Joy acknowledges the need to have a term that refers to both the geographic region of the Southern hemisphere and also the economic Global South, especially when describing the differences in access to funding and research information, and opportunities to collaborate on a global scale due to a lack of visibility of research outputs or the inability to attend conferences half a world away.

However, using Africa as an example, Joy expresses concern about the fact that, while it is easy to use the four major commercial capitals of the continent to represent the entire region, the resulting outlook is underrepresenting vast swathes of communities across the continent, so that when solutions are proposed, they do not adequately serve the needs of the many, only of the few that were represented.

Do you have any ideas for how we can better represent our communities across the world? Get involved in the conversation on our many social media channels using the hashtag #TLDRShorts, and let us know if you’d like to suggest future contributors for our series or suggest some topics you’d like us to cover.

Subscribe now to be notified of each weekly release of the latest TL;DR Short, and catch up with the entire series here.

The post TL;DR Shorts: Joy Owango on the Global South appeared first on Digital Science.

In our first Speaker Series chat of 2025, and in a month that heralds much political interest in the role of truth and trust in society, Deborah delves into the challenges and opportunities facing science communication today. She explores the importance of storytelling, the necessity of improving scientific literacy in all, and the steps needed to build a future where science journalism drives meaningful dialogue and action. Her insights offer a vision of how journalists and scientists can work together to showcase the human side of science and ensure it serves all communities fairly and effectively.

Deborah Blum is an acclaimed science journalist, Pulitzer Prize-winning author, and Director of the Knight Science Journalism program at MIT. With a career spanning decades, she has worked tirelessly to bridge the gap between science and the public through her compelling storytelling and her commitment to advancing science literacy. Her influential books, which include The Poisoner’s Handbook and The Poison Squad, explore the intersection of science, history, and societal impact. At the Knight Science Journalism program, Deborah leads efforts to train and support journalists worldwide, fostering a global community dedicated to improving the quality of science communication and addressing pressing challenges like misinformation and declining public trust in science.

The Role of Science Journalism

Science journalism plays an important role in making connections between scientific discoveries and people’s everyday lives. Deborah describes the role that science journalists play in helping to translate complex scientific ideas into stories that resonate with readers. Good storytelling can make even the most abstract research feel relevant and engaging.

In a world increasingly driven by scientific and technological progress, this connection is more important than ever. Deborah highlights that science journalism not only informs but also inspires public interest and action. By showing how science impacts issues like health, climate change, and technology, journalists help communities see the relevance of research in shaping our future. As she puts it, “We need to write about science and its impacts, right? We need to acknowledge that it has these social and cultural impacts. We need to illuminate those in all of their social justice issues.”

The Impact of the KSJ Program

At the heart of Deborah’s work is her leadership of the Knight Science Journalism (KSJ) program at MIT, where she has been Director for a decade, a role which she will be stepping down from in July 2025. The KSJ program is somewhat of a global engine for excellence in science communication. The program provides resources, fellowships, and a thriving community for journalists to deepen their expertise and broaden their perspectives.

But the KSJ program goes beyond training – it builds a community of professionals who share a commitment to thoughtful, accurate reporting. Deborah believes this community approach is critical in a world where misinformation spreads rapidly. When journalists feel supported and connected, they are better equipped to tackle tough stories and elevate public understanding. This global impact is reflected in the program’s alumni, who are shaping conversations about science across continents.

Challenges in Science Communication

Communicating science effectively isn’t without its hurdles. Deborah points out that misinformation is casting an ever-growing shadow, compounded by public scepticism and limited access to scientific education and critical thinking skills. We now live in an age where everyone has a platform from which they can share their thoughts, but not everyone values the accuracy of those thoughts. Deborah emphasised the need for journalists to cut through the noise with credible, engaging stories.

Another challenge is the disconnect between scientists and the public. Deborah argues that many researchers struggle to communicate their work in accessible ways, leaving gaps that can be filled by misunderstanding or fear. “The more people can see scientists as actual human beings next door, the better off we all are,” she insists. Building bridges between these groups is crucial to fostering a more informed and engaged society.

The Importance of Science Literacy

Science literacy is the foundation of informed decision-making, yet many people lack the tools to critically evaluate scientific information, with many people even being fearful and actively disengaged with science. Deborah shares her thoughts about the shortcomings of educational systems. She believes that by not teaching people how to think critically about science, we are doing a disservice to society. Without this foundation, the public is more vulnerable to the potentially negative consequences of pseudoscience and misinformation.

Deborah believes that improving science literacy requires a collective effort. Journalists, educators, and policymakers must work together to ensure that everyone has access to clear and reliable information. It is not only about teaching facts but also about teaching people how to think, and how to evaluate those facts for any inherent bias. “We don’t want everyone to be a scientist, but we do want everyone to know something about science and how to make decisions about science and to recognize that every time you fry an egg or make a cup of tea or peel a banana, you’re engaging with chemistry, right, in everyday science. And it makes the world that much more interesting.” By developing people’s ability to understand and question scientific claims, society can make better choices for the future, and hold bad actors accountable for bad science.

