Data derived from the Science Watch/Hot Papers database and the Web of Science (ISI, Philadelphia) show that Hot Papers are cited 50 to 100 times more often than the average paper of the same type and age. Diabetes researchers have long known about the connection between obesity and insulin resistance, but they have yet to identify the hormonal machinery responsible for that connection. In this Hot Paper, published 18 months ago, investigators appeared to have uncovered a major part of that ma

Presidential advisory group likely to release final report by summer's end.

Volume 16 | Issue 13 | 6 | Jun. 24, 2002 Previous | Next Frontlines MOO over, mouse Photo: ©2001 Jessica Rhiannon Smith When researchers consider disease model options, cows generally remain in the pasture. But a bovine tuberculosis epidemic in the United Kingdom has made the grazers invaluable, not only for studying ways to stymie Mycobacterium bovis, the bovine ver

Senator Brownback falters in his latest attempt to regulate human cloning; vote now unlikely before end of year.

Short on votes, US Senate cloning opponent considers proposing a two-year moratorium.

Twenty years ago, many investigators believed that genetics held the key to understanding schizophrenia, an etiologically heterogeneous disease.1 It seemed only a matter of time before the power of genetic analysis could be brought to bear on this malady, resulting in better drug leads and better ways toward prevention.2 So far, genetic advances have been few. "There was really a misjudgment on the part of some in the field," says Kenneth Kendler, professor of psychiatry and human genetics at

When Science published Celera Genomics Group's human genome paper last year, many scientists, especially bioinformaticians, were less than pleased with the unusual restrictions put on data access.1 The most odious: The data was not submitted to GenBank, and academic researchers were entitled to only one megabase of data at a time without further permission. Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research's Center for Genome Research director Eric Lander, one of the most outspoken critics of the Scie

This year's annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science attracted about 6,400 scientists, science journalists, and others to Boston Feb. 14-19. Topics of discussion ranged from bioterrorism to dinosaurs to ice cream to bird brains (www.aaas.org/meetings). Following are notes on just a few of the sessions. Age-Old Dilemma: Genes vs. Environment As neuroscientists strive toward unearthing the very roots of human emotion and thought, the ethical and legal ramifications

At the first meeting of the newly assembled President's Council on Bioethics (PCB), Jan. 17-18, members began their consideration of sensitive bioethical issues not with an analysis of the writings of a scientist, nor a bioethicist, nor a legislator, but a novelist. The group discussed Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story The Birthmark, a literary exploration of mankind's apparent aspiration to root out his own imperfections. The story's protagonist, an alchemist named Aylmer, convinces his wife Ge

Recent bioterrorist attacks may not only influence the content of future research studies, but the way those studies are reviewed, monitored, and published. On Dec. 6, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases announced several new initiatives intended to encourage basic research in bioterrorism-related areas. The initiatives, which expand on old programs and introduce new ones, will not be funded by "new" money, but rather via a reallocation of the $81.6 million in NIAID bioterr

For this article, Eugene Russo interviewed Harry Noller, professor of molecular biology, University of California, Santa Cruz; Venki Ramakrishnan, group leader, Structural Studies Division, Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, UK; and Thomas Steitz, a professor of molecular biophysics, biochemistry, and chemistry, Yale University. Data from the Web of Science (ISI, Philadelphia) show that Hot Papers are cited 50 to 100 times more often than the average paper of the same type

Nearly a year ago, a group of high-profile scientists came together in hopes of sparking widespread reform throughout the science publishing industry.1 Although publishers certainly took notice, these scientists' efforts to establish a so-called Public Library of Science (PLOS) have fallen well short of initial objectives. PLOS founders have now decided to maintain their principles but change their strategy by launching a freely accessible, author fee-funded, peer reviewed online journal. In a