I am glad to be the first to post a comment on this blog. I really think that changing to Environmental Genomics Society is the right think to do. In these days I have met many young scientists of our member societies that asked for a change. They felt the current name does not represents what they do, and were demotivated by the need to explain all the time what is environmental mutagenesis dealing with. I think the definition of Environmental Genomics' reported in Martin's book is just perfect to represent what is the scientific focus of our members societies. Please tell to the EMS members that you know to post A comment on this blog, it is critical to understand if we are properly interpreting what our scientists want. Thank you , Stefano BOnassi
I confess my first impression on this proposal to change the name of the IAEMS was not very positive. The main reason is that I miss the word Mutagenesis. But thinking it further, I realized that the new name "Environmental Genomics Society" is just more general, and I should say even closer to what we do in our research projects. Changes in genome by environmental change (or artificial methods, physical or chemical conditions mimicking environment) is what we normally do. It also includes mutagenesis in a sense, but other of the endpoints we normally investigate, as epigenetics, toxicity, cell cycle and... etc, etc, etc. Great job done by David and Silvio. Thank you for initiating this discussion. Well, I still miss Mutagenesis, and in this case the alternative "Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics Society" does not sound bad for me. I agree with changing the name and with any of these two possibilities. All the best to all,
1. I like the suggestion fy Carlos Menck: "Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomic Society." (I, too, would miss the word "mutagenesis.") :)
2. Stephen Dertinger of Litron Labs made the following suggestions, which are also interesting: "Society of Genomic and Toxicological Sciences" or "Genomic and Toxicological Sciences Society"
He noted that such names would likely appeal to students and young professionals. The names are broad enough to include epigenomics, DNA repair, Pharma, etc. because they do not have the rather confusing "environmental" language in it.
3. Mike Waters suggested to me the name of the official journal of the Japanese EMS: "Genes and Environment." So, maybe "Genes and Environment Society" or some variation on that theme. I must say, I rather like that version.
Maybe a good compromise is Carlos' idea of "Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics Society" or EMGS.
In the end, the whole point of changing the name is premised on the notion that a society with a more compelling name than EMS might attract a new cohort of young scientists. Not sure if that premise is correct or not, but it is one idea Silvio and I had for promoting the growth of our various societies.
First of all, let me say that the following is my personal opinion, and does not reflect the opinion of the Italian Environmental Mutagen Society or its Board. It is true that we have to acknowledge the progress in science and the evolution and changes of our own research interests and activities. Indeed in the past years we have witnessed, at our meetings, a big changing and broadening of the topics addressed. So I believe that the main issue is to be able to convey/communicate this trend to the scientific community outside our own field to keep and increase our attractiveness, especially towards young investigators. Is it change of the name of our Societies critical to achieve this ? It would help, but only if we are able to condense in a few words the message, which I think is not so easy. I do not especially like the word Genomics because it seems to me just trendy, but I would accept it for advertisement reasons if young investigators outside our field confirmed that it is meaningful and attractive for them. Another issue is whether keeping or not the term Environment in our name. I think we should, because it is a distinctive trait of our approach reflecting, to me, the study of a bi-directional influence between genes and environment. In the end the name I like more is something like Gene and Environment Society. It is made of two non jargon, very communicable words. I think it does not exclude epigenetics and the RNA world because they ultimately influence gene expression. My only concern is about the small but crucial “and” word because it must be clear that it means an interaction and not simply an addition or juxtaposition (a side-by-side position). On this, I would like to know the opinion of our English mother tongue colleagues. Francesca Pacchierotti
I am glad to be the first to post a comment on this blog. I really think that changing to Environmental Genomics Society is the right think to do. In these days I have met many young scientists of our member societies that asked for a change. They felt the current name does not represents what they do, and were demotivated by the need to explain all the time what is environmental mutagenesis dealing with.
ReplyDeleteI think the definition of Environmental Genomics' reported in Martin's book is just perfect to represent what is the scientific focus of our members societies.
Please tell to the EMS members that you know to post A comment on this blog, it is critical to understand if we are properly interpreting what our scientists want.
Thank you , Stefano BOnassi
I confess my first impression on this proposal to change the name of the IAEMS was not very positive. The main reason is that I miss the word Mutagenesis. But thinking it further, I realized that the new name "Environmental Genomics Society" is just more general, and I should say even closer to what we do in our research projects. Changes in genome by environmental change (or artificial methods, physical or chemical conditions mimicking environment) is what we normally do. It also includes mutagenesis in a sense, but other of the endpoints we normally investigate, as epigenetics, toxicity, cell cycle and... etc, etc, etc. Great job done by David and Silvio. Thank you for initiating this discussion.
ReplyDeleteWell, I still miss Mutagenesis, and in this case the alternative "Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics Society" does not sound bad for me. I agree with changing the name and with any of these two possibilities.
All the best to all,
Carlos Menck
1. I like the suggestion fy Carlos Menck: "Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomic Society." (I, too, would miss the word "mutagenesis.") :)
ReplyDelete2. Stephen Dertinger of Litron Labs made the following suggestions, which are also interesting:
"Society of Genomic and Toxicological Sciences" or
"Genomic and Toxicological Sciences Society"
He noted that such names would likely appeal to students and young professionals. The names are broad enough to include epigenomics, DNA repair, Pharma, etc. because they do not have the rather confusing "environmental" language in it.
3. Mike Waters suggested to me the name of the official journal of the Japanese EMS: "Genes and Environment." So, maybe "Genes and Environment Society" or some variation on that theme. I must say, I rather like that version.
Maybe a good compromise is Carlos' idea of "Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics Society" or EMGS.
In the end, the whole point of changing the name is premised on the notion that a society with a more compelling name than EMS might attract a new cohort of young scientists. Not sure if that premise is correct or not, but it is one idea Silvio and I had for promoting the growth of our various societies.
David DeMarini
First of all, let me say that the following is my personal opinion, and does not reflect the opinion of the Italian Environmental Mutagen Society or its Board.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that we have to acknowledge the progress in science and the evolution and changes of our own research interests and activities. Indeed in the past years we have witnessed, at our meetings, a big changing and broadening of the topics addressed. So I believe that the main issue is to be able to convey/communicate this trend to the scientific community outside our own field to keep and increase our attractiveness, especially towards young investigators.
Is it change of the name of our Societies critical to achieve this ? It would help, but only if we are able to condense in a few words the message, which I think is not so easy.
I do not especially like the word Genomics because it seems to me just trendy, but I would accept it for advertisement reasons if young investigators outside our field confirmed that it is meaningful and attractive for them.
Another issue is whether keeping or not the term Environment in our name. I think we should, because it is a distinctive trait of our approach reflecting, to me, the study of a bi-directional influence between genes and environment. In the end the name I like more is something like Gene and Environment Society. It is made of two non jargon, very communicable words. I think it does not exclude epigenetics and the RNA world because they ultimately influence gene expression. My only concern is about the small but crucial “and” word because it must be clear that it means an interaction and not simply an addition or juxtaposition (a side-by-side position). On this, I would like to know the opinion of our English mother tongue colleagues.
Francesca Pacchierotti