1 00:00:09,170 --> 00:00:10,550 Welcome to the centre. 2 00:00:10,550 --> 00:00:19,400 Personalised Medicine podcast hosted by G.U. and the president of the Oxford Personalised Medicine Society and me, Dr. Unexceptionable, 3 00:00:19,400 --> 00:00:27,830 junior research fellow at the centre, the centre of Personalised Medicine Short CPM is a partnership between the University of Oxford. 4 00:00:27,830 --> 00:00:32,460 Welcome Centre for Human Genetics and Sundowns College. 5 00:00:32,460 --> 00:00:42,050 The CPM provides opportunities for students, academic clinicians and the public to explore the benefits and challenges personalised medicine. 6 00:00:42,050 --> 00:00:46,490 This first episode is part of our Meet the Advisory Board series. 7 00:00:46,490 --> 00:00:52,960 We have the honour to talk to Dr. Mark Delana, skipper, geneticist and editor in chief of the journal Nature. 8 00:00:52,960 --> 00:00:57,620 She is over 18 years of experience in science publishing and has made history as nature's 9 00:00:57,620 --> 00:01:03,610 first female editor in chief and first editor in chief from a life sciences background. 10 00:01:03,610 --> 00:01:08,240 Lena, thanks very much for joining with us today. It's my pleasure to be speaking with you. 11 00:01:08,240 --> 00:01:12,530 Congratulations on being the first woman as an editor in chief and they train history. 12 00:01:12,530 --> 00:01:16,790 How is the environment for women in science changed over the course of your career? 13 00:01:16,790 --> 00:01:22,810 And what do you think still needs to be done? Well, first of all, thank you very much for having me on the podcast. 14 00:01:22,810 --> 00:01:28,960 It's a real pleasure and an honour, actually, to be speaking with you and sharing my views with you. 15 00:01:28,960 --> 00:01:37,730 So turning to your question specifically. There have been some really impressive changes for the better during my career. 16 00:01:37,730 --> 00:01:46,900 And indeed, as you said, I'm the first woman in the role of editor in chief of nature in its hundred fifty year or 151 year of its history now. 17 00:01:46,900 --> 00:01:55,300 But of course, it's really important to acknowledge that the number of women in senior roles in science is increasing, has been increasing. 18 00:01:55,300 --> 00:02:01,660 So, you know, look at the recent appointments to OSTP in the US, 19 00:02:01,660 --> 00:02:08,840 the head of National Academy of Sciences, the head of UK are I the chief scientist in Australia? 20 00:02:08,840 --> 00:02:17,860 And of course, there are many other examples where there are outstanding, impressive women who are role models in these very prominent positions. 21 00:02:17,860 --> 00:02:25,360 And of course, women researchers are much more visible at conferences, in conference programmes, on discussion panels. 22 00:02:25,360 --> 00:02:33,100 And of course, that's really important. And a number of event organisers, including actually major conferences, which, you know, 23 00:02:33,100 --> 00:02:37,900 this editorially led conferences that we organise as part of a nature portfolio. 24 00:02:37,900 --> 00:02:46,540 Events have come forward to actually state clearly that they want to have gender diversity amongst the speakers in discussion panels. 25 00:02:46,540 --> 00:02:57,490 And these are really important initiatives. What I should also say that it's not just the presence of women in these roles that matters. 26 00:02:57,490 --> 00:03:07,150 What really matters also is that the focus of research itself is more inclusive of women and for example, 27 00:03:07,150 --> 00:03:15,520 in animal research, that more and more attention is paid to the sex of animals that are being studied and given studies. 28 00:03:15,520 --> 00:03:22,090 And so, you know, to extend this, once upon a time, women were not included in clinical trials or very rarely. 29 00:03:22,090 --> 00:03:24,370 And of course, it's really important that, for example, 30 00:03:24,370 --> 00:03:31,050 drug toxicity and efficacy are tested in women as well as a matter of course, across different populations. 31 00:03:31,050 --> 00:03:36,790 You know, we've all heard the story of safety equipment being tests such as, for example, seatbelts. 32 00:03:36,790 --> 00:03:44,380 I think that has become a really well known case, that originally seatbelts were designed for male anatomy predominantly. 33 00:03:44,380 --> 00:03:48,880 Which, of course, has meant that they are less protective of women. 34 00:03:48,880 --> 00:03:55,750 Final thing to say here. I have been very upbeat. I think that reflects my general outlook on life. 35 00:03:55,750 --> 00:03:59,470 But of course, the problem has not been solved. 36 00:03:59,470 --> 00:04:06,160 We don't have equity and parity in research in positions of decision making. 37 00:04:06,160 --> 00:04:10,180 And actually, during the last year and into this year, during the pandemic, 38 00:04:10,180 --> 00:04:16,240 we have seen that women have been disproportionately affected in professional settings. 39 00:04:16,240 --> 00:04:22,600 We, because of our focus, have made me looked at women in research and clinical practise. 40 00:04:22,600 --> 00:04:29,770 But of course, right across the spectrum, in terms of, for example, job losses, women have been affected more, 41 00:04:29,770 --> 00:04:34,840 for example, because they tend to be maybe more and more frequently on short term contracts. 42 00:04:34,840 --> 00:04:41,350 So while I am optimistic and I think it's important to recognise the progress that has been made, 43 00:04:41,350 --> 00:04:46,970 there is quite some work to be done to improve the situation. 44 00:04:46,970 --> 00:04:51,250 So you all careers is a bit different than a traditional research career. 45 00:04:51,250 --> 00:04:59,230 I think the traditional career we still see is doing a bit at stake in the postop and then trying to become a great leader. 