported that the incidence rates of some diseases, such as typhoid fever, smallpox, and measles, “followed almost exactly with one week's lag” behind the relative numbers of detected bacteria, “so that a rise in the latter announces an increase in these diseases, just as the falling barometer announces bad weather.” However, Chauvel did not provide a reference for the location or methodology related to this finding. Interestingly, people in France learned that ocean and mountain air were microscopically cleanest, whereas hospital air was dirtiest. Scientists at that time even recognized that wind could carry and transport dusts and microbes over long distances (the exact distances were not specified). Further, Marie-Davy (6, Page 136) reported in 1882 that not all microbes were equally dangerous. “By what special grace…would these microbes all be harmless to us…If these microbes were all inoffensive, why would we see, every season, variations in mortality by [infectious] disease follow in such a…regular manner the variations of the total number of microbes contained in the air that we breathe?” Pasteur and his colleagues concurred by stating that “not everything that stinks kills, and not everything that kills stinks” (6, Page 47). The miasma theory appeared to be related to early developments in chemistry and microbiology. Pringle7 wrote: “I conceive that the miasma or septic ferment (consisting of the effluvia from putrid substances) received into the blood, has a power of corrupting the whole mass. Its resolution and sometimes even its smell in the advanced state of a malignant fever, the offensiveness of the sweats and other excretions, the livid spots, blotches, and mortifications incident to this distemper, are proofs of what is here advanced.” Black 8 recalled that “in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, intelligent observers of contagious diseases, after much study of the subject, came to the conclusion they were caused and propagated by a process identical with or similar to fermentation and decomposition.” Of course not all early scientists agreed with the miasma theory; for example, Bell9 rejected the concept of a miasma. Schroeder (8, Page 28) tested the concept that air filtered “with cotton batting” would “catch any solid particles in the shape of spores or germs.” Thus, he “conclusively disproved the existence of gaseous ferments claimed by chemists, by admitting air filtered through cotton batting to sterilized fluids without causing fermentation.” The miasma theory existed long before the filth theory, and the latter may be considered as a modification of the former. Without knowing the exact causes of diseases, people adopted the filth theory and considered everything dirty to be lethal. Since then, of course, the success of the germ theory of disease has become well-known. One may also appreciate the contributions of the miasma theory of disease to the development of the germ theory. Based on the miasma theory, bacteriologists knew where to find the causative pathogens of specific diseases (eg, sick patients or dead bodies). The well-known successes of the miasma and filth theories of disease likely led to broad efforts to improve sanitation and hygiene. By the early 20th century, Chapin10 recognized that “until very recently it was thought that the air was the chief vehicle of infection. This was but natural. No one could see infection and what was more natural than to think it gaseous like the invisible air.” Equipped with knowledge about targeted pathogens, “we are no longer in terror of some all-pervading epidemic influence from which there is no escape. We do not worry about the ‘fall fever’ which came regularly and mysteriously, for we now know just how typhoid fever is spread and how it can be avoided…Science allays fear by substituting light for darkness.” We can certainly imagine the terror and fear that a “fall fever” would have caused at that time. From the viewpoint of health, I have personally divided history in a simplistic manner. In the 18th and 19th centuries, urbanization in Europe and subsequently in the United States led to the general filth theory (association) of diseases. Since the 1870s and mostly in the 20th century, the discoveries by Pasteur and Koch of specific microbes responsible for particular infectious diseases led to the germ theory (cause) of disease, which eventually led engineers and physicians to work separately and to achieve wonderful progress. I prefer to describe the filth or miasma theory as the general environment theory, or the assumption that all filth can spread disease and thus all filthy places and objects (eg, air, water, food, soil, clothing, dwellings, streets, and cities) must be cleaned. To some degree, one may also argue that the general environment theory is more holistic than the germ theory of the 19th century. Although recent knowledge has demonstrated the inaccuracy of the filth theory, it provides a foundation upon which humans can implement measures of hygiene at all levels and scales (ie, individual and community, buildings and cities). The filth theory led to hygiene improvement efforts on all fronts in Europe and America and to a significant reduction in disease through various efforts, including those made by Pettenkofer. Locher summarized that, “the measures Pettenkofer recommended to combat the epidemic not only drastically reduced the risk of cholera outbreaks, but also contributed to a substantial reduction of the morbidity rate for typhoid fever”.1 Reports of many of these early works are now readily accessible online. For example, my search of Google Books and archive.org for books and articles published before 1900 with titles containing the keyword “ventilation” or “foul air” produced a long list of relevant texts. Some of these books were written by physicians with different levels of sophistication. Notably, few textbooks on building ventilation have been written by physicians since 1900. The field of building ventilation has become an engineering specialty. In fact, building ventilation design has become so specialized that