I was leading a global biomarker+genetic testing program aiming to  identify hidden patients with Niemann-Pick type C, an ultra-rare and severe neuro-metabolic disease (prevalence 1:89’000, ~1’000 patients on treatment worldwide). The project included 44 countries, mostly in Europe, Latin America, Middle East and North Africa. We used a highly specific and sensitive biomarker, Lyso-SM-509, provided by the Centogene AG lab, who was also performing the analyses. We were able to identify >200 additional patients, achieving surprisingly high hit rate of 5 in 100, corresponding to 4 patients per month on average. Investment per patient identified was in the range of 5.2% of yearly treatment costs. CLIENT:Actelion Specialty Care Global Business Unit(as an Actelion employee and member of)PROJECT TIME FRAME: January 2014 – August…

I developed and provided a medical education program on MF-CTCL disease, supporting the launch of a new treatment product for the rare dermato-oncological disease. The program includes … CLIENT:Actelion Specialty Care Global Business Unit(as an Actelion employee and team member)PROJECT TIME FRAME: February 2017 – May…

The peer-review principle for scientific publications is a well established and sound approach to ensure publication quality … in theory. In real life it is regularly found to be leaky. This is a current example, reported by Retraction Watch

It is turning around … around … around … and around. Always the same turn, always the same things in view. With changing perspectives, but actually always at the same place. Sooner or later just boring. And once you overwind … well, mhh … might become unsavory. I exactly feel like sitting in such a carousel since I seriously entered the world of Knowledge Management (KM). I regularly find myself hanging around at places where people interested in good knowledge working meet virtually or physically, like KM blogs or meetings of like-minded colleagues. In any case, places where people with a greater awareness for the importance and value of Knowledge Management are, many of those knowing each other already for quite a while. “Knowledge workers”, “knowledge experts”, “knowledge managers”, “knowledge enthusiasts”, “knowledge evangelists”, gurus, consultants, etc. pp.. We then intensively discuss the meanings of terms, theoretical and innovative concepts, as well as why so many companies are such ignorant regarding the benefits of KM. Assumed that you are such a rational guy like me, you can glory in that, and without doubt you will meet a lot of interesting people. And normally all will agree, that they know how it works … or as it actually should work. And it’s true. We know how it could be done, efficiently and with maximum value for a company. But … it is completely for nothing! Well, yes, it always has been nice to talk to each other again. But finally with zero impact on real life. At the end all together spin around, and ever and anon the same people are having the same (philosophical) discussions. They feel comfortable with each other and don’t need anyone else. People know each other, appreciate each other, understand each other. Just to avoid any misunderstanding. The strategies and concepts developed and discussed by us “knowledge experts” are in general really good and trendsetting. They have the potential to substantially change and improve enterprise knowledge sharing. It is just never applied. Somehow none of all the good ideas and solutions becomes real, in a true implementation. I frankly do not understand so far what leads to failure, and I am thankful for any hint. By the way, this general tendency for parallel universe seems to be common with all “managements” (Information Management, Knowledge Management, Innovation Management, …). Perhaps a fraction of the problem is within the name already. As a first step I decided to have real life feasibility and implementation as my personal benchmark in the future. I say yes to hot air … if a turbine is driven by it. And I don’t really expect it to be the big strike, the complete new knowledge strategy within the company. I also accept minor steps and improvements, if they go into the right direction. And by the way, this fits to the latest crowd-intelligence-social-media-hype in Knowledge Management (which to my opinion is absolutely overrated … but that’s another story). One important thing with carousel rides is not to miss the right moment to get off and back on solid ground. Otherwise … as mentioned before, well mhhh…

