www.readcube.com Open in urlscan Pro
2606:4700:20::681a:547  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

The international journal of science / 23 May 2024

MOMENT

IN THE SUNNear-surface instabilities drive

the solar magnetic dynamo

Under pressure

How can researchers

be protected from

increased harassment?

Missing link

Promethium complex

captured in solution

fills gap in observations

History lesson

Downturns helped

give ancient societies

long-term resilience

Vol. 629, No. 8013

nature.com















We think that

research,

regardless

of regardless

of the sector

that does it,

should be

evaluated

through peer

review and

published for

the benefit of

society and

science.”

limits verification and reproducibility efforts. The letter has

had an impact. Shortly after it was published, DeepMind’s

vice-president of research, Pushmeet Kohli, posted on the

social-media platform X that the team is “working on releas-

ing the AF3 model (incl weights) for academic use” within six

months. This is an important step, and Nature will update

the published paper once the code is released.

But why allow the complete data and code to be

restricted at the time of publication? Nature’s editorial

policies have been developed to support open science and

state: “Authors are required to make materials, data, code,

and associated protocols promptly available to readers

without undue qualifications.” One way we enable research-

ers to do so is through a partnership with Code Ocean, a

computational-science platform that makes the infor-

mation reproducible and traceable. But our policies also

acknowledge that there can be restrictions, which “must

be disclosed to the editors at the time of submission” and

agreed with editors. The policy also states: “Any reason that

would preclude the need for code or algorithm sharing will

be evaluated by the editors who reserve the right to decline

the paper if important code is unavailable.”

Reasons for restrictions include a lack of discipline-wide

data-reporting standards or of the technological infrastruc-

ture necessary for depositing data openly and in structured

repositories. In other cases, confidentiality might have to be

protected, or data might be withheld for safety, security or

legal reasons. Similar principles apply to the availability of

code, which is why Nature’s policies include an option for

releasing the training model and pseudocode or limited

code, as attested by examples of studies we have published

in chemistry3

, climate change4 and virology5

.

The private sector funds most global research and

development, and many of the results of such work are not

published in peer-reviewed journals. We at Nature think it’s

important that journals engage with the private sector and

work with its scientists so they can submit their research for

peer review and publication. This promotes the sharing of

knowledge, verification of the research and the reproduc-

ibility researchers strive for. It also benefits product safety

and efficacy. Progress needs more, not less, open data and

code — something Nature will continue to support.

But this goal will not be achieved in a single step. It will

require a process. And that requires engagement and

dialogue between all stakeholders. To reiterate: we don’t

want our opinion to be the final word, but rather the start

of a conversation. What further steps can we take to ensure

openness from all parties in the research ecosystem? We

would like to hear from all stakeholders — not just from

researchers at universities and private companies, but from

policymakers, non-governmental organizations and pub-

lishers, too. Write to us at correspondence@nature.com.

We will use these pages to update readers.

1. Abramson, J. et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w

(2024).

2. Jumper, J. et al. Nature 596, 583–589 (2021).

3. Mikulak-Klucznik, B. et al. Nature 588, 83–88 (2020).

4. Bi, K. et al. Nature 619, 533–538 (2023).

5. Desautels, T. A. et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07385-1

(2024).

Why did Nature

publish AlphaFold3

without its code?

Criticism of the journal’s decision raises

important questions. We welcome

readers’ views.

T

he latest iteration of the protein-structure-

prediction algorithm AlphaFold has generated

a great deal of interest since its release,

accompanied by a paper in Nature, earlier this

month 1 . Unlike its predecessor AlphaFold2,

AlphaFold3 can predict not just the structures of protein

complexes, but also when proteins interact with other

kinds of molecule, including DNA and RNA. The artificial

intelligence tool will be important in both fundamental

research and drug discovery.

But its release has also prompted questions, and criticism,

of both the AlphaFold team at Google DeepMind in London

and Nature. When AlphaFold2 was published 2 , the full

underlying code was made accessible to all researchers. But

AlphaFold3 comes with ‘pseudocode’ — a detailed descrip-

tion of what the code can do and how it works.

