Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

Professor Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd co-founder and virologist who studies the pathogenesis of polio and influenza viruses commented that there will likely be two influenza vaccines offered this fall: a trivalent vaccine consisting of seasonal H3N2 and H1N1 strains and an influenza B strain; and a monovalent one consisting of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain.

He posited an interesting question to BioCrowd members earlier today: "Will you be receiving a flu vaccine this fall, and if so, which one?"

To weigh in on the topic and find out which vaccines makes sense for you, check out Professor Racaniello’s influenza vaccine survey and discussion at BioCrowd!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Networking @ BioCrowd!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Public Library of Science (PLOS) announced that it has launched a new website called PLOS Currents that is intended to serve as a vehicle for the rapid publication of scientific research and new ideas and themes. Not surprisingly, the first theme for PLOS Currents is influenza. On his Virology blog, Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd cofounder and prominent virologist, discusses why PLOS Currents is important and timely for scientist actively engaged in influenza research and vaccine development.  

The opening of PLoS Currents: Influenza was announced by Harold Varmus, Chairman and Co-Founder of PLoS. He wrote about the reasons for starting this website at The Official Google Blog:

The key goal of PLoS Currents is to accelerate scientific discovery by allowing researchers to share their latest findings and ideas immediately with the world’s scientific and medical communities. Google Knol’s features for community interaction, comment and discussion will enable commentary and conversations to develop around these findings. Given that the contributions to PLoS Currents are not peer-reviewed in detail, however, the results and conclusions must be regarded as preliminary. In time, it is therefore likely that PLoS Currents contributors will submit their work for publication in a formal journal, and the PLoS Journals will welcome these submissions.

Contributions that will be welcome at PLoS Currents: Influenza include research into influenza virology, genetics, immunity, structural biology, genomics, epidemiology, modeling, evolution, policy and control. The manuscripts will not be subject to peer-review, but unsuitable submissions will be screened out by a board of expert moderators. This policy will enable rapid publication of research.

The path to publishing original scientific research is often long and tortuous.  A manuscript describing the findings is prepared and submitted to a scientific journal (such as Nature, Cell, Journal of Virology). The manuscript is assigned to two or three expert reviewers, generally scientists involved in the same area of research. If their reviews are favorable, the paper is published. Usually additional experiments are called for, which may require additional time to complete. Many months to a year may pass before the paper is published, although some manuscripts (e.g. those on 2009 pandemic influenza) may be expedited. The point is that PLoS Currents: Influenza will allow everyone – including non-scientists – to read about research soon after the authors have prepared the paper.

PLoS Currents: Influenza is a terrific idea, and I welcome this venture with great enthusiasm. I hope that PLoS Currents will grow to include other areas of science. But Varmus warns:

Given that the contributions to PLoS Currents are not peer-reviewed in detail, however, the results and conclusions must be regarded as preliminary. In time, it is therefore likely that PLoS Currents contributors will submit their work for publication in a formal journal, and the PLoS Journals will welcome these submissions.

During peer review of submitted manuscripts, new experiments may be suggested that change some of the conclusions of the research. Hence, the papers that appear in PLoS Currents: Influenza may be different from final versions that are published elsewhere.

I wonder how other scientific journals will react to submissions of manuscripts that have appeared in PLoS Currents. Many journals do not accept manuscripts that have already appeared elsewhere. For example, the instructions to authors for the Journal of Virology state:

By submission of a manuscript to the journal, the authors guarantee that they have the authority to publish the work and that the manuscript, or one with substantially the same content, was not published previously, is not being considered or published elsewhere, and was not rejected on scientific grounds by another ASM journal.

It’s time for scientific journals to change this policy, and allow for preliminary publication at sites such as PLoS Currents.

Rapid and open-access publication will drive research forward and help inform and educate the public about science.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On several occasions while driving in upstate New York, I noticed an exit sign on the NY State Thruway for Coxsackie, NY. And, not surprisingly, I began to wonder whether or not the Coxsackie virus was named after this obscure upstate NY town.

