Every week, Science publishes a few articles that are likely to be of interest to career-minded readers. But because those articles aren't featured on Science Careers, our readers could easily overlook them.

To remedy that, every Friday we're pointing readers toward articles appearing in Science—the print magazine as well as the other Science-family publications (ScienceInsider, ScienceNow, Science Translational MedicineSci. TM—and Science Signaling)—that hold some relevance or nuggets of advice for readers interested in furthering their careers in science. (Please note that while articles appearing in ScienceInsider and ScienceNow can be read by anyone, articles appearing in Sci. TM and Science may require AAAS membership/Science subscription or a site license.)

• Let's start with this week's monumental news: For the first time ever, a human-made object has exited the solar system. Or not.

It's Official—Voyager Has Left the Solar System. "After 36 years of hurtling toward the edge of the solar system," Richard Kerr writes, in Science's News and Analysis section, "the Voyager 1 spacecraft—its sensors failing, its energy running low—has crossed into the abyss of interstellar space. At least, that is now the consensus view of Voyager mission team leaders." Not everyone agrees with that conclusion—especially because one very important milestone—the change in direction of the magnetic field—has not yet been observed. " 'I don't think it's a certainty Voyager is outside now,' says space physicist David McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. 'It may well have crossed,' he says, but without a magnetic field direction change, 'I don't know what to make of it.' " Two other scientists are even more skeptical:

Heliophysicist Gloeckler and heliosphere theorist Lennard Fisk, both research professors at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, simply reject the Voyager team's interpretation. "We have not crossed the heliopause," Gloeckler says. "We're way out there, by far a minority, but we can explain every Voyager result in a pretty natural way." The jump in plasma density is merely the solar wind piling up just inside the heliopause, he says.

It's an interesting story about the interplay of opinions and how scientific consensus is reached, especially when the most basic definitions aren't exactly clear (in this case, the definition of "outside").

The story also offers a taste of what it's like to work on a project that lasts this long. " 'I never knew I was signing up for a lifetime,' says Voyager principal investigator Stamatios Krimigis of the Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland. 'It's a marvelous mission, but I'm doing succession planning.' "

• In ScienceInsider, Jocelyn Kaiser reports from Thursday's Research!America forum, noting that, according to NIH Director Francis Collins, because of budget cuts including sequestration, research-grant success rates may fall as low 14-15% this year, considerably lower than the previously predicted 17%.

• I find most science prizes a bit boring—the Ig Nobel Prizes awarded yesterday being an obvious exception—partly because the people who win them are usually safe choices, obviously deserving but, well, obvious. In particular, younger scientists rarely win: When was the last time you saw a major science award go to someone in their 30s? (William Lawrence Bragg was 25 when he won his Nobel, but that was 98 years ago.)

As noted in the News of the Week section, last week the International Balzan Foundation announced the winners of the exceptionally rich Balzan Prize. One of the Balzan awards went to Alain Aspect, a physicist at the École Polytechnique in Palaiseau, France, for his experiments to confirm quantum theory and explore quantum entanglement. While Aspect is not particularly young, the award was partly for work he did as a Ph.D. student in the early 1980s, which confirmed that "spooky action at a distance" is real. Another Balzan prize went to Pascale Cossart of the Institut Pasteur in Paris. The third scientific Balzan award went to sociologist Manuel Castells of the University of Southern California for his theories about the social impact of the digital age and the global flow of information. (A fourth award went to André Vauchez for his studies of medieval spirituality and Western Christianity. With three winners out of four awards, it was a good year for the French.) Each of the four Balzan recipients received $800,000, half reserved for future research projects.


CREDIT: From the work of Sriram Subramaniam and colleagues/NIH

Resistance is futile. A 3D map from cryoelectron tomography of a "trimeric spike" of HIV's gp120 (red) bound by a potent bNAb (blue).

Also announced last week were the winners of the prestigious Lasker Awards for basic and clinical biomedical research. The basic research award was shared by Richard H. Scheller of Genentech and Thomas C. Südhof of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, for "discoveries concerning the molecular machinery and regulatory mechanism that underlie the rapid release of neurotransmitters." The clinical award was shared by three scientists—Graeme M. Clark, Ingeborg Hochmair, and Blake S. Wilson—for "the development of the modern cochlear implant."  In an interesting career-related twist, Hochmair is part of a two-engineer couple; her husband Erwin Hochmair collaborates on her cochlear implant work, but he did not share the award.

In a Sci. TM editorial, Eric J. Topol (who, for what it's worth, was once an excellent panelist at a Science Careers career event I hosted) suggests that medical students should routinely be taught how to annotate whole-genome sequences (WGS) so that "future physicians will be capable of rendering routine genomic medicine." The editorial includes some other provocative details, such as the fact that physician/anatomist William Harvey, who is known as the father of the circulatory system, dissected the bodies of his deceased father and sister, discovering that his father's colon and his sister's spleen were especially large. That's probably something that every medical student knows, but I hadn't heard it before.

