On July 21st, members of each graduate program, eager for a day out of the lab, piled onto buses and traveled to the mysterious Medford campus for hours of friendly competition and socializing for the 22nd Annual Sackler Relays.
Wisely, the competitive running events were up first so as to beat the midsummer heat. Runners braved the July sun to compete in a 100 m dash, a 4 x 200 m relay, and a 1 mile race. The women’s 100 m dash was a photo finish with Neuroscience’s Rachel Jarvis pulling out a narrow victory over CMDB’s Joslyn Mills. Immunogenetics took the women’s mile with an impressive 5:25 mile time by Maiwenn Le Corre! Participants and guests enjoyed food and drink as a break before the rest of the contests began.
Cooperative weather this year allowed for the return of the full event list, including the volleyball bracket and the obstacle course, with Neuroscience claiming a decisive volleyball victory. Unfortunately, dodgeball was cancelled partway through the games due to exuberant and strong throws prematurely deflating the dodgeballs. The day ended in a show of great teamwork, when CMDB stole victory from the MD/PhDs in the final matchup of the tug-of-war tournament.
The final placements saw Neuroscience on top yet again this year with the full standings below:
Following the sporting events, Rebecca Silver, our new Graduate Student Council president, announced the raffle winners of various prizes, which included day passes for the Rock Spot climbing gym, Paint Bar coupons, and Tufts swag, among other rewards. Our new Dean, Dr. Dan Jay (or, D(e)an Jay, as he quipped), introduced himself to the group and gave a rousing speech regarding some of his aspirations and goals in his new position, including new initiatives towards career development and preparing Sackler students for life beyond graduation. We enthusiastically wish Dean Jay the best of luck and look forward to his leadership!
Generous support from the Provost’s Office and the President’s Office were instrumental in making this year’s Relays a success, along with help from the Dean’s Office. The Graduate Student Council, with assistance from Sackler Faculty, held a successful relay day that will only raise the bar for next year! Thank you to Microbiology’s Claudette Gardel for team and event photos, and thank you and congratulations to all who participated!
New England Graduate Women in Science and Engineering (“N-E-G-wise”) is a new alliance between groups of graduate women in STEM from universities in Boston and across New England. We’re joining forces to address the issues facing graduate women in STEM. Join us for our first event, the NE GWiSE Inaugural Retreat, this summer! Details can be found below or at our website, https://negwise.wordpress.com .
Description: Come join us at NE GWiSE’s Inaugural Retreat- a day of connecting graduate women from different universities and collaborating to help make NE GWiSE an organization that can effectively address the issues we face and create change within our community.
We will start off the day being inspired by our opening keynote speaker (TBD). Next, we will have introductions by partner GWISE groups and breakout sessions to discuss how NE GWiSE will function. Finally, we’ll end the day with a scavenger hunt and BBQ social! This is a great opportunity to meet graduate women from different departments and universities, share best practices and recurring issues, and foster collaborations and friendships across the region. We hope to see you there!
Registration closes August 16th at 5pm so sign up now!
Date: Saturday, August 19th, 2017
Time: Registration is 12-1 pm, Opening Keynote starts at 1 pm, Event goes until ~7 pm
Location: BU College of Graduate Arts and Sciences and BU Beach
Coffee and snacks will be served throughout the event. Dress is casual.
The effects of the March and the outpouring of support for scientific research and evidence-based policymaking are already showing, as exemplified by the increase in NIH funding approved by the Congress instead of the Trump administration’s proposed cuts. However, this should not make us complacent in our demands. The EPA’s scientific advisory board is being replaced by representatives of agencies it is meant to regulate, climate change action is still being hindered and the environment is increasingly threatened, and the anti-vaxxers just succeeded in invoking an outbreak of measles in Minnesota. As Dr. Harris Berman, along with the deans of other medical schools in Boston, recently wrote “We must harness this energy and ensure that the March for Science on Saturday marks the beginning of closing the rift that got us here in the first place”, we should also ensure that this march becomes the global movement it is meant to be.The enthusiasm & sense of urgency that brought out the scientists out on the streets on April 22 should be harnessed to battle the anti-science hysteria currently spreading across the nation. The only way to do it would be to not isolate, but engage the public, to whom we have a responsibility for putting their faith in us, in meaningful ways to improve science literacy through relevant communication. Here we present some additional resources for you to get engaged in science activism after the March:
Communicate Your Science – Increasing visibility of scientists and science among the general public would help to shore popular support for scientific research. The #ActualLivingScientist campaign on social media helped dispel the alienation between the scientific community and the people who support their work. Share the importance of your work by writing or speaking about it online or offline. For example, check out The People’s Science’s new initiative, The Field Project, where researchers are encouraged to write a brief summary of their work for the “broadest possible audience”. Talk about your work and how you got into scientific research through our “Humans of Sackler”. Or even better, write for us if you want to practice your writing and communicating skills. Visibility Matters!
