Normal accidents. Living with high-risk technologies

Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences.

Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty

This paper addresses the scope for more integrated general analysis of diversity in science, technology and society. It proposes a framework recognizing three necessary but individually insufficient properties of diversity. Based on 10 quality criteria, it suggests a general quantitative non-parametric diversity heuristic. This allows the systematic exploration of diversity under different perspectives, including divergent conceptions of relevant attributes and contrasting weightings on different diversity properties. It is shown how this heuristic may be used to explore different possible trade-offs between diversity and other aspects of interest, including portfolio interactions. The resulting approach offers a way to be more systematic and transparent in the treatment of scientific and technological diversity in a range of fields, including conservation management, research governance, energy policy and sustainable innovation.

A General Framework for Analysing Diversity in Science, Technology and Society

The food industry is one of the most important branches of the national economy in Italy and in the European Union in general, playing a central role for the processing of agricultural raw materials and food supply. This industry is traditionally regarded as a sector with low research intensity; notwithstanding, innovations are recognized as an important instrument for companies belonging to the food industry in order to stand out from competitors and to satisfy consumer expectations. In this regard, functional foods play an outstanding role, as demonstrated by their increasing demand derived from the increasing cost of healthcare, the steady increase of life expectancy, and the desire of older people for improved quality of their later years. The main target of this paper is to analyze the state of the art on functional foods. For this purpose, a review of extant literature is presented. Specific emphasis is laid on the definition and the main examples of functional food. The paper concludes with comments on future trends.

Innovation trends in the food industry: The case of functional foods

Understanding life together: A brief history of collaboration in biology

SIR — Much of the discussion over biofuel production has focused on higher plants and the problems associated with their use, such as the loss of ecosystems or the driving up of food prices, as discussed in your Editorial ‘Kill king corn’ and News Feature ‘The little shrub that could — maybe’ (Nature 449, 637 and 652–655; 2007). The use of microalgae, which need not displace food crops, has tended to be overlooked. Mass algal cultivation has been used to produce pharmaceuticals for more than a decade, so the technology is well developed. Annual yields per unit area are an order of magnitude greater than those for higher plants. Conservative estimates of 30,000– 50,000 litres of lipid per hectare per year compare with 1,300–2,400 litres per hectare per year reported for plants with a high oil yield, such as oil palm or jatropha. Also, biomass production need not compete with food production for either land or water. Both marine and freshwater algae may be used, so either sea water or fresh water can serve as the basis of the culture medium. And as land-based algal culture systems don’t depend on soil fertility, barren land can be used. Spin-offs in the form of aquaculture would seem feasible, so local communities could benefit from the activity. And in the case of freshwater algae, energy can be recovered from anaerobic digestion of the non-lipid waste: methane produced by this process could supply the needs of the algal cultivation processes and desalination of sea water, or be used for ammonia synthesis. The cost of biofuel production from algae has been estimated at $50 or less per barrel (M. E. Huntley and D. G. Redalje Mit. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Ch. 12, 573–608; 2007), making it more than economic at current oil prices, without subsidies. Peter J. le B. Williams School of Ocean Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Menai Bridge, Anglesey LL59 5AB, UK

Research in the wild.

Contents: Foreword, Edward J. Hackett Part I Collaboration Arises: Collecting collaborations: understanding life together, Niki Vermeulen and Bart Penders Organising the field: collaboration in the history of ecology and environmental science, Stephen Bocking Multidisciplinary collaborations in toxicology and paleo-ecology: equal means to different ends, Laurens K. Hessels, Stefan de Jong and Harro van Lente. Part II Collaboration in Ecology and the Environment: Two approaches to big science: an analysis of LTER and NEON, Ann Zimmerman and Bonnie A. Nardi Integrating the social into the ecological: organisational and research group challenges, John N. Parker Infrastructuring ecology: challenges in achieving data sharing, Karen S. Baker and Florence Millerand Customisation of transdisciplinary collaboration in the integrated management of contaminated sites, Vivien Behrens and Mattias Gross A data bias in interdisciplinary cooperation in the sciences: ecology in climate change research, Chunglin Kwa and RenA(c) Rector. Part III Collaboration in the Molecular Life Sciences: Matchmaking mechanisms: collaborative arrangements in proteomics and bioinformatics, Jamie Lewis Systems biology, interdisciplinarity and disciplinary identity, Jane Calvert The rice sequence collaborations: globalisation, innovation networks and the burgeoning life sciences in Asia, Lyndal Halliday. Part IV Collaboration in the New Life Sciences Revisited: Collaborationism, Wesley Shrum Index.

Collaboration in the New Life Sciences

Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in China: A Scoping Review of Chinese Scholarship

We researchers aim to read and write publications containing high-quality prose, exceptional data, arguments, and conclusions, embedded firmly in existing literature while making abundantly clear what we are adding to it. Through the inclusion of references, we demonstrate the foundation upon which our studies rest as well as how they are different from previous work. That difference can include literature we dispute or disprove, arguments or claims we expand, and new ideas, suggestions, and hypotheses we base upon published work. This leads to the question of how to decide which study or author to cite, and in what way. Writing manuscripts requires, among so much more, decisions on which previous studies to include and exclude, as well as decisions on how exactly that inclusion takes place. A wellreferenced manuscript places the authors’ argument in the proper knowledge context and thereby can support its novelty, its value, and its visibility. Citations link one study to others, creating a web of knowledge that carries meaning and allows other researchers to identify work as relevant in general and relevant to them in particular. On the one hand, citation practices create value by tying together relevant scientific contributions, regardless of whether they are large or small. In the process, they confer or withhold credit, contributing to the relative status of published work in the literature. On the other hand, citation practices exist in the context of current regimes of evaluating science. While it may go unnoticed in daily writing practices, the act of including a single reference in a study is thus subject to value-based criteria internal to science (e.g., content, relevance, credit) and external to science (e.g., accountability, performance). Accordingly, referencing is not a neutral act. Citations are a form of scientific currency, actively conferring or denying value. Citing certain sources—and especially citing them often —legitimises ideas, solidifies theories, and establishes claims as facts. References also create transparency by allowing others to retrace your steps. Referencing is thus a moral issue, an issue upon which multiple values in science converge. Citing competitors adds to their profiles, citing papers from a specific journal adds to its impact factor, citing supervisors or lab mates helps build your own profile, and citing the right papers helps establish your familiarity with the field. All of these translate into pressures on scientists to cite specific sources, from peers, editors, and others. Fong and Wilhite demonstrate the abundance of so-called coercive citation practices [1]. Also, citation-based metrics have proliferated as proxies for quality and impact over the years [2–4], only to be currently subjected to significant and highly relevant critique [5–8]. To cite well, or to reference responsibly, is thus a matter of concern to all scientists. Here, I offer 10 simple rules for responsible referencing. Scientists as authors produce references, and as readers and reviewers, they assess and evaluate references. Through this symmetrical relationship to literature that all scientists share, they take responsibility for tying together all knowledge it contains. Producing and evaluating references are, however, distinct processes, warranting different responsibilities. Respecting this dual relationship researchers have

/pdf/ten-simple-rules-for-responsible-referencing-hfkhekhsel.pdf

Bart Penders

Papers

Understanding life together: A brief history of collaboration in biology

Research in the wild.

Collaboration in the New Life Sciences

Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy in China: A Scoping Review of Chinese Scholarship

Ten simple rules for responsible referencing.