I first learned about coxsackie viruses as a graduate student while taking a medical virology course at the University of Wisconsin taught by the late noble laureate Howard Temin. However, despite a thirty year friendship with Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd co-founder and virologist extraordinaire, I never asked him about the origin of the coxsackie virus name. Much to my surprise, he had recently taken a trip to upstate NY and noticed the Coxsackie NY exit sign while driving on the thruway. This prompted him to blog about the coxsackie virus isolation, its pathogenic properties and of course, the origin of its name!

Coxsackie NY and the virus named after it 

by Vincent Racaniello,PhD

Recently while driving north on the New York State Thruway I passed the exit for the town of Coxsackie, NY (population 8,884). I grabbed my camera and photographed the exit sign, and reminded myself to write about the virus named after this small town.

In the summer of 1947 there were several small outbreaks of poliomyelitis in upstate New York. Gilbert Dalldorf, the director of the Wadsworth Laboratory in Albany, NY, and his associate Grace M. Sickles investigated this outbreak. In particular they sought polioviruses that could replicate in mice. This search was motivated by the fact that research on poliovirus required the use of monkeys which were extremely expensive. Dalldorf had attended the Fourth International Congress for Microbiology in 1947 where he heard that very young mice – suckling mice – could readily be infected with Theiler’s virus.

Dalldorf and Sickles made fecal suspensions from two children suspected of having poliomyelitis, and inoculated these into adult and suckling mice. Only the suckling mice (1 – 7 days old) developed paralysis; animals more than one week old were resistant to infection. The damage responsible for limb paralysis was widespread lesions in skeletal muscles, not in the central nervous system as occurs with poliovirus. Further study revealed that the viruses could be distinguished serologically from poliovirus.

Not only had Dalldorf and Sickles identified the first members of a very large group of human viruses, but they also introduced and popularized a new and inexpensive animal into the virology laboratory – the suckling mouse. In 1949 Dalldorf suggested that the new viruses be called Coxsackie viruses, because the first recognized human cases were residents of that New York village. This unique name is of native North American origin.

Over ten years later the importance of this work was recognized by Dr. Max Finland of Boston City Hospital:

The isolation by Dalldorf and Sickles of viruses which produced paralysis with destructive lesions of muscle in sucking mice and hamsters, from the stools of two children with signs of paralytic poliomyelitis was an achievement that may rank in importance with Landsteiner and Popper’s production of human poliomyelitis in monkeys.

In subsequent years many different Coxsackie viruses were isolated that cause a variety of clinical syndromes. Today at least 30 serotypes of Coxsackie viruses are classified in the enterovirus genus of the Picornaviridae. The viruses are classified into groups A or B depending upon the pathological effect in suckling mice.

Not every locale is pleased to have a virus named after it. In May 1993, an outbreak of an unexplained pulmonary illness occurred in the southwestern United States, in an area shared by Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah called “The Four Corners.” Muerto Canyon was proposed as the name for the etiologic agent of the disease, because the virus was first isolated from a rodent near the canyon. However after residents objected, the name Sin nombre virus was given to the agent of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome.

Dalldorf G, & Sickles GM (1948). An Unidentified, Filtrable Agent Isolated From the Feces of Children With Paralysis. Science (New York, N.Y.), 108 (2794), 61-62 PMID: 17777513

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A quick perusal of the media coverage of the swine flu outbreak of 2009 would lead many to conclude that this outbreak has the potential to rival or surpass the 1918 flu pandemic—widely regarded as the worst influenza outbreak in history. While the emergence of a new H1N1 swine flu variant is significant note worthy— and has possible public health implications— the unrelenting, often scientifically-inaccurate media coverage did little to quell the fear and anxiety of many Americans.  Once again, the media—rather than physicians, public health officials and influenza experts—“got out in front of the story” and managed to create enough panic, fear and anxiety, the likes of which haven't been seen since the 2003 SARS pandemic. It wasn't until last Friday, when the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Dr. Peter Palese—a leading scientific expert on influenza A infections— did a clearer picture emerge about the severity and public health implications of the current swine flu pandemic.