Volunteer in Science Outreach – The greater Boston area provides ample opportunities for science outreach programs, especially with large-scale events like Cambridge Science Festival. On a smaller scale, you can volunteer for the BIOBUGS, the Brain Bee, the annual mentoring opportunity at Josiah Quincy Upper School and more. Keep an eye out for emails re: these events & more from the Sackler Graduate Student Council.
Engage in Policy Action – Since the election, scientists have started to take on political action themselves. One such group is 314 action, who seeks to elect “more leaders to the U.S. Senate, House, State Executive & Legislative offices who come from STEM backgrounds”. The Union of Concerned Scientists, who have been fighting for evidence-based policy to solve social & environmental problems since 1969, hosts an advocacy resource where you can learn how to take action with or without getting involved with the organization. If you would like to write about policy, this writing program by Rescuing Biomedical Research can be your first foray into that world. You can also get involved with the new student organization at Sackler, Scientists Promoting INclusive Excellence #@ Sackler (SPINES), which seeks to increase visibility of minority scientists among other goals.
Educate Yourself – If you are not sure on how best to participate in science activism, you can start by learning. Follow the official March for Science blog to learn how the movement is advancing. Check out this online class being offered by faculty from University of Michigan on how to “more effectively discuss knowledge”. Get involved with the Emerson Science Communication Collaborative between Emerson media students and Sackler students. For an even extensive gamut of resources, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has an online toolkit for you to start getting involved!
If you know of any other organizations or groups involved in science literacy, education, outreach & communication, please leave us a comment below!
Anyone who has been to the supermarket or drug store in the last couple of weeks has been bombarded with commercial reminders that mother’s day is just around the corner. Flowers, mom mugs, and cards all vie for attention next to registers beckoning shoppers to make a purchase and check mother’s day responsibility off the to-do list. When I picked up a tea kettle printed with spring flowers for my own mother, I was thinking of it as a mechanism to express my gratitude for all the love and support she has lavished on me. Having recently produced my own offspring, however, I find myself reflecting on the truly amazing biological processes that must occur in order for us to be here to celebrate mother’s day. So in addition to thanking her for being the amazing person she is, I also thank her for embarking on an amazing biological adventure three decades ago.
The grind of assays, meetings, and deadlines often forces us to narrow our focus exclusively on our own little piece of the biological puzzle such that thinking about the larger pattern becomes overwhelming. This weekend I will be trying to contemplate the biology of motherhood with wonder and appreciation instead of my more typical bewilderment.
As med-bio researchers we are more attuned than most to the incredible number of steps that must take place in near perfect choreography for a healthy living organism to result. Dividing cells talk and cross-talk, differentiate at variable rates, and form functioning organs that allow the growing fetus to become more and more independent. For mammals, cross talk between the maternal system and the fetal system trigger additional developmental programs for lactation in mom that were arrested at puberty. In the hood we are happy if we can get our cultures to remain viable for more than several months. With all the resources of a full organism, cells can still be fully functional decades later without resorting to preservation in liquid nitrogen!
Incidentally, there was a student at Stanford a few years back who was also moved by mother’s day to contemplate the science behind the celebration. He expressed his appreciation much more eloquently than I in a ballad that can be found here on YouTube.
This mother’s day take time to celebrate the positive impact your mother has had in your life and use it also as a day to celebrate eons of evolution that result in modern biology. And don’t forget father’s day and grandparent’s day too!
Where you publish can be as important as what you publish. Consider the following when choosing a journal to which to submit your article:
Quality
How does the journal rank according to impact factor and other journal metrics?
Who is on the editorial board of the journal?
Can you easily identify and contact the journal’s publisher?
Is the journal’s peer review process explicit?