Building Trust in Science

Trust in science has been eroded in recent years, but Deborah sees this as an opportunity for change. Trust isn’t automatically granted – it is something that must be earned. Scientists and journalists both have roles to play in this process. Deborah encourages researchers to embrace transparency and share not just their successes but also their uncertainties and failures, to humanise their motivations and actions, and to showcase the more realistic side of the scientific process.

She also highlights the importance of equity in building trust. Science needs to serve all communities, not just a select few, so addressing social justice issues in science such as unequal access to education and healthcare can help rebuild trust in science’s potential to improve lives. Through honest and inclusive communication, science can regain its role as a trusted guide for society.

The Future of Science Journalism

Looking ahead, Deborah envisions a future where science journalism is more valuable than ever. She sees the next generation of journalists as not only storytellers but also advocates for social justice. She believes that the future of science journalism lies in showcasing the human side of science, and how it impacts people and communities.

Deborah encourages young journalists to be fearless in tackling big issues, from climate change to misinformation. We need journalists who are smarter, braver, and more curious. By embracing innovation and collaboration, science journalism can continue to be a powerful force for good, shaping public understanding and inspiring meaningful action in an increasingly complex world.

Deborah’s thoughts are a powerful reminder of the critical role that science journalism plays in shaping a better-informed, more engaged society. From her leadership of the Knight Science Journalism program to her advocacy for transparency, equity, and science literacy, Deborah tangibly demonstrates how storytelling can drive meaningful change. As we face global challenges like misinformation, climate change, and declining trust in science, her call for collaboration and innovation in both journalism and science communication is more relevant than ever. By fostering a new generation of journalists who are fearless, thoughtful, and socially conscious, Deborah is helping to build a future where science journalism not only informs but also empowers us to build a better world.

You can watch the full interview with Deborah on our YouTube channel, and check out our Speaker Series playlist on YouTube which includes chats with some of our previous speakers, as well as our TL;DR Shorts playlist with short, snappy insights from a range of experts on the topics that matter to the research community. We’ve even joined the podcast universe! Catch our 2025 Speaker Series season and our chat with Deborah on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.

With thanks to Huw James from Science Story Lab for filming and co-producing this interview. Filmed at the Knight Science Journalism offices at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA in April 2024.

The post Science Journalism and Social Justice – meet Deborah Blum appeared first on Digital Science.

Every Muppets fan knows that Christmas is all about being revisited by people you’ve previously encountered. So from 25th December to 5th January we’ll be sharing our 12 Days of DSmas. Check back daily as we share a Speaker Series chat each and every day. Happy Holidays from the Digital Science Thought Leadership Team!

Merry Dr Chris Van Tulleken-mas! We chatted with Chris online about research integrity, impact, openness, and investigative research. Catch his interview here, and don’t forget to watch his Xmas Lectures on BBC for The Royal Institution this year!

Chris on Spotify

Chris on Apple Podcasts

Chris on YouTube

Read more

Professor Dame Athene Donald joined our Speaker Series line-up in February after her Speaker Series Live talk at the Ri in London, UK. Here she is talking about why we need to empower women in STEM from the ground up.

Athene on Spotify

Athene on Apple Podcasts

Athene on YouTube

Read more

It’s time to go to Berlin, Germany and catch Matyas Kovacs at the Falling Walls Summit. Matyas shared his thoughts on communication and innovation to impact all of society with science.

Matyas on Spotify

Matyas on Apple Podcasts

Matyas on YouTube

Read more

As a Nobel laureate and former president of The Royal Society, Professor Venki Ramakrishnan has long played a role in shaping a more innovative, inclusive and impactful research culture, which we chatted about during his live Speaker Series lecture at the Ri. We went to Cambridge, UK to hear his thoughts on curiosity, competition and collaboration.

Venki on Spotify

Venki on Apple Podcasts

Venki on YouTube

Read more

As Chief Publishing Officer at PLOS, Niamh provides business leadership for the entire PLOS portfolio to advance PLOS’s vision and mission. In this episode Niamh talks about the evolving landscape of scientific research and the push towards open science, including her journey from the early days of advocating for public access to research, to tackling current challenges like making science more inclusive and accessible.

Niamh on Spotify

Niamh on Apple Podcasts

Niamh on YouTube

Read more

Building communities is hard, but Alice Meadows has worked hard to make it look effortless. Here she is in Boston, MA, USA, telling us about the power of persistent identifiers.

Alice on Spotify

Alice on Apple Podcasts

Alice on YouTube

Read more

It’s New Year’s Eve, and a time to reflect on the past and make plans for the months ahead. When we visited the Max Planck Institute in Berlin, Germany, we added to the echoes of amazing research conversations resonating around their iconic library when we chatted about the history, philosophy and future of research with Dr Maria Avxentevskaya and Dr Ben Johnson.

Maria and Ben on Spotify

Maria and Ben on Apple Podcasts

Maria and Ben on YouTube

Read more

Happy New Year! We caught up with pro-skater Rodney Mullen at his home in Los Angeles, USA to hear his thoughts on why we need diverse minds to innovate in all walks – and ollies – of life. And, since it’s the new year and you’re probably feeling a little “sleep deprived”, you can also follow this up with his live Speaker Series lecture at the Ri.

