Hi Kevin-

Things are very hectic for me here.  We were in Berlin for the Spring break from the university and I was invited to give a lecture by Albert Heim at the Virus Institute in Hannover.  Traveling is nice but can be demanding- the flights and packing.

The Letter to the Editor is finally in place to be published June 11- thank you very much for your assistance and support.  It will be important!  It got a lot of attention as a submission and the Editor in Chief was convinced to allow a contrary letter of opinion.  He also wrote an editorial, so the topic is in the open now:  whole genome versus limited serotyping as the proper formal basis for typing adenoviruses (and hopefully other viruses)- this will be an historical event（http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/JVI.00354-11v1 ）.  I am glad you are part of it, as your career will extend far beyond mine!

I have included a slide similar to the GeneOrder figure I sent you and it was well-received in Hannover.  I will include the citation in my papers as well.  ["selling" your work, ie public relations, is very important now especially on a global scale.].  You should pass this on to other young scientists as well- this is a new century and new technology (sequencing and bioinformatics) and cooperation will push science forward faster!

Thanks for everything.

Regards,

Don

see also
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8412074/Royal-Societys-Knowledge-Networks-and-Nations-report-would-Einstein-get-funded-today.html

March 29, 2011
China set to outstrip US in science research output.

The Royal Society's findings were published in its report entitled "Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century".

LONDON (AFP) - China has shot to second place in the number of articles published in international science magazines and in a few years will take the top spot from the United States, according to a new report.

"China has already overtaken the UK as the second leading producer of research publications, but some time before 2020 it is expected to surpass the USA," said the report by the Royal Society in London.

"The USA leads the world in research, producing 20 percent of the world's authorship of research papers, dominating world university league tables, and investing nearly $400 billion per year in public and private research and development," said the report released Monday.

"The UK, Japan, Germany and France each also command strong positions in the global league tables, producing high quality publications and attracting researchers to their world class universities and research institutes," it added.

But while these five countries alone produced 59 percent of all spending on science globally, their dominant position was nevertheless slipping.

China shot up from sixth place in the period 1999-2003 (4.4 percent of the total) to second place behind the United States with 10.2 percent over the years 2004-08, overtaking Japan.

[snip]

"The scientific world is changing and new players are fast appearing," said Chris Llewellyn Smith, who chaired the study at the Royal Society, Britain's national science academy.

"The increase in scientific research and collaboration, which can help us to find solutions to the global challenges we now face, is very welcome.

"However, no historically dominant nation can afford to rest on its laurels if it wants to retain the competitive economic advantage that being a scientific leader brings."

Within the Royal society report:

2.3 Why collaborate?
There are various motivating factors that underpin global collaboration.

2.3.1 Seeking excellence
There are a number of reasons why collaboration is important in science. By working with partners, scientists can enhance the quality of their work, increase the effectiveness of their research, and overcome logistical obstacles by sharing costs, tasks and expertise.
Scientists seek to work with the most outstanding scientists in their field. According to one scientist at Imperial College, ‘if you are the best, geography doesn’t exist.’ Most scientists look for partnerships with researchers in their field, or indeed other fields, in order to access complementary skills and knowledge, with a view to stimulating new ideas. These collaborations between individual scientists are mutually beneficial, and allow the partners to develop their expertise with resources that they would have otherwise lacked. Such partnerships can broaden the dissemination (and subsequent impact) of the work of all partners involved. Scientists can also use personal ties to shape research agendas, or to gain access to other knowledge networks.