In his today’s newspaper column Sebastian Turner 1, initiator of the Falling Walls Conference 2 (“leading thinkers at the intellectual frontier” ), writes about the lack of qualified professionals in Germany. As part of that he mentions studies done by Manfred Prenzel 3 from the Munich Technical University, that are worth to also be shared with the English-speaking knowledge community. While studying the German school system, Manfred Prenzel found that for 42% of the investigated students one year at school did not result in learning advancements. They had exactly the same knowledge and skills as 12 months before. Manfred Prenzel did dig deeper into it, esp. for the subject physics, and found even worse. Those students who had shown noticeable learning progress in physics during one year, unexpectedly and remarkably lost interest in this particular subject. In other words, those physics students who learned most also abandoned the field above average. Just the good school students turned away. This could be seen as the more knowledge is hammered into students heads, the more interest is hammer out. The scientists did some video analysis of the classes and finally realized that teachers nearly never spoke about why something has to be learned. Good students nevertheless learned … but only as long as they had to. Once they left school, motivation was gone, interest had been killed, finally resulting in a home-made lack of professionals (physicists, engineers e.g.). So, the drying out pipelines for young professionals in some fields of industry can also be a wake-up call to deal less with “dressage” and rouse more interest. Interest is the basic principle of knowledge, the driver to knowledge. 1 Original article by Sebastian Turner published in the German newspaper “Die Welt”: http://www.welt.de/print/die_welt/debatte/article13394902/Die-Fachkraefte-Mangel.html 2 Blog of the Falling Walls Conference: http://www.falling-walls.com/blog/en/ 3 Homepage of Manfred Prenzel at the Munich Technical University:…

Journalists are mediators. And they are translators. Take me as an example. It is my job as a scientific journalist to translate scientific contents to the public so that people can understand what things like “cloning” and “genetic engineering” are. And, well, I am trying my best and it truly is an advantage for me to be an educated molecular biologist. I do understand scientific subjects as well as the technical terminology of the biosciences. But what’s about my non-scientific colleagues? If a standard magazine journalists is in duty to write about – let’s say – Dolly the sheep, does he really have a chance to produce something meaningful? It is even hard for him to understand the details … and we expect a founded judgement. This colleague however is a translator to the public. Like a Chinese-English translator who never learned any Asian language and is working with a 1970 edition of a common dictionary (and avoid asking him for the Chinese signs). Taking this into account, can we really be surprised that the public opinion about biotechnology and gene technology is such bad in Europe. This also had been a major point at the “Biotech in Europe” session of the recent BIOTECHICA BUSINESS FORUM 2002 in Hanover, Germany. Speakers included Crispin Kirkman (BioIndustry Association, UK), Claude Hennion (France Biotech), Christian Suter (BioValley Basel, Switzerland), Rob Janssen (Netherlands’ Biotech Industry Association) and Hugo Schepens (EuropaBio). During the discussions Christian Suter mentioned that we are missing true science mediators in Europe. He quantified fruitful cooperation between journalists and scientists as lucky exceptions. And others added that there is a completely different communication culture in North America where scientists don’t worry about sitting in a TV shown and propagating their views to the public. I do agree. We are really missing true translators and mediators of our contents. Where are the colleagues that are able to help journalists to understand? Dear scientists, journalists desperately need you! Help them to translate. Go out, be present and be the bridges crossing the river between scientific knowledge and the society. In my view many American scientists are highly sensitized regarding their role and duty for public understanding that is the base of public opinion. European scientists are much more afraid of being in the limelight of the media. But – honestly spoken – to my opinion it is part of their (publicly financed) job. Why do so many European scientists avoid the public? Well, they never learned it. Being a public translator for scientific knowledge is not part of scientific education. Many researchers are just not able to translate. It is a matter of terms … and a matter of relevance. Let me explain what I do mean with the “matter of relevance”. A true scientist talking about the developments in research will never make an absolute statement, like “Newton’s apple will definitely never go upwards”. He is always qualifying and seeing things in relative terms, even when there is just a hypothetical 0.0001% chance for an alternative event. Perhaps, one day, Newton’s apple may go upwards. It does not matter if this is relevant or not, it always will be a possibility. This basic kind of thinking is a result of the scientific knowledge finding process’ structure, that is driven by thesis and antithesis. But for the average man or woman this “may be” is a sign of uncertainty, in the worst case interpreted as “there is something in it”. The 0.0001%-event has become a true and relevant option. Now, he is awaiting Newton’s apple to shoot up to the stratosphere, exploding there and finally destroying earth’s ozone shield. As a conclusion, scientists have to learn to reduce, to focus and to rate various options for relevance. People want clear answers, simple explanations and meaningful statements. Now, let’s talk about the “matter of terms”. Scientists and non-scientists are often using the same words but do speak different languages. Many scientific terms have a different meaning or an additional interpretation for average persons they have not for a scientist. The result is that both are speaking to each other but there is no true communication. Take the word “sex” as an example. If a scientist is using the word “sex” he usually is thinking about the gender of the organism he is working with – but most non-scientists at first are thinking about something completely different. Another good example would be the word “glauben” that in the German language is used for “to my opinion” as well as for “to believe”. So if biotech managers “glauben” that gene technology is safe, is it their opinion or is it their believe? But let us focus even more towards “genetic engineering” and “gene technology”. For me the German translation “Gentechnik” has no weight. In my understanding the word stands for a scientific method, a lab application. It is not good or bad, it just is. But for an average German citizen “Gentechnik” has an expanded content, it has a negative meaning, it is a bad word, it is used like talking about devil’s kiss. Now imagine a molecular biologist and a politician having a discussion about gene technology. They are talking together … but finally there is no communication. You can observe it on any program running on an European TV station. Where are all these communication and public relation agencies serving the Life Science industries? What have they done during the past years? Well, at least they have lost an important battle. They lost the battle for sovereignty over words. And I suppose that they lost because many of them did not really understand the things they were fighting for. If you want your public relations work being successful within the fields of Life Science and biotechnology it is much more important compared to any other branch of business that you have an in-depth-knowledge about the contents. Biotechnology and gene technology cannot be treated like others. You really have to understand the technologies you are trying to promote. You really have to know the key words and their true meaning as well as their interpretation by interest groups. And never forget that these words and expressions can have various meanings depending on who is using them! But where is the way out of the dilemma? Very simple: strike back! Use the words in their true meaning. Use them ‘normalized’. And do not use them only on podium discussions but in your daily live. Speak about biotechnology with your family. Speak about biotechnology with your friends. Speak about biotechnology with your colleagues and business partners. Speak about biotechnology with your children and with their teachers. Speak about biotechnology at your breakfast table and at your barber. Speak about biotechnology with your doctor and with his nurse. Speak about biotechnology as it would be the most normal thing in the world. One day it will be. Win back the sovereignty over words! Now! Revised version of the article “Let’s talk about Sex”, originally published in December 2002 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

