text:
#65 Investing in Knowledge: The Life Cycle of Research
Dr. David Naylor, Professor of Medicine at the University of Toronto and founding CEO of the Institute of Clinical and Evaluative Sciences
On this episode, we explore the life cycle of research: from seeking funding to sharing findings that inspire. Grace spoke to Dr. David Naylor about science culture in Canada and the Fundamental Science Review panel that he chaired. This review reported on the science funding ecosystem in Canada and was key to Federal research budget increases in 2018. Stephania also sat down with Dr. Alan Bernstein, President of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) and former President of the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR). He shared what makes a grant application great and more likely to be awarded funds, as well as the collaborative research that CIFAR is leading. We also spoke with Dr. Orli Bahcall, a Senior Editor at Nature, who gave us her perspective on publishing, the value of preprints, and impact factor as a measure of publication success. Finally, we dived into what we can do to advocate for more research funding and engage with the public about science. From inspirational ideas to a published article, the research process is an extensive and expensive one.
Written by: Zeynep Kahramanoglu
Dr. Ben Mudrak on Preprints
CIFAR
Fundamental Science Review
The Impact Factor
Guide to Scholarly Metrics
Illinois Library: Scholarly Metrics
CIHR Grants and Award Expenditures
CIHR In Numbers
Marija [0:00] Hi, I'm Marija.
Zeynep [0:01] And I'm Zeynep.
Marija [0:16] And welcome to Episode 65 of Raw Talk. Across Canada and all around the world, thousands of scientists work in labs on a variety of complex topics, many of which we've delved into on previous episodes of Raw Talk.
Zeynep [0:18] Each of these questions being asked by this community from understanding the role of a particular protein to developing new imaging techniques to diagnose cancer. They all have a tremendous impact on Canadians, and have fundamentally shaped our day to day lives.
Marija [0:31] But how is the value of each project determined when we have limited resources? How do we decide what science gets funded and published and what gets left on the laboratory floor?
Zeynep [0:51] On today's episode, we talked about the life cycle of research. From collecting support and funds for research ideas to the review process of research results, and its publication, to ensuring public outreach and engagement, all of which ultimately lead to further investing in research and beginning the cycle again to add to discoveries.
Marija [1:09] But where does the money for science come from? There are organizations and charities in Canada that offer funding, but the simple answer is - from you. Scientists compete in a series of granting programs, which in Canada, are mostly organized by the federal government in Ottawa. Ultimately, the money for science comes from the Canadian taxpayer.
Zeynep [1:31] The Canadian Institutes for Health Research or CIHR is one of the agencies of the Tri Council created by the government and tasked with funding health research in Canada. There are also the National Science and Engineering Research Council or NSERC, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, or SHRC.
Marija [1:49] Grant proposals are sent to expert panels in these organizations who then decide which projects receive funding from a set budget determined by the government. These agencies are also involved in awarding competitive scholarships to graduate students and incentivizing early career scientists to work in Canada through a variety of programs.
Zeynep [2:10] So far, so good, but unfortunately, science and science funding has become a bit of a neglected topic and Canadian politics. Funding has stagnated and we are far behind our peer countries
Marija [2:21] During the last election in 2015, however, the liberals platform spoke broadly of the importance of science and evidence-based decision making. And as one of his first act as Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau appointed a Minister of Science.
Zeynep [2:36] Grace had the opportunity to speak with Dr. David Naylor, former president of the University of Toronto and chair of the recent fundamental science review panel, which was created in 2016, at the direction of Minister of Science, Kirsty Duncan. Dr. Naylor told us about the panel and their mandate.
Dr. David Naylor [2:53] The minister made it pretty clear early on she was concerned about funding had picked up the message that the Harper government had focused on applied research, had not provided a lot of funding in general, but particularly earmarked it towards applications and innovation. So, from early on in her term as Minister, Dr. Duncan emphasized the need to think about how to support independent fundamental science. The concept of a panel rolled out - she was in touch with me about chairing it. And we worked together on the composition of the panel, tried to make sure we had reasonable gender balance, and mix of research intensive and regional research universities, and of course, the disciplinary balance as best we could. I don't think we hit a perfect disciplinary balance, we had three people with a physics interest and we were light on the humanities. But it was certainly broader than many panels have been that have looked at things in the research space. So, pretty wide angle commitment on the part of the panel.
Marija [3:55] The FSR publish their report in early 2017, but suggested improvements in the budget were not implemented until the following year. We asked Dr. Naylor about some of the major findings of this report.
Dr. David Naylor [4:09] The main findings have been rehearsed many times. The minister's diagnosis was one that reflected the community's perspective. It was a fabulous panel, amazing experience to work with them. But the community was also very engaged with the panel process and you know, affirmed exactly what they've been saying to the Minister. Namely, we had a shortfall in funding. The peak had been reached many years earlier, really early in the Chretien period of the so-called innovation agenda. Science funding per capita had fallen and we were seeing a squeeze on the next generation, which, of course, badly affects equity, diversity and inclusion, because of the shift in the composition of the research workforce, with a much more diverse pool of individuals undertaking graduate studies and entering the junior ranks of the profesori. So, bad news for diversity with the squeeze on funding. And, more generally, you know, we had an imbalance in terms of applied versus fundamental research that had emerged. And they were across the board matters of concern -the instability of the budget of the Canada Foundation for Innovation. That infrastructure was supported on a somewhat unpredictable and spiky basis, the graduate student and postdoctoral suite of supports and not being refreshed or reviewed for many years, big concern with the growth in the pool. Some of the career awards had been pulled back that the granting councils offered, which meant there was more reliance on the Canada Research Chairs. Well, you know, they were introduced in 2000 and had no further renewal of funding. In fact, in the Harper era, because logistics meant that some number of them went unfilled, instead of managing the logistics of the approval and application process, which you know, involves basic queueing theory and some thought. The Harper government took that as a chance to clawback 350 of the chairs. So there were missing chairs even against the 2000 that were initially planned in terms of the budgeting, side effect of leaving spots unfilled quite a number of them. So there was, everywhere we looked, signs of a certain amount of neglect a certain amount of lack of investment. And we heard that in great detail for the research community, which was enormously engaged with our process in 2016-17. And, of course, findings reflected all that and a series of recommendations to begin to bring us back into play to restore a competitive footing for Canadian independent extramural research. Finally, I would say is we were at considerable pains to emphasize it was about the entirety of the research realm. This wasn't focused on STEM, we invoke the French "Les Sciences Humaines", to highlight that the humanities were very much in play here, that we were talking about scholarship in its broadest sense, and we were also concerned with what we saw as a life cycle approach. So we were thinking about from the graduate students at the masters and doctoral level right through to senior scholars. What suite of initiatives, including administrative and governance changes would put Canadian science on a footing to improve its prospects for, you know, the next decade or next generation. I think the financial recommendations were actually prudent and modest, they were not aggressive. They were really benchmarked very carefully against early high water marks. And so in putting it all together, I think it was a blueprint to get us back on the road to being highly competitive. And unfortunately, though I think tremendous progress has been made, the government really has fallen short in both the speed and the final point of investment so that we, I think, are recovering, but we still need a serious infusion of resources to get fully competitive in the years ahead.
Zeynep [7:56] As mentioned, in recent years, there's been more emphasis on Applied Science, sometimes called Translational Science, in the health setting. Applied Science clearly targets a problem facing humans and will be used with clear applications to benefit humans.
Marija [8:10] When thinking about how funding is allocated, Stefania sat down to speak with Dr. Alan Bernstein, the president of CFAR and former president of CIHR from 2000 to 2007. He explained that thinking about potential impact on human health is a good way to build engagement and interest in scientists' work.
Dr. Alan Bernstein [8:31] In a democracy, at least government represents people, people pay for our science. So it's not surprising that people care about how their money is spent. And so, what do people care about? Well, for sure people care about diseases, right? Everyone cares about their health. So they want cancer to be solved even more specifically, they want the cancer that affects them the closest, whether it's themselves or a loved one, they want that one to be solved tomorrow. Right, we're all getting older so they want dementia to be solved and Alzheimer's and, you know, neurological disorders to be solved, mental illness, heart disease... I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that reflects an interest of the public in health and an understanding that you need research to solve those problems. If we are going to argue for science, with our politicians and with Canadians, we need to relate it to them and to the issues that they face. And it's not an argument to a fundamental research versus applied. It's an argument about the importance of research and knowledge to create new jobs. So there needs to be an interlocker between the public and the scientific community, which is, I think, in a sense of what people who run these agencies and certainly what I did, their role is to, in part, explain to parliamentarians, who are representing the public, that sometimes the shortest way home was not a straight line. And that's where fundamental research comes in. To me the question: "is it interesting research?" And will it be research that eventually that will have impact? Impact on science, impact on people. That to me is the right question. And, it's a funny thing about science, but the best science has impact on science and on people. The questions on a grant application that ask that question, I don't think should be used to decide whether you get funding or not, unless it's an RFA, unless it's a strategic initiative. To me, the main purpose of that question is to force the person who's writing the grant, to think about that question. So again, I'll go back to, this is going back a long time, when I wrote my postdoc application to work on chicken tumor viruses, avian tumor viruses, I was asked that question: What is the relevance of human cancer? So the honest answer is: I don't know. Right? Who cares about chicken tumor viruses and humans, right? On the other hand, it made me think about exactly this question. By and large human cancers are not caused by retroviruses, certainly not by avian retroviruses. On the other hand, the mechanisms by which these viruses cause cancer can be completely different. If you think about it, in hindsight at least, then how humans get cancer, how many ways can you get cancer? So viruses, again, I have the benefit of hindsight. What these viruses do is capture human genes and they're mutated and they're a hook to getting into how human cancers work. So what I wrote 50 years ago in my postdoc application, was that the mechanisms by which these avian viruses cause cancer in chickens, is probably going to be shared with how human cancers arise. Not the actual virus themselves, but the underlying biomedical mechanism, that turned out to be exactly right. It's not that I'm brilliant, at all, but it's just obvious when you think about it. So it did, it did force me to think about it. I never quite believed what I wrote, to be honest, but it forced me to think about it. And I think we all should have to think about how we're spending public money.
Zeynep [12:24] Dr. Naylor worries that Canada is still lacking in science culture and observes that in the US, the National Institutes of Health have been very successful in winning broad support from the US public and lawmakers, with per capita funding three times greater than its counterpart, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Dr. David Naylor [12:42] It comes back to science culture. And you know, the striking example of the US. Now, in the case of the US, I would emphasize that NSF, the National Science Foundation, has a per capita funding rate that isn't much different than NSERC. So the the bias is towards medical research and somehow, through many, many decades of advocacy and education, the concept has been baked into the minds of lawmakers that medical research is a good thing and that investing in medical research is part of the lifeblood of the US innovation economy and part of what will matter to the voter in the smaller town or a big city or a rural constituency. For reasons I still don't fully comprehend, that mindset has not permeated here.