Is the journal or publisher a member of a recognized industry initiative?
What opinion do your colleagues and mentors have of the journal?
Relevance
Does the journal publish research that is relevant to your work?
Does the journal publish the type of article that you want to write?
Who reads the journal? Is this the audience that you want to read your work?
Discoverability
Is the journal indexed by major databases, such as PubMed, Web of Science, or other discipline-specific databases? This information can be found on the journal’s website or Ulrichsweb (see below).
Does the journal offer extra services, such as graphical abstracts, videos or social media promotion?
Public and Open Access
Do you wish to publish in an open access journal, or a journal that has an open access option? If so, what are the associated article processing charges (APCs)?
Does your article need to comply with a funder’s public access policy?
Does the journal allow self-archiving a version of the article on a personal website or institutional repository? Is there an embargo period?
Journal Citation Reports: Journal Citation Reports provides Impact Factors, Eigenfactors and Article Influence Scores for science and social science journals.
Scopus: Scopus provides CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) for journals and book series. These metrics are also freely available at Journal Metrics.
Other Resources for Evaluating Journals
Predatory, or illegitimate, publishers and journals have proliferated in recent years. These journals collect article processing charges (APCs) without providing publisher services, such as peer review, editing, and long-term preservation and access, in return (note that many legitimate publishers and journals have APCs for open access). While it can be difficult to determine whether or not a journal is predatory, the questions above and the resources listed below can help you distinguish a predatory journal from one that is not. In addition, you can look at the potential characteristics of predatory journals identified in a recent cross-sectional study of biomedical journals.1
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): COPE provides advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics, in particular how to handle research and publication misconduct. COPE members are expected to follow a code of conduct for journal editors. Search ‘Member’ page for journal or publisher.
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ): Directory of peer-reviewed open access journals. Journals must apply to be included in this directory. Journals that adhere to an exceptionally high level of publishing standards are awarded the DOAJ Seal.
NLM Catalog: Search the National Library of Medicine Catalog (NLM) to discover which journals are indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE and other National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases.
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA): OASPA develops business models, tools and standards for open access publishers. Publishers must apply for membership to this organization, and are expected to adhere to set criteria. View ‘Member’ page for complete membership list.
Ulrichsweb: Ulrichsweb™ is an authoritative source of bibliographic and publisher information on more than 300,000 periodicals of all types–academic and scholarly journals, Open Access publications, peer-reviewed titles, popular magazines, newspapers, newsletters, and more from around the world.
Match Your Manuscript to a Journal
If you are having trouble finding a journal for your manuscript, then try a manuscript matcher. These tools recommend journals based on your manuscript’s title, abstract or keywords.
EndNote Manuscript Matcher: Manuscript matcher, a feature in EndNote online, uses Web of Science data to suggest journals based on the title, abstract and references of your article. Anyone can create an online EndNote account, which can be synced with the desktop version of EndNote. Once you sign in to your online account, look for ‘Match’ in the menu at the top.
Journal/Author Name Estimator (JANE): JANE compares the title and/or abstract of your article to MEDLINE records to find journals that are the best match for your article.
JournalGuide: Free tool that helps researchers evaluate journals. Paper Match feature offers journal recommendations based on your manuscript’s title, abstract and/or keywords. Informational page for each journal lists its aims and scope, Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP), acceptance rate, submission and publication charges, when available, responsiveness and speed of publication. ‘Verified’ journals have been verified by third party indexes as recognized, reputable journals in their field.
1Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, Barbour V, Burch R, Clark J, Galipeau J, Roberts J, Shea BJ. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017;15(1):28; PMID: 28298236.
Writing for Biomedical Publication, David C. Morrison, Christopher J. Papasian, Stephen W. Russell
Location: HHSL Book Stacks, Sackler 5, WZ 345 M878w 2012
This workbook lays out how to think about and write each section of a biomedical manuscript, and how to approach issues such as co-authorship, editors, reviewers and conflict of interest.
Summer is just around the corner, so why not pick up a good mystery? Tana French’s thoughtful mysteries provide an intimate portrait of life in and around modern-day Dublin, Ireland. This is the latest in her Dublin Murder Squad series; while there are recurring characters in this series, it is not necessary to have read the earlier books (although they are all good!)
