Science blogs & blog posts

Captain Obvious, also known as Dr. Brian Primack, says, “Students who listen to music with the most references to marijuana are almost twice as likely to have used the drug than their peers whose musical tastes favor songs less focused on substance use,” following a study funded in part by the National Institutes of Health.

What is not yet known is the following: “Although it may be that heavy exposure to music about marijuana causes marijuana smoking, it may also be that those who smoke marijuana seek out music with lyrics related to marijuana,” Primack said. So of course there will need to be more studies, for which I’m sure the NIH will gladly pony up more cash.

Your tax dollars hard at work.

In a report released Dec. 9, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., identify 100 projects funded by the stimulus package that they claim are wasteful government spending.  Among these projects are 14 research grants funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

McCain and Coburn’s report singles out 10 studies from the NSF.  Specifically, the report criticizes the use of stimulus funds to study the learning patterns of honey bees and to support educational programs that expose undergraduates to rainforest research.

The report also identifies four NIH grants as stimulus waste.  Two study the sexual habits of young people, while two others analyze the effects of drugs and alcohol on mice.

McCain and Coburn are participating in the disturbing practice of criticizing controversial or “silly” research for political gain.  Recently, U.S. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Joe Barton, R-Texas, attacked particular NIH studies related to HIV, drugs and gun violence.  Earlier this year, Coburn introduced an amendment to the NSF appropriation bill that would have removed funding for political science research.

It is often easy to criticize basic science research because it seems esoteric, controversial or just plain “silly.”  Who cares how honeybees learn? What could possibly be the benefit of understanding the sexual habits of college students?

Each of grants detailed in the report were funded only after a rigorous review process.  The federal government relies on the peer-review process to identify and fund the best scientific research.

Composed of field experts, peer-review panels recognize the value of research when untrained observers cannot.  For example, as honeybees disappear from colony collapse disorder, our crops are at risk of having no bees to pollinate them.  Understanding their learning may help mediate the effects of honeybee declines.  Would McCain and Coburn have recognized the incredible potential of Alexander Fleming’s mold research?

It’s easy to take potshots at “silly” science for political gain.  But scientific breakthroughs require creativity that runs counter to our well-established preconceptions.  It’s time we freed scientists from playground-style ridicule and allowed them to innovate.

You can read more about the report on Politico and other news sources. The press release and full report can be found on McCain’s Senate Web site.

I’m in the middle of writing my blog, and I stumble upon links to some interesting information. The first two are commercially generated by Health Magazine, the other is part of NIH. I’m including them in this posting, and will also add to the blog roll. Haven’t fully digested all the information, nor “rated” the sites, but thought I’d pass them along none the less. Keeps me blogging!

The site, alternative therapies for chronic pain, from Health Magazine looks at treatments such as acupuncture, yoga, and biofeedback, while coping with chronic pain includes the American Chronic Pain Association’s Pain Patient’s Bill of Rights, part of their Ten Step Program which I’ve blogging about . The NIH site takes a more scientific and research-based look at alternative and complementary medicine.

More on the Ten Steps (Steps 5 and 6, plus some observations about pain and “the sounds of silence”, and other musings) in my next blog.

Funding Source: National Institutes of Health
Funding Type: Discretionary, Grant
Total Available: $6 Million
Award Ceiling: N/A
Deadline: 01.20.10
Eligibility: Local Governments, Institutions of Higher Education, Community Organizations

Description:
This AHRQ FOA, supported by funds provided to AHRQ under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act or ARRA), Public Law 111-5, invites Exploratory/Developmental grant (R21) applications from organizations that aim to understand the comparative value of different strategies in the prevention and management of chronic illness in persons with specific constellations of co-morbid conditions. Exploratory research studies will contribute evidence to help guide the appropriate integration (i.e., prioritization, timing, provision and coordination) of therapeutic and preventive services in individuals with multiple chronic conditions. This work should improve our understanding of the comparative value of interventions to patients with multiple conditions, how the safety and effectiveness of specific interventions may be affected by co-morbid conditions, and how interventions may need to be modified for specific patient populations with multiple conditions. This information should help clinicians better integrate care provided to such individuals, help patients make informed decisions about health care choices, and help policymakers identify better ways to measure and promote quality care for complex patients.