Medical microbiologists and hygiene experts are warning against the excessive use of antibiotics for years now. They observe more and more resistances which have been forced by the constant misuse of antibiotics. Now, a July 2002 article in the online issue of the journal New Scientist reported that vancomycin – one of the final weapons in the fight against infectious bacteria – lost his power. A strain of Staphylococcus bacteria that is insensitive to vancomycin-treatment was found by medical staff in a hospital in Michigan (USA). Furthermore, VRSA strains (vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) already turned up in Japan. Bacteria are distributing (that should not really be a surprise), and during their travels they are “talking” with each other (if you allow me to call information exchange a talk). Vancomycin-resistant enterococci, bacteria from the gut, are well known already since 15 years. Enterococcus is a low-grade opportunistic pathogen which is completely harmless unless a person has reduced immunity. But scientists already expected to find other species carrying the information for the resistance sooner or later as a result of “talks with colleagues”. Staphylococcus aureus now is much more of a problem with greater pathogenic potential. The bacteria are common inhabitants of human skin and nose. Under normal conditions the species is a harmless microfloral companion like many others living in and on our body. But when Staphylococcus aureus enters open wounds it is able to cause inflammations up to – sometimes fatal – blood poisoning. The finding of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928 and the following development of a variety of antibiotics helped to fight these infections as well as a broad range of bacterial diseases that let people around the world suffer till the middle of the past century. The following age of the antibiotics had also been a period where the believe that there is a pill against everything dominated common thinking as well as public health programmes including medical education. But today common antibiotics do not work anymore with many ubiquitous germs – many of them already carrying multi-resistances. For example the methicillin-resistant Staphylococci, an extremely harmful variation who is resistant to all standard penicillin antibiotics. In these cases only glycopeptides like vancomycin have been the last bastion against often deadly infections. Vancomycin has always been known as the antibiotic of last resort. Another bastion that fell now. If we stay in this military view and language one has to realize that we had a lot of furious and quite successful tactical manoeuvres during the past decades, but the overriding strategy is going into the wrong direction. Latest findings of scientific disciplines like population biology and population genetics need to be much more included. And – as bacteria do not care about national borders – there still is a deep need to improve international standards for medical education. Progressive strategies for the usage of antibiotics must not be under control of national authorities anymore. The escalation of the bacteriological arms race has been caused by people who should really know it better: doctors. Doctors who are using the antibiotic tool not correctly. To my opinion latest issues of medical microbiology and population biology should be far more integrated in university courses and further education. Let me give you an example. When I had been in France last Christmas, I got a painful ear infection. I need to explain that I had had an operation some years earlier that left this ear without tympanic membrane, and so every infection is a reason to take care. But I was already used to it, and knew the standard procedures from my ‘doctor in charge’ at home in Germany, that always included a detailed diagnosis of the infecting germ. So, coming back to Christmas in France, I went to a local hospital (quite modern and fashionable, by the way) to see an otologist, an ear specialist. I was surprised! Everything was going very fast. It seemed that this entire diagnosis stuff was not really necessary. I finally left the hospital after 15 minutes with a prescription. Later in the hotel I had a closer view to the drugs I was honored with. I had three heavy-stuff antibiotics and cortisone in my hands. Someone seemed to think that I was really close to death. And that without any state-of-the-art diagnosis of the causing agent, if it was viral, bacterial or fungal type 1. Sorry for my open words, but to my opinion this had been an irresponsible conduct. Not irresponsible regarding the single patient (me in that case), but to a general health situation that finally affects every ‘single patient’ again sooner or later. My wife – who is French by the way (“o la la”) – later told me that this a normal behavior in France. Many doctors are giving antibiotics for everything, even a simple viral (sic!) cold. And this for sure is not a French problem. Meanwhile I heard similar reports about some German practitioners, who take the easiest way by prescribing pills without any clear diagnosis, too. And in the United States everybody can buy antibiotics on one’s own in a pharmacy without any prescription??? Hey folks, we are not talking about vitamin C or Aspirin! These are drugs that need to be used under strict control and with a certain strategy. These are drugs that are pillars of our health systems. And everybody knows that there is no other group of drugs that are under such a pressure by emerging resistances. I would not waste a thought about some stupid doctors who are not aware what they are doing. But I am deeply concerned about the basic faults in our health systems that lead to misuse along a wide front. Yes, I am really angry. Meanwhile I have become somehow an extremist targeting medics as well as public health systems … as regards the antibiotics misuse. I am sad about the current situation because if some people would have had just used their brains but their prescription pads we might not need to worry about it today. Just go to any university hospital and ask them for ‘hospital infections’. These people are in the front line. They know the problems we already have. And they have to pay for it. The Michigan patient infected by the vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus finally survived after treatment with an “antiquated” antibiotic called chloramphenicol, but – according to doctors – the VRSA’s susceptibility to this drug was fortunate. We need to change the direction. Now! 1 I have to note that in past cases it has been always bacterial or fungal, and I am not sure if there is any causative viral agent of the middle ear. Read more … Revised version of the article “Superbugs knockin’ on the door”, originally published in August 2002 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