46 00:04:59,230 --> 00:05:06,190 What made you decide to go into science publishing and is there any tips you could give to people, 47 00:05:06,190 --> 00:05:10,630 maybe postgraduates, Allegri researchers that find that quite compelling? 48 00:05:10,630 --> 00:05:17,800 So first thing I would say is that I would challenge the notion of there being a traditional career. 49 00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:29,680 I think we should liberate ourselves from this expectation that, you know, one way is the default way and other ways are somehow non. 50 00:05:29,680 --> 00:05:34,540 I'm sometimes asked to give talks as alternative career for scientists. 51 00:05:34,540 --> 00:05:38,380 I flippantly respond to this, you know. Well, I'm very happy to talk about my career. 52 00:05:38,380 --> 00:05:41,370 I don't think there's anything alternative about it. 53 00:05:41,370 --> 00:05:48,780 And to be honest, if you look at the statistics, it's the minority of pages and postdocs who become P.I. eyes. 54 00:05:48,780 --> 00:05:54,430 So which is it? There is an alternative career. Of course, it's a bit of a tongue in cheek approach. 55 00:05:54,430 --> 00:06:02,380 Nevertheless, I think it puts things in perspective. So why did I decide to move away from the bench? 56 00:06:02,380 --> 00:06:14,530 Because in my case, it really was working at the bench. But very importantly, I never wanted to leave science as as an ecosystem, as an environment. 57 00:06:14,530 --> 00:06:19,470 And so, you know, today I don't call myself a scientist or a researcher because of. 58 00:06:19,470 --> 00:06:23,980 I don't discover or participate in research as such. 59 00:06:23,980 --> 00:06:31,300 But I very much feel that I'm still part of the research ecosystem and that was always very important to me. 60 00:06:31,300 --> 00:06:39,400 So my own view of this was or has been that I've always loved the scientific process, the discovery, 61 00:06:39,400 --> 00:06:46,160 the knowledge accumulation, the asking of the questions, which is why I decided to become a researcher in the first place. 62 00:06:46,160 --> 00:06:52,170 And in my case, genetics was kind of the real love for me. 63 00:06:52,170 --> 00:07:02,270 But then as I was progressing and I left active research after first postdoc, I realised that I actually was interested in too many things, 64 00:07:02,270 --> 00:07:09,600 and especially in these earliest stages of career, in order to make a real contribution, make a mark. 65 00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:15,870 You have to focus. You have to focus in. Because, you know, let's say let's face it, science is a jealous profession. 66 00:07:15,870 --> 00:07:24,690 It requires your dedication and time. And I realise that there may be an opportunity to make a contribution in a different way. 67 00:07:24,690 --> 00:07:30,870 And for me, it was actually moving to science publishing to become an editor. 68 00:07:30,870 --> 00:07:36,410 My first job out of academia was was to be an associate editor on literature, 69 00:07:36,410 --> 00:07:42,330 reviews, genetics, and it's allowed me to broaden my interest in that way. 70 00:07:42,330 --> 00:07:44,850 That sort of fulfilled my desire. 71 00:07:44,850 --> 00:07:52,230 And at the same time, to give something back to the community through working with authors and commissioning reviews back then, 72 00:07:52,230 --> 00:07:56,580 working with them, too, if you like. Tell that story in the review better. 73 00:07:56,580 --> 00:08:02,550 All of these things that's commissioning reviews editors do on major reviews, 74 00:08:02,550 --> 00:08:08,280 journals, but of course, in other cases when other publications and other journals. 75 00:08:08,280 --> 00:08:16,030 And so that was my sole trajectory and my reasoning for it in terms of advice for people. 76 00:08:16,030 --> 00:08:24,140 You know, I I would say the most important thing that you do in life is the thing which gives you satisfaction, 77 00:08:24,140 --> 00:08:28,430 which gives you a sense that you are making a contribution. 78 00:08:28,430 --> 00:08:36,800 And it may be a contribution through original research, analysis, experimentation, whatever it may be. 79 00:08:36,800 --> 00:08:43,250 It may be a contribution through editing papers, commissioning papers, as it was in my case, 80 00:08:43,250 --> 00:08:49,760 maybe a contribution through supporting research or helping communicated or perhaps something completely different. 81 00:08:49,760 --> 00:08:56,450 Phil. But the important aspect is that you are fulfilled yourself. 82 00:08:56,450 --> 00:09:00,320 Now, let's get to scientific publishing topic. 83 00:09:00,320 --> 00:09:08,840 What do you think the innovations and the things that are changing in publishing and that should be changed from your perspective? 84 00:09:08,840 --> 00:09:18,410 Yes, thanks. Thank you for that question. You know, part of me thinks that scientific publishing has not evolved fast enough. 85 00:09:18,410 --> 00:09:28,760 And one thing that I'm a little disappointed by is that sometimes when there are discussions about evolution of scientific publishing, 86 00:09:28,760 --> 00:09:35,900 they are mainly restricted to conversations about whether something is published. 87 00:09:35,900 --> 00:09:41,540 Open access or under subscription. These are important conversations. 88 00:09:41,540 --> 00:09:45,290 But there is so much more to explore in in science publishing. 89 00:09:45,290 --> 00:09:50,450 If you think about how a paper looks today. 90 00:09:50,450 --> 00:09:57,650 By and large, it hasn't changed very much over the last 20 years or so, or possibly much for 20 years. 91 00:09:57,650 --> 00:10:08,360 A good framework. Of course, what really to my mind, what enables this evolution and modification is in fact the Internet like the Web. 92 00:10:08,360 --> 00:10:17,000 And so when I think about the kinds of things that we have collectively, we have begun to experiment with, but we could do much more. 93 00:10:17,000 --> 00:10:21,860 Is indeed enabled by the amazing connectivity of the web. 94 00:10:21,860 --> 00:10:32,180 So in my kind of dream world, I think of papers as being much more dynamic, much more interconnected, almost Modula if you like. 95 00:10:32,180 --> 00:10:38,870 I mean, to give you a trivial example of what I mean is think about the method section of a paper. 