ASCB J U N E 2 0 0 6 NEWSLETTER VOLUME 29, NUMBER 6 Moderate Republicans Aid ASCB Council Addresses House Support of NIH Budget Diverse Issues NIH funding, international outreach, evaluat- Page 11 ing programs, minimizing liability, and involving more ASCB members in Society activities were Becoming Visible: some of the issues discussed at the ASCB Council Meeting held in Bethesda, MD, on May 8. Effective Self- ASCB President Mary Beckerle emphasized Promotion her interest in enhancing member engagement. Page 16 Opportunities discussed in the ASCB Newsletter ASCB Council at work. Left to right: Kerry Bloom, for members to date include service on the Linda Hicke, Caroline Kane, Past-President Zena Membership Committee, joining the WICB Werb, President Mary Beckerle, Executive Director Joan Goldberg, President Elect Bruce Alberts. ASCB 46th Network, providing assistance to the Public Annual Meeting Information Committee through the PIC Associates, and enrolling in Project 50, a U.S. effort of the Public Policy Committee. Beckerle Program was heartened by the response and noted future newsletter columns will explore additional Page 24 options. Council also approved a membership survey to get feedback on See Council, page 2 Inside Science Education ASCB Public Policy Committee 6 Reform: The Talk of Public Information Committee 8 Annual Members in the News 9 the Town Meeting Educational reform is a peren- Dear Labby 10 nial topic in Washington, DC, and this spring was no excep- Updates Public Policy Briefing 11 The ASCB 46th tion. Twice in a two-week pe- Annual Meeting pre- InCytes from MBC 14 riod, audiences gathered on liminary program, Capitol Hill to hear leading ed- WICB Column 16 registration, abstract ucational reform proponents submission, and WICB Committee 17 talk about science education. housing sites are First, Bruce Alberts, ASCB Profile 18 available. President-elect of the American For best sleeping New Members 21 Society for Cell Biology, spoke Left to right: Peter Kyros and Bruce room selection, at a Joint Steering Committee– Alberts at the Teaching Science Congressional Biomedical Research book your room Letters to the Editor 22 sponsored Congressional Caucus on April 26. early. Rooms begin Biomedical Research Caucus Annual Meeting Program 24 at $59 per night. briefing. He spoke eloquently Visit www.ascb. Member Gifts 26 to a standing-room-only crowd about the need to revamp org. See you in San undergraduate science education. And then, within a week of Grants & Opportunities 26 Diego! ■ his appearance, another packed audience listened to a panel

Calendar 28 See Education Reform, page 4 Council, continued from page 1 number. The number of RFAs has remained The American Society for Cell Biology fl at. NIH funding has been affected by the what activities of the Society are most valued by overall U.S. budget issues, including the 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 750 our members. war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, entitlement Bethesda, MD 20814-2762 spending, and the defi cit, Berg noted. Newly Tel: (301) 347-9300 Minimizing Liability, compiled examples of research accomplishments Fax: (301) 347-9310 made possible by the doubling are available [email protected], www.ascb.org Understanding Trends ASCB Executive Director Joan Goldberg not- on the NIH website at www.nih.gov/about/ Joan R. Goldberg ed her initial focus on assessing and minimiz- researchresultsfor thepublic/index.htm, Berg Executive Director ing the Society’s liabil- noted. Councilors ity as well as exploring discussed the role of Offi cers governance and legal is- scientifi c societies in Mary Beckerle President sues. ASCB members supporting NIH funding Bruce Alberts President-Elect will vote on new bylaws increases and how ASCB Zena Werb Past-President changes in the spring of members can assist as Gary Ward Treasurer study section reviewers. Jean Schwarzbauer Secretary 2007. Goldberg also rec- ommended and is imple- Council menting expanded in- Reviewing surance coverage and Programs, Kerry Bloom Council deep in discussion. Juan Bonifacino trademarks. Ongoing Publications David Burgess analysis of ASCB’s fi - In other actions, the John Condeelis nancial and other trends, and development of a Council discussed ASCB summer meetings and Peter Devreotes confl ict of interest and other policies, will assist approved the planning of a June 2007 meet- Linda Hicke Council in making strategic decisions and main- Caroline Kane ing in France to be held in collaboration with Sandra Masur taining good governance practices. the European Cytoskeletal Forum, co-chaired by Barbara Meyer ASCB members Daniel Louvard, David Drubin, Erin O'Shea International Outreach and Laura Machesky. The Council also reviewed Daphne Preuss Mary Beckerle reported on initiatives of her the 2006 ASCB summer meetings, progress on Anne Ridley Presidency that are focused on outreach to inter- the Image and Video Library, Molecular Biology ASCB Newsletter national members and enhancing scientifi c ca- of the Cell policies, as well as the work of ASCB is published twelve times per pacity in the developing world. Along with Past- Committees and task forces. Activities related year by The American Society President Zena Werb and President-Elect Bruce to evolution are being planned by a task force for Cell Biology. Alberts, Beckerle has assembled an International chaired by Rex Chisholm for the December Joan R. Goldberg Editor Affairs Committee that will meet in Bethesda on 2006 ASCB Annual Meeting. John L. Saville Production Manager October 25. The activities of the group will be Many ASCB Councilors joined staff and Nancy Moulding Production Assistant reported in an upcoming newsletter. PPC members on Hill visits on May 9th, Kevin Wilson Public Policy Briefi ng expressing concerns about the NIH budget and Ed Newman Advertising Manager the impact of diminishing funds. ■ John Fleischman Science Writer Supporting NCSE, Open Access Thea Clarke Writer Alberts made an impassioned plea for support for the National Center for Science Education The President's Column will return next Deadlines for submission of (NCSE), directed by Eugenie Scott. The Council month after the President’s vacation. articles and advertising voted to provide fi nancial support and seek the materials: same from sister societies. Treasurer Gary Ward Issue Deadline addressed progress on open access in the U.S. August July 1 September August 1 NIH Funding October September 1 Jeremy Berg, NIGMS Director, joined Council Each regular, postdoc, and emeritus mem- for a two-hour discussion of NIH. Berg report- ber was sent a link to the ASCB election site. Since spam fi lters may prevent some ASCB Newsletter ed on NIH funding trends, opportunities, and ISSN 1060-8982 challenges. Issues of interest to ASCB members, messages from being received, members Volume 29, Number 6 such as funding of young investigators, support are encouraged to go to www.ascb.org to June 2006 for training programs, the NIH commitment vote by June 30. Your member number to the RO1, minority programs, and the overall (the same number used to access MBC) © 2006 will enable you to vote, and ensure that The American Society for Cell Biology budget climate were discussed. each member votes just once. If you did Berg noted that 70% of the budget pre- Postmaster: Send change of address to not receive the link and/or do not know ASCB Newsletter doubling was spent on RO1s and now it The American Society for Cell Biology your member number, contact the ASCB at 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 750 is 63%, but that percentage is of a higher ■ Bethesda, MD 20814-2762 (301) 347-9300 or [email protected].

