Science Magazine's Top Stories of 2007

ahab_2001 writes "The journal Science has put up its annual Breakthrough of the Year list. They're looking at the top-ten scientific accomplishments for 2007. Leading the list are studies of human genetic variation, and a flood of new discoveries that point toward a future of genomic medicine and even "personal genomics" — with all of the potential issues of ethics and privacy that entails. Runners-up include advances in cellular and structural biology, astrophysics, physics, immunology, synthetic chemistry, neuroscience, and computer science. In addition to the articles from the journal, there's a video on human genetic variation and a podcast as well." Some similarities here to Time magazine's list on the same subject.

Comments

They missed one

[LiquidCoooled]

Missing option: the aperture labs handheld portal device.

Re:They missed one

[Bryansix]

The device is now worth more then all of the inhabitants of Subject's home town.

Personal genomics...

[Colin Smith]

Imagine manipulating the influenza virus to deliver a specific payload to a host matching a particular gene sequence... Individuals, families, races...

Re:Personal genomics...

[geekoid]

Imagine people trying to understand why that can't happen.

Re:Personal genomics...

[r00t]

...people with a certain personality-related gene

Re:Personal genomics...

[vertinox]

Considering that viruses can mutate and jump inter species (Bird Flu) let alone something as simple as family genetics, that wouldn't work as the virus creator intended.

I didn't RTFA

[Matt Edd]

I didn't RTFA. Is 'proof of the existence of God' on there? I mean so many people claim to be able to that one of these years it should be on a list. No? Maybe next year.

Re:I didn't RTFA

[bmgoau]

Science doesnt prove things, it provides a best fit explaination of observed phenomena.

If you're looking to entice a flame war, that isnt the way to start it. Read up on what science is, and is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Re:I didn't RTFA

[crush]

I didn't RTFA either because "Science" as a publication is practically useless to me until they publish the papers available for all to read for free. The AAAS is disgustingly hypocritical in supporting the existence of a journal which restricts access to information which ought to be available to all the members of a modern society. In contrast the physics community with arXiv.org and the people behind the Public Library of Science (PLoS) http://www.plos.org/ are to be congratulated for sharing their work with the world.

In short: fuck "Science" and the AAAS, especially because of the dismay (commonly expressed by scientists) that the public is ill-informed and under educated about science.

Sadly the funding didn't match the results

[WillAffleckUW]

Funding isn't even at the nominal rate of inflation (4 percent) - NIH/NIIT/NIA/etc is about 0.5 percent higher for 2008 than 2007. And with the cost of research materials being about 8 to 10 percent, this represents a substantial cut in US funding.

But, it's a great time to be working on medical genetics as a bioinformatician.

perennial runner-up for Breakthrough of the Year

[Paul Pierce]

Global Warming? Why? I don't see how this could compete with the others on the list. I didn't see any real breakthrough here (maybe I missed it), but I wouldn't count Al Gore's movie such.

The study of Global warming has been pretty steady over the past years. An Inconvenient Truth didn't make any new discoveries in the field that I know of. It looked more like a sob story to me, look more ice is melting, but don't you love nature like I do? Maybe we needed a movie to get people's attention, but it makes you feel like he is blaming YOU. If you are willing to dedicate your life to this noble cause, then don't take a private Jet to the showings.

Re:perennial runner-up for Breakthrough of the Yea

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Gore is a bitter, shrill man.

Re:perennial runner-up for Breakthrough of the Yea

[Bryansix]

Al Gore is a bitter, shrill man.

Serial!

Uhm No

[Bryansix]

James Thompson of the University of Wisconsin, who did the first research with embryonic stem cells, has now taken a major step toward ending the "ethical" controversy over their use. But hold on: That controversy was generated by specific objections from one religion, not some universal ethic. There is every reason to continue research along the old path, with embryo-derived cells: The new methods may carry unknown liabilities, so making the case for changing Bush's 2001 presidential order should continue.