This was not a decision we took lightly, and this edito-

rial briefly explains our reasoning. We think that research,

regardless of the sector that does it, should be evaluated

through peer review and published for the benefit of society

and science. At the same time, we have no wish for this to

be the final word. This is an opportunity for an important

conversation among all research stakeholders at a time when

the majority of global research is privately funded.

The basics of how the community can use the new version

of AlphaFold remain the same: anyone with a Google account

can use the tool for free, for non-commercial applications.

But there are important differences between the latest

iteration and previous ones. Notably, for AlphaFold2, the

DeepMind team worked with the European Molecular

Biology Laboratory’s European Bioinformatics Institute,

an intergovernmental (and publicly funded) research organ-

ization based in Cambridge, UK. DeepMind researchers have

trained their software on thousands of published records

of protein structures and their known shapes.

Now, DeepMind has partnered with Isomorphic

Labs, a London-based drug-development company

owned by Google’s parent, Alphabet. In addition to the

non-availability of the full code, there are other restrictions

on the use of the tool — for example, in drug development.

There are also daily limits on the numbers of predictions

that individual researchers can perform.

Many researchers are disappointed by these constraints.

In an open letter to Nature (see go.nature.com/3k9acav),

its authors point out that the lack of an open-source code

728 | Nature | Vol 629 | 23 May 2024

Editorials



Solving problems in a safe, collaborative

environment can help us to think outside

the box and build empathy — crucial skills

in a warming world.

T

he urgency of the climate crisis is clear. Action

is imperative. But how should we act, when the

long-term impacts of our actions are difficult to

grasp and the future is so uncertain?

Imagine you are the mayor of a coastal city.

How high would you build a sea wall, for example, to offer

protection from future flooding? The decision involves bal-

ancing the risks of breaches against the cost of construction,

without knowing how fast seas might rise or what the wider

consequences of building it might be.

It is hard to anticipate the complexity of the decisions

that we will all face as the world warms. But, as a game

designer and education researcher, I know that games —

and, in particular, role-playing games — can be an invalua-

ble tool for helping us think through scenarios. By getting

players to deal with situations in a simulated environment,

games can help us to explore options in a risk-free way.

For example, I’ve used the board game Terraforming Mars

to introduce young adults to the ethics of space coloniza-

tion. Players control corporations competing to transform

Mars into a habitable planet by extracting resources, build-

ing cities and creating green spaces. Nearly every session

evolves into a heated debate about diverting resources

to make a new ‘Earth’ instead of fixing the one we have.

I’ve also been involved in creating games that promote

teamwork. For example, I co-designed the deck-build-

ing card game Carbon City Zero with Paul Wake, a games

researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, and

the London-based climate charity Possible. Initially, players

competed individually to build the first zero-carbon city.

But after they fed back that the competitive aspect sent the

wrong message, we made Carbon City Zero: World Edition,

in which players must cooperate to fight the climate crisis.

The concept of the ‘magic circle’ is central to game

design. This refers to the space in which the rules of a game

apply. In the board game Daybreak, for instance, players

act as world leaders working together to mitigate climate

change by implementing clean energy and increasing resil-

ience. The game’s rules enforce targets and penalties, for

example through consequences of rising global tempera-

tures and community crises if emissions are not reduced.

Board games’ rigid mechanics and limited set of sce-

narios can restrict creative problem-solving, however.

Tabletop role-playing games offer a more personalized

and narrative-driven experience. Players often craft their

characters’ storylines themselves, guided by frameworks

set by game designers. For example, in the game Dungeons

& Dragons, players create their characters’ back stories,

which evolve through scenarios set up by a Dungeon

Master.

Studies highlight the benefits of taking part in role-play-

ing games1

. Regular players exhibit higher levels of empa-

thy than non-players do, and tend to engage more often in

pro-social behaviours 2 . Those showing greater empathy

also tend to pay greater attention to pro-environmental

decisions, such as using sustainable products3

. A deficit in

empathy is often found among climate-change deniers4

.

Although as yet there is no direct evidence linking play-

ing such games to specific environmental actions, their

potential to enhance empathy suggests that they could

effectively encourage players to take climate action.