2 ASCB NEWSLETTER JUNE 2006

Education Reform, continued from page 1 ■ A cafeteria-style approach to education, which allows high school students to pick and choose courses, often leaving them discussion on a new initiative to redesign the U.S. high school without a broad-based foundation for college Advanced Placement science curriculum. ■ Too low expectations for all students In his remarks, Alberts said he believes that reform is especially ■ Lack of integration between science inquiry and process needed in undergraduate introductory science classes. Drawing ■ Teaching and teaching capacity on his many years of research and advocacy for reform of science ■ The U.S. educational knowledge base is not keeping pace with education in the U.S., he made the case that, if undergraduate- rapid changes in science level classes are improved, the effects will trickle down to high ■ Students are losing interest in science by middle and high school and even middle school curricula—all of which are now school essentially modeled on the undergraduate curriculum. The project’s long-term goal is to increase science literacy and encourage more students, especially underrepresented minorities, Boring Science? to study advanced-level science courses in high school and college Alberts stated emphatically that science courses across grade lev- and to pursue careers in science. els are boring for students, mainly because the broad-survey-type courses require vast amounts of memorization—which can be AP Courses as a Change Model easily and inexpensively tested—rather than inquiry-based learn- Panelists hope the AP course reform will be a “change model,” ing. In particular, science education focuses more on what scien- and force change at other levels. The courses will be refocused to tists have already discovered, rather than allowing students to ex- concentrate on concepts, rather than facts. Students need to un- plore concepts. Lab classes can be especially dull, he noted. derstand concepts and basic principles so they can fit facts into a Instead, these introductory courses should aim to “expose broader understanding. students to the discovery process and excite them about AP program reform could be the “tail that wags the dog,” challenges at the frontiers of knowledge,”1 Alberts has written. panelists agreed. Because higher education moves at “glacial To support this endeavor, Alberts added, speed,” changing the high school curriculum it will be necessary to provide continuing may help to force change at the undergraduate professional development for science teachers. level. The AP program was picked for reform He also believes that teachers need to have more … changing because it is generally successful in enabling of a voice in educational reform because they are the high school students to achieve a high level of proficiency. the ones on the front lines. curriculum may Moreover, some school districts in the U.S. help to force are using AP classes to energize their entire Reform at the High School Level change at the curriculum and to give average students The Capitol Hill panel discussion held in ear- undergraduate exposure to long reading lists and exams; ly May on high school science education reform 2 level. this provides better preparation for college, included David Ely, Biology Teacher, Champlain according to Mathews. Valley Union High School; Shirley Malcom, As Shirley Malcom noted, however, “AP Head, Directorate for Education and Human is part of what has to be a larger effort.” She Resources Programs, American Association for the Advancement believes that U.S. education has sunk to the lowest common of Science; James Pellegrino, Professor of Cognitive Psychology, denominator. As a remedy, she said, “we have to try to pull University of Illinois at Chicago; and Judith Wurtzel, Senior students up because we can’t push them up.” Fellow, Education and Society Program, The Aspen Institute. Jay Mathews of The Washington Post led the panelists through Excellence vs. Equity a brisk round of questions about implications of the National Judith Wurtzel observed that there is a dichotomy in the U.S. Science Foundation’s recent $1.8 million award to the College between excellence in education and equity in education. Board to redesign high school AP courses in biology, physics, and Rethinking AP design could probably help with both ends of the environmental science. spectrum, she said. She added that the AP program is successful The College Board’s AP redesign plan will draw on the because it is a high-status course taught by motivated teachers to recommendations of a 2002 report issued by the National motivated students. Research Council, entitled Learning and Understanding: Panelists all stressed the need to structure meaningful Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in professional development for teachers once the AP program is U.S. High Schools. The redesign, which will be conducted revamped. Shirley Malcom pointed out that this kind of project by commissions appointed for each of the four AP science may have the additional benefit of expanding collaboration disciplines, is expected to be completed in December 2007. Then between the teaching community and the disciplinary there will be two years of professional development work before community. ■ the new AP science courses are launched in fall 2009. Pellegrino, one of the panelists, will lead the project. References When asked by Mathews to describe their greatest concerns 1 Alberts, Bruce. (2005). A Wakeup Call for Science Faculty. Cell 123, 739–741. regarding the current state of science education in the United 2 Mathews, Jay. (2006). Method to the ‘Best High Schools’ Madness. The Washington States, panelists mentioned the following issues: Post, May 11.

4 ASCB NEWSLETTER JUNE 2006 JUNE 2006 ASCB NEWSLETTER 5 ASCB Leadership Visits NIH Funding & Stem Cell Capitol Hill On May 9, members of the ASCB Council Policies Discussed joined Public Policy Committee members The impact of a declining or stagnant National Institutes of Health (NIH) on Capitol Hill for a day of meetings with budget on the U.S. biomedical research community was the focus of re- Members of Congress and staff. In their meet- cent discussions by the ASCB’s Public Policy Committee (PPC). In atten- ings, ASCB members explained the important dance at the May meeting were Chair Lawrence Goldstein, members George role NIH funding plays in biomedical research, Daley, John Gearhart, Doug and the impact declining budgets are having on Koshland, Sean Morrison, American research. Bob Palazzo, and Maxine Bruce Alberts, Singer, and ASCB Executive Kerry Bloom, Director Joan Goldberg, Joint John Condeelis, Steering Committee National Peter Devreotes, Coordinator Lynn Marquis, and Lawrence ASCB Public Policy Director Goldstein, Sandra Kevin Wilson. Masur, Barbara Of particular focus was the Meyer, Sean impact of declining budgets Morrison, Erin on RO1 grants. (See Council Public Policy Committee Chair Lawrence Goldstein story on page one.) In the of University of California, San Diego/HHMI, and O’Shea, Robert Carnegie Institution President Emeritus Maxine Palazzo, Anne coming months, the Singer. Ridley, Jean Committee will seek a Schwarzbauer, Gary better understanding of Left to right: Sean Morrison the funding breakdown Ward, and Zena of the University of Michigan Werb had meetings Medical School/HHMI meets and how future funding with 23 House and with Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). reductions may affect Senate offices. science. The Committee also reviewed current Join the ASCB efforts in the U.S. Senate Lawrence Goldstein, Maxine Singer, John Gearhart, Bob to pass H.R. Palazzo, Doug Koshland, and George Daley. Public Policy 810, a bill to expand Advocacy the number of human embryonic stem cell lines available to federally funded researchers. Efforts by stem cell supporters Team in the Senate to pass H.R. 810 have been stalled by vocal ■ Are you interested in public policy advocacy? opponents of biomedical research. Those opponents, led by Sen. ■ Concerned about federal funding for biomedical research in Sam Brownback (R-KS), have insisted that anti-research bills, America? including legislation to criminalize both nuclear transfer research ■ Worried about Intelligent Design being taught in America’s and the use of human chimeras, also be voted on by the Senate. science classrooms? The PPC discussed at length the impact these bills would have ■ Interested in educating your elected representatives about the on the biomedical research community. The members of the importance of biomedical research? Committee also reported on stem cell research-related action taking place in various states. The ASCB Public Policy Committee The Committee also discussed its plans for advocacy programs Needs You! at the 2006 ASCB Annual Meeting. This year, the Committee will highlight the Intelligent Design–evolution debate. They We need representatives in each of the 50 states to organize their also selected the 2006 Public Service Award recipients. And colleagues in support of biomedical research. Committee members along with ASCB Councilors participated in educational visits on Capitol Hill, joining Marquis, Wilson, We need you to organize and lead meetings with your representa- Goldberg, and Joint Steering Committee Education Liaison Peter tives and write letters and Op/Eds to your local papers. Kyros (see article at left). ■ See www.ascb.org/publicpolicy/project50/index.cfm or email [email protected] for more information.

6 ASCB NEWSLETTER JUNE 2006

Public Information Committee: Becoming More Visible With the objective of looking for a higher profile, the Public Information Committee (PIC) held its April meeting in Bethesda; in attendance were Chair Rex Chisholm, members Simon Atkinson, Kerry Bloom, Kip Sluder, Michael Shelanski, Kathy Wilson, ASCB Science Writer John Fleischman, and ASCB Executive Assistant/ Office Manager Cheryl Lehr. The Committee moved to seek Council approval for adding a science communications session to the official program of a future ASCB Annual Meeting. Meanwhile, PIC plans to spotlight its “Celldance 2006” film contest and an experimental “Science Slam” session at the ASCB Annual Meeting in San Diego. PIC members Kathy Wilson and Kerry Bloom Somewhere between a “poetry slam” and “slide karaoke,” a science slam gives contestants a few minutes and a few slides to express the point of their research before a general audience and a panel of judges. The best communicator wins the slam. PIC is considering the ASCB Newsroom as the 2006 site for an early evening slam. Other moves to increase PIC’s visibility with Society members include the recruitment of “PIC Associates” to help with Annual Meeting abstract screening for the PIC’s annual press book and news media outreach. The PIC is also looking at a “Practice of Science” session in San Left to right: ASCB Executive Assistant/Office Manager Cheryl Diego on “How to Talk about Evolution and ID with your Lehr; Committee members Kip Sluder, Michael Shelanski, Simon Atkinson; PIC Chair Rex Chisholm; and ASCB Science Neighbors and your School Board” as a prototype for future Writer John Fleischman. science communications sessions or workshops. ■

8 ASCB NEWSLETTER JUNE 2006 MEMBERS in the News

ASCB Members H. Robert Horvitz of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology/HHMI, an ASCB member since 1988, received Appointed to New an honorary doctor of science degree from Pennsylvania Stem Cell Advisory State University and spoke at the Eberly College of Committee Science commencement ceremony. Richard Hynes Brigid Hogan Richard Hynes of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology/HHMI, an Roger Tsien of the University of California, San Diego/ ASCB member since 1980 and HHMI, an ASCB member since 1987, was named the 2000 President; Brigid Hogan of the Gladstone Institutes’ 2006 Distinguished Lecturer. He University of North Carolina at Chapel presented his lecture “Building Molecules to Spy on Cells Hill, an ASCB member in 1995, then and Tumors” last month. from 2000-present; Stuart Orkin of Harvard Medical School/HHMI, Stuart Orkin Joshua Sanes an ASCB member since 2000; and Joshua Sanes of Harvard University, Robert Yu of the Medical College of Georgia, an ASCB an ASCB member since 1996 were among those selected to serve on member since 1994, received a 2006 Outstanding Faculty the newly created National Academies Human Embryonic Stem Cell Award from the Medical College of Georgia. Research Advisory Committee.