Marija [13:29] In response to the FSR, funding for science in Canada was recently increased in 2018, but still remains low compared to other G7 countries.
Zeynep [13:39] Out of an approximate $1 billion budget for the 2017-2018 fiscal year, CIHR invested a little over $550 million dollars into investigator-initiated project and foundation grants.
Marija [13:52] In the fall 2017, a total of 3415 applications were submitted to CIHR and only 512 of those applications were funded, with the total investment of approximately $372 million dollars.
Zeynep [14:09] With such tight competition, which ideas and which scientists will receive that funding? What makes an application or project great? Dr. Bernstein shared what he looks for:
Dr. Alan Bernstein [14:19] I think you bet on two things. The number one thing, and probably the number two thing, is you bet on people. Good people, great people, by definition, do great things. So I really focus on the caliber of the individuals who want to do a particular project. Because in the end of the day, it's that's the most important thing. I think secondarily, you pay some attention to, is this a really interesting question? And it may not be obvious, especially if it's outside your own area, it's an interesting question, but if a really smart person, a really good scientists said I would like to work on x, then, even if my initial reaction -I'll personalize it- is, why would you want to do that? On the other hand, "jee, I really have a lot of respect for that individual", so then I'll do a little bit of thinking and reading about it and "Oh! Now I get it." It comes down to, again by definition, good people do interesting things. So you bet on good people, even when it's not obvious to you at the time, that it's going to be an important question. I don't like either/or decisions. And so when you're running an organization like CIHR, you need a a fundamental core of researchers doing a lot of work, a lot of great research. So that's, you know, the open competition as it's called right at CIHR. I also think the right kind of strategic initiatives, that are addressing more immediate or obvious issues, should also be part of the portfolio, sort of a diversified portfolio. A lot of people in the research community will argue when success rates are so low, that money should not be used to fund strategic things. On the other hand, a well written RFA, Requests for Applications, in the strategic areas, allows for a lot of really, really good fundamental research. And the best way to convince politicians to give CIHR more money is not to frame it as, "we're only going to do fundamental research. We're not gonna do anything that's relevant to Canadians," is a big mistake. And so we try to write the the strategic initiatives, I believe, from the institutes, in a way that was broad enough that could encompass a lot of great fundamental research and tackle more immediate issues facing Canadians.
Marija [16:58] What are some more reasons for why the success rates in achieving funding are so low?
Dr. Alan Bernstein [17:03] One reason that the success rates in the open competition is so low or too low, actually got nothing to do really with government funding of CIHR. It has to do with the growth in the research community at universities. It's really going through a huge expansion, driven by other things, if you haven't by CFI, driven by Canada Research Chairs, driven by indirect costs, the growth of our universities from philanthropy... blah, blah, blah. So it means that the denominator has gotten bigger.
Zeynep [17:36] Competition in science isn't only at the level of applying for funding, but also once you've carried out your study and are trying to share it with the world. There are many scientific journals that you can publish in, but with varying degrees of reach, rigor and impact.
Marija [17:50] Two of the most prestigious highly cited and shared journals that cut across fields are science and nature. Stefania spoke to Dr. Orli Bahcall, a Senior Editor at Nature Genetics, to hear more about how they choose which articles to accept for publication and what they think will have a strong impact.
Dr. Orli Bahcall [18:10] Assessment of manuscripts are all subjective. Our assessment of the advance of a work is always subjective. And we are here as editors of really as part of our community to help and support our communities in different ways. And one of that is through the peer review and publication of manuscripts. And the things that we work for, you've mentioned a few of them, in assessing manuscripts is the novelty and the advance and the contribution to the field. But all of this fits within the spectrum of what, as editors, we're looking for within our journal and how we're looking to represent our field within our journal. And so we do this on a broader scale. We're looking, while we're reading each manuscript and we make our assessment of each manuscript as a journal or as a team of journals as we have across Nature journals. We have very regular assessments where we do, just like we're doing here with a strategic planning meeting, we do our own strategic assessment. And we keep track of our fields. And we keep track of what work is going on. And the new trends and really exciting new areas that are developing. And this is the part I love the most about my job is the fact that we get to keep track of all this. And we discuss within a big team at Nature, I work with a team of 18 editors in the Biological Sciences team. And we meet together and we discuss what are the most important areas and we each represent our fields. And we have discussions about how we represent that and what areas we want to represent and what our standards within each area that we should be looking for. And write our own strategic review about how we're going to do that. And all of that, which we do a couple times a year, and we update as we go along as well, that it really is the major thing which informs how we assess manuscripts. So each manuscript that we see, we are reading it to understand the manuscript and what was done and the level of advance, but as an editor, we're fitting that into the context of what we're looking for to represent as a journal. So as an editor, when we're doing our regular assessments, if we say the word impact, what we're really looking at is not citations, but we're looking at what do we as an editor think is the impact of this work? And that's absolutely something that I talk about a lot. So the impact of the work I will usually be talking about, is this study going to really change something in my field? And change something in my field, it might be something like a resource, I mentioned the UK bio bank is just transforming human genetics research as we know it. And so that is one of the most impactful papers that I've published in the past couple of years. And that's because it does transform how we do human genetics, because it's providing a valuable resource. And so it might provide a resource or it might have findings or analysis that shifts the way the field is done or just questions some theories and makes people re-evaluate it. I can consider that is very impactful, because it's something that will be widely discussed in the field and makes people re-evaluate some of the theories. Impact -I often talk about if it's something, I'm asking how is this working to be used. So it's impactful if it's something that lots of people are going to be reading. And it's going to inspire, it might be a very initial result right now, but it's going to inspire a lot of people to do follow-up work. So, you know, there are many different ways to be impactful, but we're really looking at impactful as something that people are going to read, people are going to talk about, it's going to have an influence within this field or other fields. Another good way to be impactful is because maybe, you know, within my field of genetics, it might be something that's quite commonly known, but it's really translating this to the next step. And we've been talking a lot here about genomic medicine and translation... So impactful is translating things into the clinic. And so they're very different ways when we're talking about impactful and Clinical Translation of genomics, there are many different ways to look at that. So every manuscript has very different types of questions that we will look at to try to talk about that.
Zeynep [22:10] Dr. Bacall also discussed the consultation system in place that nature to try to find the right journal to fit an author's manuscript.
Dr. Orli Bahcall [22:17] I think the most important advice I give to authors when I talked to them, is to keep in mind that there are many journals out there. And all of the journals are doing the job of representing the way they feel is appropriate for their journal or is their set of journals and understand that there's a fit for everyone in a place for everyone. And that's something that, at Nature journals, we also try to help out our authors as a service even more, because we have a whole set of journals across the Nature family. I try, and all the editors at the company try to find the best home for any manuscript that's submitted to us and we do believe we have a good home for any manuscript. And so the way we do that is, you know, when I talk to authors out some interesting work, and they submit this, if it's not a good fit for me, I talk to my team. And we'll also talk to editors across our office, across many other journals that are relevant, and ask who's interested in the manuscript. And I think that's been one of the most interesting process, we've developed this, what we call "consultation system" over the last five years, to really expand it and make it a lot more available and accessible for all of us. And I think that's been the most interesting experience because as a group of journals at Nature, we're really able to work very closely together to understand all different aspects of a field and how different journals can represent different areas of a field really well. And within that refer a manuscript that is very good, technically, but may have a different angle. We can find different journals will want to represent that in different ways and we can offer authors different options have different journals to go to.
Marija [23:57] An important part of science is replication. Making sure previous findings are repeated and validated. Just as important are negative results, where no effects or correlations are found. Although these studies may sometimes be perceived as less exciting, they're a vital part of the scientific process. And something journals are placing greater emphasis on.
Dr. Orli Bahcall [24:20] Negative results is, I mean, that's really in just how you define a negative result. Negative result can be a positive result if you spin it right, finding a lack of association can be incredibly important, finding lack of support for theory that was assumed to be true can be incredibly important. So it's really in how you decide and frame it. I look for that just as much as any other kind of paper and I absolutely have published some great ones like that. And I think we do, we do look for that just as much. You may not see it, maybe depending on how its framed, but I think there's incredible value in that... of publishing negative results. I think I'll, you know as I said, all journals have their own approach. And they're really looking for how to represent their fields in the best way at their journal. So I think everyone has a slightly different approach. I don't think it's as clear cut as some might think is we do where we don't publish negative results. It's really we look for the we look for the best in the paper, we look for what it contributes to our field. So I just don't see that kind of dichotomy. But what I think a little separate from a negative result is that the idea of replication and following on papers, as well. So there is a lot of interest in just pure replication studies from a manuscript and how we represent and publish those. And those can be incredibly important. And very often, they can contribute a lot, but they're not enough to warrant publication in the same level of journal, or in the same journal and difficult for that journal to find enough space. And we've definitely had that issue of we get a lot of replication of studies that are not actually questioning or changing a publication and we can't give it a full publication itself, but we see a lot of value in collecting those in some way. And I think that's something this field is still working with and across our journals, we still discuss for how to best do that. I think things like pre print servers have really been a huge help having these more available in biology. And posting pre prints can be great. We also have comments fields on all of our articles, so authors can post the pre print, add comments and link directly to our papers. But we definitely do look for more ways that we could aggregate that across and link it more directly to the original publication, which is I think, would be a good direction for publishing.
Zeynep [26:48] We've talked about how science is funded and how it's published. But despite all the competition involved, science can also be incredibly collaborative. CIFAR is the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, a global organization that brings together top researchers from around the world to think about important questions that face science and humanity. Unlike CIHR, CIFAR is not a funding source, but a builder of community and ideas. Dr. Bernstein, their president, told us more:
