Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Featured Vote for the Breakthrough of the Year

  1. Nov 28, 2017 #1

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    [Edit, Dec 4] Vote for the finalists for Breakthrough of the Year: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/finalists-are-vote-people-s-choice-breakthrough-year

    Science
    Magazine is holding its annual vote for the people's choice for Breakthrough of the Year, which will accompany their own choice. Voting is open until Dec 3. You can vote here: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/choose-your-breakthrough-year

    The choices are:
    • Fixing tiny mutations (using CRISPR to edit DNA and RNA)
    • Human origins pushed back (discovery of a ~300,000 year old Homo sapiens skull in Morocco)
    • A drug for many cancers (FDA approval of a new cancer immunotherapy drug)
    • Gene therapy success (successful clinical trial to treat childhood neuromuscual disease)
    • Biology preprints take off (increased use of prepublication servers similar to arXiv in biology)
    • Artificial intelligence masters poker (two artificial intelligence programs were able to beat professional poker players)
    • Oldest ice core (scientists drilled a 2.7-million-year-old ice core from Antarctica)
    • Cosmic convergence (observation of the collision of two neutron stars)
    • A new great ape (identification of a new species of orangutan in Sumatra)
    • Pint-sized neutrino detector (A detector the size of a milk jug observed neutrinos)
    • Cassini's grand finale (the Cassini spacecraft ends its 13-year mission by plunging into Saturn)
    • Life at the atomic level (using cryo-electron microscopy to visualize the atomic structures of important biomolecules)
    What is your choice for the scientific breakthrough of 2017? Did the editors at Science not list your favorite scientific discovery?
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 28, 2017 #2

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    New great ape.
     
  4. Nov 28, 2017 #3
    I'm torn between

    • Fixing tiny mutations
    • A drug for many cancers
    • Gene therapy success
     
  5. Nov 28, 2017 #4

    PAllen

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Just too tough to pick just one!
     
  6. Nov 28, 2017 #5
    I think it undermines the scientific process to try and pick a most important breakthrough in the year it occurs.

    It usually takes a lot longer than a year to adequately assess the long term consequences of scientific results: new theories need experimental validation, new experiments need replication and review by the broader community, promising drugs and therapies need to be proven in broader clinical settings and their side effects and unintended consequences need to be understood, etc. In a decade, we'll have much improved perspective and a lot more data on these purported breakthroughs than we do now.

    In 2017, it would make more sense to discuss the most important breakthroughs of 2007 and 1997.
     
  7. Nov 28, 2017 #6

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    My choice would either be for "a drug for many cancers" (FDA approval of CAR-T cancer immunotherapy, in which doctors genetically engineer a cancer patient's immune cells to fight their tumor, discussed on PF here) or gene therapy success (successful preliminary clinical trials on using gene therapy to treat childhood neuromuscular disease, discussed on PF here). Both are definitely the culmination of many decades of work (e.g. people were first conceiving of the idea of CAR-T therapies in the 1980s and researchers have been working to perfect gene therapy for many decades, especially after some high profile failures in the 1990s).
     
  8. Nov 28, 2017 #7

    donpacino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Do you have a link for this? Does it include facial analysis?
     
  9. Nov 28, 2017 #8
    I voted for "A drug for many cancers" because it seems to me to be a very promising major advance in cancer treatments, and very likely to be definitely the most significant advance in the field of medicine for 2017.
    My second choice was "Cosmic convergence". I find that to be the most significant advance in the field of physics for 2017.
    My choice between these two was based on my bias that medicine was more important than physics
     
  10. Nov 28, 2017 #9

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  11. Nov 28, 2017 #10

    BillTre

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I chose the neutron star collision/grav. wave/telescope event.
    Its a first of a new and important kind of observation (gravitational waves combined with optical observations).
    To me, the ability to compare gravitational wave and optical observations, is a whole new way to look at things (observe; gather data), in a basic way.

    There lots of really good biology choices I like, but (to me) they do not seem to be such a basic advance.
     
  12. Nov 29, 2017 #11

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I kind of agree with @Dr. Courtney but I think you still can make some partial judgment at this level.
    My first choice would definitely be the new drug for many cancers. Its true that as a way to give people with cancer more hope, this is not going much further than what we already have, but as a theoretical development, this fundamentally changes something in our understanding of cancer and may lead to greater theoretical discoveries that may as well result in a giant leap in the way physicians treat cancer. I mean, that giant leap is good, but why can't we be happy about great theoretical developments in medicine the same way we become happy about great theoretical developments in theoretical physics?! Specially that this seems to be a greater development for medicine than anything I've seen in recent years for theoretical physics.

    My second choice would be the A.I. poker player. Although, to be fair, it wouldn't need a poker face, but it also doesn't read other people's tells too! Or maybe it does? That would be amazing!
     
  13. Nov 29, 2017 #12

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I voted for "Biology preprints take off".
     
  14. Nov 29, 2017 #13
    I often tell my students when they compete in science fairs and similar events that science fairs are like beauty contests - they are not completely objective. Once a project reaches a certain level of accomplishment in properly following the scientific method and doing something novel and interesting, there are not really objective comparisons, and one also needs to consider how to appeal to the subjective biases of the judges.

    The same is true here. No one knows for sure which of the purported breakthroughs will stand the test of time as relating to correctness or importance or any possible objective metric. But just as we all have our favorite sports teams and may have our favorites in a beauty contest, we can certainly have favorites in terms of scientific accomplishments.

    I've been following bioRXiv for several years now, and while I'd like to be able to get more excited about it, I just can't. All of the papers I've co-authored that might be suitable for bioRXiv can/have been posted to arXiv under a Medical Physics or Quantitative Biology category, so bioRXiv does not seem to offer anything new other than new rules, limitations, restrictions, and uncertainty about its future (is it truly archival?), and uncertainty about the process and possible delays. One limitation that I'm not a fan of is the inability to post revised versions after print publication. If an error is discovered in a paper, I'd like to fix it, even if that error is as simple as a mislabeled figure. I also like the flexibility of arXiv to post papers _after_ publication. Sometimes I forget to post papers before they are published, sometimes I prefer for there not to be copies floating around that do not account for reviewer suggestions, and sometimes I just prefer to wait and post a group of papers together. arXiv allows this, bioRXiv does not.

    bioRXiv also seems to have a strong preference for experimental results over hypotheses, theories, review papers, and commentaries on other papers. This paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.07158 ) is a combination of a review paper on magnetoreception in fish combined with a more complete and clear articulation of mechanistic hypotheses. I'm not sure how or if it would fit. This paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5366 ) points out misleading information published by the NOAA. This paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5114 ) describes a hypothesis that nutrient loading is contributing to increased red snapper production in the Gulf of Mexico. This paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5216 ) points out a number of errors in weight-length parameters at FishBase.org. This paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1642 ) was a comment on an error we discovered in a paper published in the journal, Neurosurgery. This paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4757 ) was a combination review and hypothesis paper relating to a thoracic mechanism of traumatic brain injury from blast pressure waves. In no way can it be considered a new result, because the hypothesis is credited to another scientist years before. All we really did was summarize most of the supporting evidence that had already been published, articulate some things clearly, and describe an experiment for testing the hypothesis. This is my most highly cited paper in any field. I don't see how most of these biology papers would fit at bioRXiv, though posting at arXiv has proved useful.

    I guess I'm also a little gun shy after becoming enthusiastic about Nature Precedings as a venue for Biology preprints and posting several papers there only to have it cease accepting submissions in 2012.
     
  15. Nov 29, 2017 #14
    Does anyone confuse this as anything other than a fun popular poll? I mean the winner doesn't receive more funding right? So what's the harm?
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2017
  16. Nov 29, 2017 #15

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The new treatments for cancer are not just theoretical! Two CAR-T cell therapies were just approved by the FDA this year to treat different types of blood cancer and they are now being prescribed by doctors for patients with those types of cancer:
    https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm574058.htm
    https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2017/yescarta-fda-lymphoma

    These developments in CAR-T cell therapies continue a long line of work on harnessing the body's immune system to fight cancer. I would not be surprised if the work on cancer immunotherapy (both the CAR-T cell therapies as well as the checkpoint blockade therapies developed earlier) won the Nobel Prize one day. Cancer immunotherapy is one of the hottest areas of biomedical research right now, so we will likely continue to see many developments in this area.
     
  17. Nov 29, 2017 #16
    I'm trying to find info about "cosmic convergence" but google isn't helping any... never mind I added the word science and got hits ;-)
     
  18. Nov 29, 2017 #17

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    For most of these you have to go to the Science webpage to see what their name is actually referencing. Here, it's talking about the recent detection of gravitational waves and gamma rays from two merging neutron stars:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...-gravitational-waves-and-celestial-light-show
     
  19. Nov 29, 2017 #18

    QuantumQuest

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I voted for "A drug for many cancers" but I'll definitely agree to Dr.Courtney
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2017
  20. Nov 29, 2017 #19

    donpacino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  21. Nov 29, 2017 #20
    What is life at an atomic level? I don't understand what it means.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Vote for the Breakthrough of the Year
Loading...