96 00:10:38,870 --> 00:10:46,730 If you are a researcher who applies the same kind of methodology to different problems, to to find different solutions, 97 00:10:46,730 --> 00:10:54,080 the chances are that the method section of your paper is pretty much the same, regardless which paper you write. 98 00:10:54,080 --> 00:11:00,830 Well, you can imagine a world in which that method section lives as a module in and maybe 99 00:11:00,830 --> 00:11:06,200 there is versions because you maybe you use tweaking some parameters or something, 100 00:11:06,200 --> 00:11:13,790 but something that you link through to another section, a section of results that you build on. 101 00:11:13,790 --> 00:11:18,410 And to some extent, analogies to this exist already. 102 00:11:18,410 --> 00:11:26,420 But again, packaged Israel paper. So let's say, for example, in the Nature portfolio, we have a journal called Mitchem Methods. 103 00:11:26,420 --> 00:11:34,460 So a paper and now a whole paper that in nature methods would be sort of conceptually equivalent to what I'm describing. 104 00:11:34,460 --> 00:11:42,080 And of course, for example, there was another journal called Scientific Data where you have what we call data descriptor, 105 00:11:42,080 --> 00:11:50,270 which really is a very systematically organised description of a complex data set which is available, 106 00:11:50,270 --> 00:11:56,630 shareable, and that descriptor ANES and facilitates sharing of the dataset. 107 00:11:56,630 --> 00:12:04,070 Because really, very quickly at a glance, if you have an interest in these data, you can say, OK, is this something that will fulfil my requirements? 108 00:12:04,070 --> 00:12:07,700 Can I perhaps use it in a meta analysis and so on. 109 00:12:07,700 --> 00:12:14,330 So elements of this exist. But I think we don't do well enough in terms of connecting these various elements. 110 00:12:14,330 --> 00:12:19,490 And of course, indeed, surfacing data in papers released more recently. 111 00:12:19,490 --> 00:12:31,280 In the last few years, we've moved towards having DIY numbers for identifiers for four data sets that can link through directly to data records. 112 00:12:31,280 --> 00:12:38,750 So these are some examples where I think we have historically not taken enough advantage of that connectivity, 113 00:12:38,750 --> 00:12:44,950 but we're moving that we're moving in that direction. And, you know, building on papers, versions of papers and so on. 114 00:12:44,950 --> 00:12:53,060 And there's a lot to explore there. Again, there are trials out there hearing that, but there's some of the fun examples, if I may. 115 00:12:53,060 --> 00:12:56,330 If I may just bring up another example, 116 00:12:56,330 --> 00:13:07,310 something which I did when I was still a manuscript editor at Nature in the context of the code contortion papers was together with the authors. 117 00:13:07,310 --> 00:13:16,550 We came up with this idea of threads whereby we were taking sections from different papers and threading them, if you like, 118 00:13:16,550 --> 00:13:26,390 like beads on it on a string to tell a story which is sort of content conceptually orthogonal to the stories that were told in individual papers. 119 00:13:26,390 --> 00:13:33,620 And I have to say, I know this is a podcast, but it makes more sense when you can see what I'm doing with my hands when I describe this. 120 00:13:33,620 --> 00:13:37,850 But if you if you think of orthogonal storytelling, that perhaps is helpful. 121 00:13:37,850 --> 00:13:49,370 So these kinds of. And this was just an example that an experiment really that was designed to delve even more deeply into this fabric of 122 00:13:49,370 --> 00:13:57,170 that story that was told across a number of papers that came out as a result of the work of that particular consortium. 123 00:13:57,170 --> 00:14:00,140 If your 20 years within this industry, 124 00:14:00,140 --> 00:14:07,290 could you share with us some of the most memorable articles you have edited and what started a turning point in your career as an editor, 125 00:14:07,290 --> 00:14:13,780 a science publisher? That's a tricky question. You know, as an editor. 126 00:14:13,780 --> 00:14:21,550 So this is a bit of an insight into what it's like to be an editor who handles papers and whether it's a review, 127 00:14:21,550 --> 00:14:28,960 as I did in the early days of my career or subsequently primary manuscripts that I evaluated. 128 00:14:28,960 --> 00:14:37,930 I think you actually have a real relationship with each of the papers, each of the studies that you you work with. 129 00:14:37,930 --> 00:14:44,500 Some of them require more work and more attention, others less. 130 00:14:44,500 --> 00:14:51,880 But one of the things that editors always talk about is they talk about the papers as if those papers were their own. 131 00:14:51,880 --> 00:14:58,850 So. So I and all my colleagues say, oh, this is a paper I published, you know, back in. 132 00:14:58,850 --> 00:15:03,400 Yeah. Such and such. Or, you know, I published this paper from this girl. 133 00:15:03,400 --> 00:15:12,100 I published this paper on this topic. And very clearly we are not authors on these papers, but we developed that sort of relationship. 134 00:15:12,100 --> 00:15:20,520 We care. We champion these papers. You know, we'll, of course, take them through peer review, work with authors to try and help them revise. 135 00:15:20,520 --> 00:15:25,240 And what's interesting and sometimes forgotten about is that even if that paper 136 00:15:25,240 --> 00:15:29,830 in question ends up not being published in the journal for which we work, 137 00:15:29,830 --> 00:15:33,370 we still care about the paper and one of the authors revise it and publish it. 138 00:15:33,370 --> 00:15:39,730 And clearly, if it goes elsewhere, then, you know, we have to hand it over to two other editors to continue. 