Dr. Alan Bernstein [27:16] So CIFAR is a fabulous organization, it's Canadian-based, global organization, research organization, where we build communities, we bring together some of the top researchers from around the world, including Canada, of course, around a question of importance to science and to humanity. We convene this community. They meet, you know, a couple times a year for five years renewable, and what we want is, ultimately and ideally, a whole new way of thinking about a really important question... transformative way of thinking about it. So we're not primarily a funder of a search at all, we're a builder of global communities. We're not bounded by geography, we're not bounded by discipline, or not bounded by questions. So we have problems in the social sciences and we have problems in the biological sciences in life and health, we have programs in quantum materials, quantum information science, astrophysics, a new program in geophysics, and we invite anybody in the world to come forward with an idea for a new CIFAR program. And what we require is that it be a question of importance to humanity and to science. That it be of the nature that it's a great CIFAR program. So if you want to identify all the genes mutated in autism, it's the kind of work that Steve Sherer does, for example, it's a great project, but it's not a CIFAR question. That can be funded by CIHR. I'm not saying one's better than the other, it's just we have a different niche in the ecosystem of research. We're interested in bigger questions, more broader questions. So, just to give you a good example of one: brain, mind, and consciousness. What is relationship between our brain and our mind? We can't write a CIHR grant to solve that problem. That program led out of Western Ontario has got about 20 to 25 people in it, from philosophers to molecular geneticists to cognitive psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. Who are meeting to discuss that question. So they don't need to do experiments, they need to discuss, to wrestle with such a huge question. And so we invite proposals in any area. We don't say it's got to be in the brain, it's got to be in geophysics, or it's got to be in disease, could be in anything. We could have a global call, that's targeted. We've talked about it actually, we might one day. So you know, you could have a global call on the environment, or whatever. But so far, they've been open calls. So it's got to be a CIFAR-type program, great leadership, global. We don't require the things be interdisciplinary. On the other hand, we believe that our contributions to the research ecosystem is to bring together people who normally would not get together. Which then means both international and interdisciplinary.
Marija [30:24] The nature of science is continuously evolving. Technology has reshaped how we act think, and ultimately, how we conduct science today. These changes have propelled interdisciplinary and intercontinental collaboration, creating a community of researchers across the globe working to advance science, together.
Dr. Alan Bernstein [30:46] We are much more collaborative and it's much more bigger International Science today than ever before.
Dr. Orli Bahcall [30:53] More and more, I'm appreciative of what it takes to do the type of genomic science that we see today. It requires a level of international collaborations. I think that's, I mean, that's been true for one to two decades, but increasingly, it's becoming even more true. And that's something when I was a graduate student was not as much the case. I think there there are differences in cultures and that's something that's really important when we work together as scientists, but there's always the focus on the scientific method and the results. And I think that crosses borders, we all have good things that we can learn from each other. So if we want to just compare one thing currently in genomics between the UK and the US and Canada, too, and it's something we've been talking about this meeting would be establishing resources that are invaluable for a field and for the progress of genomic medicine. And we've been talking about the need for population cohorts, establishing population cohorts and ensuring that these have genetic information and now whole genome sequencing is the hope. And we talked about the UK biobank, which has really become the primary model, the leading effort in this and it's becoming, you know, the most invaluable resource that has really shifted all of human genetics in the past couple of years. I mean, it can't be underestimated. Just the value of that having establishing the UK Biobank and providing the open, fully open access to all researchers has for human genetics and human health. And the idea is to then model that in other countries, so the US has an effort with all of us, and other countries are establishing by banks too, but are further behind. And what we've been talking about today is a lot of people who are trying here in Canada and through the McClaughlin Center to hopefully establish more of these population cohorts in Canada, which I think is an incredibly laudable effort.
Zeynep [32:55] In research, we are often faced with the dilemma of when to actually publish our work. Should we focus on publication quantity and divide our projects into smaller components, or package everything together. in a potentially more impactful paper? We asked Dr. Bahcall to give us an editor's point of view.
Dr. Orli Bahcall [33:11] Figuring out what's the right fit for that work and that project and the right way to present and package that work. And it's really great to involve an editor, any editors that you know, regardless of whether you plan to submit to their journal or not, because editors can have great ideas, and just what's the right way to package a set of studies and where to draw the line, you know. I get these questions all the time, not necessarily about submitting your manuscript, but when I go to visit a lab and spend say a whole day with a lab, they want to know, you know, here's all these amazing stuff going on and how do I decide where to stop? Or where to break things up? Or what's a good way to do it? And editors have, you know, they're used to seeing this, they'll have other things to weigh in, you know, "maybe you can package it this way", or, you know, "maybe that's really enough", now. You know, "if you want, you can submit it that way. You don't have to go on for two more years". But at the end of the day, it's your project and you and your advisor need to be working together to figure out how, you know, what you want to achieve? What are your goals as a student, what do you need to accomplish? And there's there's really no right or wrong answer.
Marija [34:18] While formal review of research studies must be extensive to maintain a certain level of quality, bias within this process can compromise what serves as the foundation of science, objectivity. Bias can come in many forms, whether it be where articles come from, gender, expertise, scientific domain, or conflict of interest, to name a few. We asked Dr. Bahcall how editors limit bias during their review of manuscripts.
Dr. Orli Bahcall [34:47] This is something we care a lot about, obviously. We want to, I mean, we do represent the best research from anywhere from anyone and we are, vut we're not fully blinded, right? We're not blinded to who the authors are. We have looked at models where they are double blinded. So I've read manuscripts where, say the author list is removed and commented on that, we've all as editors, we've all done this in certain times and done trials, and how that affects our editorial decision or how they were fixed to review process. And we see that doesn't really effect us. As editors, we really only care about the, you know, publishing the best in science as we should. We also offer at Nature journals we offer what's called double blind peer review. So authors can select during the submission process to have a blinded reviews such that the author, author list, and author information is removed from the manuscript. And so it is the editors will still see the author information, but the referees will not. And we've done this now for several years and across Nature journals, it's available to anyone who submits. And from those who opt into that and their manuscripts set to review. We see really no effect both on, whether the manuscript center review at that journal, or what the final decision is. So we don't see any actual impact on it. And as quite rightly so because we don't believe that it does have any impact. What we do look at also is the submission rates, which you alluded to the submission rates, and where we get the best research and how well it's presented. So we do try to do more outreach in areas that we feel are underrepresented, that may not know, just submit to our journals, or don't know quite the process or not feel as open doors to that or may not have easy access to editors. So that's something we care a lot about. And we will if we realized there's really good work going on in an area or a lab that is just not submitting to top journals,we will go talk to them and do more outreach and visit with their labs and maybe give seminars about how to work on their papers and how to prepare a paper for submission and how to talk to an editor and all these things I'm talking about with you, and try to help them work through the process. That's something we all try to do.
Zeynep [37:07] When discussing publishing, it is vital to consider the issue of accessibility. That is how easily articles can be read by both researchers and the general public. Some articles and journals are open access, meaning that they are free to everyone without barriers, unfortunately, the majority are not.
Stephania [37:23] With regards to communication, there's has been some judgment with regards to the journals that... basically they're not free access. So that a lot of this science, as we said, we have to get more funds and a lot of it is funded from taxpayer money, but then those same people have to pay again to access the published results. How do you respond personally on that type of judgment on the journals? How do you respond to that kind of criticism?
Dr. Orli Bahcall [37:52] Yeah, so I think I think these are very exciting discussions that we've been having, and they've evolved over the years. Over the last decade or so, they've evolved a lot. And I remember very well when class first started, and they launched an incredible model for open access journals, and has been very successful and very exciting to follow. And since then many other journals have launched and shown the ability to have these models. But as you know, there's still the question of what is a viable business model? And that's something that all publishers really do struggle and are continuing to struggle to figure out. What is a business, a successful business model to allow this to happen? And I don't think any, I've never seen anyone who actually questions the idea between making the research finding and the data sets and the access fully open and available and that's something that we all would like to see. Something at Nature journals we very much support, having the openness of the methods and the data sets and analysis behind manuscript, but the the final publication, there still needs to be some business model for us, something all of us do work with. You know what, I think one of the things that we do offer a Nature as you said, we do have a number of open access journals. And we've increased this quite a bit over the last few years, to give authors more and more options for publishing in our journals within fully open access journals.
Marija [39:22] Dr. Bahcall continues, explaining her support of pre prints, which are full drafts of research articles made available online to the public before formal peer review and publishing in a journal.
Dr. Orli Bahcall [39:35] We also support pre prints more and more. Nature has always supported preprints for over a few decades, starting back when it was mostly only in physics, and I come from an academic family, with two parents in astronomy, so for me growing up, pre prints were the norm. In astronomy, pre prints were how the communication of research happened. And the journal publication happened quite a bit later. So that for me was very normal. The norm was you pre printed your work as soon as it was done everyone in your field read the pre print that week and discussed it and gave you feedback. And then, you know, once you collect the feedback and figured out what we were doing and reassessed, some point later you would submit it to a journal but it wasn't that big a deal, that wasn't what made your career at all. So that was the norm that I knew for my family. So for me that was quite natural when I became an editor one of the first things I talked about when I started was, "why are we doing more of these preprints? Like why didn't biology have taken this on yet? Why aren't we more open in the communication?" I was very excited when that movement happened. Very excited when biologists started to take on preprints more and more. And Nature itself was one of the first publishers to adopt that, by launching its own pre print server, it was called Nature Proceedings. It was a full preprint server at Nature, that lasted for a few years, and we were able to work quite closely as an editor is able to work quite closely with some of them in looking at how we can best use the pre print service for authors and use it to develop manuscripts that were under review so that authors might submit their pre print, post their pre print there, while also submitting to Nature journal and going through the review process, and using the comments they received on the pre print thoughout the review process. We looked at models for how we could integrate this better with the review process, that were interesting. Unfortunately, it wasn't quite the right time for that as a company and it didn't, it closed a few years, but I think we learned a lot from it. And since then other by archive has launched and it's done an amazing job for biology and has grown more and more and it's been become an incredible resource. It's widely used and which we all use, I use daily as well. And as a publisher, and most of the big publishers have now supported bioarchive and Nature, we've always allowed pre print servers and said very clearly that this will not negatively affect any editorial decision for consideration for research manuscript. But now we actively encourage it, we work with our archive to make the submissions easier. And I think it's really important to encourage pre prints for authors. Because this is really part of getting your work out there. And I think the way people communicate their own research has shifted from a time where, where you presented this at a meeting, and there's lots of travel and that's where you got your main feedback. More and more now, that's not happening. You know, even if you do go to conferences, they're only so many conferences you can go to. The main communication that we see today is through pre prints. And I think it's a great way, so this is why I encourage this, particularly for younger authors too, is to post a pre print and take some time to collect your comments on this and really ask people for comments in the preprint before you submit your manuscript. And I think its invaluable to get the work out there as early as possible and to get feedback and learn from that.