Rodney on Spotify

Rodney on Apple Podcasts

Rodney on YouTube

Read more

If you’ve been eating as much cheese as this author, dearest gentle reader, you too will be experiencing a fascinatingly slippery grasp on reality – which brings us to Day 9’s featured speaker. “Is Maths Real?” was the question that Dr Eugenia Cheng posed in her live Speaker Series lecture at the Ri. I caught up with her ahead of her lecture in the iconic Faraday lecture theatre in London, UK to talk about why we need to break down barriers of knowledge in research, and reunite STEM and the humanities for impactful change.

Eugenia on Spotify

Eugenia on Apple Podcasts

Eugenia on YouTube

Read more

Dr Gilbert De Gregorio leads the Frontiers Planet Prize. I caught up with him in Berlin, Germany, to talk about why we need more inclusive competitions to catalyse innovation that impacts our global society.

Gilbert on Spotify

Gilbert on Apple Podcasts

Gilbert on YouTube

Read more

2024 was a wild ride for global politics, and research is not immune to its changes. I caught up with Professor Jenny Reardon in Cambridge, UK, to learn more about how we can work with politics, and not against it, to provide solutions for everyone across the world, and where red tape remains to be overcome.

Jenny on Spotify

Jenny on Apple Podcasts

Jenny on YouTube

Read more

Our final Speaker Series guest of 2024 was Dr Danny Hillis. We visited the Applied Invention offices in Cambridge, MA, USA, where innovator, inventor, and Imagineer Danny shared his thoughts on how we can use novel technology to combat novel challenges in mis- and disinformation and make the most meaningful impact from data.

Danny on Spotify

Danny on Apple Podcasts

Danny on YouTube

Read more

The post The 12 Days of DSmas appeared first on Digital Science.

Danny uses agriculture as one example of an area of research vital to the survival of humanity where we aren’t doing enough research. Any fellow BBC Countryfile fan will know that farmers work incredibly hard tending to their agricultural land and responding to the dynamic needs placed on them by the changing climate and other factors. Though they may like to, they often don’t have time to do experiments and contribute to the corpus of research information in this space in a way they would like to.

However, if we start to collect data from the automation of the mechanisation farmers used to work the land, we can allow these “robots” to conduct a series of experiments that humans don’t have the time to do.

Danny believes that in the future these machines will also contribute to planning future experiments to explore such research spaces. He believes that the future of automated science will be done by AI – allowing humans to increase the number of experiments they can conduct, increase the amount of data gathered, and increase the number of hypotheses being tested.

Subscribe now to be notified of each weekly release of the latest TL;DR Short, and catch up with the entire series here. 

If you’d like to suggest future contributors for our series or suggest some topics you’d like us to cover, drop Suze a message on one of our social media channels and use the hashtag #TLDRShorts.

The post TL;DR Shorts: Dr Danny Hillis on the Automated Future of Research appeared first on Digital Science.

Jenny has a research background in genomics, however she moved into examining the social issues raised by this area of research. In our chat she recalls being optimistic around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and how this new field of science was a beacon of hope for bringing people of all backgrounds together through commonality. Tempted by the opportunity to combine her love for science, politics and justice, Jenny almost worked on the Human Genome Diversity Project – a project that intended on representing genetic variation across populations. Though the purpose of the project was to showcase how people across the world share fundamental similarities, the project sadly ended up being described as a so-called “vampire project”, sucking the blood of indigenous peoples in the name of research instead of working towards their continued survival.

This project and others like it inspired Jenny to make space for scientists that want to do good in the world without inadvertently contributing to the existing extractive nature of some areas of research, however this is tricky when the entire endeavour of research is more complicated. Current research culture is based on an archaic way of exploring thoughts and ideas, the framework of which was crafted by a fairly homogeneous group of wealthy people who shared similar thoughts and lived experiences hundreds of years ago. These reinforced the informal ways in which power was being distributed across the research profession. What place does that framework hold in today’s research ecosystem? I asked Jenny whether it is time for a research revolution. Naturally she also thinks we should be grabbing our flags and flocking to the barricades. She argues that if we don’t address the politics of research, we are at risk of research being deemed to be an untrustworthy pursuit. She discusses the concept of macropolitics vs micropolitics, reminding us that while we should absolutely be concerned by how the Donald Trump and others will impact research, we should also consider the impact of our own actions have on research culture and whether we are contributing to upholding aspects of a culture that are not conducive to inclusive and impactful research.

