Successful Scientists Research Articles

How to retire with style.

Howard Wilbur Jones, Jr. (December 30, 1910–July 31, 2015) Living for more than a century is special. Being a successful scientist and physician during that lifetime is extra-special. So was the life of Howard W. Jones, who recently passed on July 31, 2015, at the age of 104. Dr. Jones holds a special place in reproductive medicine in the United States. He and his wife, Dr. Georgianna Seegar Jones, performed the first successful in vitro fertilization that resulted in a live birth in the United States. Elizabeth Carr was born on Dec. 28, 1981, just three years after the success of Drs. Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe, who performed the first human in vitro fertilization that resulted in a live birth in England. The field of reproductive medicine in the United States changed forever following the birth of baby Elizabeth. Infertile couples from around the world sought reproductive assistance, and doctors seeking expert training to help them traveled to the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine, at the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk Virginia. Howard and Georgianna Jones had a long personal and professional partnership that lasted over 65 years; it was so close, they even shared a desk. As if by fate, Georgeanna's father, Dr. J. King Seegar, delivered Howard Jones on Dec. 30, 1910, at the Jones's family home in Baltimore. Howard Jones later attended Amherst College in Massachusetts, where he pursued his interest in medicine –possibly a result of his father being a physician– and even took an English class from the great American poet, Robert Frost; such are the experiences of a centenarian! Georgeanna Jones also pursued her interest in medicine at Goucher College. They both ended up training at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Dr. Howard Jones as a surgeon and Dr. Georgiana Jones as a reproductive endocrinologist – one of the first in the country. At Johns Hopkins, Dr. Howard Jones pioneered many forms of gynecologic surgery, and one of his patients was Henrietta Lacks, the woman whose cancer cells, HeLa cells, are used even today (although Dr. Jones was not the physician who extracted these cells, nor did he use or distribute them). His specialty, however, was performing surgery on babies with ambiguous genitalia. Dr. Jones began studying genital anomalies in the 1950s, and became an authority in the field, collaborating with Dr. William Wallace Scott in writing the textbook “Hermaphroditism, Genital Anomalies and Related Endocrine Disorders ” (1958). Dr. Howard Jones then focused on cancer research until the mid-1970s, when he began to study intersex teenagers, whose anatomy did not fit the typical definitions of female or male. He began studying the chromosomes involved in the intersex phenotype, and gathered a team of surgeons, endocrinologists, and psychologists to begin treating patients with genital abnormalities from throughout the world. At the time, the practiced “solution” was to surgically “correct” infants and to treat them with hormones so that the child could be raised as a “typical” male or female. Among Dr. Jones's patients at that time was David Reimer, a victim of a circumcision gone very badly when he was a newborn. Following the parents' wishes, Dr. Jones removed the remaining genital tissues of the boy and created a vagina. Reimer was later given estrogen during puberty to promote secondary female sex changes; his story was made popular from the book “As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl,” by John Colapinto. Doctors in the field now called disorders of sex development, or D.S.D., advocate for intersex individuals and oppose sex-change surgery on infants – at least until the patient has the ability to decide how s/he would like to live. It was a sensitive subject for Dr. Jones, who said “You are doing what the conventional wisdom around that time said to do… which doesn't mean if the situation arose today you would necessarily do the same thing.” In 1965, he helped found the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic, the first sex-change clinic in an American hospital. Remarkably, the in vitro conception and birth of Elizabeth Carr occurred when Drs. Jones were “retired” from Johns Hopkins University, at the mandatory retirement age of 65. Dr. Jones and his wife accepted positions at Eastern Virginia soon after their first retirement, and it was at that time that many believed Howard Jones reinvented himself in the field of reproductive medicine. Dr. Georgeanna Jones died in 2005 at the age of 92. It was only in the early 1990s, well into their 80s, that they both stop seeing infertility patients. “When she stopped seeing patients, I decided to stop, too,” Dr. Howard Jones said. “Without her, it wasn't fun anymore.” Gary M. Wessel

On Being a Closer.

On Being a Closer.

Do it for love.