Zeynep [43:19] Another strong consideration when publishing is what we call the 'impact factor' of a journal. Journals such as Nature are known to be high impact. But what does that really mean?
Dr. Orli Bahcall [43:29] Really important to talk about the impact factor. So the Impact Factor defined by ISI is a measure of this level of citations of a journal through a somewhat complicated algorithm. It is the most common metric that's used to measure the citations of both the single manuscript publication and journal publication overall. And there hasn't been too many metrics that's become as widespread as that, which is why it's still the most widely used metric. I'd like to talk about this because, from what I see, it is authors and often authors from certain institutions or certain locations that really are driven, have a lot of pressure to publish in journals with a certain Impact Factor. And so there is a lot of focus on that from the author's perspective to try to achieve that. From a journal perspective though, it's quite different, which is what I think people should really recognize. From a general perspective, we don't actually talk about that kind of impact factor. We see that as one metric that is quite commonly use. And that's very easy, you know, provided for us. It's useful because it is provided every year and it's kept track of, and it's easy to compare. There is definitely one metric that is useful to look at. But we know it is just one of many metrics there. And there are many other metrics that are as or even much more useful for us to look at.
Marija [45:01] In summary, a journal with the high Impact Factor means it has articles that are cited often. It can only be calculated after completing at least three years of publication. Therefore, relatively new journals do not have an impact factor.
Zeynep [45:18] As Dr. Bahcall mentions, the impact factor is one of many research metrics. Other metrics include the site score, the H index, the G index, the Eigen factor score, and Altmetric score, just to name a few. The H index, for example, focuses on the impact of only one scholar instead of the entire journal. Another example is the Altmetric score, which centers on the attention an article has received, including public policy documents, online sources, the news, or social networks. The Illinois library points out that this attention doesn't necessarily mean the article is important or of high quality.
Marija [45:53] Overall, many scholarly metrics should be taken into account when considering a journal's impact and with that a research article's prestige and influence in society.
Zeynep [46:06] In order to promote and advocate for funding, it's important to reach out and engage with the public. Stefania asked Dr. Bernstein how we can move forward and overcome the disconnect and update the public on what the researchers are up to.
Stephania [46:18] You mentioned it a little bit, that since we're using taxpayers money, it's important that there's a communication to them of what is going on in science. However, we have a whole big issue of science illiteracy and pseudoscience, people not believing in global warming, anti-vaxxers, there's all these things that are coming up, how do you think we should tackle this, because it is true that we have all these media and compared to the past 50 years ago, it is communicated a lot faster and a lot easier, but it seems that we have a lot less trust in what official science will say and people just go on Google and figure it out on their own. So how do you think we can move backwards and regain that trust?
Dr. Alan Bernstein [47:02] That's a really important question and a complicated one. So I think with, you know, with the web and Google and all that stuff, there is sort of an infectious disease of people, someone will see some crazy idea and then it's picked up by a lot of other people. It seems like a lot of other people, but on a percentage basis, take anti-vaxxers, for example, it's an area I'm familiar with, most people vaccinate their children. There are some people for religious reasons or for reasons that are not, to me nonsensical, that don't, but most people still do. Does that mean we don't have to engage with the public? Absolutely not. So I think it's really important for everybody in the scientific community, especially, especially young scientists, to engage with the public. And I think a couple things on that: One, I've heard people say yeah, "we need to educate the public". No, no, no, no, no, they're not an empty vessel waiting for their brain to be filled up with all this great knowledge that we have. That's a clear -the surest way to turn them off. We need to engage with the public. That's number one. Number two: There's lots of ways we can engage. So for example, when I was much younger, the Canadian Cancer Society, I was getting money from them through the National Cancer Institute of Canada, would ask me to go to Sudbury. I remember once going to Sudbury to give a talk about cancer research. I always said yes when I was asked. I felt it was my obligation. So I was getting money from them from donors, volunteers who were going door to door knocking on doors. So I would do it. It's amazing what you learn as a scientist, what we would take for granted about what people know and what they don't know and what they care about, is completely different than what I would have predicted. Third, for people who receive money from, let's say, you know, CIHR. That's taxpayers, that's parliament. That money comes as a vote from parliament. So when you get money from somebody you should say "thank you". So my message always is, especially the graduate students, and to postdocs, to young trainees, and to young investigators, is if you are supported by CIHR, you should write a letter of Thank You to the Minister of Health. The letter can have three paragraphs -it's very easy. Paragraph one, "Dear Minister of Health, my name is Joe Blow. I am receiving funding from CIHR for a project called, you know, blah, blah, blah. Thank you very much. The reason I think this grant is important to Canadians is for the following reasons. If you happen to be in you know, if your labs in Toronto or in Timbuktu wherever you are, I'd be happy to show you around my lab and talk to you more about my work. Yours sincerely." Doesn't cost a penny, because you can send a hardcopy letter to Ottawa without a postage stamp. Just address it, you don't need the address, Minister of Health Government of Canada, blah blah, blah. Ditto your own Member of Parliament, ditto the Prime Minister, ditto the Minister of Industry Science and Economic Development, and ditto the Ministry of Science. So it's in the same letter. And the cool thing is, especially for young people, it's a civics lesson, you're kind of learning about how government works. So you'll get a letter back. And you know, all the members of parliament are in their home writing this summer, especially because there is an election coming. So, you can easily book appointment to see your member of parliament. So I think the education of the public starts with the public and start with the people who represent the public, which are members of Parliament and the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. So I think we all have an obli- all of us, have an obligation to start engaging with them. By starting by thanking them.
Marija [51:05] Dr. Naylor also emphasized the importance of engaging the public and building a culture that celebrates science.
Dr. David Naylor [51:13] I think there is a challenge in that this is a young country, we have had a tradition of excellent science in many ways. We have to figure out how to celebrate that without that becoming a way for governments to assume they've spent enough money because that's part of the game that's played, "Oh, we'll celebrate Canadian science and now we don't need to spend any more if the next year, we've had a Nobel Prize or we've had a Wolf prize or something else, and goody goody, now we don't need to spend any more money yet". That worries me. So it needs to be a broader thing about celebrating science, valuing it, and embracing it and seeing the need for further support. So the public presses the government, rather than the government trying to impress on the public that they're spending enough by celebrating. Politics is a very tough business. It's a contact sport. These folks have to reapply for their jobs every few years. They make decisions that are based not just on evidence, but on values or preferences and context or circumstances. And a lot of this is highly positional interest-based rather than being about finding common ground. It's, you know, orchestrated warfare in the trenches in an election and in legislature. So more and more academics are getting the fact that they have to do science communication, they have to do outreach, they have to try to inspire the very young generation and their teachers to carry the torch for science and scholarship. I think that's a very positive change that I've seen over the course of a pretty long career. It's quite different now than when I started out. And on the same point, although the term 'Knowledge Translation' has a lot of baggage in my view, but knowledge sharing, knowledge co-creation, knowledge collaboration, whatever we want to call it, that is also way more active now than it was a few years ago. And it's not all about innovation in the marketplace, it's also about working with civil society organizations and working to build community to build non-profits. So there's, so called, B corps, as a hybrid in between commercial and non-profit. So there's a much more varied array of entities with whom academics are working in 2019, then say 30, 40 years ago. I think that's all to the good. I think it's getting the message out, it's building relationships, it's building a culture of creativity and critical thinking and innovation in all facets of society. I do think that the non-profits are a big part of this equation on multiple levels. One is because many of the non-profit's support research, large number of them in the medical and health world, but also because some of the foundations that have been set up are supportive more broadly of science and scholarship. And I think their allies to be enlisted. It was very telling in the run up to the 2018 budget when the heads of several major Canadian family foundations came forward and wrote an open letter urging implementation of the episode report, that was a very powerful statement. So I think we have to activate those allies in the philanthropic community, in the non-profit foundations of various types, and see them as friends of research to the greatest extent possible. I want to put an asterisk up and say, sometimes these entities try to nudge the direction of research more than seems helpful. Sometimes they insist on matching in ways that I'm not sure is always constructive. So, you know, I'm not going to say that they're the answer to research funding shortfalls, we must have open untrammeled research funding, without strings, for the best questions and the best ideas to be supported to be pursued with complete independence by great scientists and scholars at all stages of their careers.
Marija [55:03] The cycle of research from funding to review to publication to engaging and sharing findings with the public, are all necessary components of scientific discovery and progress. This cycle starts with the availability and prioritization of funding and resources for science. A critical component that Canada needs to improve on is promoting a strong national science culture and advocating for the importance of scientific funding.
Zeynep [55:29] Be sure to check out our next episode where we explore science policy and evidence informed decision-making in government. We also dive deeper into what you can do as a scientist or science ally to make your voice heard in our upcoming election and beyond. This episode was hosted by myself, Zeynep Kahramanoglu and Marija Zivcheska. Stefania Assimopoulos, Grace Jacobs and Frank Telfer assisted with content creation. Alex Jacob was our audio engineer.
Marija [55:55] A very special thank you to our guests, Drs. Alan Bernstein, Orli Bahcall, and David Naylor for speaking to us and sharing their insights. And thank you for listening. Until next time, keep it raw.
Grace [56:17] Raw talk podcast is a student presentation at the Institute of Medical Science in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto. The opinions expressed on the show are not necessarily those of the IMS, the faculty of medicine, or the university. To learn more about the show, visit our website rawpodcast.com and stay up to date by following us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook @rawtalkpodcast. Support the show by using the affiliate link on our website when you shop on Amazon. Awesome! Don't forget to subscribe on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you listen to podcast and rate us five stars. Until next time, keep it raw.