Jenny recommends that we stop “othering” the politicisation problem and take a level of individual responsibility and accountability. Most people go into research with idealistic interests, but research is an institution and we must be honest about the fact that, while many research transformations have led to better ways of doing work, there is still a lot to do to unpick the imbalanced power relationships that persist in the scientific method. Reflecting on her own experiences, and resonating with those we have heard from across the research community, Jenny finds it challenging that we don’t equip early career researchers with the tools to navigate the social aspects of the research space. If you are lucky, you may end up in a research group that passes down pearls of wisdom around the bunsen burner, much like our ancestors shared survival tactics around the campfire. However this level of support is not universal, and very much comes down to the luck of the draw. This results in many people feeling that they do not belong in research, and leaving to pursue other paths of interest. Their loss is felt in the absence of their ideas as we innovate to overcome the huge challenges we face as a global society. It also takes a lot of learning, listening and empathy to ensure that the ways we do this are free of racism, colonialism, and other factors that fly in the face of inclusion of all.

Scientists aren’t to blame for this. We work in a culture where very few scientific researchers are trained in social and political issues. If they had a better understanding of these, they have a better chance of doing good in the world through their research. Part of the challenges we need to overcome centres around the value we place on these aspects of research. Much like public engagement and science communication, an awareness of the social and political space is not valued in the same way as other research activities and outputs. By changing the way in which we reward successful research and looking beyond simply publications and grants won to include such skills, we will move another step forward in making research more robust and more inclusive. By changing how we value participation in these activities, we go beyond seeing ethics and the social justice of our research as tick box exercises and move towards understanding how they make the research we conduct better for more groups in society. This is why Jenny and her team focus more on justice than ethics, a term that is now associated with mandatory online courses and workshops that instil fear in researchers instead of empowerment. Justice is about a world where more people are included and their needs and aspirations are being addressed. It is a fundamental facet of the work we do as researchers.

Jenny goes on to talk about how this is a journey that social scientists need to take too. For a long time social science has been presented as a space of purity and neutrality, free of politics, but research is riddled with the politicisation of science, so this is an impossible claim to make and we need to be honest in recognising that, especially as we talk about the differential distribution of power and access to resources. Who is able to ask questions about our world, who can participate in this discourse, and who is really represented? If we continue to present a world in which we claim that research is apolitical, we risk further eroding trust in research.

However we need a massive culture change and global buy-in to move the needle. We need a deeper appreciation for how social issues are impacted by science. Jenny believes that the best research will reflect this more considered way of working. It will be more inclusive, more impactful, and ultimately more trustworthy. Until we change this culture, we aren’t doing the most innovative research as we are simply not making the most of the wealth of ideas out there.

When we talk about science and social justice, conversations about inequitable access to research information spring to mind. However there is also the issue of inequitable access to the production of knowledge too. Red tape and financial hurdles make overcoming these barriers challenging, and working across funding councils based in different continents is almost impossible. How can we solve global challenges when these barriers to impactful collaboration exist? Funding must be available to benefit our entire planet, and not just for the countries from which that funding originates. Overcoming these challenges requires time and resource to build communities and work together to iron out processes that work for everyone. Jenny’s work includes investigating how we can build truly global networks, working out who will fund them, and how we can ensure that funding sources are trusted. She believes that we need a shift in how funders measure their impact and return on investment. Funders need to park their local or national agendas and think bigger and more collaboratively to enable a democratic ethos of how funding is distributed.

So what does this all have to do with politics, and why does the outcome of today’s election matter for research, to the USA and to the world? Where there is politics, there is policy, and this impacts everyone. Policy makers are one tool we have to fundamentally change the culture of how we do research. When we look back at the UK’s own open research journey, the impact of national funding mandates and research assessment exercises have had on the adoption of open science principles. In the USA under the Biden administration, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) created an Office of Science in Society that focuses on the societal impact of research. Headed up by the amazing Alondra Nelson who is trained in science and technology studies and cultural studies, the Office is one way in which policy makers and other stakeholders can think deeply on this issue, and look at research policy through a DEIA lens to determine whether it is truly serving everyone in society, or whether we are still leaving some people out of the discourse.

Whatever the outcome of today’s election, its impact will be felt across the world, from the allocation of funding to the way in which we measure research success and impact. Through Jenny’s work and that of her research centre, while we may have overlooked the inclusion of everyone in the impact of research for a long time, we have an opportunity to take stock and collectively contribute to a more inclusive, trustworthy and impactful research culture.

You can watch the full interview with Jenny on our YouTube channel, and check out our Speaker Series playlist on YouTube which includes chats with some of our previous speakers, as well as our TL;DR Shorts playlist with short, snappy insights from a range of experts on the topics that matter to the research community.

With thanks to Huw James from Science Story Lab for filming and co-producing this interview. Filmed at the Møller Institute, Churchill College at the University of Cambridge in July 2024.

The post Science and Social Justice – meet Professor Jenny Reardon appeared first on Digital Science.

Open research is transforming the way research findings are discovered, shared and reproduced. As part of our commitment to the Open Principles and research transformation, we are looking into how open research is transforming roles, approaches, policies and, most importantly, mindsets for everyone across the research landscape. See our inspiring transformational stories so far.

Academia is at a pivotal juncture. It has often been criticized as slow to change, but external pressures from an increasingly complex world are forcing rapid change in the sector. To understand more about how the research world is transforming, what’s influencing change, and how roles are impacted, we reached out to the research community through a global survey and in-depth interviews.