it is practiced by a special group of engineers, including mechanical engineers in the Americas, building services engineers in the UK and Hong Kong, China, and HVAC engineers in mainland China. It is important to recognize that the broad view of the environment in the 18th and 19th centuries along with new discoveries in chemistry and microbiology and the development of associated research tools led to the study of many aspects of the environment, including ventilation. Pettenkofer's discovery of carbon dioxide as an indicator of indoor ventilation is a good example.2 Scientific communities often divide the world into pieces, aiming to understand one piece at a time (ie, the basic reductionism approach). Such analyses of one pathogen, one chemical, one component, or one aspect have enabled indoor air science efforts to focus on one attribute and thus pinpoint exact mechanisms and specific intervention methods. Other scientists may choose a different approach and study several or all aspects of an issue concomitantly, rather than a single aspect in a piecemeal manner. This latter approach may describe the attitude of Pettenkofer, who seemed to have preferred what is currently called a holistic approach. Pettenkofer believed that clean drinking water, pure air, good food, and a “good dwelling” were necessary for a “healthy, comfortable life.”1 According to Fang and Casadevall, “reductionism may prevent scientists from recognizing important relationships between components or organisms in their natural settings”.11 According to traditional Chinese wisdom, this concept is referred to as “treating the head when the head aches, and treating the foot when the foot hurts” (in Chinese, 頭痛醫頭、腳痛醫腳). “Holism, on the other hand, is inherently more challenging due to the complexity of living organisms in their environment”.11 Fang and Casadevall11 also cited Richard Dawkins, who said that “reductionism is one of those things, like sin, that is only mentioned by people who are against it.” As demonstrated here, reductionism and holism coexist in the history of the indoor air sciences. Indoor air is an environmental system, and studies of this system must consider many aspects, including physical, chemical, biological, psychological, behavioral, social, and architectural. Indoor air also interacts with the human body, thereby influencing human wellbeing. Effective studies in the indoor air sciences require both reductionism and holism. Currently, we are facing the challenges of the 21st century, and both holistic and reductionist approaches toward diseases and health, and specifically for the indoor air environment and health, are needed more than ever. There is an apparent need for multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research in the field, consistent with the background against which the Indoor Air journal was first established. A combined consideration of holism and reductionism can be powerful and synergistic. I recently read a paper by Wildner and Hofman,13 who further explained the dramatic germ swallowing event by Pettenkofer. Below, I have reproduced some interesting excerpts from that paper: This story led me to imagine the germ swallowing event as a nonverbal “debate” about the holistic and reductionist approaches. Although this may be an overstatement, it appears that Pettenkofer indeed preferred “broader epidemiologic considerations” and refused to accept “Robert Koch's exclusive focus on bacteriology.” I consider this to be a major difference between the two theories, or at least between the approaches and philosophies underlying the theories. As we revisit the history of indoor air science while standing on the shoulders of giants in the field, we will hopefully be able to see further, wider and deeper into the roles of indoor air environment for human health. Indoor air sciences require both breadth and depth. That we collectively incorporate both holistic and reductionist perspectives is consistent with the wisdom of the founders of the Indoor Air journal in its multidisciplinary and scientific nature. None.

The article examines the key characteristics of young scientists’ integration into scientific communities in the context of the new prospects offered by the VUCA world. We see the VUCA world as a time of opportunities and a favorable period for young scientists to take initiatives, and also a world of total uncertainty, where impetuosity and uncertainty, as well as the constant search for and change of various strategies, become a key to successful career building and advancement. The empirical base of the analysis consists of 30 biographical interviews with young scientists from a city of regional significance, a young science city, a large city and a city of federal significance. The article puts forward a hypothesis about the importance of horizontal integration of young scientists into scientific communities in young cities and innovative cities, as well as in a large city and in a city of federal significance. The paper also discusses the role of the city as an actor that forms scientific communities and strategies for interaction and integration of young scientists with scientific communities. Special attention is paid to the meanings of scientific careers and the individual role of scientific communities in the careers of young scientists and also to the strategies for integrating young scientists into scientific careers. The authors consider changes in the configurations of strategies for both building a scientific career and integration into scientific communities at the local, national and global levels as new opportunities that arise for scientists in the VUCA world. The main conclusion of the article is that the integration and career building strategies in science are influenced by both the city and the orientation of the city, the local scientific community, which may differ depending on particular scientific disciplines. A successful strategy that allows one to use the potential and resources of the VUCA world to the maximum extent possible is the horizontal integration of young scientists.

