Breaking down silos: The Gastroenterology Immunology Neuroscience (GIN) Discovery Program - a new model for research.

The Gastroenterology Immunology Neuroscience (GIN) Discovery Program represents a new model for research that overcomes the limitations imposed by traditional "research silos" in science. By uniting these three fields, the GIN Program aims to enhance the understanding and treatment of chronic conditions through a system-wide perspective focusing on the gut-immune-brain axis. Key initiatives include monthly interdisciplinary seminars, an annual symposium, and GINnovate, a commercialization and entrepreneurship event. Additionally, the program offers a seed grant competition for early and mid-career researchers, promoting advancements in gut-immune-brain axis research through the power of collaboration. The GIN Program in a short period of time has facilitated the formation of a vibrant community, captivating attention from both national and international institutions. This effort to break down barriers in research aims to inspire similar models that prioritize open communication, mutual respect and a commitment to impactful science.

An improbable journey: Creativity helped me make the transition from art to curing malaria.

I was recently awarded the Alice and C. C. Wang Award in Molecular Parasitology for my contributions to antimalarial drug development, including laying the groundbreaking work that has led to two new molecular methods for curing malaria. This award means a great deal to me because I have spent much of my scientific career feeling like an imposter-one with the wrong sort of background and poor credentials. I am grateful for the recognition, and I am beginning to recognize that having an atypical background can be an advantage because it gives you a different perspective on a challenge. More generally, diversity in educational and cultural backgrounds is important because it can stimulate new ways of thinking and discovery.

A developmental approach to diversifying neuroscience through effective mentorship practices: perspectives on cross-identity mentorship and a critical call to action.

Many early-career neuroscientists with diverse identities may not have mentors who are more advanced in the neuroscience pipeline and have a congruent identity due to historic biases, laws, and policies impacting access to education. Cross-identity mentoring relationships pose challenges and power imbalances that impact the retention of diverse early career neuroscientists, but also hold the potential for a mutually enriching and collaborative relationship that fosters the mentee's success. Additionally, the barriers faced by diverse mentees and their mentorship needs may evolve with career progression and require developmental considerations. This article provides perspectives on factors that impact cross-identity mentorship from individuals participating in Diversifying the Community of Neuroscience (CNS)-a longitudinal, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) R25 neuroscience mentorship program developed to increase diversity in the neurosciences. Participants in Diversifying CNS were comprised of 14 graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and early career faculty who completed an online qualitative survey on cross-identity mentorship practices that impact their experience in neuroscience fields. Qualitative survey data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis and resulted in four themes across career levels: (1) approach to mentorship and interpersonal dynamics, (2) allyship and management of power imbalance, (3) academic sponsorship, and (4) institutional barriers impacting navigation of academia. These themes, along with identified mentorship needs by developmental stage, provide insights mentors can use to better support the success of their mentees with diverse intersectional identities. As highlighted in our discussion, a mentor's awareness of systemic barriers along with active allyship are foundational for their role.

Quantifying the internationalization and representativeness in research.

Author-level performance metrics do not account for collaboration and knowledge transfer between people, institutions, and countries. We propose the i-index and r-index, publication metrics that aim to incentivize the collaboration between researchers and research institutions across borders. These indices promote benefit-sharing among countries of different levels of development.

A Proposal to Make Biomedical Research into Alzheimer's Disease More Democratic Following an International Survey with Researchers.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic research into Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been dominated by the amyloid cascade hypothesis (ACH) since the 1990s. However, targeting amyloid in AD patients has not yet resulted in highly significant disease-modifying effects. Furthermore, other promising theories of AD etiology exist. OBJECTIVE: We sought to directly investigate whether the ACH still dominates the opinions of researchers working on AD and explore the implications of this question for future directions of research. METHODS: During 2019, we undertook an international survey promoted with the help of the Alzheimer's Association with questions on theories and treatments of AD. Further efforts to promote a similar study in 2021 did not recruit a significant number of participants. RESULTS: 173 researchers took part in the 2019 survey, 22% of which held "pro-ACH" opinions, tended to have more publications, were more likely to be male, and over 60. Thus, pro-ACH may now be a minority opinion in the field but is nevertheless the hypothesis on which the most clinical trials are based, suggestive of a representation bias. Popular vote of all 173 participants suggested that lifestyle treatments and anti-tau drugs were a source of more therapeutic optimism than anti-amyloid treatments. CONCLUSION: We propose a more democratic research structure which increases the likelihood that promising theories are published and funded fairly, promotes a broader scientific view of AD, and reduces the larger community's dependence on a fragile economic model.

hackseq: Catalyzing collaboration between biological and computational scientists via hackathon.

hackseq ( http://www.hackseq.com) was a genomics hackathon with the aim of bringing together a diverse set of biological and computational scientists to work on collaborative bioinformatics projects. In October 2016, 66 participants from nine nations came together for three days for hackseq and collaborated on nine projects ranging from data visualization to algorithm development. The response from participants was overwhelmingly positive with 100% (n = 54) of survey respondents saying they would like to participate in future hackathons. We detail key steps for others interested in organizing a successful hackathon and report excerpts from each project.

E. E. Just and Creativity in Science. The Importance of Diversity.

Renowned biologist Ernest Everett Just (1883-1941) was an outspoken advocate for the classical embryologist's view of the cell; he believed that all the parts of the cell, but especially the cytoplasm, have important roles to play in the process of development, whereby a one-celled zygote becomes a many-celled animal. In opposition to geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan, Just formulated a hypothesis for how the cell works in development, one that gave a more dominant role to cytoplasmic (instead of nuclear) factors. This paper argues that, in creating his hypothesis, Just applied insights from the African American intellectual community in which he was immersed, much as Charles Darwin applied insights from British political economist Thomas R. Malthus in formulating his theory of evolution by natural selection. This in no way diminishes the scientific validity of Just's (or Darwin's) hypothesis. Rather, it highlights Just's creativity and, as such, points to the importance of having diversity in science.