ASCB Members Elected to the AAAS Eleven ASCB members were among the 175 new members elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in April. ASCB Members Elected to the National Academy of Sciences Eight ASCB members were among the 72 members elected to the National Academy of Sciences on April 25. The election was held during the 143rd Annual Meeting of the Academy.

Kevin Campbell Shu Chien Don Cleveland University of Iowa/HHMI University of California, University of California, ASCB member since 1978 San Diego San Diego ASCB member since 1986 ASCB member since 1981

Wolfhard Almers Bonnie Bassler Don Cleveland Oregon Health & Science Princeton University University of California, University ASCB member since 2003 San Diego ASCB member since 1994 ASCB member since 1981

Joachim Frank Margaret Fuller Mark Groudine Wadsworth Center/HHMI Stanford University Fred Hutchinson Cancer ASCB member since 1998 ASCB member since 1982 Research Center ASCB member since 2005

Melanie Cobb Joseph Ecker Joachim Frank University of Texas Salk Institute for Wadsworth Center/HHMI Southwestern Medical Center Biological Studies ASCB member since 1998

Dough Koch/Kansas University ASCB member since 1980 ASCB member since 2002 R. Scott Hawley Lynne Maquat Peter Novick Stowers Institute for University of Rochester Yale University Medical Research Medical Center School of Medicine ASCB member since 2002 ASCB member since 1991 ASCB member since 1994

Terry Orr-Weaver Carl Wu Massachusetts Institute of Technology NIH/Center for Cancer George Oster Edward Salmon ASCB member from 1999-2001 Research/NCI/NIH University of California, Berkeley University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and since 2004 ASCB member since 1997 ASCB member since 1990 ASCB member since 1974

JUNE 2006 ASCB NEWSLETTER 9 DEAR Labby

Dear Labby: I am a postdoc in a respected lab where things had been going well for the past two years. Last week, all the lab members received a notice from the university administration saying that another postdoc in the lab is under investigation for possible scientific misconduct. The problem is related to a paper on which I was not an author, but, needless to say, the shock waves have hit everyone. The head of our lab told me that she cannot discuss the case. Then I found out that the accused postdoc (he is actually a good friend of mine) has hired a lawyer—all adding to the sense of mystery. I am really worried that I may become tainted by this situation, even though the postdoc is presumed innocent while the investigation is under way. I have published two papers during my postdoc so far—one in PNAS and the other in Molecular Biology of the Cell. I also have a third that has just been accepted by Nature Cell Biology. I am the first author on all three (with no “equally contributing” coauthor). I had planned on staying here another one or two years, but now I’m wondering if I should jump to another lab to continue my postdoctoral career. And even though she is not accused, how will a letter of recommendation from my lab head look to people now? —Troubled

Dear Troubled: First, as you say, “the postdoc is presumed innocent.” He is exercising his right by hiring a lawyer, a move that certainly should not be seen as “adding to the mystery.” Your lab head is also acting appropriately—either because she is instinctively acting responsibly, or she has been asked by the administration not to speak about the investigation. The incident may have been initiated by someone at your institution; protection of a “whistleblower” is key to these investigative procedures. If the work being questioned was supported by NIH funding, then your institution is following a detailed process set forth by the NIH Office of Research Integrity. The process includes strictures on parties discussing the matter outside of the formal investigative axis. Where does this leave you? First, and foremost, remember that the accused is your friend. Try to be as supportive as you can. Second, your productivity record is superb, and unless the head of your lab ends up being charged (which sounds unlikely according to your description of the case), neither she nor the lab will be tainted. She needs your support in this difficult time too. Even if the postdoc is found guilty, it’s the way in which the publication is retracted and Sh that the lab repeats the work honestly that says much about the CB ir lab head. In sum, Labby thinks the reasons for you to stay in this S ts good lab vastly outweigh any for leaving. ■ A —Labby

Direct your questions to [email protected]. Authors of questions chosen for publication may indicate whether or not they wish to be identified. Submissions may be edited for space and style.

Polo Shirts Fun T-shirts $18 $13

The American Society for Cell Biology (301) 347-9300, www.ascb.org

10 ASCB NEWSLETTER JUNE 2006 PUBLIC POLICY Briefing

House Shows NIH Support, Moderate Republicans Can Claim Victory The House of Representatives narrowly ap- and health portions of the budget will come proved its Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) Budget from other areas of the budget. Approximately Resolution, which serves as a blueprint for its $4 billion of the $7.158 billion will be moved work on the FY07 appropriations bill. The plan from the Department of Defense and foreign is part of the House version of the FY07 Budget operations portions of the budget to the Labor, Resolution. It includes $7.158 billion more than Health & Human Services and Education requested by President Bush for the health and Appropriations bill. The latter includes funding education sections of the federal budget that for the NIH. At least $1 billion in the additional provide funding to the National Institutes of funding will come from unspent money Health (NIH). In President Bush’s FY07 bud- originally intended for reconstruction activities get proposal, the health and education sections in Iraq. were funded at a level $4 billon lower than the Earlier this year, the Senate approved FY06 budget. The Castle amendment eliminates $7 billion more than provided in FY06 that shortfall and adds an additional $3.1 billion for education and health (see April ASCB over the FY06 budget for these areas. Newsletter). At presstime, this funding was The increase is the result of lengthy endangered, and it is doubtful that the House negotiations between the Republican leadership and Senate will ever meet in conference to of the House and a group of moderate work out the differing provisions of the two Republicans led by NIH champion Mike Castle bills. Instead, each House will likely draft its (R-DE). Because the Republican leadership did individual appropriations bills based on the not want to increase the overall size of the FY07 provisions of its version of the FY07 Budget budget, the additional funds for the education Resolution. ■ JSC Capitol Hill Day Left: Joint Steering Committee for Public Policy (JSC) Education Liaison Coordinator Peter Kyros briefs Hill Day participants prior to their attending congressional meetings.

Above: The Maryland constituency: Kenna Shaw, Michael Stitzel, Lori Kelman, and Rachel Cox.

Left to right: Kayleen Bailey, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), Corey Morris, Susan Wee, Omar Quintero, Iona Black, and Christa Helms.

Left to right: Corey Morris, Susan Wee, Iona Black, Left to right: Rachel Cox, Lori Kelman, Kameha Kidd, Cornelius Watson, Gregory Darnell, Emily Updegraff, Kenna Shaw, Michael Stitzel, and Dipak Banerjee and Eliza Small visit the Botanical Gardens between meet with a representative in the office of Sen. Paul meetings. Sarbanes (D-MD).

JUNE 2006 ASCB NEWSLETTER 11 Creationism Monitor Update

Michigan—A bill establishing new state high school graduation standards has passed the Michigan statehouse without the orig- inal requirement that state science courses include the critical evaluation of scientific theories.

Alabama—Two bills that would protect teachers who teach “a full range of scientific views” and students who might have differing views on evolu- Mississippi—Governor Haley tion died when the Alabama Barber has signed a bill into law that legislature adjourned. would allow teachers and students to dis- cuss how life began. The bill, originally in- tended to allow classroom discussions about Intelligent Design, was expanded by the state leg- islature. The new law says, in part, “No local school board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from individual students on the origin of life.” Source: various media reports

Important Victory for Missouri Stem Cell Supporters Congressional Biomedical Supporters of stem cell re- search in Missouri suc- Research Caucuses

ceeded in gaining the Right and below: required number of sig- Bruce Alberts of natures to place the Stem the University of Cell Research and Cures California, San Francisco, spoke Initiative on the Missouri on April 26 at a state ballot in November. Congressional Supporters of the Biomedical Research Caucus initiative collected 288,991 briefing on Teaching signatures from state Science: How We voters. This was twice the Fail and How We Could Succeed number actually needed Left and above: (see page 1). and surpassed the signature Joe Leigh Simpson requirements in seven of the of Baylor College nine Congressional districts of Medicine spoke at a Congressional in the state, for one more Biomedical than required by state law. Research Caucus If adopted by voters, on May 10 on Earlier and Safer the initiative would ensure Detection of Fetal that any stem cell research Down Syndrome, permitted under federal law while Peter Kyros, JSC Education would also be allowed in Liaison, looks on. Missouri. ■

12 ASCB NEWSLETTER JUNE 2006

INCYTES from MBC June, Vol. 17, No. 6

In Vivo Dynamics of Rac–Membrane Interactions Konstadinos Moissoglu, Boris M. Slepchenko, Nahum Meller, Alan F. Horwitz, and Martin A. Schwartz Like other Rho GTPases, Rac undergoes a cycle of activation/ inactivation and a cycle of exchange between membranes and cytosol. Models for how these two regulatory cycles are coupled and how GEFs (guanine nucleotide exchange factors), GAPs (GTPase activating proteins), and GDIs (guanine nucleotide dissociation inhibitors) affect each step are largely based on in vitro analyses. Here, the authors use fluorescence loss in photobleaching (FLIP) of GFP-Rac together with

mathematical modeling to determine the rate of dissociation (Koff) of

GFP-Rac from the membrane. They find, as expected, that the Koff of a constitutively activated G12VRac mutant is 10-fold slower than that of

wild-type Rac. Less anticipated was the observation that overexpression of the GEF Tiam1 decreased Koff, suggesting that Tiam1 can mediate GTP exchange on membrane-bound GDP-Rac, thereby preventing its movement to the cytoplasm. Also unexpectedly, neither overexpression

of RhoGDI nor overexpression of its shRNA-mediated knock-down significantly affected Koff, although both decreased the levels of membrane- bound Rac. Thus, RhoGDI appears to control Rac function in vivo by regulating its activation and/or membrane association.