Research Transformation stories so far…

Digital Science Open Principles

Read now

Open Access: Mo Money Mo Problems

Read now

The Initial Transformation

Read now

Academic Survey Report Pre-registration

Sign-up

State of Open Data 2024 – Special Edition

Sign-up

Will 2025 be a turning point for Open Access? – Digital Science

Read now

How has innovation shaped Open Research? What does the future hold – especially with the impact of AI? Here’s Dan Valen speaking about Figshare’s key role, with innovation helping to transform the research landscape.

Digital Science has always understood its role as a community partner – working towards open research together. Here’s some ways in which we have helped to transform research over the last 14 years.

In our first piece, Simon Porter and Mark Hahnel introduce the topic and detail the three areas the campaign will focus on.

The Story of Data Transformation

The Story of Connection

The Story of Research Innovation

• Making data more usable
• Opening up channels & the flow of information
• Transforming data through innovation & AI
• Maintaining trust & integrity

• Seeing both perspectives
• What success looks like for knowledge transfer
• Evolving roles and the role of people in bridging gaps

• Research Transformation White Paper
• How have roles changed:
  • In Academia?
  • In Publishing?
  • In Industry?
• State of AI Report
• How are we using AI in our research workflows?

Research Transformation

The way we interact with information can amplify our ability to make connections, and in doing so transforms how we understand the world. Supercharged by the AI moment that we are in, the steady march of digital transformation in society over the last three decades is primed for rapid evolution. What is true for society, is also doubly so for research. Alongside ground-breaking research and discoveries is the constant invitation to adapt to new knowledge and abilities. Combine the general imperative within the research sector to innovate with the rapidly evolving capabilities of generative AI and it is safe to say that expectations are high. Taking effective advantage of new possibilities as they arise however, requires successful coordination within society and systems. 

There is an art to transformation, and understanding the mechanisms of transformation places us in the best position to take advantage of the opportunities ahead.

In this series, we specifically seek to explore Research Transformation with an eye to adapting what we already know to the present AI moment. Transformation in Research is not just about digital systems, but it is also about people and organisations – crossing boundaries from research to industry, emerging new research sectors, creating new narratives and adapting to the possibilities that change brings.

At Digital Science, we have always sought to be an integral part of research transformation, aiming to provide products that enable the research sector to evolve research practice – from collaboration and discovery through to analytics and administration. Our ability to serve clients from research institutions to funders, publishers, and industry has placed us in a unique position to facilitate change across the sector, not simply within silos, but between them. In this series, we will be drawing on our own experiences of research transformation, as well as inviting perspectives from the broader community. As we proceed we hope to show that Research Transformation isn’t just about careful planning, but requires a sense of playfulness – a willingness to explore new technology, a commitment to a broader vision for better research, as well as an ability to build new bridges between communities.

In the first of three themes, we will cover Research Transformation from the perspective of the data and metadata of research. How do changes to the metadata of research transform our ability to make impact, as well as see the research community through new lenses? How does technology enable these changes to occur? Starting almost from the beginning, we will look at how transitions in publishing practice have enabled the diversity of the research workforce to become visible. We will also trace the evolving story of the structure of a researcher’s papers, from the critical use of identifiers, to adoption of the credit ontology, through to the use of trust markers (including ethics statements and data and code availability, and conflict of interest statements.) The evolving consensus on structured and semi structured nature of research articles changes not only the way we discover, read and trust individual research papers, but also transforms our ability to measure and manage research itself.

Our focus will not only be reflective, but will also look forward to the emerging challenges and opportunities that generative AI offers. We will ask deep questions about how research should make its way into large language models. We also explore the new field of Forensic Scientometrics that has arisen in response to the dramatic increase in bad faith science in part enabled by generative AI, and the new research administration collaborations that this implies – both with research institutions and across publishing. We will aso offer more playful, experimental investigations.  For example, a series on ‘prompt engineering for librarians’ draws on the original pioneering spirit of the 1970’s MEDLARS Analysts to explore the possibilities that tools such as OpenAI can offer. 

Lifting up from the data, we note that a critical part of our experience of research transformation has been the ability to experience and connect with research fromshifting perspectives. In this second theme exploring research transformation, we aim to celebrate the art of making connections, from the personal transformations required  to make the shift from working within research institutions to industry, through to the art of building research platforms that support multiple sectors. We also cover familiar topics from new angles, For instance, how do the FAIR data principles benefit the pharmaceutical industry? How do we build effective research collaborations with emerging research sectors in Africa?

In our third theme, we will explore Research Transformation from the perspective of innovation, and how it has influenced the way research is conducted. Culminating in a  Research Transformation White Paper we will explore how roles have changed in academia, publishing, and industry.  Within this broader context of Research transformation, we ask ‘How are we using AI in our research workflows?’ How do we think we will be using AI in years to come?

Of course, many of us in the Digital Science community have been engaging with different aspects of research transformation over many years. If you are keen to explore our thinking to date, one place that you might like to start is at our Research Transformation collection on Figshare. Here we have collated what we think are some of our most impactful contributions to Research Transformation so far. We are very much looking forward to reflecting on research transformation throughout the year. If you are interested in contributing, or just generally finding out more, why not get in touch?