Funding Source: National Institutes of Health
Funding Type: Discretionary, Grant
Total Available: N/A
Award Ceiling: N/A
Deadline: 01.07.13
Eligibility: Virtually Unrestricted

Description:
The Research Project Grant (R01) is an award made to an institution/organization to support a discrete, specified, circumscribed project to be performed by the named investigator(s) in areas representing the specific interests and competencies of the investigator(s). The R01 research plan proposed by the applicant institution/organization must be related to the stated program interests of one or more of the NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs) based on descriptions of their programs. All research project grant applications described in this announcement will be assigned to NIH ICs according to standard Public Health Service (PHS) referral guidelines and specific program interests. Investigators are encouraged to consult the participating NIH ICs and their Web sites.

If you start smoking as a teen, it’s much harder to quit. University of Vermont Neurobiologist Rae Nishi wants to find out why. And thanks to a $1 million Challenge Grant, Nishi and her team will be able to further study the way adolescent brains react to nicotine.

The grant is one of 200 National Institute of Health grants allocated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to help stimulate the American economy. These grants target projects involving health and science research. Dr. Nishi used this grant to purchase one of our Neurolucida workstations along with AutoNeuron software as well as products from another local Vermont company, Med Associates in St. Albans. The grant also helped fund three to four full-time research positions.

Read “Stimulus pumps up UVM research” at burlingtonfreepress.com to find out more about NIH Challenge Grants and Dr. Nishi’s research.

{Image of UVM senior Kelly Carstens, MBF Bioscience’s Geoff Greene, and Dr. Rae Nishi by Glenn Russell. Courtesy of Burlington Free Press}

Funding Source: National Institutes of Health
Funding Type: Discretionary, Grant
Total Available: $1 Million
Award Ceiling: $200,000
Deadline: 03.10.10
Eligibility: Virtually Unrestricted

Description:
Purpose The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) invites applications for Planning Centers for Interdisciplinary Research in Benign Urology (IR-BU) (P20). These centers are to foster the establishment of interdisciplinary teams necessary for advancing our understanding of the underlying causes of benign lower urinary tract symptoms. Interdisciplinary teams will typically be composed of an urologist and a basic scientist along with collaborators from other disciplines. Because lower urinary tract symptoms, such as frequency, urgency, dysuria, terminal dribbling etc., are descriptive, it has been difficult to attribute these symptoms to specific etiologies or to particular urinary tract organs and tissues, supporting structures, or to the peripheral or central nervous system. The intent of this solicitation is to encourage planning grants to support the development of research teams that can integrate investigations of organ-specific development, structure and function, and physiology and pathophysiology with in vivo studies to understand the potential interplay of urologic and non-urologic organs and tissues that lead to lower urinary tract symptoms. Each IR-BU Center (P20) is limited to a single Scientific Project and must contain an Administrative Core and an Educational Enrichment Program.

From http://news.library.cornell.edu/com/news/PressReleases/vivo.cfm

NIH Funds VIVO Project to Discover Expertise and Enable Collaborations

ITHACA, N.Y. (Oct. 20, 2009) – Cornell University Library is pleased to announce a $12.2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to establish and support the national networking of biomedical researchers. The two-year grant is led by the University of Florida, with Cornell University and Indiana University as major partners.

VIVO, the technology supporting the network, builds a fundamental new capability to connect researchers and scholars and facilitate collaboration. Through this comprehensive network, scientists will be able to identify existing and ongoing work, explore interdisciplinary opportunities and initiate new partnerships.

The nationwide network of NIH-funded Diabetes Research Centers invites applications for the Medical Student Research Program in Diabetes for the summer of 2010. Prior research experience is not required. The application deadline is Jan. 25, 2010.

The program is sponsored by the National Institutes of Health through the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). It allows medical students to conduct research under the direction of an established scientist in the areas of diabetes, hormone action, physiology, islet cell biology, clinical investigation or obesity at an institution with one of  16 NIDDK-funded Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Centers (DERC) or Diabetes Research and Training Centers (DRTC).

The goal of the Program is to encourage medical students to consider research in diabetes and its complications as a career and to educate students about diabetes. Program Consultants will assist students in selecting an appropriate research project and preceptor. Prior research experience is not required. In addition to working on his/her own research project, each student will attend a web-cast series of seminars addressing various clinical and research aspects of diabetes mellitus and its complications. All students will present a poster in Nashville, TN on August 4-5, 2010 (travel funds provided).

Students will spend 9-12 weeks working on their research project at a DERC or DRTC of their choice and receive a weekly stipend. The program is recommended for students during the summer between the first and second year or second and third year of medical school. Commencement dates and conclusion for the program are reasonably flexible.