At the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, which takes place 28 June to 3 July in Germany, some 650 students and postdocs will mingle with 66 Nobel laureates and attend lectures, panel discussions, and master classes. One of those laureates is Richard J. Roberts, who won the 1993 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine jointly with Phillip Sharp “for their discoveries of split genes.” In an interview with Science Careers, Roberts shared his thoughts on how to build a career in science. This interview was edited for brevity and clarity. > Q: What do you enjoy about science? > A:Science is my hobby as well as my profession. It is enormous fun. Just like every child, when I was young, I was very curious about everything around me. Fortunately, I managed to avoid having that knocked out of me while I was at school, and to this day, I take advantage of my curiosity to explore the life around me. As a result, I think about new things or make discoveries every day. ![Figure][1] “I think about new things or make discoveries every day.” ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER > Q: What traits make a successful scientist? > A:A dogged persistence to solve any problem that comes along. An appreciation that many experiments fail, especially when working in a new field or in areas where we know rather little. I like it when experiments fail repeatedly because it usually means our basic hypothesis—and hence the axioms on which it is based—is wrong and nature is trying to tell us something. A discovery is waiting to be made. > > Good scientists are always open to new hypotheses and experimental opportunities. Often, a new technique applied to an old problem will reveal new features that were not predicted—again an opportunity to make a discovery. > > Successful scientists will also constantly be on the lookout for good problems to solve. They tend to be skeptical of explanations that seem too simplistic or not well supported by evidence. > Q: How did you move to an independent position? > A:During my postdoc at Harvard in Jack Strominger's laboratory, I worked fairly independently but with excellent support when I needed it. This made it fairly easy to transition to an official independent position at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. > Q: What is the right time to transition to independence? > A:As soon as possible. Researchers are easily at their most creative when they are young, because they have no fear. This makes it much easier to challenge dogma and take risks—both essential features of the creative process. > Q: Have you experienced self-doubt? > A:I think most scientists have self-doubt from time to time, but in general, the better ones have very little of it—or at least they don't share it with others. I have always been fairly confident in my abilities and my views, although as I get older, I do recognize that my abilities are less than they were when I was younger. > Q: What advice would you offer to those planning a career in scientific research? > A:Find an area that you are completely passionate about and focus on it single-mindedly. That doesn't mean you can't change if something more exciting comes along, but you will be happier and more successful if you love what you do. Almost all of biology is at a stage where we know a little, but nothing like as much as we will need to if we want to say we have a good understanding of life. I think bioinformatics is a growth area and absolutely fundamental to future studies of biology. Ultimately, almost everything we need to know about life will come from bioinformatic analysis of DNA sequence. We have to vastly improve our ability to predict function from sequence. [1]: pending:yes

Tribute to Stephen M. Krane.

Tribute to Stephen M. Krane.

Kamal Kumar

Angewandte Chemie International EditionVolume 54, Issue 21 p. 6092-6092 Author Profile Kamal Kumar First published: 13 January 2015 https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201411798Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Graphical Abstract “The secret of being a successful scientist is to pursue excellence and not success. The natural talent I would like to be gifted with is penning Urdu poetry …︁” This and more about Kamal Kumar can be found on page 6092. Volume54, Issue21May 18, 2015Pages 6092-6092 RelatedInformation

Paul Lauterbur and the Invention of MRI by M. Joan Dawson (review)

Reviewed by: Paul Lauterbur and the Invention of MRI by M. Joan Dawson Joel Howell (bio) Paul Lauterbur and the Invention of MRI. By M. Joan Dawson. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013. Pp. 246. $27.95. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become an essential diagnostic tool for medical practice and much more. American chemist Paul Lauterbur played a key role in conceptualizing the theory of MRI, as well as in leading its subsequent practical development. (Indeed, almost all of his scientific work had to do with MRI.) After graduation from Case Institute of Technology in Cleveland in 1951, Lauterbur went to work with Dow Corning in Pittsburgh (in the same laboratory that discovered silly putty). Drafted into the army during the Korean War, he worked with an early NMR spectrometer. After receiving a Ph.D. from Pittsburgh in 1962, Lauterbur left industry, believing that “misfits are less tolerated in industry than in academia” (p. 63), and moved to the new State University of New York at Stony Brook (SUNY) in 1963. There he did early fundamental work on the MRI, much of which was accomplished without benefit of outside funding. Early MRI images included a potpourri of assorted small plants and animals, not unlike images produced early in the history of the X-ray. The first living organism imaged by MRI was a Long Island baby clam found by Lauterbur’s daughter. In 1985 Lauterbur moved to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in part for the opportunity to be in a medical school. For his studies of MRI, Lauterbur shared the 2003 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. This biographical reminiscence of Lauterbur is written by his widow, M. Joan Dawson. Dawson, a distinguished scientist in her own right, first met Paul Lauterbur as an adult in Oxford, England, in 1977 (although, in a strange twist of fate, as a twelve-year-old she met him briefly through a friend’s father in Midland, Michigan). Dawson and Lauterbur married in 1984. They participated in each other’s scientific work, and Dawson includes numerous technical details of the MRI’s development here. But this book is hardly a tale of scientific studies. An unusual and often quite entertaining narrative, it is based largely on personal recollections of Paul Lauterbur (who was alive when Dawson started the book), Dawson’s memories, and, apparently, reminiscences of others who knew Lauterbur as told to Dawson (including his first wife). It is also based on published and unpublished documents. Interspersed with scientific information, many personal aspects are brought to life in loving, occasionally intimate, detail, starting with his parents and with his childhood. We read that for his first marriage in 1959, his family refused to attend because he was marrying outside of the Catholic Church. We learn a great deal about Lauterbur’s tumultuous relationship with his first wife. We discover details about the unfulfilled promises made by colleagues and employers. We are given insight into Lauterbur’s decision [End Page 300] at the end of his life not to receive dialysis for his kidney failure. The overall effect of reading this is not unlike sitting down for a casual afternoon chat on the back porch with an old friend about her deceased husband. Although the narrative is sometimes gossipy, we also go quite deeply into the underlying science, even as the disjointed chronology at times gives the book an inchoate feel. The history of MRI is fraught with controversy. Unsurprisingly, the historical version Dawson offers is unabashedly presented from Lauterbur’s perspective. Lauterbur is said to have established almost all of the essential vision of the MRI as early as the early 1970s. In support of his priority, the appendix includes fifty pages of original documents (as both copies and transcripts). As if to emphasize the priority, the book’s cover is based on a page from 1971 notes, with the date and signature clearly visible. This book will be an essential source for anyone interested in studying the history of MRI. It also gives an unusually personal look at the life of a successful scientist in the mid-century United States as he navigates the worlds of industry, the military...

