Archive for September, 2009

Science Translational Medicine – Coming Soon to a Newstand Near You

September 28, 2009 at 4:44 pm · Filed under Biomedical Writing/Editing, Research News, Research Resource

And what a shocker … the Chief Scientific Advisor is none other than the Great Zerhouni (Katrina Kelner is the Editor, aided by Senior Editor Kelly LaMarco and an Advisory Board).

So what does the newest AAAS journal, whose “mission is to chronicle the conversion of basic biomedical research into practical applications,” want to publish?

The journal’s editorial team is seeking a variety of research papers, reviews, commentaries and other article formats in the following areas: cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolism/diabetes/obesity, neuroscience/neurology/psychiatry, immunology/vaccines, infectious diseases, policy, behavior, bioengineering, physics, chemical genomics/drug discovery, imaging, applied physical sciences, medical nanotechnology, drug delivery, biomarkers, gene therapy/regenerative medicine, toxicology and pharmacokinetics, data mining, cell culture, animal and human studies, medical informatics, other interdisciplinary approaches to medicine.

Preference will be given to papers on humans, human tissue, and animal models with proven relevance to human diseases.

Hmmm. Did they leave anything out? We’ll soon see. The first issue of Science Translational Medicine (not to be confused with BMC’s open access Journal of Translational Medicine) is slated to go online on October 7th.

Of course, the Mission Statement & Purpose are pure GZ:

Mission statement: To promote human health by providing a forum for communication and cross-fertilization among basic, translational, and clinical research practitioners and trainees from all relevant established and emerging disciplines.

Purpose: A profound transition is required for the science of translational medicine. Despite 50 years of advances in our fundamental understanding of human biology and the emergence of powerful new technologies, the rapid transformation of this knowledge into effective health measures continues to elude biomedical scientists. This paradox illustrates the daunting complexity of the challenges faced by translational researchers as they apply the basic discoveries and experimental approaches of modern science to the alleviation of human disease. Studies in humans often highlight deep gaps in our fundamental understanding of biology, but the linkages back to basic research to fill these gaps have not been as effective as they could be. Clearly, creative experimental approaches, novel technologies and new ways of conducting scientific explorations at the interface of established and emerging disciplines are now required to an unprecedented degree if real progress is to be made. Nothing short of a true reinvention of the science of translational medicine is likely to suffice. To aid in this reinvention, Science and AAAS have created a new interdisciplinary journal, Science Translational Medicine.

AAAS also kindly defines translational medicine, including specific examples.

Okay folks, go forth and reinvent yourselves (and don’t forget about the National New Biology Initiative as you do so).

Comments (12)

ARRA Reporting Permanent?

September 24, 2009 at 12:09 am · Filed under NIH Advice, NSF Info, Research News

Oh joy. Joe Biden’s office likes the ARRA transparency so much that he wants to make the quarterly reporting permanent:

“We’ve never followed the dollars the way we are now and this should be the start of a new way of doing business rather than the implementation of a single program.”

I’m sure he’d find some interesting spending practices if he followed every dollar of every NIH grant … and of course not spending every dollar the way you said you would (or were advised to) can be a good thing, as in the case of Nobel laureate Mario Capecchi. Imagine a world without transgenics.

By way of reminder, NIAID has a nice collection of information and links on the what, why, and how-to of ARRA reporting. Have fun.

Comments (13)

GAO Cautions NIH About Discretionary Funding Decisions

September 22, 2009 at 12:34 pm · Filed under NIH Advice, Research News

Among other things, in a report entitled “Completion of Comprehensive Risk Management Program Essential to Effective Oversight.”

Why did the GAO do this?

Allegations involving one institute raised questions about areas of oversight by the OD. In light of these questions, GAO examined (1) how NIH makes extramural research funding decisions and OD monitoring of this process, (2) the design of selected internal controls over NIH’s travel and personnel appointment processes, and (3) the design of NIH’s new risk management program and the program it is replacing. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed relevant NIH policies, procedures, and supporting documentation. GAO also selected 3 institutes [NCI, NIDDK, NIAAA] that varied in size for in-depth reviews.

On point one, the GAO recommended that the NIH Director “monitor the extent to which IC directors use discretion in funding decisions,” a suggestion HHS did not embrace. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (12)

Legal Responsibility for Data Integrity … & related concepts

September 20, 2009 at 1:20 pm · Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics, Research News

BICO has been in the news lately, not in a good way, with regard to a lawsuit by Redmond, Wash.-based Onconome brought against the university and Dr. Robert H. Getzenberg (now at Johns Hopkins, also being sued). Buyer Beware comments on The Scientist coverage of this incident actually sum up much of my thoughts on the matter: that, although universities own the data generated by faculty, staff, and students, no university can be held accountable for their veracity nor be expected to pay for the costs of replicating or confirming these data. As Buyer Beware notes, in this case (which may or may not involve misconduct), the company should have done so prior to significant investment.