text:
Q: Function works only in debugger I wrote the function for check if button was clicked twice and if it was to measure the time between two clicks. It has to prevent multiple clicks in short time.
Button click:
$("#Save").click(function () {
    dateTime1 = new Date().getTime();
    BtnId = this.id;
    showSaveDialog();
});

And measuring function:
ButtonWasTriggeredTwice: function () {
    var result = false;
    var currentTime = new Date().getTime();
    var time = currentTime - dateTime1;
    if (PreviousBtn === null) {
        result= false;
    } else {
        if (PreviousBtn === BtnId) {
            if (  time < 1500) {
                result = true;
            }
            else result = false;
        }
        else {
            result= false;
        }
    }
    PreviousBtn = BtnId;
    BtnId = null;
    return result;
}

BtnId and PreviosusBtn are global scope variables.
The strange thing is this function works great when I set breakpoints in debugger. If I switch off debugger function blocks every next click on button, no matter what time interval is between clicks

A: You can use this solution with unbind and timeout, like this:
HTML
<input type="button" id="Save" value="save me" />

JS:
function saveEventButton(){
  $("#Save").click(function () {
    alert('saved!');
    $("#Save").unbind('click');
    setTimeout(function(){
            saveEventButton();
    }, 5000); // 5sec
  });
}

 saveEventButton();

This is the JSFiddle
UPDATE This solution is a mix from mine and Revish Patel solution
function disableTimeout(_this){
  $(_this).prop('disabled','disabled');
  setTimeout(function(){
      $(_this).prop('disabled','');
  }, 5000); // 5sec
}

 $("#Save").click(function () {
    alert('saved!');
    disableTimeout(this);
});

This is the JSfiddle

A: You can also disable button when you first click is performed.
$(document).ready(function () {
  $("#Save").click(function(){
     $('#Save').prop('disabled','disabled');
     // Perform your button click operation
  });
});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Home Analysis Player Analysis Cristian Romero 2019/20 – scout report
Cristian Romero 2019/20 – scout report
Tom Pearce
After seeing Cristian Romero perform so well in his debut Serie A season for Genoa in 2018/19, Juventus took no chances in him getting swooped away by another top club by purchasing him at the end of that same season. The then 21-year-old was one of a few centre-back recruitments by Juventus in the summer of 2019, and as such, was loaned back to his former club immediately on a season-long loan. The question remains, will he fit in Juventus' long-term squad plans?
He continued his strong performances into the 2019/20 season and improved on his game in numerous aspects. Davide Nicola continued the previous Genoa manager's trust in the youngster's ability to perform better than his senior counterparts. In an ageing squad, Romero stands out as the greatest prospect in the squad, alongside being one of the more athletic individuals in the side. Capable of producing a high volume of defensive work, he has aided a side that has struggled immensely in Serie A this campaign. With new tactics, Nicola has managed to improve the team to work better as a cohesive unit, capable of grinding out results when necessary.
In this tactical analysis scout report, we will do an analysis of Romero's performance for Genoa and how he could potentially fit into the Juventus squad in the future.
Style of play
The Argentinian is a physically-imposing central defender who reads the game well and anticipates a lot of attacks happening before they do. His strength and aerial ability are magnificent, which is always useful against sides who like to play direct football or attempt a lot of crosses.
He is a player who likes to dribble when he has the chance to, which is sometimes useful to move his team up the pitch, when successful. He likes to tackle more than the average centre-back and he is strong at doing so. Though, on occasion, he mistimes his tackles and will commit a foul, sometimes in dangerous areas to concede. When it comes to Genoa's style of play under Nicola, he seems to fit quite well. He is consistently linking up with his fellow centre-backs and whoever the right-midfielder is in the Genoa starting XI.
Genoa tend to keep possession of the ball in their half, in the middle of the pitch, which their opponents have found easy to exploit. They are aggressive with their attacking and defensive play, to which their opponent usually replies with pace. Nicola's favoured formation is 3-5-2 which seems to fit Romero's strengths well. One of the squad's only true strengths is their ability to win aerial duels, which Romero contributes to heavily.
Passing and build-up
Genoa aim to play possession football. They attempt to play short passes all across the midfield line at speed. They are pretty inconsistent when it comes to finding their target though. Genoa as a team lose the ball quite frequently and a player is dispossessed by an opponent on the ball 9.5 times per game.
Cristian Romero usually wanders around the right inside channel and leaves himself open as a passing option with his movement. The Argentinian is useful during the build-up and he is always looking to offload for a passing option as soon as he receives the ball. When he finds no one free around him, he will attempt to dribble past his opponent, usually to good effect. Even though they attempt to keep possession of the ball within the midfield, Genoa often find themselves losing the ball in that location, with Romero tasked with winning back the ball and attempting to progress the ball forwards with his dribbling or passing.
Here, we see Romero begin to regain possession after Genoa lost it in the midfield.
After regaining possession, Romero receives pressure from two opponents. This forces him into a backward pass to his fellow teammate.
It should be noted that passing is a weakness in Romero's game. He, most commonly, attempts the safe option when passing and rarely aims to be progressive with them. As he is young, at Juventus, he can learn and develop on this attribute to a certain level, but it is doubtable that it will ever be a strong point in his game. Thankfully, other aspects of his game outweigh his passing ability, as we will discuss.
Impact on their defensive approach and defensive contribution
As mentioned, the team's 3-5-2 formation fits Romero's abilities really well. He is strong in more than a couple of defensive aspects.
Due to his positional awareness, he is strong at blocking the ball, using his wide frame to his advantage. He uses his body cleverly to block opposition shots and crosses, cutting off avenues of attack for the opposition.
Above, we see Romero surveying the path of the ball in the air. He positions himself away from any opposition defender.
Thanks to his positioning, Romero heads the ball away, with zero pressure placed upon him.
He also has a great impact in 1 vs 1 defensive duels. His marking and tackling ability gets him to manoeuvre his body in a way which he imposes himself upon his opponent and recovers the ball for his team. His anticipation and composure are extremely important to his actions, as he can predict the attacks that are about to happen and make the correct decision to stop it, under pressure. His strong capability to read the game so well leads to him making 2.5 interceptions per 90 minutes. Although Genoa face a lot of defensive pressure, this can be seen as a strong number for a centre-back, and evidence of his match intelligence.
Before the opposition player begins dribbling with the ball, Romero begins to pedal backward. He is aware of his opponent's run and anticipates this.
His decision-making in this scenario was brilliant. He noticed the run of his opponent, and took advantage of his pace, by intercepting the ball early and recovering the ball.
As stated, he does like to dribble when he finds himself in the situation to do so. These scenarios tend to happen when Genoa are on the counterattack, or his typical passing options are blocked off. Though, his decision-making in these scenarios is strong, as he completes a high amount of his dribbles. His dribble success rate stands at an impressive 70%, which compares favourably to Napoli's Kalidou Koulibaly, as he stands at 58%.
We can see, after recovering the ball, Romero continues his momentum by dribbling forwards with the ball. Using his pace and power, he dribbles in-field past a defender.
After progressing up the field, Romero moves the ball onto another teammate, who is able to produce effective actions in the final third.
Across two years at Genoa, Romero has grown to become one of the most promising centre-backs in Serie A. He is a powerful, pacey, and intelligent defender, who has shown all the determination to make it to an elite level in world football. However, currently one may state that he is not quite at the level of a Juventus player. His passing and frequency of fouls given need to be improved upon before he can make the step up. Perhaps another loan move to a different club chasing European football, such as Roma, would be the smartest decision.
Previous articleSerie A 2019/20: Fiorentina vs AC Milan – tactical analysis
Next articleAntonio Conte at Inter 2019/20 – tactical analysis
24/7 football mad ⚡. Aspiring football analyst.
Filip Đuričic at Sassuolo 2020/21 – scout report
Atalanta: A discussion around the role of Josip Iličić – scout report
Inter 2020/21: The dynamics of the Lukaku – Martinez partnership – scout report
UEFA Champions League 2020/21: Ferencvaros vs Juventus – tactical analysis
Analysis November 7, 2020
Get the cash: Inter should part ways with Andrea Ranocchia
The Stats: Czechia beat Skottland
Serie A 2019/20: Genoa vs Brescia – tactical analysis
Serie A 2018/19 Tactical Analysis: Why Empoli's recent xG concessions (hardly)...
Analysis May 2, 2019