According to Dr. Palese, there are several reasons why people and public health officials ought to be optimistic about the current pandemic:

• In 1976 there was a an outbreak of an H1N1 swine virus in Fort Dix, New Jersey, which showed human to human transmission but did not go on to become a highly virulent pandemic strain
• The presently circulating swine virus is most likely not more virulent than the other seasonal strains we have experienced over the last several years
• The current swine virus lacks an important molecular signature (the protein PB1-F2) which was present in the 1918 virus and in the highly lethal H5N1 chicken viruses.  If this virulence marker is necessary for an influenza virus to become highly pathogenic in humans or in chickens, then the current swine virus doesn’t have what it takes to become a major killer
• Since people have been exposed to H1N1 viruses over many decades, we likely have some cross-reactive immunity against the swine H1N1 virus. While it may not be sufficient to prevent becoming ill, it may very well dampen the impact of the virus on mortality.  I would postulate that by virtue of this “herd immunity” even a 1918-like H1N1 virus could never have the horrific effect it had in the past.  The most likely outcome is that the current swine virus will become another (fourth) strain of regular seasonal influenza

The landscape of vaccines and anti-influenza drugs has dramatically improved over what it was just a few years ago. Based on what we know of the structure and sequence of the swine virus, these FDA-approved drugs and FDA-licensed vaccines (modified to include the swine strain) would be highly effective against this new virus.  Also, present technologies as well as manufacturing capacities will allow us to make sufficient quantities of a swine virus vaccine for the winter 2009-10 influenza season in the US.

In other words, there is reason for concern but no need to panic beyond typical public health precautions that are taken during “normal” influenza outbreaks.

Dr. Vincent Racaniello, a viral disease expert who writes the Virology Blog, reported that as of Monday there have been laboratory confirmed cases of H1N1 infections in 30 US states with a total of 226 cases and one death in Texas. Globally, 20 countries had reported 985 cases of infection. The highest numbers are in Mexico, with 590 cases and 25 deaths. While there have been 26 deaths to date, the severity of the infection appears to be waning and person-to-person transmission appears to be low.

Unfortunately, there has been some fallout from the news media’s oft times “over the top” coverage of the pandemic. Many US hospital emergency rooms (most notably in Texas and California) have been overwhelmed and overburdened by visits from people who think they may have swine flu. Also, while some schools and daycare center closures were warranted, others may not have been. Finally, and perhaps most important, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the lay public's understanding of infectious agents and the outbreaks that they cause is grossly deficient and must be improved. 

We live in a world where viral pandemics, food poisoning outbreaks and infections caused by multiple-antibiotic resistant bacteria are becoming commonplace. While vaccines, antivirals and antibiotics can afford some protection against many viral and bacterial disease, the best way to fight infectious diseases is to understand what causes them, how they are spread and what public health measures can be implemented to prevent or control their transmission. Until the world becomes better educated about infectious diseases, we will continue to be overly-dependent on the news media during future outbreaks and epidemics.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Vincent Racaniello, an intrepid virologist and BioCrowd co-founder, has been keeping folks up to date on the swine flu outbreak on his blog. Today, Vincent wrote: “There are now 257 laboratory confirmed cases, with 7 deaths, in 11 countries. In the US there are 109 cases  in 11 states. There are many more suspected cases; together the statistics indicate widespread dissemination of the new H1N1 influenza virus. I no longer doubt that this is the next pandemic strain. WHO will probably soon raise the level of influenza pandemic alert from phase 5 to phase 6. Important questions include whether spread will continue in the northern hemisphere through the summer, or stop very soon, as is the case with most influenza virus outbreaks. Unfortunately the southern hemisphere seems in for an extended flu season. Will antivirals be useful in reducing morbidity and mortality? Will the virus returns to the north in a more virulent form in the fall? Can a vaccine be prepared in time?”

 For answers to these questions and others, please visit the Virology Blog or join BioCrowd to chat with Vincent. Check his virology blog for the most up-to-date swine flu information.

 Until next time... 

 Good Luck and Good Virus Hunting (or not)!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By now everybody has heard that there is a Swine Flu epidemic that started in Mexico and may morph into a worldwide pandemic.  The media's coverage has been mind numbing and overwhelming.  For those of you who want the real skinny on the outbreak, I recommend that you read a post on the Virology Blog run by BioCrowd founder and virologist Vincent Racaniello.