See the program web page for application forms and more information.

The House and Senate have passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, the large omnibus spending bill that includes budgets for the NIH, NSF and U.S. department of veteran’s affairs Medical and Prosthetics Research program.  The final budgets reflect the agreements reached by House and Senate negotiators in early December.  The House passed the appropriations act on Dec. 10 and the Senate passed the bill on Dec. 13.  The president is expected to sign the legislation before Dec. 18.

You can read more about the 2010 science budgets here.  More information is also available from the House Appropriations committee and the Library of Congress.

Inquiring minds are interested in projects that Put America To Work. Please consider this Stimulus Checkup courtesy of Senator John McCain and Senator Tom Coburn.

Good jobs for millions of Americans.
Investments in priorities that create sustainable economic growth for the future.

Those were the promises made to uneasy Americans when Congress approved the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or economic stimulus bill, in February.

Nine months later, with over $200 billion of stimulus funding already spent, the rolls of the unemployed have grown by millions and, by any measure, more jobs have been lost than created.

Since the stimulus bill was enacted in February, nearly three million Americans have lost their jobs and the percentage of people who are without work has risen to 10 percent. Many who had been looking to the government for help have already lost hope.

As this and the last report, 100 Stimulus Projects: A Second Opinion, suggests billions of dollars of stimulus funding have been wasted, mismanaged, or directed towards silly and shortsighted projects. Many projects may not produce the types of jobs that most Americans had hoped for or expected.

Some of the close to seven billion dollars in projects in Stimulus Checkup create few jobs; benefit private interests over the public good; or make improvements where they are not necessary. Some send money to companies facing fraud charges. Others take millions of dollars to do work local officials and experts admit are not needed or will not help.

Stimulus money has been, or will be, spent on dinner cruises, golf courses, puppet shows and stimulus road signs. Many Americans will question whether investing $787 billion in these projects are the highest national priorities.
….

In the previous report, one hundred questionable projects were identified that did not appear to hold out promise for helping the economy grow. The Administration was quick to review these projects and to its credit addressed a number of them. In the months that followed, many more questionable stimulus projects costing millions and even billions of dollars were identified. This follow-up, Stimulus Checkup, takes a closer look at 100 more projects that raise questions about how stimulus money has been used so far.

Sincerely,
Tom Coburn, M.D.
U.S. Senator

John McCain
U.S. Senator

100 Ridiculous Projects Sample

1. “Almost Empty” Mall Awarded Energy Grant ($5 million)
The Department of Energy has announced an award for up to $5 million to install a geothermal energy system capable of heating an ―almost empty mall in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

2. Renovations for Federal Building as Expensive as New Building ($133 million)
Taxpayers in Oregon may be surprised to learn that the largest stimulus project in their state is not a new road or bridge, but a $133 million makeover for the federal building in downtown Portland. The money will go toward ―greening the Edith Green/Wendell Wyatt Federal Building in the hope of making it a model for energy efficient government offices in the Northwest. That said, for $133 million some may wonder why they did not simply tear it down and start over.

Agency officials expect to construct a type of vegetative skin—made of plants—on the exterior of the building, to help with heating and cooling costs.

In 2007, a new federal building was constructed in downtown San Francisco with similar state-of-the-art energy efficiency features for $144 million—nearly the same cost to merely renovate the Portland Federal Building. Both buildings are eighteen stories tall, built with energy efficient technologies, and house federal agency offices. The major difference is that the San Francisco building is much larger, with an additional 100,000 usable square feet in comparison with its counterpart in Portland.

3. DTV Advertising Agency Generates Three Jobs ($5.9 million)
An advertising agency that ultimately reported little job creation received a multi-million dollar contract to help the government overcome a poorly managed transition to digital television, only to report three jobs created.

4. Research to Develop Supersonic Corporate Jets ($4.7 Million)
Lockheed Martin will receive a total of more than $21 million in federal money—with $4.7 million funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to advance research for supersonic jet travel. High ticket costs, fuel-guzzling and the infamous sonic ―boom helped doom commercial supersonic travel in the past; the last Concorde jet flew in 2003.

5. Water Pipeline to a Money-Losing Golf Course ($2.2 million)
A $2.2 million stimulus grant will help pay for new pipes to pump recycled water to the Sharp Park Golf Course in San Francisco, California. Unfortunately, the golf course may not exist for much longer. The City Council is considering closing the public course over concerns for the California red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake that live in the area.

