Sequencing and Analysis of the Hydra Genome
Chapman, Kirkness et al., Nature
An international research collaboration reports their sequencing and analysis of the Hydra magnipapillata genome, and compare it to the genomes of several other organisms. "The Hydra genome has been shaped by bursts of transposable element expansion, horizontal gene transfer, trans-splicing, and simplification of gene structure and gene content that parallel simplification of the Hydra life cycle," the authors write. They team suggests that comparisons of the Hydra genome to the reported sequences of other animals have helped them to elucidate the evolution of several of the organism's characteristics.
Risky Science and Grants
July 09, 2009
John Niederhuber, the director of the National Cancer Institute, responds to the recent criticism on how cancer-related grants are doled out — the New York Times' Gina Kolata said that it leads to researchers avoiding risky projects that she thinks may have better payoffs. Niederhuber says that Kolata's criticisms are nothing new and that despite its flaws, the peer-review system "remains the envy of the world—and one of the most duplicated." He also says that while scientists "put their best science forward in their R01 grant proposals," there are other ways to fund riskier science. "In my interview for the Times story, I suggested to Ms. Kolata that the very nature of cancer science is beginning to undergo fundamental change and that not all scientific risk takes place in the realm of the classic R01 or similar grants," he adds.
Michael White at Adaptive Complexity says that Niederhuber's response actually helps support Kolata's thesis. "Note that he equates the 'best science' that goes into R01s with non-risky science — he essentially admits that he believes risky science is not the best science," he writes, adding that he did consider the Times piece "too dismissive of the progress that's been made in the understanding and treatment of cancer."
But, risky science is also
But, risky science is also novel science. If everything is known and done there would be no research left to do?????
Its also established groups
Its also established groups scratching each others back and doling out money, as in science it cannot be just a blind review of work anyways. Rather allow young risk takers to come to forefront with their novel ways and means to answer tough questions. Give them less but give them enough to survive the big bad world of academic-lead investigator driven individual groups.
Sometimes risky sciences are
Sometimes risky sciences are not funded by RO1. I think risky science which can be high-rsk and high-impact should also be funded by RO1. The other mechanisms for risky sciences are small grants for very short duration and not best. The funding agencies should open their doors and minds (for RO1s) to risky science (which can be innovative and novel). Yes, more often the large and established group (club) help each other with funding. Make sure you give certain percentage of funding (any mechanims) to younger and less established scientists.