Myosin VI Stabilizes an Actin Network During Drosophila Spermatid Individualization Tatsuhiko Noguchi, Mart Lenartowska, and Kathryn G. Miller Myosin VI has unusual properties in vitro: It moves along actin in a direction opposite to all other myosin motors, it moves processively for only short distances, and it is stalled by backward force. In vivo, myosin VI has been proposed to play both a structural role, for example in supporting actin-based sterocilia, and a cargo transporting role, particularly in endocytosis. Here, the authors examine the requirement for myosin VI in individualization, a late stage of spermatogenesis in Drosophila. During individualization, actin cones move synchronously from the sperm nuclei to the ends of the tails, pushing the cytoplasm and most organelles out in front of them to generate individual spermatids. Myosin VI is localized to a dense and branched actin meshwork at the front of the actin cones where fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) analysis

shows it to exhibit a long dwell time (t1/2~ 2 min). Loss of myosin VI results in a reduction in branched actin filaments and inefficient clearance of cytosol and organelles, without altering actin dynamics. The data are consistent with a structural role for myosin VI in stabilizing branched actin structures.

MAP Kinase Pathway–Dependent Phosphorylation of the L1-CAM Ankyrin Binding Site Regulates Neuronal Growth John D. Whittard, Takeshi Sakurai, Melanie R. Cassella, Mihaela Gazdoiu, and Dan P. Felsenfeld The neuronal adhesion protein L1-CAM is essential for growth and guidance of neurons during development. Tyrosine phosphorylation within the ankyrin binding site on the cytoplasmic tail of L1-CAM disrupts ankryin binding, reduces adhesion, and enhances neuronal growth. To identify the kinase(s) involved, the authors used a novel reporter molecule, designated L1-BRET, comprising a fusion protein with a paired bioluminescent donor, Renilla luciferase (Rluc), and modified GFP acceptor (GFP2, Sapphire GFP), separated by 12 amino acids encoding the kinase target sequence. Phosphorylation of a single tyrosine residue in the intervening kinase target sequence results in a decrease in the BRET signal due to phosphorylation-induced conformational changes in the reporter construct. The genetically encoded construct facilitated large-scale screening of kinase inhibitors and siRNA knock-downs to identify the MAP kinase pathway as being a critical component of the pathway regulating the phosphorylation in vivo, and revealed inside-out regulation of L1- CAM activity. The reporter can be targeted to specific subcellular locations and may be generally useful for in vivo identification and analysis of other kinase activities.

The ESCRT-III Subunit hVps24 Is Required for Degradation But Not Silencing of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Kristi G. Bache, Susanne Stuffers, Lene Malerød, Thomas Slagsvold, Camilla Raibord, Selphine Lecharderu, Sébastian Wälchli, Gergely L. Lukacs, Andreas Brech, and Harald Stenmark Activated epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFRs) are ubiquitinated, transported into multivesicular bodies (MVBs), and degraded in lysosomes. Three endosomal sorting complexes required for transport, ESCRT-I, -II, and -III, are thought to act sequentially and in concert to recognize the ubiquitin sorting signal and to package EGFRs into intralumenal vesicles to curtail signaling. Unexpectedly, the authors found that although EGFR degradation was inhibited by siRNA depletion of either the ESCRT-I subunit Tsg101 or the ESCRT-III subunit hVps24, only ESCRT-1 depletion resulted in prolonged signaling by activated EGFR. Thus, silencing of activated EGFR appears to occur independently of degradation. Other phenotypic differences were observed that could influence the inactivation of EGFR. First, endosomal acidification in Tsg101-depleted cells was reduced or delayed relative to control or hVps24-depleted cells. Second, multi-cisternal endosomes, from which EGFR may continue to signal, accumulated in Tsg101-depleted cells, whereas small MVBs with intralumenal vesicles accumulated in hVps24-depleted cells. These data further suggest that the functional relationships between ESCRT-I and ESCRT-III may be less linear than previously thought. ■

WOMEN in Cell Biology Becoming Visible: Effective Self-Promotion Being a young scientist yourself, you observe many award selection committees actively re- other young scientists and wonder how they cruit nominations from their colleagues to maxi- were selected as the award winners, the sympo- mize consideration of all worthy candidates. It is sium speakers, the review writers, the committee a fact that if one is not nominated, one certainly members, and Councilors of the Society. How will not be considered. did they become visible enough to be acknowl- Although awards represent a good, if narrow, edged and invited? opportunity for effective The answer has many self-promotion, good different parts, but you Peer recognition … relationships, along with can be sure that one aspect is also noticed by good science, provide the has been effective self- others who might networks for sustained career … good promotion. development. In many be in charge of your relationships, The term self-promotion training programs, students next promotion, or on along with may evoke images of and postdoctoral fellows are boorish, boastful, bombastic the panel reviewing provided the opportunity to good science, behaviors by scientists your next grant, or meet with seminar speakers provide the “more skilled in public chairing a symposium or even organize seminar networks for 1 relations than in research.” organizing committee. series. Be active in these sustained However, self-promotion events so that you meet these career can simply entail effective invited scientists. development. networking to introduce oneself, and one’s work, to other scientists by a Simply Asking variety of means. After all, communication is One of the most difficult actions for a young the engine of scientific discovery. Peer-reviewed scientist is simply asking a question in a de- publication provides the credibility for the partment seminar or at a scientific meeting. description of the science, but there are myriad Hearing one’s voice in a public forum can be other ways for communicating one’s work, ideas, terrifying at first. Candid senior scientists will and relationship to the scientific community as note that if you missed a point, you can be well. sure that others did too. Nonetheless, if the fo- One way to become better known is by rum context is initially too intimidating, speak- receiving an award. Peer recognition for ing one-on-one with the speaker after the talk achievements and discoveries is not only is a fine alternative. There will be interest in gratifying, it is also noticed by others who might your question, in your ideas, and this positive be in charge of your next promotion, or on the reception may provide confidence for asking panel reviewing your next grant, or chairing a group questions in the next forum. symposium organizing committee. Nominations There is also a way for speakers to help. The for awards are often done with the goal of seminar speaker can specifically call on people surprising the recipient, but far more often, she or he does not know, or can encourage the nominee is asked for materials in support questions from the younger voices in the of the nomination. “Given the unsupervised audience. Such graciousness from a more senior nature of much of what we do…I am really in scientist can have a large impact. the best position to describe … my work most effectively.”2 Understand Scientific Connection No matter how good one’s science may be, there Invite Champions, Ask Questions is always science that is better. Keeping in mind In some cases, a young scientist may learn how one’s own science connects to the science about an award and ask a more senior scientist of others and adds value to the field can pro- to champion her or his nomination, in which vide confidence at meetings. That confidence is case putting together a package of materials fa- enough to start a conversation with a more cilitates the process for the nominator. Indeed, senior or even a “famous” scientist. If others join

16 ASCB NEWSLETTER JUNE 2006 in, all the better, not only for your visibility but ships naturally provide visibility, and that vis- also for sharing and critiquing ideas. Everyone ibility provides valuable networking just as the From visibility benefits. Being loud and obnoxious works networking provides valuable visibility. against anyone. Communicating clearly and in- Effective self-promotion starts early and comes influence, teracting personably are key. locally. The friends made in graduate school, a voice in the Poster sessions also are an excellent venue for both students and faculty, form the first network. science, and becoming visible. Presenting posters provides the These scientists can provide a valuable core of a platform for opportunity to give interactive “miniseminars.” contacts throughout one’s career. Staying in encouraging the Senior scientists can again be positive participants touch with friends comes naturally, and science visibility of the here by listening to the description of the work provides many opportunities for intersecting next generations and asking questions. The poster presenter will paths. Graduate school friends will distribute deeply appreciate this opportunity to interact into multiple areas of science, and in future of scientists … and will also remember that visit. Going to the years they will be providers of the names of posters of other scientists is equally important scientists they know for awards, symposium since it provides practice in asking questions. speakers, review writers, and Society Officers. Their networks and yours will intersect. From Participate in Institutions, Societies visibility comes influence, a voice in the science, All of these actions are suitable for anyone devel- and a platform for encouraging the visibility oping a career, including those in their first inde- of the next generations of scientists who also pendent positions. In addition, scientists should will be wondering how people become known seek opportunities to participate on committees, scientifically. ■ not only in their place of employment, but also —Caroline Kane in their scientific societies. Such committee ser- vice provides an excellent opportunity for meet- References ing others and for sharing ideas and work habits. 1 Nelkin, D. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. W. H. Freeman, 1987. This “self-promotion” works best if not premedi- 2 Lang, J. M. Shameless Self-Promotion. Chronicle of Higher tated. Communication and developing relation- Education, 50(3): C4, September 12, 2003.