<p>The French academic sector in the field of environment sciences, including meteorology and climate, is organized through a cooperation among several national organizations and universities. National organizations and universities operating in the field of environmental sciences belong to a federation called AllEnvi, initiated in 2010. Météo-France, the French national eather service, is a founding member of AllEnvi, among 11 other organizations such as CNRS, BRGM, CEA, Ifremer, IRD, INRAE etc. 15 further associate members contribute to AllEnvi activities. AllEnvi brings together their top executives through regular meetings, and discusses and implements joint strategies through topical groups involving relevant experts. This enables regular discussions between key players in the field of environmental sciences at the national scale. One of the mandates of AllEnvi is to develop research agenda covering its various domains, and provide guidance for strategic priorities to its members and the national research funding agency ANR.</p><p>In the field of meteorology and climate, a key long lasting collaboration has developed between Météo-France and CNRS, the national research council. In particular, Météo-France and CNRS jointly run several research entities, in particular the Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques (CNRM) based in Toulouse, Grenoble and Lannion and the Laboratoire de l’Atmosphère et des Cyclones (LACy) on Réunion Island also affiliated with Université de la Réunion. These laboratories bring together scientific, technical and administrative staff from these organizations around common goals and projects. Météo-France, CNRS and CNES, the national space agency, operate research aircrafts through the SAFIRE fleet. Other key long-lasting collaborations include CERFACS and Mercator Ocean International. </p><p>CNRS, Météo-France and other research organizations, provide funding to national programmes in the field of meteorology and climate under a common scientific committee. Scientists from virtually any laboratory can apply for seed funding from these programmes, which also contribute to developing and maintain strong ties among the scientific community, including on emerging topics.  </p><p>This manifold collaboration at the national level is also reflected at the European level, through research infrastructures, European partnerships (including ECMWF and the consortium for numerical weather prediction ACCORD), and contributions to research and innovations calls from the Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe programmes.</p><p>These daily interactions between Météo-France and its academic partners, implemented in particular through its research laboratories CNRM and LACy, are mutually beneficial to improving weather forecasting and climate modelling tools and their operational uses for meteorological and climate services, as well as using these tools for addressing new or persistent scientific challenges. This close cooperation also contributes to maintaining research and development activities at Météo-France as close as possible to the highest scientific standards. This contribution will summarize the implementation research cooperation in particular between Météo-France and the academic sector, its successes, challenges, lessons learnt and perspectives.</p>

The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) is the first and largest cancer research organization dedicated to accelerating the conquest of cancer. The stated purpose of the organization when it was founded 115 years ago was “to further the investigation and spread the knowledge of cancer.” Since that time, the AACR has been the driving force to eradicate cancer. Publication of research findings has always been critical to this endeavor, with the 11 founders recognizing the importance of “sharing observations” and the need for a journal to “collect under one cover such contributions as bear in any way upon the general problems of oncology.”The AACR launched its first peer-reviewed scientific journal, The Journal of Cancer Research, in 1916. At the time, it was the only English-language cancer journal in the world. Since then, the AACR portfolio of journals has grown to 10. These journals cover the full spectrum of cancer science and medicine and together, over the years, have published over 100,000 articles and over 130,000 meeting abstracts. This is an immense contribution to the body of knowledge on cancer and has ignited communication among cancer scientists and physicians, helping to catalyze a revolution in the field.We are honored to serve as the current Editors-in-Chief of the AACR journals. Each of the 10 journals was launched by the AACR to meet the scientific information needs of its membership and all those engaged in cancer research. Under our leadership, the journals engage closely and collaboratively with the community to facilitate the presentation and wide dissemination of research findings. Importantly, the AACR is a not-for-profit publisher. This means that any surplus from the AACR journals program is used to help support the cancer research community and the mission of the AACR to prevent and cure all cancers by contributing to funding for AACR grants, scientific conferences, and science policy and advocacy efforts. Here, we highlight the unique roles of our journals within the family of AACR journals and how they serve to advance the mission of the AACR.At the inception of the