139 00:15:39,730 --> 00:15:44,020 So specific examples are not very easy to come by. 140 00:15:44,020 --> 00:15:53,200 To be honest, because over the years, I've seen very many papers. But, you know, maybe let me illustrate this with two very different examples. 141 00:15:53,200 --> 00:16:00,340 And they both illustrate what it means to be an editor and why I said earlier that I feel very much part of 142 00:16:00,340 --> 00:16:07,320 the research community because editors are really embedded in their communities in order to be an editor, 143 00:16:07,320 --> 00:16:14,440 in order to evaluate the work that you read. You, of course, have to be familiar with the field that you serve. 144 00:16:14,440 --> 00:16:22,720 So editors travel to conferences, go and do lab visits, and they're really familiar with the dynamic of the community. 145 00:16:22,720 --> 00:16:30,820 And so you can imagine that as an extension of this for some papers that come in that are submitted to you, you know, 146 00:16:30,820 --> 00:16:38,020 they're coming because, you know, that certain consortium or a lab or a group of labs are working on a certain topic. 147 00:16:38,020 --> 00:16:43,090 And maybe you've expressed an interest in the work. You've had the work presented at conferences. 148 00:16:43,090 --> 00:16:49,360 So some of these stories, you know, they are coming. And, you know, earlier I mentioned the ENCODE project. 149 00:16:49,360 --> 00:16:55,940 So these very large consortia with the work of which is a long time in the making. 150 00:16:55,940 --> 00:17:02,320 You know, another one is maybe from my time when I was handling manuscripts, you know, the Thousand Genomes Project and many others. 151 00:17:02,320 --> 00:17:09,160 It's a long term relationship. So then when the papers come, they do kind of hold a special place in my heart anyway. 152 00:17:09,160 --> 00:17:16,420 As an editor and as I mentioned earlier in the end quote, there was some really firm aspects of working with the Inco project because we 153 00:17:16,420 --> 00:17:23,020 did some experimenting in the format of publishing around the publishing format. 154 00:17:23,020 --> 00:17:32,140 So that was definitely very special. Another and this is not now individual paper, but group of papers or almost actually the whole field. 155 00:17:32,140 --> 00:17:42,160 When I was the genetics and genomics editor at Nature, it was really the time when somatic cancer genome sequencing was beginning. 156 00:17:42,160 --> 00:17:51,680 It was really the beginning of sequencing cancer genomes. That was a very exciting time to watch this and actually learn with the whole community. 157 00:17:51,680 --> 00:17:56,500 You know, there's a there's a sort of almost them a joke in the research community, 158 00:17:56,500 --> 00:18:02,860 which I think you will probably recognise, is that, oh, you can't publish a paper in nature if it doesn't have a mechanism. 159 00:18:02,860 --> 00:18:06,340 And, you know, for me, as a genetics and genomics editor, I would say, well, 160 00:18:06,340 --> 00:18:10,180 that actually is not true because an awful lot of genetics papers and genomics papers 161 00:18:10,180 --> 00:18:15,580 have no mechanism and they could never have mechanism because if they are just that, 162 00:18:15,580 --> 00:18:21,760 that's not the objective. Right. It's a very different way of discovering and doing science. 163 00:18:21,760 --> 00:18:29,590 And so with the cancer genomics, the early cancer genomics papers, there was a time when, you know, I as an editor, of course, 164 00:18:29,590 --> 00:18:38,500 with my colleagues on the team and the research community, was sort of making a decision that at that point in time, we wanted those catalogues. 165 00:18:38,500 --> 00:18:47,080 We wanted those sequences of cancers. And the mechanism or other sort of functional insights were going to come further down the line. 166 00:18:47,080 --> 00:18:54,170 And it's interesting to almost hear myself say this from today's perspective, because, of course, we have moved on now. 167 00:18:54,170 --> 00:19:00,310 Now we are all interested in functional insides. But that in itself, it's useful to appreciate that. 168 00:19:00,310 --> 00:19:06,010 Once upon a time, we were not there. We had to kind of chop them up before anything else. 169 00:19:06,010 --> 00:19:14,260 And so my final example is going to be very different. And that's an example of a paper that I didn't know that was coming. 170 00:19:14,260 --> 00:19:18,310 And it's you know, I've described this in the past and I genuinely feel this. 171 00:19:18,310 --> 00:19:23,050 We're talking about a paper that I would have handled. I'm going to say easily 10 years ago. 172 00:19:23,050 --> 00:19:27,730 I actually remember to this day how excited I was when I was reading this paper. 173 00:19:27,730 --> 00:19:37,420 I had no idea this work was being done. And it's a it's a it's a story that is essentially a population genomics story in the monarch butterfly. 174 00:19:37,420 --> 00:19:43,350 So, you know, monarch butterfly of these brightly coloured orange butterflies in my name in South America, 175 00:19:43,350 --> 00:19:50,720 possibly exclusively, I am not sure, actually. But they are they're really well known for the mass migrations. 176 00:19:50,720 --> 00:19:56,480 And it turns out that there is of a sub population that doesn't migrate. 177 00:19:56,480 --> 00:20:00,520 But it wasn't obvious why it was that most populations migrate. 