Category Archives: News

A deep look into the BSDB Archive reveals 70 years of our society’s and discipline’s history

This year is the 70th anniversary of the BSDB, an obvious occasion to look back at the society’s history. As the BSDB’s communications officer I felt a need to become proactive and started, a good three years ago, to investigate the society’s past – only to find a rather blank sheet, with the laudable exception of a published article by Jonathan Slack (Slack, 2000). In his article, Jonathan provides an overview of the early decades of our society: starting as “(London) Embryologists’ Club” in 1948 (notebook #2, p.2f.; Fig.1), renamed in 1964 into “Society for Developmental Biology” (SDB; notebook #1, p.28f.) and, eventually, into “British Society for Developmental Biology (BSDB)” in 1969 (to avoid confusion with the American partner society SDB). Apart from Jonathan’s article, there was no organised information about BSDB chairs, let alone officers or committee members of the last 70 years, nor about its conferences or potential educational or political activities. I therefore started a BSDB history project trying a number of strategies to unearth some of its past, which eventually led to the launch of the BSDB Archive.
Fig. 1 Extracts from page 2 and 3 of the digitised notebook #2 documenting the birth hour of “The Embryologists’ Club” on February 19th 1948, with E.A. Fraser as chairman, Alan Fisk as secretary, Margaret Tribe as treasurer, and two further committee members.

A story of discovery

My first attempt to dig into the BSDB’s history was to contact former publications/communications officers of the last two to three decades. This yielded PDF files of newsletters covering the period since 2000. However, little newsletter information appeared to have been held for the period before that. Also former BSDB meetings officers could not help with sufficient relevant documents to reconstruct the conference history.

I also enquired at history archives. For example, the Wellcome Library holds conference documents of the years 1973, 1975, 1976, 1983, 1986-88. But these could only be viewed on-site and, if digitised, could not be made publicly available – hence another dead end.

Furthermore, I followed up on a hint that some old conferences were published as issue supplements in JEEM (precursor of the journal Development), but lengthy searches through Development’s online archive of the 70s and 80s revealed only one such issue  (BSDB, 1984) – and this exact issue was also the only one we later found as a hard copy (1984-2). However, I learned that in the 80s and 90s it was a requirement for all invited speakers to provide a paper for publication in a JEEM or Development Supplement, something which all speakers seemed to have willingly agreed to. As Phil Ingham commented to me: “When you look at the calibre of speakers that provided these papers, you get a sense of the very high esteem in which the BSDB meetings were held – basically, all the top developmental biologists in the world wanted to be invited to our meetings (I am sure this is still true)“. Some examples of these special issues are linked out from our meeting documents 1987-31988-1+2 and 1989-1+2.

Finally, I searched for former BSDB members and contacted them one by one. But I was usually informed that potentially helpful documents vanished when offices were cleared out upon retirement – a sign that it might in fact be too late for the BSDB history project.

Thomas Stoneman and a glance into the lower drawer of the archive.

Although none of the attempts yielded significant outcome reaching back into the last millennium, new hope arose when contacting Robert Kelsh (Secretary 2003-08) who pointed out that the same BSDB archive used by Jonathan Slack for his history article should still be with Michael Taylor (Secretary 2008-13) in Cardiff. A few days later, the archive was opened and it was agreed with the BSDB committee that Mike’s student, Thomas Stoneman, would be paid to sort through it and provide an overview. His findings revealed that we had struck gold! There were newsletters from 1979-2002 (#1 to #23-2), an almost complete list of meeting programs (and partly even abstracts) dating back to 1964, and hand-written or printed minutes of committee meetings starting with the foundation meeting in 1948, apart from membership indices of many different years, plenty of correspondence, meeting planning documents, financial statements and contemporary information about other societies, in particular ISDB and EDBO (Fig.1; for more details see the archive list and the archive-curiosities document).

Fig.2 Logo design for the digital BSDB archive (Box 1).

Following our initial euphoria, in came the sobering thoughts of what to do with these materials – and proper archiving and digitisation was (and remains) the obvious ultimate goal. Upon consultation with Carsten Timmermann, science historian here at Manchester, I contacted libraries and history archives, but none of these attempts provided a satisfactory way forward. Pragmatic solutions had to be found, and it was eventually decided that Thomas would continue his work for a while and start digitising key documents including the notebooks of the (London) Embryologists’ Club, all newsletters, and part of the conference documents. I organised the files as they became available, uploaded them as “BSDB Archive” (BSDB comms account) on the free and indexed online repository figshare.com, and designed a specific logo for future branding (Fig.2). To close remaining gaps, Mike Taylor kindly hosted me for a day in June 2018 and, together with Thomas, we searched through the archive using rapid photo-documentation to digitise further interesting finds. Through all these efforts, an important fraction of our documents has now been made publicly available (Box 1).

Box 1. Current holdings of the BSDB archive

The Embryologists Club + SDB

Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.5899636 | SDB-1964| 1948-64(#2) | 1948-64(#1) | DOWNLOAD ALL

BSDB Newsletters

Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.5827359 | 2016+17(#37+38) | 2015(#36) | 2014(#35) | 2013(#34) | 2012(#33-2) | 2012(#33-1) | 2011(#32-2) | 2011(#32-1) | 2010(#31-2) | 2010(#31-1)| 2009(#30-2) | 2009(#30-1) | 2008(#29-2) | 2008(#29-1) | 2007(#28-2) | 2007(#28-1) | 2006(#27-2) | 2006(#27-1) | 2005(#26-2) | 2005(#26-1) | 2004(#25-2) | 2004(#25-1) | 2003(#24-2) | 2003(#24-1) | 2002(#23-2) | restart @ #23 | 2002-1(#45) | 2001-2(#44) | 2001-1(#43) | 2000-2(#42) | 2000-1(#41) | #40 missed out| 1999-2(#39) | 1999-1(#38) |1998(#37) | 1997-2(#36) | 1997-1(#35) | 1996-2(#34) | 1996-1(#33) | 1995-2(#32) | 1995-1(#31) | 1994-2(#30) | 1994-1(#29) | 1993-2(#28) | 1993-1(#27) | 1992-2(#26) | 1992-1(#25) | 1991-2(#24) | 1991-1(#23) | 1990-2(#22) | 1990-1(#21) | 1989-2(#20) | 1989-1(#19) | 1988-2(#18) | 1988-1(#17) | 1987-2(#16) | 1987-1(#15) | 1986-2(#14) | 1986-1(#13) | 1985-2(#12) | 1985-1(#11) | 1984-2(#10) | 1984-1(#9) | 1983(#8) | 1982-2(#7) | 1982-1(#6) | 1981-2(#5)| 1981-1(#4)| 1980-2(#3)| 1980-1(#2)| 1979(#1) | DOWNLOAD ALL