AACR, there was a clear need for journals focused on cancer research to assemble key studies to help guide the field. Cancer Research was launched in 1941 as the flagship journal of the AACR from a rich ancestry that started with its predecessors: The Journal of Cancer Research (1916–1930) and The American Journal of Cancer Research (1931–1940). From the very beginning, Cancer Research has published landmark papers (https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/pages/landmark_articles) that have enriched our knowledge of cancer biology and treatment and have provided the foundation upon which major breakthroughs have been built. In the first year of publication, Cancer Research featured seminal studies on the effect of castration on prostate cancer and the mechanism of carcinogenesis that shaped the field (https://www.aacr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CancerResearch_75Anniversary_1941-2016.pdf). Cancer Research has continued to publish articles that cover the full range of research, spanning from investigations on drug discovery, cancer molecular mechanisms, and the tumor microenvironment to clinical and population studies. As cancer research has evolved over the past century, new AACR journals have emerged to embrace and support expanding fields, providing specialized venues for studies that deepen our understanding of areas that were historically covered by Cancer Research. In this regard, the “pedigree” of AACR journals stemmed from the principles set by Cancer Research, which remains a venue for publishing fundamental studies in all areas of cancer research, including emerging areas such as cancer data science and mathematics. As a society journal, Cancer Research serves the community through its editorial process that is guided by the judgment of international academic editors who provide rich expertise in various areas as practicing researchers. Further, the Journal embraces early career investigators and has recognized these researchers with the prestigious Cancer Research Early Career Award. Guided by its extensive history, Cancer Research hopes to motivate and support the next generation of scientists to lessen the burden of cancer through their innovative research.As cancer science and medicine entered the molecular biology era, it became clear that a communication channel was needed to emphasize basic science studies in oncology—studies that report significant mechanistic findings at the molecular or cellular level. Originally published under the title Cell Growth & Differentiation from 1990 to 2002, Molecular Cancer Research (MCR) was launched as the AACR was beginning to build its now-renowned focus on molecular biology and genetics. The Journal served to help emphasize this focus and attract more scientists into the AACR's membership. As part of this mission, MCR features studies exploring the molecular underpinnings of each of the hallmarks of cancer, with a particular emphasis on studies elucidating oncogenic alterations in metabolism. Cancer metabolism is increasingly recognized as a key vulnerability of tumor biology. MCR is committed to recruiting and disseminating studies featuring novel metabolomic analyses, mass spectrometry, metabolic imaging and tracing, and other approaches that clarify links between metabolism and cancer, with the goal of identifying metabolic vulnerabilities and adding to the armamentarium of anticancer interventions. In addition to publishing impactful basic cancer research studies, the Journal aims to promote diversity of thought and perspective within the basic cancer research community. To achieve this goal, MCR has launched an initiative in which senior investigators are paired with rising stars in their fields to write and edit review articles jointly. This initiative encourages collaboration among researchers by integrating historical perspectives with new directions to provide novel, actionable insights for the field.Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (CEBP) is the leading subspecialty journal for fundamental and applied population science research describing the burden of cancer; uncovering possible causes of cancer and its progression; and informing and evaluating strategies for cancer prevention, early detection, cancer survivorship, and closing the cancer disparities gap. CEBP is unique among AACR journals in focusing on populations at risk for cancer, with cancer, and surviving cancer, especially U.S. and global populations who experience health inequities. Among its many contributions, the Journal has advanced the field of molecular epidemiology of cancer by providing expert peer review and a highly regarded publications forum and has helped launch the careers of many investigators who conduct population science research on cancer. CEBP plays an active role in informing public health practice, policy, and recommendations by publishing articles that are cited as part of the evidence base, including by the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the World Health Organization. Recognizing the societal need to enhance the translation of population science evidence for cancer prevention and control today and in the future, the Journal recently expanded its scope to include cancer care delivery and implementation science research. Like the other AACR journals, CEBP serves the research community well through its editorial rigor and publication of innovative and impactful research addressing contemporary