The post Welcome to… Research Transformation!  appeared first on Digital Science.

A ‘Nobel’ Purpose

Alfred Nobel established the Nobel Prizes in the late 19th century to honour individuals or organisations that make extraordinary contributions in fields including chemistry, physics, medicine, economics, literature, and peace. The goal was to reward those who advance knowledge, promote human welfare, or contribute to peace. While his vision was inclusive, the early years of the prize often reflected the male-dominated world of science and academia.

The Impact of Winning Awards

Winning a prestigious award like the Nobel Prize can transform a career. It brings visibility, funding, and opportunities, enhancing credibility and often leading to leadership positions or influence in policy-making. However, with the honour comes pressure – the recognition can be empowering but may also come with additional scrutiny and challenges, making it a double-edged sword.

Gender Imbalance in Science Awards

All the winners of the 2024 science Nobel Prizes are men, especially at a time when more women are entering STEM fields and making significant contributions. This imbalance raises concerns about whether institutional barriers or unconscious biases continue to prevent deserving women from receiving recognition. The lack of diversity not only limits the acknowledgment of talent but also risks sending a discouraging message to future generations of women in science.

Why Diversity in Awards Matters

Diversity in awards is critical because it ensures that people from all backgrounds are seen and celebrated. When prize committees recognise a wide range of contributors, it helps break stereotypes and demonstrates that success in science and other fields is not limited by gender or background. It also pushes institutions to create a more inclusive environment, giving everyone a fair shot at success and setting the tone for a more diverse future in STEM fields.

The Frontiers Planet Prize: A Step Towards More Inclusive Recognition

A positive example of how awards are moving towards greater inclusivity is the Frontiers Planet Prize. This prize recognizes groundbreaking research addressing urgent global challenges like climate change and sustainability. The organisers have made a deliberate effort to highlight the work of a diverse group of researchers, shifting towards a more inclusive vision of scientific achievement. By focusing on issues that affect society as a whole, the prize aims to recognize a broader range of contributions, creating a model for how other awards can diversify and better reflect the world we live in.

You can watch the full interview with Gilbert on our YouTube channel, and check out our Speaker Series playlist on YouTube which includes chats with some of our previous speakers, as well as our TL;DR Shorts playlist with short, snappy insights from a range of experts on the topics that matter to the research community.

With thanks to Huw James from Science Story Lab for filming and co-producing this interview.

The post Incentives for Innovation – meet Dr Gilbert De Gregorio appeared first on Digital Science.

However, our second Speaker Series Live lecturer of 2024 – mathematician, concert pianist, and author Dr Eugenia Cheng – is on a mission to change that perception of the subject she loves and showcase the joy, creativity and wonder of maths, and how it underpins our everyday lives, from the food we eat to the entertainment we consume. I caught up with Eugenia ahead of her talk at the Ri in June 2024 in the spectacular Faraday Lecture Theatre to talk about the creativity, wonder and relatability of maths, and how we can all engage with it in ways that bring us joy.

^{*or math, if you’re American and your letter S went to celebrate Labor Day along with your letter U – and, apparently, the skirt-portion of my dress. Always big-chair-test your summer sartorial choices, friends. Even my 100mm Crossfliketas couldn’t brace me in that massive chair so my dress stayed in place, and my only back-up outfit was supplied by the Time Variance Authority, so let’s all agree to just let it go and never mention it again, kthxbye}

Not Just a Mathematician

If you’ve come across Eugenia’s work, you like me will know that she is far from being “just a mathematician” – Eugenia uses her maths knowledge and her educational experience to teach maths at an art school in Chicago, as well as write books and deliver many public speaking engagements. She is also a musician, pianist, composer, and artist. She also somehow still still finds time to conduct research in category theory – the most abstract part of mathematics that focuses on finding patterns within maths and across concepts and situations. Brilliantly, a little like mathsception, “the thing that explains category theory is category theory” – or the “deepest point of explanation” as Eugenia puts it. Her explanation for her topic reminded me of xkcd 435 (and not 438 as I said in the interview, sorry xkcd fans, mea culpa), whereby her area of expertise really is the most fundamental of fundamental understanding.

Unearthing the Foundations of Knowledge

As humans Eugenia thinks that we understand things better if we understand them more deeply. This depth of knowledge enables us to make more connections, so that we can unite a broader range of things – much like in research where connections across subject areas strengthen the research we can do and the problems we can help overcome. In maths this requires a less linear way of thinking. Eugenia says it is all about creativity and also practice. However this is something we often attribute to being a natural characteristic. Eugenia reminds us that it is not just nature, as aspects of nurture definitely play a role too too, mostly through practicing new ways of thinking and doing. Practice really does make perfect, whether it is thinking in a different way for research, or whether it is learning transferrable skills in cooking that help you experiment with other things.

