Donna M. Martin, W. Kimryn Rathmell, Sohail F. Tavazoie
Simeon I. Taylor, Bruce R. Leslie
Joseph L. Goldstein
Srinivasan Chandrasegaran, C. Korin Bullen, Dana Carroll
On Jan 27, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order banning the citizens of 7 countries from obtaining US entry visas for the next 90 days. Since the announcement, the news media have devoted a large portion of their coverage to the ban and its political ramifications. There have been arguments made by both sides that the ban will make our country safer, while others have argued that this executive order will result in the weakening of our country and bolstering of our enemies. As a physician-scientist who was born in Iran and immigrated to the US, I will stay away from the politics of this executive order; rather, I want to discuss the impact of the immigration ban on scientific discourse, education, and research programs, and how it may influence the dissemination of knowledge to physicians and scientists in low- and middle-income countries. I will use my own experience as an example of how the educational and scientific systems in this country benefit those who strive to learn in a free and intellectually stimulating environment.
The extramural General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) program has been funded for more than 50 years, first by the National Center for Research Resources, NIH, and more recently as part of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) program through the newly formed National Center for Advancing Translation Sciences (NCATS). The GCRCs represent the federally funded laboratories that employ a highly trained cadre of research nurses, dietitians, and other support staff and in which generations of clinical investigators trained and performed groundbreaking human studies that advanced medical science and improved clinical care. Without the opportunity for adequate discussion, NCATS has now stopped funding these Research Centers. In this “eulogy,” we review the origins and history of the GCRCs, their contributions to the advancement of medicine, and the recent events that have essentially defunded them. We mourn their loss.
David G. Nathan, David M. Nathan
The 5th anniversary of the Fukushima disaster and the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, the two most catastrophic nuclear accidents in history, both occurred recently. Images of Chernobyl are replete with the international sign of radioactive contamination (a circle with three broad spokes radiating outward in a yellow sign). In contrast, ongoing decontamination efforts at Fukushima lack international warnings about radioactivity. Decontamination workers at Fukushima appear to be poorly protected against radiation. It is almost as if the effort is to make the Fukushima problem disappear. A more useful response would be to openly acknowledge the monumental problems inherent in managing a nuclear plant disaster. Lessons from Chernobyl are the best predictors of what the Fukushima region of Japan is coping with in terms of health and environmental problems following a nuclear catastrophe.
Andrew R. Marks
This position statement originated from a working group meeting convened on April 15, 2015, by the NHLBI and incorporates follow-up contributions by the participants as well as other thought leaders subsequently consulted, who together represent research fields relevant to all branches of the NIH. The group was deliberately composed not only of individuals with a current research emphasis in the glycosciences, but also of many experts from other fields, who evinced a strong interest in being involved in the discussions. The original goal was to discuss the value of creating centers of excellence for training the next generation of biomedical investigators in the glycosciences. A broader theme that emerged was the urgent need to bring the glycosciences back into the mainstream of biology by integrating relevant education into the curricula of medical, graduate, and postgraduate training programs, thus generating a critical sustainable workforce that can advance the much-needed translation of glycosciences into a more complete understanding of biology and the enhanced practice of medicine.
Peter Agre, Carolyn Bertozzi, Mina Bissell, Kevin P. Campbell, Richard D. Cummings, Umesh R. Desai, Mary Estes, Terence Flotte, Guy Fogleman, Fred Gage, David Ginsburg, Jeffrey I. Gordon, Gerald Hart, Vincent Hascall, Laura Kiessling, Stuart Kornfeld, John Lowe, John Magnani, Lara K. Mahal, Ruslan Medzhitov, Richard J. Roberts, Robert Sackstein, Rita Sarkar, Ronald Schnaar, Nancy Schwartz, Ajit Varki, David Walt, Irving Weissman
Clinical investigators within the Canadian and international communities were shocked when the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) announced that their funding for the MD/PhD program would be terminated after the 2015–2016 academic year. The program has trained Canadian clinician-scientists for more than two decades. The cancellation of the program is at odds with the CIHR’s mandate, which stresses the translation of new knowledge into improved health for Canadians, as well as with a series of internal reports that have recommended expanding the program. Although substantial evidence supports the analogous Medical Scientist Training Program in the United States, no parallel analysis of the MD/PhD program has been performed in Canada. Here, we highlight the long-term consequences of the program’s cancellation in the context of increased emphasis on translational research. We argue that alternative funding sources cannot ensure continuous support for students in clinician-scientist training programs and that platform funding of the MD/PhD program is necessary to ensure leadership in translational research.
David D.W. Twa, Jordan W. Squair, Michael A. Skinnider, Jennifer X. Ji
No posts were found with this tag.