As scientists who come from underrepresented backgrounds, we have had many informal discussions about the climate at Sackler and advocating for diversity in the graduate programs at Sackler. While Tufts Sackler supports various pipeline initiatives (PREP, P2P, BDBS) we feel that it does not have mechanisms in place that intentionally create a space for minority scientists who are training at Sacker. We met in March and had an open discussion about our interests relevant to the group, the immediate needs of the community, and long term goals.
Mission:
Programs aimed at diversifying the STEM academy have successfully increased recruitment of undergraduate and graduate students from groups traditionally underrepresented in careers in the sciences. An emphasis on recruitment may help to update the narrow image of what a scientist looks like, but additional action is needed to evolve the full picture of who scientists are. We are Scientists Promoting INclusive Excellence at Sackler (SPINES).
Inclusive excellence is a model first proposed by the American Academy for Colleges and Universities and recognizes that efforts of diversity can result in meaningful, measurable improvements in the excellence of an institution when that institution creates an environment that welcomes the cultural diversity of those included. For the STEM academy to benefit from a diversity of contributors, the culture and atmosphere of the STEM academy must update to include that of the new participants. It is this dissonance that may be responsible for the ever discussed “leaky pipeline” or disappearance of diverse bodies from the STEM career path as their career trajectory progresses. As problematic as the “pipeline” analogy is (we can unpack that for days), anyone concerned with progress in the sciences should recognize that this progress requires sustained conversations around social justice issues and retention of minority scientists.
SPINES believes we can help each other achieve inclusive excellence in the sciences by building a community of scientists at Sackler who recognize and celebrate each other’s diversity of ability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation and gender identity. We formally describe our mission below, but loosely we want to build spaces where we feel free to discuss all aspects of our lives as developing scientists. We will offer each other support even if this means giving technical advice as someone works through frustrating equipment errors in the lab or offering a shoulder to lean on as one struggles with the pain and helpless feeling from viewing the latest videotaped example of injustice on the nightly news.
Below we list some short-term goals for the group; however, we would like to highlight that our organizational model relies on horizontal leadership and community-based decision-making. We recognize that the needs and priorities of a community can change over time and therefore we encourage all members to take active roles in developing and implementing their ideas with the knowledge that the entire group will support them.
Short-term goals
• Enhance the diversity of speakers that are invited to give program seminar talks
• Learn about active bystander, anti-oppression, intersectionality, and privilege via reading books, articles, and invited speakers
• Connect incoming underrepresented graduate students with a peer mentor
• Build professional connections with biotech/industry to address the lack of diversity in these sectors
• Provide networking opportunities
Our priority is to establish a welcoming community at Sackler where people of all backgrounds and identities feel nurtured and supported in achieving their scientific, personal, and intellectual goals.
The second annual Sackler Speaks Flash Talk Competition, which took place on April 24, 2017 at 5PM in Sackler 114, was an exciting opportunity for Sackler students to practice their science communication skills in front of an audience and panel of judges. Snacks, wine, and beer were served, and Aaron Bernstein (CMP, 4th year), always the dazzling host, emceed the event.
The speakers had 3 minutes to give a presentation on their research, with the option of an accompanying PowerPoint presentation. The judges were Stefan Gross, director of enzymology at Agios Pharmaceuticals and a graduate of Claire Moore’s lab, and Jonathan Garlick, a Sackler professor whose lab focuses on regenerative medicine using iPSCs.
The event had five participants who spoke in the following order: Dominique Ameroso (Neuro, 2nd year), Julia Yelick (CMDB, 4th year), Linus Williams (MD/PhD, 1st year), Brad Gardiner (CTS, MS student), and Alex Jones (Neuro, 5th year).
Every speaker brought something different to the table, but just from watching the presentations the audience got a fantastic sense of what works best for a flash talk. Some common mechanisms that most helped speakers get their points across were the use of similes to simplify complicated scientific concepts and effective use of animations and imagery in the slides, as opposed to plain text.
The judges had fifteen minutes to discuss and finally announced the winners: Julia Yelick, Dominique Ameroso, and Brad Gardiner came in 3rd, 2nd, and 1st place, respectively!
An informative discussion on what makes a great flash talk followed, led by Garlick and Gross. They both strongly agreed on the following points:
Start with the punch line to grab the audience’s attention.
Use your body language to communicate with the audience- don’t just cross your legs and lean on the podium! Face the group, make eye contact, be excited about what you’re talking about.
