From symbiont to parasite: the evolution of for-profit science publishing.

Two 17th century institutions-learned societies and scientific journals-transformed science in ways that still dominate our professional lives today. Learned societies like the American Society for Cell Biology remain relevant because they provide forums for sharing results, discussing the practice of science, and projecting our voices to the public and the policy makers. Scientific journals still disseminate our work, but in the Internet-connected world of the 21st century, this is no longer their critical function. Journals remain relevant almost entirely because they provide a playing field for scientific and professional competition: to claim credit for a discovery, we publish it in a peer-reviewed journal; to get a job in academia or money to run a lab, we present these published papers to universities and funding agencies. Publishing is so embedded in the practice of science that whoever controls the journals controls access to the entire profession. We must reform our methods for evaluating the contributions of younger scientists and deflate the power of a small number of "elite" journals. More generally, given the recent failure of research institutions around the world to strike satisfactory deals with publishing giant Elsevier, the time has come to examine the motives and methods of those to whom we have entrusted the keys to the kingdom of science.

Pulling together and pulling apart: collective cargo movement in eukaryotic cells.

To establish and maintain their internal organization, living cells must move molecules to their correct locations. Long-range intracellular movements are often driven by motor molecules moving along microtubules, similarly to trucks driving along a highway. Recent work demonstrates that some randomly dispersed cargos can generate actin filaments that form a connected network whose contraction drives collective cargo movement.