Let’s start with a joke. “What are three Germans doing that you have put into one room? – Founding an association!” In Germany we have associations for everything in the smallest village. Associations of hen breeders, associations of stamp collectors, associations of local singers, associations of hobby gardeners, associations of wine drinkers, associations of The Kelly Family concert visitors, and so on. Since late 2001 we additionally have the German Society for Proteome Research (DGPF), whose very first founding charter was wrote down on a beer mat (well, we are in Germany, aren’t we). The foundation of the DGPF by scientists and industry representatives was a reaction on latest market and application movements towards protein research. Germany already has had strong Proteomics (& protein) research when others were still chasing the holy grail Genomics. But – to my impression – it was never really well communicated. So, one major aim of the DGPF will be to improve the international knowledge about the high level of German Proteomics. But why are researchers and the industry more and more focussed on Proteomics? One of the major disadvantages of Genomics approaches is the missing connection between a gene and its cellular function. The fact that a gene has been sequenced does not give us the cellular function of the gene product. That makes genomic results so difficult to interpret. Even the sequence analysis with bioinformatics tools does not yield the full picture. Additional problems arise through the organisation of the genetic information as well as the fact that only a subset of genes is active in a specific cell at a specific stage. So, scientists are moving to the functional level, to the gene products, to the proteins. And they developed the new term, “Proteomics”, for the complete set of proteins (functions) of a cell in a specific stage, in analogy to “Genomics” that addresses the complete set of genes (information) of a cell. Similar to other attempts with a large-scale option in industrial applications (drug discovery e.g.), it will depend on the technology developing and supplying industry if Proteomics will get its chance. When I was doing the research for this article I had the impression that some companies just stuck the Proteomics label onto their existing products. This is neither a solution nor does it really fit the researchers needs. But where are the bottlenecks and what has to be done? There is a dramatic increase of complexity while switching from the genetic to the functional level. A gene is a gene is a gene. There is slight variation caused by introns and foreign elements as well as expression control. But our scientific thinking is dominated by the “one gene – one protein” paradigm, even since the knowledge about posttranscriptional modifications has shown that it is not just that simple. With proteins one has to view every single candidate in the context of multi-functionality and networking. In many cases one protein is not just one function. It is part of a high-complex cellular network of interacting and cascading activities. The function of most regulatory proteins for example depends on environment (regarding ‘cellular clock’ and location), posttranslational modifications and interacting partners. As a result one protein might have a couple of functions depending on where, when and with whom it is. This puts Proteomics to trouble. At first, there are still no powerful technologies for many aspects in large-scale protein research available. Friedrich Lottspeich, head of the protein analysis group at the Max-Planck-Institute for Biochemistry in Munich and DGPF-chairman, said that recent methods exhibit great potential but are not yet ready for the industrial job, in drug discovery for example. There are only few suitable solutions for automation and high-throughput. Early stage MALDI-TOF applications work pretty well, in Structural Proteomics e.g.. But problems with high-throughput sample preparation, low abundant and hydrophobic proteins are unsolved. In Functional Proteomics automated interaction-screens based on the 2-Hybrid, SPR (surface plasmon resonance) or TAP (tandem affinity purification) technologies – that are essential to discover the networking aspect of proteins – are at its infancy. Antibody-based biochips already show the direction. At second, Proteome research results in huge amounts of data. Corresponding to the higher complexity, Proteomics causes exponentially more data than Genomics does. But drug discovery (and scientific research in common) is not just collecting data, even if one might suspect some scientists to think so. No, the scientific progress depends on results derived by the analysis and interpretation of collected data. And this is getting more and more difficult with increasing complexity. Finally, the complexity of protein functionality has to be taken into account while moving forward. An attempt to this is the field of Integrated Proteomics that considers various views by the combination of data coming from different approaches and sources. But . this again increases not only the total amount of data to be analysed but also the level of complexity. According to Thomas Franz, head of the Proteomics core facility at EMBL Heidelberg, existing bioinformatics solutions are not able to quantitatively and qualitatively analyse the produced data. This opinion is shared by a couple of colleagues working in the field. Scientific teams are analysing the data manually again because this is more effective and still yields the most meaningful results. The conclusion is an answer to my question what has to be done. There is a deep need for at least a) large-scale protein research technologies, b) suitable bioinformatics solutions and c) Proteomics-optimized devices. I am curious about the future development of Proteomics. It might be overrun by other “-omics” in public attention. But I am convinced that Proteomics will contribute important findings to our understanding of how a cell works. And for sure it is and will be a major market for technology suppliers and bioinformatics companies. Originally published in April 2002 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