Meeting programs

Archive: 10.6084/m9.figshare.5899651 (* hard copies of abstracts available) | 2018-2 | 2018-1 | 2017-2 | 2017-1 | 2016-2| 2016-1 | 2015-2 | 2015-1 | 2014-3 | 2014-2 | 2014-1 | 2013-2 | 2013-1 | 2012-2 | 2012-1 | 2011-2 | 2011-1 | 2010-2 | 2010-1 | 2009 | 2008-2 | 2008-1 | 2007-2 | 2007-1 | 2006-1+2 | 2005-1+2 | 2004-1+2 | 2003-1+2 | 2002-1+2 | 2001-1+2 | 2000-1+2 | 1999-1+2 | 1998-1+2 | 1997-1+2 | 1996-1+2 | 1995-1+2 | 1994-2 | 1994-1 | 1993-2 | 1993-1 | 1992-1+2 | 1991-1+2 | 1990-1+2 | 1989-1+2 | 1988-1+2 | 1987(EDBO) | 1987-3* | 1987-2 | 1987-1* | 1986-2 | 1986-1 | 1985-2* | 1985-1* | 1984-2 | 1984-1 | 1983-2 | 1983-1 | 1982-2 | 1982-1 | 1981-2 | 1981-1 | 1980-2 | 1980-1 | 1979-2 | 1979-1 | 1979-84 | 1978(#38) | 1978(#37)* | 1977(SSF)| 1977(#36) | 1977(#35) | 1977(#34) | 1976(#33) | 1976(#32) | 1976(#31) | 1975(#30) | 1975(#29) | 1975(#28) | 1973/4(#25-27)| 1972(#24) | 1972(#23) | 1971(#22) | 1971(#21) | 1971(#20) | 1970(SEB+SDB) | 1970(#18) | 1970(#17) | 1969(#16) | 1969(#15) | 1969(#14) | 1968(#13) | 1968(SEB+SDB) | 1968(#11) | 1967(#10) | 1967(#9) | 1966(#8) | 1966(#7) | 1966(#6) | 1965(#5) | 1965(#4) | 1965(#3) | 1964(#2) | 1964(#1) | DOWNLOAD ALL

Lessons learned so far

Clearly, I am not a historian, but even a lay person can sense the value of the BSDB archive. Here, I share some of my own thoughts and observations that arose when archiving the materials and browsing through them. And I will also explain some of my ideas of how to make practical use of the documents.

The BSDB newsletters

Newsletters are an essential pillar of scientific societies or communities (Kelty, 2012). They reveal a lot about a society’s nature and areas of engagement, and this perspective is now provided for the BSDB reaching back four decades. As shown in Box 1, BSDB newsletter #1 was published in 1979, and we hold an almost complete list of issues since then, with only 3 issues missing from this entire period! Initially, the newsletters were numbered individually up to issue #45 in 2002. From then on, the numbering occurred as single volume per year with summer and autumn editions sub-numbered as 1 and 2; consequently issue #46 was replaced by #23-2, as if newsletters had been numbered by year from start, thus making it possible to calculate the publication year and issue of previous newsletters in retrospect (A. Furley, pers. comm.; footnote in Newsletter #23-2, 2000, p.1).  Since 2013, during my time as communications officer, publication has been reduced to only one newsletter per year. This latter change reflects the fact that information is now made available in more timely fashion on the BSDB website and on The Node, so that newsletters have changed into legacy items rather than carriers of urgent news and information (see editorial of Newsletter #37/38, 2016/17).

Another obvious trend is the dramatic improvement of editing and printing technology (from type writer to computer, from black-and-white print to colour; Fig. 3), as well as the advent of the internet which becomes obvious during the first two years of the millennium. The first BSDB website address (http://www.ana.ed.ac.uk/BSDB) is mentioned in issue #44 (2000, p.5), which then changed into today’s bsdb.org in issue #23-2 (2002, p.2), followed by several issues alerting people to the fact that the new website exists. To my surprise, I could not find any dedicated article introducing the BSDB website to the community. Shortly after, a website co-ordinator was introduced on the committee (see Appendix), first represented by Kate Storey (2003-4) followed by Andrew Jarman (2004-5), who then became publication secretary and website co-ordinator rolled into one (2005-10); this combined task was thereafter renamed into “communications officer”. After the turn of the millennium, web links were increasingly used in many contexts, paralleled by the disappearance of paper versions of important forms (e.g. to register for conferences, apply for travel grants or submit abstracts – which had often been grouped together in the so called “centre section”). Before the advent of the internet, it made a lot of sense to provide these forms in newsletters because it helped to reduce the burden of postage; as Phil Ingham explained to me of his time as publication officer (1991-95): he needed to get ~700 newsletters printed, stuffed into envelopes and sent out one-by-one.

Fig. 3 Two examples of newsletter cover images

When browsing through the newsletters, there are obvious phases where the emphasis lies on different forms of contents, likely due to the personal preferences of officers and chairs in charge. For example, there are periods where meeting reports are a regular feature, whereas they are completely absent at other times. Constant elements that feature in almost all newsletters throughout four decades include: (1) meeting announcements (see below for more detail); (2) lists of officers and committee members of the time (see Appendix); (3) obituaries and book reviews – although they gradually vanished during the last years likely due to the advent of The Node as a “modern newsletter” for the wider community of cell and developmental biologists covering much of the more general news (Vicente et al., 2017; see editorial of Newsletter #37/38, 2016/17); (4) reports (or at least mentions) of the winners of society awards, i.e. the Waddington medal since 1998, Beddington medal since 2004, Cheryll Tickle medal and Dennis Summerbell Lecture award since 2016.

To start capitalising on newsletters as a unique source of information, I have linked BSDB medal winners listed on our website to the newsletters which contain the respective reports/mentions of awardees. I feel that this does not only provide evidence for the otherwise anecdotal lists, but it also enriches them with contemporary views about the awardees’ achievements. Furthermore, I extracted a list of officers on the committee (see Appendix), as well as meeting information (see below for more detail); the latter includes existing meeting reports which are now part of the documents listed under “Meeting programs” (Box 1) and provide insightful contemporary views about those events. Obituaries are further valuable documents of the time which should be made accessible; for example I inserted Ed Lewis’ obituary (Newsletter #25/2, 2004, p.8) in a link collection of Drosophila research history articles, or Rosa Beddington’s obituary (Newsletter #43, 2001, p.13) on the BSDB’s Beddington medal page.

