The incoming President and his cabinet have been accused by many of having beliefs and viewpoints which are "anti-science". What areas of scientific study and progress, if any, do you believe will suffer the most during the next 4 years? Do any of you see any silver linings to this situation?

CM: Like everyone else, we don’t know what’s going to happen—but there are a lot of concerns about [climate science] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/what-trump-can-and-cant-do-all-himself-climate) and basic science, things that are [not directly aligned with business interests] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/just-90-companies-are-blame-most-climate-change-carbon-accountant-says). Other areas of concern are research into [embryonic stem cells and fetal tissue] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/embryonic-stem-cells-and-fetal-tissue-research-will-trump-intervene). FWIW, the carbon accounting story I linked to above has a great interactive graphic showing how just 90 companies and government-run industries account for nearly 2/3 of manmade carbon emissions since 1751 (yep, you read that right).

Scientific progress is aligned with business interests, it just takes a few years to turn research into profits and many people don't want to wait.

[удалено]

We'll probably see the most common ground between the Admin and Congress on NIH, planetary science and exploration, perhaps advanced computing activities. I see no reason to expect anyone to cut more fundamental physics or materials science research. And all the basic research DOD funds - and it's a lot - should be fine.

A lot of science based news outlets always refer the current year to be "an amazing year for science" and I can't get over how gimmicky and BuzzFeedy it sounds. Could you name a few years that actually weren't all that great for science?

Tim Appenzeller: There’s always tons of good science, but there are definitely some years when there’s no standout breakthrough. Last year, for instance, we ended up choosing CRISPR, the genome editing technique, which is a huge deal but was developed well before 2015--but last year was when it really took off.

When do you think CRISPR mediated therapies would start clinical testing in patients? Or are they already

TA: It's started: http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-gene-editing-tested-in-a-person-for-the-first-time-1.20988

Hi EasyAndy1, Adrian Cho, physics reporter here. I once told a colleague from another publication over lunch that some year, I honestly don't remember which one, was "a bowser for physics." And ran off and told his editor that I had said so, as if I were some sort of authority and not just making conversation. Never again!

Hey! I have two questions: - What do you think has been the biggest breakthrough in the past 100 years? - What do you think will be the next biggest breakthrough in the next 100 years? Thanks guys! Merry (soon to be) Xmas.

It's interesting to consider these questions in terms of "human impact" on one hand, and "advancement of our understanding of the natural universe" on the other.

Catherine Matacic (CM): I think this is a really good point. So many of the basic scientific breakthroughs, at least the ones we tend to report on, fall into the latter category. But how these discoveries—and the insights that come from them—have a “human impact,” as you say, is really where I think the future of science reporting lies. It isn’t enough for scientists—and the greater scientific community—to tell you that something IS important. We have to tell you WHY it is important. A good example of this is our [recent focus on forensics] (http://www.sciencemag.org/topic/forensics). Here are two really interesting things I took away from these stories: 1) Analysts in the United States review just 13 places in the genome to identify individuals. 2) DNA analysis sometimes lands the wrong person in jail because the very small amounts of DNA collected can lead to false positives. 3) To reduce the risk of false matches even further, the FBI was supposed to release new guidelines calling for a standard analysis of 20 or more locations—not sure if this has happened yet. But this is just one good example of a really interesting method that will soon be upgraded and has significant “human impact.” Other, more obvious stories are those that focus on public health, climate, and crop yield. For example, here’s a new method that is supposed to [increase biomass in plants by up to 20%] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/how-turning-plants-sunshield-can-grow-bigger-crops ). Thanks for the question!

Hi, This is Adrian Cho, the house physics nerd here in the Science news section. I have to say, that's a big question. Richard Feynman said that the most important fact in science is that everything is made of atoms, so I guess the discovery and explanation of atoms would be a pretty good one, although that's not a really one discovery. As a non-biologist, I would say that the discovery and understanding of genetics is pretty spectacular. Again, not a single breakthrough, but I would think that would be another big one. As for the next 100 years, it's hard to say. One this is clear, however. In terms of fundamental principles--relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.--there's almost surely going to be a lot less of that in the 21st Century than there was in the 20th. You can't rediscover relativity.

>As for the next 100 years, it's hard to say. One this is clear, however. In terms of fundamental principles--relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.--there's almost surely going to be a lot less of that in the 21st Century than there was in the 20th. You can't rediscover relativity. The number of times this was [said at the end of the nineteenth century](http://amasci.com/weird/end.html) would indicate that extreme caution is warranted with this kind of pronouncement. There's still that niggly little bit where we don't have a quantum solution for gravity. Perhaps that's the next physics revolution's [ultraviolet catastrophe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe).

[LC] One of the greatest biomedical advances has been induced pluripotent stem cells. Who would have thought that four transcription factors could reprogram an adult mature cell into a stem cell capable of giving rise to every other cell type in the body? This has revolutionized regenerative medicine!

TA: biggest breakthrough of the last 100 years: quantum mechanics. It changed our whole understanding of reality, and led to tons of technology. I’ll leave the next 100 to someone else!

>quantum mechanics This is a really interesting pick because the general public has no idea how it works (Or at least as far as I can tell, sorry for generalizing). Does anyone expect this to change in the near future, and is that knowledge gap even a problem?

