The role of modern biology and medicine in drug development in academia and industry

This symposium addresses careers in drug development in industry; the performance of translational research by academia, industry, and both; and numerous factors pertinent to alliances essential to drug discovery and development. Drug development is a complex process that regularly involves effective collaborations between academic and physician scientists and industry. There are specific occupational factors affecting recruitment of scientists and physicians in drug development programs in industry; ideal backgrounds for successful applicants for positions in industry in drug development; ethical and regulatory considerations particularly germane to the performance of scientists and physicians in drug development programs in industry and at universities; and particular gratifications available to scientists in industry working on drug development. Both similarities and differences characterize the performance of translational research in industry compared with academia. In industry, logistic, operational, and scientific oversight is complex, especially because it often involves relationships with clinical enterprises outside of the corporation. The process is long and arduous from formulation of a good idea in discovery to acceptance of a novel drug in the marketplace. Collaborations and partnerships by industry often involving academia and confrontation of multiple issues are pivotal.     

The loss of biodiversity conservation in EU research programmes: Thematic shifts in biodiversity wording in the environment themes of EU research programmes FP7 and Horizon 2020

Society has been seeking ways to express biodiversity's value to stimulate its protection. Economic valuation of ecosystem services has had limited success to motivate biodiversity protection and reaching the EU 2020 biodiversity strategy targets is in danger of failure. The expression of biodiversity's value in policy documents thus becomes a topic of discussion, because it greatly influences the ways policy makers think about environmental problems. We present an analysis of the word use related to biodiversity conservation versus ecosystem services in the environment themes of the FP7 and Horizon 2020 research work programs of the European Commission in the period of 2007–2014, and the projects accepted under these themes. We conclude first that biodiversity was lost as a topic in the transition from FP7 to Horizon 2020, accompanied by a three-quarters loss of biodiversity topics in the projects accepted under these research work programs. Moreover, the use of ‘ecosystem services’ was 1.5 times higher at the end of that period compared to the beginning in the research work programs, to the detriment of the use of ‘sustainability’ and ‘conservation’ which halved during that same period. In the light of international commitments to biodiversity conservation, the focus toward ecosystem services and away from conservation is of great concern.     

Tracing the politics of changing postwar research practices: the export of ‘American’ radioisotopes to European biologists

This paper examines the US Atomic Energy Commission’s radioisotope distribution program, established in 1946, which employed the uranium piles built for the wartime bomb project to produce specific radioisotopes for use in scientific investigation and medical therapy. As soon as the program was announced, requests from researchers began pouring into the Commission’s office. During the first year of the program alone over 1000 radioisotope shipments were sent out. The numerous requests that came from scientists outside the United States, however, sparked a political debate about whether the Commission should or even could export radioisotopes. This controversy manifested the tension between the aims of the Marshall Plan and growing US national security concerns after World War II. Proponents of international circulation of radioisotopes emphasized the political and scientific value of collaborating with European scientists, especially biomedical researchers. In the end, radioisotopes were shipped from the Commission’s Oak Ridge facility to many laboratories in England and continental Europe, where they were used in biochemical research on animals, plants, and microbes. However, the issue of radioisotope export continued to draw political fire in the United States, even after the establishment of national atomic energy facilities elsewhere.     

Why bother with a COST Action? The benefits of networking in science

A COST Action is a consortium of -mainly- European scientists (but open to international cooperation) working on a common research area, with the same subject; COST provides funding to the Actions for networking and dissemination activities, thus the participating scientists must have secured research funding from other national or European sources. COST funding is in the scale of approximately 100 kEuros per year and in this vein, it is often criticized both in that it does not fund research and the core science and in that its funding is ‘limited’. However, COST with its instruments is an integral pillar of the European Research Area, and it is through its mission that a variety of aspects of the research environment, fundamental to the success of the research, are catered for; these include scientific networking, collaboration/exchange/training and dissemination activities. Through fast procedures, proposals are evaluated and approved for funding in less than one year from submission date and Actions become operational immediately, managed on flexible management. In this way, COST contributes to reducing the fragmentation in European research investments, while opening the European Research Area to cooperation worldwide. COST Actions have an excellent record of building the critical mass for follow up activities in the EU FP or other similarly competitive programmes.     

