Any public or private body is eligible, as long as project ideas and ongoing or concluded projects are entitled to European funding, and fall in either of the following categories:

• Environment, Consumers and Health
• Research, Innovation and Technology

Project winners will be determined according to the following criteria: overall impact on the community, economy and local or regional policy; effectiveness of partnership; innovativeness of approach and methodology; and most successful communication and dissemination plan.

Registration and project submission must be completed by 13:00pm on Sunday 19 May 2013 through the MyEuropa platform and ProjectsShowroom.

The Award Ceremony will take place on 5 June 2013 at the Steigenberger Grandhotel in Brussels during the World Research and Innovation Congress, which will bring together key stakeholders in healthcare research.

Rules and procedures

Uploading your project is easy: click on the red CREATE button on the ProjectsShowroom site and follow instructions to complete all the mandatory fields.

Each submission must contain the name and acronym of the project, a short description, its main goals, activities, partners and territorial coverage. We encourage you to add additional pictures, videos and other relevant material, and promote related events and topics.

By posting your project in the ProjectsShowroom, you are presenting it to all MyEuropa community and therefore increasing your visibility and chances of finding a suitable project partner.

MyEuropa provides a platform to discuss funding, communicate with partners, browse projects and ideas and join the debate.

For more information: EPA 2013 AWARDS

What are the key activities of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB)?

Representing 26 biomedical societies and over 100,000 individual scientists around the world, FASEB is the organisation that legislators, federal agencies and the media turn to for information on policies related to biomedical science and engineering. Our full-time presence in Washington allows us to monitor the latest legislative and regulatory developments, news, and events affecting scientists and our staff provide analytic, communications and technical support for our initiatives. This combination of volunteer action and staff professionalism maximises our effectiveness.

FASEB also provides a variety of logistic and management services to member societies and other non-profit organisations. These include full society management, meeting management, accounting and publication services. FASEB publishes The FASEB Journal, a highly recognised and widely cited scholarly publication. Each year, FASEB also sponsors dozens of scientific conferences – held in both domestic and international locations – to support the sharing of cutting-edge research findings. Our Maximising Access to Research Careers (MARC) Program is committed to serving minority scientists through a variety of programmes, including a peer and faculty mentors network, travel awards, and seminars on careers, publication, and grant-writing.

Can you describe the main objectives of the MARC Program run in partnership with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)?

For more than 30 years, the MARC Program has provided access to resources that promote the training and advancement of underrepresented students, postdoctoral fellows, faculty and scientists in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. Grantsmanship training programmes help faculty members, research scientists/investigators and postdoctoral fellows at minority institutions to communicate ideas effectively to grant review panels.

MARC travel awards encourage and support the participation of underrepresented students and postdoctoral fellows at scientific meetings and conferences; the participation of underrepresented undergraduate students in summer research opportunity programmes; and the participation of underrepresented graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and faculty members in leadership development and grantsmanship training seminar programmes.

Since 1997, the FASEB MARC Program has co-sponsored and supported a half-day minority student programme at scientific meetings. Participating students are paired with graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who serve as peer mentors for the students during the meeting.

Which different organisations does FASEB bring together? What are the main benefits of membership?

Professional staff in the Office of Public Affairs, and experts on policy issues that affect scientists and engineers work with the representatives of our member societies to develop and promote polices to advance research and education in the biological and biomedical sciences. FASEB amplifies the voice of the individual scientist and ensures that their perspective is represented in policy-making settings. By speaking with a single voice, our member societies increase the impact of their message and maximise their influence on public policy. FASEB staff and consultants also advise member societies on strategies and tactics for their specific initiatives on policy issues pertinent to their disciplines and members. FASEB’s members are scientific societies that share a common vision for the advancement of research and education in biological and biomedical sciences.

As part of its mandate, FASEB is focused on policy issues that pertain to biomedical researchers. Could you give some examples of instances where you have contributed to changes in policy?

FASEB was one of the major forces promoting the growth in research funding during the late 1990s and early 2000s. In addition to the doubling of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget between 1998 and 2003, funding for NSF and science programmes at the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Agriculture also increased markedly.

Our efforts in the area of training policy have led to increased salary and benefits for graduate students and postdocs. We have created tools and supported policies that are now receiving national attention and support from funding agencies, institutions and other research organisations. For more than a decade, FASEB has actively promoted the use of Individual Development Plans in research training, and the newly released myIDP website (http://myidp.sciencecareers.org/) has been an outstanding success. Currently, FASEB is actively engaged in the discussion of proposed changes in the training of the next generation of biomedical researchers.

We have also successfully opposed the implementation of unnecessary and burdensome research regulations that would have restricted the use of animals in research. FASEB was successful in promoting the adoption of ‘fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism’ as the Federal Government’s definition of research misconduct.

How do FASEB’s Science Research Conferences allow experimental biologists to explore and share new approaches to cutting-edge research topics?

The FASEB Science Research Conferences provide a series of topical one-week conferences accepting 150-250 participants. The proposed topics are submitted by both member and non-member organisations and are reviewed by a committee composed of representatives of FASEB member organisations. Emphasis is placed on cutting-edge research with prominent scientists in each field making presentations to attendees who are heavily engaged in research or are in ancillary fields where an accurate understanding of allied scientific advances is important.

The limited number of accepted attendees allows the participants the opportunity to meet intimately and without distractions in a single location where – via daily lectures, poster sessions, meals and casual interaction – they may explore new approaches to those research areas undergoing rapid scientific change. We encourage diversity in participation and provide networking opportunities for younger investigators by requiring a ‘Meet the Expert’ session in each programme, as well as requiring all speakers to remain at the conference site for a minimum of three days/nights to allow for optimum interaction.

What do you consider to be FASEB’s most significant accomplishments?

The most significant accomplishments of the Federation are its ability to adapt to the changing needs of the research community and its success in educating decision makers about the critical importance of biomedical research and training. For many years, FASEB was known for the annual meeting and the proceedings of that meeting, which provided an opportunity for scientists to share their findings and ideas with colleagues. Generations of researchers began their careers with a paper at the FASEB Meeting.

Moreover, we are extremely proud of the contributions to science, education and health made by our member societies and the scientists and engineers who belong to them. They have made extraordinary scientific advances that have improved the quality of life for people all around the globe. This year, three Nobel Prizes were awarded to members of FASEB societies, and a total of 165 Nobel Laureates have been members. Our goal is to continue our history of support for the research community by communicating the excitement and potential of biomedical science to policy makers and the public. These are unprecedented times for the life sciences, and the opportunities for progress have never been greater.

Moreover, what do you hope FASEB will achieve in the near future?

In keeping with our mission to advance health and welfare by promoting progress and education in biological and biomedical sciences through service to our member societies and collaborative advocacy, we will continue to educate the public and policy makers about the importance of research in the life sciences.

We will need to keep up with changing populations, communication tools, and new policy challenges. The increasingly adversarial environment in the public policy arena will force us to work harder to make our case for science and engineering research. However, I am confident that FASEB will continue to evolve new ways to meet the needs of its community, just as it has done in the past.

www.faseb.org

To begin, could you outline the mission of the Rare Genomics Institute (RGI)?

RGI was established to help patients with rare diseases. Some of these diseases are so rare that little research is being conducted or there is no current therapy for them. Our mission is to establish new projects and funding models so that research can be carried out and scientific discoveries can be made for those patients with rare diseases.

What approaches are you employing in order to achieve your scientific objectives?

In terms of science, we try to leverage the latest development in biotechnology. At present our focus is on whole genome and exome sequencing, which we are hoping to use to define rare disease causing variants. We also plan to use other technologies, for example, induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS), simple drug screens, and other high-throughput ‘omics’, including proteomics, metabolomics among other existing scientific methods to help discover and understand rare diseases.

For what reason do you believe that the sequencing and analysis of genomes can help patients with rare diseases?

An estimated 80 per cent of rare diseases are genetic, and through sequencing we have a good shot at identifying the potential causes of a disease from a patient’s genes. RGI can sequence entire families and then use this information to locate the origins of a rare disease. Perhaps the most exciting aspect of genome sequencing, aside from its continued advancement and cost reduction, are the many examples where rare diseases are being identified using small cohorts of 12 or less patients – even single families. Now rare diseases are regularly being defined and cured, and we are particularly excited about these developments.

Given that the category of rare diseases comprises so many vastly different conditions, how important is it that you approach your patients as individuals?

There are over 7,000 distinguishable rare diseases: some of them affect as many as 200,000 people; some affect one or two, and it is often difficult for doctors to identify them. Therefore, it is important to carry out these analyses in an individualised manner. The trajectory of biomedicine is now geared towards personalised therapy – and this is true for both rare and common diseases.