WICB Selects Awardees, Plans Events Recognition and career issues were the focus of the May 6 meeting of the Women in Cell Biology (WICB) Committee. The Committee met at the ASCB office in Bethesda, MD. In attendance were Chair Ursula Goodenough and members Alexandra Ainsztein, Elizabeth Blackburn, Caroline Kane, Laurie Littlepage, Manuela Martins-Green, Sandra Masur, Suzanne Pfeffer, Jean Schwarzbauer, Vivian Siegel, Phil Stahl, and Zena Werb. Also present were ASCB President Mary Beckerle, ASCB Executive Director Joan Goldberg, and ASCB Executive Assistant/Office Manager Cheryl Lehr. The WICB Junior and Senior Awards were selected from the large pools of candidates nominated. The awards will be announced in the July issue of the ASCB Newsletter, pending notification of the award winners. This year, WICB is awarding a Special Citation for Advocacy for Women in Science; Right to left: Mary Beckerle speaks to Alexandra Ainsztein, the recipient of the Citation will also be announced Zena Werb, Manuela Martins-Green, and Sandra Masur. in the July Newsletter. The Committee also discussed the Annual Career Lunch to be held on December 11, and added a new table discussion on “Career Opportunities in the Era of Extended Postdocs.” The WICB Evening Program will address “Creative Responses to the Current Funding Environment,” while the WICB Workshop will focus on “Developing Leadership Skills.” A “Role Model” online pictorial is in development to offer young scientists visual Left to right: WICB Chair Ursula WICB Committee members Laurie Goodenough and ASCB Executive Director Littlepage and Philip Stahl. acknowledgment that science and family life can be Joan Goldberg. combined. ■

JUNE 2006 ASCB NEWSLETTER 17 ASCB Profile Joan Argetsinger Steitz Attention for attention’s sake is not the Joan small RNAs that have since been discovered Steitz style. Her Yale career, her publications, to play a role in multiple steps in RNA and, most of all, the generations of students biosynthesis.” who’ve trained in her lab are honors enough, says Steitz. Yet the announcement from Toronto Opening the Door this spring that Steitz was a winner of the “This is fabulous news,” says Kim Mowry, a Gairdner International Prize set off a wave of re- former Steitz graduate student now at Brown joicing among Steitz’s colleagues, collaborators, University. “Joan deserves every honor that and students. The Gairdner, which comes with comes her way, but this work, in particular, real- $30,000 (Canadian) and a reputation as a Nobel ly opened the door to understanding splicing.” “short list,” recognized Steitz for her 1980 land- For those in the field, the Gairdner prize mark “discovery of the reactivity of autoimmune only underscores what has long been recognized sera with nuclear riboprotein particles and elu- about Joan Steitz, according to Christine Joan Steitz cidation of the rules of small nuclear RNAs in Guthrie of the University of California, San gene expression.” Francisco. “Indisputably, Joan is the most famous contributor to the world of small A “Snurp” in Time RNA and RNP particles,” Although Steitz now calls this says Guthrie, “and one of work “ancient history,” it was the greatest scientists of our “Indisputably, Joan a true breakthrough. Her ob- generation.” servation that antibodies from is the most famous For women in biology, lupus patients react with small contributor to the Steitz has been a sterling role nuclear ribonucleoproteins or world of small RNA model and “a tireless promoter snRNPs (that is, small parti- and RNP particles,” of women in science,” Guthrie cles containing RNA and pro- says Guthrie, “and continues. For women in the teins) gave Steitz a way to test one of the greatest Steitz lab, Joan led by example, her hypothesis about what sn- Mowry adds. “It was clear scientists of our RNPs do in cells. Namely, that that anything was possible they are adaptors involved in generation.” (for women) because Joan had recognizing splice sites in new- already done it all.” ly transcribed messenger RNA. Using the antibodies as probes, Steitz and grad- Big Shy Country “Her hypothesis uate student Michael Lerner characterized the Such praise usually sends her heading for cov- set the field ahead U1, U2, U4, U5, and U6 snRNPs, (“snurps,” er, Steitz admits. A Minnesota native, Steitz was by light years as the name has been pronounced ever since). raised to be attention-shy. Besides, Steitz would and heralded Moreover, they hypothesized that the U1 sn- rather talk about her more recent work on oth- RNP defines a splice site through complementa- the avalanche of er “snurp” families, including the role of U7 sn- ry base pairing with the 5´ end of an intron se- RNP in the synthesis of histone mRNA and her small RNAs that quence. Intron sequences need to be spliced out discovery of a secondary, highly specialized spli- have since been of gene transcripts, leaving exons, a preliminary ceosome built around the U12 snRNP family. discovered to play step in making proteins. The U1 snRNP was the Yet the Gairdner must bring some quiet a role in multiple first element of the long-sought mechanism that satisfaction to a woman who entered science at steps in RNA edited out introns. The remaining exons are the a time when women researchers were merely biosynthesis.” part of transcribed mRNA that carries genetic tolerated and certainly not expected to win instructions from the nucleus to the ribosome, international science prizes. Steitz recalls that where proteins are made. The excised introns are when she graduated from Antioch College degraded in the nucleus. in 1963, she decided to go to medical school “Her insight was a true inspiration,” because she knew some women doctors, but according to Susan Berget of the Baylor College she didn’t know any women scientists. “There of Medicine. “Her hypothesis set the field ahead weren’t any women professors in science at any by light years and heralded the avalanche of of the major research universities,” she adds.

18 ASCB NEWSLETTER JUNE 2006 An Embarrassment of Honors my own independent project. This was the first Nevertheless, Steitz went on to become a pro- time I wasn’t helping somebody else with a proj- fessor at a major research university— Yale— ect,” she noted. “Having to do it all myself made where she now holds a prestigious Sterling me realize that is what I wanted to do.” At Gall’s Professorship in Molecular Biophysics and urging, Steitz decided to transfer from the medi- Biochemistry (MB&B). She is an HHMI cal school to Harvard University’s new “commit- Investigator at Yale’s Boyer Center for Molecular tee” graduate program in biochemistry and mo- Medicine, a former chair of her department, lecular biology (BMB). and a member of the National Academy of Gall says he did little more than recognize Sciences since 1983. The Gairdner prize joins a first-rate scientific talent and call his friend, “It was clear an honors list that includes the National Medal Jim Watson, to see what could be done about that anything of Science (1986), the Weizmann Women and a transfer. “I’ve always claimed Joan as my was possible (for Science Award (1994), the FASEB Excellence in student, although she really wasn’t,” admits Gall. women) because Science Award (2003), and the National Cancer “She just had that summer in my lab. But as Joan had already Institute’s Rosalind E. Franklin Award for she’s become more and more famous, it’s been done it all.” Women in Science (2006). At the 2005 Annual gratifying to think that I had a small part in Meeting, the ASCB awarded Steitz its high- influencing her. Still, my guess is that she would est scientific honor, the E. B. Wilson Medal. All have gone into research, no matter what.” this talk of honors is slightly embarrassing to Steitz. Ask how many honorary doctorates she Watson and the Important Question has to date and she groans. (It’s 11.) At Harvard, Steitz was the only woman in her Joan Argetsinger Steitz is the daughter of BMB class of 10 and the first female graduate schoolteachers and a graduate of an all-girls student in Watson’s lab. Watson, who won the high school, which, she says, Nobel Prize in 1962, only the probably accounts for her year before Steitz’s arrival at solid grounding in science and “She just had that Harvard, was a one-of-a-kind math. At Antioch College in summer in my mentor, according to Steitz. Yellow Springs, OH, Steitz’s lab. But as she’s For one, Watson “capitalized chemistry classmates included become more and on his grad students,” Steitz Stephen Jay Gould, the more famous, it’s recalls. “Jim always said that future Harvard evolutionary postdocs came to him with biologist and essayist, and been gratifying to ‘malformed ideas’ that he had Judith Greenwald Voet, the think that I had to re-engineer. He also taught future Swarthmore biochemist a small part in me the Watson philosophy: and textbook author. Science influencing her. Study the important problems. textbooks weren’t as advanced, Still, my guess is I like to think I’ve done that.” however, in the late 1950s; that she would It was Watson who first intro- they hadn’t caught up with have gone into duced Steitz to RNAs in bac- such discoveries as that of the teriophages and the important double-stranded nature of research, no question of how a ribosome DNA in 1953, Steitz recalls. matter what.” recognizes the beginning of a She didn’t encounter the gene for translation. emerging science of molecular At Harvard, Steitz also biology until she took an Antioch “coop” job met classmate X-ray crystallographer Thomas placement in the Massachusetts Institute of Steitz. The couple married in 1966 and, after Technology laboratory of Alex Rich. There finishing their doctorates, moved in 1967 she was excited by the science, but the career from Cambridge, MA, to Cambridge, UK, for prospects for a woman in research science postdoctoral work. Watson contacted friend seemed nonexistent. and co-Nobel recipient Francis Crick, who said Joan Steitz would be welcome at the Medical Finding Herself at the Bench Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Accepted by Harvard Medical School for the fall Biology. Unfortunately, Crick failed to arrange of 1963, Steitz went home to Minneapolis af- lab space for her. When Steitz arrived in ter graduation in search of a summer job. She England, Crick could only suggest a dry lab found one in the University of Minnesota lab library project instead. Fortunately, Steitz found of Joe Gall. Gall put her to work, not as a tech- her way around Crick’s suggestion and was given nician, but as a bench researcher. “Joe gave me three feet of bench space by staff scientist Mark