European Union research and innovation perspectives on biotechnology

"Food, Agriculture and Fisheries and Biotechnology" is one of 10 thematic areas in the Cooperation programme of the European Union's 7th Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7). With a budget of nearly €2 billion for the period 2007-2013, its objective is to foster the development of a European Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy (KBBE) by bringing together science, industry and other stakeholders that produce, manage or otherwise exploit biological resources. Biotechnology plays an important role in addressing social, environmental and economic challenges and it is recognised as a key enabling technology in the transition to a green, low carbon and resource-efficient economy. Biotechnologies for non-health applications have received a considerable attention in FP7 and to date 61 projects on industrial, marine, plant, environmental and emerging biotechnologies have been supported with a contribution of €262.8 million from the European Commission (EC). This article presents an outlook of the research, technological development and demonstration activities in biotechnology currently supported in FP7 within the Cooperation programme, including a brief overview of the policy context.     

TRANSAUTOPHAGY: European network for multidisciplinary research and translation of autophagy knowledge

A collaborative consortium, named “TRANSAUTOPHAGY,” has been created among European research groups, comprising more than 150 scientists from 21 countries studying diverse branches of basic and translational autophagy. The consortium was approved in the framework of the Horizon 2020 Program in November 2015 as a COST Action of the European Union (COST means: CO-operation in Science and Technology), and will be sponsored for 4 years. TRANSAUTOPHAGY will form an interdisciplinary platform for basic and translational researchers, enterprises and stakeholders of diverse disciplines (including nanotechnology, bioinformatics, physics, chemistry, biology and various medical disciplines). TRANSAUTOPHAGY will establish 5 different thematic working groups, formulated to cooperate in research projects, share ideas, and results through workshops, meetings and short term exchanges of personnel (among other initiatives). TRANSAUTOPHAGY aims to generate breakthrough multidisciplinary knowledge about autophagy regulation, and to boost translation of this knowledge into biomedical and biotechnological applications.     

The tissue banking in cancer and stem cell research

The Sapio Award was established in 1999 by the Sapio Group along with several Italian universities and research centers to recognize Italian scientists who have made a major contribution to the discovery or development of novel technologies in the fields of biotechnology, social and health services, nonotechnology and biosecurity in agricultural production and scientific distribution. The 2006 edition of the award meeting centered around the issues of tissue banks and biorepositories and translational medicine. The organizing committee divided this edition into a pre-meeting held in Milan on October 18, 2006 and a master meeting on October 19, 2006, held at the ISS in Rome. A summary of these meetings is given.     

Science PhD career preferences: levels, changes, and advisor encouragement

Even though academic research is often viewed as the preferred career path for PhD trained scientists, most U.S. graduates enter careers in industry, government, or "alternative careers." There has been a growing concern that these career patterns reflect fundamental imbalances between the supply of scientists seeking academic positions and the availability of such positions. However, while government statistics provide insights into realized career transitions, there is little systematic data on scientists' career preferences and thus on the degree to which there is a mismatch between observed career paths and scientists' preferences. Moreover, we lack systematic evidence whether career preferences adjust over the course of the PhD training and to what extent advisors exacerbate imbalances by encouraging their students to pursue academic positions. Based on a national survey of PhD students at tier-one U.S. institutions, we provide insights into the career preferences of junior scientists across the life sciences, physics, and chemistry. We also show that the attractiveness of academic careers decreases significantly over the course of the PhD program, despite the fact that advisors strongly encourage academic careers over non-academic careers. Our data provide an empirical basis for common concerns regarding labor market imbalances. Our results also suggest the need for mechanisms that provide PhD applicants with information that allows them to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of pursuing a PhD, as well as for mechanisms that complement the job market advice advisors give to their current students.     