and emerging cancer problems.As biologic insights into cancer rapidly accelerated in the decades after the discovery of the structure of DNA and the armamenta­rium of anticancer agents began to expand, the AACR identified the need for a communication outlet focused on the clinical applications of these discoveries; Clinical Cancer Research was launched to provide this much-needed outlet. Early therapeutic development has since transitioned from rigidly divided trial phases into an adaptive process that encompasses investigation of safety, pharmacokinetics, proof of mechanism, and first evidence of clinical activity. These same trials now frequently serve as the basis for first regulatory approval. The Journal bridges the transition from late preclinical development, when a new therapy is being paired with insights into the molecular features that predict responsiveness to therapy, to clinical validation of those hypotheses, and the Journal has evolved into a premier venue for phase I/II trials. As the only AACR journal with clinical research of all types, including clinical trials, as its sole purview, Clinical Cancer Research has taken the charge of being the journal that accounts for what happens to the discoveries described in basic and translational cancer research when they are tested prospectively for their potential impact on the outcomes of patients with cancer. Since its launch, Clinical Cancer Research has also played a distinct educational role among clinical oncology journals, with a robust collection of review articles to benefit basic scientists with clinical interests and clinical investigators studying new agents with unique biologic mechanisms of action. Clinical Cancer Research has also become an important forum for critical discussions in clinical oncology. Field-leading experts are invited to deliberate on the progress made in a given therapeutic area, focusing on the lessons to be learned from recent successes and failures. Authors from the FDA provide detailed insights into the data that drive regulatory decision-making for each successful therapy. Clinical Cancer Research continues to demonstrate the AACR's long-standing commitment to accelerating research that leads to potential interventions for prevention, early detection, and treatment of cancer and particularly to showcasing clinical trials.Improving and expanding the arsenal of anticancer therapies is an essential goal in our shared mission to prevent and cure all cancers. From before the humble beginnings of nitrogen mustards and vinca alkaloids to the advent of immuno-oncology and rationally designed targeted therapy, the last 115 years have seen quantum leaps in therapeutic strategies and clinical options to combat cancer. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics has been at the forefront of this effort for more than 20 years, publishing top-tier science in the design, synthesis, discovery, and preclinical study of novel therapeutic agents for the treatment and prevention of cancer. The Journal's scope covers anticancer therapeutics broadly, including precision medicine therapies of all types: cell therapies, gene therapies, RNA therapeutics, oncolytic viruses, and vaccines in addition to established regimens such as mole­cular and biologic agents, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Among these efforts, the Journal provides a specialized venue for the first disclosure of experimental therapeutics advancing toward clinical trials, providing a platform with international reach to authors. The crucial role of Molecular Cancer Therapeutics among the AACR journals—and, indeed, among all oncology journals—cannot be overstated. The Journal's laser focus on disseminating rigorously vetted research with near-term clinical benefit has enormous potential to impact the entire cancer research community and to improve, extend, and defend the lives of patients with cancer. To that end, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics continues to provide a vital forum for the communication of important discoveries in cancer therapeutics research to the global research community.Effective global cancer control must emphasize efforts to reduce cancer incidence rather than concentrating solely on cancer treatment. To help catalyze such efforts, the AACR launched Cancer Prevention Research (CaPR) in 2008 to be devoted excl­usively to cancer prevention research. From its inception, CaPR has endeavored to be a primary resource for original articles, scholarly reviews, and timely perspectives regarding basic, translational, clinical, and population science investigations related to cancer risk reduction. Five years ago, CaPR published the landmark perspective, “Transforming Cancer Prevention through Precision Medicine and Immune-oncology,” which proposed a Pre-Cancer Atlas and recognized unprecedented opportunities to interrogate the biology of premalignancy (1). The subsequent development of the Pre-Cancer Atlas, together with other advances, represents a “moonshot” opportunity for the field of cancer prevention. CaPR will continue to cultivate high-caliber content from pioneers in fields such as carcinogenesis, the biology of premalignancy, cancer risk assessment, screening, and policy implementation that will transform the way we detect and, ultimately, intercept and prevent cancer. The Journal's mission to reflect the current state of cancer prevention and to catalyze the development of the field supports the