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


JohnsonArthur . KaraGold. HornyNatalieX. sevilla41.
GinaLikeBeerchelsixxxWildPlayfulGirlSweetCataleya69 .HannahBanana69KaraGoldHannahBanana69LittleAngelG2 .mandingobroNatashsquirtsMyaCarmelliAomyLee .MWLtestModelGinaLikeBeerKaraGoldNajibay .Nancyx1SexualSlaveryYounggPrincessBIGdickGAYS .Cara98SlavaOneQueenKay51jus7tryme .AamiraMuslimElsaSavageYounggPrincessHappyboy77 .YounggPrincessSlavaOneQueenKay51MyaCarmelli .LolaSunnPixelationsweetredalinaDOLLLULU .SweetyAngelgirlElsaSavageSofiaCloeAyanaCuty .AlexioDemetriuskarinhotLatinxGoldenboy3030NICOLEtheSTARLET .
GinaLikeBeerhotloveyouAyanaCutyPlayGirlll .dearNatalieDEVORAWHITEfracktersk8ter1024 .KaraGoldGigiMitchelParadiseOFkylaTSMrthailandboi .Goldenboy3030GiorgiaMilaniHotgirl666Natashsquirts .chelsixxxAdaSugarPREZYLESexualSlavery .karinhotLatinxGigiMitchelSweetCataleya69xcarmelx .WandaBoujiniAngelineFaySiennaLanceHappyboy77 .Nancyx1WildPlayfulGirlHappyboy77QueenKay51 .LolaSunnMabel19JuicydickkNatashsquirts .DestineeMarieAILYNTSSEXYAngelineFayJuicydickk .Hotgirl666SashaTylerMichelllts4youSiennaLance .


text:
Mission/Statute
Renting Services
The Museum Council
SFNMS
Old Art up to the 18th Century
European Art 1800-1945
Ethnography of Pomerania
Non-European Cultures
Stetiniania
Conservation of the Collections
The National Museum in Szczecin is the largest cultural institution in Western Pomerania. It belongs to a group of nine Polish museums which have the honor to call themselves "national" institutions owing to their prestige and nationwide importance of their exhibits.
The Museum collects, protects – assuring constant existence, elaborates and displays national heritage: artworks and relics of material culture – archaeological, ethnographic and maritime exhibits. Its vital aim is to create wide area of scientific thought exchange in various fields of knowledge – according to the scope of the collection. The Museum accomplishes its mission by presenting its collections on permanent and temporary exhibitions, as well, as various artistic events, scientific conferences, meetings on science for the general public, as well, as education and publishing activities. As an institution of public trust, it is a depositary of memory of the past, but also live culture center – a place which actively participates in the process of shaping historical consciousness and social attitudes.
The National Museum in Szczecin, in the spirit of multicultural, cross-border dialogue and cooperation builds regional, national and European identity of Western Pomerania and its inhabitants.
Tickets/Opening hours
Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday
Friday, Sunday
10.00 A.M.– 4.00 P.M.
Monady – closed
Ticket prices and more...
The NMS Buildings
The National Museum in Szczecin
The National Museum in Szczecin —
The Museum of Regional Traditions
The Szczecin History Museum
The Dialogue Centre Upheavals
The Seaside Narrow-Gauge Railway Exhibition
National Museum in Szczecin
phone (+48) 91 431 52 00
VATIN 851-00-13-721
The National Museum in Szczecin – Cultural Institution of the Local Government of
Western-Pomeranian Voivodeship
co-led by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage
graphic design: Filip Bylak, concept: Dariusz Kacprzak, implementation: Michał Dłużak


This classic roll neck sweater is knitted from 100% Italian Merino yarn. It feels good against the skin and has great heat regulating qualities. The classic fit combined a discrete Makia label on the waist hem, make it a stylish choice for any occasion.


text:
Records that document the history of the University at Albany, SUNY and its predecessor schools.
The University Archives documents the history of the University at Albany, SUNY from its origin in 1844 as the New York State Normal School to train teachers for New York State to its present status as a comprehensive research university. The department collects, manages, and provides access to permanent university records for research use. This includes the administrative records of the university, student groups, faculty, alumni, and affiliated organizations. Collecting and preserving university records documents our history and promotes transparency and accountability.
Start Over You searched for: Subject Environmental protection ✖Remove constraint Subject: Environmental protection
Environmental Decisions Commission Records, 1971-19801
State University of New York at Albany. Environmental Decisions Commission1
Environmental Decisions Commission1
Environmental protection✖[remove]2
Administrative reports1
Agendas1
Environmental health1
Memorandums1
Scripts1
Souvenirs1
Syllabi1
UAlbany Task Forces & Committees1
Environmental Decisions Commission Records, 1971-1980
State University of New York at Albany. Environmental Decisions Commission
The Environmental Decisions Commission has developed a policy base for decisions on matters relating to the environmental health quality of the university. They have dealt with many environmental issues on campus including traffic control, composting, recycling paper and more.
Robert Rienow Papers, 1875-1984, bulk 1955-1979
Rienow, Robert, 1907-1989
Correspondence with publishers and environmental groups including the Constitutional Council for Forest Preserves, 1970–71; Defenders of Wildlife, 1970–76; Albany Environmental Council, 1965–76; draft manuscripts and typescripts, 1956–79, of texts, scholarly and popular articles and books relating to local, state, national, and international government and to environmental issues such as the anti-nuclear movement, forest preservation, wildlife preservation, the Adirondack Mountains, lecture notes taken as a student and given to his classes, 1930–70, scripts for his television series "Man Against His Environment", 1970–71, drafts of speeches on environmental concerns, tape cassettes on environmental issues created as staff lecturer for the Center for Cassette Studies, clippings files on government and environmental issues, photographs of Rienow and his wife. Robert Rienow was educated at Carthage College (B.A., 1930), and Columbia University (M.A., 1934; Ph.D., 1937), served as Instructor, 1936–41, Assistant Professor, 1941–47, and Professor, 1947–80, of Social Science at the State University of New York at Albany, now the University at Albany. Through out his career Rienow maintained an active interest in environmental issues and a belief in the need to popularize issues of public concern. (See also papers of his wife Leona Train Rienow).