Uhm, no. There is a much broader ethical response to the use of embryonic stem cells then you make it out to be.

House Democrats recently celebrated passage of a bill that would expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR). On the House floor, Speaker Pelosi (D-California) described research on embryonic stem cells as "a gift from God" and "biblical in its power to cure." Taking exception to the remark, Brownback says life -- not embryo-destructive research -- is "a gift from God." "You destroy life to get these embryonic stem cells," the presidential hopeful notes. "It's like she avoids that portion of the discussion; and on top of that, we've just had even another breakthrough where they've been able to reprogram skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells .... we don't have to destroy human life." The Kansas lawmaker says embryo-destructive research is not only unethical, but also unnecessary. "We don't need to do this research for the cures," he explains. "Indeed, were getting zero cures out of embryonic stem cells -- and were up to 73 human maladies being treated by adult stem cells. So if we're going on the science of this issue, the right route to go is more funding of adult stem cells."

and then we have this... http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-egg-donation-problems-for-escr.html

MercatorNet: Obtaining eggs from women volunteers is essential for Harvard?s experiments. Do you foresee any problems?

Sherley: Very knowledgeable human endocrinologists, bioethicists, and women's rights advocates have provided prescient warnings regarding the potential for exploitation of women in meeting the demand for egg donors that may be created by human embryo cloning research. There is already an active unregulated service economy based on provision of human eggs for IVF in the US. Currently, women receive significant financial compensation for undergoing an invasive procedure for harvest of their artificially hormonally-matured eggs. The US National Academy of Sciences has recommended that women who donate eggs for human embryo cloning experiments receive no compensation beyond the costs they incur for participation. This is the policy to which Harvard reports that its scientists will adhere.

Even Economics 101 is not required to realize that this is plan may potentially reduce the plight that cloning experiments pose for human embryos. Harvard scientists are likely to find that they cannot recruit sufficient women who will volunteer their eggs to make embryos that will be killed for cloning research, when instead they could receive as much as US$15,000 for eggs that will be used to conceive babies for infertile parents.

Re:Uhm No

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, no. There is a much broader ethical response to the use of embryonic stem cells then you make it out to be.

Agreed. This is really a pathetic attempt at the rewriting of history and undermining of President Bush's leadership that ultimately challenged scientists to discover a far less controversial solution.

But hold on: That controversy was generated by specific objections from one religion, not some universal ethic.

If the claims of James Thompson, that ethical objections to the destruction of embryonic stem cells only came from one religion is to be believed, what does that say about all other religions that supposedly had no objections to such repugnant ethical implications? With idiotic statements like that, it's hard to take him that seriously. What does quoting exclusively from a pro-embryonic researcher say about Donald Kennedy's bias anyways?

Zonk said, "Some similarities here to Time magazine's list on the same subject." I disagree. In regards to the downplaying of the reprogramming skin cells and the President's critical leadership role that helped cultivate an alternative, Science Magazine shares far more similarity with Time magazine's person of the year choice of Russia's new czar, Putin. A stick in the eye to conservatives everywhere who believed that the man who's credited with turning Iraq around, General David Petraeus, deserved far more recognition than the famed Harry Potter author, J.K. Rowling. But then again, Time's magazine choices shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, after 2006's gimmicky choice of "you".

Dn't the make really mediocre

[geekoid]

shower curtains.

I vote for..

[LM741N]

Either string theory, perpetual motion, or Self Googling.

Re:Everyone left!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Jew you insensitive clod!!

I would like to put it on the list for one reason

[Shivetya]

because we are truly seeing debate on the subject finally, no longer are we subject to just having anyone who doesn't believe dismissed out of hand. The change was evident earlier when those who believe started turning the whole subject into practically a religion. When your subject cannot withstand doubts and you respond with slander versus the people opposing instead of their ideas your facade begins to crack and people see through it.