'Standing on the Shoulders of Giants': Recontextualization in Writing from Sources.

Despite calls for more research into the writing expertise of senior scientists, the literature reveals surprisingly little about the writing strategies of successful scientist writers. The present paper addresses the gap in the literature by reporting a study that investigated the note-taking strategies of an expert writer, a Chinese professor of biochemistry. Primarily based on interview data, the paper describes the expert's recontextualization (Linell, Text 18:143-157, 1998) strategies at three levels: 'accumulating writing materials' by modifying source texts, composing from 'collections' of cut-and-pasted chunks in drafting a review article, and adopting reusable citations in sources as a 'map'. It is emphasized that through repeatedly revising his paper in light of his rhetorical intentions in a new context of meaning, the expert writer wouldmaximally recontextualize the source-based text segments and citations in the paper, averting transgressive intertextuality (Chandrasoma et al., J Lang Identity Educ 3:171-193, 2004) as a result. The paper ends by highlighting the pedagogical implications of the study for English for Professional Academic Purposes (EPAP).

Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web?

Academics can now use the web and the social websites to disseminate scholarly information in a variety of different ways. Although some scholars have taken advantage of these new online opportunities, it is not clear how widespread their uptake is or how much impact they can have. This study assesses the extent to which successful scientists have social web presences, focusing on one influential group: highly cited researchers working at European institutions. It also assesses the impact of these presences. We manually and systematically identified if the European highly cited researchers had profiles in Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Search, Mendeley, Academia and LinkedIn or any content in SlideShare. We then used URL mentions and altmetric indicators to assess the impact of the web presences found. Although most of the scientists had an institutional website of some kind, few had created a profile in any social website investigated, and LinkedIn—the only non-academic site in the list—was the most popular. Scientists having one kind of social web profile were more likely to have another in many cases, especially in the life sciences and engineering. In most cases it was possible to estimate the relative impact of the profiles using a readily available statistic and there were disciplinary differences in the impact of the different kinds of profiles. Most social web profiles had some evidence of uptake, if not impact; nevertheless, the value of the indicators used is unclear.

Vincenzo Palermo.

"The secret of being a successful scientist is …︁ to never fall in love with your own results, and keep an open mind." This and more about Vincenzo Palermo can be found on page 347.

Strategy of Daiichi Sankyo Discovery Research in Oncology

We would like to introduce Daiichi Sankyo's approach to developing cancer targeted medicines with special reference to the drug discovery strategy, global discovery activities and external research collaboration leading to generation of innovative drugs for cancer patients. We are developing 14 clinical projects for cancer treatment and three of them have been previously approved. These are mostly targeted for growth and survival signals of cancer cells. To overcome the drug resistance mechanism derived from the heterogeneous nature of cancer, we are developing selective inhibitors in three major clusters of signal pathways which may allow future rational combinations of oncology products. In addition to the main research facility in Japan, research sites in the EU and the USA provide us with different technical expertise and diversified ideas of drug discovery. To access novel drug targets, we are facilitating research collaboration with leading academia and successful cancer research scientists. In conclusion, we intend to focus more on developing innovative personalized medicines for better treatment of cancer.