Well, honestly, things are on the move these days. Scientists and publishers are discussing new ways of publishing scientific results. EMBO starts an initiative to set up a platform that will provide services relating to access and retrieval of digital information in the life sciences, ranging from bibliographic or factual data to published full text – E-BioSci. Even database publishers draw nearer academic institutions to promote their content products. Last week scientists and information providers met at the 8th annual meeting of the German Information and Communication Initiative of the Learned Societies entitled “Open Systems for the Communication in Science and Research”. The conference wanted to discuss the latest national developments as well as strategies on how to improve the scientific information workflow. The talks and presentations concentrated on three major points: the future of scientific publication, current developments in information infrastructures, and multimedia in academic education and training. Not more!? To my opinion every single topic would have been enough for an own conference. But the organizers aimed at giving an overview and … bringing people from different disciplines together. I am sure you know the problem. For some reason communication between the academic disciplines often does not really exist but on the paper. Focusing on improving the supply of the scientific community with specialist information, we observe a variety of ‘island-solutions’. Young scientists are used to free internet information sources but are still completely inexperienced with using ‘valuable’ databases. How could they … there is no awareness of information with costs. The problem is well known. And now we are coming back to the lack of communication. Many scientific groups are developing strategies in parallel, to provide scientific labs with database information e.g.. Many solutions never really had a chance because they are redundant. Many resources are used in parallel without looking for synergies and if there could be a common way. Let’s think capitalistic … or evolutionary: The best(?) system will survive! OK. This works on the international information markets where one can observe concentration movements towards Thomson, Elsevier and some other players. But do our academic structures really have the resources – as regards time and money – to waste it in a try-and-error development? Would it not be better to coordinate international – at least national – efforts? Should we not move on with a common focus and thereby free money for other things? The first step in developing a common strategy is a vision, something that can be set as one’s goal. No ‘destination’ – no strategy. When you build a road you already know where you start from, but you also need to know where to go. Unfortunately my conclusion after this conference is that there are no true visions. Again we are developing strategies without a direction and wasting scientific resources and money. What we really need is more communication. Not only communication between information providers and academic users. Also, communication between the disciplines, communication between the scientists. And this conference was not the solution but a very first step. The results have to prove their worth in real life. Revised version of the article “Scientific information- where are the visions?”, originally published in March 2002 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

