An Important Anniversary

Folkman, Hunter, Massague, Vogelstein and Weinberg Win 2004 Prince of Asturias Awards

Purpose . Preparation of short scientifically-historical essay about creation and development of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of Ukraine. Methodology. Known scientific methods of collection, analysis and analytical treatment of scientific and technical information, touching creation and development of NAS of Ukraine and resulted in scientific monographs, journals and internet-reports . Results. A short scientifically-historical essay is presented about creation and development of NAS of Ukraine. The main scientific achievements of NAS of Ukraine in various fields of science are presented. It is pointed that a large scientifically-organizational contribution to these achievements brought by present President of NAS of Ukraine, Academician B.Ye. Paton, his 100th Birthday (27 November, 2018) coincides surprising appearance with the 100th anniversary of NAS of Ukraine. An important role of NAS of Ukraine in the development of society and international scientific and technical cooperation was noted. The results of scientific research, achieved over the past few years by the Institute of Technical Problems of Magnetism of the NAS of Ukraine (Kharkiv), as well as by the Institute of Ionosphere of the NAS and Departments of education and science (DES) of Ukraine (Kharkiv) are briefly presented. The research cooperation in the field of electrical engineering of NTU «KhPI» with scientific institutions of the NAS of Ukraine is highlighted. Originality. Certain systematization is executed of known from scientific journals and other mass of scientific and technical materials, touching the results of activity of research workers of institutes of NAS of Ukraine in the last few years. Practical value. Scientific popularization and deepening for the students of higher school, engineer-technical and scientific workers, working in the different sectors of economy of country, scientific and technical knowledge in an area of physical-technical and mathematical sciences, chemical and biological sciences, and also social and humanitarian sciences, extending their scientific range of interests and further development of scientific and technical progress in society.

The Committee to Assess the Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion [National Academy of Sciences (NAS)] released its final report [National Research Council (NRC) 2005] in January 2005, recommending a reference dose (RfD) for perchlorate of 0.0007 mg/kg-day. In a commentary published online on 25 May 2005, Ginsberg and Rice (2005) criticized the adequacy of the NAS committee’s scientific deliberations, mischaracterizing the studies reviewed by the committee and second-guessing its conclusions. Ginsberg and Rice (2005) implied that the U.S. Environmental Protections Agency’s (EPA’s) previous draft RfD of 0.00003 mg/kg-day (U. S. EPA 2002)—and by inference the Massachusetts perchlorate risk assessment [Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass DEP) 2004] that mirrored the U.S. EPA’s approach and which Ginsberg and Rice peer reviewed—is more scientifically defensible. The NAS committee was composed of 15 leading physicians and scientists with combined range of expertise to evaluate every scientific aspect of the perchlorate database and of the U.S. EPA’s assessment of that database. The makeup of this committee and its credentials are available on the NAS website (NAS 2004). The NAS committee studied and deliberated for more than 15 months before issuing its report. Those deliberations included three public meetings during which it accepted verbal and/or written comments from the U.S. EPA, other government agencies, industry, states, environmental groups, and attorneys. After careful study and consideration of the scientific studies that formed the basis for the U.S. EPA’s 2002 draft RfD as well as the 2004 Massachusetts risk assessment (Mass DEP 2004), the NAS committee considered several of the animal studies … to be flawed in their design and execution. Conclusions based on those studies, particularly the neurodevelopmental studies, were not supported by the results of the studies. Although Ginsberg and Rice (2005) implied that the NAS committee should have considered the threshold for measurable iodine uptake inhibition “adverse” and that the NAS inadvertently left out the “A” in NOAEL (no observed adverse effect level), the committee decisively stated that “inhibition of iodide uptake by the thyroid clearly is not an adverse effect.” The committee carefully considered the issue of a NOEL (no observed effect level) and a NOAEL. Based on a clinical study of patients receiving perchlorate long term, the NAS established the NOAEL as 0.4 mg/kg-day (57 times higher than its identified NOEL). Ginsberg and Rice (2005) further expressed concerns regarding perchlorate in breast milk and the subsequent possibility of decreased breast milk iodine, citing Kirk et al. (2005) and Gibbs (2004). Kirk et al. (2005) reported perchlorate and iodide levels in breast milk samples and noted that “if we take all the available data, there is no meaningful correlation between the perchlorate and iodide levels in breast milk.” The study from Chile that Ginsberg and Rice refer to as Gibbs (2004) is now published as Tellez et al. (2005). The study found that iodine nutrition of pregnant women in Chile is very similar to that in the United States. Tellez et al. (2005) found no maternal or neonatal perchlorate-related thyroid effects or decreases in breast milk iodine with perchlorate doses spanning the 0.0007–0.007 mg/kg-day range. Ginsberg and Rice (2005) argued that perchlorate database deficiencies require an additional uncertainty factor of 3–10 because of key data gaps, citing breast milk concerns and the extrapolation from a 14-day exposure study to chronic exposure. The NAS committee (NRC 2005) considered this and concluded that if inhibition of iodide uptake by the thyroid is duration-dependent, the effect should decrease rather than increase with time, because compensation would increase the activity of the sodium-iodide symporter and therefore increase iodide transport into the thyroid. Evidence has subsequently shown this to be the case (Braverman et al. 2005). The California EPA perchlorate risk assessment (California EPA 2004) relied on the same studies as the NRC report (NRC 2005). The “point of departure” was based on iodine uptake inhibition by Greer et al. (2002), and a total uncertainty factor of 10 was applied to account for interindividual variability. After reviewing the NRC report (NRC 2005), the California EPA elected not to change its risk assessment or public health goal (California EPA 2005). In summary, the concerns presented by Ginsberg and Rice (2005) have already been addressed thoroughly by experts on perchlorate and thyroid toxicology and were found to be unsubstantiated. The NAS committee and other experts came to this conclusion based on a comprehensive review of the science in the field, not based entirely on an individual study, which has been mischaracterized by Ginsberg and Rice.