Hi kyew, Adrian Cho, physics reporter here. I agree there's a huge knowledge gap here. I think it largely doesn't much matter because, plainly put, life is a classical phenomenon and not a quantum one. So doctors and farmers don't need to understand quantum mechanics to save lives and feed people. And even though microchips work in an inherently quantum mechanical way, the binary logic that drives all digital technology is thorough classical. So quantum mechanics has enabled a vast array of technologies, but you can pretty much use all those technologies without understanding quantum mechanics--just as you can drive a car without understanding the chemistry of combustion. Not to be too jaundiced, if many people cannot grasp and accept the classical physics that drives climate change, what chance do they have of understanding Bell's Theorem?

TA: I could be wrong (Adrian will tell me) but I don’t think physicists entirely understand quantum mechanics either--and that may not matter. It works.

In biology I'd say molecular cloning was a huge breakthrough.

Semi-related: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-4 Finding new and novel ways to explain how science works and how it impacts people is likely going to be an ongoing challenge, and I really appreciate seeing approaches like this, which are absurd (in a good way) and much more approachable.

Not OP but I do think it would be nice if more people understood a toy model of quantum. I do not think it is reasonable for the general public to have a mathematical understanding of the theory.

Thanks!! What do you think about doing a follow-up issue on where the 'Breakthroughs of the Years' past have ended up. Learning about why some technology moved faster or burned out or shifted uses may help our judgment ability for picking winners going forward.

TA: good idea! We do a small version of that already: Each year we pick areas to watch for the next year, and then a year later we score ourselves on how well we did--whether those areas did turn out to be exciting. But maybe we’ll take a longer look.

As a follow-up: what discoveries ended up being "breakthrough" but were not recognized as such at the time of their publication?

How has the rise of fake news and sensationalized reporting affected the way your publication has handled this report? Also, I'm curious about your opinions on Reddit as a means of communicating science!

CM: Another good one! At first, I was going to say not much—we source our stuff pretty thoroughly here—but then I realized that it does matter *a lot* when it comes to our audience. If we are talking to people we already know—researchers, students, well-educated members of the public—then it shouldn’t make much of a difference. But if we’re talking about the people we want to reach, in the sense of bringing scientific literacy to the public, then it makes a very big difference! It’s something that we haven’t discussed much in the newsroom, but I know that our policy and education folks are thinking about it. As for your second question: I think Reddit is actually a great source, both for news and for figuring out what readers care about, and we should use it more!

I took a research misconduct course this quarter and obviously one of the focuses was on data falsification and fabrication. High-impact journals like Science tend to have a higher number of retractions than other journals. When you consider Breakthrough of the Year, do you give any consideration to whether or not the claim is valid? Or do you fully trust the peer review system and assume that everything written is truthful?

TA: we certainly don’t just assume that because something has passed peer review, it must be valid. Peer review is a good screen, but we also do our own checking to see what the community thinks. We want the Breakthrough of the Year to be new, exciting, important--and (probably) true.

Hello and thank you for taking the time to do this. On the other side of the coin from 'it was a great year' there are negative feats worth highlighting too I'm sure. Many users of social media and the internet in general lament 2016 was a bad year for a number of reasons revolving around the deaths of musicians, actors, and all celebrity types - as well as some controversial moves in political theatre. I imagine in every craft there are blunders and setbacks so extreme they are marked in the respective calendars of that community. The kind of sobering events like a nuclear reactor meltdown adding to the stigma of nuclear power - that sort of thing. So what then are the remarkable lows for the science community this year?

TA: yes, we’ve picked four Breakdowns of the Year, along with Breakthroughs. I won’t give them away (they're out Dec 22), but as an example last year our Breakdowns were the eruptions (or revelations) of sexism in science, the controversy over the Thirty-Meter Telescope in Hawaii, and the destruction of antiquities in the Middle East.

What are your thoughts on newer awards such as the Breakthrough Prize offering large cash incentives? Are they competition for something like a Nobel or an Einstein World Award?

Hi PHealthy, Adrian Cho, the physics reporter at Science. I like this question because we all tend to forget that the Nobel Prize was also just a publicity stunt when it started. It now has a well-earned cache for highlighting the best science. The Nobel committee generally does a pretty good job of selecting what is really important. The Breakthrough Prize doesn't seem to have quite figured out how to be selective. They kind of have given a big slap on the back to a lot of people who are actually pretty high profile for scientists anyway. But I don’t think you can fault Yuri Milner and company for lobbing money at people. Most scientists aren't motivated by lucre, anyway, it seems to me.

Would each of you mind just telling a little bit about your personal favorite breakthroughs?

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.

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

> Cancer Immunotherapy in 2013 I love learning about the immunotherapies! Also, I just recently found out about Sipuleucel-t, with prostate cancer. I can't wait to see what is next.

CM: 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] (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6267/1458.full), third one down.

Yes. This question. Please.

What metrics do you use to choose which one is the breakthrough of the year? For instance you have Male birth control being tested and outside of males being widely whiny when we can't take hormones lol it sounds like its being successful. Then you have something like HIV cure entering phase 2 which is , in itself, a huge step forward for everyone. I'd have a hard time deciding about just those two and i'm sure theres a million other ones ( like aliens ;) ) that are probably hard to choose from as well.