It was this potential that led me to co-create the game

Rooted in Crisis, alongside a global team of researchers,

educators and game designers over the past three years.

This collaborative tabletop role-playing game blends cli-

mate knowledge — fact-checked by the researchers — with

narrative-driven gameplay. For instance, players might find

themselves in a magical city, negotiating disaster relief

after a catastrophic flood, or exploring outer space in a

darkly comedic scenario that highlights recklessness amid

an impending catastrophe.

There are barriers to the widespread adoption of games,

however. They are often perceived as frivolous or juve-

nile, even if they are backed by scientists. Critics worry

that games might also oversimplify complex scientific data

and policy discussions. To counter this, we’ve included

scenarios that mirror real-world climate challenges, such

as managing a city’s response to rising sea levels, coun-

tering lobbyists, negotiating with rival factions to secure

water in a drought-stricken world or deciding how to save

a flood-threatened town and its heritage.

My faith in the power of games to address complex soci-

etal issues such as climate change is rooted in my own expe-

riences as a player. Games have given me the opportunity

to inhabit vastly different personas, from a barbarian orc

in a fantasy land to a citizen of a flooded continent. Each

session is an escape into another world, and, with it, an

exercise in empathy and problem-solving.

Dungeons & Dragons this is not. The horrors we are

facing because of the climate crisis are much more fright-

ening than any imaginary monster would be. This is not

just a game; it is an invitation to step up and become the

protagonists in the most crucial story of our time.

1. Rivers, A., Wickramasekera II, I. E., Pekala, R. J. & Rivers, J. A. Am. J.
Clin.

Hypnosis 58, 286–294 (2016).

2. Morris, B. S. et al. Clim. Change 154, 19–36 (2019).

3. Islam, T., Ali, G. & Asad, H. Mgmt Res. Rev. 42, 332–351 (2019).

4. Jylhä, K. M. & Akrami, N. Pers. Individ. Diff. 86, 108–111 (2015).

Sam Illingworth is an

education researcher

at Edinburgh Napier

University, UK.

e-mail: s.illingworth@

napier.ac.uk

The author declares

competing financial

interests. See go.nature.

com/3wg5v0i

Regular

players

exhibit

higher levels

of empathy

than non-

players do.”

Why role-playing games

can spur climate action

By Sam

Illingworth

Nature | Vol 629 | 23 May 2024 | 729

A personal take on science and society

World view



Pay researchers to spot

errors in published papers

By Malte Elson

Making error

detection

and

correction

part of the

scientific

landscape

is a sound

investment.”

Malte Elson is an

associate professor

of the psychology of

digitalization at the

University of Bern,

Switzerland.

e-mail: malte.elson@

unibe.ch

Borrowing the idea of ‘bug bounties’ from

the technology industry could provide a

systematic way to detect and correct the

errors that litter the scientific literature.

I

n 2023, Google awarded a total of US$10 million to

researchers who found vulnerabilities in its products.

Why? Because allowing errors to go undetected could

be much costlier. Data breaches could lead to refund

claims, reduced customer trust or legal liability.

It’s not just private technology companies that invest in

such ‘bug bounty’ programmes. Between 2016 and 2021, the

US Department of Defense awarded more than US$650,000

to people who found weaknesses in its networks.

Just as many industries devote hefty funding to incen-

tivizing people to find and report bugs and glitches, so the

science community should reward the detection and cor-

rection of errors in the scientific literature. In our industry,

too, the costs of undetected errors are staggering.

That’s why I have joined with meta-scientist Ian Hussey

at the University of Bern and psychologist Ruben Arslan

at Leipzig University in Germany to pilot a bug-bounty

programme for science, funded by the University of Bern.

Our project, Estimating the Reliability and Robustness of

Research (ERROR), pays specialists to check highly cited

published papers, starting with the social and behavioural

sciences (see go.nature.com/4bmlvkj). Our reviewers

are paid a base rate of up to 1,000 Swiss francs (around

US$1,100) for each paper they check, and a bonus for

any errors they find. The bigger the error, the greater the

reward — up to a maximum of 2,500 francs.

