Archive for November, 2008
November 27, 2008 at 2:36 am
· Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice, Research News
An update on the transition to Adobe-based application forms from the latest NIH Extramural Nexus:
January 2009 Receipt Dates
Electronically submitted applications must use Adobe-based forms (not Pure-Edge)
So, if you have started a PureEdge application for the February cycle, you’ll need to download the Adobe version before submitting. The new Adobe-based application packages will be available at the start of December. The exceptions to the January 1, 2009 transition date are the SBIR and R13/U13 mechanisms for which Adobe-based forms will be available in February 2009. Anyone working on these forms must use Adobe Reader version 8.1.3 or later (available at no cost from Grants.gov). Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
November 23, 2008 at 2:58 am
· Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics, Biomedical Writing/Editing, Research News
This week’s edition of On the Media included a piece entitled Bad Study Habits that discussed a recent report in The Economist on why much published research is wrong:
IN ECONOMIC theory the winner’s curse refers to the idea that someone who places the winning bid in an auction may have paid too much. Consider, for example, bids to develop an oil field. Most of the offers are likely to cluster around the true value of the resource, so the highest bidder probably paid too much.
The same thing may be happening in scientific publishing, according to a new analysis. With so many scientific papers chasing so few pages in the most prestigious journals, the winners could be the ones most likely to oversell themselves—to trumpet dramatic or important results that later turn out to be false. This would produce a distorted picture of scientific knowledge, with less dramatic (but more accurate) results either relegated to obscure journals or left unpublished.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
November 21, 2008 at 12:14 pm
· Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics
Thoughtful little letter in Science this week:
There is much debate and research devoted to determining the best practice for teaching responsible conduct of research (RCR) to trainees as federally required (1, 2). The majority of institutional programs require trainees (i.e., graduate students and postdoctoral fellows) to attend instruction isolated from the laboratory. However, laboratory behavior is our field’s “hidden curriculum,” and the principal investigator and senior laboratory staff represent the professional role models that trainees see on a daily basis, whether good or bad (3).
At Wake Forest, over the past 3 years, we have implemented a program of 15-minute discussions that takes place after our weekly journal club. This amounts to about 11 to 12 hours of training per year. Each laboratory member takes a turn selecting a topic, many of which are also being discussed among scientists, policy-makers, and taxpayers. All laboratory personnel attend, and discussions include a variety of viewpoints as well as discourse on the policies for best practices within the laboratory. Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
November 16, 2008 at 11:17 pm
· Filed under Research News
Yes, Scientific American (not The Onion, America’s Finest News Source):
Stephen Colbert does not have an MD. But he apparently has a keen understanding of clinical trials, perhaps because of his DFA – doctor of fine arts.
Colbert—or should we say Dr. Colbert?—reviewed the results of the JUPITER trial last night in the latest installment of “Cheating Death with Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA.” That trial, you may recall, suggested that even people with normal cholesterol levels may benefit from the drug Crestor (rosuvastatin), if their C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (inflammation markers) were high.
Colbert’s analysis cut right to the chase: “This is a great breakthrough in the battle to find things to prescribe to people who don’t need them.”
“True, the drug costs $100 a month,” he later added. “But that is a small price to pay to not have the heart attack that there’s no way of knowing that you would have had.”
… So I’d like to suggest that Colbert launch The Colbert Journal of Medicine. … Or maybe we should just put his name forward for U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner.
Full details and hilarious Colbert Report clip at Sci Am.
Permalink
November 14, 2008 at 1:55 pm
· Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice
The PRAC met earlier in November and covered a smörgåsbord of topics: electronic submissions, COI, EUREKA review, CSR realignments, new investigator initiatives, a Roadmap update, enhancing peer review update (focuses on the wonders of AED – asynchronous electronic discussions), review of F award applications, and more. Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
November 7, 2008 at 10:33 am
· Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics
Notice is hereby given that ORI and the Acting Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case:
Based on the report of an investigation conducted by the University of Iowa and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, this settlement resolves proposed U.S. PHS findings that Jusan Yang, MS, MD, , former Assistant Research Scientist, UI, engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by grant R01 HL48058 by falsifying and fabricating data that were reported in a scientific manuscript intended for publication entitled “Increased renin transcription after inhibition of NF-YA with RNAi reveals through regulation of Ea element and Ear2′ and at two professional scientific meetings. Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
November 7, 2008 at 8:08 am
· Filed under NIH Advice, Research News
Before leaving office, The Great Zerhouni left in place a policy to protect new investigator award quotas, as covered in Science:
Instead of relying solely on peer review to apportion grants, he set a floor–a numerical quota–for the number of awards made to new investigators in 2007 and 2008.
Last week on his final day as director, Zerhouni made this a formal NIH policy. He hopes his successors will keep it: “I think anybody who thinks this is not the number-one issue in American science probably doesn’t understand the long-term issues,” he says. The notice states that NIH “intends to support new investigators at success rates comparable to those for established investigators submitting new applications.” In 2009, that will mean at least 1650 awards to new investigators for R01s, NIH’s most common research grant.
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