Porter Physiology Development Program 1967-2001: a retrospective study

The Porter Physiology Development Program Fellowships have supported the predoctoral and postdoctoral studies of numerous minority students. All of the Fellows responding to the current survey continue to be involved in life sciences-related work, primarily as physiologists-in-training or as physiologists working in academia, government, or industry. Following receipt of their degree, the large majority of Fellows completed a single postdoctoral fellowship and entered their first professional position. Most employed past-Fellows spent at least part of their time engaged in research and were also involved in teaching, management, and administration. Respondents felt strongly that the Porter Fellowship had contributed to the quality of their pre/postdoctoral training. They felt it gave them intellectual freedom to select research advisors and topics or postdoctoral positions. They also felt the financial freedom provided by the Fellowship allowed them to concentrate on their research, contributing both to the quality of their work and to their overall career commitment. Fellows strongly recommended continuation of the program and offered suggestions for expansion and increased communication. Finally, one of the most powerful benefits of the program is in its longitudinal impact. Past Fellows now serve as role models for a new generation of minority students aspiring to careers in biomedical research. Some have their own graduate students who have received the Porter Fellowship. One such Fellow emphasized the importance of this aspect of the program: I was always told by my colleagues that I would be a good role model to minority students. Having Fellowships like the Porter Development Fellowship insures the training of minority professionals. Young minority students have hope of becoming scientists when they see those of us who have made it. I have graduate students who tell me that they want a laboratory and to do research like I am doing which makes me feel that I have accomplished something [important]. As stated earlier, the goal of the Porter Physiology Fellowship Program is to encourage diversity among students pursuing full-time studies toward the PhD (or DSc) in the physiological sciences, and to encourage their participation in the APS. The findings of this retrospective study suggest that the program has been highly successful in both of these aspects.     

An Assessment of Diversity,Inclusion, and Health Equity Training in Endocrinology Fellowship Programs in the United States

ContextThe Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has instituted common program requirements related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) for postgraduate trainees in the United States; however, the extent to which DEI training is being incorporated across endocrinology fellowship programs is unknown.ObjectivesTo describe the sociodemographic representation and DEI training experiences within endocrinology fellowship programs.Design, setting, and participantsNational cross-sectional survey study of fellows and fellowship program leaders in the United States whose fellowships were members of the Association of Program Directors in Endocrinology and Metabolism.Main outcome measures(1) Demographics of fellows and program leaders and (2) programs’ experience, confidence, and interest in formal DEI training.ResultsA total of 108 and 106 fellow and faculty responded to the survey, respectively. The majority of fellows and faculty are female. Less than 3% of fellows and 3.7% of faculty identify as Black. More than 90% of fellows/faculty are heterosexual and no respondents identified as transgender/nonbinary; however, 5% and 2% of all respondents preferred not to disclose their sexual orientation and gender identity, respectively. While 85% of faculty received institutional diversity and inclusion training, 67.6% of fellows did. Fellows are more likely to have received training in health equity than program leaders. Both fellows and program leaders express a high interest in health equity curriculum.ConclusionsWithin the diversity of endocrinology training programs, Black physicians are underrepresented in medicine, which persists in endocrinology fellowships. Fellowship programs express enthusiasm for national diversity and health equity curricula, with the majority of programs reporting institutional DEI training.     

How to choose a mentor

Mentors will play important roles in the careers of most successful scientists. Mentors are trusted advisors that give constructive criticism and provide information in many areas of a scientific life. Mentors will likely change throughout your career as your position changes and thus the areas of advice needed changes. Despite the fact that you gain new mentors, the relationships with the old mentors likely will continue and often grow into strong friendships. The American Physiological Society is a member of MentorNet, which is an award-winning, free, one-on-one electronic mentoring program for graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and early career scientists who are APS members. Mentees and mentors are matched based on their responses to several questionnaires regarding research interests, mentoring needs, time needed, etc. Once assigned, mentors and mentees are allowed to approve their matches, and once done, contact information is given to each pair. A new mentor can be assigned every eight months. These electronic mentoring relationships are especially helpful if you are not comfortable discussing certain things with your thesis or postdoctoral advisor. APS encourages all members to participate either as a mentee or mentor in this valuable program. To comment on this article, go to http://www.the-aps.org/careers/ careers 1/mentor/mentoring.htm.     