JUNE 2006 ASCB NEWSLETTER 19 Bretscher. There, she made her fi rst mark as for three seasons before shoulder trouble ended an independent investigator by locating three his pro-baseball dreams. Jon Steitz is now back in translation “start points” on bacteriophage New Haven … at Yale Law School. mRNA. From Bench to Bullpen The mRNA Black Box Although Jon Steitz didn’t follow his parents’ In 1970, both Steitzes were offered positions footsteps into biomedicine, his two best friends at Yale. In New Haven, Joan Steitz continued in the Yale bullpen, Matt McCarthy and Craig her work on bacteriophage RNA bind- Breslow, were admitted to medical school by ing sites before moving into eukaryotic way of the Steitz lab. After majoring in MB&B, Yale remains a cells and the black box mystery of mRNA McCarthy and Breslow were both drafted into splicing. Working with antibodies from professional baseball, but not before they’d been family affair for lupus patients, Steitz made her key dis- drafted to the bench. “Part of the reason Yale is the Steitzes. covery about the role of snRNPs in splic- so great is that it has such fabulous undergrad- Their son ing. It was a basic science breakthrough, uates,” Steitz says. “Getting them into your lab majored in their but one that used tools from clinical is such a joy, so I made sure I got those baseball department … medicine, autoantibodies from patients guys in here.” with immune disorders. Today, experts Add McCarthy to the long list of Steitz believe that mRNA splicing defects are mentees: After one year in the minors, McCarthy involved in 10–15% of all human genet- is now at Harvard Medical School. Meanwhile ic diseases. Breslow has deferred, yet again, his place at New Yale remains a family affair for the Steitzes. York University Medical School. In the summer Their son, Jon, majored in their department, of 2005, Breslow made it to the majors with the MB&B, because “it was easy for him,” according Padres; for the 2006 season, he is with the Red to his mother. “He really majored in baseball.” Sox. Steitz loves to be in the stands, whether it Bitten by the baseball bug at age six, Jon Steitz is Yale, the Brewers, or the Red Sox on the fi eld. pitched for the Yale varsity team. He was drafted “I’m a fan of the kids. I’m not a fan of the team,” after his junior year in 2001 by the Milwaukee she says. Baseball or research science, Joan Steitz Brewers organization. He played in the minors always roots for the players. ■

Free Career Advice Publications

Life Science Research and Teaching: Strategies for a Successful Job Hunt

Career Advice for Life Scientists II

Career Advice for Life Scientists I

Order your copies through the ASCB Online Store. www.ascb.org

20 ASCB NEWSLETTER JUNE 2006 New Members The ASCB Council admitted 215 new members and granted Emeritus status to six members of the Society last month:

Mohamed S. Abdelrahman Danielle Lorraine Ippolito James Henry Scott Marc Walter Rajiv Ahuja Gisli Jenkins Attila Sebe Hongwei Wang Leonidas G. Alexopoulos Nathan Maduka Jideama Pierre Sens Lichun Wang Khalid Ali Alkheraije Sun Young Jun Chang-Soo Seong Wendy Westbroek Noelle Danielle Ammon Vladislava Juric Di Sha Randall B. Widelitz Carol M. Anderson Walter H. Kahr Neeraj Sharma John Widjenes Cindy Jo Arrigo Gary D. Kao Kenna Mills Shaw Hattie Wilson Sayaka Asai Leonid Katz Zhixia Shi Jamie L. Wilson Renee A. Baran Tanvir Saleem Khatlani Rajkumar S. Singh Derek T. Wong Dario Barbone Jeong Hoon Kim Damien Soghoian Wei Meng Woo Kari L. Barlan Emily E. Kimball Kyung Han Song Zhiqing Xing Erin L. Barnhart Sina Koch Laura B. Sontag Mei Xiu Gerard M. Beaudoin Xiangduo Kong Jyoti Srivastava Shan Yan Sebastian Bernales Lori Elizabeth Krueger Georges C. St Laurent Anat Yanai Ramona Bhattacharya Erik L. Kvam Mark Rory Steedman Yonghua Yang Nicolas Biais Shari Lee Laprise Yue Sun River U. Ybarra Dylan Tyler Burnette Jean C. Lee Vidyodhaya Sundaram Sergey N. Yechikhov Sara Call Jen-Fu Lee Samantha Sutton Mohamed Adel Zayed Christopher Vincent Carman Kwonmoo Lee Ken-Ichi Takemaru Changqing Zeng Raymond Eric Chen Kyung Eun Lee Tingdong Tang Xuefeng Zhang Jackie C. Cheng Soh Hyun Lee Qinghua Tao Ye Zhang Andrew G. Clark Catherine D. Lewis Julio C. Tapia Ying Zhang Natalia Cockcroft Catherine R. Lewis Jaclyn A. TeRiele Gaoli Zheng Tameka Conley Chai-Fei Li Mladen Tomich Tiangang Zhuang Dan Constantinescu Jingchuan Li Mark M. Tran Shaoqiu Zhuo Caroline Conte Legong Li Barbara Crippes Trask Helena A. Zientek Alejandro Cortez XiaoZhen Liang William Jeffrey Triffo Olaf Zoellner Danielle Caterina Crippen Yingjian Liang Marina Tsatmali Emeritus Status Granted Sarah E. Cross Sukhwinderjit Lidder Hironori Ueno Charles Epstein Frank Czauderna Robert C. Liddington Akiyoshi Uezu Daniel S. Friend Jessica L. D’Agostino Cheng Liu Emily Parker Updegraff Barbara A. Hamkalo George D. Dalton G.W. Gant Luxton Micaela Vargas Edward Massaro Dongmin Dang Roman Lyakhovetsky Wim Voorhout Alan Weeds Rahul H. Dave Gustavo V. Mallo Amy Jo Wagers Nelson A. Wivel ■ Andrew L. DeMond Michal Tomasz Marzec John M. Di Guglielmo Raymond R. Mattingly Juan C. Diaz Svetlana Mazel Roberto Dominguez Audrey McAlinden SYMPOSIUM ANNOUNCEMENT Carolyn G. Donahue-Conant Leslie Marie Mebane Xiu Rong Dong Edward J. Michaud Star M. Dunham-Ems Sina Mohammadi Ava Caudill Dykes William Allen Monroe Dennis J. Eastburn Luiz H. Monteiro-Leal David L. Ennist Gregory Raymond Monteith Cellular and Molecular Treatments Nathan M. Ennist Kwangdeok Moon of Neurological Diseases Conference Michael Alfred Ensslin Kwan-Hoon Moon Azucena Esparis-Ogando Daniel J. Morgan Robert V. Farese Edward L. Morgan At the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Victor Faundez Nadya M. Morozova Cambridge, MA Michael John Fero Corey Morris Sylvia Fong Ruth D. Murrell-Lagnado September 29-30, 2006 Donald A. Fox Baby-Periyanayaki Muthusamy Aldo T. Gamarra Barbara Nagle Baris Genc Dohyun Nam 4th conference on the prospects for neural transplantation, gene therapy and Ania Gheyara Azin G. Nezami progenitor cell biology Alexandre R. Gingras Daniela Nicastro Helmut Glantschnig David G. Nicholls Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry Lauren Monica Goins Maho Niwa Harvard Medical School/McLean Hospital/ Yale E. Goldman Hiroshi Nojima Massachusetts General Hospital Matvey Gorovoy Makoto Ogasawara Sarah Ruth Green HeeJung Oh Organizers: Cat Haglund Barbara Maria Olszewska-Pazdrak Hye-Jung Han Carlos Pantoja Dr. Ole Isacson and Dr. Xandra Breakefield Sangyoon Han Francesco Parlati Yasushi Hanakawa James F. Patton Speakers: Garret L. Hayes Barbara S. Pauly E. Arenas, F. Beal, A.-L. Benabid, S. Bhatia, B. Davidson, K. Eggan, J. Elisseeff, Chen He Roy A. Quinlan H. Federoff, M. Filbin, S. Goldman, C. Henderson, Christopher Dysert Heger Kenny Rachlin N.L. Jeon, D. Kerr, J. Kordower, J. Macklis, I. Mendez, L. Naldini, Mary Herbert Jean B. Regard W. Olanow, P. Rakic, R. Sánchez-Pernaute, K. Spalding, L. Studer, John F. Hess Vladimir Reiser J. Surmeier Amro Mohamed Hetta David L. Richmond Ramona A. Hoh Darren Ritsick In a workshop structure, this conference addresses recent issues in experimental Paul Holden Scott F. Roalofs Joost C.M. Holthuis Charles J. Roberge therapies and neuroscience relative to neurodegenerative diseases. Jessica Hornick Robert A. Rollins Yanping Huang Massimo M. Santoro For registration information, please go to: Kristina Elizabeth Ile Brian Charles Schaefer http://www.neuroregeneration.org/CMT4.htm

