Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 10 April 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2008.745
News
Next week's News
Your chance to tell us what you want to read, and why.
Welcome to an experiment. In the article below you will find brief descriptions of three papers that have caught our interest at Nature.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
I'd like to see you explore the article... Two: Little lives? It could give insight into the origins of life and possibly support or refute the idea of metabolism first theories.
I'd like to see more on nanobacteria as well. When I first heard about them, after the martian meteorite claims, there were many people, like Woese, objecting that nothing that small could be alive. Clearly if they had the same architecture as normal cells this would be true but what if they were from an earler pre-ribosomal stage of life? This idea has occurred to a number of people but seems to have generated no research even though current origins research is 'stuck'. Recent claims for small nanoparticles in vCJD may also be relevant.
Tell about breast cancer. It is very common now a days.Say, Metastatic carcinomas, its symptoms, diagonis and latest treatments.
I missed specific instructions on how and till when to cast the vote. I am most interested in "Pointless peacocks" because sexual selection has been so hard to demonstrate in practice, and it is important to have received wisdom questioned.
I would also like to read about nanobacteria. This issue seems add to the philosophical debate on what exactly life is. Should we change our definition of life? Do we even need to have a definition, or should we leave a wide gray area between living and non-living things? Or are the concepts "alive" and "not alive" not mutually exclusive, like particle and wave?
FROM THE EDITORS: Thanks for your feedback. Based on your responses we'll have a full story about the nanobacteria paper posted here by Thursday - along with a fresh batch of "next week's news" for you to choose from.
FROM THE EDITORS: And here's your story about the nanobacteria paper (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080417/full/news.2008.762.html). Next week's round of voting can be found at http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080417/full/news.2008.765.html. And thanks for your participation!