In 2003 I had the opportunity to talk to Prof. Dr. Gottfried Schatz, at that time President of the Swiss Science and Technology Council, at the Handelsblatt-conference “Trends in Biotechnology” in Vienna, where Gottfried Schatz had held a lecture about research barriers within Europe. Gottfried Schatz offensively criticized that the European systems of university education and research funding hinder the development of scientific excellence. In his view, money for research – by working after the principle of discriminate all-round distribution – was too broadly scattered instead of promoting purposefully. Permanent academic positions and the rigid hierarchy structures at European universities were also a thorn in his flesh. Dr. Schatz was an enthusiastic advocate for the introduction of a tenure track system at European universities, and expected it to generate higher flexibility in science and education as well as to give highly qualified scientists clearer future prospects and better chances. 8 years have passed by.Did things change?Did the scientific systems really develop? Editor’s Note This is the English translation of an interview originally done in German language. Dr. Gottfried Schatz is President of the Science Council of the Institut Curie (Paris), Scientific Councillor of the Institut Pasteur (Paris), and President of the Swiss Science and Technology Council. After receiving his Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Graz in 1961, Gottfried Schatz joined the Biochemistry Department of the University of Vienna where he began his studies on the biogenesis of mitochondria and discovered mitochondrial DNA. From 1964 to 1966 he worked as a postdoctoral fellow with Efraim Racker at the Public Health Research Institute of the City of New York on the mechanism of oxidative phosphorylation. After a brief interlude back in Vienna, he emigrated to the USA in 1968 to join the staff of the Biochemistry Department at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. Six years later, he moved to the newly created Biozentrum of the University of Basel where he and his group elucidated the mechanism of protein transport into mitochondria. Gottfried Schatz is a member of many scientific academies, including the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, the Royal Swedish Society, and the Netherlands Academy of Sciences, and has been awarded the Louis Jeantet Prize, the Marcel Benoist Prize, the Gairdner Award, the Krebs Medal, the Warburg Medal, the E.B. Wilson Medal, and many other honors. He has served as Secretary General of the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO), as Councillor of The Protein Society, and as Chairman of many Advisory Boards. Originally published on February 27, 2003 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

The fact that the 2001 Nobel Price in Medicine has been awarded to three Yeast researchers should not lead to the wrong conclusion that the Nobel committee appreciated the fight against alcoholism or overweight. In fact without the tasty products of Brewers or Bakers Yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) our lives would be much more healthy but – honestly – less nicer. Coming to the point, the award really recognizes the contributions of Leland Hartwell, Paul Nurse and Timothy Hunt to the understanding the control mechanisms of the cell cycle, the molecular cell division management system. I myself did research on cell cycle regulation in Yeast in the late ’90s. As a Yeast guy in an innovative scientific environment that deals with frogs, mice and human cell lines you were always seen as an eccentric – and somehow funny – specialist (and it has always been a challenge to explain that my experiments are not related to a Yeast contamination in the cell culture lab). Later I was glad to have the opportunity to cooperate and to discuss my results with Gustav Ammerer and Kim Nasmyth in Vienna, two other great Yeast geneticists. Brewers Yeast – for example – is a budding organism (that is why it is also called Budding Yeast). Daughter cells are formed by small buds growing at the Yeast cell surface. This closely resembles the division of mammalian cells resulting in two daughter cells, e.g.. The key issue for the cell cycle now is to synchronize DNA replication with cell growth and division. And vice versa, the DNA replication needs to be reliably inhibited in the case that there is no division. So, the cell cycle is a series of cell functions controlling the whole life span of one cell generation. It starts over and over again until cell aging or other mechanisms stop the propagation. If the cell cycle does not work correctly cells either stop division or have improperly copied chromosomes or propagate uncontrolled. In humans the latter is connected to cancer. Here the medical relevance of research with Yeasts like S. cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pombe comes in. Yeasts as model organisms for the understanding of common functions in eukaryotic cells. Yeast cells as easy to cultivate mini labs offering research opportunities as regards fundamental cell activities that are too difficult to study in higher cells with their much more complex regulation networks. Well, if we have learned something about cell cycle regulation in Yeast during the past years then that it is even pretty complex in this very simple organism. Today we know a tight network of internal and external signals including the cell metabolism as well as the cytoskeleton. It looks like that there is not just a simple ‘clock’ but a whole system of communicating proteins with checkpoints and feedback loops. We can use these findings in Yeast to look for homologies and similarities in higher organisms. By comparing functionally known Yeast genes and proteins with the human genome and proteome we will be able to identify new research objectives as well as putative pharmaceutical targets. To my view this “Nobel Prize for Yeast” is an appreciation of the role of model organisms in modern biomedical science. Understanding them leads to a faster understanding of the molecular basics of cellular malfunctions in humans. As a Yeastman still carrying small buds in my heart I congratulate the Nobel committee on its decision. Originally published in November 2001 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