But there are many examples of interesting further discoveries that I came across. First of all, the newsletter does not restrict to BSDB-specific information, but it provides a wider insight by reporting community-relevant news of the time, such as new editors of subject-related journals, prizes in the field, conferences of other societies, etc. (i.e. the kind of information that is well covered these days by The Node; Vicente et al., 2017). Some contents touch on topics of political or societal relevance still debated these days. For example, Newletter #23-2 (2002, p.6) mentioned a plenary lecture at the BSCB/BSDB Spring meeting in Warwick in 2003 entitled “Government support for world class science” given by Lord Sainsbury of Turnville (then Government Minister for Science and Innovation); Kate Storey reported on a meeting entitled ‘“Women on Top”, Reflections on Women in Science’ (Newletter #23-2, 2002, p.10); or some pieces reflected on the newly emerging PLoS journals and the wider question of open access (Newsletters #24-1, 2003, p.3 and #27-2, 2006, p.8).

Also relevant in this context are contributions about science communication and advocacy. For example, the article entitled ‘The headless tadpole affair” (Newsletter #36, 1997, p.1) described a misleading press release about the rather forward-looking topic of mammalian organ cultures, and touches on the dangers of interacting with the media (“never get entangled with the media without some training“). Newsletter #41 (2000, p.3) contains a report about the UK Life Sciences Committee (UKLSC), a joint forum for UK bioscience societies aiming to speak “with one voice to the media, the government and the research councils, for the things we need and want”. Paul Martin acted as the BSDB liaison followed by Guy Tear. One of its legacies was the speakers database (www.biology4all.com) which still continues to lead a cryptic life. More importantly, the UKLSC merged into the Bioscience Federation in 2002 (Newsletter #23-2. 2002, p.3f.), which then combined with the Institute of Biology into the (Royal) Society of Biology in 2009 – and the BSDB became a member society in 2016 (Newsletter #36-2, 2015, p.23). In spite of all these efforts to promote biology in society, the above mentioned report in Newsletter #41 about the UKLSC reads rather sobering from today’s perspective: “There is an ongoing programme to aid quality science education in schools and the UKLSC sponsors school level videos on topics like genetic engineering so that in 10 years time we’ll all have PhD students who know significantly more than we do before they even start their bench work!” That the topic of education was taken with great enthusiasm at the time, is also reflected in the creation of  education officer posts on the BSDB committee which were held by David Wilkinson (2002-2006) and Corinne Houart (2003-2007) – but these posts were not continued thereafter.

Another highlight of science communication is Ann Lackie’s article “Taking the anoraks out of fiction” (Newsletter #26-1, 2005, p.5), about the need to establish dialogue and collaboration between fiction writers and scientists, later formalised in the SciTalk initiative and website which is still live. Also the various experiments with sci-art fall into this category. Newsletter #42 (2000) shows a glass window termed “Window on Life” with Developmental Biology motifs. It was a collaboration between the MRC Centre for Developmental Neurobiology at Guy’s, Jim Cohen (Kings’ and St. Thomas’ Hospital) and the glass artist Carole Nunes. The window was installed in the north wing link corridor at St Thomas’ (any news of its present existence?). Other examples are the inclusions of sci-art exhibitions at the York Spring Meeting in 2002 (Newsletter #45, 2002, p.2 & back cover; announced in the previous newsletter) and at the Autumn Meeting 2016 in Edinburgh, where chimaera- and embryo-inspired artwork was on display (Newsletter #37/38, 2016/17, p.14). The sci-art exhibition in York prompted Phil Ingham to comment on science in society: “If the public are prepared to put their hands in their pockets to support the arts or sport, why then should they not be persuaded to support science in a similar way?” (Newsletter #23-2, 2002, p.10).  Unfortunately, this topic remains as important today as it was then, and this is clearly demonstrated by the current advocacy campaign which was initiated by the BSDB together with the Company of Biologists (Maartens et al., 2018; Prokop, 2018; several articles in Newsletter #37/38, 2016/17).

An internal communications issue observed over the decades is the attempt to integrate graduate students into society life (Fig.4). For example, a graduate student meeting at the Edinburgh conference in 1981 is mentioned in Newsletter #5 (1981, p.7), and there was an announcement of a PhD student conference in Autumn 1999 – although I could not spot any traces thereafter confirming that this meeting had taken place or reflecting on its success. Furthermore, there were attempts to animate PhD students to write for the newsletter (Newsletter #23-2, 2002, p.5), which then happened for a short while starting in 2003 (Newsletter #24-1, 2003, p.6). This was further promoted also by an announcement to pay students a £50 reward for writing meeting reports (Newsletter #23-2, 2002, p.10; Fig.4). An important step was taken with the inclusion of student representatives on the committee starting in 1987, joined by a postdoc representative in 2015, which eventually led to the introduction of a separate webpage for young members (Newsletter #37/38, 2016/17, p.35). The importance of uncovering this particular part of the society’s history became clear to me during an engaging conversation I had with our newly elected postgraduate representative, Jessica Forsyth (2018-21); learning the mere fact that she has become part of a thirty year history sparked enormous enthusiasm and the immediate idea to get in contact with former graduate representatives.

Fig. 4 Attempts to animate students to actively contribute to BSDB newsletters and activities.

A further interesting read are the articles announcing and explaining the introduction of new society awards and medals, such as the Waddington medal (Newsletter #36, 1997, p.9; Fig.5 to recognise contributions both to the field and to the Developmental Biology community in the UK), the Beddington medal to honour Rosa Beddington who had tragically died of cancer aged 45 in May 2001 (Newletter #23-2, 2002, p.2 – to recognise the achievements of PhD students), the Gurdon Summer Studentships (Newsletter #35, 2014, p.10 – to allow undergraduates to work in a lab over summer), the Cheryll Tickle medal (Newsletter #36, 2015, p.14 – to recognise achievements of female researches at their mid-stage career), and the Dennis Summerbell Lecture award (Newsletter #37/38, 2016/17, p.47 – to honour good work by postdoctoral rsearchers).

Fig. 5 First presentation of the Waddington medal design on the cover page of Newsletter #36 from 1997.

New to me was the origin of the BSDB logo, announced as a competition in 2001 (Newsletter #43, 2001, p.7). Out of 18 submissions, the design by Jeff Christiansen was the clear winner (Newsletter #44, 2001, p.25; Fig.6; logos). As Christiane Ruhrberg’s explained at her Cheryll Tickle medal lecture at the 2018 Spring meeting, she was the first person ever to have seen the logo, since Jeff stayed at her house when he designed it. – and it is little anecdotes like this that bring history to life.