Art and human embryonic stem cells: From the bench to the high street

ESTOOLS, a project funded by the European Commission (FP6), gathers expertise on human embryonic stem cells in 10 countries of the European Research Area. The ESTOOLS outreach program uses Art extensively as the only universal cross-cultural and cross-religion means of communication. The Smile of a Stem Cell photo exhibition, a major component of this program, aims to fill a missing link between public dissemination of science and science-illiterate citizens. Scientists are also engaged to stand at a distance from their work and observe it with an outsider’s perspective, which enhances their competency to communicate science. The photo exhibition, by its situation upstream of scientific education, makes itself open to interest and enthusiasm among a public with no prerequired scientific knowledge or abilities.     

Balancing teaching and research experiences in doctoral training programs: lessons for the future educator

While a variety of alternative careers has emerged for Ph.D. life scientists in industry, business, law, and education in the past two decades, the structure of doctoral training programs in many cases does not provide the flexibility necessary to pursue career experiences not directly related to a research emphasis. Here I describe my efforts to supplement my traditional doctoral research training with independent teaching experiences that have allowed me to prepare myself for a career that combines both into a combined educational program. I describe the issues I have come across in finding and taking part in these endeavors, how these issues have affected my work in pursuing my Ph.D., and how my experiences translate into my hopes for a future education-based career in molecular and cell biology.     