The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report in April that should give all scientists-young and old-a reason to pause and reflect on their chosen profession.The report, titled "Fostering Integrity in Research" [1] describes several practices that, if not executed thoughtfully and with care, can have a potentially lasting and detrimental impact on a professional career and the reputation of the supporting institution.The issue is scientific integrity.While the emphasis may vary depending on stakeholder, scientific integrity embodies behaviors and practices free of personal and institutional bias and other forms of research misconduct.Rigorous adherence to the scientific method is fundamental to sound science and is founded on observation data collection, hypothesis testing, and culminating in the publication of quality science in peer-reviewed journals.The erosion of scientific integrity, rightly noted by NAS, places the future in jeopardy.Scientific integrity appears to be eroding at such an alarming rate in several disciplines that NAS is recommending the creation of a US Research Integrity Advisory Board.The approach is similar to that adopted by the Swedish government in 2010 following controversial claims of scientific misconduct at reputable institutions, several of which have yet to be resolved.The NAS has put forth additional recommendations, including a call to scientific enterprises and publishers such as SETAC Publications, to more aggressively ensure that the peerreview process and resulting publications are founded on "reliable knowledge."At Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (ET&C) and Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) we rarely encounter the 3 most often cited examples of research misconduct-data fabrication, research falsification, and plagiarism.On the rare occasions when reviewers, senior editors, or members of our dedicated editorial boards raise concerns, plagiarism is the most common form of misconduct.That said, the instances of plagiarism are more a lack of awareness on the part of authors of what constitutes plagiarism.Self-plagiarism is the most common form of this, particularly with authors whose native language is not English; they tend to reuse text that was deemed acceptable in a prior publication.Other transgressions, however, are not so easily identified and resolved.The NAS points to several research falsehoods similarly detrimental to careers, institutions, and the integrity of the entire scientific community:

