Vote for the Breakthrough of the Year

[Ygggdrasil]

Science Magazine is holding its annual vote for the people's choice for Breakthrough of the Year, which will accompany the editors' own choice. Voting is open until Dec 5, after which they will narrow the field to the top four choices for a second round of voting.

You can vote here: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/choose-your-2018-breakthrough-year

The choices are:

• Neutrinos from a blazing galaxy (detection of neutrinos from a "blazar")
• 500-million-year-old animals (discovery that Ediacara fossils represent the oldest known animals)
• Development cell by cell (tracking gene expression in mouse and fish embryos throughout development)
• An ancient human hybrid (discovery of a fossil derived from the mating of two ancient hominid species)
• Forensic genealogy comes of age (police used DNA from genealogy databases to identify the Golden State Killer)
• How cells marshal their contents (findings about how cells use biomolecular condensates to organize and regulate cellular functions)
• An astronomical data trove (star maps generated by the Gaia space observatory)
• An RNA drug enters the clinic (approval of the first drug based on RNA interference technology)
• #MeToo makes a difference (addressing sexual harassment and discrimination in science)
• Fly brain revealed (mapping all the neurons and their connections in the fruit fly brain)
• Rapid chemical structures (a technique to determine the structure of small organic molecules using electron microscopy)
• Ice age impact (discovery of an impact crater beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet)

What is your choice for the biggest scientific breakthrough of 2018? Did the editors at Science not list your favorite scientific advancement?

[Edit 12/6]: The four finalists have been chosen: fly brain revealed, an RNA drug enters the clinic, neutrinos from a blazing galaxy, and development cell-by-cell. Voting for the final round is open until Dec 12:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/12/finalists-are-vote-2018-people-s-choice-breakthrough-year

[Edit 12/20]: Development cell-by-cell has won the people's choice for breakthrough of the year.
https://vis.sciencemag.org/breakthrough2018/

 

[jim mcnamara]

Chose the impact crater in Greenland.

 

[Klystron]

Also chose the impact crater discovery. Data collection from spacecraft is spread over many years. Ditto the undersea neutrino detectors.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

• Fly brain revealed (mapping how all the neurons and their connections in the fruit fly brain)

 

[Bystander]

Did the editors at Science not list your favorite scientific advancement?

Yup, none of the above.

 

[fresh_42]

I'm not sure about its reliability, since I haven't considered it in detail, but I have read these days, that orangutans are capable of talking about the past. If this is true, then another border between "us" and "animals" has fallen. Definitely my choice.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Yup, none of the above.

What would you say is your favorite scientific breakthrough this year, then?

 

[Rive]

Fly brain, with 'development cell by cell' as a close second.
I think if it is 'breakthrough' then it should be something what opens new doors - the others were more like milestones instead.

 

[Fred Wright]

I'm not sure about its reliability, since I haven't considered it in detail, but I have read these days, that orangutans are capable of talking about the past. If this is true, then another border between "us" and "animals" has fallen. Definitely my choice.

This is an astounding discovery. I had no idea that orangutans could communicate their history and feelings to humans. I would like to see a reference. Does this have anything to do with the #MeToo breakthroughs in science? If it does, I will definitely vote for that.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm not sure about its reliability, since I haven't considered it in detail, but I have read these days, that orangutans are capable of talking about the past. If this is true, then another border between "us" and "animals" has fallen. Definitely my choice.

To me it makes logical sense that there are no borders in biological life, just spectrum or gradient.

 

[fresh_42]

This is an astounding discovery. I had no idea that orangutans could communicate their history and feelings to humans. I would like to see a reference. Does this have anything to do with the #MeToo breakthroughs in science? If it does, I will definitely vote for that.

All I have found was this, which I have no knowledge about its reputation:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/11/eaau3401

To me it makes logical sense that there are no borders in biological life, just spectrum or gradient.

To me as well, but I'm not sure whether this attitude is already common sense. Maybe there are differences to non mammals, but most mammals have quite similar capabilities and emotions. (cp. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/curious-ape-grooms-human.912176/#post-5745863)

 

[Bystander]

What would you say is your favorite scientific breakthrough this year, then?

something what opens new doors

 

[BillTre]

Development cell by cell (tracking gene expression in mouse and fish embryos throughout development)

I would choose this one, based on the even larger applications of this new technology.

Single transcriptnomics (detecting many, most, or all transcripts in a cell), in its various forms, is being used in many different situations and illuminating many complex aspects of biology.
These include not only charting the course of development, but the definition of cell types (always contentious), the evolution of cell types, identifying new cells types and connecting them to specific functions. It is also now being applied to cancer cells.

I feel it will have greater impact than PCR!
To me, it seems to be, for biology, like the ability to detect gravitational waves is for physics.

