Crowd cries for more from Oshen

first_imgOshen entertained the crowd with a song sung in a local Morobe language before performing his hit “throw away the guns”.His third performance “meri lewa” got the crowd singing along as he involved his audience in musical fun.He left the crowd screaming “one more, one more” before Sir George Telek came on stage.And it was then  fireworks galore as Prote  J performed on stage againlast_img

Watch Out. How To Protect Your Online Reputation

first_imgEveryone has a reputation to protect. And anyone who’s hoping for a new job or a promotion must be especially vigilant, as should consultants and entrepreneurs.The question is: What are the best ways to make yours sparkle and brush away any dirt?Last week, I joined a webinar on Online Reputation Management, conducted by Janet Driscoll Miller, CEO of Search Mojo, which gave me some new tools and tips worth sharing. The first one comes from Miller’s own name: If you have a common name (like Janet Miller) and could be confused with someone else (like so many are), “somewhat rebrand yourself with initials or a middle name,” she said. “Make your name as unique as you can make it” and you won’t have your reputation sullied with someone else’s sins.This is smart advice for the Smiths, but also anyone who needs to be found, whether they work as an independent lawyer or a contract social marketing manager.So what is reputation management? “I look at it as presenting our brand in a positive light,” said Miller, who started her career in public relations. “You have both a personal brand and a business brand. Both are important.”For many professionals, their reputation “becomes your stock in trade and a lever for success,” reputation and crisis management consultant Deon Binneman writes in a blog post titled “Your Name Is a Precious Commodity.”  He notes that a reputation needs constant work “just like a gardener attending to his flower beds…. It does not take much for weeds to grow, pests to come and flowers to wilt.”Like gardening, it’s crucial to protect your brand, to prevent negative things from happening or showing up. Here were three of Miller’s best tips on prevention:Buy the domain names of your name.Pick up the .com and .org and .nets and you avoid confusion in the future.Build out your social profiles. They rank well on Google searches, giving the message about yourself that you have crafted. Besides the usuals, she suggests as quite valuable Google+, Slideshare, YouTube and Vimeo.Watch your name and brand online. She suggested both Google Alerts, and Giga Alert, plus Trackur as ways to pay attention to what’s being said about you. I wasn’t familiar with the latter two and plan to check them out this week.Reputation.com offers Ten Commandments of Online Reputation Management that are similar to Millers, and include two  that are worth sharing here:Behave as if there is no such thing as privacy. Any tweet, email or text could possibly be made public. So don’t say it if you don’t want to see it online.Have your say. Comment regularly on major sites or blogs relevant to you and your career to move up in the search rankings.Miller’s other standout advice was to consider online options for all the positive activities you’re doing in the world. This could be a video or a press release, or it could be a bio page if you’re speaking at an industry event. It could be a blog post (preferably on your own blog) or a Google+ photo and comment.  Google+, it seems, can be a good boost to your Google search results.  She also offered some advanced reputation management suggestions in a blog post that may be better for entrepreneurs and leaders at corporations.The bottom line: Listen to what others are saying about you, and be sure to add your own messages that match and burnish your brand.last_img read more

Validate your antibodies to improve reproducibility Easier said than done

first_img Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe It seems like the most elementary of research principles: Make sure the cells and reagents in your experiment are what they claim to be and behave as expected. But when it comes to antibodies—the immune proteins used in all kinds of experiments to tag a molecule of interest in a sample—that validation process is not straightforward. Research antibodies from commercial vendors are often screened and optimized for narrow experimental conditions, which means they may not work as advertised for many scientists. Indeed, problems with antibodies are thought to have led many drug developers astray and generated a host of misleading or irreproducible scientific results. This week, more than 100 researchers, antibody manufacturers, journal editors, and funders met in Pacific Grove, California, to hash out standardized approaches to antibody testing. “Cell authentication is a walk in the park compared to what we need to do with antibodies,” says Leonard Freedman, president of the Global Biological Standards Institute (GBSI), a Washington, D.C.–based nonprofit that advocates for better basic research practices and that sponsored the meeting. In the coming months, the attendees hope to come up with a scoring system that will identify the most reliable antibodies for a given type of experiment and ultimately (they hope) make results more reproducible across experiments.Antibodies are typically made in animals such as rabbits or goats, by injecting a protein of interest and waiting for the animal’s B cells to respond to the foreign molecule with the Y-shaped proteins, which can be isolated from its blood. But batches of the same antibody from different animals may cross-react with different proteins. And it’s hard to trace a given batch to its origin, because antibodies are often relabeled and resold by another vendor under a new name, Freedman says. Emailcenter_img Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Validating the roughly 2.5 million commercially available antibodies that react to human proteins is a mammoth task, acknowledged Mathias Uhlén, a microbiologist at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and a member of the meeting’s steering committee, in a press briefing. He expects that antibody providers would do the testing and publicize their scores to make their products more competitive. Journals and funding agencies would in turn need to favor research that uses well validated antibodies, he said.This week’s meeting is one of several efforts to attack what some consider a reproducibility crisis on the antibody front. In an online survey of 504 researchers published by GBSI this summer, more than half of respondents said they had received no training on how to validate antibodies. Experts in an ad hoc international antibody validation working group published a commentary earlier this month in Nature Methods advocating for application-specific antibody testing. Working groups from the meeting intend to publish white papers on their scoring system in journals over the next 6 months. With reporting by Meredith Wadman.last_img read more