JUNE 2006 ASCB NEWSLETTER 21 LETTERS to the Editor The Diversity Imperative To the Editor: Thank you to Mary Beckerle for courage and leadership in addressing issues of diversity in the President’s Column of the ASCB Newsletter. I am encouraged in my own struggles by her resolve to do so; and I wish that others who have such an opportunity would do the same. As an African American scientist, I often wonder what is the level of awareness among majority scientists regarding how exclusive American science still is toward members of minority populations. Beckerle has addressed many of the factors responsible for this situation in her columns. In her more recent column (March 2006), she relates work force demographics as a basis for more attention to “education, inclusion, assessment, and accountability” for efforts and programs that have the stated goal of increasing the participation of minorities in the American scientific enterprise. In my continuing idealism, I wish that the majority population was also motivated by basic fairness and recognition that everyone is better off when ethical and moral values dictate regard for and treatment of minorities and women when it comes to access to opportunities. Beckerle’s articles are on the mark in identifying current shortcomings in federal and university policies for increasing diversity in science. Understanding the causes of these failings and addressing them with a genuine effort will improve science by utilizing talent that is now being foolishly wasted. It is also important to recognize that the greater share of racism and other forms of discrimination are experienced locally. For optimal success in increasing diversity among scientists, it is essential that universities and other research institutions acknowledge their own practices and those of their majority and minority scientists that foster exclusion of excellent students and faculty whose cultural heritage or gender is different than that of the majority. Thereafter, institutions must develop mechanisms to monitor for and end such practices. I am still waiting for some great institution to lead the way in reducing this most critical barrier to increasing the diversity of American scientists. —James Sherley

To the Editor: Both February and March President’s Columns on diversity resonate with me. Thanks to Mary Beckerle for raising this issue to a high level of visibility. —Caroline Kane Dear Labby—MTAs To the Editor: I always like Labby’s answers to the many diverse issues that are published in the ASCB Newsletter. I read Labby’s March 2006 comments concerning the shipping of scientific material that must always be tracked by MTA forms. I agree with the arguments but there is also to me an important additional reason why we must avoid the wild shipping of living cell lines, antisera, etc.: These materials can be dangerous per se (infectious agents, radioactive, etc.) or accidentally contaminated (viruses from serum, mycoplasma, etc.). That would be a serious problem if the package—insufficiently characterized— is opened by a nonscientific person or just lost in nature. To incorrectly send biological material is irresponsible on many different levels, including public health. —Isabelle Coppens Stressed Out??!! To the Editor: I hate to fill your mailbox with more email, but I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy and appreciate the President’s Column in the ASCB Newsletter. I just read “Stressed Out??!!” Mary Beckerle always gives such practical and helpful advice. I think this column has tremendous impact with the readers. —Susann Brady-Kalnay

To the Editor: Just a quick note of appreciation for Mary Beckerle’s April 2006 ASCB Newsletter President’s Column. As I started reading the column with a mountain of emails, grant applications in progress, and “very

22 ASCB NEWSLETTER JUNE 2006 important” papers to read, pressing at my back, I was wondering whether I really had time to go through the column. I am very glad I made the time. I am a new investigator and although all the pressures Beckerle describe are par for the course, it was great to see them articulated so well. It is easy to lose sight of why we are doing what we do. The ASCB has been a fantastic advocate of promoting the joys and challenges of cell biology research and provides a wonderful forum and support network for the cell biology (and greater) community. Thanks again for the time Beckerle and her colleagues put into the Society and cell biology community at large. —Patrick Humbert MBC—Color-blindness To the Editor: I would like to make ASCB members aware that many of the color figures that appear in Molecular Biology of the Cell (MBC) and other journals are impossible for color-blind readers to comprehend. Approximately 4% of journal readers are unable to interpret dual-labeled micrographs presented in green and red. There are two main problems that these images present to color-blind readers. First, the red is very hard to distinguish from the black background. Second, the yellow that represents the merge is impossible to distinguish from the green signal. For those of us who value the data collected with the use of imaging techniques this can be frustrating. There is a very simple solution to the problem. If authors present dual-labeled images in green and magenta rather than in green and red, the merge is represented by white, and the colors are easily distinguished by most color-blind readers. To generate green/magenta images, all an author needs to do is to copy the red channel into the blue channel in Photoshop. The website of the Jfly data depository for Drosophila researchers includes information on color- blindness and how to make figures and presentations that are intelligible to a color-blind audience (http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/color/). —Mark A. Smith

Editor’s Note: Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the ASCB membership. Sandra Schmid, Editor-in-Chief of MBC, states that information about how to make dual-labeled micrographs intelligible to color-blind readers will be added to the MBC Instructions for Authors. She will make the MBC Editorial Board aware of the issue as well. ■

JUNE 2006 ASCB NEWSLETTER 23 The ASCB 46th Annual Meeting December 9-13, San Diego, CA Schedule Announced Mary Beckerle, President ■ Anthony Bretscher, Program Chair ■ Arshad Desai, Local Arrangements Chair