178 00:20:00,520 --> 00:20:04,940 And that's indeed what's made the species famous and the subpopulation doesn't. 179 00:20:04,940 --> 00:20:14,000 And the researchers use population genomics to home in on actually finding relatively simple genetic reason, 180 00:20:14,000 --> 00:20:23,540 which is to do is molecular aspects of the muscle in these butterflies that mean that one group doesn't migrate and the others do. 181 00:20:23,540 --> 00:20:28,570 And it was such a beautiful story. I genuinely remember sitting on the edge of my seat. 182 00:20:28,570 --> 00:20:32,570 Mean Oh my God. By such a beautiful paper. Such a beautiful result. 183 00:20:32,570 --> 00:20:38,600 So there are many others. You know, the many, many other many other examples of great papers. 184 00:20:38,600 --> 00:20:41,390 We are going to move on to the more generic questions. 185 00:20:41,390 --> 00:20:47,510 I think I've read somewhere that one of your goals is to ensure that studies are more reproducible and robust. 186 00:20:47,510 --> 00:20:53,210 What are your thoughts on the reproducibility crisis being faced in the biological sciences right now? 187 00:20:53,210 --> 00:20:59,540 And how do you think we can overcome some of the barriers in ensuring studies are reproducible? 188 00:20:59,540 --> 00:21:10,150 A very important question, and you know, one, again, that's I think it's useful to use some time perspective on this. 189 00:21:10,150 --> 00:21:20,230 So my sense is that our conversation in the community is moving a little from the focus on the reproducibility crisis, 190 00:21:20,230 --> 00:21:25,480 per say, towards the importance of robust and reproducible science. 191 00:21:25,480 --> 00:21:32,530 And the way explained this transition is that I think there was a specific time a few years ago 192 00:21:32,530 --> 00:21:39,310 when we had a kind of an aha moment of realisation that there was a problem with reproducibility, 193 00:21:39,310 --> 00:21:45,130 and rightly so. It was demonstrated very eloquently and very convincingly. 194 00:21:45,130 --> 00:21:50,380 And so the focus was on reproducible crises, more examples of it and talking about it. 195 00:21:50,380 --> 00:21:57,130 But of course, identifying a problem is absolutely crucial. But then you have to move on to how to solve it. 196 00:21:57,130 --> 00:22:01,630 And ideally, how to prevent it from occurring in the first place. 197 00:22:01,630 --> 00:22:10,750 And so I think that's where the conversation is now moving towards that we are looking at how to solve the problem and indeed how to prevent it. 198 00:22:10,750 --> 00:22:17,260 So I think there are a number of important aspects which come to mind first and foremost. 199 00:22:17,260 --> 00:22:23,320 And I would say if you asked me to answer that question, what what's the solution envisage of one word that I would say transparency? 200 00:22:23,320 --> 00:22:29,620 The emphasis on transparency is really important because knowing that we have to be transparent 201 00:22:29,620 --> 00:22:36,370 about our actions and what we do automatically forces us to be more systematic and more thorough. 202 00:22:36,370 --> 00:22:41,680 And transparency to me also means clarity. Why do I say is important? 203 00:22:41,680 --> 00:22:52,750 It's important because at least part of the reproducibility crisis was caused by inadvertent, sloppy reporting of what has been done. 204 00:22:52,750 --> 00:22:56,860 And, you know, when I tried to explain this problem to people who are not scientists, 205 00:22:56,860 --> 00:23:03,010 I give this very trivial example from cooking, which, you know, we all know is a bit like being in the lab. 206 00:23:03,010 --> 00:23:09,220 Right. I say, you know, if I tell you that I made tomato soup last night and you want to make tomato soup, then, you know, 207 00:23:09,220 --> 00:23:17,680 you may make a tomato soup, but the chances are that it will be exactly what I made unless I give you the exact recipe. 208 00:23:17,680 --> 00:23:24,850 And so, of course, to scientists, this is an incredibly simple example, but I think it illustrates the point. 209 00:23:24,850 --> 00:23:33,220 Well, so some of the problems have got to produce ability was lack of emphasis on the need for appropriate reporting. 210 00:23:33,220 --> 00:23:42,130 And I should say that we and now I mean editors, publishers, journals at a certain time in the past didn't emphasise it enough. 211 00:23:42,130 --> 00:23:47,380 And so, you know, now for a number of years, for example, in the Journals of Nature portfolio and of course, 212 00:23:47,380 --> 00:23:51,390 many others elsewhere, we ask our authors to be very transparent, 213 00:23:51,390 --> 00:23:58,420 to to fill in reporting summaries in in a very systematic, organised way to explain what was done, 214 00:23:58,420 --> 00:24:04,420 how it was done, using what reagents, what analysis, what parameters, et cetera, et cetera. 215 00:24:04,420 --> 00:24:09,850 So that is very clear when somebody wishes to reproduce this work, how they need to do it. 216 00:24:09,850 --> 00:24:14,470 And then, of course, if they can't following this, then that indeed there may be a problem. 217 00:24:14,470 --> 00:24:22,420 So all of that transparency and clarity of reporting standards of reporting and methodology and and all these other sort of research objects. 218 00:24:22,420 --> 00:24:27,880 As I explained, I think it's generally quite clear that that's where the emphasis needs to be. 219 00:24:27,880 --> 00:24:38,740 Now, where I think we're not quite there yet is sufficient training to really arm the the researchers, early career researchers, 220 00:24:38,740 --> 00:24:49,410 but also established researchers so that they are able to appropriately report on the research that they do and indeed in the first place, 221 00:24:49,410 --> 00:24:55,270 you know, design the research appropriately. I think we need to place more emphasis on this. 222 00:24:55,270 --> 00:25:04,930 But we should also recognise and acknowledge when research is reported, when research is shared, when data and reagents are shared. 223 00:25:04,930 --> 00:25:10,240 So in other words, reward and recognise the need for open science, 224 00:25:10,240 --> 00:25:17,020 which is going to contribute to that robustness and reproducibility, reproducibility in science. 