Are you addressing the question of, “So What?”
Is what you’re talking about relevant to your life? Is it personal? Is it easy for someone on the outside to understand why it matters?
The significance of this event taking place just two days after the March for Science should not be lost on us—the importance of clear and logical communication of scientific endeavors and achievements is obvious, especially in light of the proposed cuts to science funding. The more curiosity we pique in explaining our research, the more likely we are to receive support and funding.
All in all, the event was a success, but it would be great if more students volunteered to participate next year! This is a great opportunity to practice communication skills with your colleagues and even people from outside of the university. Keep an eye out for the announcement next year and challenge yourself to participate and possibly win a prize!
Patrick Davis, Neuroscience, Fifth-Year M.D./Ph.D. Student: “I’ve been Accused of being a Science Robot”
For this issue of Humans of Sackler, I had the opportunity to sit down with Patrick Davis, an M.D./Ph.D. student in the Neuroscience program. Although I see medical students coming and going around Sackler every day, I confess I haven’t gotten to know many of them – or much at all about the medical school curriculum. So it was a great pleasure to learn more about this from somebody who is as passionate about medicine as he is about science research; Patrick and I had a particularly engrossing conversation about the differences between these two kinds of higher education, and I hope you, dear reader, enjoy and benefit from it as much as I did!
Young Pat with the Chestnut Hill Academy Theoretical Physics Group
AH: How did you become interested in studying science?
PD: I had a physics teacher in 11th and 12th grade – Marty Baumberger – who was just the best teacher ever. He got me so into physics that I started a Theoretical Physics group at Chestnut Hill Academy… I went to Brown University as a physics major. I loved the open curriculum, but I was a terrible student. I didn’t do well my first year, so I switched to an economics major for about a year, and that was completely unfulfilling. Eventually I came to my senses and switched to biology… The thing about Brown: it’s chaos. There are no required classes, so you just mix and match and do whatever. There are requirements for your major, but you could theoretically never take a math class if you never wanted to. What happened to me was the best-case scenario: the first year and a half made me a more dedicated student. I learned that if I’m not doing something I really want to do then I’m going to be lazy, and if I don’t work hard then I’m not going to do well.
At a Macklis Lab get-together, chatting with friend and mentor Alex Poulopoulos (left)
AH: What was your first experience with neuroscience research?
PD: When I graduated from Brown, I didn’t know right away that I wanted to do med school or neuroscience. I ended up working at Jeff Macklis’s lab at Mass General Hospital for two years after college, and that was my first real exposure to neuroscience. Jeff made his name with a series of studies on induction of neurogenesis in the neocortex. I met Alex Poulopoulos there, who has been a mentor ever since, and a very good friend. I would credit Alex almost entirely with piquing my interest in neuroscience, but also with my development as a scientist. I love to come up with an idea, test it, go through the whole process myself, interpret my own data, talk to other people about their data – I like the actual scientific process. Alex just started his own lab at University of Maryland School of Medicine; anybody reading this, please apply to his lab! You could not ask for a better person to work for. He’s interested in how neural circuits self-organize, which is extremely interesting to me as well.
With pals from Brown University
AH: Why did you choose the M.D./Ph.D. path and how have your medical and scientific training differed?
PD: I could never be just an M.D. because I love science too much. The fundamental quality of a scientist is curiosity; medicine is more like service and helping people, curiosity about the people themselves, empathy. The preclinical years are a lot of memorization, but once you get into the hospital, it’s more like an apprenticeship. You’re learning how to do the day-to-day things that a doctor does: how to walk through clinical decision-making, interview a patient, present that information to other doctors, how to work with your hands if you’re doing a surgery rotation… Because medicine is an applied science, the goal there is all oriented around the health of the patient; I don’t think that’s really what science is about. For a long time, medicine has been done in a very parochial way: people in this hospital do it this way, people in another hospital do it another way. Evidence-based medicine still gets a lot of pushback. Take stenting for example: doing a coronary artery stent for someone with angina. About half of the stents in this country are done for stable angina – chest pain when you exercise, but not an acute threat to your health – and it’s now been shown over and over again that that is no better, and possibly worse, than just giving them statins and blood pressure reduction medication and telling them to eat their vegetables and exercise a little bit. It’s because doctors think in terms of, ‘I see it happen, it intuitively makes a lot more sense to me, so it must be this.’ Of course the lines are blurred in real life, but a true scientist would say, ‘We have to trust the evidence, why don’t we look at what’s causing the increased risk of doing the stent, or why do statins work?’ The curiosity that is absolutely necessary to be a good scientist is not necessary to be a good doctor… The types of mind that are selected for by these two professions are almost non-overlapping, they’re completely different.