I have been wanting to find a not-behind-paywall article to post here, but have not found a good one yet.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I would choose this one, based on the even larger applications of this new technology.

Single transcriptnomics (detecting many, most, or all transcripts in a cell), in its various forms, is being used in many different situations and illuminating many complex aspects of biology.
These include not only charting the course of development, but the definition of cell types (always contentious), the evolution of cell types, identifying new cells types and connecting them to specific functions. It is also now being applied to cancer cells.

I feel it will have greater impact than PCR!
To me, it seems to be, for biology, like the ability to detect gravitational waves is for physics.

I have been wanting to find a not-behind-paywall article to post here, but have not found a good one yet.

This was my choice as well. The single cell information about gene expression throughout embryonic development is a really great resource for biologists studying development.

New techniques are combining the single cell sequencing technology with new tools that allow lineage tracing, so not only do you get information about gene expression, but to associate those gene expression profiles with specific lineages of cells as they differentiate from stem cells to mature tissue. Here's a freely available preprint of one such study:

Molecular recording of mammalian embryogenesis
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/08/03/384925

The single cell transcriptomic experiments in developing mice and zebrafish published earlier in the year are also freely available to read:

The dynamics of gene expression in vertebrate embryogenesis at single-cell resolution
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6038144/

Single-cell mapping of gene expression landscapes and lineage in the zebrafish embryo
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6083445/

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Chose

An RNA drug enters the clinic (approval of the first drug based on RNA interference technology)​

 

[PAllen]

Voted for cell by cell development, even though a hard core physics geek.

 

[BillTre]

After thinking about this for a while, i think a more apt comparison for tracking of gene expression in development would be a comparison with sequencing of genomes.
A complete genome sequence is getting down to the equivalent of a quantum level of genetic information. No smaller details are available.
A complete transcriptonomic analysis of a cell is of a similar granularity of what that genetic information a cell is expressing.
In addition, as @Ygggdrasil said this information can be combined other techniques to show the timecourse of a cell's expression.

 

[jambaugh]

I'm sorry but I can't bring myself to participate in this. #MeToo? Are you kidding?!

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I'm sorry but I can't bring myself to participate in this. #MeToo? Are you kidding?!

If efforts to reduce sexual harrasment and discrimination result in more women entering into and staying in the sciences, then this item would probably have a greater long term impact on the advancement of science than any other item on the list.

 

[jambaugh]

If efforts to reduce sexual harrasment and discrimination result in more women entering into and staying in the sciences, then this item would probably have a greater long term impact on the advancement of science than any other item on the list.

"If.,.. if ... if", and this would be significant only if there was a very significant issue with sexual harassment in academia and industrial sciences which is demonstrably not the case. I am not, btw underselling the harm done by sexual harassment or any other form of uncivil behavior nor am I critical of the #MeToo movement itself in its stated goals. But the only reason this has been included in the list is bald-faced virtue signaling on the part of Science Mag. I assert such politicizing of the sciences has done and is doing much more harm than good.

 

[BillTre]

#MeToo? Are you kidding?!

You have got to be kidding!

With a daughter going into a biology field, I fell this is indeed an important topic that should not be ignored.
I have personally met women who have experienced sexual harassment in academia.
It is not something that should be trivialized.

"If.,.. if ... if", and this would be significant only if there was a very significant issue with sexual harassment in academia and industrial sciences which is demonstrably not the case.

You should really support this statement with some kind of link, or admit it is just an empty opinion!

But the only reason this has been included in the list is bald-faced virtue signaling on the part of Science Mag. I assert such politicizing of the sciences has done and is doing much more harm than good.

I think that many, many, many female scientists would strongly disagree with you about this.
What exactly is this harm being done?
Calling people out for sexual harassment?

 

[Ygggdrasil]

"If.,.. if ... if", and this would be significant only if there was a very significant issue with sexual harassment in academia and industrial sciences which is demonstrably not the case. I am not, btw underselling the harm done by sexual harassment or any other form of uncivil behavior nor am I critical of the #MeToo movement itself in its stated goals. But the only reason this has been included in the list is bald-faced virtue signaling on the part of Science Mag. I assert such politicizing of the sciences has done and is doing much more harm than good.

While I'd agree that Science including it on the list is to some extent a form of virtue signaling, I do think addressing sexual harassment and gender discrimination remains an important issue in science, and there are many prominent scientists who agree on this point. I have seen evidence of problems related to gender discrimination anecdotally through various news reports and through informal conversations with other scientists. These problems have also been studied and documented in the scientific literature (e.g. see http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474 and https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2441254). These problems may not be universal as there are many institutions that have made significant efforts at addressing these issues, but more work remains to be done.

 

[jim mcnamara]

We are veering off topic. Fair warning, this is a good thread topic and we do not like to squelch scientific discussion because we went off topic in other areas. The next step is to lock the thread. If you feel strongly about another aspect, please move it to a new, separate thread. Thanks!