MINISYMPOSIA

KEYNOTE SYMPOSIUM Apoptosis Kinetochores and Centrosomes Eileen White, Rutgers University Michel L. F. Bornens, Institute Curie, Paris Junying Yuan, Harvard Medical School Peter Todd Stukenberg, University of Virginia School of Saturday, December 9 Medicine Frontiers in Cell Biology—6:00 pm Applications of Biosensors Thomas R. Cech, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Atsushi Miyawaki, RIKEN Brain Science Institute Life at the Microtubule Plus End 1989 Nobel Laureate Alice Ting, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Anna Akhmanova, Erasmus University Kevin Vaughan, University of Notre Dame Cancer Mechanisms SYMPOSIA Lisa Maria Coussens, University of California, San Francisco Mechanisms of Actin Dynamics Mary J. C. Hendrix, Children’s Memorial Research Center/ Bruce Lane Goode, Brandeis University Sunday, December 10 Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Dorit Hanein, The Burnham Institute Coordination of Adhesion and Migration— 8:00 am Cell Cycle Mechanisms of Cell Polarity Mary Dasso, National Institute of Child Health & Human Patrick Brennwald, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Denise Montell, Johns Hopkins Medical School Development/NIH Chris Q. Doe, University of Oregon/HHMI Clare Waterman-Storer, The Scripps Research Institute Jonathon Pines, The Wellcome Trust/Cancer Research UK Kenneth Yamada, National Institute of Dental & Membrane Traffic in Disease Craniofacial Research/NIH Cell Migration Esteban Carlos Dell’Angelica, University of California, Los Angeles Diane L. Barber, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine Deciphering Evolution—10:30 am Gregg G. Gundersen, Columbia University College of Daniel Klionsky, University of Michigan Physicians & Surgeons Sean Carroll, University of Wisconsin–Madison/HHMI Microtubule Motors Eric Jarvis, Duke University Medical Center Computational Applications in Cell Biology Erika L. F. Holzbaur, University of Pennsylvania David Kingsley, Stanford University School of Douglas A. Lauffenberger, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Claire E. Walczak, Indiana University Medicine/HHMI Alex Mogilner, University of California, Davis Motile and Sensory Cilia Monday, December 11 Cytoskeleton, Adhesion and Disease Kathryn Anderson, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Mechanisms in Mitosis—8:00 am Kathleen J. Green, Northwestern University Feinberg Elizabeth F. Smith, Dartmouth College School of Medicine Rebecca Heald, University of California, Berkeley Alpha S.K. Yap, University of Queensland Myosin-based Movement Lucille Shapiro, Stanford University School of Medicine Folma Buss, Cambridge University Ronald D. Vale, University of California, San Francisco/ ECM and Cell Signaling Arturo DeLozanne, University of Texas HHMI Jean E. Schwarzbauer, Princeton University Christopher Turner, SUNY Upstate Medical University Neural Degeneration and Regeneration Developmental Decisions—10:30 am Zhigang He, Harvard University Hans Clevers, Netherlands Institute for Developmental Endo- and Exocytosis Stephen Strittmatter, Yale University School of Medicine Biology Todd Graham, Vanderbilt University Margaret Scott Robinson, CIMB/The Wellcome Trust Nuclear Pore and Traffic Elliot Meyerowitz, California Institute of Technology Michael P. Rout, Rockefeller University Susan Strome, Indiana University Epigenetics and Chromatin Remodeling Katharine S. Ullman, University of Utah Peggy Farnham, University of California, Davis Tuesday, December 12 Andrew Feinberg, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Organelle Inheritance and Maintenance Membrane Assembly and Dynamics—8:00 am Liza A. Pon, Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons Gillian Griffiths, University of Oxford Epithelial Organization and Morphogenesis Michael Schrader, University of Marburg Massachusetts General Hospital Janet Shaw, University of Utah Andrea I. McClatchey, Ulrich Tepass, University of Toronto Regulation of the Cytoskeleton Marino Zerial, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Keith W. T. Burridge, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Biology & Genetics GTPases in Cellular Traffic Anne J. Ridley, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Francis Barr, Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry From Cellular Mechanisms to Therapeutic Shou-ou Shan, California Institute of Technology RNA and Development Intervention—10:30 am Oliver Hobert, Columbia University College of Physicians & Susan Lindquist, Whitehead Institute for Host Pathogen Interactions Surgeons/HHMI Biomedical Research Jorge Galan, Yale University School of Medicine Roy Parker, University of Arizona/HHMI Francoise Gisou van der Goot, University of Geneva Medical School , Harvard Medical School/HHMI Christine Seidman Signaling in Development Xiaodong Wang, University of Texas Imaging Marcos González-Gaitán, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Southwestern Medical Center/HHMI J. Richard McIntosh, University of Colorado Cell Biology & Genetics Eva Nogales, University of California, Berkeley/HHMI Alexandra Joyner, New York University School of Medicine/HHMI Wednesday, December 13 Functional Networks—8:00 am Immune Cell Adhesion and Recognition Stem Cells , Washington University School of Medicine Susan Mango, University of Utah Andrey Shaw M. Kathryn Barton, Carnegie Institution of Washington Colin Watts, University of Dundee Linheng Li, Stowers Institute of Medical Research Kevan Shokat, University of California, San Francisco Intermediate Filaments and Disease Synapse Assembly and Plasticity Tian Xu, Yale University School of Medicine/HHMI Don W. Cleveland, University of California, San Diego Ann Marie Craig, University of British Columbia Colin Stewart, National Cancer Institute–Frederick Nancy Y. Ip, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology Stem Cell Biology—10:30 am George Q. Daley, Children’s Hospital Boston Elaine Fuchs, Rockefeller University/HHMI For more information, contact the ASCB at (301) 347-9300, Margaret Fuller, Stanford University School of Medicine [email protected] or www.ascb.org.

24 ASCB NEWSLETTER JUNE 2006 JUNE 2006 ASCB NEWSLETTER 25 MEMBER GRANTS & OPPORTUNITIES

Gifts New Stem Cell, Nanotechnology Research Grants. The Tilker Medical Research Foundation is accepting The ASCB is grateful to the following neurodegenerative disease research grant applications. Deadline is September 1. members who have recently given a www.tilkermedicalfoundation.org. gift to support Society activities: NIAID Biodefense Fellowships. The NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases solicits Nirupa Chaudhari applications from biodefense training and development researchers of prevention, detection, diagnosis, and Walter N. Hittelman treatment of diseases caused by potential bioterrorism agents. Grants, fellowships, and career development Ruth G. Kleinfeld awards. www.niaid.nih.gov/biodefense/research/funding.htm. Karl S. Matlin NIH Re-entry Program. The NIH and Office of Research on Women’s Health announce a continuing program for faculty who have taken time out for family responsibilities. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA- 04-126.html.

NIH Grants ■ Large-Scale Collaborative Project Awards. http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-04-128.html. Deadlines: September 20, 2006. ■ Predoctoral Research Training in Biostatistics. http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-04-132. html. Deadline: October 12, 2007. ■ NICHD support of human embryonic stem cell research. http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/ NOT-HD-05-011.html.

Foster Fellowships. The William C. Foster Fellow Program provides opportunities for academic scientists to provide technical advice in the area of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arms control and nonpro- liferation. Deadline for 2007-2008 fellow program applications is July 7. www.state.gov/t/vci/64554.htm.

ASCB 2006 Call for Nominations

Merton Bernfield Memorial Award

Who is Eligible: An outstanding graduate student or postdoctoral fellow who has excelled in research.

How to Apply: The student or postdoc or their advisor should submit a one-page research statement, a list of publications, a copy of the abstract submitted to the current year’s Annual Meeting, and the advisor’s letter of recommendation. Postdocs may also submit the recommendation of their graduate student advisor. Duplicate applications from graduate students may be submitted for the Gilula and Bernfield Memorial Awards.

Award: The winner speaks in a Minisymposium at the 46th ASCB Annual Meeting and receives an honorarium. Expenses to attend the Annual Meeting are paid.

Deadline: August 1.

Norton B. Gilula Memorial Award

Who is Eligible: An outstanding graduate or undergraduate student who has excelled in research.

How to Apply: The student or advisor should submit a one-page research statement, a list of publications, if any, the abstract submitted to the current year’s Annual Meeting and the advisor’s letter of recommendation. Duplicate applications from graduate students may be submitted for the Gilula and Bernfield Memorial Awards.

Award: The winner is presented a plaque. Expenses to attend the Annual Meeting are paid.

Deadline: August 1.

All applications and nominations may be submitted to:

The American Society for Cell Biology 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 750 Bethesda, MD 20814-2762

[email protected]

For names of prior awardees or more information, see www.ascb.org or contact the ASCB at (301) 347-9300, or ascbinfo@ascb.

26 ASCB NEWSLETTER JUNE 2006

MEETINGS Calendar

July 23–27. Glasgow, UK May 23–25, 2007. Charlottesville, VA Bioscience for the 21st Century, featuring the Biochemical Morphogenesis and Regenerative Medicine Symposium at Journal Centenary Symposium. www.bioscience2006.org/. the University of Virginia. http://www.morphogenesis.virginia.edu/index.htm. August 23–27. Hawaii, HI ASCB Joint meeting of the Histochemical Society and the June, 2007. Cancun, Mexico Japanese Histochemical Society. “Nexus of Histochemistry 2007 Pan-American Society of Developmental Biologists Annual Meetings and Molecular Genetics.” www.histochemistry2006.org. Congress (ISDB). 2006 www.niob.knaw.nl/isdb/meetings.htm. San Diego October 28–31. Beijing, China December 9–13 The 5th Asian-Pacific Organization for Cell Biology Congress July 1–6, 2007. New London, NH (APOCB 2006). www.apocb2006.org.cn/index.htm. Colby Sawyer College. Gordon Research Conference (GRC) 2007 entitled “Cell-Cell Fusion.” Washington, DC November 1–4. Nashville, TN http://www.grc.uri.edu/programs/2007/cellcell.htm. December 1–5 American Society for Matrix Biology Biennial National Meeting 2006. www.asmb.net/nationalmeeting. September 1–4, 2007. Dresden, Germany 2008 European Life Scientist Organization Annual Meeting. San Francisco November 5–8. San Diego, CA www.elso.org. ■ December 13–17 4th International Congress on Electron Tomography. http://4icet.org; www.burnham.org/hybridmethods2006/. 2009 San Diego December 4–5. Arlington, VA ASCB 46th Annual Meeting December 5–9 The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Deadlines Contemporary Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D- 2010 Related Disorders. www.asbmr.org. Regular Abstract Submission: August 1 Washington, DC Early Meeting Registration: October 3 December 11–15 January 21–28, 2007. Brisbane and Heron Island, Australia Late Abstract Submission: October 10 Workshop on the Cell Biology of the Coral-Dinoflagellate 2011 www.ascb.org Denver Symbiosis. [email protected] or December 3–7 [email protected].

8120 Woodmont Avenue Non-profit Suite 750 Organization Bethesda, MD 20814-2762 US Postage PAID Bethesda, MD Permit No. 356