In what ways do you utilise the Internet and social media in order to make connections between patients and biomedical researchers?

Crowdfunding is efficiently run through the Internet and social media, and people from all over the world can contribute money towards reaching a patient’s fundraising targets. It also gives the patients more power.

RGI is distributed across 15 different sites, and often the Internet is a great way to connect with researchers and scientists from these different places. Often we are communicating from long distances, and so our collaborations are often carried out over the Internet. We try to facilitate all means of communication, awareness, social media team building and education.

What do you see as the biggest achievement of RGI?

Personally, I think we have created a model for conducting effective research in an area that has been lacking until now. We think of patients as initiators of research, and so building and maintaining a connection between patients and researchers is very important to us. RGI is still a young institute, but we are pleased that the idea is catching on and hope to have a greater impact on rare diseases in the future.

How would you like to see RGI develop in the future?

We have partners all over the world, including Australia, Israel, Singapore, Malaysia, and hope to continue building a strong relationship with other partners on an international basis. RGI would also like more scientific communities to collaborate and fund research with universities for various types of diseases.

For the field of rare genomics itself, we are looking to create an exhaustive network of researchers and patients to increase the amount of funding and research taking place at RGI. Ultimately, we would like to see cures and discoveries for these rare diseases and our patients being supported and treated in the best possible way.

www.raregenomics.org

Can you explain your primary function of the Biological Science and Technology group at Sandia, and how your mission has evolved over time?

Sandia is a National Security Laboratory, so our focus is on addressing important national security challenges. Our main mission is to reduce the national security risks posed by emerging, existing, or engineered biological threats and our nation’s reliance on fossil fuel. The set of challenges our group has addressed has evolved with changes in the national security environment – for instance, after the Amerithrax attacks in 2001, we became very engaged in supporting the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security to protect the Nation from biological attacks. As the promise of biologically-derived fuels grew, we began working on developing lignocellulosic biofuels as a founding partner in the Joint Bioenergy Institute (JBEI). In the wake of the SARS and H1N1 outbreaks, we recognised that naturally emerging biological threats pose a serious national security threat. In response, we expanded our biodefense programme and we are now working closely with Sandia’s International Biological Threat Reduction (IBTR) programme and collaborators around the world to develop global disease surveillance capabilities to quickly detect and characterise new pathogens as they emerge.

To what extent do the departments within the Group collaborate with other Sandia teams? How interdisciplinary is your research?

Sandia is a highly interdisciplinary laboratory that exists to solve very tough National Security R&D challenges. The Biological Science and Technology Group is no exception. Our capabilities include experimental competency in ‘omics’ (genomics, proteomics, etc.) as well as world-class biotechnology capabilities (eg. bio-molecular imaging, computational biology, microfluidics, and bio-nanotechnology). Since we are so interdisciplinary, we have the ability to bring together combinations of seemingly disparate laboratory resources that result in a powerful engine for discovery science focused on these challenges.

In addition, we collaborate broadly with other groups within and external to Sandia as needed to augment our capabilities. In addition to our work with JBEI and IBTR, we work extensively with other National Laboratories, federal entities such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and industrial and academic partners to achieve our goals.

A large proportion of the Group’s work is on biodefense and emerging infectious disease. Could you outline some of the research currently being conducted in this area?

Our Group is focused on quickly detecting, identifying, and characterising accidental, natural, or deliberate outbreaks of biological agents and reducing the impact of those outbreaks. Our objective is to develop and apply integrative bio-analytical systems and approaches to quantitatively define and detect host and pathogen indicators of infection or exposure in complex clinical or environmental samples, and provide end-users with information they can use to develop an effective response.

To this end, we are applying Sandia’s traditional strengths in engineering and technology development to gain basic knowledge about the fundamental molecular processes of pathogenesis, including the dynamic interactions between microbial pathogens and their hosts, and to develop assays, novel materials, and platforms to detect and diagnose traditional and unknown pathogens.

The basic and applied elements of our biodefense research programme are tightly linked. By investigating host–pathogen interactions, we not only provide a deeper understanding of how diseases originate and develop, but we also identify new ways to detect, interdict, and mitigate emerging infectious diseases. By exploring the biological principles underlying known and emerging infectious diseases, our researchers are accelerating the development of technologies to detect and diagnose biological weapons that threaten the security of our homeland and our troops.

A specific example of how we bring together our science and engineering capabilities to achieve a concrete objective is the Rapid Threat Organism Recognition (RapTOR) project. The RapTOR team consists of molecular biologists, engineers, and bioinformaticians all focused on a common goal: to develop a system for the rapid identification and characterisation of unknown pathogens in clinical samples through suppressive molecular biology methods and second generation sequencing (SGS). Their collective efforts resulted in the development of an Automated Molecular Biology platform for automated SGS library preparation that won the Society for Lab Automation and Screening 2011 Innovation Award and a 2012 R&D 100 Award. They have also invented new molecular biology methods that increase the sequence hits to an unknown pathogen in a clinical sample by nearly two orders of magnitude. The RapTOR methods are currently being transitioned to the CDC for testing and evaluation, and its products are currently being applied to diverse applications ranging from algal pond health monitoring to battlefield forensics.

In what ways are the Group’s cellulosic and algal biofuels projects contributing to the movement towards clean, green, and renewable sources of energy in the US and beyond?

The need to develop clean, green, and renewable sources of energy has become an international call to action. Sandia researchers are working to reduce US dependency on foreign oil by focusing on transportation biofuels derived from both cellulosic and algal biomass. In a way that is analogous to our approach to biodefense, Sandia’s biofuels scientists are conducting fundamental investigations and using their findings to move the world closer to the day when fossil fuels will be largely replaced by biofuels. We take a systems view of biofuels development – we not only conduct research to enhance biofuels production, but we also examine the sustainability and environmental impact of biofuels production and use.

Can you summarise some of the Group’s current biofuels research? 

Our renewable fuels programme is centred on two sources of feedstock biomass: lignocellulose and algae. Our core programme in lignocellulosic biofuel development is JBEI, led by LBNL in partnership with LLNL, SNL, UC-Berkeley, UC-Davis, and the Carnegie Institute. Sandians are leading R&D efforts at JBEI to convert lignocellulose into fermentable sugars, and developing new multi-dimensional analytical technologies to understand and manipulate the bioconversion process. In algal biofuels development, we have funding from the Department of Energy for the Sustainable Algal Biofuels Consortium (SABC) for the Pond Crash Forensics Project, which is led by Arizona State University in partnership with Sandia and NREL. The initiative leverages our RapTOR technology, and the Sapphire Energy Inc., which is also utilised by the Integrated Bio-refinery Project.

What are your personal research interests and what led you to this position at Sandia?

My personal research interests have been most recently focused on the development of a rapid, moderate-resolution structure determination technique called Mass Spectrometry in 3D (MS3D). MS3D derives interatomic distance constraints for proteins, nucleic acids, or their complexes, from chemical cross-linking and mass spectrometry experiments. These distance constraints are used in conjunction with predictive methods to construct moderate resolution structural models for a given macromolecular target.

As a computational biologist, I have found close collaborations with experimentalists to be tremendously rewarding, which has fueled my appreciation for multidisciplinary team science. When I interviewed at Sandia, I found a place that lives and breathes team science in the service of solving important national problems. Sandia was just beginning to build its biology programme at that point, and I saw an exciting opportunity to be part of developing a programme from the ground up that was inherently multidisciplinary and national service orientated. How could I resist?

In your opinion, what has been the greatest achievement of the Group to date?

This is a difficult question. The Group has performed exceptional R&D over the years and it is hard to pick a favorite. So I will not. Instead I will give you a few highlights. One is founding the JBEI with LBNL and our other partners. JBEI is one of only three Bioenergy Research Centers in the Nation, and the work it carries out is extremely important to increasing our nation’s energy independence. Another highlight is the RapTOR team’s development and application of molecular suppression methods, automated library prep platforms, and SGS to a broad suite of national security challenges. A third highlight that comes to mind is the NIH New Innovator Award won by one of our researchers, Jeri Timlin, for her project ‘Multiplexed measurements of protein dynamics and interactions at extreme resolutions’. Timlin was one of only 55 NIH New Innovator awardees in 2009, and she was funded for five years to develop state-of-the-art imaging technology that can measure protein complex formation and protein networks in a multiplexed fashion with spatial resolution beyond that of the optical microscopy.

How would you like to see the work of the Biological Science and Technology Group develop in the future? What goals would you like to realise?