Science under politics. An Italian nightmare

Is political interference in science unavoidable? A look at the situation in Italy highlights what can happen if scientists do not defend their independence and their science.The second half of the twentieth century has seen the relationship between society, politics and science become increasingly complex and controversial. Particularly in democratic countries—where the application of scientific research and the diffusion of knowledge have contributed to a significant increase in the well-being of citizens—scientists have had to face interference from political, religious and ideological interest groups. Even the seemingly powerful scientific community in the USA was affected by an ‘epidemic of politics'' under the administration of President George W. Bush. This ‘infection of science'' was characterized by inappropriate political meddling in research driven by political prejudices and religious arguments, especially in more controversial research fields. During his tenure, Bush established science and health policies that went against expert advice, and in several cases made controversial appointments to key positions in scientific and health agencies (Kennedy, 2003; Mooney, 2005). This was all the more shocking because science and scientists in the USA have generally enjoyed a great deal of political independence.Even the seemingly powerful scientific community in the USA was affected by an ‘epidemic of politics'' under the administration of President George W. BushSuch ‘epidemics of politics'' are not exclusive to the USA; political interference in scientific research and its applications is endemic in many countries. Such meddling can take various forms depending on the country in question, the different democratic decision-making processes at work, the relative influences of politics, economics and society on the scientific community and, to some extent, the level of scientific literacy of the public. During the past two decades, science in Italy has been suffering from a particularly severe form of political interference that we believe deserves international consideration, if only to act as a warning for other countries.Italian science has often found itself entangled in political controversy. After the unification of the country in 1861, during the last two decades of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century, Italian scientists actively participated in political debates about how to improve and integrate the fragments of Italian society, culture, economy, health, and so on. But from the beginning, they often confused political battles with their professional status and/or scientific disagreements (Casella et al, 2000). Throughout the fascist era, the scientific community—similarly to the rest of the country—was subjected to the rule of Benito Mussolini''s regime (Maiocchi, 2004). After the Second World War, both Catholic and Marxist ideologies prevented the rise of an autonomous scientific community, so Italian scientists had and still have little cultural or political influence.During the past two decades, science in Italy has been suffering from a particularly severe form of political interference…Yet Italians are far from hostile to science; they follow advances in research and technology with keen interest and expectation, as shown by a fairly recent survey (Eurobarometer, 2005a, b). Politicians, influential intellectuals and lobbyists who oppose research and innovation for various reasons have therefore adopted a strategy of trying to manipulate and censor facts. Rather than confronting the scientific evidence directly, they maintain a high degree of political control over scientific research and its applications. As a result, the validity of scientific evidence has become optional and its use arbitrary in public and political discussions.This situation has been virtually de rigueur since the advent of Silvio Berlusconi in 1994, although it would be unfair to say that the current Italian Prime Minister is the main culprit. Indeed, many factors have acted together to make Italian science prey to political influence, including the predominance of non-transparent and nepotistic approaches to the public funding of research, the chronic cultural and political impotence of Italian scientists and the waning professional quality of the national political and intellectual elites (Corbellini, 2009). The examples provided here should illustrate the weaknesses of the Italian scientific community and how politicians—irrespective of their political colour—have been reluctant to understand and respect the value of scientific procedures and evidence.In 1997, the Italian media regaled its readers with stories about a new and supposedly effective treatment for cancer, which had been developed by the physician and professor Luigi Di Bella, then at the University of Modena. The media storm was so convincing that a judge in Apulia ordered the local public health authorities to provide patients with the drug cocktail required for the therapy, despite the absence of a scientific basis for the claims or clinical evidence for the efficacy of the treatment (Remuzzi & Schieppati, 1999). The Di Bella multi-therapy (DBM)—as the treatment was called—soon became a topic for political wrangling between the members of right-wing parties who supported the treatment, and the more sceptical, ruling centre-left party. This continued until the health ministry, backed by prominent Italian oncologists, eventually agreed to sponsor a controversial clinical trial. This exposed the Italian medical community to international scorn (Müllner, 1999) and highlighted the lack of accurate and factual scientific information in the public debate (Passalacqua et al, 1999).Politicians, influential intellectuals and lobbyists who oppose research and innovation for various reasons have therefore adopted a strategy of manipulating and censoring factsIn late 2000 and early 2001, Italian plant biotechnologists were up in arms over a decree proposed by the centre-left government''s agricultural ministry that would have banned funding for any plant research involving genetic modification (Frank, 2000). The decree was eventually withdrawn as the result of a political move to prevent the opposition from exploiting the dispute. However, when the centre-right coalition came to power in May 2001, the new Ministry of Agriculture proved equally averse to the use of genetically modified plants. As a result, research in the field of plant genetics in Italy remains virtually devoid of public funding and a series of byzantine regulations still prevent Italian farmers from using genetically modified crops, despite the lack of scientific evidence that they are dangerous. In fact, the law does not explicitly ban their use and they are routinely imported as livestock feed.Striking examples of the manipulation and censorship of science were seen during the fierce debate that followed the introduction of Law 40—which was issued in 2004 with the apparent unofficial support of the Catholic Church—that limited the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures and banned research on human embryos. According to this law, each IVF procedure is allowed to create only three embryos, all of which must be implanted into