Archive for January, 2007
January 29, 2007 at 10:07 pm
· Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice, Research Resource
Okay – I know old habits die hard, but folks – stop using the A. Specific Aims, B. Background & Significance, C. Preliminary Data, D. Research Design & Methods etc. from the paper PHS 398 applications for anything going in electronically using SF424. Jump straight to the table that begins on p 104 of the SF424 application instructions (Word file anyway) to recalibrate your thinking and your assignment of numbers to each section (which may very well mean that the narrative of your new application starts with 2. Specific Aims).
Similarly, please don’t cram everything you used to cover in E. Human Subjects Research as part of 8. Protection of Human Subjects. The SF424 formally separates out the sections on women & minorities, targeted enrollment, and inclusion of children. The instructions lay out what information goes where now. Vertebrate Animals (now #12, though keeps its original name) continues to be covered in one section.
The NIH just posted new interactive demos for downloading application packages and checking submission status/viewing the assembled package on the NIH eRA Commons … scroll all the way to the bottom for the latter. I haven’t checked these out, so caveat emptor. As always, I can highly recommend the NIAID electronic submission tutorial and related resources.
Permalink
January 27, 2007 at 5:36 pm
· Filed under NIH Advice, Research News
At least, that is essentially what he is. Alan Krensky, MD has been named the first NIH Deputy Director for the Office of Portfolio Analysis and Strategic Initiatives (OPASI). In addition to Roadmap initiatives, he’ll monitor scientific advances and needs to identify funding priorities that do not neatly fall under the mission of one or two ICs. Topic areas such as inflammatory response … especially relevant given his current role at Stanford as Chief of the Division of Immunology and Transplantation Biology, Associate Chair for Research in the Department of Pediatrics, and Associate Dean for Children’s Health. His starts his new position at the NIH on July 8, 2007.
Permalink
January 25, 2007 at 5:43 pm
· Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics
And in follow-up to Nature’s editorial on “Peer Review and Fraud”, which highlights the role of journal editors in detecting potential fraud, Dr. Robert Dellavalle and his colleagues in Colorado urge greater transparency with regard to human subjects research. They specifically note that “We recently examined the instructions to authors of 103 medical journals and found that none requires authors to provide to readers (as online supplementary information accompanying the publication) the protocols approved by these [IRB etc.] committees. … They should require authors to state at submission — and, where judged necessary, in their published articles — that the research has been approved by the relevant ethical committees. … Journals should also require authors to provide the full protocols approved by these committees for the editors and peer reviewers, and to allow the journal, if it wishes, to publish these protocols as online supplementary information accompanying publication of the main paper.” – Nature 445, 364 (25 January 2007)
I can think of many junior clinical researchers who would love to read high-quality IRB protocols as models to make their own arduous task of application that much easier. Would clinical researchers be willing to share these documents publically (versus just with journal reviewers or at all) is the question.
Permalink
January 23, 2007 at 9:27 pm
· Filed under NSF Info, Research News
Permalink
January 21, 2007 at 12:20 pm
· Filed under NIH Advice
The NIH defines underrepresented researchers for the purposes of administrative grant supplements as individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups; individuals with disabilities; and individuals from socially, culturally, economically, or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds that have inhibited their ability to pursue a career in health-related research.
The National Institute of Nursing Research has added a new class of underrepresented investigators: men. Thus, for the purposes of all training and career development awards, as well as for requests for supplemental support of underrepresented populations, NINR will now consider a male nurse as underrepresented, regardless of racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic background. Please note that while the NINR accepts grant applications for research mechanisms from individuals with any qualified background (not just nursing), they only award career development and fellowship grants to applicants with a nursing degree.
Permalink
January 20, 2007 at 12:25 am
· Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics, Tobacco "Research"
Yet another reason why no university – especially those with academic medical centers – should accept “research” funds from tobacco companies (follow links to full news release & full report as PDF):
A reanalysis of nicotine yield from major brand name cigarettes sold in Massachusetts from 1997 to 2005 has confirmed that manufacturers have steadily increased the levels of this agent in cigarettes. This independent analysis, based on data submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health by the manufacturers, found that increases in smoke nicotine yield per cigarette averaged 1.6% each year, or about 11% over a 7-year period (1998-2005). Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
January 20, 2007 at 12:01 am
· Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics, Tobacco "Research"
Before relocating, I worked in a university Office of Research (with 6 health sciences schools & NCI-designated cancer center) across the street from a 450,000 sq ft, $350M Philip Morris USA research and technology center. Philip Morris’ money was welcome at said university, and their scientists can request affiliate faculty appointments. Although I miss my faculty friends, I am relieved to have put that obscene relationship behind me. Now the UC Board of Regents is balking at a ban on accepting money from Philip Morris due to the potential to interfere with … academic freedom? Well, at least the University of California system is openly discussing this conflict of academic interest. Best wishes for enlightenment at UC and elsewhere. We’ll see what the UC Regents say in May. Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
January 17, 2007 at 3:31 pm
· Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics, Research News
A concise editorial and news bit on how scientific misconduct is handled – and how it can be lessened. Maybe we’re concentrating teaching efforts on the wrong audience. Other items in this same issue on fraud & misconduct.
Leading by example
Nature 445, 229 (18 January 2007)
“But most important of all, as the first scientific studies of the factors behind good conduct confirm, is the example set by senior researchers themselves. It is here in the laboratory — not in the law courts or the offices of a university administrator — that the trajectory of research conduct for the twenty-first century is being set.”
Misconduct? It’s all academic…
Nature 445, 240-241 (18 January 2007)
The legal quagmire, strain and bad press of misconduct investigations leave many universities tempted to ignore misconduct allegations. But getting an investigation right can reduce the pain and boost an institution’s reputation, says Geoff Brumfiel.
Permalink
January 14, 2007 at 5:31 pm
· Filed under Research News
… on Maxine F. Singer, a pioneer in molecular biology; an accomplished spokesperson and leader in science policy; and a champion of the cause of women and minorities in science, fostering equal access to education and career opportunities. The NAS’s most prestigious award, the Public Welfare Medal, is presented annually to honor extraordinary use of science for the public good.
Permalink
January 13, 2007 at 10:40 pm
· Filed under Research Resource
Just an FYI that I am adding and maintaining links to Websites useful for scientific writng, editing, grantsmanship, ethics, funding, etc. (currently displayed to the right of the main posts). I’m always welcome to suggestions for additional links, though I’m trying not to let these get out of hand. I’d like to have here a core set of essential links and let the Web catalogs provide comprehensive coverage.
Permalink
Older Posts »