The scientific community does not currently understand how to assess either the functional potential of a biological entity or the root causes of complex observable traits, such as the ability of a microbe to make someone sick or how to synthesise a fuel source from renewable materials. Addressing this challenge lies in deciphering clues present within a DNA sequence, with predicting the function of individual gene products being only the first step. Assembly and modeling of potential gene products, their functions and how they interact within the complicated environment internal and external to a cell will let us answer questions we need to address to achieve our national security mission, such as: ‘How harmful will a given new microbe be? What are the best ways to detect and contain it? What are the worst effects that may be seen by patients? What is the short list of potential vaccines, anti-microbial or other therapies that would mitigate detrimental effects and/or block infection and transmission?’ or ‘How are complicated polysaccharides broken down in nature? How can we harness these pathways to efficiently generate fuels from renewable sources? Can we improve upon what nature has designed by 10 times, or 100 times?’

We must strive to answer these types of questions through the rapid acquisition, integration, and analysis of multi-dimensional biological data streams to better understand the functional potential of a microbe. The extracted knowledge will provide the actionable information that we require for national-level challenges, such as rapid outbreak response, detection of host exposure due to terrorist activities or options for giving our country the energy independence we need to remain secure.

www.bio.sandia.gov

What is the role of the International Biogeography Society (IBS)?

The IBS was founded only 10 years ago, to promote the study of patterns and processes in the geography of nature. As a young, volunteer-based academic organisation with no initial funding base, we have had to expand slowly. We organise biennial international conferences on biogeography for our members to gather, present and debate new data and analyses, refine and expand relevant theory and understand current technologies and analytical methods. We provide financial support to many students to attend these conferences and recently established the Frontiers of Biogeography journal to support their research.

Could you highlight some of the key theories driving the study of biogeography?

Biogeography is one of the most broadly integrative subject areas in ecology and evolution, since it deals with patterns and processes in biological diversity at all spatiotemporal scales. The primary underlying theory is that all life evolved through a complex interaction between geographic location, movement, isolation, differentiation and interactions with other species. As such, the theory is broadly-based, developing from theory initially proposed by early evolutionary biologists such as Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.

For the past four decades, ecological studies of biogeography have been guided by Robert MacArthur and Edward O Wilson’s Equilibrium Model of Island Biogeography, which focuses on the processes of colonisation and extinction operating over ecological timescales, whilst historical biogeography deals with evolutionary processes that operate over long periods of time, especially in reference to plate tectonics, mountain orogenesis, etc. One of the current challenges in biogeography is to integrate these two traditions effectively and to make them predictive in light of a rapidly changing climate.

What did Robert Macarthur teach us about ecological niches and population ecology? How is our understanding of island biogeography changing? 

Robert MacArthur was one of the founders of what we now call ‘ecological biogeography’, and he brought a particular mathematical rigor to our approach. He viewed populations of species as being highly dynamic, responding to changes in climate, competitors and resources, and promoted the concepts of carrying capacity and resource limitation. This highly dynamic view carried through into his seminal publications with EO Wilson on island biogeography, in which species richness on islands is determined largely by the interacting processes of colonisation and extinction. Much of current research on island biogeography is focused on re-introducing speciation and the processes that speciation influences in ecosystem dynamics. This change is rather fundamental as species on islands have often been viewed as vulnerable to extinction. However, recent investigations of evolution and diversification led us to see that species often persist on islands for very long periods and may be rather resistant to extinction from all but rather massive change. It is a dynamic, ongoing topic of research.

Alfred Russel Wallace is probably most famous for the ‘Wallace Line’ – an imaginary line which separated the Indonesian archipelago into the lush landscape of the northwest and the more arid region of the southeast – a theory which supports the breakup of Pangaea. What else have we learnt from this influential naturalist?

When Wallace considered his accomplishments near the end of his long and productive life, he listed his studies of island biogeography as equivalent to his co-discovery of natural selection with Charles Darwin. In his grand synthesis, Island Life in 1880, he provided the first comprehensive global analysis of the patterns of distribution of plants and animals on islands, defining the same groupings based on geological origin of islands that we use today – but he did so long before plate tectonic theory.

He vigorously promoted the concept of ice ages at a time when evidence was scant and not widely accepted; he was also the first biologist to recognise that variations in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun were largely responsible for driving the major climatic variation that existed during the ice ages. Wallace was insistent on avoiding simplistic, unifactorial explanations for biogeographic patterns, emphasising that we must take into account life’s many complexities. He took a remarkably integrative view of the history of the Earth’s biota as evidenced by the distribution of organisms on islands, and had a truly encyclopedic knowledge of the hard facts of distributions. This broadly integrative view lies at the core of the IBS today.

Plate tectonics underpins the study of biogeography. How do these physical barriers pertain to species evolution and ecology? Could you provide some examples?

The documentation and acceptance of plate tectonics in the very late 1950s and early 1960s produced a revolution in biogeography nearly as great as it did in geology. The fossil record suddenly took on a new aspect that allowed many pieces of the puzzle of life to fall into place: why, for example, are marsupials found today predominantly in Australia and South America? The answer is that the two continents were connected for many millions of years after marsupials evolved and once occurred on Antarctica, as shown by the fossil record.

Island archipelagoes exist because of tectonic and associated processes. Without subduction, few oceanic islands would exist at all and we would lack the astounding adaptive radiations of the Galapagos, Hawaii, or the islands between Asia and Australia that bio-geographers refer to as ‘Wallacea’.

Invertebrates are often underrepresented in favor of more aesthetic vertebrate animals. How are bio-geographers proving their worth?

Invertebrates are vastly more speciose than vertebrates and collectively they are more tolerant of extreme conditions. With their generally small size and low metabolisms, they can persist in the tiny patches of habitat that often function as small islands. As a result, they are superb subjects for the study of virtually any biogeographic process, as shown by recent research on: the diversification and community ecology of spiders on islands in the South Pacific; dung beetles in forest patches in Africa; and crabs and snails living in hot vents in deep-sea trenches. If there were no vertebrates and some intelligent species was around to study invertebrates, they would see similar patterns and deduce the same processes that we see among vertebrates.

The IBS supports researchers through training and education and encourages knowledge sharing. How is this facilitated? 

Training and education is one of the core goals of the IBS. Our biennial meetings are a primary venue for that effort, bringing young researchers into close contact with senior bio-geographers and, perhaps more importantly, with each other, for four days of intensive interaction that create intellectual spark and stimulation. We provide travel subsidies to as many of our young members and members from developing countries as we can afford, including attendance to one of our pre-meeting workshops. We also provide free memberships to a steadily increasing number of students, so that they can access Frontiers of Biogeography and relevant journals published by other organisations. We are exploring ways to connect our members via the Internet, so that we may someday have virtual conferences and workshops. It is an exciting time that strains our capacity but at the same time energises us.

Advances in technology and innovation continue to drive research forward, opening up new possibilities and lines of investigation. What advancements do you consider to be the most beneficial to biogeography?

New technology is driving biogeography forward at a pace never seen previously. DNA sequencing technology allows us to determine the phylogenetic relationships of organisms at a level of precision not possible just a decade ago and often provides insights into the timing of speciation events as well; allowing us to determine the impact of specific geological and climatic events – a stunning advance.

Satellite images give us the capacity to document the distribution of species with great precision and often to report the impact of habitat destruction on biodiversity in real time. Satellite-based data on climate allows us to determine what factors influence distributions of organisms and provide the raw material that allows us to make predictions about the impact of future climate change. The increase in computational power of computers and ‘the cloud’ make complex multivariate analyses possible in mere hours – a process that would have taken weeks less than 10 years ago.

The list is nearly endless, but it is also true that hard work in the field, catching animals and ground-trothing other information is still the fundamental basis of biogeography, and that is unlikely to change.

The IBS’s 6th International Conference will take place in January 2013. What will be the main areas of focus?

The meeting will be structured around four symposia and associated sessions: predicting species and biodiversity in a warmer world; beyond Bergmann: new perspectives on the biogeography of traits; island biogeography: new syntheses; and the convergence of conservation paleontology and biogeography. This diversity of topics is representative of topics from prior meetings – we try to cover a very wide range of issues, so that our members hear about the latest research and perspectives on as many topics as we can reasonably manage.

James H Brown became the second recipient of the Lifetime Honorary Membership for his work in biogeography. What have been his greatest contributions to this growing field of research?

He was one of the founding members of the IBS; co-authored the currently most popular textbook of biogeography, and coined the term and wrote the first book on macro ecology. He also wrote one of the earliest and most influential papers on island biogeography using the framework provided by MacArthur and Wilson’s equilibrium model of biogeography. His publications have sparked the enthusiasm of several generations of young bio-geographers, including myself. I really cannot think of a living person who has done more to establish and promote biogeography as an exciting and valuable field of study.

What large-scale conservation initiatives are being proposed to help avert the sixth mass extinction currently occurring? What strategies are proving successful?