Communicating Maths to the Masses

Eugenia reflect on what a privilege it is to be able to engage with a range of audiences of all ages and interest levels. Although she has received criticism from many in the past, who have commented on what a “waste of expertise” it is for her to share her love of maths with young children, she believes that there is nothing more important to change perceptions. Discussing how challenging it must be to communicate across such a range of demographics, she says that analogy is the key to storytelling and allowing engagement with a range of complex concepts. She also reflects on the concept of practicing as a way of strengthening communication skills, and always listening, and adaptively responding to people’s reactions.

Eugenia is frustrated that the fear or dislike of maths is so widespread – though this is something that continues to motivate Eugenia. She feels that we need to be better at remembering what education is trying to achieve – and maths education in particular. If we are all working towards different goals it is hard to achieve any of them if we employ conflicting methods. Eugenia believes that teaching people how to think and how to learn is more transferable than learning how to carry out specific tasks that we always hear about when people ask why they need to learn how to do simultaneous equations, for example. She argues that maths doesn’t always have to be “useful” – it can be, and should also be, fun!

Eugenia makes a great comparison between learning and physical fitness, describing maths as the “cure strength” of learning. Maths is effective the abs and glutes of your mind. When your maths is strong through practice and training, you are in a stronger position to access other ways of thinking and making connections. A good level of confidence in maths shouldn’t be relegated to helping you calculating a grocery bill or solving an unrealistic maths problems that inexplicably always seems to involve large quantities of fruit.

Removing the Red Tape

Eugenia believes that one way to make maths more realistic could be to make it – and other subjects – less siloed. We talk about the unrealistic siloes of the sciences, reflecting on what a shame it is that physics couldn’t be more interesting at A Level** because it had to be entirely decoupled from maths A Level, but Eugenia believes that we should expand this way of thinking to include the arts and humanities, as well as financial understanding, marketing, and business. She is a great advocate for more project-based teaching to give people more holistic and realistic experiences of how the everyday world works. In undertaking such projects that mimic situations we encounter in every day life, learners can gain a more realistic appreciation of how everything in life involves a range of subjects and skills.

However, moving to such a different way of teaching and learning requires big change and global buy-in. How can we achieve this? Eugenia is realistic in that perhaps it is a big dream to have, but every Disney fan knows that dreams can come true. However, while wishing on a star may not get us very far, perhaps showcasing the value and impact in this new way of teaching and learning, as well as investing in changes by better funding education and make it less bureaucratic could lead to novel design in educational curricula. If anyone can advocate for change in this area, I feel that Eugenia is the person to do it.

**^{Hi, physics fans! We’d like to remind viewers and readers that these opinions are purely subjective to the chemist and the mathematician you see before you. We know that physics is just fine, but if you’d like to complain, please join the queue behind our CEO, who I’m sure will be first in line to defend this most noble of subjects…}

You can watch my interview with Eugenia on our YouTube channel, catch up on Eugenia’s Speaker Series talk on the Ri’s YouTube channel, and find all of Eugenia’s books in your favourite bookstore. You can also check out our Speaker Series playlist on YouTube which includes chats with some of our previous speakers, as well as our TL;DR Shorts playlist with short, snappy insights from a range of experts on the topics that matter to the research community.

With thanks to Eugenia for sharing her time with us, Huw James from Science Story Lab for filming and co-producing this interview, and the Royal Institution for hosting us in their beautiful Faraday Lecture Theatre ahead of Eugenia’s talk.

The post The Reality of Maths – Meet Dr Eugenia Cheng appeared first on Digital Science.

Drug discovery has come a long way. It started with natural remedies and saw landmark serendipitous discoveries like penicillin in 1928. The mid-20th century introduced rational drug design, targeting specific biological mechanisms. Advances in genomics, high-throughput screening, and computational methods have further accelerated drug development, transforming modern medicine. However, despite these advances, fewer than 10% of drug candidates succeed in clinical trials (Thomas, D. et al. Clinical Development Success Rates and Contributing Factors 2011–2020 (BIO, QLS & Informa, 2021)). Challenges like pharmacokinetics and the complexity of diseases hamper progress. While we no longer fear smallpox or polio and have effective treatments for bacterial infections and Hepatitis C, today’s most damaging diseases are complex and hard to treat due to our limited understanding of their mechanisms.

Nature 627, S2-S5 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00753-x

Cue paradigm shift. DeepMind’s AlphaFold has revolutionized biology by accurately predicting protein structures, a task crucial for understanding biological functions and disease mechanisms. The economic prowess of Deepmind is also creating some mind-blowing figures. The estimated replacement cost of current Protein Data Bank archival contents (the dataset from which the AlphaFold models were built) exceeds US$20 billion (assuming an average cost of US$100,000 for regenerating each of the >200,000 experimental structures). AlphaFold has subsequently generated a database of more than 200 million structures. Some back of the envelope maths infers that this would have cost us $20,000,000,000,000 using the original methods.