225 00:25:17,020 --> 00:25:24,190 Again, this realisation is growing and in some circles and in some circumstances is very well recognised. 226 00:25:24,190 --> 00:25:29,230 But I think across the board we have quite some way towards getting there. 227 00:25:29,230 --> 00:25:40,420 One other thing I would add to this is I would really like to see us revise our position on what happens when something goes wrong. 228 00:25:40,420 --> 00:25:46,660 So one thing is, as an editor, I feel very strongly about is there's a community. 229 00:25:46,660 --> 00:25:49,350 We have a wrong attitude to retractions. 230 00:25:49,350 --> 00:25:58,970 You know, sometimes I feel that if a paper is retracted, it brings out these sort of almost mediaeval feeling. 231 00:25:58,970 --> 00:26:05,330 In the community, we want to, I don't know, throw stones or at least rotten vegetables because the pope has been retracted, 232 00:26:05,330 --> 00:26:08,890 but papers are retracted for all sorts of different reasons. 233 00:26:08,890 --> 00:26:16,580 And yes, there are papers which are attracted because there's been misconduct, there's been data manipulation or something like this. 234 00:26:16,580 --> 00:26:21,380 And that, of course, cannot be condoned. And we have to be very clear about this. 235 00:26:21,380 --> 00:26:30,950 But vast swathes, vast swathes of papers are retracted because a genuine and intentional mistake has been made. 236 00:26:30,950 --> 00:26:34,640 You know, we actually have a beautiful example of this in nature. I always bring it up. 237 00:26:34,640 --> 00:26:46,100 So allow me to share it with you as well. Of a paper which was retracted at a request of the author because the author realised that they by mistake, 238 00:26:46,100 --> 00:26:50,600 use an inappropriate dataset to do the analysis in the paper. 239 00:26:50,600 --> 00:26:55,820 In fact, is in our sciences and climate sciences. 240 00:26:55,820 --> 00:26:59,300 And it was simply for the question that they wanted to address. 241 00:26:59,300 --> 00:27:04,850 The data which they used was just inappropriate, could not have addressed that question. 242 00:27:04,850 --> 00:27:13,220 So they were retracted the paper at their request. But the author had the appropriate datasets with which to address the question. 243 00:27:13,220 --> 00:27:20,720 So they went back to the drawing board, if you like, took the appropriate dataset, performed the analysis, 244 00:27:20,720 --> 00:27:28,640 came back to us with a new paper addressing exactly the same question now with appropriate dataset. 245 00:27:28,640 --> 00:27:37,370 That paper was now rigorously peer reviewed, considered, and we have republished the paper because all the analysis, everything was exactly the same. 246 00:27:37,370 --> 00:27:44,090 It was just now done with appropriate dataset. Now, to me, that is an example of great scholarship. 247 00:27:44,090 --> 00:27:52,220 And so this is an important example of what we mean by making research reproducible, 248 00:27:52,220 --> 00:28:03,110 placing emphasis on this transparency about how the research was done, but also transparency about when things went wrong and why is important. 249 00:28:03,110 --> 00:28:07,970 But then in turn, we as the community have to be tolerant of that. 250 00:28:07,970 --> 00:28:13,910 After all, you know, we say science progresses through self correction. So let's make space for that. 251 00:28:13,910 --> 00:28:18,320 Do you think scientific research and publishing is accessible to the general public? 252 00:28:18,320 --> 00:28:26,280 And how can we make it more accessible? I think scientific research should be accessible to the general public. 253 00:28:26,280 --> 00:28:34,910 Of course, if you ask specifically whether, for example, a paper published in Nature is accessible to the general public as written, 254 00:28:34,910 --> 00:28:42,650 I would say that most members of the general public would would struggle to really understand the implications of what was done. 255 00:28:42,650 --> 00:28:51,020 But then, you know, a little earlier we talked about how we can expand on the papers to make the science 256 00:28:51,020 --> 00:28:55,730 which which is presented within them to be more accessible to the general public, 257 00:28:55,730 --> 00:29:03,020 but also to researchers from from other disciplines. And I think there are a number of aspects here, you know, clear communication. 258 00:29:03,020 --> 00:29:11,990 There are many aspects to clear communication. It's important that papers are written clearly that a story is clearly communicated for any reader, 259 00:29:11,990 --> 00:29:17,540 for any members member of the potential audience, including for those in the field, of course. 260 00:29:17,540 --> 00:29:21,770 And as I said already, you know, for others in the age when we live, 261 00:29:21,770 --> 00:29:29,240 where multidisciplinary work is so important to tackle many of the challenges that we face, 262 00:29:29,240 --> 00:29:37,580 scientists, when they write papers, they have to think about the broadest possible audience, including long specialists, but researchers. 263 00:29:37,580 --> 00:29:44,120 But then the general public and the need to to communicate science to the general public directly, 264 00:29:44,120 --> 00:29:51,650 as it is an extension of papers, actually probably could not be clearer right now during the pandemic. 265 00:29:51,650 --> 00:29:53,330 Everyone is talking about science. 266 00:29:53,330 --> 00:30:05,350 It's actually impossible to listen to any news bulletin on the radio, on TV, see any news online without seeing some reference to science, be it. 267 00:30:05,350 --> 00:30:11,210 Know microbiology or human clinical trials for social science. 