Questions about conservation are arguably the most difficult of all, both because they involve predictions rather than descriptions and because aspects of conservation decision-making are subject to different perspectives and priorities. Biogeography can and does provide answers to many questions about what will happen if certain changes take place. We can, or will soon, be able to say with confidence, what will happen to species on a particular mountain range if temperatures and rainfall change by some given amount. However, this assumes that we know what factors limit species distributions, such as climate, food resources, predators, competitors, or denning sites. We need a great deal more information about the complexity of the natural world while we do the best we can with the information currently at hand. If there is a single consensus, it is that humans are causing rapid changes. Biogeography can provide answers to many ‘what if’ questions that will help society decide what it should do in the context of real, rather than imagined, information.

www.biogeography.org

Firstly, what are the overall objectives of the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) and how does it function within the US Department of Agriculture?

NWRC is the research arm of Wildlife Services (WS) – a programme within the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. NWRC provides leadership and expertise to resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety, natural resources and agriculture. NWRC employees based at its headquarters office in Fort Collins, Colorado, and at field stations across the country, apply scientific expertise to resolve problems between people and wildlife. The Center is committed to providing innovative, effective and practical solutions that mitigate wildlife-human conflicts while supporting the long-term health and vitality of our native wildlife and environment.

NWRC attempts to provide practical solutions to damage assessment and wildlife management. What makes this task so challenging and what gaps remain in our understanding?

The goal for NWRC and programme personnel is to seek a balance among a variety of priorities, including wildlife and environmental conservation, human health and safety, economic considerations and environmental factors. Our staffs recognise that different groups sometimes have widely differing values concerning the environment, wildlife and the Government’s role in managing problems associated with wildlife. As human populations continue to increase, so do interactions between wildlife and people. Driven by increasingly diverse requests for assistance, WS has expanded its operational and research activities to include not only traditional wildlife damage management issues, like livestock protection and bird damage to crops, but also issues such as invasive species control, wildlife disease surveillance and aviation safety. Our staffs address these challenges by working in multidisciplinary teams to find solutions that often must bridge economics, natural resource protection and human dimensions.

Could you outline some of the human-wildlife conflicts that have resulted as a consequence of urbanisation and industrialisation?

Some of the more common wildlife conflicts associated with urbanisation and industrialisation relate to aviation safety (bird-strikes), emerging zoonotic and agricultural diseases and invasive species. NWRC research related to these issues involves partnering with the private sector and universities to learn more about how birds detect and avoid aircraft. This has led to the development of new lighting systems for use on planes that function to alert birds of approaching aircraft and give them sufficient time to avoid collision.

With regards to zoonotic diseases, NWRC researchers work collaboratively with WS field specialists to monitor diseases in wildlife. Efforts have also led to the development of new environmental sampling methods and techniques for identifying emerging diseases. Invasive species are often difficult to detect at low levels, but NWRC researchers are investigating species behavior immediately after they are introduced to a novel environment, which may help wildlife managers to develop effective biosecurity techniques that protect against new invasions. NWRC also works with collaborating agencies to develop strategies (traps, baits, toxicants) for eradicating invasive species, as well as educating the public about the illegal movement or release of exotic animals.

Can you describe NWRC’s studies into predator population dynamics, ecology and behavior in relation to predation patterns on species of human concern and endangered animals?

WS field specialists, biologists and NWRC researchers work with federal and state wildlife management agencies to address wildlife damage problems and challenges using an integrated wildlife damage management approach. They rely on a variety of methods and techniques – including both non-lethal and lethal methods – to resolve conflicts.

In order to provide the best guidance and recommendations possible, it is important that WS experts understand population dynamics as they relate to damage issues and management options. NWRC researchers at our Utah field station and other locations are actively involved in studies to understand predator behavior and ecology. For example, researchers are currently investigating trophic cascades in relation to fox, coyotes and wolves, and how the species interact with each other as well as people, livestock and other wild animals, such as endangered/threatened (sage grouse) and game species (mule deer, pronghorn).

Why are such programmes gaining importance? Is increasing conflict between humans and predators driving such research?

WS believes predators are necessary components of ecosystems and play an important part in the environment; however, costs associated with predator damage are high. Coyotes, wolves, bear and cougars are responsible for nearly US $127 million in livestock losses annually. WS helps prevent predation and preserve the livelihood of farmers and ranchers across the US.

WS also works to reduce predation by wildlife and feral animals on endangered and threatened species, such as sea turtles and shorebirds. Conflicts among people and predators in urban and suburban areas are also on the rise. For instance, coyotes have become the top carnivore in many metropolitan areas across the country, including Denver, New York City and Chicago. Though only occasionally seen or heard, urban coyotes often thrive in higher densities than their rural counterparts. In the Denver Metro Area of Colorado, coyote-human conflicts have been increasing since 2008. Historically, about one person each year in the Denver Metro Area reported being bitten by a coyote. Since 2008, 16 people have reported being bitten. This has led to increased concerns for human health and safety and questions for wildlife managers as to how best to manage coyotes living in an urban environment. NWRC researchers are currently studying coyotes in the Denver Metro Area to learn about their behaviour and response to community-based, non-lethal hazing techniques.

Disease control takes many forms, but your researchers have begun investigating the effectiveness of oral vaccinations on the control of the rabies virus. Have you seen any positive results so far?

Since 1995, WS has been working cooperatively with local, state, and federal governments, universities and other partners to reduce wildlife rabies by distributing oral rabies vaccination (ORV) baits in targeted areas. Each year, WS and cooperators distribute about 6.5 million ORV baits in selected states to create a zone where raccoon rabies can be contained. This programme is critical to national rabies prevention as raccoon populations are present in all 48 States.

In the US, terrestrial rabies can be found in many wild animals, including raccoons, skunks, gray foxes, arctic foxes, bobcats, and coyotes. In support of WS’s overall effort to halt the spread and, eventually, eliminate terrestrial rabies in the US, NWRC scientists are researching the behavior, ecology, movement and population structure of raccoons and other wildlife hosts. They are also evaluating techniques used to vaccinate wildlife against rabies to decrease the risk of transmission and maintenance of the disease in the wild.

For instance, NWRC has been active in the development and testing of wildlife rabies vaccines. Though rabies is well controlled in domestic animals, its spread among wildlife populations is still cause for concern. Raboral V-RG®, the oral rabies vaccine used in the US to immunise free-ranging wildlife, requires low temperatures for stability. The longer the vaccine remains viable, the better the odds are for a target animal to encounter the vaccine and become immunised. NWRC scientists have been working on a method called verification, which may help increase rabies vaccination rates for wild, free-ranging wildlife. Verification is the process of preparing materials in a matrix of compounds, usually sugars or polymers, in a manner that, upon drying, results in the formation of a glass rather than a crystallised product. Verification of Raboral V-RG® provides protection from a loss of viability at elevated temperatures. This protection extends through temperatures likely to be encountered in outdoor and non-refrigerated storage conditions.

NWRC researchers are also conducting safety and efficacy field trials of a new live recombinant human adenovirus (serotype 5)-rabies glycoprotein vaccine called ONRAB® for potential use with raccoons and striped skunks. Although the ONRAB vaccine is currently used in Canada to control rabies in raccoons and skunks, this is the first time the vaccine has been field tested in the US. Preliminary results are positive, with results showing the highest zero-conversion rate in raccoons ever observed for an ORV bait used in the US.

How is NWRC supporting researchers and providing them with the tools to conduct resource intensive genetic studies? What discoveries has the NWRC Wildlife Genetics Lab uncovered and how has this gained recognition?

Within the field of wildlife genetics, a variety of genetic approaches can be applied to wildlife management. Such approaches include wildlife forensics, population genetic and phylogenetic studies, gender determination and identification of individuals or species through non-invasively collected samples. Wildlife genetic techniques may be particularly useful in addressing questions that have historically been difficult to address with traditional wildlife management techniques.

Wildlife genetics research was initiated at NWRC in late 2000. Research needs were identified through a survey of Center scientists, stakeholders, and WS operations personnel. Initial studies focused on coyotes and blackbirds, which were considered high priority species. Today, research encompasses a broad range of taxa including wolves, coyotes, vampire bats, raccoons, mountain beavers, beavers, and even avian influenza viruses. The Lab investigates questions at many spatial scales, from metapopulation dynamics to the identity of an individual predating on livestock, and temporal scales, from estimating historical gene flow to elucidating kinship among contemporary individuals.

The NWRC Wildlife Genetics Lab works with a diverse collection of collaborators, including scientists in other programmes at the Center and at NWRC field stations, WS field specialists, university, state and federal agency, and foreign government researchers.

