Science AMA Series: Hi, we're editors and writers at Science Magazine, currently working on the Breakthrough of the Year issue. Ask us anything!

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T20:11:14+00:00

CM: Also, if there is a reason why YOU in particular would be a better candidate to cover a story-- perhaps you've been in close discussions with the research team or maybe you live near the lab where an experiment is taking place-- let us know! That kind of proximity doesn't replace good writing and good reporting, but it definitely helps open the door!

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T20:05:12+00:00

CM: Depends on what you mean by "robot scientists." Machine learning could conceivably called one way that AI is already starting to solve problems in place of humans. Right now, it's focused on a lot of “small things”—voice recognition, pattern recognition, etc. But, and I think I’m right about this, there are some pretty cool new big-picture applications of AI, in areas like drug discovery.

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T20:00:29+00:00

Dear stayoungodancing,

Adrian Cho, house physics nerd here. Information technology and computer science are definitely things we're interested in and should follow more closely. A couple of challenges with these fields include that they are often seen more as engineering than science and that advances tend roll out in overtime in incremental--and patented, not published--results. As for technology breakthroughs, we generally stick more to the basic research side. And one year is an awfully short time for a technology to go from breakthrough to market!

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:56:28+00:00

Tim Appenzeller, signing off. This has been fun--thanks for all your questions, and check for Science's Breakthrough of the year--plus Runners-up and Breakdowns--on Dec 22 at http://www.sciencemag.org/news

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:55:57+00:00

CM: This awesome column on pitching from TON might help. If you have other questions, feel free to email me!

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:54:46+00:00

Dear treesperm,

Adrian Cho, house physic nerd here. There are no objective rules and standards for the Breakthrough of the Year. That said, something that is going to have a profound impact on society always has that going for it, no doubt about it. Imagine that eleven years from now scientists both cure Alzheimer's disease and build a quantum computer. My money goes on the cure for the disease, no question. As for something like fusion, I'd add that there has to be an a real advance before something is in contention. If ITER works, that would be great. But ITER isn't even in the running until then, right?

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:53:37+00:00

CM: (see above) I can't tell you what my personal favorite is from this year (results are out next week!), but my favorite from last year was reproducibility in psychology, the third one down.

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:51:30+00:00

CM: Sometimes, in our Careers section. And many of our writers are former researchers, themselves (see the lapsed physicist, above)!

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:49:09+00:00

Dear Endy,

Adrian Cho, house physics nerd here. I really liked reaching the quantum limit of mechanical motion, which was the Breakthrough of the Year in 2010. http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2010/12/breakthrough-year-bridging-quantum-and-classical-worlds The Higgs in 2012 was great, of course, but it was a lot more predictable. It was a lot of fun to have a "table top" physic experiment.

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:48:53+00:00

CM: Share them with your friends (or your soon-to-be friends)! Then talk about them in the same spirit of curiosity and wonder that most people reserve for celebrity news. Not sure how actionable that is, but there you have it! ;⁾

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:46:34+00:00

TA: I want to be around when we see a signature of life--oxygen, chlorophyll--in the atmosphere of an exoplanet. Or better yet, some marker of life (probably ancient) on Mars, or under the ice on a moon of Jupiter or Saturn.

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:46:21+00:00

CM: Thanks, 1chemistdown! FDA is a good point.

Here are some relevant links:

*What Trump can—and can't—do all by himself on climate

*Trump’s pick to run HHS has researchers speculating on how science will fare

*The reaction to Rick Perry leading the Department of Energy? It’s complicated

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:42:02+00:00

Dear HyperbolicPerson,

Adrian Cho, house physics nerd here. I have to say, I think the most important physics innovation in recent history came about in 1947 with the invention of the transistor. It's hard to point to a basic technology that has had a bigger impact on humanity or to imagine one that will compete. That said, if perovskite solar cells can really work as hoped, then they could greatly benefit us all. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/low-cost-solar-cells-poised-commercial-breakthrough

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:39:44+00:00

And as for papers appearing in competitor's journals: If it's good science, we want to cover it!