Fig. 6 Jeff Christiansen’s designs that won the BSDB logo competition (Newsletter #44, 2001, p.25)

Each time I look at an issue, I stumble across other interesting features, and there will be many other topics and events worth reporting, such as the gradual development of scientific questions, themes and methodologies, the BSDB’s financial history, the development of its close and unique relationship with the Company of Biology, or little anecdotes such as the food poisoning at the York Spring Meeting in 2001 (Newsletter #45, 2002, p.2) which are also part of our society’s history. This said, the newsletters are now publicly available, and new discoveries can be made by anyone taking an interest! But please, be so kind to share your findings!

The BSDB Meeting programs

The current archive contains digitised meeting programs covering most of the meetings, from the inaugural conference of the newly formed SDB in 1964 (meeting #1) through to the present. Where no meeting schedules were encountered (although they may still be hidden somewhere in the materials!), I could retrieve a lot of detailed information from the newsletters covering the period after 1996 (although relevant conference information became less detailed in newsletters after 2002, likely due to the availability of programs online that are now lost). For conferences since 2007, I could often retrieve further information from organisers who still kept relevant files – and it might be a worthwhile effort to write to former conference organisers more systematically to unearth the occasional stock of documents collecting dust on shelves or in filing cabinets.

Fig. 7 Newsletter covers from 1993, 1995 and 1996 showing illustrations for meetings of the time which might reflect the actual meeting posters.

Meetings often start featuring in newsletters about 2-3 years leading up to the conference, and interesting planning developments can be observed during this period. For example, initial announcements of the Spring Meeting 2000 were entitled “Cell death and proliferation” which then refined into “Pattern formation and control of cell number”; or the Spring Meeting of 2002 started off as “Evolution & development” which then turned into “Evolution of developmental mechanisms”. Reconstructing the meeting history from newsletters also led to the addition of insightful meeting reports, and also a number of poster designs resurfaced in this way (Fig.7) – all added to our downloadable meeting documents.

Fig. 8 Phil Ingham and Jonathan Cooke, organisers of the 1988 BSDB Spring Symposium, pose together at the 70th anniversary Spring meeting in 2018.

In general, the recovered documents will be an exciting resource for those who attended or organised those meetings, and part of that excitement came across at the 70th anniversary Spring meeting in 2018 (Fig. 8). But the conference documents also provide an important insight into the scientific topics that dominated the field at any given time. They offer an opportunity for young developmental biologists to understand the historical roots of their specific sub-fields – and perhaps the surprising revelation that many questions they address today were already asked long before they got into science. The documents also make transparent which other societies the BSDB collaborated with over the years.


Fig. 9 Nick Hopwood showing an image of the early committee meeting notes during his talk about the history of Developmental Biology at the BSDB Spring meeting 2018

The early meeting notes

The hand-written meeting notes are the archive documents which are least accessible to a lay person, but might likely be the most interesting ones for historians (Fig.9). The two note books of the “The (London) Embryologists’ Club” digitised so far, cover meeting minutes of the time from its foundation in 1948 to its transition into the SDB in 1964 (Box 1). Book #1 covers mainly committee meetings, and book #2 predominantly scientific symposia and their associated general society meetings. The precise dates for the various minutes tend to be provided at the start of each entry, and meetings are usually signed off with date on the next meeting, providing a complementary means to deduce or confirm dates. Using these materials, Jonathan Slack extracted a brief overview of this period (Slack, 2000), but more work will be required. For example, they will enable us to partly reconstruct the early conference history before 1964 (i.e. the period not covered by current meeting documents; Box 1; archive list), and I already extracted a list of early presidents/chairs, officers (Appendix). Another interesting addition is the little rule book of the newly founded SDB (SDB-1964), to which we added some documents illustrating the transition process and the thoughts leading up to it.

Conclusions, your contributions, final home for the archive

Here I have explained the story behind the digital BSDB Archive and provided my personal view of its contents, relevance and potential applications. The BSDB will likely not go further with the digitisation, but has undertaken different steps to make its contents available. Thus, the Historical Collections of the John Innes Centre (collections.jic.ac.uk) has kindly offered to host and curate the BSDB archive, where it is now available side-by-side with the Genetics Society’s archive – a potential treasure to perform comparative studies into science history.

I hope that the “open source” nature of the BSDB Archive will attract wider interest and inspire others to join in and help develop its full potential – be it biologists browsing around, or (hobby) historians making systematic scientific use of it (Fig.10). As Carsten Timmermann wrote from his perspective as science historian: “Your archive is a little treasure trove and will enable us to understand the history of Developmental Biology in this country much better. I wish other societies would follow your example. If we had a whole set of similar archives at our disposal, this would help us to study the way the life sciences overall have developed, comparing and contrasting sub-disciplines and understanding trends. For example, one could look at conference programmes in different fields within the life sciences and study how molecular methods have transformed biology.

Fig. 10 Tweet by Cheryl Lancaster historian from Durham working on the history of stem cell science

I would like to finish this blog post by asking your help: if you read or study documents of the archive and gain any new insights, recall anecdotes, have additional background knowledge that complements available information, or realise that you hold any additional documents that might help to fill remaining gaps, please be so kind to contact comms@bsdb.org and let us know – it will be a helpful contribution to the wider understanding of the history of our society and field in general.

————————————————————-

References

British Society of Developmental Biology (BSDB) (1984). European Developmental Biology Congress (abstracts). J Embryol Exp Morphol Suppl. 1, 1-271 – [LINK]

Kelty, C. M. (2012). This is not an article: Model organism newsletters and the question of `open science’. BioSocieties 7, 140-68 – [LINK]

Maartens, A., Prokop, A., Brown, K., Pourquié, O. (2018). Advocating developmental biology. Development 145 — [LINK]

Prokop, A. (2018). What is Developmental Biology – and why is it important? Open Access Govern 17, 121-123 – [LINK]

Slack, J. M. (2000). A short history of the British Society for Developmental Biology. Int J Dev Biol 44, 79-83 — [LINK]

Vicente, C., Maartens, A., Brown, K. (2017). The Node and beyond – using social media in cell and developmental biology. Sem Cell Dev Biol  — [LINK]

————————————————————-

Appendix:

BSDB chairs & officers since 1948

This list was extracted from the digitised newsletters, note books and committee/general meeting minutes (Box 1; early officers). The precise years of transition between consecutive officers were not always easy to establish and might need further refinement.