DNA in the NWRC Lab is collected using direct sampling (ie. tissue or blood) or non-invasive sampling (samples that are available from an animal without having to handle it). Scientists have developed techniques to sample coyotes through collecting their saliva from chewed, scented lures placed in the field. This is a unique opportunity to monitor and count coyotes in areas where trapping is unacceptable or unnecessary.

Recent genetic discoveries include the following:

• Sequencing wild bird faucal samples to study the genetic relatedness of the avian, swine, and human H1 and N1 subtypes

• Estimating the population size of Mexican wolves in Arizona noninvasively through the collection of scat

• Detecting animal DNA in the environment. NWRC is using a new method to detect python DNA in water. It may prove useful in helping managers pinpoint areas where invasive Burmese pythons exist and focus management activities in those areas

What have you learned from international efforts to conserve species and minimise the predation of species of human concern? Do you provide any international assistance to these types of programmes?

NWRC cooperates with international organisations to develop, test and implement various tools and techniques to reduce wildlife damage around the world. To date, NWRC has collaborated with more than 90 countries. Detecting and preventing wildlife disease, increasing agricultural production, protecting native ecosystems, and eradicating invasive species are just a few of the many challenges facing scientists and natural resource managers in developing countries. NWRC scientists share their expertise with international colleagues by providing technical assistance and training.

Recent efforts include:

• Avian influenza-wild bird surveillance training in Asia

• Canine distemper and rabies studies in Zambia

• Beaver damage mitigation efforts in South America

• Control methods for bat rabies transmission to cattle in Mexico

• Rodent eradication efforts on Pacific islands for biodiversity and conservation

• Indexing dingoes and coexisting species in Queensland, Australia

To what extent is outreach a part of your work? Do you actively engage the public on the issues concerning wildlife?

Outreach is critical to our success, as often, wildlife damage management issues can be resolved through changes in human behavior versus animal management. NWRC scientists publish their findings in peer-reviewed literature and present at national and international meetings. Efforts are also made to develop outreach materials (brochures, factsheets, web pages, stakeholder announcements, online videos, press releases, etc.) for the general public.

www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/

Could you begin with an overview of the Pacific WildLife Foundation?  

The Pacific WildLife Foundation is a non-profit coastal and marine research and education society based in western Canada that aims to inspire an appreciation for objective scientific research and conservation of the ocean. Founded over 30 years ago as the West Coast Whale Research Foundation, we were early pioneers of field research of cetaceans in British Columbia. In 2003, we underwent a name change to the Pacific WildLife Foundation to reflect a wider interest and understanding of the ecological connections in the ocean.

What is the current state of the North Pacific ecosystem?  

The North Pacific ecosystem undergoes periodic large scale natural changes brought on by a complex interaction of climate, ocean currents, and processes we are only beginning to understand. In addition, there are large and small scale human-induced effects related to fishing, pollution, global climate change and other factors. We know that unregulated harvesting can have long-lasting negative effects; the industrial harvest of whales and sea otters being two well-documented examples.

In the North Pacific, there is some good news in the recovery of some marine animals that were harvested close to extinction, such as humpback and gray whales, and sea otters. Other species have plummeted in recent times for reasons that are not always clear, and they require careful stewardship. The message from these examples underscores how little we understand about how marine ecosystems work, but also that conservation measures can be effective. Tracking change and understanding how to respond should provide guidance to our decisions.

Your mission statement outlines your desire to inspire conservation through scientific enquiry and education. Why do current policies and the curriculum provide insufficient information on the protection of wildlife?  

A tenet of the Pacific WildLife Foundation is that an informed society will make better choices than an ill-informed society. Many children are enthralled by the ocean, but very few students have an opportunity to visit the seashore and even fewer get on a boat on the ocean, despite having the sea on their doorstep. First-hand experiences of the seashore leave lasting impressions regardless of age. Our Foundation Directors, Fellows and Associates have spent a great deal of time at sea leading tours and expeditions where we have witnessed the response to wilderness in southeast Alaska, the Great Bear Rainforest, Haida Gwaii among others. Much of what we do at the Foundation is rooted in our personal experiences with the ocean.

We believe that the next marine biologist might be a young person who takes to the sea. For these reasons, we encourage and provide opportunities with local and international programmes that offer children and adults an opportunity to visit the seashore. One of our goals is to take school children around Vancouver on to the ocean on a solar-powered boat.

The Pacific Wildlife Foundation investigates the status and distribution of marine birds and mammals. By what means do you collect data? What species have you been monitoring and what trends are emerging?  

The Pacific WildLife Foundation has one of the longest running databases of gray whale and humpback whale sightings in Canada. Led by Director Dr Jim Darling, regular searches for whales are made from a boat along the west coast of Vancouver Island to photograph and identify individuals that he periodically publishes in a catalogue. Darling’s data indicates a strong increase in the number of humpbacks in recent years and that many individuals return repeatedly to the region. Some areas on the British Columbia coast once occupied by humpbacks have not recovered, making these datasets a benchmark to measure the speed of recovery.

We are now embarking on surveys to track marine birds and mammals in the Salish Sea, a region of very high conservation importance near Vancouver. We use a standard protocol that relies on experienced observers to record the number seen along a fixed route demarked by GPS locations. In addition, Bird Studies Canada, with whom we work closely with on several projects, has over a decade of monthly shoreline tallies of marine birds. Our aim is to combine the data to produce an atlas of distribution of birds and mammals in the Salish Sea.   

What do genetic and behavioral studies tell us about the health of the marine environment? How are species like the gray whale benefitting from this type of assessment?  

The invention of inexpensive genetic techniques unveiled a new understanding about the family life of gray whales. Darling’s collaborative research indicated that a few hundred gray whales that spent the summer along the west coast of North America were genetically distinguishable from the rest of the herd that continued north to spend their summer in the Bering Sea. The genetic distinction is now being incorporated into how the species is managed.

Although animals cannot speak to us, we can learn much from how they behave. Animals behave differently when they feel safe than when under threat. Our research is focusing on the subtle tell-tale clues in an animal’s behavior to tell us how they feel about predators. A key point is that the mere risk of being killed by a predator can have a profound effect on where prey animals choose to spend their time, when and where they feed and rest, and that can have a cascading effect through an ecosystem. This is an important topic because the removal of top predatory fish from the ocean could have wide ranging effects in the ecosystem.

Coastal development is negatively impacting upon marine life. Which projects are you initiating to tackle human-wildlife conflict?  

Conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong and so we approach issues as a set of hypotheses where the data can inform our decision. One example of this approach is an investigation by doctoral candidate and PWLF Associate Holly Middleton of the impact of industrial greenhouses and residential activity on internationally important waterfowl populations on the Fraser River delta near Vancouver, Canada. She is exploring factors influencing how waterfowl use agricultural lands in the vicinity of greenhouses and residential lands. The research is still in the early stages, so we cannot report the results at this time. However, it underscores our approach to projects and our tagline of ‘objective science for conservation’. We also completed a study that contributed to policy change on disturbance at nesting sites in a national park of a Pacific coast endemic shorebird called the black oystercatcher.

The Pacific Wildlife Foundation have successfully completed the Rebuilding an Ecosystem project which began in 2007. What techniques allowed for successful restoration and who contributed to the task? Do you plan to develop more projects like this one?  

Seagrasses are valuable as a habitat for fish, birds and mammals. Both the abundance and diversity of species of fish increases in and around seagrass meadows, which attracts birds and marine mammals as predators. Seagrass meadows often occupy shallow waters in many places around the world. This brings them into conflict with human developments that have resulted in damage or destruction of meadows.

Our home port is near Vancouver, where long-term residents told us about the demise of a seagrass meadow in the eastern harbor. We received funding to restore the meadow using proven techniques developed by the Seagrass Conservation Working Group in British Columbia, and assembled a team of volunteers from the local community to assist with each stage of the transplant. A spin-off benefit was the cadre of interested volunteers and local media attention to the project. We also discovered that many people want to do something of benefit for the environment around them. Although the seagrass plants remained healthy looking for weeks and months, flocks of introduced Canada geese have uprooted the plants. We have ideas of how to limit the damage and give the seagrass a chance to establish, but it will require new funding. New projects for restoration will depend on funding opportunities.

What challenges currently face the Foundation? How are you preparing for these hurdles?  

A tenet of the Pacific WildLife Foundation is that the best approach to solving marine environmental problems is to base decisions on scientific evidence. We chose to have no employees and keep overheads low so that most funding can be directed to projects rather than administration. Our strength lies among the impressive line-up of researchers, educators and communicators. The challenge is to find and retain highly skilled people with an interest in the ocean environment. We supervise graduate students but we cannot offer them jobs at the Foundation and there are few jobs in general for peer-reviewed research and conservation of the ocean. These facts reduce our ability to mentor a new generation. We are successful at getting grants for specific projects but we are woefully unable to attract funds for ideas that do not fall within the guidelines of traditional funding sources, or to provide continuity. We also would like to become a funding source for marine research, conservation and education. Our strategic plan addresses these issues and identifies the major step forward requires a large funding commitment.