Twitter is the ultimate social media for promoting your content. Most business owners will tell you that their traffic primarily comes from Twitter and Pinterest. However, potential clients will not take your Twitter persona seriously if you appear unprofessional. Below, are several ways to make your business look professional on Twitter.
Before you do anything else with your Twitter account, make sure your profile is complete! Include your own name as well as your business name, and upload a profile picture along with a cover photo. This provides validity and authenticity for your business, ready for people to start following and trusting.
Make sure your branding is consistent with your business, and is shown through your photography. You can use Canva and Picmonkey to create great Twitter headers, as well as Twitter cards and social media graphics. These are eye catching for potential followers, and make your profile look brighter and more interesting.
Update your bio as specifically as you can within the character restriction. If you write for a media outlet, let those who view your profile know what your role with that company is, and tag the company so they can find them. If you have separate accounts for your personal life and your business, tag your business account on the bio of your personal account. Always make sure your services can be found easily. Add your location and website into your bio so people know where to find you and contact you! What a lot of people don't realize about Twitter bios is you can actually use hashtags in them, and be found a lot easier through them too. They basically work as a refining tool for potential customers looking for a particular service. If the services you want to promote involve business coaching, write '#businesscoach' in your bio, and potential clients will be able to find you more easily. It also allows other business coaches and users within your niche to find you and interact with you, making for a less lonely business journey!
To up your following and create a community on your Twitter account, you need to work on your engagement. Follow other users in your niche and use the 'retweet' and 'like' tools to support their content. It's likely that they will return the favour and interact with you more frequently. Do this often to keep your engagement consistent, but make sure you're retweeting content that's relevant to your niche. The most important aspect of your profile is branding, and you want to keep that consistent.
Promote your services using interesting graphics with short links and catchy titles. Make sure your followers know that reading your work has something in it for them. Provide an 'opt-in', giving readers a reason to click on your work and find out more information.
However, if you promote your own work and don't post enough alternative content, there'll be no reason for most users to follow you, nor engage with you. It's difficult to strain from filling up your tweet schedule with your own work, but it's important to offer your readers something else. Don't be afraid to infuse personality to your social media content. Throw in a picture of your cute dog from time to time, or tell them a joke. It's also a good idea to retweet other people's content that you enjoyed. Keep it within your niche to preserve your business' branding. It offers your readers alternative content while supporting another business and engaging with another user.
Another effective method you can use for boosting engagement and establishing professionalism through your content is crediting your sources where necessary. If the content you're promoting or linking involves other companies or influencers, use the tags as well as the 'mentioning' (@) tool to give credit where required. Furthermore, when you mention brands in your photography or other content forms, those brands sometimes retweet your content, thus promoting you to a wider audience. It's always worth including these little things for large rewards!
Shave Hours Off Your Work Week!
Sign up to receive a copy of my FREE guide with over 70 tasks that you can (and should) outsource to a virtual assistant today!
Thank you for subscribing! You should receive an email in your inbox within the next few minutes.
Canva is a great online design tool for creating social media graphics (amongst many other layouts). It's a fantastic way to make your Twitter posts more interesting, especially as readers are always more attracted to posts that include a pretty image.
Due to the limited character allowance on Twitter, you need to save up room for the important stuff and hold back on rambling. Unfortunately, most website and blog links to specific posts are really long unless you fork out the money to get them shortened. Bitly is a great little tool for shortening your shareable links to your blog. Shorter links also generally make your tweets appear much neater and cleaner, which motivates people to click through.
Tweetdeck is a Twitter-owned device that displays all the features of your Twitter account on one page; your homepage, your notifications, messages, and activity. Tweetdeck is a great way to monitor your engagement while keeping up with what's going on with your newsfeed. You can also use Tweetdeck to schedule posts to your profile. Before I used Tweetdeck, my Twitter content was terribly unorganized. I would not post anything for a week, and then tweet twenty times in one day, not considering optimal times or any other factors contributing to a great tweet. More people will see your tweets if you use a scheduler to post regularly. Find half an hour within your weekly schedule (I'm sure you can move some things around) to plan out Tweets for the whole week.
Tip: There are also other scheduling tool options such as Buffer, Edgar, and Hootsuite. These tools allow you to schedule posts for other social platforms aside from Twitter all from one account; including Instagram, Facebook, and Pinterest. These tools vary in pricing and require a little research before purchasing. Although, Buffer is free for a limited amount of scheduled posts to Twitter and Facebook. Unlimited posts and the inclusion of Instagram costs approx $10.
Tweroid helps you to schedule your tweets, as it analyzes your Twitter account in depth, in order to determine what your best times for sharing content are. Tweroid gives you the best times to tweet content by analyzing your tweets as well as your followers' tweets, making it much more specific to your following than other online tools. By using Tweroid, you can make sure your tweets are specific to the target client you're aiming your content at.
Trendsmap is an app that allows you to view what's trending in your area. Taking a look at what people are enjoying locally is fantastic for driving the right clients to your business, as if your products and services are local, potential clients may be more likely to enquire about your work. This works particularly well if you sell physical products. If people know it would be easy to arrange a collection from your business, they'll be more likely to check out your other products and services, spending more time researching your business.
I hope you enjoyed these tips and tools! What methods do you use to show professionalism on Twitter?
Laura can be reached at +(1) 240-686-5547 or info@betterbizacademy.com. Alternatively, you can fill out the contact form below.


You have not provided us with enough information to even begin to help you.
deepman ) A&R Director - Incepto Deep Rec. A&R Director - Microbios Rec.
You appear to be running your site in PHP5, and this isn't supported in PHP5. Try switching your site to the PHP 4 version available.
I already switched, it works!
You are most welcome. And as wholly said, I always put messages like that into Google and answers are often available.


text:
Tag Archives: drink
Pigeon Forge Approves Liquor-by-the-Drink (again)
PIGEON FORGE, Tenn. (AP) — Voters in Pigeon Forge have again approved liquor by the drink. This time, the margin was 154 votes.
The Mountain Press (http://bit.ly/ZtC0Uc ) reported Ken Maples, who led the pro-liquor initiative, said the election Thursday validated the choice voters initially made on Nov. 6.
Results of that referendum were thrown out by a court over confusion about who was allowed to vote. The question was on a crowded general election ballot, headed by the presidential race.
Jess Davis, who is co-chairman of Concerned Churches and Citizens of Pigeon Forge, said his group was disappointed in the outcome and might contest the results.
The Sevier County Election Commission meets March 21 to certify the vote.
This entry was posted in alcoholic beverages, election laws, local campaigns, local government and tagged approved, drink, Forge, liquor, Pigeon, referendum on March 15, 2013 by Tom Humphrey.
Pro-liquor Forces Outspend Antis in Pigeon Forge
PIGEON FORGE, Tenn. (AP) — Proponents of liquor by the drink in Pigeon Forge are vastly outspending a group trying to defeat the issue as it comes back for another vote.
The Mountain Press (http://bit.ly/13Vud7j ) reported proponent group Forging Ahead filed documents showing it had received nearly $27,000 between Jan. 1 and Feb. 26.
Concerned Churches and Citizens of Pigeon Forge reported it had about $3,400 in donations.
Voters narrowly approved a liquor referendum in November, but it was overturned after complaints that people who live outside the city were allowed to vote.
On Thursday, Pigeon Forge voters will again choose whether to allow restaurant liquor sales.
This entry was posted in alcoholic beverages, local government and tagged campaign, drink, finance, Forge, liquor, Pigeon on March 13, 2013 by Tom Humphrey.
Pigeon Forge Liquor Vote Brings Lawsuit (more votes cast than voters?)
A lawsuit has been filed challenging the results of a liquor-by-the-drink referendum in the town of Pigeon Forge, reports the News Sentinel.
The lawsuit filed on behalf of Concerned Churches & Citizens of Pigeon Forge in Sevier County Chancery Court claims an "incurable uncertainty" surrounds the results of the Nov. 6 referendum that saw liquor-by-the-drink approved by a margin of 100 votes.
The election marked the issue's third appearance on the ballot since 2009.
Proponents of liquor by the drink called the lawsuit a "frivolous" refusal to accept defeat at the polls.
"We kind of consider it sour grapes," said Ken Maples, an owner of the Comfort Inn & Suites in Pigeon Forge and a member of Forging Ahead, which campaigned for the proposal. "Both times we were defeated, we licked our wounds and went home. Our opposition finds it necessary to file a lawsuit."
…The lawsuit cites complaints of city residents not being allowed to vote on the referendum and of county residents getting a vote. Vote totals don't match up, according to the lawsuit, and some voters' addresses lead nowhere.
The final vote tally added up to 1,232 votes in favor of liquor by the drink and 1,132 votes against. That's a total of 2,364 votes — 303 more than voter rolls list as taking part in the election, according to the lawsuit.
"Somehow 303 more votes ended up on the referendum than were registered," said Lewis Howard Jr., the attorney who filed the lawsuit.
Residents already have filed complaints with the election commission. The lawsuit demands the results be thrown out and a new referendum ordered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged drink, election, Forge, lawsuit, liquor, Pigeon, votes on November 24, 2012 by Tom Humphrey.
DesJarlais Denounces Fed Funding of Soft Drink Tax Advocacy
News release from U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais:
WASHINGTON, DC -Representative Scott DesJarlais (TN-04) sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking for information on the use of federal funds administered by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in lobbying and public advocacy efforts attacking American food and beverage products.
Several states have used federal grants to run public affairs and lobbying campaigns to push for taxes on soda products, an act prohibited by the federal government. Additionally, states have been using CDC grant money to run misleading advertisements attacking American food and beverage products and the companies that make them.
Representative DesJarlais has introduced legislation preventing the use of taxpayer dollars in advertising campaigns against any food or beverage deemed safe and lawfully marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
This entry was posted in Congress, Congressional campaigns, federal funding and tagged desjarlais, drink, federal, funding, Kathleen, letter, scott, Sebelius, soft on May 18, 2012 by Tom Humphrey.
Overbey: Liquor Deal 'Pure Fiction'
State Sen. Doug Overbey is fighting back against the suggestion he was involved in some secret deal to sneak liquor into Pigeon Forge, reports The Mountain Press. He says the accusations made by some in that city are "pure fiction."
Though he was not named specifically, businessman Jess Davis leveled allegations during a recent City Commission meeting that a "Tennessee senator" was in on closed-door meetings Davis claims were held on an end-around for spirits. Overbey is the only person who represents Sevier County in the state's Senate and, like everyone else Davis claims or suggests was part of the gathering, vehemently denies there was such a meeting.
"I have hatched no plan and I have not been part of hatching some plan," Overbey told The Mountain Press. "My consistent position has been that the citizens' vote in May needs to be respected. I could not support or go along with anything other than that and, if it's desire, a new referendum on this issue."
This entry was posted in alcohol, Legislature and tagged alcohol, deal, doug, drink, Forge, legislature, liquor, Overbey, Pigeon, secret on March 5, 2012 by Tom Humphrey.
Obesity Task Force to Legislature: Fight Fat with Soft Drink Tax, Exercise Mandate
The Tennessee Obesity Task Force has made its recommendations for action by the state Legislature in the 2012 session, reports The Tennessean. The group wants to be sure all schools are complying with the state's 90-minutes-a-week mandate for physical education, a tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks and increased fines for speeding in school zones.
Rebecca Johns-Wommack, the state's executive director of the Office of Coordinated School Health, said her office will spend the school year monitoring complaince with the 90-minute weekly physical activity law and must report back to the legislature in August on which schools are in compliance. Last school year, that was 85 percent of Tennessee schools, she said.
"We're living in a fiscally conservative environment, so we are currently focusing on policies that do not carry large fiscal notes or that might actually bring in revenues," said Joan Randall, director of the Tennessee Obesity Task Force. "Our policies attempt to raise awareness and create an environment that supports healthier lifestyles."
Increasing the fine for speeding in a school zone by $50 could make it safer for kids to walk and bike to school, plus the money would go to the Safe Routes to School program, which encourages exercise through walking or biking to schools.
The soda tax bill, as its been dubbed, would place a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on bottled, sugar-sweetened beverages purchased at convenience and grocery stores, but reduce the state food tax by 1 percent. The bill, which was sponsored by State Rep. Mike Stewart, D-Nashville, last session, was held up in the House Finance Subcommittee. Stewart plans to present it again during the next session
This entry was posted in Legislature, state taxes and tagged drink, force, obesity, school, soft, speed, task, tax, zone on October 22, 2011 by Tom Humphrey.
On Legalizing Liquor by the Drink in Dry Areas
Ten businesses are on track to get special permission from the Legislature this week to sell liquor by the drink, while one that wanted a special "resort license" was turned down.
The difference, according to knowledgeable legislators and lobbyists, is that the proposal for Hickory Star Marina on Norris Lake ran afoul of a tacit understanding on such measures, sometimes flippantly called "booze bills."
The understanding: No special booze bill will pass unless the legislator representing the district of the business to be licensed gives the go-ahead, even if he or she officially objects to the idea and votes against it.
"They will never go against a member," said Tom Hensley, veteran lobbyist for the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of Tennessee. He and lobbying colleague John New monitor the bills closely, Hensley said.
This entry was posted in alcoholic beverages, Legislature and tagged alcohol, drink, license, lliquor, resort on May 20, 2011 by Tom Humphrey.


