- Email: [email protected]
A free-for-all in New York
SCIENCE AND MEDICINE
A free-for-all in New York fter the launch of PubMed Central, the Freedom of Information Conference (New York Academy of Medicine, July 6–7) set out to examine the impact on biomedical sciences of open access to research findings. In practice, the meeting (organised by BioMed Central, see Lancet 2000; 355: 2056) discussed the impact of open access on biomedical publishing. Harold Varmus, former director of the US National Institutes of Health, described his PubMed Central brainchild as a public vehicle, with government financing, for distribution of
A
information of biomedical sciences. Whereas no participants disagreed with the goal of seemless access to research findings, there was sharp debate over how this should be achieved. Pieter Bolman (Academic Press) characterised PubMed Central as the product of “ivory tower academics on the loose”, and suggested that with the launch of CrossRef (www.crossref.org) it had served its purpose. CrossRef is a publishers’ initiative that, by the end of 2000, will link more than 3 million articles from about 3000 journals. However, within CrossRef access rights to jour-
nals are set by individual publishers. Pat Brown, who helped devise PubMed Central, believes that publishers should never control the work product. With regard to the distribution mechanism provided by journals, Brown said “I think we can figure out how to at least do as well as that”. He described as “parasites” journals that sold back to authors papers that were the product of taxpayer-financed research, and saw no role for journals in turning information into knowledge. John McConnell
Getting a grip on handshakes “If you are a shy, anxious person who more extraverted and expressive than tends to put your hand out carefully, I were those with a less firm think suddenly trying to overcome handshake—evidence, say the that with a firm authors, that perhandshake might sonality traits not be very effecassessed by selfRights were not granted tive. At the very report can predict to include this image in least, the other behaviors assessed electronic media. Please information about by trained refer to the printed you would come observers (J Pers through in other Soc Psychol 2000; journal. ways.” What of 79: 110–17). business training Given the power courses that of first impresadvertise proper sions, the First impressions count handshaking as a researchers advise component of their curriculum? “A that women as well as men “try to lot of people out there will charge you make that first handshake a firm a lot of money to teach you how to one”. But Chaplin concedes that shake hands properly. One thing this “handshaking is an automatic action, study has done is to make me skeptiand changing it is not as easy as we cal of all that”, concludes Chaplin. think. It would require that we be self-conscious about something that we typically do naturally”, he notes. Marilynn Larkin Tony Stone Images
firm handshake makes a favourable first impression, and also reveals certain unshakeable personality traits, report US researchers. “Handshakes seem to be pretty consistent and stable across different receivers of the handshakes and across time, and also seem to be sensibly and predictably related to personality”, says lead study author William Chaplin (University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA). Chaplin’s co-authors, who were trained as handshake coders before the study began, evaluated the handshake characteristics of 48 men and 64 women who also completed personality self-report questionnaires. A strong correlation was found between a firm handshake—as evidenced by strength, vigor, duration, completeness of grip, and eye contact—and a good first impression. Moreover, those with a firm handshake were
A
Activation of a spinal neural network enables paraplegic rats to walk
R
esearchers have succeeded in making paraplegic rats walk again by implanting embryonic brainstem cells into the spinal cord below the level of the lesion. The spinal cord contains a “central pattern generator” (CPG), a network of neurons that can generate some basic locomotor movements in the absence of supraspinal control. However, monoaminergic descending systems modulate this basic rhythm, and depletion of monoamines following a lesion reduces locomotor ability. Until now, attempts to restore the function of the CPG after traumatic cord lesions have met with limited
THE LANCET • Vol 356 • July 15, 2000
success. Alain Privat (INSERM, University of Montpellier, France) and co-workers implanted embryonic raphe cells—which produce the neurotransmitter serotonin—at one of two levels of the sublesional cord (either T9 or T11; the lesion was at T8). T11-transplanted animals walked much better than T9transplanted rats 2 months after the operation. Immunohistochemistry showed that serotonergic re-innervation at L1-L2, which occurred in T11 but not T9 animals, has a crucial role in restoration of locomotion (J Neurosci 2000; 20: 5144-52). James Fawcett (Centre for Brain Repair, Cambridge, UK), cautions
against being too optimistic about the clinical implications of these findings. “Reactivation of a human CPG might be counterproductive, as in current practice excess movements are more a problem to paraplegics than the total lack of them”, he explains. “We are now embarking on a 5year program to study the use of stem cells and serotonin genetransfected astrocytes in a marmoset monkey model. After that, a clinical study in traumatic cordinjury patients might be feasible”, says Privat. Wim Weber
227
For personal use only. Not to be reproduced without permission of The Lancet.