What is the goal of the British Columbia Breeding Bird Atlas? By what means is it collecting data and how will this improve the long term monitoring effort?  

The British Columbia Breeding Bird Atlas is one of a suite of similar atlases completed or underway in Canada to map within a five-year period the distribution and abundance of breeding birds. Each of the atlases relies on a cadre of volunteer citizens to follow a standard protocol to record birds in the province. Pacific WildLife Foundation is one of seven partners in the Atlas project, led by Bird Studies Canada.

The effort is directed using a grid of 10 km squares overlaying the province in which the presence and abundance of all breeding birds is recorded. The project is providing a database for environmental assessments, conservation planning forestry activities and so on. Atlas projects repeated every 15-20 years are compared to previous Atlases to measure changes in distribution and abundance. The results are already being used as indicators of forest sustainability, environmental assessments of industrial projects, conservation mapping, and predictions of climate change effects. The Pacific WildLife Foundation provided logistical support for expeditions to remote coastal locations.

The Foundation participates in oil spill recovery and monitors sites long after an accident. What have you observed in relation to the Exxon Valdez spill? Do you think that current practices are safe?  

The media images of oil-soaked birds and mammals after a catastrophic oil spill grab the headlines but there are subtle effects that lurk largely unseen. It was assumed that the effect of oil spills on wildlife was largely acute mortality due to coating by the oil. Director Dr Dan Esler and his collaborators showed that there are measurable chronic effects from the oil that are not lethal but have a long lasting impact on wildlife. The effects lingered for years after the spill occurred, indicating that recovery requires many years. Furthermore, shipment of products by sea has an inherent risk, even if the risk is low.

How do you communicate the findings of your research?  

Scientific communication is undergoing a revolution via electronic media. Our traditional ways of communicating science to the wider public through documentary films for television, print and radio media, are being replaced by online communication. Many scientists in the past avoided the traditional media because it was aimed at the general public. Now, the new online media allows scientists to communicate with each other or the general public in new and exciting ways. Those scientists who choose not to participate run a risk of being left out of the new discourse in science.

Our Foundation has a long history in communicating our science to the general public and our peers. Although we are a small organisation, we have produced award winning television documentaries and videos of our own and in conjunction with the BBC, National Geographic and other organisations. More recently, we have worked with videographers and film makers to produce pieces for scientific audiences that are linked electronically to published papers, for television, and film festivals.

In the next few years, scientific publishing is likely to become more available to a wider audience. The ability to produce videos and animations is becoming simpler and easier so that journal articles as we know them today, will take a new look and feel molded to specific audiences. Realisation of this revolution should see a new flavor of scientist arise whose career advancement will be dependent on the ability to communicate in this new arena. We get regular comments on our web site and Facebook pages about how much viewers appreciate our videos.

The Foundation has celebrated more than 30 years of successful research and education programmes. Would you care to highlight a few of your most memorable achievements? What is your vision for the coming years?  

One of the earliest achievements of the Foundation was an award winning television documentary called ‘Island of Whales’, in which young whale researchers conducted the first circumnavigation of Vancouver Island in search of whales. The show helped launch their careers and contributed to public awareness of whales in the wild and the emergence of the whale watching industry in Canada. Darling’s visit to Japan many years ago was an impetus for whale watching there, and today, there is a thriving whale watching industry focused on the whales and other marine mammals along the Pacific Coast.

A second major achievement will be the British Columbia Breeding Bird Atlas. We are a partner in the project that will map the abundance and distribution of over 300 breeding species of birds. There are several other exciting projects soon to be made public.

Our vision for the future is a well-informed public engaged in the ocean frontier through their first-hand experiences and the research of the Foundation, as well as a new generation of marine ecologists supported in tackling new and innovative projects into the ecology of the ocean, all relayed to a worldwide audience via electronic media. I can imagine similar organisations emerging elsewhere in the world loosely networked together to collaborate on similar goals. In the meantime, we have set our sights on less lofty goals to establish a secure financial future and grow our expertise.

www.pwlf.org

How do you support the mission of the Sars International Centre for Molecular Marine Biology? How has it evolved to where it is today?

The Sars International Centre for Molecular Marine Biology (SICMMB) was established in 1997 as one investment to support basic research on marine organisms. The Sars Centre has increased in size but is small (eight research groups, 60 persons in total). Consequently its visibility depends on the quality of investigations, which aim to unravel fundamental principles of marine life and its past evolution. After only a few years, the Sars Centre was distinguished with a prestigious partnership offered by the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), which greatly helped to secure long-term funding.

In a recent publication, your researchers at SICMMR revealed that rapid evolution of pelagic tunicates is analogous to the plasticity of animal architecture. Could you provide an overview of this project? What does this mean?

This was, in our opinion, a significant finding, and among those that are hardly predictable when the research begins. Two groups of our institute started molecular biology research on appendicularians – animals that are poorly known by the public but play a fundamental ecological role in the ocean. These animals are small invertebrates but they are rather closely related to vertebrates and humans in particular, as they are in the same phylum. However, as soon as we sequenced their genome, we saw that its general organisation markedly differs not only from that of the human genome, but also from that of the genomes of most animals. In appendicularians, the sequences have changed tremendously, as did the way genes are fragmented in introns and exons, or the way genes are physically ordered in the genome.

The reason for this rapid evolution is not yet understood, but it may be either that these animals are exposed to a high level of mutagenic radiations (they are small, transparent and live on the ocean surface) and/or that they are deficient for the repair of mutagenic lesions. In any case, these animals are morphologically ‘normal’ considering their phylogenetic position and they have very efficiently colonised all oceans. Consequently, the type of genome organisation that prevails in humans and most animals is probably not required to make a bona fide animal. That most animals have kept the same ancestral genome organisation is probably the outcome of a slow and passive evolution, rather than adaptive mechanisms. This finding illustrates the merit of completely new model organisms that pass through molecular biologist’s hands nowadays, containing inspiring surprises that are yet to be revealed.

What have you learnt about the eyes in bilaterian metazoans and other such animals? How does this contribute to our existing knowledge and help to paint a clearer picture of the evolutionary process?

Recent work has indeed focused on new scenarios of eye evolution. It suggests that a former eye precursor common to distantly-related animals was composed of cells which were able to sense light but also able to shield the sensory elements from one side by pigment granule synthesis, enabling detection of the direction of the incoming light. The eye first mediated larval phototaxis by directly targeting a sub-population of nerve cells, but their axons had already grown further, entering the brain. During metamorphosis of the larvae, eye function switched to vision controlling brain-mediated and more complex reactions to light.

We propose that such a kind of eye precursor duplicated and gave rise to the recent larval and adult eyes in annelids. One of the main insights in this discovery is that some marine larva use the same type of photoreceptors used in the human eye. This finding contradicts the previous assumption that the types of photoreceptors used in vertebrate eyes are fundamentally different from those in invertebrates.

The Glover Associate Group focuses on appendicularian neural development. What insight has it provided into the regulation of premotor interneuron proliferation and patterning? How is this understanding benefiting human stem cell research?

The appendicularian Oikopleura has an exceptionally streamlined central nervous system (CNS), with only about 110 neurons in total. Most of the motor control is exercised by the portion of the CNS located in the tail, namely the caudal ganglion and caudal nerve cord, encompassing about 50 neurons, of which 20 are regularly spaced motoneurons. Candidate premotor interneurons include a small set of inhibitory neurons with stereotyped positions within the caudal ganglion.

This suggests a tightly regulated patterning of motor circuitry that is required for proper motor output. In the context of human neural stem and progenitor cell patterning, this evolutionarily miniaturised motor circuitry of Oikopleura may represent the kernel of premotor organisation that is indispensable in all vertebrates and thus likely to be genetically predetermined in humans.

Biomimetics is frequently used in biology to solve human problems. What are the most poignant examples in marine species?

Biomimetics consists of imitating biological objects for the design of new materials and machines. Californian scientists (Daniel Morse and collaborators) have recently, and for the first time, used genetic engineering and molecular evolution to develop the enzymatic synthesis of a semiconductor. The work is based on silicateins – proteins responsible for the formation of silica skeletons in marine sponges. The researchers were able to generate new mineral architectures by directing the evolution of these enzymes. There are plenty of other ideas, including the production of strong glues imitating those used by shellfish to adhere to mineral supports.