Even science robots enjoy a night on the town every now and then
AH: What do you like to do when you’re not studying medicine or neuroscience, and how do you find the time and energy to do it all?
PD: I love to teach, I really like being in the didactic role and seeing people learn and discover things for themselves. I tutor for the MCAT, I used to tutor for the SAT, I’ve volunteered for things like middle school science fair mentoring and the Brain Bee. These kids in the Brain Bee were extremely impressive; they knew more facts for this test than I would have! Thomas Papouin and I also started a class trying to teach grad students the basics of the scientific method. There’s a whole rich history of how to think formally and scientifically; and the more aware you are of it and the more you practice it – like by applying these things to your own rotation project or qualifying exam – the better you get at it. The notion that, by just reading papers, this will happen – for some people, maybe it will, but the purpose of the program is to maximize the probability of this happening for everybody… I’ve been accused of being a science robot: the joke between Alex Jones and me is that when I get home, I have a scotch and read PubMed… The M.D./Ph.D.s that I’ve spoken to, the ones that succeed, are recharging one half of their brain while the other one works. Like a shark, like a science shark!
Relaxing by a picturesque mountain lake in the Cordillera Blanca, Peru
AH: Have you had many chances to travel outside of the U.S.?
PD: I’ve traveled through Europe a bit, I’ve been to Peru, Brazil… I was in Berlin at one point, and I decided to just hop on a train and go to Prague. I spent two full days and a night there, and it was awesome. Most of the people spoke English at tourist-type places, but it was fun to walk around, take pictures, be completely by myself… I had a Cormac McCarthy book called “All the Pretty Horses”, and it was nice just being on the train, reading or watching the sites, then walking around the city and going to a café for a coffee or beer. I don’t know much else about Prague, but aesthetically, I can’t imagine a prettier city. Part of why I enjoyed the city so much was because I didn’t expect it to be that way: of course when you go to Rome, you know that one of the greatest civilizations existed here and that every step you take is rich with history, but I didn’t expect this in Prague.
Enthusiastically sharing data at the Society for Neuroscience annual meeting
AH: What topic have you studied for your thesis work?
PD: Under Leon Reijmers’ mentorship, I’m trying to figure out how ‘extinction learning’ happens in the brain: it’s a medically-relevant type of learning that underlies treatment for psychiatric disorders like PTSD. In extinction learning, the patient repeatedly gets exposed to the thing they’re afraid of, you gradually increase the ‘stimulus intensity’, and they learn that it’s safe. So for example, if they’re afraid of spiders, you would show them a picture of a spider at first, then maybe have them in a room where there’s a spider in a corner, then work your way up to having them handle a spider. What I’ve found is that there’s a particular cell type in the amygdala – the parvalbumin interneuron – which acts a critical hub for this kind of learning: if you silence these cells, then you shut down the process of extinction learning. Now I’m using that finding as a jumping-off point to really figure out what’s going on. I’m manipulating parvalbumin interneurons with different frequencies of stimulation and seeing how the amygdala – and the rest of the brain – responds to that. It looks like I can ‘toggle’ the fear state up or down just by controlling this specific type of neuron!
Contemplating the mysteries of the universe
AH: Where do you see the field of neuroscience heading in the near future?
PD: I think that we have tools in neuroscience that 15 years ago, you couldn’t have even fathomed. Not just optogenetics, but recording techniques, chemogenetics, optical electrophysiology, simultaneous local field potentials with single units, closed loop systems… The engineers like Ed Boyden have done us a great favor. But now it’s time for us to step up. I think that in the next 2, 5, 10, 15 years there are going to be many, many discoveries that are really going to blow things open. Once we fall out of love with the mere application of modern tools to hypotheses we already kind of assumed to be true, then we’re going to ask the question: how? You have to record neurons’ endogenous activity, then do experiments that are really informative about what’s going on. In neuroscience, because we have these techniques, we can start asking this kind of question.