Vincent did his PhD work on flu in Peter Palese's lab, one of the world's leading influenza experts.  In addition to his blog post, Vincent along with Dick Despommier and Alan Dove created a also created a podcast on swine flu last Friday as the epidemic began to unfold. Check it and other virology podcasts out on This Week in Virology (TWiV).

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Reading/Listening

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you are not convinced that vaccines are safe, please listen to a conversation between Dr. Ginger Campbell of the Brain Science Podcast and Dr. Paul Offit.

Dr. Offit is a pediatrician who is also Chief of Infectious Diseases and Director of Vaccine Education at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. He is co-developer of the rotavirus vaccine and author of the book Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure. This book should be read to obtain a complete appreciation of the vaccine-autism controversy. However, I found the podcast also highly compelling, because Dr. Offit is extremely knowledgeable and an excellent speaker.

The furor surrounding childhood vaccines began when Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, published a Lancet article in 1998 claiming to show a link between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) and development of autism in children. Although the study was flawed, it established a clear question: does MMR cause autism? This question has been addressed in 12 different epidemiological studies involving millions of children who either did or did not receive the vaccine. The answer is quite clear: that vaccine never caused autism. Here are Dr. Offit’s thoughts on this:

…science is enormously self-correcting. Andrew Wakefield stands up in 1998 and says, ‘I believe MMR causes autism.’ Well, he raises a hypothesis. It’s a testable hypothesis. It’s been tested. He was wrong. And that’s what I love about science. It’s just enormously self-correcting, and I just think people don’t see it that way¹

The original Wakefield paper has been retracted by 10 of the 13 authors. However, the damage has been done: immunization rates with MMR have dropped in the UK, Europe, and the US. The incidence of measles is increasing and there have been deaths of children from the disease. Deaths that could have been prevented had parents chosen to have their children immunized with MMR. The controversy over MMR has lead the public to distrust all viral and bacterial vaccines, and consequently the incidence of other preventable diseases is rising.

The notion that MMR causes autism was accompanied by safety concerns about thimerosal - a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines to prevent microbial contamination. The results of several large epidemiological studies found no connection between autism and thimerosal. Nevertheless, the preservative was removed from most childhood vaccines - probably an error, according to Dr. Offit, which simply made parents more suspicious. Autism rates have not dropped since the use of thimerosal was discontinued.

Many parents still do not believe the conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism. Part of the problem is that the etiology of autism is not understood. To a parent, the temporal association of immunization with onset of autism is difficult to ignore. Dr. Offit recalls a story which addresses this issue:

…it’s hard to make a statistical argument, or an epidemiological argument, to a parent who’s seen something that’s very emotional. There’s a story that I tell, because I think it’s a powerful one. My wife is a privately practicing pediatrician in the suburbs. And she was in the office one day and there was a four-month-old sitting on her mother’s lap. And my wife was drawing a vaccine into a syringe that she was about to give this child. Well, while she was drawing the vaccine into a syringe the child had a seizure, and actually went on to have a permanent seizure disorder—epilepsy. And there had been a family history of epilepsy, so she was certainly at risk for that. If my wife had given that vaccine five minutes earlier, I think there’s no amount of statistical data in the world that would have convinced that mother that anything other than the vaccine caused the seizure, because I think those sort of emotional events are very hard to argue against.

Some have accused Dr. Offit of pandering to the pharmaceutical establishment and enriching himself by publishing Autism’s False Prophets. I don’t think these arguments contain a shred of truth. Dr. Offit is donating all the royalties from the boook to autism research. More compelling are his words from the interview:

I worked on that (rotavirus) vaccine because I thought that it could do a tremendous amount of good for children. It’s the same reason that I stand up for the science of vaccines and the science of vaccine safety. I care about children. That’s my motivation.

¹Quotations by Dr. Offit are taken from a transcript of his conversation with Dr. Ginger Campbell.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The sequence of all known rhinovirus genomes reported in Science last week is an important advance for the field. Analyses of the sequences have revealed new relationships among the viruses, evidence for recombination, a new viral species, and conserved regions of the genome. These findings will be extremely valuable for those studying the biology, pathogenesis, and epidemiology of the common cold. But the press has over reacted to this work -  it was reported on the front page of the New York Times with the headline “Cure for the Common Cold? Not Yet, but Possible“.  Does the work deserve such fanfare?

