From the Editor

I am honored to be writing my first “Viewpoint” for Science Editor. My participation in CSE activities over the last several years has been a fulfilling part of my career, mainly because of the people I’ve met and learned from. I hope to pass on a bit of knowledge of my own but mostly to facilitate an exchange of information.

I use the word “exchange” because the communication of science no longer follows a linear path from publisher to consumer. Rather, the advent of electronic publishing and social networking has created a dynamic, interactive environment of immediate access, participation, feedback, and sharing. To that end, I have created an editor’s blog at Through that medium and the activities of CSE on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn (see p 205), I hope to get conversations going about our field and to provide a platform for the exchange of ideas.

The evidence for those ideas—on how we report science, run our offices, measure success, and handle ethical quandaries— will have a forum on the pages of Science Editor. If you are planning a research project or have a past research project that is unpublished, please consider submitting it to Science Editor. In addition, if you plan to submit your research abstract to CSE for the 2011 annual meeting (see p 215), consider submitting the full manuscript to Science Editor. Peer reviewers are also needed, and interested parties are welcome to send me an e-mail.

I plan to continue our features and departments because they serve an educational and often entertaining purpose. My thanks go out to Science Editor’s contributing editors for their dedication (Stephanie Deming, Ken Heideman, Mary Knatterud, and Susan Shirley). I would also like to thank the Science Editor staff members who have agreed to continue on with the publication—Norman Grossblatt, Leslie Neistadt, Caroline Simpson, and Roxanne Young. I have relied on them heavily during the last several months and appreciate their expertise and their knowledge of the publication. Finally, I would like to thank Aptara and Allen Press for the donation of their composition and printing services, respectively.

This issue contains the second half of meeting reports from the 2010 meeting in Atlanta. During that meeting, George Luber’s plenary talk was particularly memorable for me. He made the point that discussions about climate change need to turn to the societal effects, and he emphasized the human side of climate change and the importance of human relationships for survivability of adverse events.

Luber’s message resonated with me on a personal and professional level. It is human participation that makes our publications dynamic. It is also the human relationships we have with our colleagues that make this field so interesting and rewarding. I hope that this will always be so, and I invite you to continue the exchange with me and each other in the pages of Science Editor and on our blog.

All the best to you and yours as we near the end of 2010.

Rebecca S Benner
Editor, Science Editor

nov-dec 2010 viewpoint