I begin each workday morning by browsing through news stories, trying to figure out which ones the readers might find interesting to read on www.biosciencetechnology.com. Those of you already familiar with our Web site know that most news stories involve cancer research, or neuroscience, or infectious diseases, or really anything else involving life science research.

I don't mean to discount these stories or the important breakthroughs researchers are continually making in these areas. It’s just that I want to see something different. Something that will make me stop in my tracks and say, “wow!”

This morning, I did.

The headline that caught my attention read, "IBM Uses DNA to Make Next-gen Microchips."Definitely an attention grabbing headline, but as I read the story, the science fiction aspect disappeared. IBM isn't even using real DNA. Instead, the company is exploring the possibilities of using a technique developed at the California Institute of Technology called DNA origami to solve problems the company is finding as it tries to develop lithographic technology for sizes smaller than 22 nm.

According to IBM, DNA origami causes single DNA molecules to self assemble in solution via a reaction between a long single strand of viral DNA and a mixture of different short synthetic oligonucleotide strands. These short segments act as staples—effectively folding the viral DNA into the desired 2D shape through complementary base pair binding. The short staples can be modified to provide attachment sites for nanoscale components at resolutions (separation between sites) as small as 6 nanometers (nm). In this way, DNA nanostructures such as squares, triangles and stars can be prepared with dimensions of 100 nm to 150 nm on an edge and a thickness of the width of the DNA double helix.

IBM thinks the positioned DNA nanostructures can serve as scaffolds, or miniature circuit boards, for the precise assembly of components at dimensions smaller than possible with conventional semiconductor fabrication techniques. This could lead to the creation of functional devices that can be integrated into larger structures, as well as enabling studies of arrays of nanostructures with known coordinates. The full story was published in Nature Nanotechnology and is available at www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nnano.2009.220.html.

While this isn't exactly an example of bioscience getting directly tied to manufacturing science, it is an example of how one branch can inspire the other. I love these kind of stories because they clearly show that bioscience researchers aren't working in a vacuum. The world is paying attention to their work. Still though, that story would've been much cooler if they used real DNA.

It should come as no surprise to you all that your profession—science—is highly respected by the general public. I’m sure many of you expected this, but now there is validation in the form of a survey conducted by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

The survey, titled “Public Praise Science: Scientists Fault Public, Media,” asked 2,533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and 2,001 adults in the general public their perceptions of science and scientists. The full study and analysis is available at http://people-press.org/report/528/

The first thing made crystal clear from the study is that scientists and researchers are well respected by the public—only those in the military and teachers ranked higher on a career perception question. But dig a little deeper and, as the title suggests, there is some disconnect between scientists and the general public. The public may respect science and scientists, but that respect is waning.

While 84% of study respondents believe that science has a mostly positive effect on society, only about one in four believe that the greatest achievements of the past 50 years are related to science, medicine, or technology. And only 17% think American scientists lead in innovation. Ten years ago, a similar study was conducted, and the results to these questions were much more favorable. What went wrong?

The first place to look, according to the scientists, is public knowledge. The biggest problem for science, according to 85% of them, is that the public does not know very much about science and expects results too often and too quickly. The survey included a general scientific quiz (which, I am proud to say, I have taken and scored a perfect 12 out of 12) given to the general public participant of the survey. If this were a quiz given in school, 45% of those taking it would have failed. I’ll be honest with you, the questions weren’t that hard, and I tend to agree that these results point to a lack of knowledge.

But where does most of the public get its knowledge of science? The media. Unfortunately, scientists don’t have a lot of faith in that either. News reports, 76% percent of them claim, fail to distinguish scientific findings that are well founded from those that aren't. Oversimplification is another problem. There's a fine line here though, and science-based stories that are too detailed and complicated wouldn't necessarily lead to greater knowledge.

Science can be an intimidating topic to non-scientists, and oversimplification is often necessary to get the point across. Swine Flu parties, for example, are making a lot of headlines as I write this, and many recent headlines read something along these lines: "Health Experts call Swine Flu Parties A Bad Idea." You think?

I've read a few of those stories, and they're all along the lines: of an expert says don't do this because it's dangerous, but doesn't clearly explain why. Hopefully that’s enough to deter anyone from attending a Swine Flu party.

At Bioscience Technology, we always, of course, want to hear what you think about us. Drop us a line at let us know.

Autumn is easily my favorite season. There’s just something about crisp days and nights that I enjoy, despite its reputation for a season of endings. There’s actually quite a bit that begins in the autumn. Football season, for example, is one autumn beginning that excites millions. More importantly, and potentially less exciting to millions, the school year also begins in the fall.

For many students headed off to college, this will be their first steps in joining our industry. And as potential future readers of Bioscience Technology, I wish them well. A career as a scientific researcher does not have a reputation as a highly paid career—at least not in academia. It can also be a pretty thankless job with long hours in the lab and not a lot of recognition. So why do it?

I’d imagine that a feeling of working towards creating a better world certainly adds to the allure of this profession. A career in research, for example, has a fundamental difference than a career in industry—the motivations are based on discovery and not on profit. But is that enough to offset the lure of the huge potential salary gains that come with pursuing a curriculum focused on business. For some people, sure, but I suspect that it is not for many more, and other forces are at work.

Our industry is unique in that it is often only limited by the imagination of those working in it. If you can think of it and find funding (which often presents its own difficulties), then you can work on it. That’s a lot of freedom, and I have seen press releases announcing results on research that I would have never thought of. I could see how that degree of freedom would attract young students who are deciding how to spend their next 40 years.

There are also fundamental differences between research and industry that could be attractive to those choosing their life’s work. High levels collaboration, potential foreign travel, and a higher degree of job security are all benefits of a career in research. In the end, however, I think most people choose to work in this industry because they have a passion for it. I can see this at nearly every trade show I attend. The poster areas tends be busy, and sessions are nearly always full. Why did you become a researcher? Was it a passion for the sciences? I’m curious to know.