Fig.11 Description of the roles of BSDB officers (Newsletter #1, 1979, p.2)

Chairs and presidents

  • Paul Martin (chair, 2019-2024)
  • Ottoline Leyser (chair, 2014-2019)
  • Elizabeth Robertson (chair, 2009-2014)
  • Matthew Freeman (chair, 2004-2009)
  • Phil Ingham (chair, 1999-2004)
  • Jim Smith (chair, 1994-1999)
  • Michael Akam (chair, 1989-1994)
  • Martin Johnson (chair, 1984-1989)
  • Chris Graham (chair, 1979-1984) – president: David R. Newth
  • Anne McLaren (1975-1979)
  • Michael Abercrombie (1970-75 – thereafter Honorary President)
  • David R. Newth (chair 1963-69)
  • William J. Hamilton (chair 1951-63)
  • John Dixon Boyd (chair, 1950)
  • E.A. Fraser (chair; 1948-50)
  • James P. Hill (first president; 1948-54)

Secretaries:

  • Tristan Rodriguez (2023-2028)
  • Megan Davey (2018-23)
  • Kim Dale (2013-18)
  • Mike Taylor (2008-13)
  • Robert Kelsh (2003-08)
  • Ivor Mason (1998-2003)
  • Jonathan Slack (1993-98)
  • Peter Thorogood (1988-93)
  • Chris Ford (1984-88)
  • Michael Balls (ca. 1978-1983; last 4 years Secretary/Treasurer)
  • John McKenzie (1975-ca.78)
  • J.C. Campbell (ca.1971-75)
  • Frank Billett (1967-ca.71)
  • Elizabeth M. Deuchar (1962-67)
  • Alan Fisk (1950-62)

Treasurer

  • Tom Bennett (2024-2029)
  • Cynthia Andoniadou (2019-2024)
  • Christopher Thompson (2014-19)
  • Andrew Fleming (2009-2014)
  • Guy Tear (2004–2009)
  • Ottoline Leyser (1999-2004)
  • Jonathan Bard (1994-99)
  • Liz Jones (1989-94)
  • Mary Bownes (1984-1989)
  • Michael Balls (ca.1979-84; Secretary/Treasurer)
  • J.R. Hinchliffe (ca.75-ca.79)
  • J. McKenzie (ca.1970-ca.75)
  • Alan Fisk (ca.1965-ca.70)
  • E.W. Baxter (1960-ca.65)
  • R.J. O’Connor (1950?-59)
  • Margaret Tribe (1948-50?)

Programme/Meetings secretary/officer

  • Shankar Srinivas (2023-28)
  • Sally Lowell (2018-23)
  • Joshua Brickman (2013-18)
  • James Briscoe (2008-2013)
  • Nancy Papalopulu (2003-2008)
  • Jamie Davies (1998-2003)
  • Ian Jackson (1993-98)
  • Rosa Beddington (1991-93)
  • Nigel Holder (1985-91)
  • Mike Snow (1981-85)
  • W.D. Billington (1976-81)
  • D.A. Ede (ca.1973-1976)

Publications secretary/Website co-ordinator/Communications officers

  • Raman Das (2023-28, communication)
  • Ben Steventon (2018-23, communication)
  • Andreas Prokop (2013-18, communication)
  • Malcolm Logan (2010-13, communication)
  • Andrew Jarman (2004-5 web, 2005-10 publications & web)
  • Kate Storey (2003-4, web)
  • Andy Furley (2000-05)
  • Vernon French (1995-2000)
  • Phil Ingham (1991-95)
  • Jim Smith (1986-91)
  • Chris Wylie (1984-86; before assistant secretary/treasurer)

Graduate/Student representative

  • Tamina Level (2021-24)
  • Jessica  Forsyth (2018-21)
  • Alexandra Ashcroft (2015-18)
  • Magdalena Stasiulewicz (2013-2015)
  • Jorge Beira (2011-2013)
  • Hayden Selvadurai (2009-2011)
  • Gareth Powell (2007-2009)
  • Raphaëla Kitson-Pantano (2005-2007)
  • Caroline Parkin (2003-2005)
  • Leigh Wilson (2001-2003)
  • Alison Wilkie (1998-2001)
  • Marcus Hicks (1996-98, joint)
  • Louise Smith (1996-98, joint)
  • — vacant —
  • Richard Twyman (1994)
  • Emily Gale (1991-94)
  • Karen Jacques (1987-91)

Postdoc representative

  • Anahi Binaugi-Casas (2021-26)
  • Charlotte Sophie Louise Bailey (2018-21)
  • Michelle Ware (2015-18)

Education officer

  • David Wilkinson (2002-2006)
  • Corinne Houart (2003-2007)

Richard Gardner is the 2018 BSDB Waddington Medal winner

The Waddington Medal is the only national award in Developmental Biology. It honours outstanding research performance as well as services to the subject community. The medal is awarded annually at the BSDB Spring Meeting, where the recipient presents the Waddington Medal Lecture. Here we introduce the 2018 winner Richard Gardner who won the 2018 Waddington medal for his outstanding work in the field of early embryogenesis and stem cells, as well as continued contributions to the development of our field and the shaping of science policy in the UK.

Born in 1943,  Richard Lavenham Gardner, Kt, MA, PhD, ScD, FIAT(Hon), FRSB, FRS studied at St. Catharine’s College and the University of Cambridge from 1963-1966, graduating with a First Class Honours B.A. in Physiology. For his PhD, he remained in Cambridge in the Physiological Laboratory of Robert Edwards (Nobel prize winner, pioneer in reproductive medicine and in vitro fertilisation/IVF), where he worked alongside Martin Johnson and was awarded his title in 1971 for his thesis entitled “Investigation of the mammalian blastocyst by microsurgery”. He stayed on in Edward’s lab as a research assistant for another three years, from where he moved to a University Lecturer position at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford (1973-77). During that time (and beyond) he was a Visiting World Health Organization Fellow in Warsaw and Zagreb and Student of Christ Church (Oxford). In 1978 he became Henry Dale Research Professor of the Royal Society at the University of Oxford until 2003. Thereafter he held position as Edward Penley Abraham Research Professor of the Royal Society (2003-8), honorary Visiting Professor at the University of York (2007-16), and is now an Associate at the University of Oxford and Emeritus Student of Christ Church, Oxford.

Scientifically, Richard is well known as a pioneer in the study of early mammalian development, having made many hugely important discoveries relating to the fate of cells in early mammalian development and the properties of stem cells derived from early embryos (see selected papers below). These were made possible by his strong knack for identifying important questions and addressing them in innovative and at the same time definitive ways, always with extremely elegant experimental design.

His numerous important scientific contributions include: being the first to use clonal analysis to fate map the early mouse embryo, along with experimental manipulations to assess the potency of individual cells, establishing how the germ line is segregated in the early embryo, and pioneering blastocyst injection for studying stem cell potency. His work laid essential foundations for preimplantation genetic diagnosis, now widely used in human fertility clinics, and for the embryonic stem cell (ESC) field. He was one of the pioneers developing and using micromanipulation techniques in mammalian embryos, the kind of technique now commonly used, for example for human IVF and cloning (such as the cloning of the sheep Dolly). He is also known for his work on embryonic stem cell derivation (together with Frances Brook), demonstrating that ESCs originate from the epiblast and that the most efficient method to derive them in mouse is to use delayed-implanting blastocysts (diapause blastocyst).