AACR mission to prevent and cure all cancers. The community of researchers, educators, advocates, and funders that works together under the umbrella of the AACR and its family of journals is a critical part of the cancer prevention ecosystem. Together, we are publishing research that defines the field of cancer prevention, building a translational bridge between bench and community, and developing the next generation of cancer prevention researchers.In 2011, recognizing the cancer research community's need for a journal that published the most impactful research while placing a premium on streamlined editorial processes and service to authors, the AACR launched Cancer Discovery. Bringing together basic scientists with detailed knowledge of cancer biology and physicians at the vanguard of science-driven clinical trial design, Cancer Discovery immediately changed the landscape of scientific publishing in the field, with many other journals now trying to emulate the unique mix of basic, translational, and clinical research that the Journal pioneered. Cancer Discovery has been at the forefront of the most important developments in cancer over the past decade, from targeted therapy and immunotherapy to technological advances in single-cell sequencing and liquid biopsy that have fundamentally changed our understanding of cancer biology and response to treatment. Preclinical and clinical studies published in Cancer Discovery have laid the foundation for numerous FDA approvals within a short period, and influential commentaries and reviews have galvanized the field and guided policy decisions. The unique editorial team consisting of leading researchers and experienced professional editors works collaboratively with the community to quickly publish and disseminate the strongest, immediately impactful science to support the AACR mission to prevent and cure all cancers.The first cancer immunotherapeutic is famously considered to have been administered in 1891 by William B. Coley, one of the 11 founders of the AACR, when he used a mixture of heat-killed bacteria (subsequently known as Coley's toxins) to create an inflammatory response that could treat a patient with sarcoma. However, it took more than 100 years before the field of cancer immunology and immunotherapy research gained meaningful traction among those working in the broader discipline of cancer science and medicine. The rapid expansion of the field began in the early 2000s as a result of increasing evidence linking the immune system with cancer development and demonstrations that the immune system might be harnessed to treat cancer, and it has continued at an even more remarkable pace since the FDA approval of the first immune checkpoint inhibitor, the CTLA4-specific blocking antibody ipilimumab, in 2011. Recognizing the need to further enhance interactions between researchers in the realm of cancer immunology and immunotherapy and those in all other areas of the cancer research community, and to provide a forum for the presentation of advances in the rapidly evolving field of cancer immunology science, the AACR collaborated with the Cancer Research Institute to launch Cancer Immunology Research in 2013. Since its inaugural issue, the Journal has disseminated exciting discoveries and developments in the field of cancer immunology and immunotherapy, and successfully introduced the central principles of immunology to cancer biologists and clinical investigators. As a journal devoted to the science underlying some of the most transformative therapeutics to have entered the clinic for the treatment of cancer in recent years, Cancer Immunology Research has played a unique role in advancing the mission of the AACR.Unprecedented progress in understanding the pathogenesis of hematologic malignancies and in translating these insights into improved clinical outcomes has created a demand for a high-profile outlet for publishing these discoveries. To address this need and to emphasize the AACR's commitment to the prevention and cure of all types of cancer, Blood Cancer Discovery was launched in 2020 to inspire, facilitate, and broadly disseminate important discoveries about hematologic malignancies. The Journal's model of operation replicates Cancer Discovery's success in creating synergies between the expertise of leaders in the field and the dedication of in-house editorial and publishing teams, enabling rigorous, rapid, and transparent editorial processes. Blood Cancer Discovery has published cutting-edge research articles on a broad spectrum of topics encompassing leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and other blood cancer subtypes that also have profound implications for our understanding of solid tumors. The Journal has also published all the phases of clinical research: drug development in preclinical disease models, clinical trials, molecular events underlying clinical responses and resistance to therapies, and real-world epidemiology. As a forum for diverse ideas shaping future research directions, Blood Cancer Discovery has published incisive commentaries and has partnered with the AACR's hematologic malignancy-focused Special Conferences, quickly emerging as a thought leader in blood cancer research.The landscape of cancer science and medicine continues to change and accelerate, becoming ever more multifaceted. Launched in October 2021, Cancer Research Communications was designed with these considerations in mind. Most crucially, the Journal is fully