the recipient mother (Boggio, 2005). This is in contrast to international guidelines on clinical practice (www.eshre.eu). Law 40 also prohibits pre-implantation diagnosis and the cryopreservation of embryos, as well as the generation of embryonic stem-cell lines, even when these are obtained from superfluous embryos that were created before the law was enforced and are destined to be stored frozen indefinitely.In 2005, patient advocacy groups and left parties called for a referendum to abrogate Law 40. This ignited a fierce dispute with Catholic politicians, backed by a handful of scientists, who called on voters to boycott the referendum and claimed that the law was scientifically sound and improved safety for patients (Vogel, 2005; Boggio & Corbellini, 2009). Interestingly, rather than attempting to justify their position with ethical, legal, scientific or religious arguments, the supporters of Law 40 often adopted the strategy of denigrating scientific research and facts and spreading misleading information (Corbellini, 2006). They claimed, for example, that pre-implantation diagnosis did not work, that the cryopreservation of embryos was not clinically necessary and that research with embryonic stem cells was pointless because adult stem cells had been proven to be effective for treating dozens of diseases (Corbellini, 2007).According to the Italian Constitution, the referendum was invalidated as less than 50% of the electorate voted. The proportion of Italian citizens who usually vote in a referendum is about 60%, and analysis shows that most non-voters decided not to participate because they did not understand what was at stake (Corbellini, 2006). Six years later, Law 40 has finally been revised by a series of decisions at Italy''s Constitutional Court and now, in some circumstances, pre-implantation diagnosis and the cryopreservation of embryos is permitted.The preceding examples have highlighted how Italian politicians and special interest groups have stifled scientific progress and liberty within Italy. The following examples highlight how political meddling and influence are jeopardizing the competitiveness of Italian research on the international stage.The teaching of evolution came frighteningly close to being scrapped from primary school curricula in Italy under a reform instigated by the 2003 centre-right government. It was reinstated only when the issue led to a political brawl between the Cabinet and the left-wing press (Frazzetto, 2004).Italy lacks an independent agency for research and also compulsory, transparent and unbiased selection processesThe same right-wing government was also opposed to the creation of the European Research Council (ERC), arguing that the agency would be too independent from political control (ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/italy/docs/positionfp7_it.pdf). This is not surprising for a country in which the chairs of public research institutions and the scientific directors of research hospitals are appointed by the government (with a few notable exceptions, see Anon, 2008) and where funding is often granted in a top-down manner by governmental decree to specific institutes, without public calls or peer review (Margottini, 2008).Even when funding is subject to peer review, cases in which money ends up at laboratories that are directly affiliated with members of the evaluating commission are, unfortunately, not the exception (Italian Parliament, 2006), which highlights the widespread conflicts of interest that are allowed. Italy lacks both an independent agency for research and compulsory, transparent and unbiased selection processes. As such, the guidelines and criteria that determine which research activities receive public funding are often established directly by the respective ministries, thereby increasing the risk of political interference. This was the case in 2007, when peers of Barbara Ensoli—then at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS) in Rome—felt that she was receiving a disproportionate amount of government funding, without peer review and in spite of the fact that her work on an HIV/AIDS vaccine was, at least to some scientists, unconvincing (Cohen, 2007).Conversely, in 2009 the Ministry of Health arbitrarily excluded projects involving human embryonic stem-cell lines from a call for proposals on stem-cell research funding—one of the authors of this article, Elena Cattaneo, is now appealing in court against the ministry''s decision (Cattaneo et al, 2010). Further, in October 2010 the Italian Ministry of Health decided, motu proprio, to grant €3 million to a private foundation that claimed to have created adult human stem cells that can be tested in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. This happened in spite of the Ministry''s declarations a few months previously that allocation of public money for research should be subject to peer review.If Italian scientists want to have a leading role in shaping society and the future, they must demand, reinstate and maintain sound principles of transparency and competitiveness in the allocation of public funding. This means that individual researchers—who enjoy the ephemeral benefits gained by deference to politicians and the exploitation of conflicts of interests—should be highlighted as negative examples to the scientific community, as their behaviour is damaging not only science, but also the practice of science as a model for public ethics.We hope that international experts in sociology and science policy find that the censorship of science, the manipulation of facts and the lack of objective peer review and evaluation in Italy deserve their attention and intervene on behalf of Italian science. They would be up against an interesting paradox: such abnormal conducts are often defended in the name of alleged democratic principles. The introduction of Law 40, for example, was justified publicly under the assumption that most Italian citizens were against the use of embryonic stem cells in research—which is, incidentally, false (Eurobarometer, 2006)—and the Apulia judge''s ruling on DBM was made on the grounds of individual freedom of access to therapy, laid down by the Italian constitution.… is Italy an exception, or simply a vision of things to come in other countries?One could ask whether the situation in Italy is simply a local consequence of a deteriorating relationship between science and society, or between scientists and politicians. In other words, is Italy an exception, or simply a vision of things to come in other countries? Regardless, the predicament of Italian science and scientists should stand as a warning of what happens when the rules of transparency are overridden, the scientific community remains largely silent, scientific facts have marginal political influence and science communication is helpless against ideologically driven propaganda that manipulates facts on a large scale (Corbellini, 2010). The experience of scientists in the USA during the Bush administration shows that for other countries this possibility is not too far-fetched and that, to paraphrase the British statesman Edmund Burke (1729–1797): bad science flourishes when good scientists do nothing.? Open in a separate windowElena CattaneoOpen in a separate windowGilberto Corbellini     

