Lindsay Chura | O'Really?

May 4, 2010

Ian Wilmut on the World after Dolly the Sheep

Filed under: biotech — Duncan Hull @ 7:39 am
Tags: Bill Gates, Cambridge Union Society, Dolly, Edinburgh, Gates Scholar, Ian Wilmut, Lindsay Chura, Medical Research Council, MRC-CRM, nuclear transfer, regenerative medicine, Roslin Institute, somatic cell, stem cells

As part of the Gates Distinguished Lecture Series, Ian Wilmut will be giving a public lecture today in Cambridge titled Cloning, Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine: The World After Dolly. More details below from talks.cam.ac.uk:

“Ian Wilmut soared to international prominence when Dolly, a baby lamb created from the cells of an adult sheep [1,2], was revealed to the world. Dolly was the first genetic replica of a living creature created from cells from an adult animal. The accomplishment sparked amazement and controversy as scientists, philosophers, ethicists and religious leaders perceived the potential to extend such work to humans.”

All are encouraged to attend, lecture starts at 6pm today the Cambridge Union Society see press release from the University. [Update: Note last minute change from previously advertised venue at Emmanuel College, Cambridge. See also the accompanying podcast page].
Audio of talk available

References

Campbell, K., McWhir, J., Ritchie, W., & Wilmut, I. (1996). Sheep cloned by nuclear transfer from a cultured cell line Nature, 380 (6569), 64-66 DOI: 10.1038/380064a0
Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A., McWhir, J., Kind, A., & Campbell, K. (1997). Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells Nature, 385 (6619), 810-813 DOI: 10.1038/385810a0

April 28, 2010

Philip Campbell on Science Facts and Frictions

Filed under: publishing — Duncan Hull @ 6:28 am
Tags: Cambridge, Climategate, Emmanuel College, Gates Scholar, Lindsay Chura, MMR, Nature Publishing Group, Philip Campbell, science fact, science friction, scifoo, stem cells

As part of the Gates Distinguished Lecture Series editor Philip Campbell is giving a public lecture at 6.30pm tonight titled Science – facts and frictions at Emmanuel College, Cambridge. The abstract and text below is reproduced from talks.cam.ac.uk:

‘Climategate’, MMR vaccine, GM crops, stem cells – these are examples of public debates in which science and scientists have come under attack. And yet the processes of science were no different in kind from those in calmer territories, such as cancer research, where the public not only trusts researchers but directly donates half a billion pounds every year in their support. Why are there such contrasts? And what can scientists and others do in response to such attacks? The talk will offer some suggestions.

As Editor-in-Chief of Nature, Philip Campbell heads a team of about 90 editorial staff around the world. Dr. Campbell takes direct editorial responsibility for the content of Nature editorials, writing some of them. He is the seventh [1] Editor-in-Chief since the journal was launched in 1869.

Dr. Campbell’s role as Editor-in-Chief of Nature publications (of which there are many editorially independent journals and several websites) is to ensure that the quality and integrity appropriate to the Nature name are maintained, and that appropriate individuals are appointed as chief editors. He sits on the executive board of Nature’s parent company, Nature Publishing Group.

According to the accompanying press release from the University, Campbell:

“is particularly interested in groups of scientists who regularly produce blogs in order to help the public and journalists gain access to their perspectives on scientific developments and controversies.”

So, if you’re in or near Cambridge tonight, this talk is open the public and looks like it will be enlightening.

[Update, some interesting things mentioned in this talk in no particular order:

The Science Media Centre is a pioneering project to help journalists and the public understand the process of Science
Advice for a young climate blogger, gives general hints on how science bloggers should engage with their audience
A paper [2] by Daniel Sarewitz “How science makes environmental controversies worse” discusses some of the frictions between science, scientists and the public. See podcast page and audio below ]

Refererences

Philip Campbell (1995). Postscript from a new hand Nature, 378 (6558), 649-649 DOI: 10.1038/378649b0
Daniel Sarewitz (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse Environmental Science & Policy, 7 (5), 385-403 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001

O'Really?