7. Program to Control Home Appliances From a Remote Location ($787,250)
Fifty homes on Martha‘s Vineyard in Massachusetts will participate in a test program to allow an outside party to control their energy use, ―Big Brother style. The initiative will allow participating households to purchase discounted appliances from General Electric (GE) that are capable of communicating with – and being controlled by – an off-site computer system.

20. Repaved Georgia Road . . . Getting Repaved Again ($88,000)
Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) contractors are using stimulus funds to repave a busy street in Atlanta—part of which was repaved just two years ago. Rebecca Serna, a local bicyclist, noted that the existing road is ―pretty much the smoothest ride in town right now, adding about the new project, ―I don‘t know if it‘s necessary, but it‘s nice.

23. Studying the Icelandic Arctic Environment in the Viking Age ($94,902)
The University of Massachusetts-Boston received an almost $95,000 stimulus grant to ―count pollen grains collected from farms in Iceland and allowed researchers to continue studying the role the arctic environment played in the evolution of civic life during the Viking Age.

33. Study on “Hookup” Behavior of Female College Coeds ($219,000)
The National Institute of Health (NIH) is using stimulus funds to pay for a year-long $219,000 study to follow female college students for a year to determine whether young women are more likely to ―hookup — the college equivalent of casual sex — after drinking

35. Study of Wildflowers in a Ghost Town ($448,995)
A few dilapidated buildings are largely what remains in Gothic, Colorado, a ghost town that is also home to the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. Over the next five years, however, Gothic will host a $448,995 National Science Foundation study by Dr. David Inouye on the impact of climate change on the town‘s wildflowers.

38. Recovering Crab Pots Lost At Sea ($700,000)
A $700,000 grant will pay for 48 people to help Oregon crabbers recover crab pots they have lost at sea. The two-year project expects to yield 2,000 lost pots a year. Oregon crabbers reportedly lose an estimated 15,000 crab pots a year. The effort will use 10 boats, planes, and a telephone hotline for people to phone in crab pot sightings. If all 4,000 pots are recovered as expected, the grantees will spend an average of $175 per crab pot, though John‘s Sporting Goods in nearby Everett, Washington sells new crab pots online for as little as $19.95.

50. Arizona Ants Work While Some Arizonans Remain Unemployed ($950,000)
Two major universities in the state are receiving a combined $950,000 to examine the division of labor in ant colonies. Arizona State University was awarded $500,000 in stimulus funding by the National Science Foundation, while the University of Arizona will receive $450,000.

51. Study On Why Young Men Do Not Like Condoms ($221,355)
Indiana University professors received $221,355 in economic stimulus funds to study why young men do not like to wear condoms.

56. Homeland Security Funds Assist Boat Tours of Alcatraz ($50,783)
A ferry service that once contracted for the federal government will receive over $50,000 in stimulus homeland security grants, despite no longer doing any work for the government.

60. Town of 838 to Renovate Old Hotel into a Welcome Center ($300,000)
Tourism may not be booming in Crofton, Kentucky (population 838),267 but the town has received $300,000 in stimulus funds to convert an abandoned downtown hotel into a visitors‘ center.

79. Money for Lighthouse Repairs on Uninhabited Island (Nearly $1.5 million)
Located on a barrier island accessible only by water, Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, is an area that has been empty for decades. However, the Department of the Interior will spend nearly $1.5 million in federal stimulus funds to fix the lighthouse and other facilities on the Refuge. The project will restore the lighthouse, living quarters and an oil shed.

This is totally outrageous but not unexpected. Every bit of this is pure waste. It is exactly what happens when government gives out free money.

Supposedly this waste adds to GDP. Government spending, no matter how absurd or destructive adds to GDP by definition. And with all this money sloshing around, the only bump we got out of this was a 2.8% rise in GDP, no doubt most of it wasted.

And if that’s not bad enough, Geithner is extending TARP and will use up to $550 billion as a petty cash slush fund for purposes other than intended by Congress. See TARP Extended, Now a “Petty Cash Drawer for Politically Favored Interests” for details.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/12/stimulus-checkup-100-ridiculous.html

Electronic Grants Management Systems (EGMS) Proposal Prep has been modified to include the changes NIH added with the release of NOT-OD-09-139. This gives users the option of a paper copy of the 2590 along with the eSNAP ability that most type 5 awards allow. The changes to the paper forms can be found at http://bit.ly/8Cq2FG.

