Whither biological database research?

We consider how the landscape of biological databases may evolve in the future, and what research is needed to realize this evolution. We suggest today's dispersal of diverse resources will only increase as the number and size of those resources, driving the need for semantic interoperability even more strongly. Because the complexity of the questions biologists want answered automatically continues to rapidly escalate, we will need to draw upon high-performance computing resources such as the GRID to process complex queries. Finally, we still need data, and our ways of acquiring and curating data must improve by orders of magnitude.     

What's new in lysozyme research?

The present review is focused on the main achievements realized in the lysozyme research field since the meeting held in 1972 to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the discovery of this enzyme. Despite of extensive structural, physico-chemical, crystallographic, genetic, immunological and evolutionary studies devoted to lysozymes, their biological role is still not exactly known.     

Addressing ethical issues in H3Africa research – the views of research ethics committee members

In June 2014, the H3Africa Working Group on Ethics organised a workshop with members of over 40 research ethics committees from across Africa to discuss the ethical challenges raised in H3Africa research, and to receive input on the proposed H3Africa governance framework. Prominent amongst a myriad of ethical issues raised by meeting participants were concerns over consent for future use of samples and data, the role of community engagement in large international collaborative projects, and particular features of the governance of sample sharing. This report describes these concerns in detail and will be informative to researchers wishing to conduct genomic research on diseases pertinent to the African research context.     

Setting research priorities for Type 1 diabetes

Diabet. Med. 29, 1321-1326 (2012) ABSTRACT: Aims Research priorities are often set by academic researchers or the pharmaceutical industry. The interests of patients, carers and clinicians may therefore be overlooked and research questions that matter may be neglected. The aims of this study were to collect uncertainties about the treatment of Type?1 diabetes from patients, carers and health professionals, and to collate and prioritize these uncertainties to develop a top 10 list of research priorities, using a structured priority-setting partnership of patients, carers, health professionals and diabetes organizations, as described by the James Lind Alliance. Methods A partnership of interested organizations was set up, and from this a steering committee of 10 individuals was formed. An online and paper survey was used to identify uncertainties. These were collated, and the steering group carried out an interim priority-setting exercise with partner organizations. This group of uncertainties was then voted on to give a smaller list that went forward to the final priority-setting workshop. At this meeting, a final list of the top 10 research priorities was agreed. Results An initial 1141 uncertainties were described. These were reduced to 88 indicative questions, 47 of which went out for voting. Twenty-four were then taken forward to a final priority-setting workshop. This workshop resulted in a list of top 10 research priorities in Type?1 diabetes. Conclusion We have shown that it is possible using the James Lind Alliance process to develop an agreed top 10 list of research priorities for Type?1 diabetes from health professionals, patients and carers.