Making Dioramas of Women Scientists Help Elementary Students Recognize Their Contributions

The STEM movement encourages girls to consider careers in science; however, for success, common misconceptions and biases need to be dispelled, while females’ spatial thinking skills are developed. All students, both girls and boys, need exposure to the accomplishments of women scientists to appreciate their contributions and to envision females as successful scientists. This one-week study conducted during a summer day camp examined upper elementary student (n = 15; 7 females, 8 males) attitudes toward science, women in science, and the possibility of a science career before and after participation in learning about diverse accomplished women scientists and making a diorama showcasing the professional work and caring actions of one of the scientists. The efficacy of this project for upper elementary students, conducted during a summer day camp, is supported by pretest-posttest data and attitude surveys. The five-day class showed positive changes in student plans for a career in science and improved attitudes toward the importance of females becoming scientists. Directions for constructing dioramas, examples of student-made work, and creative scenes made with given craft items are provided.

Gary W. Van Hoesen, Ph.D. (1942–2012) in memoriam

Gary W. Van Hoesen, Ph.D. (1942–2012) <i>in memoriam</i>

Quo Vadis? Quo Vadimus?

Quo Vadis? Quo Vadimus?

Successful in Science Education and Still Popular: A pattern that is possible in China rather than in Germany or Russia

Across several countries, science is often regarded as unpopular and a male-dominated domain. Furthermore, the number of students who are interested in science education or intend to work in the field of science is relatively low. This might be due to expectations adolescents hold towards science and successful scientists. The current cross-national study investigates the expectations of students in relation to highly achieving peers in science education in the three countries China, Germany and Russia (N = 420). Students were asked to indicate their expectations about two fictitious new classmates with respect to three categories: intelligence, social competence and eagerness. Besides national differences, differences concerning the gender of the participating students, the gender of the target students (fictitious highly achieving students in science education) and interaction effects were investigated. Whereas the effects of gender and target gender are inconsistent and negligible, there are significant national differences. Notably, Chinese students hold the most positive expectations about successful peers in science education. The results are discussed with regard to possible explanations and educational consequences.

The science of science communication

We all need science for making effective decisions in our lives. Are the expected benefits of a medical procedure worth its risks? Does it make sense to rebuild homes along the seashore after a hurricane? How good are the predictions for storm surges? Should we sign a lease for hydrofracking on our property? What are the risks to our drinking water? Science is, potentially, the best source for the evidence needed to answer these questions. Realizing that potential will require effective two-way communication with those whom science hopes to serve–so that it produces relevant information and conveys it in a credible, comprehensible form. This special issue of PNAS presents scientific foundations for that communication. Its contributions recognize that communication about science does not occur in a vacuum. At the individual level, its success depends on the beliefs that individuals bring to it, such that some scientific results are difficult to comprehend whereas others go without saying. In some cases, communication just needs to fill the gaps in laypeople’s mental models. In other cases, it needs to overcome misconceptions, sometimes the product of clumsy communication, sometimes the result of effective disinformation campaigns. Learning what laypeople know and need to know requires empirical research. At the social level, the success of scientists’ communication depends on their awareness of the role that their work plays in the public discourse. Although scientists may know more than anyone about the facts and uncertainties, applications of that science can raise complex ethical, legal, and social questions, regarding which reasonable people may disagree. As a result, if scientists want to be effective in their … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: baruch{at}cmu.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

Dr Donald H. Colless, in Memoriam

The life, work and success of Dr Donald H. Colless are treated in the preceding articles by people close to him and competent to do it. My desire is to briefly describe how this most successful scientist, one of the most remarkable people I have met, treated, inspired, encouraged and motivated an immigrant amateur entomologist who had just arrived in Australia. I was interested in continuing my taxonomic work on the Australian Tipulidae (Diptera) and various aquatic insect taxa, expanding from my previous studies on the European fauna.

Research fraud and its combat: what can a journal do?

According to this report by Levelt et al., Stapel was generally regarded as an esteemed, successful scientist. He had been characterised in the past as a ‘golden boy’: charismatic, ambitious, brilliant and creative in designing research, but also authoritative and somewhat peremptory. However, in August 2011, three junior researchers from Stapel’s group reported to the department chair their suspicion that Stapel had substantially falsified data. Within weeks, the university rector established a committee to investigate thoroughly the scientific conduct of Stapel, in collaboration with similar committees at two other universities that had previously employed Stapel.

Dear Student: Stem Cell Scientists’ Advice to the Next Generation

For the field of pluripotent stem cell biology to realize its promising future, current researchers will need to pass the torch to new generations. We asked a group of successful scientists in this area, "What advice would you give a young person considering a career in stem cell research?"

LifeTrain: towards a European framework for continuing professional development in biomedical sciences

Successful biomedical scientists learn throughout their careers. The LifeTrain project aims to optimize investments in learning to support the development of medicines in Europe and to encourage stronger interactions between industry and academia.

Editorial: Tenure Track: The Royal Road to Professorship?

Editorial: Tenure Track: The Royal Road to Professorship?