 

[Demystifier]

Another vote for the fly brain.

 

[BillTre]

Another vote for the fly brain.

Small but sophisticated!

 

[enorbet]

My vote would go to the confirmation by Curiosity on Mars that the degree and type of radiation levels do not prohibit human exploration even with today's technologies. I think this impacts several important areas , historic and future, and is a major breakthrough since either unknown or higher levels would drastically alter what is possible in the evolution of Life including the possibility of at least one planet beyond Earth's own moon being available for study for countless generations, circumscribing any possible future(s).

Oh and though this isolated example turned out rather well, one only has to look at Vera Rubin's motivation for choosing to study galactic rotation velocities to realize gender discrimination is part and parcel of "sexual harassment". We do need to rise above such ancient, groundless prejudice.

 

[Auto-Didact]

Impact crater on Greenland definitely takes the cake, makes you wonder what else may be hidden under the snow on this globe.

For those who are unaware: there are these extremely speculative non-peer reviewed archeology theories by Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson et al, basically rogue archeological theorists from other fields with no formal training in archeology. In any case, about 13,000 years ago (Younger Dryas) there was a worldwide catastrophic event of unknown cause.

These rogue theorists then hypothesized that there was an asteroid impact which caused this, causing almost all civilizations on Earth to get wiped out in the process; much about these civilizations remains unknown to modern history except that they existed. These theories however are almost universally rejected and disregarded because there was never any evidence of any impact craters; that is until now.

 

[CWatters]

None of the above.

I'm not allowed to discuss my fav on this forum but it relates to a series of experiments carried out in Japan published in a peer reviewed journal by approx 17 authors from 4 universities and two companies.

 

[Auto-Didact]

None of the above.

I'm not allowed to discuss my fav on this forum but it relates to a series of experiments carried out in Japan published in a peer reviewed journal by approx 17 authors from 4 universities and two companies.

Which of the sciences?

 

[CWatters]

Which of the sciences?

Physics

 

[ZeGato]

'Me too' shouldn't be on the list simply because it's not a scientific breakthrough. By the same line of thought, we could also put the economic development of India and China in the list since it contributes to a large number of new scientists (and much more so than this 'me too' fad).

 

[Ygggdrasil]

The first round of voting has concluded with the following results:

• Development cell by cell (22%)
• An RNA drug enters the clinic (20%)
• Neutrinos from a blazing galaxy (14%)
• Fly brain revealed (10%)
• Rapid chemical structures (8%)
• An ancient human hybrid (6%)
• Ice age impact (6%)
• #MeToo makes a difference (5%)
• How cells marshal their contents (4%)
  
• 500-million-year-old animals (2%)
• Forensic genealogy comes of age (2%)
• An astronomical data trove (2%)

The second and final round of voting among the top four choices runs from Dec 6 to Dec 12:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/12/finalists-are-vote-2018-people-s-choice-breakthrough-year

 

[Drakkith]

Development cell by cell (22%)

C'mon! Daddy needs a new pair of shoes!

 

[Ygggdrasil]

The editors at the journal Science have announced their choice for Breakthrough of the Year: Development cell-by-cell

From at least the time of Hippocrates, biologists have been transfixed by the mystery of how a single cell develops into an adult animal with multiple organs and billions of cells. The ancient Greek physician hypothesized that moisture from a mother’s breath helps shape a growing infant, but now we know it is DNA that ultimately orchestrates the processes by which cells multiply and specialize. Now, just as a music score indicates when strings, brass, percussion, and woodwinds chime into create a symphony, a combination of technologies is revealing when genes in individual cells switch on, cueing the cells to play their specialized parts. The result is the ability to track development of organisms and organs in stunning detail, cell by cell and through time. Science is recognizing that combination of technologies, and its potential for spurring advances in basic research and medicine, as the 2018 Breakthrough of the Year.

Driving those advances are techniques for isolating thousands of intact cells from living organisms, efficiently sequencing expressed genetic material in each cell, and using computers, or labeling the cells, to reconstruct their relationships in space and time. That technical trifecta “will transform the next decade of research,” says Nikolaus Rajewsky, a systems biologist at the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Berlin. This year alone, papers detailed how a flatworm, a fish, a frog, and other organisms begin to make organs and appendages. And groups around the world are applying the techniques to study how human cells mature over a lifetime, how tissues regenerate, and how cells change in diseases.

http://vis.sciencemag.org/breakthrough2018/finalists/#cell-development

Development cell-by-cell also won the vote for the people's choice for breakthrough of the year. Here's the breakdown of the voting:

• Development cell by cell (35%)
• An RNA drug enters the clinic (30%)
• Neutrinos from a blazing galaxy (23%)
• Fly brain revealed (12%)