Authors who let us scrutinize their papers are compen-

sated, too: 250 francs to cover the work needed to prepare

files or answer reviewer queries, and a bonus 250 francs

if no errors (or only minor ones) are found in their work.

ERROR launched in February and will run for at least four

years. So far, we have sent out almost 60 invitations, and

13 sets of authors have agreed to have their papers assessed.

One review has been completed, revealing minor errors.

I hope that the project will demonstrate the value of sys-

tematic processes to detect errors in published research.

I am convinced that such systems are needed, because

current checks are insufficient.

Unpaid peer reviewers are overburdened, and have lit-

tle incentive to painstakingly examine survey responses,

comb through lists of DNA sequences or cell lines, or go

through computer code line by line. Mistakes frequently

slip through. And researchers have little to gain personally

from sifting through published papers looking for errors.

There is no financial compensation for highlighting errors,

and doing so can see people marked out as troublemakers.

Yet failing to keep abreast of this issue comes at a huge

cost. Imagine a single PhD student building their work on

an erroneous finding. In Switzerland, their cumulative

salary alone will run to six figures. Flawed research that is

translated into health care, policymaking or engineering

can harm people. And there are opportunity costs — for

every grant awarded to a project unknowingly building

on errors, another project is not pursued.

Like technology companies, stakeholders in science

must realize that making error detection and correction

part of the scientific landscape is a sound investment.

Funders, for instance, have a vested interest in ensur-

ing that the money that they distribute as grants is not

wasted. Publishers stand to improve their reputations by

ensuring that some of their resources are spent on quality

management. And, by supporting these endeavours, sci-

entific associations could help to foster a culture in which

acknowledgement of errors is considered normal — or even

commendable — and not a mark of shame.

I know that ERROR is a bold experiment. Some research-

ers might have qualms. I’ve been asked whether reviewers

might exaggerate the gravity of errors in pursuit of a large

bug bounty, or attempt to smear a colleague they dislike.

It’s possible, but hyperbole would be a gamble, given that

all reviewer reports are published on our website and are

not anonymized. And we guard against exaggeration. A

‘recommender’ from among ERROR’s staff and advisory

board members — none of whom receive a bounty — acts as

an intermediary, weighing up reviewer findings and author

responses before deciding on the payout.

Another fair criticism is that ERROR’s paper selection

will be biased. The ERROR team picks papers that are

highly cited and checks them only if the authors agree to

it. Authors who suspect their work might not withstand

scrutiny could be less likely to opt in. But selecting papers

at random would introduce a different bias, because we

would be able to assess only those for which some min-

imal amount of data and code was freely available. And

we’d spend precious resources checking some low-impact

papers that only a few people build research on.

My goal is not to prove that a bug-bounty programme is

the best mechanism for correcting errors, or that it is appli-

cable to all science. Rather, I want to start a conversation

about the need for dedicated investment in error detection

and correction. There are alternatives to bug bounties — for

instance, making error detection its own viable career path

and hiring full-time scientific staff to check each institute’s

papers. Of course, care would be needed to ensure that such

schemes benefited researchers around the world equally.

Scholars can’t expect errors to go away by themselves.

Science can be self-correcting — but only if we invest in

making it so.

730 | Nature | Vol 629 | 23 May 2024

A personal take on science and society

World view

DRES HUBACHER



FIRE POSES GROWING

THREAT TO AFRICA’S

TROPICAL FORESTS

Africa’s tropical forests are

experiencing more fires than

they did in the past as a result

of climate change and human

activities.

Research on African fires

tends to focus on woodlands

and savannahs, where most of

the continent’s fires occur. But

the wetter tropical forests can

also ignite, releasing carbon

dioxide into the atmosphere and

affecting the broader ecosystem.

Michael Wimberly at the

University of Oklahoma in

Norman and his colleagues

analysed satellite observations

of fires burning in tropical

forests in West and Central

Africa between 2003 and 2021.

In many areas, fires became

more common as time went on,

particularly in the Congo Basin.