The four surviving ICRF Developmental Biology Unit group leaders – Philip Ingham, David Ish Horowicz, Richard Gardner and Jonathan Slack at the BSDB Spring Meeting 2018.

Awards and Honours

    • Waddington Medal of the British Society of Developmental Biology (2018)
    • Patrick Steptoe Memorial Lecturer and medallist (2015)
    • Honorary Doctorate of Science from the University of Cambridge (2012)
    • Annual Lecturer Cumberland Lodge (2010)
    • Honorary Fellow, St. Catharine’s College, University of Cambridge, UK (2007)
    • Knight Batchelor in the Queens’ Birthday Honours (2005)
    • Albert Brachet Prize of the Belgian Royal Academy (2004)
    • Karl Beyer Visiting Professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA (2001)
    • Royal (Queen’s) Medal of the Royal Society (2001)
    • March of Dimes International Prize in Developmental Biology (1999)
    • Elected Fellow of the Royal Society of London (1979)
    • Scientific Medal of the Zoological Society of London (1977)
    • Belfield-Clarke Prize for the Biological Sciences (1966)
    • Elected Scholar of St. Catharine’s College (1966)
    • Kitchener Scholar (1963-66)
    • Prizes for Physics and Biology (1963)
    • First Prize in Natural History Essay (1959)
    • First Prize in Natural History Essay (1958)

Throughout his education and scientific career, Richard has excelled in outstanding performance, as is clearly demonstrated by the long list of awards and honours (see Box); and he has always been a committed member of the Developmental Biology community who contributed notably also in policy making relating to ethical issues connected with access and use of human embryos in research, ethical aspects of cloning, and ethical use of animals in research. His dedication is clearly reflected in the many important positions he served in throughout his career:

  • Editor of the journal Development (formerly J. Embryol. Exp. Morph, 1977-91) and editorial board member of the journals Gamete Research, Placenta and Cancer Surveys
  • President of the Institute of Animal Technology (1986-2006)
  • Independent Member of the Advisory Board for the Research Council (1989-93)
  • together with Walter Bodmer (head of ICRF) he co-founded the Cancer Research UK Developmental Biology Unit at Oxford’s Zoology Department (attracting the likes of Andy Copp, David Ish Horowitz, Jonathan Slack, Julian Lewis and Phil Ingham), of which he was Honorary Director (1986-96)
  • Vice President of the Zoological Society of London (1991-92)
  • Vice-President and Member of the Laboratory Animal Science Association Council (1996-99)
  • Trustee and then chair of the Edward Penley Abraham Research Fund (1999, 2003)
  • President of the Institute of Biology (now Royal Society of Biology; 2007- 08)
  • Chair of the Royal Society Working Group on Stem Cells and Therapeutic Cloning (1998-08)
  • Chair of the Animals in Science Education Trust (AS-ET; current)
  • Author of numerous reports to commissions, committees and inquiries of significant political impact
  • Organiser of various scientific conferences, meetings or discussion forums.

Richard’s enormous influence is also reflected in the fact that he was mentor to many illustrious embryologists, including Janet Rossant (PhD, 1976), Andrew Copp (DPhil, 1978), John Heath (DPhil, 1979), Paul Tesar (DPhil, 2007), Virginia E. Papaioannou (postdoc, 1973-81), Jenny Nichols (PhD, 1990), Karen Downs (1989-93) and the recipient of the 1999 Waddington medal Rosa Beddington (D. Phil., 1983) – to name but a few.

But it should also be pointed out that aside all this prolific work in science as well as science administration and policy, Richard still has been finding time for an impressive number of hobbies, of which he lists ornithology, music, sailing (unfortunately no longer!), gardening, clay shooting and painting landscapes in watercolour. To illustrate Richard’s continued dedication, he donated his latest three watercolour paintings to the AS-ET and they were sold for a gratifying £1150 to provide bursaries and other awards to enable laboratory animal technicians to advance their education and training.

The BSDB would like to congratulate Richard Gardner for the Waddington award, of which he certainly is a most worthy recipient.

An eclectic selection of some of Richard Gardner’s major landmarks publications:

    1. Gardner, RL (1968) Mouse chimeras obtained by the injection of cells into the blastocyst. Nature 220: 596-7This paper describes the method of blastocyst injection in which small groups of donor cells derived from a genetically-distinct blastocyst are injected into the blastocoel cavity of a host blastocyst; chimeric blastocysts are then transferred to a foster mother and gestated to term. The paper also demonstrates that blastocyst cells contribute to the adult animal and germ line. The technique of blastocyst injection is still used routinely both to generate transgenic mouse models using genetically-modified embryonic stem cells.
    2. Gardner RL, Lyon MF (1971) X chromosome inactivation studied by injection of a single cell into the mouse blastocyst. Nature 231: 385-6Using blastocyst injection of single inner cell mass (ICM) cells combined with genetic markers, this paper shows that the adult animal is derived from the ICM. It is also a landmark paper in the history of the discovery of X-inactivation.
    3. Gardner RL, Papaioannou VE, Barton SC. (1973) Origin of the ectoplacental cone and secondary giant cells in mouse blastocysts reconstituted from isolated trophoblast and inner cell mass. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 30: 561-72In contrast to “blastocyst injection” (above) to determine the fate/potency of ICM cells via injection into the blastocoel cavity, the technique of “blastocyst reconstitution” was created to discover the fate and potency of the trophectoderm. The paper demonstrates that the trophectoderm gives rise to major components of the chorionic component of the placenta but not to the embryo proper. This allowed him to create the first fate maps of the mouse conceptus.
    4. Gardner, RL (1982) Investigation of cell lineage and differentiation in the extraembryonic endoderm of the mouse embryo. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 68: 175-98At implantation, the ICM segregates into epiblast and primitive endoderm (PE). Using blastocyst injection, this paper shows that PE generates visceral and parietal endoderm, which are supporting tissues for the ICM-derived epiblast. This study expanded the mouse fate map to show that ICM gives rise to epiblast and primitive endoderm.
    5. Gardner RL, Meredith MR, Altman DG. (1992) Is the anterior-posterior axis of the fetus specified before implantation in the mouse? J Exp Zool. 264: 437-43This paper provides the first evidence that head-tail orientation of the early embryo is established prior to the overt appearance of the primitive streak.
Acknowledgements: Andreas Prokop would like to thank Berenika Plusa for helpful information, Richard Gardner for sending information, images and approving the draft of this article, and Claudio Stern and Jonathan Slack for helpful information and thoughts taken from their nomination text.