European Union research and innovation perspectives on biotechnology

“Food, Agriculture and Fisheries and Biotechnology” is one of 10 thematic areas in the Cooperation programme of the European Union's 7th Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7). With a budget of nearly €2 billion for the period 2007–2013, its objective is to foster the development of a European Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy (KBBE) by bringing together science, industry and other stakeholders that produce, manage or otherwise exploit biological resources. Biotechnology plays an important role in addressing social, environmental and economic challenges and it is recognised as a key enabling technology in the transition to a green, low carbon and resource-efficient economy. Biotechnologies for non-health applications have received a considerable attention in FP7 and to date 61 projects on industrial, marine, plant, environmental and emerging biotechnologies have been supported with a contribution of €262.8 million from the European Commission (EC). This article presents an outlook of the research, technological development and demonstration activities in biotechnology currently supported in FP7 within the Cooperation programme, including a brief overview of the policy context.     

Education and training for radiation scientists: radiation research program and American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Workshop, Bethesda, Maryland, May 12-14, 2003

Current and potential shortfalls in the number of radiation scientists stand in sharp contrast to the emerging scientific opportunities and the need for new knowledge to address issues of cancer survivorship and radiological and nuclear terrorism. In response to these challenges, workshops organized by the Radiation Research Program (RRP), National Cancer Institute (NCI) (Radiat. Res. 157, 204-223, 2002; Radiat. Res. 159, 812-834, 2003), and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (Nature, 421, 787, 2003) have engaged experts from a range of federal agencies, academia and industry. This workshop, Education and Training for Radiation Scientists, addressed the need to establish a sustainable pool of expertise and talent for a wide range of activities and careers related to radiation biology, oncology and epidemiology. Although fundamental radiation chemistry and physics are also critical to radiation sciences, this workshop did not address workforce needs in these areas. The recommendations include: (1) Establish a National Council of Radiation Sciences to develop a strategy for increasing the number of radiation scientists. The strategy includes NIH training grants, interagency cooperation, interinstitutional collaboration among universities, and active involvement of all stakeholders. (2) Create new and expanded training programs with sustained funding. These may take the form of regional Centers of Excellence for Radiation Sciences. (3) Continue and broaden educational efforts of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO), the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), and the Radiation Research Society (RRS). (4) Foster education and training in the radiation sciences for the range of career opportunities including radiation oncology, radiation biology, radiation epidemiology, radiation safety, health/government policy, and industrial research. (5) Educate other scientists and the general public on the quantitative, basic, molecular, translational and applied aspects of radiation sciences.     

A future of the model organism model

Changes in technology are fundamentally reframing our concept of what constitutes a model organism. Nevertheless, research advances in the more traditional model organisms have enabled fresh and exciting opportunities for young scientists to establish new careers and offer the hope of comprehensive understanding of fundamental processes in life. New advances in translational research can be expected to heighten the importance of basic research in model organisms and expand opportunities. However, researchers must take special care and implement new resources to enable the newest members of the community to engage fully with the remarkable legacy of information in these fields.     

European approach to the Human Gene Project

In the history of gene mapping, which extends through most of the present century, Europe has played an important role. This has continued during the evolution of the 10 International Human Gene Mapping Workshops that have been held in seven different countries since 1973. Nationally coordinated programs have been a recent development, and several European countries, including the United Kingdom and Italy, have followed the lead of the United States in investing substantial sums of money in research on the human genome. In addition, the European Community has launched a multinational program of research on Human Genome Analysis to complement the various national initiatives. The particular approach in Europe has been to support those in the field by establishing resource centers for distributing biomaterials and accessing databases, by assisting in the training of scientists, and by funding programs of research directed at present needs in both physical and genetic mapping.     

European and Hungarian national tasks in oncology

It is well known that cancer incidence and mortality figures are very poor in Hungary. By providing the latest figures the authors analyze the epidemiological background and the risk factors responsible for this situation. Furthermore, based on international recommendations and national specificities, the authors define areas of action to solve this significant health issue. The main conclusion of their analysis is that it is inevitable to improve oncology care by adjusting it to European standards. The decade-old National Cancer Control Program (NCCP) is improved by incorporating legislative actions, educational issues, research and development priorities. The program now provides the definition of regional centers, recommend improvements of the function of oncology teams and rehabilitation. Based on successful European models, this program must be coordinated by the National Cancer Institute.