NEWS
NEWS
IN THIS ISSUE
Candidate Statements Catalyst Awards
Voting for the GPSA Elections Students get inside access to will be held April 7-15 product development » PAGE 5 » PAGE 10
News Briefs » PAGE 3 Mythbusters » PAGE 9 Puzzles » PAGE 11
Synapse The UCSF Student Newspaper
Thursday, April 3, 2014
NEWS
synapse.ucsf.edu
Volume 58, Number 25
NEWS
GSICE Program Scientific Publishing In The Era of Open Access Helps Graduate Students Explore Career Options Part 2 This series explores the impact of open access journals on the scientific publishing industry. In this installment, we examine the publishing industry’s response to the growing popularity of open access journals.
By Alexandra Greer Science Editor
By Alexandra Loucks Staff Writer
I
magine yourself five years out from getting your PhD. You could be a science journalist working for a newspaper, or in a boardroom actively convincing venture capitalists which of the latest scientific advancements they should back. Perhaps the thought of working with politicians in Washington, DC to reform STEM education policy makes your heart race. Or, maybe you are simply unsure if academia is the right trajectory for you but don’t know what else to do. If the latter applies to you, you are not alone. As far back as 1998, a study published by the National Research Council stated that the number of academic, government and industry jobs was inadequate for the number of PhDs being churned out, revealing a need to drastically alter how graduate programs prepare students for future careers. The NIH Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report stated similar findings in 2012, and suggested that graduate programs expose students to alternative careers early on in their training and provide support for the transition. Luckily, at UCSF we have the visionary leadership that identi-
GSICE » PAGE 3
I
n October 2013, Science published an exposé of the peer review system at open access journals around the world. In his self-described “sting operation,” author John Bohannon submitted a critically flawed scientific article to hundreds of open access journals, with the intent of evaluating the quality of their peer review process. Unlike the traditional closed access model of scientific publishing, in which subscription fees cover the cost of editing, publication and distribution of the scientific journal, open access journals are, as the name implies, free to access. Bohannon’s article painted a bleak picture of open access peer review. Out of roughly 300 journals tested, 157 open access journals accepted the paper, 98 rejected
Photo by Mason Tran/D4 Stacks of scientific journals on library shelves are becoming a vanishing sight as more publishers offer open access journals and other online subscription options.
it and 49 did not respond to the submission. However, Bohannon’s article, along with the journal Science, received criticism for appearing biased because it failed to test the peer-review processes of any closed access journals alongside its test of open access journals. This questionable piece led to speculation about Science’s motives. Open access offers scientists a publishing alternative to the traditional closed journal model, and its growing popularity among scientists could threaten the bottom line
of traditional journals and publishers. As both the content creators for as well as the end users of scientific journals, scientists are intimately wedded to the publishing industry. Until recently, scientists had few options when it came to where to publish their research. The rise of the World Wide Web, with its ability to cut out the middleman, has brought disruption to scientific publishing. Open journals are able to make their articles available to the public for free over the Internet
SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING » PAGE 8
NEWS
Panel to Address State of the DTC Genetic Testing Industry Oxbridge Biotech Roundtable will host April 7 debate By Benjamin Cohn Staff Writer
T
Photo by Ernesto Diaz-Flores/Postdoc Students chat during an "GSice-breaker" seeson of the Graduate Student Internships for Career Exploration (GSICE) program.
he letter arrived in November. It was a cease-and-desist from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) addressed to CEO Anne Wojcicki: “Since July of 2009, we have been diligently working to help you comply with regulatory requirements regarding safety and effectiveness … You have not worked with us. Therefore, [you] must immediately discontinue marketing the [genetic testing kit] until such time as it receives FDA marketing authorization…” For only $99, Wojcicki’s company, the
Mountain View, California-based 23andMe, sells a kit which—until November—allowed customers to have DNA in their saliva tested for common genetic variants related to over 240 health conditions and traits. The traits range from the inane—earwax type or reading ability, for example—to the grave, such as risk of developing Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s. Though 23andMe continues to sell their kit, they now provide only non-health related interpretations of customers’ raw genetic data, which is primarily ancestry information. The FDA had long resisted regulating the direct-to-consumer genetics industry, so why
GENETIC TESTING » PAGE 9