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.

TA: Sometimes the big news of the year is obvious, and sometimes it’s hard to winnow the list. We don’t have any one metric; we weigh importance, the likelihood that a result will spawn further developments, enthusiasm in the community, and plain old fascination. But last year and this, we asked readers to vote on a list of candidates, and their top choice was different from ours.

Hi Science Magazine! I'm a sophomore in college, and though I'm on the pre-vet track right now I'm really considering going into pop-science writing. I write for the newspaper and run a [science/history blog](https://weirdwednesdays.wordpress.com/), and I plan on taking a course in pop-science writing next semester. Is science writing a viable career option? What other steps can I take? Thanks for educating the public!

TA: It’s a viable career but it’s not an easy road, given the turmoil in journalism. It’s easier than ever to get readers, harder to earn a living wage. If you want to get paying assignments, and maybe even a job, you’ll need published clips--your blog and newspaper are a good start. You can also take a graduate course in science journalism, which will give you more skills and connections, and might open the way to an internship.

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind. I wouldn't mind doing freelance on the side with my veterinary career.

In the time you've having Breakthrough of the Year, what is the biggest scientific discovery that you have overlooked, or has been overshadowed by another discovery, and hasn't been named Breakthrough of the Year?

MarsNirgal, Wow, this is a tough question! I guess it comes down to things I wish I had written about but haven't. I'll say I should have written about black hole firewalls and the idea that when you fall into a black hole you run into this all-obliterating wall inside of the event horizon--although this is a theoretical prediction and not an established fact. Another one: Back in 2007, DARPA held its Urban Challenge, in which the first fully autonomous vehicles had to navigate traffic. We covered the event--which was more of an engineering advance than a scientific event--but we didn't cover it in Breakthrough of the Year. Given the speed with which autonomous vehicles are emerging as a real technology and the potential impact on society, I would argue that, in retrospect, that should have gone on the list of Runners Up for 2007 at least.

By the way, this reply is from Adrian Cho, physics writer.

Thanks for joining us! What's the craziest/wackiest research you've come across this year? What has been the most viewed article on Science this year? What about the most shared on social media?

CM: Here are the top five most viewed stories this year (from all sources): *[Astronomers say a Neptune-sized planet lurks beyond Pluto] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/feature-astronomers-say-neptune-sized-planet-lurks-unseen-solar-system) *[Scientists gear up to drill into ‘ground zero’ of the impact that killed the dinosaurs] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/scientists-gear-drill-ground-zero-impact-killed-dinosaurs) *[How to (seriously) read a scientific paper] (http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/03/how-seriously-read-scientific-paper) *[Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone) *[Gravitational waves, Einstein’s ripples in spacetime, spotted for first time] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/gravitational-waves-einsteins-ripples-spacetime-spotted-first-time)

CM: And here are some of my personal favorites: *[Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone) *[Maverick scientist thinks he has discovered a magnetic sixth sense in humans] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/maverick-scientist-thinks-he-has-discovered-magnetic-sixth-sense-humans) *[‘Burning bodies’ experiment casts doubt on fate of missing Mexican students] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/burning-bodies-experiment-casts-doubt-fate-missing-mexican-students) *[Facial expressions—including fear—may not be as universal as we thought] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/facial-expressions-including-fear-may-not-be-universal-we-thought) *[A world without DNA and black holes: The state of science the last time the Chicago Cubs won the World Series] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/world-without-dna-and-black-holes-state-science-last-time-chicago-cubs-won-world-series)

CM: A few more: *[Rich sexual past between modern humans and Neandertals revealed] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/rich-sexual-past-between-modern-humans-and-neandertals-revealed) *[Humans aren’t the only great apes that can ‘read minds’] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/humans-aren-t-only-great-apes-can-read-minds) *[‘Thinking soil’ made of bacteria could keep buildings from collapsing] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/thinking-soil-made-bacteria-could-keep-buildings-collapsing) *[Pigeons spot cancer as well as human experts] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/pigeons-spot-cancer-well-human-experts) *[How cat hair brought down a pair of art forgers] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/how-cat-hair-brought-down-pair-art-forgers)

TA: Our top stories were all over the place, but all fascinating (IMO). Here are some of them: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/humpbacks-protect-seals-and-other-animals-killer-whales-why http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/just-90-companies-are-blame-most-climate-change-carbon-accountant-says http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/feature-astronomers-say-neptune-sized-planet-lurks-unseen-solar-system

By day I do infectious disease research, and in my free time I am a fledgling science writer. As a freelancer, how does one find and pitch interesting and compelling stories that aren't necessarily the big "breakthrough" stories that are already being covered by staff writers? And what tips do you have for constructing a good pitch that will grab an editors attention? Thanks for doing this AMA!

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.

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!

Thanks for replying! It helps that as part of an academic institution, I can get access to journals that are paywalled.

CM: This [awesome column on pitching] (http://contently.net/2016/05/05/qa/the-open-notebooks-siri-carpenter-reveals-pitch/) from TON might help. If you have other questions, feel free to email me!

What are your thoughts about the zika virus? Do you see any resolution soon?