open access and boasts the broadest and most flexible scope of any AACR title to date, providing a pathway to publication for authors working within funder mandates or whose work falls outside the scope of other titles in the AACR portfolio. The Journal's nine sections offer a comprehensive view of the spectrum of oncology research. With an editorial ethos centered on accessibility, reproducibility, and value to the field, the Journal is inclusive of a wide variety of important research findings that may be beyond the scope of other journals in the program. Cancer Research Communications is committed to catalyzing the rapid dissemination of rigorously peer-reviewed scientific findings in diversified areas of study, including but not limited to physics, engineering, mathematics, and computational biology. This interdisciplinary approach stimulates the cross-pollination of insight and innovation among cancer researchers. Moreover, the Journal emphasizes flourishing areas of research—such as precision medicine, immuno-oncology, and disparities in cancer health outcomes—that will be foundational to the next 115 years of progress against cancer. As a thoroughly modern platform designed to meet the needs of our authors and readers while complementing the other AACR journals, Cancer Research Communications is poised to stimulate the efficient and dynamic exchange of knowledge, actively sparking new ideas and discoveries to prevent and cure all cancers.Since the very first issue of The Journal of Cancer Research was published in 1916, the AACR journals have been a critical resource for cancer researchers and physicians, providing a forum for disseminating groundbreaking discoveries in cancer science and medicine. As the current Editors-in-Chief of the AACR journals, we are proud that this tradition of publishing seminal, rigorously vetted research that can change the trajectory of the field has established the AACR journals as a trusted partner of the research community. Importantly, we would like to take this opportunity to thank our authors, editorial teams, reviewers, and readers for their invaluable contributions to this endeavor. The tireless efforts of this community provide a beacon of hope to patients and their loved ones.As we look to the future, we continue to collaborate with the research community to ensure that the journals operate with a forward-thinking mentality that adapts to the evolving needs of all stakeholders. In recent years, we have seen critical scientific and technological innovations propel extraordinary progress against cancer. We are confident that this progress will continue, and we remain dedicated to ensuring that the AACR journals continue to provide a platform for the communication of impactful research and support the AACR mission to prevent and cure all cancers.L. Cantley consulted for Petra Pharmaceuticals, Agios Pharmaceuticals, EIP Pharmaceuticals, Volastra, Larkspur, and Cell Signaling Technologies over the past year. He also received grant support from the NIH/NCI, Gray Foundation, The Mark Foundation, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Stand Up To Cancer/American Association for Cancer Research over the past year, and is a stockholder in Agios Pharmaceuticals, EIP Pharmaceuticals, Cell Signaling Technologies, Volastra, and Larkspur. R. Dalla-Favera is a consultant for NeoGenomics and AstraZeneca and receives research funds from AstraZeneca. L.A. Diaz is a member of the board of directors of Jounce Therapeutics and Epitope and is a compensated consultant to PetDx, Innovatus CP, Se'er, Delfi, Blackstone, Kinnate, and Neophore. He is an inventor of multiple licensed patents related to technology for circulating tumor DNA analyses and mismatch repair deficiency for diagnosis and therapy; some of these licenses and relationships are associated with equity or royalty payments directly to the inventors. He holds equity in Epitope, Jounce Therapeutics, PetDx, Se'er, Delfi, Kinnate, and Neophore; he divested his equity in Personal Genome Diagnostics to LabCorp in February 2022 and he divested his equity in Thrive Earlier Detection to Exact Biosciences in January 2021. His spouse holds equity in Amgen. The terms of all these arrangements are being managed by Memorial Sloan Kettering in accordance with their conflict of interest policies. K.T. Flaherty reports personal fees from Clovis Oncology, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Strata Oncology, Kinnate Biopharma, Scorpion Therapeutics, PIC Therapeutics, Apricity, Tvardi, ALX Oncology, xCures, Monopteros, Vibliome, Soley Therapeutics, Quanta Therapeutics, Nextech, Takeda, Novartis, OMRx, and Transcode Therapeutics and other support from Roche/Genentech outside the submitted work. P.D. Greenberg reports grants and personal fees from Juno Therapeutics; grants from Lonza; personal fees and other support from Earli, Metagenomi, Elpiscience, Rapt Therapeutics, and and grants, personal and other support from outside the submitted work. reports personal fees from reports personal fees from Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer The Institute for AACR, and Cancer Research grants, personal and support from and grants and personal fees from and Jounce Therapeutics; and personal fees and support from outside the submitted work. reports personal fees from and Therapeutics; grants from Novartis, Therapeutics, and and personal fees and grants from and outside the submitted work. were by the other authors.