The Waddington lecture

Emilia Favuzzi: winner of the 2018 Beddington medal

The Beddington Medal is the BSDB’s major commendation to promising young biologists, awarded for the best PhD thesis in Developmental Biology defended in the year previous to the award. Rosa Beddington was one of the greatest talents and inspirational leaders in the field of developmental biology. Rosa made an enormous contribution to the field in general and to the BSDB in particular, so it seemed entirely appropriate that the Society should establish a lasting memorial to her. The design of the medal, mice on a stylised DNA helix, is from artwork by Rosa herself. We would like to congratulate the 2018 winner of the Beddington Medal, Emilia Favuzzi, and would like to take this opportunity to give a brief overview of her career and her PhD project that was awarded the Beddington medal.

Emilia started her studies in 2007 at the Sapienza University of Rome and was awarded a B.Sc. in Biological Sciences with highest marks in 2010. She stayed at the same university for her Master’s project which she performed in the laboratory of Sergio Nasi at the Institute of Molecular Biology and Pathology (CNR, Rome). She completed her M.Sc. in Neurobiology in 2011, again with highest marks. In 2011 she joined the group of Beatriz Rico at the Institute of Neuroscience in Alicante (Spain) and moved with that group to the Centre for Developmental Neurobiology at King’s College London in 2014 where she terminated her project work. Her PhD in Neuroscience was awarded in 2017 by the University Miguel Hernandez of Elche (Spain) also with summa cum laude. Since 2017 she is a postdoctoral associate in Gordon Fishell’s laboratory at the Broad Institute and Harvard Medical School.

 

Fig.1 Activity-dependent gating of parvalbumin interneuron function by the perineuronal net protein Brevican

During her PhD, Emilia worked on two projects which were both based on candidate and genome-wide screen approaches aiming to identify genes that were involved in GABAergic synapse formation. In one project, she investigated the role of perineuronal nets during the synaptic development of GABAergic interneurons. She discovered that the perineuronal net component Brevican is involved in the gating of parvalbumin interneurons by controlling their intrinsic properties as well as extrinsic input through excitatory synapses (Fig.1). This paper was published as a featured article in Neuron (2017). Emilia also took ownership within a parallel project, where she collaborated with another lab member to set up protocols to isolate different populations of interneurons and screen for genes involved in the specific synaptic targeting of cortical interneurons to the different compartments of pyramidal cells. This work led to the discovery of validated candidate genes involved in specific interneuron synapse formation, as shown via loss and gain of function approaches (Fig.2). The respective manuscript is in preparation and Emilia will be shared first author.

Her PhD supervisor Beatriz Rico said about her: “Emilia is a gift for a supervisor: she goes ahead of you, technically and conceptually and pushes you forward. She is brilliant, extremely motivated and creative person and resistant to any difficulties she has found during the development of her project. She never gave up and pursues her aims with an impressive efficiency. She is extremely independent and hard worker. She is fully committed to science, a dream for a supervisor.

 

Fig. 2 Highly selective cell-type specific programs regulate inhibitory synapse specification

Emilia receives the Beddington medal from Simon Bullock

Thesis abstract: Cell-type specific programs regulate the assembly and dynamics of cortical circuits

Understanding how neuronal connections are established and organized in functional networks during development is critical to understand brain function. In the mammalian cortex, GABAergic interneurons are characterized by a remarkable diversity of types and connectivity patterns. As such, they are uniquely suited to orchestrate functionally relevant circuit-specific roles and critically shape cortical function. Yet, how inhibitory circuit specificity is achieved during development is largely unknown. We revealed the transcriptional dynamics of different cortical interneurons during brain wiring and identified subtype-enriched synaptic molecules. Moreover, we showed that the functional connectivity of different interneurons relies on the cell-specific expression of such synaptic genes. Altogether, our results demonstrate that highly selective molecular programs emerging during development in cortical interneurons support their early wiring and underlie inhibitory circuit specificity. After their integration into canonical circuits, activity-dependent plasticity endows neurons with the flexibility required for adapting to sensory experience. Parvalbumin (PV+) interneurons have been shown to play a critical role in this process but the molecular mechanisms by which experience influences PV+ interneuron plasticity were poorly understood. We revealed how perineuronal net (PNN) proteins drive PV+ cell wiring as well as network adaptation to experience. We showed that the PNN protein Brevican simultaneously regulates the excitatory inputs and firing properties of PV+ interneurons by controlling the localization of AMPA receptors and potassium channels, respectively. We also showed that, by modulating Brevican levels, experience influences cellular and synaptic forms of plasticity in PV+ cells and this is required for normal cognitive function. These findings uncover a cell-specific molecular program through which a PNN protein dynamically gates PV+ interneuron function both during development and upon experience-dependent plasticity.

 

Papers by Emilia so far (* co-first authors)

Favuzzi E*, Deogracias R*, Marques-Smith A, Maeso P, Exposito-Alonso D, Balia M, Jezequel J, Kroon T, Hinojosa AJ, Rico B. Highly selective cell-type specific programs regulate structural synapse target specificity (manuscript in preparation) 

Favuzzi E, Marques-Smith A, Deogracias R, Winterflood CM, Sánchez-Aguilera A, Mantoan L, Maeso P, Fernandes C, Ewers H, Rico B. Activity-dependent gating of parvalbumin interneuron function by perineuronal net proteins. Neuron (2017)

Marques-Smith A*, Favuzzi E* & Rico B. Shaping Early Networks To Rule Mature Circuits: Little MiRs Go A Long Way. Neuron (preview), (2016)

Annibali D*, Whitfield JR*, Favuzzi E, Jauset T, Serrano E, Cuartas I, Redondo-Campos S, et al. Myc inhibition is effective against glioma and reveals a role for Myc in proficient mitosis. Nature Communications (2014)

Savino M, Annibali D, Carucci N, Favuzzi E, Cole MD, Evan GI, Soucek L, Nasi S. The Action Mechanism of the Myc Inhibitor Termed Omomyc May Give Clues on How to Target Myc for Cancer Therapy. PLoS One (2011)

The new BSDB Newsletter: a focus on communication & advocacy

Please, have a look at the newest issue of the BSDB newsletter, which can be downloaded here. It covers two eventful years of our society’s history and is by far the longest ever published! This seems only appropriate considering that 2018 marks the 70th anniversary of the BSDB’s foundation. In recognition of its history, the BSDB has decided to digitise all its newsletters which have recently been re-discovered in an almost forgotten archive. They will be gradually uploaded on our archive page (bsdb.org/about-us/bsdb-newsletters) where issue no. 1 from 1979 has already been linked out to get the ball rolling. We have now first lists of the archive’s contents which seem to date back to the early 60s. If you have an interest in these, please contact comms@bsdb.org. Also, if you have further thoughts on how to catalogue and store the archive safely for the future, please let us know.