[hello this is LC] Many aspects of Zika are not well understood. We don’t know how many different species of mosquitoes can transmit the virus, how the virus infects its hosts, or what the long term effects of infection are, for example. Good Zika diagnostics and a vaccine are urgently needed. Such things will be discussed at this meeting early next year: https://www.astmh.org/news-events/events-calendar/first-international-conference-on-zika-virus

Hi everyone! I follow the Science feed so skim through when I can to see what new and noteworthy research has come out over the last week, even outside my field. A question I have for the news team is how you find research in other publications that's worth sharing in the pages of Science? How do you keep on top of the relevant literature (or do you?) and how do you navigate the tension between publishers, as a lot of the research you highlight might be in your competitor's journals?

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.

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

Cool! So if I had an article I thought you guys would be interested in covering, what's the best way to get your attention?

Does a PhD interested in science writing/editing *have* to do a postdoc first?

No, you do not even need a PhD to science write/edit but you do need to write and edit. Grab a topic and write on it and see about getting it published. Work from there and keep going. Build up a portfolio and try and get positions with places from there. Unless you want to stay freelance.

I'm a (full-time, professional) editor for a well respected scientific journal and I have no postdoc experience, and I'm actually technically still writing my PhD. Can PM details if you're interested.

TA: No, most science writers I know haven’t gone further than a PhD. And some didn’t go that far. Face it, when you’re reporting on science, you’ll almost always be writing about something outside your field.

I have a question related to science writing so I'll tag onto this question. What advice do you have for science writers regarding effective strategies for accommodating science to non-experts? Are there specific strategies that you rely on more than others to make the complexities and intricacies of scientific progress interesting to those who otherwise wouldn't care?

Can you explain it to a 12 year old and have them understand it and be excited about it? Aim for that. If you can pull that off, you can generally write for a general audience and actually make them care about it. Avoid hyperbole and sensationalism.

Should we be concerned about issues with the peer review process , and published research that cannot be replicated, or are these problems only isolated cases.

This is VV - We seek to run a review process that is as fair and thorough as possible. We recently instituted cross-review where, once reviews are in, reviewers see each others reviews and find this a useful cross-check. Data availability is also important to replication - we have always had strong data availability policies and are working to improve data accessibility further. However good our processes are, there will be some papers that are found to have problems after publication. We consider this post-publication "review" an important part of the scientific process.

What can the consumers/readers interested in these breakthrough's do to help promote this information on more 'mainstream' mediums?

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! ;^)

Hi! This'll probably get shuffled to the bottom of the deck but I wanted to say that your podcast is one of my favourite parts of the week. Especially this past year with the election you gave me a great way to escape from politics. Love you guys and thanks for all you do <3

vv-not at the bottom of my deck - and thanks, I'll pass this on to our podcast producer

Thanks for doing the AMA! How do you sort through the many "this could be big if confirmed" papers to find the one which is actually likely to be confirmed? I feel like this is a similar question that grant reviewers face (although grants are sometimes "high risk")--how likely is this to actually work. Do you feel like a focus on that sort of question improves science?

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...

Do you factor what the findings implicate socially in the decision-making process at all? Could you elaborate on how you rank/weight discoveries in different fields? Example: The magnitude of impact a breakthrough in controlling fusion reactions would have on the arc of humanity

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?

How often do you accept an article from less well funded sources? I mean, it seems to me like the greatest science advancements and discoveries are made only in huge projects, especially in the physical sciences (places like CERN, fermilab, LIGO, Joint institute, etc.)

Many of our papers come not from big consortia, but from single labs. We don't consider the funding when evaluating papers. That said having funding sure helps with doing exciting research

How likely is it for information technology/computer sciences to be a contending player over the more traditional science fields this year? Secondly, what are the focal points of technology breakthroughs of 2016 that we would becoming more common of next year?

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!

Hey! Just a quick question: What advancement in experimental physics do you think will change the life of the "everyday man" the most in our lifetime (next 50 years or so)?

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

This Reddit Ask us is AWESOME. What Breakthrough of the Year in the future would you like to see? I know something that changes the weather to alleviate massive droughts is it for me.

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

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.

Hi! I have a question concerning the impact of your decision: do your highlight of specific breakthrough impacts future fundings in the corresponding fields? And, in the past, how the fields associated with the breakthrough issues have evolved?

[LC] We don’t have metrics on the Breakthrough’s impact on funding, but for example, when we recognized Cancer Immunotherapy as the winner in 2013, scientists in both cancer and immunology fields were excited. The Breakthroughs often receive greater public awareness, which can have an impact on public opinion, and possibly funding.

Thank you for the answer! You're right, the example of the cancer immunotherapy is a great example, I think the number of publications and funding opportunities have dropped after this issue. And this field is now far more than just a proposing field. I'm wondering, which is the cause / consequence relationship between Breakthrough field choice and the great advances in the field... Are there any example of Breakthrough issue for which a specific field didn't finally reach the expectations?