A free-for-all in New York fter the launch of PubMed Central, the Freedom of Information Conference (New York Academy of Medicine, July 6–7) set out to examine the impact on biomedical sciences of open access to research findings. In practice, the meeting (organised by BioMed Central, see Lancet 2000; 355: 2056) discussed the impact of open access on biomedical publishing. Harold Varmus, former director of the US National Institutes of Health, described his PubMed Central brainchild as a public vehicle, with government financing, for distribution of
A
information of biomedical sciences. Whereas no participants disagreed with the goal of seemless access to research findings, there was sharp debate over how this should be achieved. Pieter Bolman (Academic Press) characterised PubMed Central as the product of “ivory tower academics on the loose”, and suggested that with the launch of CrossRef (www.crossref.org) it had served its purpose. CrossRef is a publishers’ initiative that, by the end of 2000, will link more than 3 million articles from about 3000 journals. However, within CrossRef access rights to jour-
nals are set by individual publishers. Pat Brown, who helped devise PubMed Central, believes that publishers should never control the work product. With regard to the distribution mechanism provided by journals, Brown said “I think we can figure out how to at least do as well as that”. He described as “parasites” journals that sold back to authors papers that were the product of taxpayer-financed research, and saw no role for journals in turning information into knowledge. John McConnell
Getting a grip on handshakes “If you are a shy, anxious person who more extraverted and expressive than tends to put your hand out carefully, I were those with a less firm think suddenly trying to overcome handshake—evidence, say the that with a firm authors, that perhandshake might sonality traits not be very effecassessed by selfRights were not granted tive. At the very report can predict to include this image in least, the other behaviors assessed electronic media. Please information about by trained refer to the printed you would come observers (J Pers through in other Soc Psychol 2000; journal. ways.” What of 79: 110–17). business training Given the power courses that of first impresadvertise proper sions, the First impressions count handshaking as a researchers advise component of their curriculum? “A that women as well as men “try to lot of people out there will charge you make that first handshake a firm a lot of money to teach you how to one”. But Chaplin concedes that shake hands properly. One thing this “handshaking is an automatic action, study has done is to make me skeptiand changing it is not as easy as we cal of all that”, concludes Chaplin. think. It would require that we be self-conscious about something that we typically do naturally”, he notes. Marilynn Larkin Tony Stone Images
firm handshake makes a favourable first impression, and also reveals certain unshakeable personality traits, report US researchers. “Handshakes seem to be pretty consistent and stable across different receivers of the handshakes and across time, and also seem to be sensibly and predictably related to personality”, says lead study author William Chaplin (University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA). Chaplin’s co-authors, who were trained as handshake coders before the study began, evaluated the handshake characteristics of 48 men and 64 women who also completed personality self-report questionnaires. A strong correlation was found between a firm handshake—as evidenced by strength, vigor, duration, completeness of grip, and eye contact—and a good first impression. Moreover, those with a firm handshake were
A
Activation of a spinal neural network enables paraplegic rats to walk
R
esearchers have succeeded in making paraplegic rats walk again by implanting embryonic brainstem cells into the spinal cord below the level of the lesion. The spinal cord contains a “central pattern generator” (CPG), a network of neurons that can generate some basic locomotor movements in the absence of supraspinal control. However, monoaminergic descending systems modulate this basic rhythm, and depletion of monoamines following a lesion reduces locomotor ability. Until now, attempts to restore the function of the CPG after traumatic cord lesions have met with limited
THE LANCET • Vol 356 • July 15, 2000
success. Alain Privat (INSERM, University of Montpellier, France) and co-workers implanted embryonic raphe cells—which produce the neurotransmitter serotonin—at one of two levels of the sublesional cord (either T9 or T11; the lesion was at T8). T11-transplanted animals walked much better than T9transplanted rats 2 months after the operation. Immunohistochemistry showed that serotonergic re-innervation at L1-L2, which occurred in T11 but not T9 animals, has a crucial role in restoration of locomotion (J Neurosci 2000; 20: 5144-52). James Fawcett (Centre for Brain Repair, Cambridge, UK), cautions
against being too optimistic about the clinical implications of these findings. “Reactivation of a human CPG might be counterproductive, as in current practice excess movements are more a problem to paraplegics than the total lack of them”, he explains. “We are now embarking on a 5year program to study the use of stem cells and serotonin genetransfected astrocytes in a marmoset monkey model. After that, a clinical study in traumatic cordinjury patients might be feasible”, says Privat. Wim Weber
227
For personal use only. Not to be reproduced without permission of The Lancet.