Is science a good job?

It has been recently published on Nature Journal a sort of survey about the satisfaction level of scientists in different countries. By using fixed values ranged between 0 and 1 the average mark was 0.861 that keeps in consideration all the parameters evaluated in this survey. Scientists were asked to judge their salary, vacation plan and retirement plan, some financial aspect of the work that are essential to appreciate the job self. Other parameters described in this study are the interest in the project, the possibility to work autonomously, the usefulness of relationship with boss and colleagues. Chinese, Italian and Japanese scientists seem the most unsatisfied of their job because of difficulties from a financial point of view; by contrast USA and UK scientists are happiest because they think to have a good financial profile and good autonomy. The general opinion is quite positive, in all countries scientists appreciated the creativity of the job that makes interesting science. Thus, around the world being scientist represent the best job to do! Of course, an improvement is also necessary specially in those countries where this job is not financially considered enough or where the scientific autonomy still be far.

A catastrophic fault

On 19 September 2008 a simple electrical short caused an enormous disaster at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Geneva. What happened was the loss of capability to carry current due to warm between superconducting cables and connections. After electrical short, thousand of litres of liquid helium expanded into the ultra-clean beam line and ripped magnets from their strands.
The overall result was a delay in the biggest experiment scheduled at CERN in these last years, and more in general lack of experiments for more than one year. Several reasons could explain this failure. An investigation demonstrated that technicians didn’t properly solder the cables together. Lack of quality control and diagnostics and poor design contributed to the crash. Unfortunately, after a more deepen check, several connections resulted as defective and bad and LHC will not run at its full collision energy until around 2013.
The lesson from this story is that experimental planning, quality control and accuracy are three fundamental values to obtain good scientific results. Every scientist must attentively work on his project and believe that any technical fault is usually a human fault. Finally, it’s also important to learn from mistakes and, then, always make the best.

Reproducibility Is A Must

Reproducibility and reliability are two important values for scientists that influence either credibility and the opportunity to obtain good results. A definition of reproducibility can be the ability to repeat a protocol (whatever kind of protocol) and gain the same conclusion. Reproducibility could evaluated into a laboratory when several operators perform at the same time or in different time an experiment. If the protocol is reproducible, all experiments will give the same result, otherwise the protocol is not reproducible.
No tricks or wizardries can be accepted in science. So, it must be possible to repeat what has been already done. What about reproducibility is true for one lab. is also true for the whole scientific community. When an experiment or a protocol is published, all details must be explained to repeat the same results. Indeed, a protocol could give good results if applied to other models as well as the same results could be verified in other system. Reproducibility allows science advances and without it science looses its mean and its value. Reliability is strictly connected to reproducibility but usually involves the single lab. To obtain reproducible results it’s very important to note everything concerns the experiment (material, protocol, dilution and so on) and keep in order reagents and original files. Only in this way science still be credible.

Stem cells research community

Nature journal proposes a complete and useful gateway for stem cell researcher. In this website you can find the most recent and popular papers about this topic, some suggestions for protocols and methods and an interesting blog in which exchange your opinion with other scientists in the same field of interest. Rather than scientific documentation, it’s possible to retrieve interviews of featured experts that work in biotech or pharmaceutical companies or big institutions.

Similar contacts could be useful also to generate collaboration and common projects. Moreover, the calendar of the most important events in stem cell research is also available. One tool like this is crucial to be always updated without loosing too much time in searching articles in currently used databases or meetings and conferences. Another interesting blog about stem cells is The stem cells blog, written by dr D. Granovsky. Also in this case, important information about stem cells are reported and commented. Scientific posts about stem cells and their applications in regenerative medicine are also available in this blog. Science and communication are strictly related and blogs and specific gateways can be useful tools to find out new ideas and generate new contacts and collaborations.

SIOPEN-R-NET and the role of Internet in clinical trials

SIOPEN is the European Neuroblastoma Group of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology dedicated to study and care neuroblastoma. They organize a web space in which exchange acquired experiences: for instance, a tumour bank is present in order to determine prognostic parameters by biological studies conducted in several labs or hospitals as well as central serum banking allows pharmacokinetic studies to correlate drug levels with efficacy or toxicity in order to determine the optimum doses and improve medical procedures.

Moreover, SIOPEN-R-NET disposes on central database in which electronic case report forms (eCRFs), electronic data capture, remote randomisation and the distribution of information on trial progress are available. This network is currently used by 345 active users from 250 institutions in 18 European countries and gives also an important support to associations of families with children suffering from this disease. SIOPEN-R-NET is one example of how IT could help science to advance and medical programs to improve.

Thus, Internet is also an useful tool to make easily accessible, secure, safe and rapid multi-institutional clinical trials: geographically distant centers can enrol patients, promptly capture and manage data and communicate their results in real time, reducing paper chart documentation.