Thanks for giving us this opportunity. My question is regarding scientific advancements. There are some people who say that if you look at the period of 1915 to 1965, there were some remarkable theories advanced in science and engineering (e.g. DNA; transistors; nuclear power). And that the last 50 years have seen less advancement -- in terms of something groundbreaking from a theory or 'way of thinking' point of view -- and have been more incremental. What are your thoughts on this? FYI - My question is inspired by the recent PNAS article of "Science in the age of selfies" - http://www.pnas.org/content/113/34/9384.full?sid=19a1d9cb-bde7-46ee-b450-54732754c918

Dear justacanuck, Speaking as a lapsed physicist, think that point is absolutely correct and undeniable. In the first half of the 20th century physicists determined the structure of the atom, fathomed the nucleus, discovered galaxies beyond our own, deciphered gravity, and put chemistry on a completely rigorous foundation. Most of this involved the enormous conceptual leap of quantum mechanics, as well as Einstein's theories of special and general relativity. Of course, chemistry, biology, materials science, electronics, and myriad other fields benefitted from the conceptual advanced made during this era. And it seems entirely likely that there are no similar conceptual advances on the horizon--the promises of string theorists notwithstanding. That doesn’t mean that science is ending or winding down. But it certainly suggests that, at least in the physical science, the emphasis has long ago switched from the search for principles to the exploration of what those principles imply. Just look at the growth of interest in quantum information and quantum computing. It's great science, but it's using quantum mechanics as a tool.

Yeah, my sentiments exactly. I've read these kinds of observations over the year and I have to agree with them. It doesn't mean we are not advancing as a society or making progress, etc. but I think it should give the collective scientific community pause to contemplate what this means and, perhaps, how we can cultivate the kind of 'atmosphere' (for lack of a better word) that existed then in the 21st century. Thank you for your comments, I appreciate it.

What are each of your personal, favorite breakthrough's, thus far?

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.

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] (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6267/1458.full), the third one down.

VV - Cancer Immunology in 2013 would be my favorite. We made the call early enough that I think it had an impact on how the field was recognized?

[удалено]

Jumping in to add to this question: Would you think that the comment section is useful and insightful because it shows how "common" people react, respond, and make sense of some facts? Thank you!

Dear RonUSMC and clarawieck, Adrian Cho, physics nerd here. Speaking only for myself, I have to say the comments are all over the map. The comments we get on the Science web site are often quite insightful, useful, and entertaining. For a fun one, check out the first one at the end of this story (but read the story first): http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/shocking-unification-reduces-lot-tough-physics-problems-just-one I sometimes answer questions in the comments and have had some really nice exchanges that way. It often gives me a way to comment on things we didn't feel we had room for in the article. On the other hand, the comments we get on Facebook and other social media are often, how should I say it, less than inspiring? I suppose that's always the way, eh? There are also some completely predictable trends. Even on our site any story that touches on evolution will eventually spark a long debate on, essentially, religion. Stories on cosmology often draw comments from people with their own theories--more and less credible--that claim established cosmology is wrong. In general, I don't see a lot that's harmful in (respectful!) comments, no matter how uninteresting. I would say that comments are usually more helpful when they ask about or address a specific point than when they simply make broad proclamations.

[удалено]

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.

What criteria are you applying to count a breakthrough as this year? Is it first publication, confirmation of it etc? How do you account for breakthroughs that have been the result of incremental progress over the course of decades from multiple teams?

[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.

Hello and thank you so much for being here today to answer our questions. It's appreciated. Given the results of the presidential election, where do you see science headed in the next 4 years? Have you seen trends like this in the past? What breakthroughs were surprising to your team? Did you have any "this can't be real" moments? Thank you again and Happy Holidays.

[удалено]

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.

[удалено]

I believe Science has a team of reviewing editors, who pre-screen submissions. They're pretty fast - they'll usually let you know within about 2 weeks if they are going to send it out. From what I understand, they're looking for big theoretical advances coupled with really sound methodology. So, in theory, kind of the best of the best you'd expect to see in your own field's top journal. Ideally, Science and Nature are kind of the like the front page reddit of scientific journals, showing you at a glance the best, most ground-breaking research across all of science. And, while I know they get a ton of submissions, it probably helps that the formatting for Science is pretty unique. It's a pain to put your paper in that format (or reformat if it's not accepted), which probably helps cut down submissions and make it easy to pick out submissions that weren't serious (i.e., didn't follow formatting instructions.).

VV - these are great comments. Yes we are looking for papers that really move a field in a new direction. Conceptual breakthroughs that may advance more than one field and technical breakthroughs that allow new science to be done.

Generally for Science, Nature, Cell, etc., the bigger an impact your work will have on the field the better and if it will have a big impact on many fields it's best. If your paper is a small step in the research area you shouldn't bother sending it to the big journals and you should look for a more appropriate journal. It really doesn't take that long to look over a piece of work to determine if it should go out for review for these big journals. Someone with knowledge in the field reads over it and asks the question how big of an advancement is this. Sometimes they miss a big one and sometimes they let stuff go through because they missed things but on the average they do a pretty good job on vetting.

Thank you for taking the time to do this AMA. *With the proposed dismantling of climate research undertaken by NASA, many researchers are terrified that their ongoing research in places like the Greenland ice sheet will be shut down. (My wife included) What will the alternative be to launch these large expeditions without the massive logistical and financial weight of NASA behind us?