"Many medical educators believe that the human face of dissection fosters professionalism by promoting respect for the human body," Topol writes. He argues that familiarity with ones own genome may have a similar effect:

A student’s access to his or her DNA sequence would undoubtedly have a profound, lifelong impact. WGS is instructive about maternal and paternal ancestry, one’s proportion of Neandertal genome, carrier states for a wide variety of Mendelian conditions that become crucial when conceiving or screening children, drug interactions for efficacy and major side effects, and susceptibility to or protection from hundreds of diseases and medical conditions. Students will gain an understanding of the physiological importance, nuances, and complexities of the regulatory genome—the 98.5% that comprises the non–protein-coding DNA sequence. Perhaps most importantly, dealing with one’s own massive data set of 6 billion nucleotides and ~250 billion data points (assuming 40X coverage) will provide a student with an excellent grounding in the essential challenges in bioinformatics.

• It's not surprising that new ways of doing science pay scientific dividends; it's expected. But when it happens it's worth pointing out. The research advances described in Jon Cohen's excellent and hopeful News Focus story in Science are the result of a massive effort—including approaches to research that, while not completely new, have become much more common and important in recent years.

When a Malawi man visited a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases, he was enrolled in a clinical study that aimed to find people within weeks of having acquired an HIV infection. His blood samples were studied by "[a] large collaboration led by Duke's Haynes and John Mascola from NIAID's Vaccine Research Center." The collaboration made it possible to document his antibody response, including the emergence of a broadly neutralizing antibody (bNAb). (By the way, bNAbs are the particular focus of this week's special issue on antibodies.) "Now, this window into antibody evolution is inspiring a strategy to design a bNAb-based vaccine," Cohen writes. Large-throughput techniques were also important to the effort; in particular, "a screen of massive gp120 libraries led to one that strongly bound both their putative germline antibody and the mature bNAb that evolved from it."

I asked Cohen to comment further. Here is his e-mailed response:

These centers/consortia put together people from different institutions with different specialties: structural biologists and immunologists, mainly, but also virologists, field workers, sequencers, and evolutionary biologists. This type of cutting-edge science requires diversity. Look, for example, at the effort to map the emergence of a broadly neutralizing antibody in an individual and the co-evolution of his HIV. Here's the long list of authors on the Nature paper that describes the work:

Hua-Xin Liao, Rebecca Lynch, Tongqing Zhou, Feng Gao, S. Munir Alam, Scott D. Boyd, Andrew Z. Fire, Krishna M. Roskin, Chaim A. Schramm, Zhenhai Zhang, Jiang Zhu, Lawrence Shapiro, NISC Comparative Sequencing Program{James C. Mullikin, S. Gnanakaran, Peter Hraber, Kevin Wiehe, Garnett Kelsoe, Guang Yang, Shi-Mao Xia, David C. Montefiori, Robert Parks, Krissey E. Lloyd, Richard M. Scearce, Kelly A. Soderberg, Myron Cohen, Gift Kamanga, Mark K. Louder, Lillian M. Tran, Yue Chen, Fangping Cai, Sheri Chen, Stephanie Moquin, Xiulian Du, M. Gordon Joyce, Sanjay Srivatsan, Baoshan Zhang, Anqi Zheng, George M. Shaw, Beatrice H. Hahn, Thomas B. Kepler, Bette T. M. Korber, Peter D. Kwong, John R. Mascola & Barton F. Haynes

Look at what they did, in bold:

Author Contributions H.-X.L., R.L., T.Z. and F.G. contributed equally to this work. H.-X.L. led production of antibodies and Env proteins, designed assays, analysed data and edited the paper; R.L. generated antibodies and performed assays; T.Z. co-led the structural biology team, performed structural studies, analysed data, and edited the paper; F.G. generated autologous Env sequences and viruses; S.M.A. performed surface plasmon reasonance analysis; S.D.B., A.Z.F., J.C.M. and K.M.R. performed pyrosequencing; C.A.S., Z.Z., J.Z. and L.S. analysed pyrosequences; S.G., P.H., B.T. and M.K. performed antibody and Env sequence analysis, and edited the paper; G.K. and G.Y. performed polyreactivity assays and analysis; S.-M.X. and D.C.M. performed neutralization assays and analysis; R.P., K.E.L. and R.M.S developed and performed ELISAs; K.A.S., M.C. and G.K. performed cohort development, patient recruitment, management and sampling; M.K.L. and L.M.T. performed neutralization assays; Y.C., F.C. and S.C. performed Env cloning and sequencing, S.M., X.D., M.G.J., S.S., B.Z. and A.Z. performed experiments related to crystallization, structure determination, and structural analysis; G.M.S. and B.H.H. generated autologous Env sequences and edited the paper; T.B.K. performed antibody gene sequence analysis and inferred ancestor and intermediate antibodies and edited the paper; P.D.K. co-led the structural biology team and collected and analysed data, and edited the paper; J.R.M. isolated antibodies, designed assays, analysed data, and edited the paper; B.F.H. designed and directed the study, read and interpreted antinuclear antibody assays, analysed data, and wrote and edited the paper.

That's a whole lot of different professionals with different careers.

Jim Austin is the editor of Science Careers. @SciCareerEditor on Twitter

10.1126/science.caredit.a1300198