What we can say in general is that the enormous diversity of marine organisms in itself provides sufficient promise for discoveries in biomimetics. Just as in screening for new active compounds isolated from marine organisms, the big question is how many of these ideas will end up in concrete achievements. The Sars Centre is not doing research related to biomimetics at the moment. Perhaps the most inspiring aspect of our current research is the house of appendicularians, a large structure in which the animals live and that they use to filtrate and concentrate nano- or pico-plankton. This house, built every three to four hours by the animal, contains several chambers and filters that are amazingly designed. One filter contains a miniature net that would be very challenging to reproduce without using the genome of these animals.

What discoveries are you most proud of? Is the centre on the verge of any other breakthroughs? Do you foresee any challenges that stand in your way?

In general, and after 15 years of existence, we are happy to see that the original objective of the Sars Centre – gaining fundamental knowledge through a curiosity-driven study of marine animals – is more than tenable.

Our most recognised findings are in the field of evolutionary biology. I have already evoked the big surprise of finding an alternative and unsuspected organisation of genomes that are rather close to that of human beings. Such an observation is inspiring because it calls for additional research to see what the common denominator of genomes is, in order to give rise to a given body plan. From a quite different angle, research at the Sars Centre on zebrafish gene regulatory elements has also led to propose a reason for why genome organisation, namely the order of genes on the chromosomes, has been faithfully conserved within vertebrates, and probably beyond them.

Finally, there is a growing debate on what the first animals looked like, with two alternative scenarios. Either animals gradually grew in complexity or the oldest ancestors were very complex and diverged through differential simplification processes and various functional specialisations. The question is not yet resolved but the debate is well set and needs to be fed with appropriate arguments. The Sars Centre, with its demonstrated ability to generate relevant molecular and functional data on a variety of well-chosen marine animals, should be a significant contributor to this question.

www.sars.no

As an introduction, what are the objectives of the Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology (SCWIST)? 

MI: The goals of SCWIST are threefold:

• To promote equal opportunities and support for women in scientific and technological careers

• To educate the public about careers in science and technology and, in particular, to improve social attitudes on the stereotyping of careers in science

• To assist educators by providing current information on careers and career training, science and scientific policies

There has been a global push towards investment in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Have the needs of women been considered in this strategic move? 

MI: Unfortunately not, in spite of good intentions. Many institutions make honest efforts to understand the unconscious bias against women – but it still exists. The question is not ‘the needs of women’ but ‘the needs of humanity’ – applied equally to women. Our culture views everything through ‘gender’ glasses and that causes difficulties that should not exist. There has to be a global investment in STEM and since women are 51 per cent of the population, their needs are, or should be, equal and considered. This could be accomplished through communication and consultation.

Emmanuel Kant said ‘dare to find out’ – stepping out of paradigms is difficult and not rewarding, but it gives one a right to say ‘I told you so’ and sometimes that is worth it. As in science, women should step out of their enclosing paradigm and that takes strength.

JW: Great strides have been made through the years to recognise women as important contributors to the field of science, technology and mathematics. The image of a female scientist has not always been accepted and it has taken a lot of time for reality to match perception.

I think it is important to address the needs of women in pursuing a career in either science or technology. Some Canadian provinces, such as Quebec, have adopted affordable childcare that has made it easier for women to focus on their careers. However, there are still many provinces and countries where affordable and accessible childcare is not an option and women are faced with either choosing career or family. SCWIST has recently endorsed a community plan for affordable childcare and early childhood education. This plan has been studied and proposed by a nonprofit group, the Coalition of Early Child Care Educators of British Columbia.

Popularising science remains a challenge for the current education system. What does SCWIST do to inspire women to study and pursue careers in science? 

MI: Over the years SCWIST has developed a number of programmes that address the excitement that science should engender. Some of these programmes have been adopted and adapted by other science outreach organisations, some we do together, some we did not develop but partner with. These have been targeted to different age ranges. Our flagship, MS Infinity, provides science conferences for high school girls, as well as e-mentorship.

Our career networking evening for college women (XX Evening) was adapted by Science World in British Columbia for high school students, and renamed as Opening the Doors. Immigrating Women in Science provides support and educational events for highly-trained women coming to Canada. We have had programmes, such as Project Tomorrow, for parents of middle school girls so that they will support their daughters’ choices of STEM, while Girls in Science was a late elementary school programme.

JW: SCWIST has a strong volunteer programme where we provide jobs/roles that incorporate skills that our members would like to learn but are unable to gain in school or their current jobs. We have had volunteers looking to make lateral changes in their career in science to areas such as project management, human resources, programme planning, scientific writing, finance, etc., and SCWIST has created roles for these individuals so that they can add to their resumes.

Furthermore, we help young girls and women to learn to be more engaged in the community around them and to become more socially aware of current issues through volunteering. This is something that is not learned in school and SCWIST helps fill in these gaps by providing volunteer projects. Our volunteers contribute thousands of hours to the community every year.

There is still a great need to promote the advancement of women in science and technology careers. How do you plan to improve your actions over the coming years?

JW: To promote the advancement of women in science and technology careers requires programmes that will empower them. We have made efforts to build on our programmes to include board governance, management, negotiation and strategic thinking. We are currently examining ways to extend our volunteer programme for our members by partnering with organisations that are actively working on projects that deal with research that will influence policy. We have an extremely talented pool of volunteers and having them contribute to this work will be a win-win situation for everyone.

MI: We intend to maintain our current programmes but also develop events and new initiatives that address current needs: adapting and developing a ‘personal brand’ in the social network era – not just networking but learning to build those networks; and developing and applying transferable life skills that are applicable not only to science. We also partner with other, similar groups to expand our collective reach and impact. Part of our strategic plan is to bring together women STEM voices and express our opinions publicly to influence public policy.

The Society must remain flexible if it is to respond to ever-changing societal pressures. Can you outline the factors governing how you operate and the actions you take in order to remain effective and influential?

MI: A timely point. We are currently restructuring to be more ‘electronically responsive’ by using social media and our website. We are revisiting our bylaws to provide a legal infrastructure that is flexible because our goals may remain the same, but our paths to reach them may change.

JW: Anticipating change and growth has been a new priority for our current board. We have passed a motion to form an advisory council comprising a group of women who reflect the composition of our membership and the community at large. Open communication between this advisory council is one way in which we will gain an insight into the changing environment and develop effective plans.

To what extent do you work with industry and professionals to help develop a favourable environment for women seeking careers in science?

MI: We have not sought out industries to berate them. Rather, our approach has been to promote and provide access to expert, trained STEM women through job listings – thus eliminating the excuse that ‘there are no jobs out there’. Our XX Evenings and its offspring, Opening the Doors, provide opportunities to talk about building networks, connections, resumes, professional etiquette and ‘the elevator pitch’ – we provide the techniques to gain access to careers.

JW: Although we do not connect our members to industry directly, we host a number of networking events that provide opportunities for our members to meet industry professionals. Similarly, we have received industry sponsorship and have sponsored events. We are looking to develop a portal on our website in the near future to provide mentorship-mentee opportunities to our members.

Immigrating Women in Science and Technology (IWIS) is a dedicated network that supports women throughout Canada. What type of expert advice does it offer? Has it delivered any noteworthy achievements?

MI: IWIS provides practical support as well as support for the community. The practical level consists of the things that a new immigrant may be unfamiliar with – from language to resumes, professional dress, personal branding, and scientific updates in a particular area (eg. Café Scientifique). Through volunteering with SCWIST, immigrating women exercise old skills in a new environment, or develop new skills that they can leverage. The community level of IWIS, through SCWIST, connects these women with others in STEM, both immigrant and local, and helps them form friendships, mentorships and connections that provide a starting platform for their new lives.

And finally, how does the position of women in science and technology in Canada fare in comparison with other countries?

MI: In the Canadian post-Victorian, British-influenced culture, women have had a tougher path from being perceived as delicate flowers to gaining recognition and acceptability than in the old ‘Iron Curtain’ countries. There, women had to enter the workforce, and while misogyny is still rife, women in STEM are accepted even if they may not have it easy. We are not as modern or liberal as most of Western Europe; although on the other hand, my experiences in Indonesia and Nepal have shown that women there are far behind.

JW: I think that in comparison to other countries Canada fares better in terms of the position of women in science and technology: the image of a female scientist is, for the most part, recognised. Our CAN $100 bank note shows a female scientist on it; however, the image of a female scientist in Canada is multifaceted. Canada is a country that is built on immigration and the ethnicity of visible minorities is something that has created controversy. For Canadian women, education is a right and not a privilege, but unfortunately in many developing countries this is not the case. There was a notable case locally, where an international student who was pursuing her graduate studies was brutally beaten by her husband who was spiteful because she was seeking higher learning. This reflects a greater systemic issue that has to do with gender equality rather than being a ‘woman in science’.

www.scwist.ca

To begin, could you explain the history of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB)? What are the guiding principles of the organisation? 