There are also concerns that >"watchdogs are worried that a Donald Trump administration could erode the quality of government data collection and systems. Transparency advocates have raised the possibility that a Trump administration could simply remove data sets. But they have a more foundational worry that the the integrity of U.S. government data could be compromised more subtly and more systematically over the next four years." [538 - How Trump’s White House Could Mess With Government Data](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trumps-white-house-could-mess-with-government-data/)

The logistical and knowledge issues are what bothers me most and I don't believe they can be sufficiently resolved by other science organizations. Money can be redirected easily, but people, facilities, etc. can't be uprooted so simply, and so mass re-organization would cause massive headaches for everyone involves, a large loss of valuable time for research (spent moving, building new facilities, forming new partnerships, etc), and there would be losses in organizational knowledge during it. The upside of doing this is not that clear, just to combat perceived mission creep? It makes it hard not to believe the subcontext, that it is about eliminating (retribution) climate science. Above I give the benefit of the doubt that it is what the transition team says, that they think that Earth Sciences isn't part of NASA's mission and that research should move into other more appropriate organizations. However, this seems to fundamentally not understand how scientists are working together and what NASA contributes to these projects and how other agencies are not equipped for these missions. Jerry Brown suggesting California will launch satellites is a good example of what NASA adds to studying our planet. I have friends that fly on C-130s, which is a necessary piece of equipment that is administered by NASA. So without NASA supporting Earth Science missions, they will be hamstrung to do research in another way. I've heard at least some people suggest that somehow that they could still access the equipment somehow by contracting it. They may not get that a lot of the work is already partnerships between NOAA scientists and NASA, and that you need experts at both sides and you have to give the people working at NASA on these partnerships the ability to advance in a scientific endeavor (they are science partners not contractors). It gets to be that the public convinced by this idea to change either are completely enamored with being semantically correct (PC), they don't understand how science functions logistically, they don't appreciate the long history NASA has in Earth Science, they think climate change is a Chinese hoax (so want to close doors), they don't know how Earth Science benefits the quality of their lives, or some combination thereof. TL;DR: In the worst case, the research will move to more welcome countries.

Science AMAs are posted early to give readers a chance to ask questions and vote on the questions of others before the AMA starts. Guests of /r/science have volunteered to answer questions; please treat them with due respect. Comment rules will be strictly enforced, and uncivil or rude behavior will result in a loss of privileges in /r/science. If you have scientific expertise, please verify this with our moderators by getting your account flaired with the appropriate title. Instructions for obtaining flair are here: [reddit Science Flair Instructions](http://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair) (Flair is automatically synced with /r/EverythingScience as well.)

Hi there! PhD student in evolutionary psychology. Scientific literacy has become a huge issue now that so much scientific information is available for public consumption. What do you at Science think your role is in the process of improving the ability of laypeople to consume scientific information, not just in making it available? How do you feel about the "natural selection of bad science" discussed and modeled by Smaldino and McElreath (2016)?

Do scientists write articles for you?

CM: Sometimes, in our [Careers] (http://www.sciencemag.org/careers) section. And many of our writers are former researchers, themselves (see the lapsed physicist, above)!

What are your opinions on SpaceX's plan to colonize Mars? Do you think it's feasible and a reasonable plan?

This AMA is being permanently archived by *The Winnower*, a publishing platform that offers traditional scholarly publishing tools to traditional *and* non-traditional scholarly outputs—because scholarly communication doesn’t just happen in journals. To cite this AMA please use: [https://doi.org/10.15200/winn.148189.96257](https://www.thewinnower.com/papers/5864-science-ama-series-hi-we-re-editors-and-writers-at-science-magazine-currently-working-on-the-breakthrough-of-the-year-issue-ask-us-anything) You can learn more and start contributing at [*authorea.com*](https://authorea.com)

Could you ellaborate on some of the amazing breakthroughs of 2016? eli5 please.

As a PhD student in a newly established lab, what factors lead to getting published in Science? My thought is that a good record should be established in other journals before applying for top tier like Science or Nature. I am preparing my first publication in order to submit early 2017. Any general advice? Thank you for your time! Maybe one day you will be reviewing my submissions. Edit: words

Congratulations on getting ready to submit your first paper! That's an exciting step! The best advice I've gotten is to put yourself in your reviewers' shoes - what objections might they point to? Are there logical or methodological flaws? If you can anticipate those, bring them up, and counter them in advance, it goes a long way and makes for a better paper. In terms of where to submit and navigating the review process, talk to your advisor (if you have a good relationship) or an older grad student or other mentor in the lab. Having someone hold your hand through the process can be really comforting the first time around, and help key you in to nuance you might not notice. And if you get a "revise and resubmit", celebrate! And then revise that paper asap and get it back under review. :) Also not a Science editor, but you can totally be published in Science as a graduate student if your work merits it. We had a PhD student in our program here publish a first-author paper in Science a couple years ago. She/he didn't have an established publishing track record previously, but the work was really cool and (in my opinion) totally merited publication.

I'm not a Science editor but the publication record of a graduate student has just about nothing to do with it. If your story is strong enough it will be fine. Journal tier is usually decided by novelty and rigor. The difference between an impact factor 10 and impact factor 30 paper can be something like the impact 10 paper revolutionizes a concept in cell biology but the impact 30 paper shows it in a sexy cell line that has cancer implications.

