Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:title>Defining necessary circadian clock elements</jats:title> <jats:p> The circadian clock in organisms as diverse as fungi and humans have a rather similar structure: Timing depends on daily cycles of transcription in circuits in which feedback loops control the timing of oscillations. A critical role has been ascribed to negative elements, which lead to inhibition of their own transcription, and to degradation of these elements, which is signaled by phosphorylation events. However, Larrando <jats:italic>et al.</jats:italic> show that in the fungus <jats:italic>Neurospora</jats:italic> , after manipulations that prevent phosphorylation-signaled degradation of the negative element FREQUENCY (FRQ), rhythms still persist (see the Perspective by Kramer). They suggest a model in which other phosphorylation events on Frq (of which there are over 100) must have critical roles in controlling the clock, independent of negative element degradation. </jats:p> <jats:p> <jats:italic>Science</jats:italic> , this issue <jats:related-article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="doi" related-article-type="in-this-issue" xlink:href="10.1126/science.1257277">10.1126/science.1257277</jats:related-article> ; see also p. <jats:related-article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="doi" issue="6221" page="476" related-article-type="in-this-issue" vol="347" xlink:href="10.1126/science.aaa5085">476</jats:related-article> </jats:p>

<jats:p> There is a wide opinion gap between scientists and the general public in the United States when it comes to their attitudes about the state of science and science-related policy. According to survey results released this week by the Pew Research Center, in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), <jats:xref ref-type="fn">*</jats:xref> when asked whether U.S. scientific achievements are either the best or among the world's best, only 54% of the public said “yes,” compared to 92% of the scientists. Such disparity is alarming because it ultimately affects both science policy and scientific progress. How can we bridge this gap? Forget the staged “town hall” meetings—studies show that they are not very effective. What does work is respectful bidirectional communication, where scientists truly listen, as well as speak, to the public. </jats:p>