Kenya's Joyciline Jepkosgei broke four world records as she stormed to victory at the Prague Half Marathon.
The 23-year-old completed what was just her fifth half marathon in one hour, four minutes and 52 seconds – 14 seconds quicker than the record set by Peres Jepchirchir earlier this year.
And she also clocked splits of 30:05, 45:37 and 1:01:25 to break the 10km, 15km and 20km world records on the way.
"I only wanted to improve my time. This is a surprise for me," Jepkosgei said.
"I didn't know I would break the world record today.
Defending champion Violah Jepchumba finished second – 30 seconds back – and Fancy Chemutai third, with America's sixth-placed Jordan Hasay the only non-Kenyan in the top 10.


Regency Hall is a five-floor apartment block set in central Cheltenham, at the junction of Winchcombe Street with Fairview Road. A short walk into town one way, a stroll to enjoy the green space of Pittvile Park the other, Regency Hall is an ideal base for student life and to sample all that Cheltenham has to offer. It's easy for catching a bus to the university campuses, going shopping, sitting in the sun at the park, enjoying the clubs and nightlife or having a bite to eat in cafes, bars and restaurants.
Across the five floors, there are 99 rooms set in groups of 6 or 7 around a shared kitchen/communal area. Free wifi, and on-site laundry room are all part of our university living offer, for a top value £99 per week. The entrance to Regency Hall is via a small courtyard just off Fishers Lane.
A student liaison officer is in the on-site office several times a week to manage any queries or issues and, during term time, a resident student ambassador is available as a source of friendly, informal advice.
Regency Hall is owned and managed by Severn Vale Housing Society Limited, and is one of a small portfolio of university living properties in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire.
Pittville Park boasts a mini golf course, boating lake and cafe – just one of Cheltenham's beautiful green spaces in the heart of the town.


text:
Home / Media
Buses and potholes fund announced in the Budget not enough
Campaign for Better Transport has responded to the Budget 2018. Darren Shirley, Chief Executive of Campaign for Better Transport, said:
Calls for the Chancellor to promote sustainable transport in next week's Budget
Campaign for Better Transport wrote to the Chancellor, Philip Hammond MP, ahead of next week's Budget 2018 to outline what the Government should promote through transport taxation and spending.
Campaigners welcome moves to make cycling and walking safer
Responding to the Government's announcement that it will review the Highway Code to make cycling and walking safer, Darren Shirley, Chief Executive at Campaign for Better Transport, said:
The Strategic Road Network must be improved for pedestrians and cyclists
Responding to research released today, 17 October, by Transport Focus, Darren Shirley, Chief Executive of Campaign for Better Transport, said:
Government must support buses in forthcoming Budget
Responding to Department for Transport figures reported in the media today, which show the number of local bus journeys are at a twelve year low, Darren Shirley, Chief Executive of Campaign for Better Transport, said:
Rail Review needs to solve passengers problems and reform the fares system
Campaign for Better Transport has responded to the release of the terms of reference for the Rail Review, and the...
IPCC report confirms urgent action is needed to cut CO2 emissions from transport
Reacting to the report released today, 8 October, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Darren Shirley, Chief Executive of Campaign for Better Transport, said:
"The stark warning from the world's leading climate scientists confirms...
Fuel duty freeze is no comfort to struggling rail and bus passengers
Responding to the Prime Minister's announcement that fuel duty will be frozen for the ninth year in a row, Darren Shirley, Chief Executive at Campaign for Better Transport, said:
Better compensation and pothole fund welcomed
Responding to the speech made by the Transport Secretary Chris Grayling MP at the Conservative Party Conference today, Darren Shirley, Chief Executive of Campaign for Better Transport, said:
Latest quarterly rail freight figures demonstrate key role in construction and housing markets
The latest quarterly Office of Rail and Road (ORR) rail freight statistics, issued yesterday, show record expansion in construction traffic (up seven percent) demonstrating the industry's key role in building our infrastructure and housing.
We are the UK's leading authority on sustainable transport.
We aim to provide timely, professional responses to your queries.
Journalists are invited to contact us on:


text:
Home Category Talk of the Town Talk of the Town Texas Dallas News
Judge Tonya Parker to Receive MLK Justice Award from Dallas Bar Association
DALLAS, TX—Hon Tonya Parker, judge of the 116th District Court, will be honored by the Dallas Bar Association at the...
Peckar & Abramson Promotes Four Attorneys in Dallas and Houston
TEXAS—National construction law firm Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A) is pleased to announce promotions for four of its construction law...
James McFall to Speak on First Amendment Issues in the Public Sector
DALLAS, TX—In the age of social media, public sector employees must differentiate between speaking as a private citizen or government...
Attorney Danielle Canfield Joins Bell Nunnally as Associate
DALLAS, TX—Attorney Danielle P. Canfield has joined Bell Nunnally as an associate and member of the firm's Litigation practice area,...
Berry Appleman & Leiden LLP Promotes Matthew Gross and Mark Yelich to Partner
DALLAS, TX—Berry Appleman & Leiden (BAL) LLP, the world's preeminent corporate immigration firm, is pleased to announce the promotions of...
Alexandra Geczi PLLC Ranked No. 27 on 500 Award List of Fastest Growing Law Firms
DALLAS, TX—The Law Firm 500 Award committee announced the list of 2020 Honorees ranking Alexandra Geczi PLLC No. 27 (up...
Stewart Named to Lawdragon 500 Leading U.S. Corporate Employment Lawyers
DALLAS, TX—Amy M. Stewart, a Dallas-based lawyer and Founding Partner of Stewart Law Group PLLC, has been named to the...
HRI Honors Sidley with Pro Bono Angel of Freedom Award
DALLAS, TX—Sidley is proud to announce that Human Rights Initiative of North Texas (HRI) honored the firm with its "Law...
Slack Davis Sanger To Merge With Guajardo & Marks LLP
AUSTIN, TX—Slack Davis Sanger is pleased to announce that it will combine with Dallas-based Guajardo & Marks, effective January 1,...
Clark Hill's Thompson and Law Firm Sidley Austin Honored for Pro Bono Dedication
DALLAS, TX—Human Rights Initiative of North Texas (HRI), a Dallas-area non-profit organization, is announcing this year's prestigious Angel of Freedom...
Page 41 of 44 Previous 1 … 40 41 42 … 44 Next
Publish Your Press Release
Share your law firm's latest news in the Talk of the Town


text:
Nöther (Noether)
1 Nöther (Noether)
1.8 Bibliography
Lat: 66.6°N, Long: 113.5°W, Diam: 67 km, Depth: km, Rükl: (farside), Nectarian
LPOD Photo Gallery Lunar Orbiter Images
(LAC zone 9D3) USGS Digital Atlas PDF
In this region, near Noether, runs a system of east-northeast/ west-southwest oriented valleys, one of them touching the northern rim of Noether E, the other one running through the southern half of Noether T. See LAC 9 in the Clementine Atlas. Research Danny Caes.
Named for Amalie Emmy Noether (March 23, 1882 – April 14, 1935), a German-born Jewish mathematician, said by Einstein in eulogy to be "[i]n the judgment of the most competent living mathematicians, [...] the most significant creative mathematical genius thus far produced since the higher education of women began." Almost universally known as Emmy Noether, she had penetrating insights that she used to develop elegant abstractions.
This name, spelled Nöther (or Nöter), was in the long list of farside feature names approved by the IAU in 1970 and published in [[|Menzel, 1971]].
In 1973, on LTO-61B4, the DMA erroneously introduced the name Noether as a new replacement name for the satellite feature Cauchy D. Since Nöther had previously been assigned to the present farside crater, this was one of many invalid names that appear on the LTO charts.
Two valleys near Noether are unofficially called Vallis Noether E and Vallis Noether T by D.Caes (see also Additional Information).
Retrieved from "http://the-moon.us/index.php?title=Nöther_(Noether)&oldid=16542"