Arch Toxicol (2014) 88:171–172 DOI 10.1007/s00204-013-1176-4 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Letter from Ralph J Cicerone regarding Edward Calabrese’s paper published online first on August 4th: “how the US national academy of sciences misled the world community on cancer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foundations of the linear dose response.” [DOI 10.1007/s00204‑013‑1105‑6, Review Article] R. J. Cicerone · K. D. Crowley Received: 18 November 2013 / Accepted: 21 November 2013 / Published online: 6 December 2013 © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013 Dear Dr. Hengstler We write to express disappointment with the inappropri- ate title and unsubstantiated content of Edward Calabrese’s paper published online on 4 August: “How the US National Academy of Sciences misled the world community on can- cer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foun- dations of the linear dose response” (Calabrese 2013). Professor Calabrese accuses 1946 Nobel Laureate Her- man Muller and his colleague Curt Stern of a pattern of deception in their treatment of experiments by another scientist. Calabrese further accuses Muller of inappropri- ately influencing fellow members of the National Research Council’s Committee on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) (NRC 1956) about the genetic effects of ionizing radiation in humans. Calabrese uses correspondence between Muller and Stern concerning experiments on germ cell mutations in male fruit flies, along with subsequent scientific publications by both scientists, to make unsubstantiated insinuations about Mul- ler and Stern’s motivations: For example, that Muller was “…[p]rotecting his reputation by ensuring that his mislead- ing comments would not be discovered while still aggres- sively pushing acceptance of the linearity agenda” (p. 2). And “In the absence of new data, Stern decided upon a new strategy to ‘save’ the single-hit linearity dose response” (p. R. J. Cicerone Chair, National Research Council, US National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA K. D. Crowley (*) Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, National Research Council, US National Academy of Sciences, 500 Fifth St, NW, Washington, DC 20001, USA e-mail: kcrowley@nas.edu 3). Calabrese also makes ad hominem remarks about Mul- ler to support his accusations: For example, “… it was well known that Muller would try to win arguments by exaggera- tion and overstatement” (p. 3). It seems clear from Calabrese’s factual descriptions that Muller and Stern were trying to make sense of experiments that yielded unexpected results. It is not surprising that they would question these results and seek to have them repli- cated. Calabrese clearly disagrees with Stern and Muller’s scientific judgments, but he is able to marshal only circum- stantial evidence to support his accusations that they sought to suppress the experiments. In the end, the experiments were published (Caspari and Stern 1948) and served to spur-on additional scientific investigations. Calabrese also asserts that Muller “[m]ade deceptive statements during his Noble (sic) Prize Lecture … that were intended to promote the acceptance of the linear dose–response model for risk assessment for ionizing radi- ation” (p. 1). This assertion is based on statements made by Muller in his lecture in support of the linearity hypothesis even though he had received the manuscript containing the experimental results some 5 weeks earlier. Given Muller and Stern’s reluctance to accept the results of these experi- ments without replication, Muller’s decision not to men- tion them is certainly not surprising. It is unfair to call his behavior deceptive. Calabrese provides no evidence that Muller inappropri- ately influenced the BEAR committee or that the NAS or the BEAR committee misled anyone. The BEAR commit- tee considered a large body of scientific work and exercised its own considerable scientific judgment in reaching a con- sensus conclusion that “the genetic harm [from radiation] is proportional to the total dose” (NRC 1956, p. 23). Moreo- ver, the BEAR committee noted that this conclusion was generally accepted by the genetics community (ibid).

The Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste repository is designed to contain spent nuclear fuel and vitrified fission products. Due to the fact that it will be the first such facility constructed anywhere in the world, it has proved to be one in which multiple organizations, most prominently the U.S. Congress, are exercising a role. In addition to selecting a site for the facility, Congress specified that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) promulgate the associated Standards, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission establish applicable Regulations to implement the Standards, and the U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) design, construct, and operate the repository. Congress also specified that U.S. EPA request that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) provide them guidance on the form and nature of the Standards. In so doing, Congress also stipulated that the Standards be expressed in terms of an "equivalent dose rate." As will be noted, this subsequently introduced serious complications. Due to the inputs of so many groups, and the fact that the NAS recommendations conflicted with the Congressional stipulation that the limits be expressed in terms of a dose rate, the outcome is a set of Standards that not only does not comply with the NAS recommendations, but also is neither integrated, nor consistent. The initial goals of this paper are to provide an independent risk/dose analysis for each of the eight radionuclides that are to be regulated, and to evaluate them in terms of the Standards. These efforts reveal that the Standards are neither workable nor capable of being implemented. The concluding portions of the paper provide guidance that, if successfully implemented, would enable U.S. DOE to complete the construction of the repository and operate it in accordance with the recommendations of NAS while, at the same time, provide a better, more accurate, understanding of its potential risks to the public. This facility is too important to the U.S. nuclear energy program to be impeded by inappropriate Standards and unnecessary regulatory restrictions. As will be noted, the sources of essentially all of the recommendations suggested in this paper were derived through applications of the principles of good science, and the benefits of "thinking outside the box."