Number of protein structures in Alphafold. Credit: Deepmind

Of course, there are many simultaneous attempts to move the research needle using AI. A team from AI pharma startup Insilico Medicine, working with researchers at the University of Toronto, took 21 days to create 30,000 designs for molecules that target a protein linked with fibrosis (tissue scarring). They synthesized six of these molecules in the lab and then tested two in cells; the most promising one was tested in mice. The researchers concluded it was potent against the protein and showed “drug-like” qualities. All in all, the process took just 46 days. Scottish spinout Exscientia has developed a clinical pipeline for AI-designed drug candidates.

Not only does the platform generate highly optimized molecules that meet the multiple pharmacology criteria required to enter a compound into a clinical trial, it achieves it in revolutionary timescales, cutting the industry average timeline from 4.5 years to just 12 to 15 months. These companies have the technical know-how to build the models, and most likely some internal data with which to train them on. But they need more.

The Power of Existing Data

Platforms like the Dimensions Knowledge Graph, powered by metaphactory, demonstrate the potential of structured data. With over 32 billion statements, it delivers insights derived from global research and public datasets. Connecting internal knowledge with such vast external data provides a trustworthy, explainable layer for AI algorithms, enhancing their application across the pharma value chain.

Knowledge democratization bridges the gaps in the pharma value chain. Credit: metaphacts

AI is not all there is to be excited about in drug discovery. A further technological, serendipitous paradigm shift could amplify the results of AI alone. Once trained, machine-learning models can be updated as and when more data become available. With ‘federated learning’, separate parties update a shared model using data sets without sharing the underlying data. Advances in federated learning allow for collaborating across organizations without sharing sensitive data, maintaining privacy while pooling diverse datasets. Federated learning is a machine learning technique that allows models to be trained across multiple companies holding local data samples. Instead of sending data to a central server, each device sends its model updates (e.g., weight changes) to the central server. This allows further reduction in time and cost in the drug discovery process by improving predictive models, without leaking private company held datasets. Public data can augment local datasets held in corporate R&D departments, enriching the training process. Public data with similar characteristics can help in creating more comprehensive models. This is why we need more, better described open academic research data.

Pharmaceutical companies of the world should be engaging further with both open academic data aggregators in order to assist in the improvement of metadata quality and highly curated linked datasets like the ones supported by the Dimensions Knowledge Graph and metaphactory. The limiting factor is not the AI capabilities, it is the amount of high-quality, well described data that they can incorporate into their models. They need to:

1. Acquire: Gather data from diverse sources, including internal external datasets. Make use of federated learning.
2. Enhance: Enrich data with metadata and standardized formats to improve utility and interoperability.
3. Analyse: Use new models to establish patterns, trends and drug candidates.

You may be thinking that this isn’t a serendipitous leap. This is the fruition of decades of research moving us to a point where these technologies can be applied. You may be right. Either way, the timing of these paradigm changing tools does feel serendipitous. Without AI and federated learning, we could not tackle today’s complex diseases in such an efficient manner. There is a long way to go, but by continuing to curate and build on top of academic data, we can push the boundaries of what’s possible in modern medicine.

This is part of a Digital Science series on research transformation. Learn about how we’re tracking transformation here.

The post The next serendipitous paradigm shift for drug discovery appeared first on Digital Science.

If we consider climate change as the “sea of problems” Astro describes, we need a multipronged, creative approach to tackling it. Astro makes the case for more Moonshots, each focused on one piece of the puzzle – for example rethinking the electric grid, the “largest, most complex, and most expensive machine”, and the infrastructure through which most clean energy solutions will go. X’s Project Tapestry is finding solutions to this very challenge.

Astro also advocates for the need to efficiently produce hydrogen as an alternative fuel. This is a topic close to my own heart as a materials scientist with a research background in materials for artificial photosynthesis and water splitting to generate hydrogen in a cheap, clean manner. X also tried to tackle this as part of Project Foghorn. For me and my former research colleagues, the challenge was maintaining efficiency when the design was scaled-up, while Project Foghorn encountered similar challenges in making the process efficient enough for the hydrogen generated to be a viable alternative to gasoline.

Their project has since been parked, and research funding for hydrogen generation seems to be dwindling over time and, while the number of patents registered over time offer some hope, it seems we are still unable to reproduce the mechanism that plants refined billions of years.

Talking about some of the other ways in which we can overcome climate change, Astro says he would also like to see advances in the sequestration of carbon dioxide from the air and oceans that bring the cost down to less than $100 per tonne, and also find a way of making grid-scale batteries with the capability to support and enable the use of renewable energy, something Project Malta is currently working on.

Astro reminds us of the power of adaptation and the need for creative processes that can rapidly undo the damage we have done to our planet. Describing the abuse of our oceans as a “battery for our bad behaviour”, he hopes that we find a way to regenerate them, before all of humanity is in an irreversible position of risk. Watch the full TL;DR Shorts episode here.

If you’d like to suggest future contributors for our series or suggest some topics you’d like us to cover, drop Suze a message on one of our social media channels and use the hashtag #TLDRShorts. Subscribe now to be notified of each weekly release of the latest TL;DR Short, and catch up with the entire series here.

The post TL;DR Shorts: Dr Astro Teller on Climate Change appeared first on Digital Science.