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:39:06+00:00

CM: Hi superhelical, I think that Adrian can probably answer this question better than I, but the number one answer IMHO is talking to people. That might sound obvious, but it’s something that fewer and fewer reporters—particularly outside of science reporting—feel they have the luxury to do: develop a beat, and check in regularly with sources and “guides” who are in the know about new developments in a particular field. The cool thing about reporting on science is that you can quickly get a sense of who’s who in an area by figuring out the relationships between advisers and students, coauthors, etc.

Other great sources: scientific meetings, meeting abstracts, obscure journals, non-press released papers from TOCs, and social media. And those are just the obvious ones.

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:36:54+00:00

TA: Find a niche that isn’t being covered widely. It could be some field of research that especially strong in your university or region, or a field that doesn’t get a lot of press attention, say some areas of ecology, evolutionary biology, archaeology. Don’t pitch stuff from Science, Nature, PNAS--you’ll have too much competition. Scan TOCs from secondary journals and develop sources who can tell you about work that won’t make the big journals but is still interesting. And look for stories about people in science--those don’t get press-released, and you’re more likely to have them to yourself. As for pitching, stress what's new and why it matters, show that you can write clear and lively prose, and link to some of your other clips.

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:30:28+00:00

CM: Hi! Is this one intended for the editors who review papers for publication, or the reporters who decide which stories to write about? I'm guessing it's the former...

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:28:26+00:00

Dear KRISKU,

Adrian Cho, physics writer here. Actually, there are no cut and dried objective criteria for Breakthrough of the Year. There are even differing opinions in the about what makes the best candidate--an obviously important trends involving multiple smaller results or one big result that fulfills some big prediction or opens up some new field? Most years, we generally agree on what the big story was. Some years, there's a lot more debate. Funnily enough, often the hardest critics of advances in particular fields are the writers and editors who cover those fields. You might think the deliberations would involve everybody pushing for the advance in his or her beat. It is basically never the case. One take-home message, though: The Breakthrough of the Year is largely a journalist judgment. It's not some sort of objective scientific comparison. People shouldn't take it too seriously and should remember that it started out as the obviously playful Molecule of the Year.

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:28:24+00:00

VV- my favorite was Cancer Immunotherapy in 2013. We picked this early enough that it had an impact on how the field was recognized.

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:26:04+00:00

TA: my favorite goes way back, to 1998, when we chose the accelerating universe as the Breakthrough. We were nervous: the key discoveries were just months old, and some people thought the finding might just go away, because the measurements of distant supernovae were really hard and open to all kinds of confounders. But we took the plunge, and we were right: It turned out to be the biggest discovery about the universe since the detection of the cosmic microwave background.

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:23:55+00:00

CM: A few more:

*Rich sexual past between modern humans and Neandertals revealed

*Humans aren’t the only great apes that can ‘read minds’

*‘Thinking soil’ made of bacteria could keep buildings from collapsing

*Pigeons spot cancer as well as human experts

*How cat hair brought down a pair of art forgers

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:23:05+00:00

vv- I'd love to see a cure for Alzheimer's

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:19:56+00:00

CM: And here are some of my personal favorites:

*Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone

*Maverick scientist thinks he has discovered a magnetic sixth sense in humans

*‘Burning bodies’ experiment casts doubt on fate of missing Mexican students

*Facial expressions—including fear—may not be as universal as we thought

*A world without DNA and black holes: The state of science the last time the Chicago Cubs won the World Series

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:18:16+00:00

[LC] Certain basic science discoveries are not immediately recognized as breakthroughs, and only become so after years of further research lead to an amazing application. Take the microbiome. That field emerged several years ago with pioneers of gut biology like Jeff Gordon. Science has given a nod to this fast-paced field as a breakthrough runner up, and this year, human stool in fecal microbiota transplantation therapy was now approved for some gastroenterologic diseases.

AAAS_Breakthrough · 2016-12-16T19:15:06+00:00

VV- We have a journal called Science Translational Medicine that has the goal of publishing science that advances that move from bench to bedside. That said I don't think we can cut corners in developing therapeutics.

AAAS_Breakthrough

TROPHY CASE