268 00:30:11,210 --> 00:30:16,610 Of course, in the context of the pandemic, I think we could all do more. 269 00:30:16,610 --> 00:30:24,680 And if you look at papers as they are published today, journals, publishers tried to make an effort to in some cases, 270 00:30:24,680 --> 00:30:34,550 for example, to add lay summaries to papers, in other cases to provide more accessible coverage of papers in nature. 271 00:30:34,550 --> 00:30:39,230 And we often will write about papers, not just papers from our own paper pages, 272 00:30:39,230 --> 00:30:45,770 but in general in the scientific literature of them that we will often write about them, let's say, 273 00:30:45,770 --> 00:30:51,620 in news and views, where it's a much shorter piece where a context for a study is is provided, 274 00:30:51,620 --> 00:30:59,090 or our journalists will write about paper or a set of discoveries interviewing. 275 00:30:59,090 --> 00:31:02,690 The scientific community, or sometimes, for example, if it's relevant, 276 00:31:02,690 --> 00:31:11,720 interviewing policymakers or in some cases politicians to provide that context to provides a way for somebody who is not in the field, 277 00:31:11,720 --> 00:31:16,760 who's not a specialist, to evaluate the importance and the relevance of that work. 278 00:31:16,760 --> 00:31:23,750 There are, of course, other ways of communicating science. And, you know, this this is where my age really comes to the fore. 279 00:31:23,750 --> 00:31:28,460 Because, of course, I am not a digital native, but by virtue of how old I am. 280 00:31:28,460 --> 00:31:33,920 But there are fantastic ways of engaging with younger audiences on the Internet. 281 00:31:33,920 --> 00:31:42,320 So, of course, social media, visual communication, podcasts, video through YouTube and other other media. 282 00:31:42,320 --> 00:31:46,490 I think we all trying to do this in some one way or another. 283 00:31:46,490 --> 00:31:55,850 I think for a number of reasons. A particularly powerful approach here involves researchers themselves using these media to communicate, 284 00:31:55,850 --> 00:31:59,630 even if it's facilitated, let's say, by journals or publishers. 285 00:31:59,630 --> 00:32:04,880 But, you know, we have to remember that, you know, when these trust polls, surveys are done, 286 00:32:04,880 --> 00:32:14,270 which professions are most trusted scientists often comes towards the very top and journalist often comes towards the very bottom. 287 00:32:14,270 --> 00:32:22,250 So, you know, we as a community all too often leave science communication to the generalists and they can do a great job, don't get me wrong. 288 00:32:22,250 --> 00:32:27,140 But I think sometimes we must miss an opportunity to communicated directly. 289 00:32:27,140 --> 00:32:33,020 And some journals, including Nature Portfolio, offer some opportunities through which to do this. 290 00:32:33,020 --> 00:32:44,420 And I should say that nature's mission statement, which is dates back to our very origins hundreds of years ago, actually has two parts to it. 291 00:32:44,420 --> 00:32:53,910 So one is serve the research community. But the other one is actually to disseminate science findings to the broadest possible audience. 292 00:32:53,910 --> 00:33:03,370 So it's a we've always you know, our founders back in 1869 already recognised that this was a really important function as set out. 293 00:33:03,370 --> 00:33:11,570 First, let's let Senate finance expert press rest of society. While we are curious about your thoughts on this area and what are some of the 294 00:33:11,570 --> 00:33:16,550 projects happening in personalised medicine right now that you're excited about? 295 00:33:16,550 --> 00:33:23,480 Very good question. And, you know, in many ways, personalised medicine is, although I am not an expert by any stretch of imagination. 296 00:33:23,480 --> 00:33:33,590 It's a field which in many ways is very close to my heart because I see personalised medicine as being absolutely enabled by the Human Genome Project, 297 00:33:33,590 --> 00:33:42,290 which, incidentally, is almost exactly 20 years old this year, as in the draught human genome sequence publication came out in 2001. 298 00:33:42,290 --> 00:33:44,840 And so often when we talk about personalised medicine, 299 00:33:44,840 --> 00:33:53,030 we talk about it in the context of the Human Genome Project and the subsequent sort of genomic and make revolution, if you like. 300 00:33:53,030 --> 00:33:58,010 So in terms of what's happening, I think very broadly speaking, 301 00:33:58,010 --> 00:34:06,290 the thing which excites me and fills me with with enormous enthusiasm is actually the fact that it's only recently that we've really began to 302 00:34:06,290 --> 00:34:17,330 reap the benefits of that bank of genomic and indeed other Omec information for many individuals across the globe and also for many diseases. 303 00:34:17,330 --> 00:34:24,890 And of course, unsurprisingly, the disease area in which we have made the most progress in the sense has, of course, been cancer. 304 00:34:24,890 --> 00:34:34,910 There are some really wonderful examples which directly link genome sequencing in various cancer context in clinical trials with therapy. 305 00:34:34,910 --> 00:34:41,360 And so I'll give you two examples of things that actually we published in the last year or so. 306 00:34:41,360 --> 00:34:48,130 So one of them was back in the summer last year. This was a a study that looked at lung cancer. 307 00:34:48,130 --> 00:34:56,930 And so essentially umbrella clinical trial approach, which was used to test the use of gene sequencing results for lung cancer, 308 00:34:56,930 --> 00:35:06,260 to match patients to target therapies and evaluate how successful this very genomic driven therapy selection was going to be. 309 00:35:06,260 --> 00:35:13,610 And the results of studies like this, some really interesting because they allow us to identify cases in which this matchmaking making, 310 00:35:13,610 --> 00:35:16,100 if you like, is incredibly successful. 311 00:35:16,100 --> 00:35:23,720 But very importantly, they allow us to identify groups of patients who have lesions for which this much making is not that successful. 