POLICING FORENSIC EVIDENCE

Performance, Policy, And The Public Hospital

Biological evolution is one of over-arching concepts recommended for student learning by National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). with all such complex concepts, student understanding of evolution is improved when instruction includes hands-on, inquiry-based activities (Layman, 1996). However, even authors writing in strong support of teaching evolution sometimes offer discouraging remarks about using inquiry-based learning. spite of strong justification for including evolution-related instruction in biology curricula, 'descent with modification' is a particularly difficult educational issue, for by its very nature, evolution is an abstract and generally nonobservable phenomenon (McComas, 1994, p.5). Things in science can be studied even if they cannot be directly observed or experimented (National Academy of Sciences, 1998). Certainly some important aspects of process fit these descriptions: Macroevolution and speciation are unlikely to be demonstrated in a classroom lab experiment. Alberts and Labov (2004) point out, however, evolutionary theory makes no such distinction [between macro- and microevolution]; processes that lead to changes within species, when accumulated over time, also can give rise to new species. That those processes--such as genetic variability, and differential survival and reproduction within a population--can sometimes be observed directly in living populations is vividly described in Weiner (1994). A number of paper-and-pencil and simulation activities have been developed to give students hands-on experiences with concepts (for example, National Academy of Sciences, 1998; Desharnais & Bell, 2000). Real-time activities using live organisms are far fewer. Investigating Evolutionary Biology in Laboratory (National Association of Biology Teachers, 1994) includes six activities using living organisms (along with 17 simulation or paper-and-pencil activities and two activities using fossils or preserved specimens). National Association of Biology Teachers (1994) and National Academy of Sciences (1998) offer activities or suggestions for using fruit flies, red wiggler worms, bacteria, fungi, plant proteins, and dihybrid crosses of plants. The goal of this laboratory activity is to provide students with an instructive and classroom-friendly living model with which to test, firsthand, some of Darwin's premises (influenced by his reading of Thomas Malthus) about populations, competition, and natural selection. This activity addresses following National Science Education Standards for grades 9-12: * Content Standard A: As a result of their activities in grades 9-12, students should develop abilities necessary to do scientific enquiry. * Content Standard C: As a result of their activities in grades 9-12, students should develop an understanding of ... biological evolution. In particular, this activity speaks to following guideline for this standard: Evolution is consequence of interactions of (1) potential for a species to increase its numbers, (2) genetic variability of offspring due to mutation and recombination of genes, (3) a finite supply of resources required for life, and (4) ensuing selection by environment of those offspring better able to survive and leave offspring. (National Research Council, 1996). For both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, a key insight leading to their theory of evolution by natural selection was Thomas Robert Malthus' Essay on Principle of Population (1798). In his essay, Malthus wrote that the power of population is indefinitely greater than power in earth to produce subsistence for man ... Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show immensity of first power in comparison of second. …

Research with, not on, adolescents: community-based participatory research

Today all of science seems to be in some political and policy difficulty. There is rising conflict over the funding for and the performance of science. In the agricultural sciences there has been a crescendo of external criticism in Congress and elsewhere ever since the National Academy of Sciences Pound Report in 1972 (National Academy of Sciences). Repeated criticisms from the national science establishment suggest that agricultural science lacks a basic science foundation and is a thirdrate enterprise. Their usual prescription for this problem is quite simplistic: eliminate all the politically allocated Hatch-type formula funding, substituting for it peer-reviewed competitive grants-open to researchers anywhere, not just in colleges of agriculture. Various advocacy groups, the media, and some politicians are also highly critical of the agricultural sciences. They focus on such dangers as uncontrolled new genetic technologies and the threats to health, safety, and the environment of other agricultural technologies. The public attitude toward science has shifted from unqualified support to a questioning ambivalence and even fear of its consequences. At the same time some state legislatures perceive their land grant colleges to have abandoned the land grant mission and agricultural problem solving for the glories of basic science. These land grant colleges of agriculture are in difficulty with their clientele and legislatures. Still other colleges of agriculture have become so applied and isolated from many of the basic disciplines that they are losing scientific and intellectual vitality. After resisting the idea for over a decade, agricultural science now shows some sign of understanding it must adjust its mission and adapt its institutions to a society and an agriculture greatly different from that of fifty or even twenty-five years ago. It would appear that the national science establishment is also slowly beginning to understand that it too faces some fundamental questions. Since World War II public sector national science policy, except in medicine and agriculture, has been focused only on the basic disciplines. Applied science and technology, when considered, is treated separately as primarily a private sector matter of industrial research and development (RD how such a diverse scientific enterprise should be institutionalized, funded, and managed; what role the private sector should play; and, indeed, what philosophic values should inform the prioritysetting process. The debate, however, is poorly informed and inflamed by parochial Fellows address.