The National Institutes for Health (NIH) has issued an update about their requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research for recipients of all NIH training grants and awards. These guidelines incorporate best practices developed from existing programs; clarify information about the training—who should participate, how often, and the form of the training; address new issues and concerns for biomedical, behavioral and clinical science research; and provide guidance to applicants, peer reviewers, and NIH staff about training plans that must be submitted with applications for funding. The University is currently reviewing existing programs to ensure they help applicants meet these new guidelines. To read the update, go to http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-10-019.html. For information and questions about the University’s response, contact Carol Foth at fothx001@umn.edu or 612.624.1854.

Reported today in the online Chronicle of Higher Education:

Legislators in Congress have agreed on a compromise spending bill for the 2010 fiscal year that would increase appropriations for Pell Grants, minority-serving institutions, and programs for disadvantaged and first-generation college students.

. . . The National Institutes of Health would get $31-billion under the bill, $250-million more than President Obama’s request and $692-million more than last year’s budget, according to a news release from the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill also includes $6.9-billion for the National Science Foundation, a $436-million increase over its 2009 budget and slightly less than the $7.04-billion Mr. Obama had requested. The bill also continues the prohibition of using federal funds for research that creates or destroys human embryos.

The full article is available on line to subscribers.

U.S. House and Senate negotiators have agreed on the 2010 budgets for several large scientific agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.  While traditionally passed in separate appropriations bills, the NIH and NSF budgets will become part of a large omnibus bill, combining six appropriations bills into one large piece of legislation.

While Congress and the president previously had passed five of the 12 bills that traditionally fund the federal government for 2010, the budgets for the NIH and the NSF and more than 85 percent of federally funded life science research had yet to be finalized.  With the publication of the conference committee’s report, the House and Senate have paved to way for final passage by both houses of Congress.

According the report, the NIH will be funded at $30.72 billion for 2010.  Adding an additional $692 million to the NIH budget, this 2.3 percent funding increase from the previous year is a compromise between the 3.14 percent and 1.47 percent proposed by the House and Senate, respectively.

The NSF will receive a larger relative boost.  Negotiators have agreed to increase the NSF budget by 6.7 percent to a total of more than $6.9 billion.  The bill’s summary also supports the president’s initiative to double the funding for basic research at “key agencies,” such as the NSF, in 10 years.

Perhaps the most dramatic increase was given to the U.S. department of veteran’s affairs Medical and Prosthetics Research program.  This program’s budget will grow by 13 percent in 2010 to a total of $581 million.

While the federal fiscal year ended in September, Congress previously passed a continuing resolution, funding the federal government at 2009 levels until Dec. 18.  This final agreement makes it more likely that Congress and the president will pass and sign the appropriations packages for 2010 into law by the end of the year.

You can read more about the final 2010 omnibus appropriations agreement on the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations web site.

Lawmakers have finalized the fiscal year 2010 budget for foreign assistance, setting funding for key programs to fight global HIV and TB and reaching a landmark deal to revise the needle-exchange ban.

The agreement—expected to pass the House before the end of this week and the Senate before the end of next week—includes some modest increases for bilateral HIV and TB, as well as for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. But the funding levels still fall far short of what’s needed to combat these twin epidemics and of what was authorized in the Lantos-Hyde Act passed by Congress last summer.

The deal, for example, would allocate $5.359 billion for global AIDS, $1.05 billion for the Global Fund, and $225 million for TB. It also includes a slight boost for NIH. The gloal AIDS figure does not include bilateral HIV/AIDS funds for USAID or the CDC’s Global AIDS Program; with those pots of money tallied, the total US bilateral AIDS funding for 2010 stands at $5.828 billion. (See chart below for more details on how this comparies to last year, etc.)

The real headline, though, is this: Key congressional negotiators agreed to ease the ban on federal funding for needle exchange programs. This is a long-overdue move that will remove an unnecessary and harmful barrier to effective HIV prevention efforts. It’s also a big surprise.

Earlier this year, the House approved lifting the ban, but included so many restrictions as to make federal funding for such programs essentially unfeasible (i.e., not near any schools, parks, arcades, etc.). The Senate voted to keep the ban in place.

The new agreement revises the ban so it would only prohibit the use of federal funds for needle exchange programs in a location “that local public health or law enforcement agencies determine to be inappropriate.”

Here’s the chart, which lays out the approved spending levels for FY2009, the funding levels authorized in the PEPFAR II, the President’s request for FY2010, and last night’s Congressional agreement.