The Times quoted Stephen Liggett, an asthma expert, as saying “We are now quite certain that we see the Achilles’ heel, and that a very effective treatment for the common cold is at hand.” He was apparently referring to the observation that a sequence within the 5′-noncoding region of the viral genome is highly conserved among the 99 rhinovirus sequences, in comparison with other regions of the viral RNA. He suggested that all 99 rhinovirus serotypes would therefore be susceptible to the same drug. But what kind of drug, and what function would it inhibit? The very 5′-end of the genome of enteroviruses and rhinoviruses binds viral and cellular proteins, and these interactions are essential for viral replication. So it might be possible to identify small molecules that block these protein-RNA interactions. But such drugs are very difficult to identify. Furthermore, if such a drug were identified, its efficacy would have to be tested against all rhinovirus serotypes. Therefore it is not clear that knowing that this sequence of the genome is conserved helps to identify drug targets and more readily than did the observations made years ago about the importance of RNA-protein interactions in this region. Clearly, many years of research are needed before such drugs are developed - not consistent with Dr. Liggett’s a treatment is ‘at hand’.

An even more crucial aspect of the problem was omitted from the Times article. Even if an antiviral drug could be identified that blocks essential RNA-protein interactions, it probably would not be useful in treating the common cold. As we discussed last week, rhinoviruses cause acute infections - characterized by rapid onset of disease, a relatively brief period of symptoms, and resolution within days. Most are complete by the time the patient feels ill, and the virus has already spread to another host. Antiviral therapy  must be given early in infection to be effective. There is little hope of treating most acute viral infections with antiviral drugs until rapid diagnostic tests are become available.

To be fair, some of the scientists quoted in the Times article were more realistic about the possibilities for rhinovirus treatments. One antiviral drug expert noted that it costs about $700 million to bring a drug to market. Because most rhinovirus infections are benign, who would pay for such an expensive drug, and would the Food and Drug Administration ever approve it? Ann Palmenberg, the lead author on the study, was even more realistic, admitting that a rhinovirus vaccine would not likely be made.

I cannot see how this new study identified a new or better target for therapeutic intervention. So why get the public excited by running a front page headline in the New York Times? It’s great to keep the public informed about scientific progress - but the press should not cry wolf. If this advance does not soon lead to a treatment for the common cold, the public will shake their heads and lose a bit more trust in science.

I’m not blaming the scientists for this over reaction to their study. I am sure that the journal Science engaged in strong pre-publication promotion: more publicity is better for their advertising revenues. And the newspapers are equally at fault: they should speak to a broader range of scientists to obtain a more balanced view. I particularly blame the author of the Times article, Nicholas Wade, for not sufficiently researching his article.

Perhaps Dr. Liggett and his colleagues would benefit from the lessons of history - specifically, the history of poliomyelitis and its conquest. On March 9, 1911, three years after the isolation of poliovirus, The Rockefeller Institute issued a press release, saying that it believed “that its search for a cure for infantile paralysis is about to be rewarded. Within six months, according to Dr. Simon Flexner, definite announcement of a specific remedy may be expected.” They quoted Dr. Flexner:  “We have already discovered how to prevent the disease, and the achievement of a cure, I may conservatively say, is not now far distant.” Dr. Flexner’s imminent ‘cure’ was a failure, and a successful poliovirus vaccine required another 44 years of research. Last week’s Times article seemed to have a similar overdose of hubris.

A. C. Palmenberg, D. Spiro, R. Kuzmickas, S. Wang, A. Djikeng, J. A. Rathe, C. M. Fraser-Liggett, S. B. Liggett (2009). Sequencing and Analyses of All Known Human Rhinovirus Genomes Reveals Structure and Evolution Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1165557

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this month, Vincent Racaniello and I launched a new social network called BioCrowd. Vincent and I created BioCrowd because we believe that social media has a critical role to play in the evolution of the life sciences and existing 'science social networks' were difficult to navigate or too broad to adequately meet the needs of the bioscience community.

Our objectives are  to promote scientific and business interactions between BioCrowd members and offer advice to members who may be seeking to advance their careers or find jobs. To that end, we decided to create a monthly podcast that will keep network members apprised of all of the comings and goings at BioCrowd.