Of course it wasn't helped by all the elites who seemed to revel in their excess in just staging a meeting. Coming in personal jets, having to fly them empty to a nearby island just to store them, and other abuses were an affront to even some of their ardent supporters.

No, the Break Through is that people are not recognizing that this isn't set in stone. We don't know all the facts. As much as one side wants to end the discussion another brings in even more variables casting doubt upon earlier findings. People who were in one camp have switched. We are finally seeing the scientific community act. I guess they got tired of all the politicians and elites making claims in their names.

Climate change is a fact of life. We have to determine first if its a bad thing. We have to first determine what is the right temperature for our planet before we can even begin to determine if things are going wrong. We have to know more of the variables. We have to know all of this just to determine if we can even blame ourselves. Before we change our actions we need to know if our actions previously were the cause. Changing something without all the facts simply is a feel good activity. It accomplishes nothing other than to make people leading a charge feel vindicated - even if it did nothing in the end.

Re:Everyone left!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Jew you insensitive clod!

I'm an insensitive clod.

Merry Christmas, Jew!

I Vote For

[fotoflo]

I vote for the possible unification of physics by garrett lisi, as was slashdotted about a month ago. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/15/2322225 maybe its too early to know, but this could be the biggest breakthrough since Eisenstein. Also, the advent of the self-contained nuclear power plant that toshiba got slashdotted for recently: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/21/166237 Assuming they arent bot vaporware, which they probably are...

Memory and Imagination

[wytcld]

One of their runners up is evidence that memory and imagination use the same parts of the brain. This counts as insight? Remember being in another room somewhere. Now imagine being in that same room. Notice that remembering and imagining are very much the same experience? It would be news if neuroscience discovered there were two very separate things there. But it's news when neuroscience "discovers" that they're both pretty much the same use of mind?

Wake me when neuroscience gets to the point of describing things that poets and painters haven't known for centuries. How can the science-educated be so illiterate about their own minds that the imaginative commonality of memory and foresight could come as any surprise to either the researchers here, or the editors of this somewhat consequential magazine?

Re:Memory and Imagination

[snarkh]

Do you also have opinions on quantum gravity?

Re:Memory and Imagination

[Quarters]

Scientists aren't allowed to just make conjecture about things like artists and writers can. They have to prove it.

technology, not science

[mapkinase]

I do not really see much of a science in sequencing a genome and finding SNPs, repeats, etc. Looks like collection of data/technology to me.

Re:technology, not science

[metalcup]

hmm..correct and incorrect, imho. Sure, there has been significant advances in the way sequencing works; the lastest being 454 sequencing http://www.454.com/, or Solexa http://www.illumina.com/pages.ilmn?ID=203 or SOLID http://www.illumina.com/pages.ilmn?ID=203, which has significantly reduced cost to sequencing. However, with each of these new techniques come new challenges in statistics and data analysis that are not just technological problems - they require significant, real breakthroughs in algorithms and statistical methods - how do you identify genes? what statistical methods would you use to identify distant repeats separated by millions of years? How accurate and reliable are these identification methods? We've come to a point where getting the data is now almost trivial and cheap - making sense of it, even being able to order it in the right way - we're just beginning to make headway there. So its not all tech - there is a lot of science there - only, it is difficult to argue it is biology any more - more chemistry and math and a bit of CS :)

Re:technology, not science

[mapkinase]

Algorithms and statistics are technology. Science is about discovering new quite universal relationships. I admit that distinction between science and technology is blurred, but people clearly prefer to use term "science", or "applied science". Applied science IS technology! There even should not be such a term "applied science".

Math IS technology.

Re:technology, not science

[mapkinase]

.. continuing. And the reason why people like to use science instead of technology is access to funds.

If what you do is called "science", you are more likely to get more money with less accountability from various scientific funds. If it is called "technology", you have to go to businessmen interested in practical results.

It is one of those materialistic games.