Two weeks ago I participated in a strategy workshop organized by Arthur D. Little and the German Ministry for Education and Science (BMBF). As part of our talks we discussed the value of scientific information as well as the existing scientific information distribution and access structures. As two major problems we identified that scientists are not really aware of a variety of information resources they could access, and that publication and valuation processes will intensively change within the next years. To provide you with the corresponding background: the BMBF commissioned the management consultant Arthur D. Little and the ‘Gesellschaft für Innovationsforschung und Beratung’ to analyse the German WTI system (“wissenschaftlich-technische Information”) and to develop a strategy concept for the future of scientific and technical information. This study will be the basis of the future German federal government policy regarding specialist information. In a first step the consultants did a survey targeting 10.000 scientists working at universities or non-academic research institutions as well as 10.000 industry and service companies with an extensive use of information. In a second step the results and early recommendations are discussed by industry insiders and checked for their practicability. I myself was invited for one of this second level workshops that also included the directors of the three German special information centers, several representatives of university libraries, scientists, and others, overall a group of about 15 information specialists with a focus on scientific information. Giving you a very personal impression, to my opinion the information providers do not really know their client: the scientist working at the bench. During my time as ‘lab rat’ we did not really miss anything as regards information. We had a nice library, we had the internet, and the first internet databases for literature, sequences, etc. started these days. Additionally there has always been the possibility to ‘clone by phone’ or to get information via direct contacts in labs working at the same questions. Nobody told us about STN and other special information providers. And I think we would not have used it for two reasons: the costs (in the lab you have a regular budget for enzymes and pipette tips . but usually you have no true budget for information) and the missing knowledge regarding the retrieval languages (what student is educated in command languages like messenger, e.g.?). I am sure that this situation will change. I cannot tell you if this will happen within the next 5 years or within the next 15 years, but societies will learn that information itself has a value. Someone once even said that information is the gold of the 21st century. We already have a development within the western societies that people that have a privileged access to – for example – business information and are able to process it do have an advantage over their competitors. This is also valid for scientific information. But . the overall amount of scientific information is increasing logarithmically and the scientist needs more and more pre-selected information regarding his topics and questions. You cannot read all articles in all journals of your discipline AND do successful bench work. You only have 24 hours a day. And you do not really have the place for the growing stacks of publication copies on your desk (wouldn’t it fit your needs to have access to digitized copies?!). So far there is public structure that supports the bench scientist with these problems. So, we really have to think about improved information infrastructures for the scientific community. And we have to find a solution of the bivalent situation that on the one hand the public pays for science (and by this for the resulting scientific information), and on the other hand scientists have to pay for scientific information – respectively they or their libraries already do by their journal subscriptions. Perhaps we have to understand that not only the information but also information processing is worth to be paid, for example if you think about information pre-selection, journalistic ‘digestion’, services that help to be more focused, and publication providers. Revised version of the article “The value of information”, originally published in October 2001 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

Journalists as well as politicians are desperately looking for lab results that nicely fit to a political ideology.