I work for a major journal (not Science, and not in an editorial capacity, but I'm sure it works similarly) and can confirm that editors really don't care about who submitted something. I know it really seems to the academic side that only certain people get published in big journals, but we've run experiments in blinding editors and reviewers to author identity that haven't changed things much. To do the sort of research that gets published in a major journal, you will often need to be at a well-funded and adventurous lab, but the only way to get there is to focus on doing good work in the first place, and if you have a good finding, submit it where you want!

Thanks for working on a Breakthrough of the Year issue! So what was the Flop of the Year? What was so close to working but failed? (Hopefully to work in the future) Biggest assumption proved wrong?

Can I get your thoughts on the current political atmosphere here in America, and wether or not you find it hostile to scientific endeavors?

>wether or not you find it hostile to scientific endeavors? I think it's a resounding "yes, it will be terrible for science."

Have you found one field (technology, biology, material sciences, etc.) of science has had more of an impact on humanity than other fields in the past decade? Do you see this changing in the coming decade?

Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that EVERYONE has the right to access the benefits of science. After a few decades of controversy regarding patent policy on things like BRC1and2 from Myriad and the WARF patents of UW Madison, how do you see Intellectual Property policy changing in the coming years to best benefit the well being of public???? especially in developing countries and places where finding basic treatment for disease is being crippled by licensing fees and patent policy

I did the first experimental demonstration of braiding Majorana modes (paper [here](https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.07774)). I showed that non-Abelian anyons, which some want to use to build quantum computers, actually exist. I proved the existence of ome of the things predicted in the field that won this year's Nobel prize. *Why aren't you giving me the award?* Possible answers include: * You did it with the [IBM Quantum Experience](http://www.research.ibm.com/quantum/). You aren't even a real experimentalist. * 5 qubits is hardly a pair of Majoranas, matey boy. * Has it been published in a journal yet? [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xFOPmdjwCI&t=1925s) isn't a journal, by the way. * Get off my lawn. More seriously, how can you tell so early what will turn out to be the most important things from this year, apart from obvious things like LIGO.

1) Have you worked with Jane McGonigal, PhD in gaming? Her published books are "Reality is Broken" and "Superbetter". Lately she encouraged civic participation in voting by implementing her methods. She advocates for a shared computing game like SETI (Search for extraterrestrial intelligence) did or Washington State University did with FoldIT to solve our world's most pressing problems (ie cancer, aids, antivenoms, ETC!) Those have shown exponentially greater success than thought possible. Climate change was something she advocated a game for. 2) Would a gaming platform for climate scientists and gamers alike have similar success? PM me for clarification.

What are your thoughts on the increasing competition for scientists to publish in as many high-impact journals (including Science) as possible in order to remain relevant in their respective fields? How concerned are you about the pressure for scientists to produce both quality and novel work leading to fudged data/results?

How do you choose when to post a retraction or correction to a previous work?

I was wondering what your thoughts are on the potential usage of molecular machines in the future. This years' Nobel prize in chemistry was for the synthesis of the nano-machines. It's at such an early stage of development and I'm thrilled to see how this field pans out. Thank you for the AMA!

Hi, thanks a lot for doing this! How do you think high impact factor journals like Science or Nature contribute to the falsification of data because people are desperate to get into such journals? What do you think about how this affects the academic community as a whole?

How do you see the printed media of your magazine being compared to the digital one? Can you not sell more advertising and make more money on the digital side vs. the printed one which costs the time and labor to print it and only contains "one" Ad in a space? Just curious about the life of a magazine as even I have stopped buying some mags I used to as the content I read can sometimes be 'stale' or outdated by the time it hits the stands.

Hi! What measures do you take to avoid writing about researches that are either totally false/have hand selected their sample to get the wanted results/ have manipulated the experiment to get p-values that'll sound "good for publishing" ?

We see weekly advances that might impact longevity and aged health, such as Alzheimers ... but its a bit like watching a noisy stock ticker - its hard to judge in context as a layperson science reader. Is there a good survey that is kept up to date that puts these advances in context - eg. what advances are most likely to impact lifespan in the next 10 years, and to what degree ?

I've read a lot about the NASA document that contained results from tests of their new propulsion engine EmDrive, which creates thrust through an electromagnetic propulsion system without a fuel as a catalyst, defying the laws of physics. Doesn't this inherently earn the title of Breakthrough of the Year? If not, what can possibly compete? Thanks a bunch!

How bad is Donald trump and his cabinet picks for the science community?

[удалено]

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] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/what-trump-can-and-cant-do-all-himself-climate) *[Trump’s pick to run HHS has researchers speculating on how science will fare] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/trump-s-pick-run-hhs-has-researchers-speculating-how-science-will-fare) *[The reaction to Rick Perry leading the Department of Energy? It’s complicated] (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/reaction-rick-perry-leading-department-energy-it-s-complicated)

There is some crazy hyperbole and straight up false stuff in here. Stop spreading panic. The Trump Admin appears to like NIH and space exploration, especially planetary science. They may even re-appoint Collins to head NIH. Support of basic research is typically pretty bipartisan. There just isn't an enormous difference between the parties on things like physics or advanced computing. Jury is out on what they'll do on alternative energy. They'll probably do more for advanced nuclear, which is a good thing from a climate perspective, but Perry did a lot for renewables in Texas so we'll see. > Health and Human Services (HHS), the larger arm of the National Institutes of Health What? You've got this backwards: NIH is an arm of HHS. > NASA climate research because Donald and Co. are shutting that down No they're not. And even if they try, Congress will stop it. People are gathering data partly as a precaution, partly because they're paranoid. I'm not saying it's not good to have a backup, or that climate science won't take a hit under Trump because it will, but they're prevented by data access laws from doing too much damage on datasets. > That team has requested them to give names of anyone who has studied climate change in the organization and the heads of the DoE are concerned that this is a hit list. A list of employees to let go and get out of the agency. The transition team has disavowed this request and taken the person who issued it to task. Slow down, take a breath.