Editorial: My final newsletter – and some thoughts about communication

This is my final newsletter as communications officer of the BSDB. I must admit that I enormously enjoyed the task, and can only hope that the changes to our website and the ways in which the society has been represented during my time in office are seen positively by our members. It is my pleasure to announce that Ben Steventon (p.6) has agreed to take over as BSDB communication officer from autumn 2018. I am confident that he will do a brilliant job.

Unlike previous editions, this newsletter covers two years of our society’s life. But honestly, did you even notice the delay? Extrapolating from the download metrics of former newsletters, the long gap is very likely to have gone widely unnoticed, and I can see two reasons for this. Firstly, on the positive side, all our society news is now being published more promptly on our website or on The Node. This changes the nature of the newsletter from being a source of primary information, and turns it into a legacy item or even a historical document for future BSDB generations. This is reason enough for the BSDB to continue with its newsletter. Secondly, a reason of more concern is that the low viewer numbers likely reflect a tendency of communication fatigue in our community. Let me briefly extend on these thoughts before outlining the content of this newsletter.

The BSDB informs promptly online

If I have done my job well for the last two years, the contents of this newsletter should no longer be news to you, but rather be a reminder of our active society life during this period. I have made every effort that news was brought to you promptly via our website or through The Node. Of these, The Node has become an increasingly important medium.

Maintained by The Company of Biologists as a communication platform for the community of biomedical scientists, it has taken on the form of a modern electronic newsletter that reaches out internationally. As explained in a recent publication, The Node’s community manager Aidan Maartens either authors or commissions meeting reports, book reviews, obituaries or interview transcripts, and collates community-relevant information about meetings and workshops. Importantly, we as individuals or societies can use The Node as a communication platform to advertise jobs and events, write about science-related topics, explain our latest publications, or share community-relevant experiences. Once registered, we can publish freely and ‘uncensored’ as long as we keep within The Node’s reasonable rules. In this way, we can capitalise on a very well established communication platform, which is further enhanced by The Node’s Twitter and Facebook accounts, each with thousands of followers. Much of the science-related news that would previously have been disseminated via the BSDB newsletter or website, is being covered by The Node, taking an enormous work load off my shoulders – and the same can likely be said for Developmental/Cell Biology societies worldwide. There is true synergy and, naturally, more community members visit The Node’s website than the BSDB’s. Consequently, I closely collaborate with Aidan and follow a strategy in which many of our news posts are published on The Node – of course always making sure that they are likewise accessible through our own site.

This said, the BSDB website still has an important purpose. User metrics indicate that our site has its prime function in BSDB-specific information, such as our conference and travel grants, awards and meetings and committee information. I take great care that these pages are updated as soon as new information is available. Please, let me or Ben know if there is anything that’s wrong or missing – we’ll act swiftly.

Is our communication failing?

Regardless of whether newsletters occur in static journal format or as dynamic websites, they often are important motors for scientific communities and their science, as is well explained in an article by C. M. Kelty from 2012. But does this strategy still work effectively? I sometimes feel that we were better informed in pre-internet times when information was less abundant but focussed on the essentials, and when dissemination was easier because the readership was hungry for information. Today, we tend to see quantity over quality: more than a hundred emails rain into our accounts every day, and social media timelines have become so busy that there is hardly time to view even a fraction of the messages. And, even if information is being read, I see little evidence that this leads to impactful social media debates. Furthermore, the sharing of information on social media is short-lived and often ineffective as can be deduced from viewer metrics of shared links. Even the use of social media as a mere source of professional information seems to fail: a survey by The Node showed that most members of our community have no Twitter account. Even more alarmingly, subscription rates to websites are low (~900 for The Node and ~150 for the BSDB), when considering that the BSDB alone has a ~1400 strong membership. In a nutshell, besides not reading the newsletter, many of us are not tapping into the existing online community news channels.

In consequence, important information can no longer be disseminated effectively and reliably, and our community no longer has the means to develop a common voice. This clearly weakens us in times where the need for communicating the importance of fundamental science is perhaps greater than ever. In recognition of this challenge, many contributions in this issue are dedicated to the topic of science communication: our chair Ottoline Leyser speaks about the importance of communication (p.4); a dedicated article explains the BSDB’s advocacy campaign in collaboration with The Node (p.23); an overview of a recent special issue on science communication in the field of biomedical science is being provided (p.27); our student and postdoc representatives announce a writing competition aiming at advocacy (p.31); the example of an advocacy article for Open Access Government is given (p.78).

Further contents of this issue

As usual, the start of this newsletter is made by the chair’s and officers’ reports. In the chair’s address (p.4), Ottoline Leyser reflects on the BSDB as an inclusive, co-operative, and outward looking society, and the need to uphold these traits in times of Brexit and worldwide political tendencies of isolationism; Ottoline ends her address with some thoughts on the importance of communication. The secretary’s report by Kim Dale (p.5) highlights the positive developments of the BSDB in terms of its steadily growing membership. She notes that, in 2018, the committee will see a turn-over of 5 members (see also p.7) – so await a call for nominations before the next Spring Meeting. In the same vein, the three new members that have joined the committee in 2017 are being introduced on page 6. The meetings officer Joshua Brickman (p.9) looks back at the BSDB’s excellent meeting record of the last two years (see also meeting reports on pages 11 and 14), and gives an outlook on the exciting meetings planned for the next three years (see also p.10), including the BSDB’s 70th anniversary meeting taking place 15-18 April 2018 in Warwick (see this issue’s cover image). The treasurer’s report by Chris Thompson (p.19) is an impressive account of the high number of members that were supported to attend meetings or workshops in 2016 and 2017, and sends out the reconfirming message that our financial status remains solid, providing the BSDB with continued capacity to support its members and their science-related activities. Our student & postdoc representatives, Alexandra Ashcroft and Michelle Ware (p.30), report about their outstanding efforts to deliver on the requests of junior members expressed during the survey from 2015. In response, Alex and Michelle introduced a very successful career workshop (see the respective reports on p.32) and a new career website (detailed on p.35). Finally, the newsletter concludes with reports about our main awardees of the last two years, in particular the winners of the Waddington (p.38), Cheryll Tickle (p.41) and Beddington medals (p.45), as well as the two Dennis Summerbell awardees (p.47), and 14 project reports by students who were supported by the Gurdon/The Company of Biologists Summer Studentship scheme. See a complete overview of all awardees, including poster prize winners (p.36) – and remember that most award lectures were documented and are available on our YouTube channel.

Andreas Prokop