312 00:35:23,720 --> 00:35:28,320 And that, of course, takes us bend to the next step to ask a question. Why is it then why? 313 00:35:28,320 --> 00:35:33,710 Why does this sort of matchmaking formula works for subsets of patients, but not for others? 314 00:35:33,710 --> 00:35:40,070 My prediction here is that, of course, we have to look to other omics to be able to move forwards in these cases. 315 00:35:40,070 --> 00:35:44,240 But these are exciting studies which identify a specific path forward. 316 00:35:44,240 --> 00:35:55,940 Another example, which I'd kind of classify as a more pragmatic resource management, if you like, was the drug rediscovery study or protocol. 317 00:35:55,940 --> 00:36:06,440 And so this was essentially an adaptive. An oncology trial which aimed to identify genomic signals in patients that could define 318 00:36:06,440 --> 00:36:13,070 tumour types for which existing drugs could be used outside of the approved label. 319 00:36:13,070 --> 00:36:17,180 So in other words, repurposing of drugs for these specific patients. 320 00:36:17,180 --> 00:36:23,990 If you think about studies like this, perhaps somehow, intellectually or conceptually, there may not be the most exciting. 321 00:36:23,990 --> 00:36:27,260 But my God. Are they really pragmatically useful? Right. 322 00:36:27,260 --> 00:36:30,780 These are drugs which are already approved. They already exist there. 323 00:36:30,780 --> 00:36:36,770 And we don't know. But we have cohorts of patients that could know tomorrow, today benefit from them. 324 00:36:36,770 --> 00:36:41,930 So incredibly valuable studies, both examples, although distinct, are only possible, 325 00:36:41,930 --> 00:36:47,780 of course, proverbially today because we have that body of of data to compare. 326 00:36:47,780 --> 00:36:51,500 And then, you know, something else, which is really very new and is emerging. 327 00:36:51,500 --> 00:36:56,630 And in this of personalised medicine realm, of course, CRISPR based therapies. 328 00:36:56,630 --> 00:37:07,100 And we've seen a few of the first examples of these being applied either through the sort of stem cell route or directly applied. 329 00:37:07,100 --> 00:37:12,080 And I find that incredibly exciting. There's much to do very clearly. 330 00:37:12,080 --> 00:37:18,020 But perhaps, you know, unlike in some of the other examples where some would argue that we should 331 00:37:18,020 --> 00:37:21,920 really be talking about precision medicine as opposed to personalised medicine, 332 00:37:21,920 --> 00:37:27,320 because strictly speaking, they're not tailored to one person, but rather a group of individuals. 333 00:37:27,320 --> 00:37:34,940 In the case of some of these CRISPR based therapies, I think we can really be talking about this one person tailored, 334 00:37:34,940 --> 00:37:38,660 personalised Metrick medicine in the true sense of the word. 335 00:37:38,660 --> 00:37:46,370 So these are just some some examples, puto mind. There was one thing that I really wanted to say then I guess I didn't have a chance to say. 336 00:37:46,370 --> 00:37:54,380 So if I may make a wish, if you like personalised medicine, as wonderful as it has been and as much progress as we have made, 337 00:37:54,380 --> 00:38:00,350 the field has by and large focussed on a subset of the global population. 338 00:38:00,350 --> 00:38:08,270 There has been great predominance of research on individuals of Europeans sent, and I think this is a tremendous opportunity. 339 00:38:08,270 --> 00:38:12,290 Of course, it's an opportunity that the community has come to realise. 340 00:38:12,290 --> 00:38:20,420 We have some way to go to catch up with what the information and the tools we have in these European descent populations. 341 00:38:20,420 --> 00:38:28,640 But this is a tremendous opportunity to collect the data, but also engage those communities in the research that's being done. 342 00:38:28,640 --> 00:38:32,570 Because, of course, you know, earlier we talked about different communities coming together. 343 00:38:32,570 --> 00:38:34,760 It's also a matter of social sciences. 344 00:38:34,760 --> 00:38:42,650 It's a matter of engaging individuals to really appreciate and understand what benefits can come from this type of research, but also, 345 00:38:42,650 --> 00:38:50,030 conversely, to engage with those communities very early on to understand what benefits they would like and what benefits they would expect. 346 00:38:50,030 --> 00:39:00,260 So I see this as a really important opportunity for the discipline. 347 00:39:00,260 --> 00:39:06,950 I would like to invite anyone to everyone to, of course, look at nature. 348 00:39:06,950 --> 00:39:14,810 One thing that I would particularly recommend is the nature briefing, which is our a daily newsletter by email. 349 00:39:14,810 --> 00:39:20,900 You can just sign up. And the beauty of Nature briefing is that it is indeed brief and it's specifically 350 00:39:20,900 --> 00:39:26,180 designed so that you can read it in its entirety without necessarily following the links. 351 00:39:26,180 --> 00:39:32,700 Although if you are interested in delving more deeply than it's there and I can be found on Twitter. 352 00:39:32,700 --> 00:39:39,230 So so do do look for me on Twitter as well. I, I occasionally have some interesting things to share. 353 00:39:39,230 --> 00:39:43,400 Brilliant. Thank you so much again. Thank you so much for your time today. 354 00:39:43,400 --> 00:39:50,470 Great. Thank you very much. There was a lot of fun. Thank you. 355 00:39:50,470 --> 00:39:57,310 If you want to find out more about the centre of personalised medicine or are interested in joining us for one about upcoming events, 356 00:39:57,310 --> 00:40:07,720 please visit our Web site under S.P. and don't well dot AC, doc QCA or follow us on Twitter at CPM Oxfords. 357 00:40:07,720 --> 00:40:19,342 Thank you for listening. And we look forward to having you listen for the next episode.