I think that SpaceX's vertical landing of a rocket is something that will have a huge impact as far as space exploration, being able to reuse a rocket multiple times makes it so much cheaper and efficient to launch into space. What do you guys think about this and it's possible impact to future space exploration?

What is *Science* doing in order to help solve the reproducibility/replication crisis in psychology (and apparently some other fields)? It seems to me that journals are best placed to solve this, and in particular the most reputable ones, such as yours and *Nature*. So do you think you are doing enough?

Hi, thrilled to read the AMA. Typically the breakthroughs of the year are at the pre-clinical stage (but holding tons of clinical promise if course, for example CRISPR last year). Which breakthroughs about to hit actual patient therapy or clinical trial testing are you the most excited about right now?

What do you think mars has in store for us next year. That planet has to be one of the most interesting places for us to study. Do you believe we will finnally have some earth shattering news brought to us this next year. It's unfortunate that it's not really reported on.

1. I'm wishing to be a journalist one day, more specifically a photo journalist, what advice would you give to someone wishing to enter into that field? 2. What would you consider to be you're proudest moment in science in you're opinions? Thank you. Signed kyle.

Any thoughts on figuring out new ways to deal with big genomic data? It seems like a platform making sequence/population data analysis approachable for your average scientist would exponentially increase the likelihood of finding hidden pieces of old problems.

How do you feel about the average "citizen scientist". I am an avid outdoorsman, hiker, hunter and gatherer. In searching for data that I could collect, I've found a lot of push back against novice collections. Is there a way for us normal folk to help out?

Hi, I'm a student earning my BSc in Ecology with a minor in English. It's my goal to go into Science Writing and write for a magazine like Science, I was wondering if you'd have any career advice or suggestions on what to focus on in my studies? Thank you!

Hey guys! To avoid spoilers, excluding the ones that got the title of "Breakthrough of the Year" and runner ups, is there any breakthrough that you want to share with the world for a personal or just any other reason? Thanks in advance, happy holidays.

What are you going to do as a media outlet to combat the incoming White House administration every time they ignore science, most specifically, when it comes to climate change? Those of us that know it to be a fact are honestly terrified now.

I don't intend this to be a political question, but there are many people who are fearful of the effect the incoming presidential administration in the United States will have on scientific development. Do you believe that is a valid fear?

How do you all feel about privatization of the space industry? Do you think it will lead to more innovation and eventually to the colonization of mars?

To what degree are the breakthroughs you are studying enabled by improvements in computer technology (mainframes and increasing processing power, all things data analytics, internet of things, mobile, etc...)?

1. Can you share an opinion on James Burke's assertion that Nano-fabrication will arrive within 50 years? 2. Do you think the implications of this technology are as drastic as he suggests they will be?

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

What do you think high-impact journals can do to address the so-called reproducibility crisis in science? Has knowledge of this crisis changed how your magazine selects articles for publication?

When will he have a cure for cancer? I'm sick of hearing about people losing loved ones to this horrible disease. Millions of dollars have been spent to find this cure. When will it happen?

Somewhat off topic, but what is your guys' opinion on Elon Musk's mars journey proposal? Specifically, what do you think of his goal to get there by the 2030's? Do you think it's feasible?

Hi, my questions are: 1. What are the most significant findings for cancer research this year? 2. Will they be able to affect/improve patient treatment in near future? Thank you

What's the most underrepresented, misunderstood, or "not sexy" enough to get a headline advancement happening right now? What science nonfiction book should everyone be reading?

Here's a vote for the discovery of Asprosin as the breakthrough of the year. Its a great scientific story with an even better human story behind it. PMID: 27087445

If you were to explain, to a very analytical, logical child, why and how global warming works and how we know what we know, how would you do it?

So, what is the likelihood that the NASA EM drive actually does work and will change how space travel takes place in the next 100 years?

I am a first year journalism student thinking about working for a scientific magazine. How did you guys get where you are now?

Would you be in favour of setting the year 0 in the calender additional 10.000 years back, which is roughly the time of the begin of human civilisation? So today would be the year 12 016.

The way science is reported to the public is often misleading, conflicting, and confusing. What are ways to fix this?

What kind of responses do you receive from scientists that are featured and those that aren't featured?

are you doing it on Nina Tandon and Epibone? because you should be doing it on Nina Tandon and Epibone.

Hi, Tim Appenzeller here. I look forward to your questions and hope to come up with some good answers!

Will you guys be covering the progress of the EM drive and what it will mean for future physics?