Notable increases in fires

occurred in places where people

cut down trees for farming and

other activities, fragmenting

the forest and providing more

chances for it to ignite. Fires

also became more frequent in

locations where the climate is

growing hotter and drier, and

during the El Niño weather

pattern in 2015–16 that dried out

many forests.

More work is needed to assess

how often Africa’s tropical

forests might burn in the future,

potentially threatening people

and their livelihoods.

Geophys. Res. Lett. 51,

e2023GL106240 (2024)

ESSAYS REVEAL

WHICH WRITERS

EARN BETTER GRADES

Aspiring students who wrote

content-rich university

admission essays were more

likely to end up with higher

grades in their classes.

Jonah Berger at the University

of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia

and Olivier Toubia at Columbia

University in New York City used

machine-learning techniques

to analyse more than 40,000

essays written by applicants

to a major university. Their

algorithm calculated the

breadth of the ideas expressed

in each essay. It also divided

the essays into chunks of about

25 words — without breaking

sentences up — and measured

how fast the ideas changed from

one chunk to the next.

Both broader semantic

content and more-gradual

transitions between consecutive

chunks correlated with higher

grade-point averages, the

authors found. This was true

regardless of factors such as

parents’ education level and

grades earned during earlier

schooling. The correlation was

also significant for students

whose majors did not involve

extensive essay writing, such as

engineering, suggesting that

certain features of cognitive

style revealed through writing

can offer advantages in other

activities.

PNAS Nexus 3, pgae163 (2024)

TWO BECOME ONE:

MERGER MODELS

BRAIN MEMBRANE

A model of a membrane called

the blood–brain barrier (BBB)

could transform how scientists

study drug delivery to the brain,

as well as diseases of the organ’s

vascular network. The model

combines two structures, known

as organoids, that mimic tissues.

Assembloids are

combinations of organoids

that allow scientists to study

complex biological systems,

such as the BBB, a cell layer that

regulates which chemicals can

pass from the bloodstream

into blood vessels (pictured,

artificially coloured) in the

brain. BBB defects have been

implicated in genetic diseases

that cause neurological deficits.

To replicate the BBB, Lan

Dao at Cincinnati Children’s

Hospital Medical Center in Ohio

and her colleagues combined

blood-vessel organoids with

brain organoids. The vessels

grew into the brain tissue,

creating capillary networks. The

same cell types were present

in the same places in both the

assembloid and the human BBB.

The team also created brain

and blood-vessel organoids

using stem cells from people

with a genetic disorder that

causes the BBB to fail. These

yielded assembloids that

replicated the donors’ disease.

Cell Stem Cell https://doi.org/

mwj9 (2024)

HAIR OF THE DOG:

GEL REDUCES BLOOD

ALCOHOL LEVELS

An edible gel based on a milk

protein can both prevent and

treat alcohol intoxication in

mice.

Harmful alcohol consumption

leads to millions of deaths each

year and poses major health

risks, such as cancer, heart

disease and liver problems.

Although treatments exist

for severe intoxication, many

of them need to be injected

directly into a vein and provide

only temporary relief from

symptoms, and some can cause

organ damage.

Jiaqi Su at the Swiss Federal

Institute of Technology in Zurich

and her colleagues developed

an alternative treatment: an

ingestible gel. They produced

the gel by combining single iron

atoms with nanometre-scale

threads of a milk protein that is a

by-product of cheesemaking.

The team found that the gel

could reduce alcohol levels in

the blood of intoxicated mice

and even prevent mice from

becoming intoxicated in the first

place. Although this study was

limited to mice in a laboratory

environment, the researchers

say that their approach has

potential for human use in a

clinical setting.

Nature Nanotechnol. https://doi.

org/mv4x (2024)

FROM L TO R: GETTY; SAMUNELLA/SPL JAN MASTNIK/SHUTTERSTOCK

Nature | Vol 629 | 23 May 2024 | 731

Selections from the scientific literature

Research highlights






























































































































































































































































Add Note


0%
30%


Back to Page 1


/
268
000-000
(14-15 / 268)
 * Vertical Page Scroll
 * Double Page Magazine

 * Select Tool
 * Hand Tool
 * Marquee Zoom