Traditionally an old years end is the time of reflections. No, I do not mean the bright glittering snow in some people winter holidays. I am talking about thoughts regarding the sense of life. Did I get the best out of the old year? Could I have done something better? What will be in the new year, what challenges and tasks are waiting for me? And what are my personal priorities in life? As a young PhD student – quite a few years ago – I read a Science article by Gregg Easterbrook about the social as well as ethical conflicts between science and religion. Surprisingly it did not pick out the inconsistency of both but their reconciliation as a central theme. During these days I have had many committed discussions as a scientist defending the evolutionary theory against creationists as well as defending my Christian faith against science believers. Yes, I am a Christian and a scientist (but not a “christian scientist”!). To my opinion there is no true incompatibility but just two sides of a single coin. And so I always found myself between the lines. Assumed there would really be incompatibility. Should it not be possible to have the sensibility to tolerate each others position? Should it not be possible to have the sensibility to accept that there are different levels of consciousness? Let us have a look to some of the battles fought in the US “bible belt” about what children should be taught in school, e.g.. Sorry for being honest but sometimes it seems to me like children from the kindergarden squabbling for their Lego. Who is going to tell them that they will have more fun and will be more successful when playing together? Telling you my point of view: science is giving the knowledge, faith – independent if Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Naturalistic, or whatever – is giving the sense. Both together create wisdom. In other words, science tells us how the world works, religion tells us for what the world works. One cannot without the other, or as Gregg Easterbrook used to say “they have linked destinies”. Originally published in January 2001 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

Do you remember? Y2K had been announced as the great entry into the millennium of biotechnology! Did you get it? 2000 in biotechnology was planned as the year of the big conferences and meetings as well as the year of the phenomenal announcements. This should have been the grandiose prelude for an international campaign against the technique critics. But did anyone – besides scientists – really pay attention to all the efforts. Honestly: no. No, because this is how it should be _ or no, because we missed the chance to present our science to the people. If you picked the first “no”, there is nearly no reason to go on reading. But if you think that the scientific community missed a chance, then join my thoughts about how we could better the situation. Living in Central Europe we still face the situation that most non-scientists adore gene food and associate gene technology with Frankenstein. People will not buy daily products known to content genetically engineered compounds. We do have a really bad public opinion about gene technology. Is the reason for this situation really only ignorance and antagonism against all technological advancement? Or is it possible that the scientists themselves fail to promote their science? Who else should do it? What biotechnology and gene technology (who are used synonymously in this context) are missing is capital. This capital is coming from confidence. A confidence that results from the knowledge of the opportunities as well as from the hope for a better future. If the people do not rely on our biotechnology enterprise they will not invest any capital in it. That is what we can learn from a going public at the stock exchange. No confidence – no money, no money – no development. So, colleagues, let’s go public! Let’s use a language that everybody can understand when we talk about the science we love. Talk with the heart and not with the dictionary. Open your ears for the fears. Show the opportunities and advantages of biotechnology. Talk to the people and talk with the people. You are the ambassadors of our science! Originally published in November 2000 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

Today, I am proud to share that my PhD thesis with the title “Cell-cycle-dependent gene regulation by Mcm1p-complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae” has been accepted, and my Ph.D. (Dr. rer. nat.) has been granted by the Leibniz University of Hannover, Germany. Between 1994 and today, I had the opportunity to do basic oncological research on the genetic regulation of the cell growth at the Institute for Molecular Biology at the Hannover Medical School. I was using yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as model organism for eukaryotic cells, which on molecular level share many commonalities. My scientific research was specifically targeting a better understanding of the cell-cycle-dependent gene regulation by transcriptional regulatory ternary complexes. The latter play key roles in the control of eukaryotic cell growth … which is out of control in cancer cells. My work was funded by a scholarship for the DFG Graduate Student Course “Molecular Pathophysiology of the Cell”. And I would like to take the opportunity giving a big thank you to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Alfred Nordheim, to an army of amazing and supportive colleagues in Hannover as well as at the Vienna Biocenter, and – last not least – to my mother for her kind “sponsorship”. This journey has ended. And I am already curious about the next one to…

I successfully completed my master in biology (Dipl.-Biol.) with a specialization on microbiology, genetics and biochemistry, Within the scope of my master thesis, I had the amazing opportunity to actively contribute to the sequencing and analysis of the first full genome of an eukaryotic organism, Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker’s or brewer’s yeast). Which is an EU-funded projects with labs from all over Europe working together. As a result, I had the honor getting a co-author of the scientific publication of the results (which is quite uncommon for master theses). READ MORE … Miosga et al. (1995), “Sequence analysis of a 33.1 kb fragment from the left arm of Saccharomyces cerevisiae chromosome X, including putative proteins with leucine zippers, a fungal ZN(II)2-Cys6 binuclear cluster domain and a putative alpha2-SCB-alpha2 binding site”, Yeast vol…