The executive summary provides an overview of some of V&C's key recommendations regarding next steps in the effort to mobilize the biology community. It is, in essence, a call for national service. A publication discussing these recommendations and action items in more depth will be available later this year. Meanwhile, we highly recommend reading the Executive Summary of V&C, the NAS report (NAS, 2010), and a seminal article by Labov et al. (2010) summarizing the synergy created by these several reports on the changing nature of studies in biology and concomitant need to change biology education. Then, take action! Our hope is to see the formation of a community of biologists, similar to that forming in geology (Manduca et al., 2010): one that will advance biology undergraduate education so it truly reflects the discipline it serves.

The International Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) is dedicated to advancing human knowledge at the intersection of computation and life sciences. On behalf of the ISCB members, this public policy statement expresses strong support for open access, reuse, integration, and distillation of the publicly funded archival scientific and technical research literature, and for the infrastructure to achieve that goal. Knowledge is the fruit of the research endeavor, and the archival scientific and technical research literature is its practical expression and means of communication. Shared knowledge multiplies in utility because every new scientific discovery is built upon previous scientific knowledge. Access to knowledge is access to the power to solve new problems and make informed decisions. Free, open, public, online access to the archival scientific and technical research literature will empower citizens and scientists to solve more problems and make better, more informed decisions. Attribution to the original authors will maintain consistency and accountability within the knowledge base. Computational reuse, integration, and distillation of that literature will produce new and as yet unforeseen knowledge. We strongly encourage open software, data, and databases, issues that are not addressed here. A prior ISCB public policy statement on sharing software provides very clear support for open source/open access (http://www.iscb.org/iscb-policystatements/software_sharing). We support open database access, standards, and interoperability. We also recognize that databases are complex dynamic entities, with ongoing roles and needs that cannot be treated properly within this statement. In contrast, the publicly funded archival research literature, addressed here, is the static historical record of publicly funded research outcomes. ISCB supports many of the principles set forth in other open-access policies and statements, including the ‘‘Budapest Open Access Initiative,’’ the ‘‘Bethesda Declaration on Open Access Publishing,’’ the Bulletin of the World Health Organization ‘‘Equitable Access to Scientific and Technical Information for Health,’’ the US National Academies of Sciences report on ‘‘Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences,’’ the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development ‘‘Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding,’’ and the ‘‘Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities.’’ Details on the documents mentioned here may be found in Text S1. Further background material is available in Text S2. The public policy statement (Box 1) put forward here builds upon these principles to elucidate in more detail the public policy position of ISCB and its members on this important issue in scientific dissemination.

Every spring, in late April or early May, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) elects new members. Membership in the NAS is a widely recognized sign of excellence in scientific research, but most scientists are not familiar with the process by which members are elected. This lack of information is certainly not intentional; no one gains when the elections are shrouded in mystery. However, the election's successive ballots have become more complicated over time, in part reflecting the rapid expansion of scientific fields. The complexity reflects a consensus process designed to ensure that an individual, or small group of individuals, cannot have an undue influence on the election. In this editorial, we attempt to shed some light on this poorly understood process. In addition, we describe recent efforts to make it more welcoming, especially to women and to younger scientists. Consideration of a candidate begins with his or her nomination. Although many names are suggested informally, a formal nomination can be submitted only by an Academy member. Each nomination includes a brief curriculum vitae plus a 250-word statement of the nominee's scientific accomplishments— the basis for election—and a list of not more than 12 publications. The latter limit helps to focus on the quality of a nominee's work, rather than the number of publications. Once a nomination has been prepared, it is sent to the chair of one of the Academy's 31 discipline-based Sections, e.g., chemistry, cellular and developmental biology, or mathematics (for a complete list, see www.nas.edu/sections). Each Section has its own procedures for identifying potential candidates and for winnowing the list …

In their professional work, scientists think of themselves as political neutrals. Both political parties want that, too, and presidents and legislators frequently call on the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and similar bodies to study controversial issues, whether to resolve or defer them.' Neutrality is something less than a virtue for public policy, however, if it leads NAS, and therefore its followers, to ignore the political and administrative problems that might influence the outcomes of its recommendations. Since its reports are addressed to everybody, nobody has to take charge after the publication date. One result is that the operational decisions will have to be made by others, often in haste and without the clarity of the original scientific analysis. What begins as politically bloodless recommendations has to be converted into action-ready form, as recommendations are turned into laws or administrative decrees, based on little more than casual consultation with end-ofthe-line administrators.