Please send us your feedback on our very first podcast.  Also, feel free to suggest topics that you would like discussed on future podcasts! 

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Listening!!!!!!!!! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For those of you virology junkies out there, This Week in Virology (TWiV) has just released a podcast on the top 10 virology stories of 2008. BioCrowd founder, Vincent Racaniello and Alan Dove, a professional science writer (and one of Vincent's former students), discuss their top picks for 2008 and make some predictions for 2009.

For those of you with no plans for this evening’s festivities, open a bottle of champagne, kick back and have a listen—it's good stuff!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was originally written by Vincent Racaniello, a long time friend and colleague, who runs the Virology Blog. 

Here is what Vincent had to say:

My colleagues (generally the older ones) often ask me why I blog or podcast. They believe that I am wasting my time. After all, I am a scientist, and it is my job to carry out research. In order to do this I must publish papers and obtain grants. The grant funds are used to pay salaries (mine and those in my laboratory) and purchase the supplies needed for research. In my institution, nothing matters except raising money for research. Teaching, mentoring, and other community services mean very little. Blogging and podcasting do nothing to help fund my laboratory.

Here are my answers. Why did I go into science? Because my parents (physician and teacher) and my teachers inspired me. But for many other children, the only inspiration they have is their teachers. They need input from other sources. I believe I can help provide that input over the internet.

Most people - kids, teens, adults - don’t understand science. Their teachers can provide only a very rudimentary, often flawed view of some of the fundamental concepts. While I cannot cover all of science, I can do a good job of teaching what I know. I have been studying and thinking about viruses for over 30 years, so I understand them quite well. I am also able to talk and write about them clearly and concisely, a gift I probably received in part from my teacher parent. These qualities put me in a unique position to educate the public about viruses. 

Early in my career, I didn’t think much about teaching. I focused on research. Later I realized I had a reasonable ability to communicate what I knew, which turned into a love of teaching. My blogging and podcasting about viruses represent part of the effort to impart some of my knowledge to the public. 

As I have read and heard many times on the web, if you want to blog or podcast, do it about something you are passionate about. And that is what I am doing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The summer is drawing to a close, it is Labor Day and I decided it was time for a break.  Despite the title of this post, I am not really on a fishing trip.  Instead, my wife and I decided to take the family on a "moosing " trip in Maine.  Moose have a special place in my family mostly because of my daughter's affection for  moose toys, you know what I am talking about.

While she has an extensive moose collection, she has never seen a moose in the wild. That said, we decided to take a trip to Maine (the land of moose)  after reading about a moose cruise offered by a resort located on Moosehead Lake in northwest Maine.  Although the ten hour car ride was a bit of a schlep, a trip to Maine is always worth the effort.

I am happy to report that we spotted several moose on the cruise including an extremely large bull moose with incredible antlers, a female and two calves.  Although I have seen many moose in my time, there is something very special about seeing moose in the wild with the entire family in tow.  The only family members who didn't share the experience were Sandy (the Havanese being cared for by friends in NJ) and Moose (yes, that is his name) our rescue dog of indeterminate breeding who had to stay back in the log cabin overlooking Moosehead Lake.

I promise to make it back to NJ to continue blogging about jobs, career development and biotech news.  Also, please remember that Vincent Racaniello and I are launching our bioscience social network BioCrowd in mid to late September.  So, if you want to be part of the BioCrowd, please join today!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The social development of the web 2.0 has largely bypassed science. Hugely popular websites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Digg, Delicious and the like have millions of members and generate huge amounts of traffic. But those who use these sites come from all walks of life. None are devoted solely to science.

With this in mind, it would seem that social networking sites that cater to scientists would have special value and appeal. A few have been launched —but there is certainly room for improvement.

This fall, Vincent Racaniello at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and I will launch BioCrowd.com, a new social network designed by scientists (Vincent and me) for bioscientists (and others in the life sciences) who wish to connect with others to advance, promote or shape their careers.

Please visit the home page to sign up to be notified when we launch. BioCrowd will combine the interactivity of sites like Facebook and the networking capabilities of LinkedIn to help to advance your career in the biosciences.

Be part of  "The BioCrowd" !!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link