In 1906, the American Society of Biological Chemists began stating its mission as an association that will embrace in its membership all who are interested in biological sciences from a chemical point of view. John Abel of Johns Hopkins University (1857-1938) was the key founder, together with Russell Henry Chittenden from Yale (1856-1943) and Christian A Herter of Columbia University (1865-1910). The original goal was to bring together ‘the best trained and most productive workers on the chemical side of the biological sciences as a whole…’ including ‘…those who deal with the chemical and physico-chemical problems that are encountered in botany (and bacteriology), zoology, physiology, pharmacology, pathology and medicine’. These principles continue to hold true today. Abel and Herter co-founded the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) in 1905; its publication and management was transferred to ASBC in 1919, and, in 1942, JBC became the property of ASBC. In 1987, ASBC changed its name to ASBMB.

What is ASBMB’s mission and how is this being carried out? 

ASBMB’s mission is to advance the science of biochemistry and molecular biology through the publication of scientific and educational journals, the organisation of scientific meetings, advocacy for funding of basic research and education, support of science education at all levels, and promotion of the diversity of individuals entering the scientific workforce. We publish three excellent journals: JBC, Journal of Lipid Research (JLR), and Molecular & Cellular Proteomics (MCP). We host an annual meeting in coordination with other experimental biology-sponsoring societies and we also host four to six smaller meetings on a variety of topics each year. Our very active Public Affairs Advisory Committee supports our advocacy efforts in Washington DC. Our Undergraduate Affiliate Network promotes research experiences for undergraduates, and our Education and Professional Development Committee oversees programmes for K-12 educators and all scientists in training. Our Minority Affairs Committee supervises programmes that highlight minority scientists and facilitate networking and professional development, and it sponsors an Annual Award for a scientist who has supported the advancement of minority scientists.

What is the purpose of ASBMB’s Public Affairs Advisory Committee (PAAC)? To what extent does the PAAC have an influence on policy makers? 

The PAAC monitors and responds to all matters (political, social and philosophical) relating to the government’s role in the practice of modern science. The PAAC serves and advises the society leadership on issues of interest to our members. The PAAC oversees the Society’s Public Affairs Office and sponsors relevant events including Capitol Hill visits by members of the PAAC and ASBMB members; meetings with leadership at science funding agencies including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF); and interactions with coalition partners including FASEB and the Coalition for Life Sciences. The ASBMB public affairs staff generates content for the ASBMB Policy Blotter, the Society’s policy-themed blog and monthly articles for ASBMB’s magazine – ASBMB Today. They distribute a monthly e-newsletter, the ASBMB Advocate, to members of the Society’s Local Advocates Network who want to stay informed of current policy issues, and also sponsor the annual Howard K Schachman Public Service Award and administer the Society’s Science Policy Fellowship. PAAC has also developed an Advocacy Tool Kit that contains materials for use by ASBMB members in their advocacy efforts. Earlier this year, ASBMB was invited to testify before the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services subcommittee in support of funding for NIH. We work closely with congressional staff to provide information regarding the importance of funding for fundamental science research.

Education is another important aspect of ASBMB’s work. How do you support students of biochemistry and molecular biology? 

The ASBMB Undergraduate Affiliate Network (UAN) is a national network of more than 70 college- and university-based chapters dedicated to the advancement of undergraduate research, research-based education, and K-12 outreach in biochemistry and molecular biology (BMB). The UAN offers students and faculty a vehicle for connecting with each other and their local communities through workshops, conferences, research projects, the annual Undergraduate Poster Competition and a publication entitled Enzymatic. The Education and Professional Development Committee (EPD) works to promote more effective science education at all levels, to inform trainees of the wide spectrum of professional opportunities available to persons trained in BMB, and to encourage outreach activities by our members. Together, EPD and UAN strive to support faculty and other BMB professionals in their efforts to attract and educate the next generation of molecular life scientists.

Alongside the NSF, you are sponsoring the Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (BMB) Concept Inventory project. What are you hoping to accomplish through this project and how did this partnership come about? 

The BMB Concept Inventory project is a five-year initiative that focuses on network-building to create and disseminate validated assessment tools for the foundational core knowledge and skills required for biochemistry and molecular biology degrees; it also seeks to promote student-centered teaching approaches. It does so by bringing together a large network of undergraduate faculty and researchers to develop a set of core concepts and skills specific to BMB and to develop assessment tools that may be used to assess student learning. Another goal is to establish a central web-based resource of pedagogical approaches based on cognition research that will be useful to the community of BMB biology educators. Our goal is to impact biochemistry and molecular biology education broadly, across the US, at the programme, departmental, course and faculty levels. In addition, this project aims to serve as a hub to connect BMB faculty from diverse communities, institutions and backgrounds.

ASBMB produces a number of different publications. Could you offer a brief overview of these? 

Building on over 100 years of research, the JBC presents essential research for an international audience and sets a standard of excellence in the field of biochemistry. The journal is published weekly, online with over 38,000 pages annually. Features include Papers of the Week, representing the top 2 per cent of JBC papers; JBC Podcasts reporting on Papers of the Week and Mini Reviews; Classics and Reflections that highlight seminal articles from the JBC archive and the authors behind them; and author profiles. To underline its commitment to the progress of science, the JBC offers teaching tools for educating young scientists and now sponsors the JBC/Herbert Tabor Young Investigator Award that is given to a number of promising young researchers at scientific symposia and meetings throughout the year. Students, postdoctoral researchers, and faculty members who have not yet received tenure are eligible for these prizes.

MCP showcases contributions that describe the properties and expression of proteins and their post-translational modifications. Emphasis is placed on determining how the presence or absence of proteins affects biological responses and how the interaction of proteins with cellular partners allows them to function. MCP publishes three types of original articles: research papers, database articles, and technology development articles. Reviews and articles discussing important unresolved issues (perspective articles) are also published. The journal prides itself on setting standards for the presentation of mass spectrometry data for the entire fields of proteomics, lipidomics and glycomics. MCP has three sponsored lectureships and also sponsors international meetings.

JLR is the most-cited journal devoted to lipids in the world. For over 50 years, it has focused on the science of lipids in health and disease. JLR aims to be at the forefront of the emerging areas of genomics, proteomics, and lipidomics as they relate to lipid metabolism and function. Published monthly, JLR publishes over 2,500 pages annually and features thematic reviews on important topics in lipid research, such as adipocyte biology and the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. Patient-orientated research, epidemiological articles and methods papers round out the journal offerings. JLR is the proud sponsor of lectureships at several lipid-orientated meetings each year, providing funds to the meeting chair to select, cover travel expenses for, and honour an outstanding lipid researcher of their choice.

In what ways is ASBMB’s Minority Affairs Committee working to increase cultural diversity within the fields of biochemistry and molecular biology? 

Our Minority Affairs Committee supports the professional development of under-represented minority scientists by advocating on their behalf and ensuring their visibility within the organisation. In addition to overseeing programmes that enrich the pipeline of future minority scientists and aim to facilitate their success, it also sponsors an Annual Award for a scientist who has supported the advancement of minority scientists through productive mentoring.

The Minority Affairs Committee represents ASBMB at the annual meeting of the Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS) and at the Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS). They strive to facilitate the creation of Undergraduate Affiliate Networks at minority-serving institutions, sponsor scientific and issues-based programming and networking events at our annual meeting, and collaborate with the Education and Professional Development Committee to partner K-12 teachers with local colleges and universities.

How do you envision the future development of ASBMB? Are there any particular goals you would like to achieve? 

During my term as President (2010-12), we established a new mentorship committee to write monthly articles for ASBMB Today on topics related to professional development; this group will also oversee professional development workshops during our annual meeting and throughout the year. A new Public Outreach Committee has been established with the goal of helping our members communicate with the public and convey the wonders and importance of biomedical research. This group is currently in the process of creating a website to help members find out about local science fairs, science cafés, and outreach events; it will help them connect with others who have organised outreach activities and provide templates to help members organise an event or reach out to the public. The importance of public outreach and educating the public about the impacts of science cannot be overstated. We initiated new, regional career workshops for students and postdocs which have been incredibly successful. ASBMB has become the adhering body of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and this coming year will include the establishment of a committee to work with IUBMB in support of international biochemistry. I am proud to have recruited new Editors in-Chief for the JBC and ASBMB Today, as well as a new Director of Public Affairs and a new Public Outreach Coordinator. Jeremy Berg, the new ASBMB President, and the Public Affairs Advisory Committee hope to address the challenges we face given the current business model in the US where faculty salary obligations take a large bite out of overall NIH budgets.

www.asbmb.org