Science offers a bit more coverage: Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (11)

New ARRA RFA: Building Sustainable Community-Linked Infrastructure

September 18, 2009 at 4:32 pm · Filed under Funding Opportunities, NIH Advice, Research News

Well, they haven’t spent all the ARRA funds yet, as evidenced by the latest FOA to be released:

Building Sustainable Community-Linked Infrastructure to Enable Health Science Research (RC4)
LOI: November 12, 2009
Application: December 11, 2009

NCI, NEI, NHLBI, NHGRI, NIA, NIAAA, NIAMS, NIBIB, NICHD, NIDCR, NIDDK, NIDA, NIEHS, NIMH, NINR, NLM, NCMHD, OWHR, and NCRR are all on board. The NIH plans to fund 30 of these awards, which provide up to a total of $1M for a 3-year period ($1M total for all 3 years, not per year). Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

National New Biology Initiative

September 17, 2009 at 10:42 am · Filed under Funding Opportunities, NIH Advice, NSF Info, Research News

It’s a bit sad that my first reaction was to cringe when I received this NAS news release excitedly touting the National New Biology Initiative,

a new multiagency, multiyear, and multidisciplinary initiative to capitalize on the extraordinary advances recently made in biology and to accelerate new breakthroughs that could solve some of society’s most pressing problems — particularly in the areas of food, environment, energy, and health. …

The committee used the term “new biology” to describe an approach to research where physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and other scientists are integrated into the field of biology to create the type of research community that can tackle society’s big problems. “‘The new biologist’ is not a scientist who knows a little bit about all disciplines, but a scientist with deep knowledge in one discipline and a ‘working fluency’ in several,” the report says. To be sure, biologists are already working successfully in many instances with other scientists and engineers. But for collaborations to take advantage of advances in imaging, high-throughput technologies, computational science and technology, and others, a major new initiative is needed, the committee concluded.

The national new biology initiative should have a timeline of at least 10 years and funding in addition to current research budgets, and it should be an interagency effort to reflect the interdisciplinary approach to research, the committee emphasized. The report also underscores the importance of making information technologies a priority in the initiative given that information is the “fundamental currency” of the new biology. …

The report says that by targeting society’s major challenges, the initiative would provide an opportunity to attract students who want to solve real-world problems to scientific fields. The initiative will need to devote resources to interdisciplinary education to support the training of new biologists, the report adds.

You can, as usual, read the report — A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution – online for free and download the prepublication PDF.

You can also view a PowerPoint presentation by the co-chairs of the Committee on a New Biology for the 21st Century, Thomas Connelly of the DuPont Company and Phillip A. Sharp from MIT, where you’ll learn that the Initiative’s goals are to “Propel science to a new level” and “Provide solutions to pressing societal problems” and become inspired by the sense of tension and excitement the slides generate:

  • A moment of unique opportunity — Current research has brought biology to an inflection point
  • An opportunity for New Biology with impact at an unprecendented scale
  • New Biology could affect urgent problems
  • Mission: sustainable local food production
  • Mission: halt and reverse ecosystem damage
  • Mission: sustainable alternative to fossil fuels
  • Mission: individualized health surveillance and care
  • One biology: same science supports all four missions

Wow. So nice to know that “New Biology” is on the case. Wonder what the rest of us have been mucking about doing all these years … in the meantime, possibly yet another grant-writing gimmick to work into my repertoire if they do manage to carve out a mega interagency budget to solve the world’s ills.

Comments (7)

Shorter “Enhanced” NIH Application Format

September 16, 2009 at 1:49 pm · Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice, Research News

The official notice for Restructured Application Forms and Instructions for Submissions for FY2011 Funding is out: all NIH grant applications submitted for due dates on or after January 25, 2010 (i.e., for funding in FY11 and beyond) now have shorter page limits and a restructured format with changes to the research plan, biosketch, resources, and select agent components. The major changes include:

  • All Introductions are limited to 1 page (formerly 3 pages for R01s et al.)
  • Specific Aims is officially limited to 1 page
  • A single Research Strategy (6 or 12 p) replaces Background & Significance, Preliminary Studies/Progress Report, and Research Design & Methods
  • Research Strategy organized to address review criteria (Significance, Innovation, Approach)
  • Preliminary data/progress reports become part of Approach section of the Research Strategy narrative
  • For Select Agents, describe the biocontainment resources available at all performance sites
  • Resources must describe environment to support research current proposal (vs only boilerplate)
  • ESIs should describe the start-up package/institutional investment in their research career
  • Biosketch adds personal statement about why your experience & qualifications make you particularly well-suited for your role
  • Biosketch encourages limit of 15 publications

Comments (17)

Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research

September 15, 2009 at 9:45 pm · Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics, NIH Advice, NSF Info, Research News

While you await the final enhancements to the NIH grant application process, you might be interested in this thoughtful piece by Peter Lawrence in PLoS Biology entitled Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research (h/t whimple). Although written with from the UK granting perspective, the anecdotes and underlying premise apply all too well to those of us laboring under the NIH (& other federal granting agencies), and many of the contributed comments (in the paper itself, that is) come from US scientists. Of course, the NIHers could tell the UKers that even 5 years between renewals isn’t enough in terms of reducing grantwriting burden … though a damn sight better than 3 years certainly … assuming you get an R01 in the first place.

Comments (13)

FASEB Congressional Visit Toolbox

September 10, 2009 at 4:29 pm · Filed under Research News, Research Resource

FASEB has launched a new Congressional Visit Toolbox

aimed at empowering, training, and equipping scientists to build relationships with their elected representatives in Congress. The Toolbox contains everything needed to plan and conduct a Congressional visit, including templates for meeting requests and follow-up letters, printable, state-specific ‘leave-behind’ materials, and customizable talking points on the importance of biomedical research. Training materials, such as a slideshow tutorial on advocacy and a video of Congressional visit role-plays, are also linked to the site.

You’ll have a chance to put this resource to use in the coming weeks as the FY10 budget bills come up for debate and votes … not to mention health care reform legislation.

Leave a Comment

How to Publish a Scientific Comment

September 8, 2009 at 9:45 am · Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics, Biomedical Writing/Editing, Research News

in 1 2 3 Easy Steps by Prof Rick Trebino at the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Physics (html or PDF versions).

In case any of you have not yet seen this, this science tragicomedy is an excellent read …

Comments (10)

Older Posts »