Dollars in millions

Notes:  The reauthorization bill did not contain specified year by year funding levels with the exception of the Global Fund which was authorized at $2 billion.   The amounts listed under PEPFAR II for bilateral Global AIDS and TB are extrapolated from the overall five-year funding levels authorized in the bill. In addition, as noted above, the global AIDS figure does not include money directed to USAID or CDC for their bilateral HIV programs.

You can follow up on the Dec. 9 faculty workshop on “NIH Peer Review and Compliance Issues” by downloading Associate Dean Robert Fyffe’s presentation (PDF).  Also See the NIH document “Details of Application Changes for Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements” (PDF; for due dates on or after January 25, 2010). Check the NIH web page on Enhancing Peer Review for regular updates on the progress of this initiative.

there is a fish in here somewhere

The old saying goes, “If life hands you a lemon, you make lemonade.” Sounds simple, but what if life hands you a kumquat? (I’ve always wanted to use that word in a sentence!). The point being, of course, that life isn’t quite so neat and black and white. It’s messy, gray and can get very complex. And, the same, I guess, could be said for lemonade — too much sugar and it’s sickly, stickly sweet, too little sugar and you get a fish-face.

Right now, I’m holding a virtual kumquat, not sure just where this little fruit will take me. I’ve started to feel more comfortable with this whole new world of blogging and looking forward to exploring alternative therapy and medicine through connections in the cybersphere. But a family matter will have to supersede things for a while. As always, there is irony: the situation will afford me more time to write (read properly edit, copy-edit, proofread); internet access will be limited (a 15 minute walk to a small town local library with wifi service that I hope is still up and running in these underfunded days). There is a natural foods store in town, a friend of a friend who does massage, weekly yoga classes, and a fitness center. So, I will just have to do some “real” as well as virtual research into alternative therapies.

Before I pack up my laptop, I did add two traditional medicine links to my blogroll.  The first is the National Institute of Health’s Pain Consortium website; the second is the same forum’s list of recent clinical trials (recruiting, ongoing, and completed). Participating in a clinical trial has its ethical dilemmas: who is actually underwriting the trial; as well as practical ones: what if I get the placebo? I’d be really interested in learning from someone who was/is a part of a clinical trial what the experience is like both from a physical as well as emotional perspective. Does a clinical trial drug “feel” like it offers more hope of pain relief/management? Guess I’d better get my Poll page up and running!

Update:

Wikipedia photo of a kumquat

This is a kumquat (should have thought to insert photo when I first posted). And, as has been commented the kumquat is both sweet and sour; a perfect allegory (?) for life. So, here’s to the kumquat!

I’m also going to update my links to include the American Chronic Pain Association and the American Pain Society; two sites which take a positive approach to pain management and provide links to various other resources such as clinical trials, professional organizations which deal with chronic pain, and current research. (A blog entry on these sites to follow)

the bitter and the sweet

{Thanks to Wikipedia for the images}

For the last few years, I’ve been writing short articles about the biologists invited to give the annual Stetten Lecture at the National Institutes of Health. This year, the prestigious lecture was delivered by a woman who studies how bacteria communicate.

In past years, speakers talked about their research on how to curb the inflammatory response and stem cell regulation.

The BSOM Office of Research Affairs and the WSU Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (RSP) will hold a faculty workshop on “NIH Peer Review and Compliance Issues” on Wednesday, December 9, 2009 from 1:00–3:00 p.m. in 101 White Hall (Gandhi Auditorium) on the WSU main campus.

This workshop will be of interest to faculty, residents, advanced graduate and medical students, and others involved in or likely to become involved in the submission of NIH research grants and/or in the administration of funded proposals. Although focused on NIH grants, the compliance topics will be of interest to all extramurally funded investigators. The workshop will include brief presentations and opportunity for discussion of issues including the new NIH scoring system, new page limits, and grant compliance.

Everyone is welcome, but if you wish to attend, please RSVP to Mark Willis (mark.willis@wright.edu; 775 3814).

NIH Peer Review and Grant Compliance program:

• 1:00-1:25 p.m.: Changes in page limits for NIH grant applications – Robert Fyffe
• 1:25-1:45 p.m.: Enhancing Peer Review – the “1-9” scoring system – Robert Fyffe
• 1:45–2:30 p.m.: Grant Compliance Ellen Reinsch Friese & Robert Fyffe
• 2:30 – 3:00 p.m.: Final discussion and wrap-up

Please download this announcement (PDF) to post in your office or lab: