Archive for the ‘Scientist: Career considerations’ Category

Live Notes from JP Morgan Healthcare Conference Virtual Endpoints Preview: January 8-9 2024

Posted in Artificial Intelligence - Breakthroughs in Theories and Technologies, Artificial Intelligence - General, Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care, Artificial Intelligence in CANCER, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine - Applications in Therapeutics, Big Data, Big Data & Analytics, BioTechnology - Venture Creation, Cancer and Current Therapeutics, Conference Coverage with Social Media, Data Science, Drug Development Process, Drug Discovery Chemistry, Institutional Capital Raised by Female Founders, Longevity, Machine Learning, New Drug Approval, Personalized and Precision Medicine & Genomic Research, Pharmaceutical Discovery, Pharmaceutical Drug Discovery, RNA Biology, Cancer and Therapeutics, Technology Transfer: Biotech and Pharmaceutical, Translational Science, US and Global Economy: Trends and Findings, Venture Capital, tagged #JPM24, antibody-drug conjugate, antibody-drug conjugates, antiobesity, bioinvestment, Biotech Investment and Venture Growth: The Franchising of Intellectual Property as a Business Model, Cancer immunotherapy, click chemistry, GLP-1, JPM, nobel leureates on January 16, 2024| Leave a Comment »

Live Notes from JP Morgan Healthcare Conference Virtual Endpoints Preview: January 8-9 2024

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Endpoints at #JPM24 | Primed to unlock biopharma’s next dealmaking wave

Endpoints at JP Morgan Healthcare Conference

January 8-9 | San Francisco, CA80 Mission St, San Francisco, CA

An oasis has emerged in the biopharma money desert as backers look to replenish capital — still, uncertainty remains on whether it’s a mirage or the much needed dealmaking bump the industry needs. Yet spirits run high as JPM24 marks the triumphant return of inking strategic alliances and peering into the industry crystal ball — while keeping an eye out for some major M&A.

We’re back live from San Francisco for JPM Monday and Tuesday — our calendar of can’t-miss panels and fireside chats will feature prominent biopharma leaders to watch. The Endpoints Hub provides the ultimate coworking space with everything you need — 1:1 and group meeting spots plus guest pass capabilities and more. Join us in-person at the Endpoints Hub or watch online to stay plugged into all the action.

8 JAN

Welcome remarks

8:05 AM – 8:25 AM PST

Pfizer vet Mikael Dolsten has some thoughts on Big Pharma R&D

Endpoints News founding editor John Carroll will sit down with longtime Pfizer CSO Mikael Dolsten to talk about Pfizer’s pipeline, what he’s learned on the job about preclinical research and development and what’s ahead for the pharma giant in drug development and deals.

Mikael Dolsten

Chief Scientific Officer, President, Pfizer Research & Development

Pfizer

Pfizer Mikael Dolsten: Pfizer produced a series of AI generated molecules with new properties. Sees rapid adoption of AI in the area of drug discovery and molecular design.

 

 

8:25 AM – 9:05 AM PST

What pharma wants: The industry’s dealmakers look ahead at 2024

The drug industry’s appetite for new assets hasn’t slowed down. Top business development execs will give their outlook on the year, what they’re looking for and how they see the market.

Glenn Hunzinger

Pharmaceutical & Life Sciences Consulting Solutions Leader

PwC US

Rachna Khosla

SVP, Head of Business Development

Amgen

James Sabry

Global Head of Pharma Partnering

Roche

Devang Bhuva

SVP, Corporate Development

Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Endpoints News

Dealmaking panel

Glenn Hunzinger: if you do not have a GLP1 will have a tough time getting a good market price for your company; capital markets are not where they want to be; sees a tough deal making climate like last year.  The problem with many biotech companies are they are coming earlier to the venture capital because of greater funding needs and so it is imperative that they articulate the potential of their company in scientific detail

Rachna Khosla:  Make sure your investors are not just CAPITAL PARTNERS but use their expertise and involve them in development issues you may have, especially ones that a young firm will face.  The problem is most investments assume what the future looks like (for example how antibody drug conjugates, once a field left for dead, has been rejuvenated because of advances in chemistry). 

James Sabry: noted that cardiac and metabolic drugs are now at the focus of many investors, especially with the new anti-obesity drugs on market

Devang Bhuva: Most deals we see start as collaborations or partnerships.  You want to involve an alliance management team early in the deal making process.  This process could take years.

 

9:05 AM – 9:20 AM PST

The IPO: How Apogee Therapeutics went public in the most challenging market in years

Not many biotechs went public in 2023. And of those that did, not many have had a great time of it. Apogee is the exception and our panel will offer a behind-the-scenes look at their decision to enter the market and what life is like as a young public company.

Michael Henderson

CEO

Apogee Therapeutics

Kyle LaHucik

MODERATOR

Senior Reporter

Endpoints News

Michael Henderson:  Not many biotech IPOs deals happened in 2023.  Michael feels it is because too many biotechs focused on building platforms, which was a hard sell in 2023.  He felt not many biotechs had clear milestones and investors wanted a clear primary validated target.  He said many biotech startups are in a funding crunch and most need at least $440M on their balance sheet to get to 2026.

9:50 AM – 10:10 AM PST

Top predictions for biotech in 2024

Catalent CEO Alessandro Maselli will be back at the big JPM healthcare confab to talk with Endpoints News founder John Carroll about their top predictions of what’s coming up for the biotech industry in 2024. The stakes couldn’t be higher as the industry grapples with headwinds and new opportunities in a gale of market forces. Two top observers share their thoughts on the year ahead.

Alessandro Maselli

President & CEO

Catalent

10:15 AM – 10:35 AM PST

Innovation at a crossroads: Keys to unlocking the value of science and technology

The industry has long discussed the promise of technology and the acceleration it provides in scientific advancement and across the industry value chain. However, the promise of its impact has yet to fully be realized. This discussion will outline the keys to unleashing this promise and the implications and actions to be taken by the biopharmaceutical companies across the industry.

Ray Pressburger

North America Life Sciences Industry Lead & Global Life Sciences Strategy Lead

Accenture

SPONSORED BY

10:35 AM – 11:05 AM PST

Activism and Investing: In conversation with Elliott Investment Management’s Marc Steinberg

Elliott has been behind many of 2023’s highest-profile healthcare investments, including multiple activist engagements and taking Syneos Health private. What has made large healthcare companies such interesting investment opportunities for firms like Elliott? What’s Elliott’s investing strategy in healthcare? And what should companies expect when an activist calls?

Marc Steinberg

Senior Portfolio Manager

Elliott Investment Management

Andrew Dunn

MODERATOR

Biopharma Correspondent

Endpoints News

11:05 AM – 11:35 AM PST

Creating ROI from AI

AI is predicted to transform the way drugs are made, from discovery to clinical trials to market. But beyond the initial hype and early adoption, where has AI made meaningful contributions to R&D? How does it help drug developers advance science? Endpoints publisher Arsalan Arif is convening a panel of leading experts to discuss the state of AI in the pharmaceutical landscape and the outlook for 2024. How does AI impact the drug pipeline, from the early steps of discovery to reducing trial failure rate?

Thomas Clozel

Co-Founder & CEO

Owkin

Venkat Sethuraman

SVP, Global Biometrics & Data Sciences

Bristol Myers Squibb

Frank O. Nestle

Global Head of Research & Chief Scientific Officer

Sanofi

Matthias Evers

Chief Business Officer

Evotec

Arsalan Arif

MODERATOR

Founder & Publisher

Endpoints News

SPONSORED BY

11:35 AM – 12:00 PM PST

Biopharma’s dealmaker: Behind the scenes with Centerview Partners co-president Eric Tokat

Almost every major biopharma deal in 2023 had Centerview’s name attached to it. And much of the time, Eric Tokat was the banker making those deals happen. Hear his outlook for 2024, how transactions are getting done and what’s placed his firm at the center of so much action.

E. Eric Tokat

Co-President, Investment Banking

Centerview Partners

CenterView Partners Eric Tokat feels dealmaking will improve in 2024, given the recent flurry of dealmaking at end of last year and right before main JPM Healthcare Conference.  He says Centerview wants to help the biotechs they invest in on their strategic path.  This may translate into buyers more actively involved (more than startups want) and buyers now are in the drivers seat as far as the timeline of deals and development.

Is the megamerger dead for this year?  He says it is very hard to see two major mergers happening but there will be many smaller and mid size biotech deals happening, but these deals will be more speculative in nature..  The focus for large pharma is top line growth.  Most of the buyers have an infrastructure and value is more of buying and dropping it in their business so there is now a huge emphasis on due diligence on whether synergies exist or not

 

12:00 PM – 12:30 PM PST

Founder, legend, leader: In conversation with Nobel laureate Carolyn Bertozzi

Carolyn Bertozzi’s discoveries around bioorthogonal chemistry won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2022 and are at the heart of new therapies being tested in patients. Join us as we discuss what inspires her and where she sees the next big advances.

Carolyn Bertozzi

Prof. of Chemistry, Stanford University and Baker Family Director of Sarafan ChEM-H

Stanford University

Nicole DeFeudis

MODERATOR

Editor

Endpoints News

Bioorthogonal chemistry: class of high yielding chemical reactions that proceed rapidly and selectively in biological environments without side reactions toward endogenous functions.  This is also a type of ‘click chemistry’ in biological system where only specifically alter the biomolecule of interest.

Orthogonal: two chemicals not interacting with each other

Dr. Bertozzi noted she has started a new Antibody-Drug-Conjugate (ADC) company which involves designing with biorthogonal chemistry to make new functional molecules with varying properties

She noted hardly any biologists knew anything about glycobiology when she first started.  However now she feels pharma and academia are working very well with each other

Bioorthogonal and Click Chemistry
Curated by Prof. Carolyn R. Bertozzi, 2022 winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Source: https://pubs.acs.org/page/vi/bioorthogonal-click-chemistry

The 2022 Nobel Prize in Chemistry has been awarded jointly to ACS Central Science Editor-in-Chief, Carolyn R. Bertozzi of Stanford University, Morten Meldal of the University of Copenhagen, and K. Barry Sharpless of Scripps Research, for the development of click chemistry and bioorthogonal chemistry.

To celebrate this remarkable achievement, 2022 Nobel Prize winner Professor Carolyn R. Bertozzi has curated this Bioorthogonal and Click Chemistry Virtual Issue, highlighting papers published across ACS journals that have built upon the foundational work in this exciting area of chemistry.

From Mechanism to Mouse: A Tale of Two Bioorthogonal Reactions

Ellen M. Sletten and Carolyn R. Bertozzi* Acc. Chem. Res. 2011, 44, 9, 666-676 August 15, 2011

Abstract

Bioorthogonal reactions are chemical reactions that neither interact with nor interfere with a biological system. The participating functional groups must be inert to biological moieties, must selectively reactive with each other under biocompatible conditions, and, for in vivo applications, must be nontoxic to cells and organisms. Additionally, it is helpful if one reactive group is small and therefore minimally perturbing of a biomolecule into which it has been introduced either chemically or biosynthetically. Examples from the past decade suggest that a promising strategy for bioorthogonal reaction development begins with an analysis of functional group and reactivity space outside those defined by nature. Issues such as stability of reactants and products (particularly in water), kinetics, and unwanted side reactivity with biofunctionalities must be addressed, ideally guided by detailed mechanistic studies. Finally, the reaction must be tested in a variety of environments, escalating from aqueous media to biomolecule solutions to cultured cells and, for the most optimized transformations, to live organisms.

9 JAN

9:40 AM – 10:10 AM PST

Biotech downturn survival school

Our panelists have seen the worst, and made it through to the other side. Join us for downturn survival school as our panelists talk about what sets apart the ones who make it through tough times.

These panalists think it will be specialist capital year to shine while the general capital is still sitting on the sidelines

JJ Kang

CEO

Appia Bio

“2023 was a tough year while 2020 was a boon year to start a company.  We will continue to see these cycles; many of these new CEOs have never seen a biotech downturn yet and may not know how to preserve capital for the downturn”.

“Doing a partnership with Kite Pharmaceuticals early in our startp allowed us to get work done without risking a lot of capital, even if it means equity and asset dilution.  That makes sense. However even if you are small insist on being an equal partner.”

“There are many investors we talk to who do not want to invest in cell therapy.  Too risky now”

Carl Gordon

Managing Partner

OrbiMed Advisors

There are many macroeconomic factors affecting investment and capital today which will carry on through 2024.   Not raising money when you do not need money is a bad philosophy.  Always bbe raising captial.  This is especially true when you have to rely on hedge funds.  Parnerships howeve are sometimes the only way for small biotechs to leverage their strengths.

Joshua Boger

Executive Chair

Alkeus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Boger: Expect volatility for 2024.  This environment feels very different than past downturns.

Even in downturns there is still lots of capital; remember access to human capital is better in a downturn and is easier to access;  however it has become harder to get drug approvals

The panelists agree that access to capital and funding will be as tricky in 2024 than 2023.  They did

suggest that a new funding avenue, private credit, may be a source of capital.  This is discussed below:

When thinking about a private alternative investment asset class, the first thing that springs to mind is private equity. But there’s one more asset class with the word private in its name that has recently gained much attention. We’re talking about private credit. 

Indeed, this once little-known investment strategy is now growing rapidly in popularity, offering private investors worldwide an exciting opportunity to diversify their portfolio with, in theory, less risky investments that yield significant returns. 

• Private credit investments refer to investors lending money to companies who then repay the loan at a given interest rate within the predetermined period.
• The private credit market has grown significantly over the past years, rising from $875 million in 2020 to $1.4 trillion at the beginning of 2023. 

Please WATCH VIDEO BY GOLDMAN SACHS ON PRIVATE CREDIT

https://www.gsam.com/content/dam/gsam/video/common/en/2023/TheRoadAheadForPrivateCredit.mp4

 

 

 

 

10:50 AM – 11:20 AM PST

The New Molecule: How breakthrough technologies are actually changing pharma R&D

Join us for a look at how AI, machine learning and generative technologies are actually being applied inside drugmakers’ labs. We’ll explore how new technologies are being used, their implications, how they intersect with regulatory and IP issues and how this fast-changing field is likely to evolve.

Kailash Swarna

Managing Director & Global Life Sciences Clinical Development Lead

Accenture

Artificial Intelligence is making impact in a grand way on biology in three aspects:

1. Speeding up target validation: now we can get through 300 molecules a day
2. Predicition like AlphaFold is doing; molecular simulations
3. Document submission especially with regulatory and IND submissions

Pamela Carroll

COO

Isomorphic Labs formerly of AlphaFold

We were first with Novartis at last year JPM and was one year old but parnering with them in that initial year was very important for sealing the deal.

They are looking now at neurologic diseases like ALS.  She wondered whether ALS is actually multiple diseases and we need to stratify patients like we do in oncology trials.  Their main competion is the whole tech world like Amazon, Google and other Machine Learning companies so being a tech player in the biotech world means you are not just competing with other biotechs but large tech companies as well.

Jorge Conde

General Partner

Andreessen Horowitz

Need is still great for drug discovery; early adopters show AI tools can be used in big pharma. There are lots of applications of AI in managing care; a lot of back office applications including patient triaging.  He does not see big AI mergers with pharma companies –  this will be mainly partnerships not M&A deals

Alicyn Campbell

Chief Scientific Officer

Evinova, a Healthtech Subsidiary of the AstraZeneca Group

There is a need to turn AI for real world example.  For example AI tools were used in clinical trials to determine patient cohorts with pneumonitis.  At Evinova they are determining how AI can hel[p show clinical benefit with respect to efficacy and safety

Joshua Boger at #JPM24 (Brian Benton Photography)

  January 12, 2024 09:06 AM ESTUpdated 10:00 AM PeopleStartups

Vertex founder Joshua Boger on surviving downturns, ‘painful’ partnerships, and the importance of culture: #JPM24

Andrew Dunn

Biopharma Correspondent

Source: https://endpts.com/jpm24-vertex-founder-joshua-boger-on-surviving-downturns-painful-partnerships-and-the-importance-of-culture/

While the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference was full of voices of measured optimism, rooting for the market to bounce back in 2024, one longtime biotech leader warned against setting any firm expectations.

Instead of predicting when the downturn may end, Vertex Pharmaceuticals founder Joshua Boger said he advises biotech leaders to expect — and plan for — volatility. Speaking Tuesday on an Endpoints News panel alongside OrbiMed’s Carl Gordon and Appia Bio CEO JJ Kang, Boger shared lessons learned on surviving downturns, striking pharma deals, and the importance of keeping a company’s culture based on his two decades of founding and leading Vertex as CEO from 1989 to 2009. The 72-year-old is now serving as executive chairman of Alkeus Pharmaceuticals, a startup developing a rare disease drug.

“I never experienced a straight line up,” Boger said. “Everything had its cycles, and it was how you respond to the cycle, not by predicting when the end is going to be, but just by responding to the present situation.”

At Boger’s first appearance at the JP Morgan conference in 1991, he said the conference’s theme was the end of biotech financing. Just a few months later, Regeneron successfully went public, rapidly changing the outlook for the whole field.

“We had no idea we were ever going to take public money,” he said. “When Regeneron did their IPO, we went, ‘Whoa, there’s something happening here,’ and we pivoted quickly.”

Vertex went public later that year. Throughout his 20-year tenure, Boger said no pharma company ever made an acquisition offer for Vertex, which now commands a market value of $110 billion and recently won the first FDA approval for a CRISPR gene editing therapy.

“We had an uber corporate policy to always make ourselves more expensive than anyone would stomach,” Boger said.

However, Vertex did strike a range of partnerships with Big Pharmas, which Boger described as a painful but necessary part of running a biotech startup.

“It’s impossible for a partnership not to slow you down,” he said. “You can and should try as hard as you can not to do that, but just count on it. They’ll slow you down.”

Boger said startups should insist on being equal partners in pharma deals, at least making sure they have a seat at a partner’s development meetings.

“Realize they’re going to be painful, it’s going to be horrible, and you need to do it,” Boger said.

While Vertex suffered through layoffs, stock price plunges, and trial failures, Boger credited a focus on culture as key to its long-term success.

“It’s the most important ingredient for a successful company,” he said. “Technology is acquirable. Culture is not acquirable. There are 10 companies that will fail because of culture for every one that succeeds, and the successful companies in retrospect will almost always have special cultural aspects that kept them through those downtimes.”

JPM24 opens with ADCs the hottest ticket in San Francisco

By Annalee ArmstrongJan 8, 2024 6:30am

Source: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/jpm24-opens-adcs-hottest-ticket-san-francisco

The overall deal flow in biopharma tapered off in 2023 but the big companies sure know what they want (what they really, really want), according to a new report from J.P. Morgan.

And that’s antibody-drug conjugates, which drove a fourth-quarter spike in licensing deal proceeds and provided a glimmer of hope to an industry battered by outside forces and grim financing prospects.

J.P. Morgan’s annual 2023 Biopharma Licensing and Venture Report arrived on the eve of the firm’s famous conference, which is set to welcome thousands of attendees in San Francisco today—East Coast weather permitting.

2023 was tough, but clinical biotechs still had a lot of opportunities to wheel and deal, according to J.P. Morgan. While licensing deals, venture investments, M&A and IPOs were down overall in the fourth quarter, deal values stayed fairly high thanks to a flurry of late-stage tie ups.

Follow the Fierce team’s coverage of the 2024 J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference here. 

Biopharma licensing partnerships accounted for $63 billion in total value during the fourth quarter from 108 deals. Just one deal—Merck’s ADC partnership with Daiichi Sankyo—accounted for $22 billion of that. Another huge one was another ADC bet, with Bristol Myers Squibb signing on to work with SystImmune for a total value of $8.4 billion. If you exclude the Merck deal, the total value of these partnerships is still higher than the previous quarter, which ended with $32.1 billion.

The total number of licensing deals compares to 149 in the same quarter a year earlier, 195 for Q4 2021 and 223 for Q4 2022.

As for venture investments, the year closed out with $17 billion total across 250 rounds, thanks to $3.5 billion earned through 79 rounds in the last quarter. Aiolos Bio snagged the title of largest venture round of the quarter with $245 million, which also proved to be the largest series A, too.

There was just one IPO in all of the fourth quarter—Cargo Therapeutics making the plunge for $300 million—and 13 overall for the year. It’s a far cry from the heyday of 2021 and experts are still unsure what 2024 will hold. J.P. Morgan reported $2.5 billion raised from 12 completed biopharma IPOs for the year on Nasdaq and NYSE. Nine out of the 12 companies had clinical programs when they took the leap to the public markets. As of December 13, five of the companies were trading above their IPO price.

As for M&A, December saw a rush of Big Pharmas snapping up companies around Christmas. J.P. Morgan tallied the fourth quarter at $37.6 billion and $128.8 billion across 112 total acquisitions for all of 2023.

AbbVie was the top buyer of the quarter with the two largest acquisitions thanks to the $10 billion outlay for ImmunoGen and $8.7 billion buy of Cerevel Therapeutics.

All of this adds up to 270 total deals in the fourth quarter total, which is lower than the third quarter which exceeded 300.

J.P. Morgan sees some big potential for smaller biopharmas looking for licensing partners, as Big Pharmas have been handing out larger upfront payments for the deals they really want.

Cancer was once again the most in-demand therapeutic areas, reaching a new height of $86.1 billion in 2023. Followed by $21.1 billion for neurological disorders.

For More Articles on Real Time Conference Coverage in this Open Access Scientific Journal see:

Part One: The Process of Real Time Coverage using Social Media

Part Two: List of BioTech Conferences 2013 to Present

https://worldmedicalinnovation.org/

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2022/05/01/2022-world-medical-innovation-forum-gene-cell-therapy-may-2-4-2022-boston-in-person/

 

https://event.technologyreview.com/emtech-digital-2022/agenda-overview

 

Share this:

• X
• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Print
• Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Read Full Post »

Science Has A Systemic Problem, Not an Innovation Problem

Posted in Big Data & Analytics, BioMed e-Books e-Series by LPBI Group, Curation, Curation methodology, Discovery process, Innovations, LPBI Group, e-Scientific Media, DFP, R&D-M3DP, R&D-Drug Discovery, US Patents: SOPs and Team Management, LPBI Management, Open Access Journals, Scientific Publishing, Systematic Error (Bias), Trends in Global Economy, tagged @science 2_0, Curation, economic policy, Excitation-contraction coupling, journal citation, Open access, Open Access Online Scientific Journal, science 3.0, science funding, science policy, scientific curation, Scientific Publishing on December 12, 2022| Leave a Comment »

Science Has A Systemic Problem, Not an Innovation Problem

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

    A recent email, asking me to submit a survey, got me thinking about the malaise that scientists and industry professionals frequently bemoan: that innovation has been stymied for some reason and all sorts of convuluted processes must be altered to spur this mythical void of great new discoveries…..  and it got me thinking about our current state of science, and what is the perceived issue… and if this desert of innovation actually exists or is more a fundamental problem which we have created.

The email was from an NIH committee asking for opinions on recreating the grant review process …. now this on the same day someone complained to me about a shoddy and perplexing grant review they received.

The following email, which was sent out to multiple researchers, involved in either NIH grant review on both sides, as well as those who had been involved in previous questionnaires and studies on grant review and bias.  The email asked for researchers to fill out a survey on the grant review process, and how to best change it to increase innovation of ideas as well as inclusivity.  In recent years, there have been multiple survey requests on these matters, with multiple confusing procedural changes to grant format and content requirements, adding more administrative burden to scientists.

The email from Center for Scientific Review (one of the divisions a grant will go to before review {they set up review study sections and decide what section a grant should be  assigned to} was as follows:

Update on Simplifying Review Criteria: A Request for Information

https://www.csr.nih.gov/reviewmatters/2022/12/08/update-on-simplifying-review-criteria-a-request-for-information/

NIH has issued a request for information (RFI) seeking feedback on revising and simplifying the peer review framework for research project grant applications. The goal of this effort is to facilitate the mission of scientific peer review – identification of the strongest, highest-impact research. The proposed changes will allow peer reviewers to focus on scientific merit by evaluating 1) the scientific impact, research rigor, and feasibility of the proposed research without the distraction of administrative questions and 2) whether or not appropriate expertise and resources are available to conduct the research, thus mitigating the undue influence of the reputation of the institution or investigator.

Currently, applications for research project grants (RPGs, such as R01s, R03s, R15s, R21s, R34s) are evaluated based on five scored criteria: Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, and Environment (derived from NIH peer review regulations 42 C.F.R. Part 52h.8; see Definitions of Criteria and Considerations for Research Project Grant Critiques for more detail) and a number of additional review criteria such as Human Subject Protections.

NIH gathered input from the community to identify potential revisions to the review framework. Given longstanding and often-heard concerns from diverse groups, CSR decided to form two working groups to the CSR Advisory Council—one on non-clinical trials and one on clinical trials. To inform these groups, CSR published a Review Matters blog, which was cross-posted on the Office of Extramural Research blog, Open Mike. The blog received more than 9,000 views by unique individuals and over 400 comments. Interim recommendations were presented to the CSR Advisory Council in a public forum (March 2020 video, slides; March 2021 video, slides). Final recommendations from the CSRAC (report) were considered by the major extramural committees of the NIH that included leadership from across NIH institutes and centers. Additional background information can be found here. This process produced many modifications and the final proposal presented below. Discussions are underway to incorporate consideration of a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) and rigorous review of clinical trials RPGs (~10% of RPGs are clinical trials) within the proposed framework.

Simplified Review Criteria

NIH proposes to reorganize the five review criteria into three factors, with Factors 1 and 2 receiving a numerical score. Reviewers will be instructed to consider all three factors (Factors 1, 2 and 3) in arriving at their Overall Impact Score (scored 1-9), reflecting the overall scientific and technical merit of the application.

• Factor 1: Importance of the Research (Significance, Innovation), numerical score (1-9)
• Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility (Approach), numerical score (1-9)
• Factor 3: Expertise and Resources (Investigator, Environment), assessed and considered in the Overall Impact Score, but not individually scored

Within Factor 3 (Expertise and Resources), Investigator and Environment will be assessed in the context of the research proposed. Investigator(s) will be rated as “fully capable” or “additional expertise/capability needed”. Environment will be rated as “appropriate” or “additional resources needed.” If a need for additional expertise or resources is identified, written justification must be provided. Detailed descriptions of the three factors can be found here.

Now looking at some of the Comments were very illuminating:

I strongly support streamlining the five current main review criteria into three, and the present five additional criteria into two. This will bring clarity to applicants and reduce the workload on both applicants and reviewers. Blinding reviewers to the applicants’ identities and institutions would be a helpful next step, and would do much to reduce the “rich-getting-richer” / “good ole girls and good ole boys” / “big science” elitism that plagues the present review system, wherein pedigree and connections often outweigh substance and creativity.

I support the proposed changes. The shift away from “innovation” will help reduce the tendency to create hype around a proposed research direction. The shift away from Investigator and Environment assessments will help reduce bias toward already funded investigators in large well-known institutions.

As a reviewer for 5 years, I believe that the proposed changes are a step in the right direction, refocusing the review on whether the science SHOULD be done and whether it CAN BE DONE WELL, while eliminating burdensome and unhelpful sections of review that are better handled administratively. I particularly believe that the de-emphasis of innovation (which typically focuses on technical innovation) will improve evaluation of the overall science, and de-emphasis of review of minor technical details will, if implemented correctly, reduce the “downward pull” on scores for approach. The above comments reference blinded reviews, but I did not see this in the proposed recommendations. I do not believe this is a good idea for several reasons: 1) Blinding of the applicant and institution is not likely feasible for many of the reasons others have described (e.g., self-referencing of prior work), 2) Blinding would eliminate the potential to review investigators’ biosketches and budget justifications, which are critically important in review, 3) Making review blinded would make determination of conflicts of interest harder to identify and avoid, 4) Evaluation of “Investigator and Environment” would be nearly impossible.

Most of the Comments were in favor of the proposed changes, however many admitted that it adds additional confusion on top of many administrative changes to formats and content of grant sections.

Being a Stephen Covey devotee, and just have listened to  The Four Principles of Execution, it became more apparent that issues that hinder many great ideas coming into fruition, especially in science, is a result of these systemic or problems in the process, not at the level of individual researchers or small companies trying to get their innovations funded or noticed.  In summary, Dr. Covey states most issues related to the success of any initiative is NOT in the strategic planning, but in the failure to adhere to a few EXECUTION principles.  Primary to these failures of strategic plans is lack of accounting of what Dr. Covey calls the ‘whirlwind’, or those important but recurring tasks that take us away from achieving the wildly important goals.  In addition, lack of  determining lead and lag measures of success hinder such plans.

In this case a lag measure in INNOVATION.  It appears we have created such a whirlwind and focus on lag measures that we are incapable of translating great discoveries into INNOVATION.

In the following post, I will focus on issues relating to Open Access, publishing and dissemination of scientific discovery may be costing us TIME to INNOVATION.  And it appears that there are systemic reasons why we appear stuck in a rut, so to speak.

The first indication is from a paper published by Johan Chu and James Evans in 2021 in PNAS:

 

Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science

Chu JSG, Evans JA. Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Oct 12;118(41):e2021636118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2021636118. PMID: 34607941; PMCID: PMC8522281

 

Abstract

In many academic fields, the number of papers published each year has increased significantly over time. Policy measures aim to increase the quantity of scientists, research funding, and scientific output, which is measured by the number of papers produced. These quantitative metrics determine the career trajectories of scholars and evaluations of academic departments, institutions, and nations. Whether and how these increases in the numbers of scientists and papers translate into advances in knowledge is unclear, however. Here, we first lay out a theoretical argument for why too many papers published each year in a field can lead to stagnation rather than advance. The deluge of new papers may deprive reviewers and readers the cognitive slack required to fully recognize and understand novel ideas. Competition among many new ideas may prevent the gradual accumulation of focused attention on a promising new idea. Then, we show data supporting the predictions of this theory. When the number of papers published per year in a scientific field grows large, citations flow disproportionately to already well-cited papers; the list of most-cited papers ossifies; new papers are unlikely to ever become highly cited, and when they do, it is not through a gradual, cumulative process of attention gathering; and newly published papers become unlikely to disrupt existing work. These findings suggest that the progress of large scientific fields may be slowed, trapped in existing canon. Policy measures shifting how scientific work is produced, disseminated, consumed, and rewarded may be called for to push fields into new, more fertile areas of study.

So the Summary of this paper is

• The authors examined 1.8 billion citations among 90 million papers over 241 subjects
• found the corpus of papers do not lead to turnover of new ideas in a field, but rather the ossification or entrenchment of canonical (or older ideas)
• this is mainly due to older paper cited more frequently than new papers with new ideas, potentially because authors are trying to get their own papers cited more frequently for funding and exposure purposes
• The authors suggest that “fundamental progress may be stymied if quantitative growth of scientific endeavors is not balanced by structures fostering disruptive scholarship and focusing attention of novel ideas”

The authors note that, in most cases, science policy reinforces this “more is better” philosophy”,  where metrics of publication productivity are either number of publications or impact measured by citation rankings.  However, using an analysis of citation changes occurring in large versus smaller fields, it becomes apparent that this process is favoring the older, more established papers and a recirculating of older canonical ideas.

“Rather than resulting in faster turnover of field paradigms, the massive amounts of new publications entrenches the ideas of top-cited papers.”  New ideas are pushed down to the bottom of the citation list and potentially lost in the literature.  The authors suggest that this problem will intensify as the “annual mass” of new publications in each field grows, especially in large fields.  This issue is exacerbated by the deluge on new online ‘open access’ journals, in which authors would focus on citing the more highly cited literature. 

We maybe at a critical junction, where if many papers are published in a short time, new ideas will not be considered as carefully as the older ideas.  In addition,

with proliferation of journals and the blurring of journal hierarchies due to online articles-level access can exacerbate this problem

As a counterpoint, the authors do note that even though many molecular biology highly cited articles were done in 1976, there has been extremely much innovation since then however it may take a lot more in experiments and money to gain the level of citations that those papers produced, and hence a lower scientific productivity.

This issue is seen in the field of economics as well

Ellison, Glenn. “Is peer review in decline?” Economic Inquiry, vol. 49, no. 3, July 2011, pp. 635+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A261386330/AONE?u=temple_main&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=f5891002. Accessed 12 Dec. 2022.

Abstract: 

Over the past decade, there has been a decline in the fraction of papers in top economics journals written by economists from the highest-ranked economics departments. This paper documents this fact and uses additional data on publications and citations to assess various potential explanations. Several observations are consistent with the hypothesis that the Internet improves the ability of high-profile authors to disseminate their research without going through the traditional peer-review process. (JEL A14, 030)

The facts part of this paper documents two main facts:

1. Economists in top-ranked departments now publish very few papers in top field journals. There is a marked decline in such publications between the early 1990s and early 2000s.

2. Comparing the early 2000s with the early 1990s, there is a decline in both the absolute number of papers and the share of papers in the top general interest journals written by Harvard economics department faculty.

Although the second fact just concerns one department, I see it as potentially important to understanding what is happening because it comes at a time when Harvard is widely regarded (I believe correctly) as having ascended to the top position in the profession.

The “decline-of-peer-review” theory I allude to in the title is that the necessity of going through the peer-review process has lessened for high-status authors: in the old days peer-reviewed journals were by far the most effective means of reaching readers, whereas with the growth of the Internet high-status authors can now post papers online and exploit their reputation to attract readers.

Many alternate explanations are possible. I focus on four theories: the decline-in-peer-review theory and three alternatives.

1. The trends could be a consequence of top-school authors’ being crowded out of the top journals by other researchers. Several such stories have an optimistic message, for example, there is more talent entering the profession, old pro-elite biases are being broken down, more schools are encouraging faculty to do cutting-edge research, and the Internet is enabling more cutting-edge research by breaking down informational barriers that had hampered researchers outside the top schools. (2)

2. The trends could be a consequence of the growth of revisions at economics journals discussed in Ellison (2002a, 2002b). In this more pessimistic theory, highly productive researchers must abandon some projects and/or seek out faster outlets to conserve the time now required to publish their most important works.

3. The trends could simply reflect that field journals have declined in quality in some relative sense and become a less attractive place to publish. This theory is meant to encompass also the rise of new journals, which is not obviously desirable or undesirable.

The majority of this paper is devoted to examining various data sources that provide additional details about how economics publishing has changed over the past decade. These are intended both to sharpen understanding of the facts to be explained and to provide tests of auxiliary predictions of the theories. Two main sources of information are used: data on publications and data on citations. The publication data include department-level counts of publications in various additional journals, an individual-level dataset containing records of publications in a subset of journals for thousands of economists, and a very small dataset containing complete data on a few authors’ publication records. The citation data include citations at the paper level for 9,000 published papers and less well-matched data that is used to construct measures of citations to authors’ unpublished works, to departments as a whole, and to various journals.

Inside Job or Deep Impact? Extramural Citations and the Influence of Economic Scholarship

Josh Angrist, Pierre Azoulay, Glenn Ellison, Ryan Hill, Susan Feng Lu. Inside Job or Deep Impact? Extramural Citations and the Influence of Economic Scholarship.

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE

Abstract

Does academic economic research produce material of general scientific value, or do academic economists write only for peers? Is economics scholarship uniquely insular? We address these questions by quantifying interactions between economics and other disciplines. Changes in the influence of economic scholarship are measured here by the frequency with which other disciplines cite papers in economics journals. We document a clear rise in the extramural influence of economic research, while also showing that economics is increasingly likely to reference other social sciences. A breakdown of extramural citations by economics fields shows broad field influence. Differentiating between theoretical and empirical papers classified using machine learning, we see that much of the rise in economics’ extramural influence reflects growth in citations to empirical work. This growth parallels an increase in the share of empirical cites within economics. At the same time, some disciplines that primarily cite economic theory have also recently increased citations of economics scholarship.

Citation

Angrist, Josh, Pierre Azoulay, Glenn Ellison, Ryan Hill, and Susan Feng Lu. 2020. “Inside Job or Deep Impact? Extramural Citations and the Influence of Economic Scholarship.” Journal of Economic Literature, 58 (1): 3-52.DOI: 10.1257/jel.20181508

VOL. 58, NO. 1, MARCH 2020

(pp. 3-52)

So if innovation is there but it may be buried under the massive amount of heavily cited older literature, do we see evidence of this in other fields like medicine?

Why Isn’t Innovation Helping Reduce Health Care Costs?

• Eli M. Cahan
• Bob Kocher
• Roger Bohn

JUNE 4, 202010.1377/forefront.20200602.168241

 

Source: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20200602.168241/#:~:text=Performance%2Denhancing%20innovations%20frequently%20create,prices%20compared%20to%20existing%20alternatives 

 

National health care expenditures (NHEs) in the United States continue to grow at rates outpacing the broader economy: Inflation- and population-adjusted NHEs have increased 1.6 percent faster than the gross domestic product (GDP) between 1990 and 2018. US national health expenditure growth as a share of GDP far outpaces comparable nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (17.2 versus 8.9 percent).

Multiple recent analyses have proposed that growth in the prices and intensity of US health care services—rather than in utilization rates or demographic characteristics—is responsible for the disproportionate increases in NHEs relative to global counterparts. The consequences of ever-rising costs amid ubiquitous underinsurance in the US include price-induced deferral of care leading to excess morbidity relative to comparable nations.

These patterns exist despite a robust innovation ecosystem in US health care—implying that novel technologies, in isolation, are insufficient to bend the health care cost curve. Indeed, studies have documented that novel technologies directly increase expenditure growth.

Why is our prolific innovation ecosystem not helping reduce costs? The core issue relates to its apparent failure to enhance net productivity—the relative output generated per unit resource required. In this post, we decompose the concept of innovation to highlight situations in which inventions may not increase net productivity. We begin by describing how this issue has taken on increased urgency amid resource constraints magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic. In turn, we describe incentives for the pervasiveness of productivity-diminishing innovations. Finally, we provide recommendations to promote opportunities for low-cost innovation.

 

 

Net Productivity During The COVID-19 Pandemic

The issue of productivity-enhancing innovation is timely, as health care systems have been overwhelmed by COVID-19. Hospitals in Italy, New York City, and elsewhere have lacked adequate capital resources to care for patients with the disease, sufficient liquidity to invest in sorely needed resources, and enough staff to perform all of the necessary tasks.

The critical constraint in these settings is not technology: In fact, the most advanced technology required to routinely treat COVID-19—the mechanical ventilator—was invented nearly 100 years ago in response to polio (the so-called iron lung). Rather, the bottleneck relates to the total financial and human resources required to use the technology—the denominator of net productivity. The clinical implementation of ventilators has been illustrative: Health care workers are still required to operate ventilators on a nearly one-to-one basis, just like in the mid-twentieth century. 

High levels of resources required for implementation of health care technologies constrain the scalability of patient care—such as during respiratory disease outbreaks such as COVID-19. Thus, research to reduce health care costs is the same kind of research we urgently require to promote health care access for patients with COVID-19.

Types Of Innovation And Their Relationship To Expenditure Growth

The widespread use of novel medical technologies has been highlighted as a central driver of NHE growth in the US. We believe that the continued expansion of health care costs is largely the result of innovation that tends to have low productivity (exhibit 1). We argue that these archetypes—novel widgets tacked on to existing workflows to reinforce traditional care models—are exactly the wrong properties to reduce NHEs at the systemic level.

Exhibit 1: Relative productivity of innovation subtypes

Source: Authors’ analysis.

Content Versus Process Innovation

Content (also called technical) innovation refers to the creation of new widgets, such as biochemical agents, diagnostic tools, or therapeutic interventions. Contemporary examples of content innovation include specialty pharmaceuticals, molecular diagnostics, and advanced interventions and imaging.

These may be contrasted with process innovations, which address the organized sequences of activities that implement content. Classically, these include clinical pathways and protocols. They can address the delivery of care for acute conditions, such as central line infections, sepsis, or natural disasters. Alternatively, they can target chronic conditions through initiatives such as team-based management of hypertension and hospital-at-home models for geriatric care. Other processes include hiring staff, delegating labor, and supply chain management.

Performance-Enhancing Versus Cost-Reducing Innovation

Performance-enhancing innovations frequently create incremental outcome gains in diagnostic characteristics, such as sensitivity or specificity, or in therapeutic characteristics, such as biomarkers for disease status. Their performance gains often lead to higher prices compared to existing alternatives.  

Performance-enhancing innovations can be compared to “non-inferior” innovations capable of achieving outcomes approximating those of existing alternatives, but at reduced cost. Industries outside of medicine, such as the computing industry, have relied heavily on the ability to reduce costs while retaining performance.

In health care though, this pattern of innovation is rare. Since passage of the 2010 “Biosimilars” Act aimed at stimulating non-inferior innovation and competition in therapeutics markets, only 17 agents have been approved, and only seven have made it to market. More than three-quarters of all drugs receiving new patents between 2005 and 2015 were “reissues,” meaning they had already been approved, and the new patent reflected changes to the previously approved formula. Meanwhile, the costs of approved drugs have increased over time, at rates between 4 percent and 7 percent annually.

Moreover, the preponderance of performance-enhancing diagnostic and therapeutic innovations tend to address narrow patient cohorts (such as rare diseases or cancer subtypes), with limited clear clinical utility in broader populations. For example, the recently approved eculizimab is a monoclonal antibody approved for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria—which effects 1 in 10 million individuals. At the time of its launch, eculizimab was priced at more than $400,000 per year, making it the most expensive drug in modern history. For clinical populations with no available alternatives, drugs such as eculizimab may be cost-effective, pending society’s willingness to pay, and morally desirable, given a society’s values. But such drugs are certainly not cost-reducing.

Additive Versus Substitutive Innovation

Additive innovations are those that append to preexisting workflows, while substitutive innovations reconfigure preexisting workflows. In this way, additive innovations increase the use of precedent services, whereas substitutive innovations decrease precedent service use.

For example, previous analyses have found that novel imaging modalities are additive innovations, as they tend not to diminish use of preexisting modalities. Similarly, novel procedures tend to incompletely replace traditional procedures. In the case of therapeutics and devices, off-label uses in disease groups outside of the approved indication(s) can prompt innovation that is additive. This is especially true, given that off-label prescriptions classically occur after approved methods are exhausted.

Eculizimab once again provides an illustrative example. As of February 2019, the drug had been used for 39 indications (it had been approved for three of those, by that time), 69 percent of which lacked any form of evidence of real-world effectiveness. Meanwhile, the drug generated nearly $4 billion in sales in 2019. Again, these expenditures may be something for which society chooses to pay—but they are nonetheless additive, rather than substitutive.

Sustaining Versus Disruptive Innovation

Competitive market theory suggests that incumbents and disruptors innovate differently. Incumbents seek sustaining innovations capable of perpetuating their dominance, whereas disruptors pursue innovations capable of redefining traditional business models.

In health care, while disruptive innovations hold the potential to reduce overall health expenditures, often they run counter to the capabilities of market incumbents. For example, telemedicine can deliver care asynchronously, remotely, and virtually, but large-scale brick-and-mortar medical facilities invest enormous capital in the delivery of synchronous, in-house, in-person care (incentivized by facility fees).

The connection between incumbent business models and the innovation pipeline is particularly relevant given that 58 percent of total funding for biomedical research in the US is now derived from private entities, compared with 46 percent a decade prior. It follows that the growing influence of eminent private organizations may favor innovations supporting their market dominance—rather than innovations that are societally optimal.

Incentives And Repercussions Of High-Cost Innovation

Taken together, these observations suggest that innovation in health care is preferentially designed for revenue expansion rather than for cost reduction. While offering incremental improvements in patient outcomes, therefore creating theoretical value for society, these innovations rarely deliver incremental reductions in short- or long-term costs at the health system level.

For example, content-based, performance-enhancing, additive, sustaining innovations tend to add layers of complexity to the health care system—which in turn require additional administration to manage. The net result is employment growth in excess of outcome improvement, leading to productivity losses. This gap leads to continuously increasing overall expenditures in turn passed along to payers and consumers.

Nonetheless, high-cost innovations are incentivized across health care stakeholders (exhibit 2). From the supply side of innovation, for academic researchers, “breakthrough” and “groundbreaking” innovations constitute the basis for career advancement via funding and tenure. This is despite stakeholders’ frequent inability to generalize early successes to become cost-effective in the clinical setting. As previously discussed, the increasing influence of private entities in setting the medical research agenda is also likely to stimulate innovation benefitting single stakeholders rather than the system.

Exhibit 2: Incentives promoting low-value innovation

Source: Authors’ analysis adapted from Hofmann BM. Too much technology. BMJ. 2015 Feb 16.

From the demand side of innovation (providers and health systems), a combined allure (to provide “cutting-edge” patient care), imperative (to leave “no stone unturned” in patient care), and profit-motive (to amplify fee-for-service reimbursements) spur participation in a “technological arms-race.” The status quo thus remains as Clay Christensen has written: “Our major health care institutions…together overshoot the level of care actually needed or used by the vast majority of patients.”

Christensen’s observations have been validated during the COVID-19 epidemic, as treatment of the disease requires predominantly century-old technology. By continually adopting innovation that routinely overshoots the needs of most patients, layer by layer, health care institutions are accruing costs that quickly become the burden of society writ large.

Recommendations To Reduce The Costs Of Health Care Innovation

Henry Aaron wrote in 2002 that “…the forces that have driven up costs are, if anything, intensifying. The staggering fecundity of biomedical research is increasing…[and] always raises expenditures.” With NHEs spiraling ever-higher, urgency to “bend the cost curve” is mounting. Yet, since much biomedical innovation targets the “flat of the [productivity] curve,” alternative forms of innovation are necessary.

The shortcomings in net productivity revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the urgent need for redesign of health care delivery in this country, and reevaluation of the innovation needed to support it. Specifically, efforts supporting process redesign are critical to promote cost-reducing, substitutive innovations that can inaugurate new and disruptive business models.

Process redesign rarely involves novel gizmos, so much as rejiggering the wiring of, and connections between, existing gadgets. It targets operational changes capable of streamlining workflows, rather than technical advancements that complicate them. As described above, precisely these sorts of “frugal innovations” have led to productivity improvements yielding lower costs in other high-technology industries, such as the computing industry.

Shrank and colleagues recently estimated that nearly one-third of NHEs—almost $1 trillion—were due to preventable waste. Four of the six categories of waste enumerated by the authors—failure in care delivery, failure in care coordination, low-value care, and administrative complexity—represent ripe targets for process innovation, accounting for $610 billion in waste annually, according to Shrank.

Health systems adopting process redesign methods such as continuous improvement and value-based management have exhibited outcome enhancement and expense reduction simultaneously. Internal processes addressed have included supply chain reconfiguration, operational redesign, outlier reconciliation, and resource standardization.

Despite the potential of process innovation, focus on this area (often bundled into “health services” or “quality improvement” research) occupies only a minute fraction of wallet- or mind-share in the biomedical research landscape, accounting for 0.3 percent of research dollars in medicine. This may be due to a variety of barriers beyond minimal funding. One set of barriers is academic, relating to negative perceptions around rigor and a lack of outlets in which to publish quality improvement research. To achieve health care cost containment over the long term, this dimension of innovation must be destigmatized relative to more traditional manners of innovation by the funders and institutions determining the conditions of the research ecosystem.

Another set of barriers is financial: Innovations yielding cost reduction are less “reimbursable” than are innovations fashioned for revenue expansion. This is especially the case in a fee-for-service system where reimbursement is tethered to cost, which creates perverse incentives for health care institutions to overlook cost increases. However, institutions investing in low-cost innovation will be well-positioned in a rapidly approaching future of value-based care—in which the solvency of health care institutions will rely upon their ability to provide economically efficient care.

Innovating For Cost Control Necessitates Frugality Over Novelty

Restraining US NHEs represents a critical step toward health promotion. Innovation for innovation’s sake—that is content-based, incrementally effective, additive, and sustaining—is unlikely to constrain continually expanding NHEs.

In contrast, process innovation offers opportunities to reduce costs while maintaining high standards of patient care. As COVID-19 stress-tests health care systems across the world, the importance of cost control and productivity amplification for patient care has become apparent.

As such, frugality, rather than novelty, may hold the key to health care cost containment. Redesigning the innovation agenda to stem the tide of ever-rising NHEs is an essential strategy to promote widespread access to care—as well as high-value preventive care—in this country. In the words of investors across Silicon Valley: Cost-reducing innovation is no longer a “nice-to-have,” but a “need-to-have” for the future of health and overall well-being this country.

So Do We Need A New Way of Disseminating Scientific Information?  Can Curation Help?

We had high hopes for Science 2.0, in particular the smashing of data and knowledge silos. However the digital age along with 2.0 platforms seemed to excaccerbate this somehow. We still are critically short on analysis!

Old Science 1.0 is still the backbone of all scientific discourse, built on the massive amount of experimental and review literature. However this literature was in analog format, and we moved to a more accesible digital open access format for both publications as well as raw data. However as there was a structure for 1.0, like the Dewey decimal system and indexing, 2.0 made science more accesible and easier to search due to the newer digital formats. Yet both needed an organizing structure; for 1.0 that was the scientific method of data and literature organization with libraries as the indexers. In 2.0 this relied on an army mostly of volunteers who did not have much in the way of incentivization to co-curate and organize the findings and massive literature.

The Intenet and the Web is rapidly adopting a new “Web 3.0” format, with decentralized networks, enhanced virtual experiences, and greater interconnection between people. Here we start the discussion what will the move from Science 2.0, where dissemination of scientific findings was revolutionized and piggybacking on Web 2.0 or social media, to a Science 3.0 format. And what will it involve or what paradigms will be turned upside down?

We have discussed this in other posts such as

Will Web 3.0 Do Away With Science 2.0? Is Science Falling Behind?

and

Curation Methodology – Digital Communication Technology to mitigate Published Information Explosion and Obsolescence in Medicine and Life Sciences

For years the pharmaceutical industry has toyed with the idea of making innovation networks and innovation hubs

It has been the main focus of whole conferences

Tales from the Translational Frontier – Four Unique Approaches to Turning Novel Biology into Investable Innovations @BIOConvention #BIO2018

However it still seems these strategies have not worked

Is it because we did not have an Execution plan? Or we did not understand the lead measures for success?

Other Related Articles on this Open Access Scientific Journal Include:

Old Industrial Revolution Paradigm of Education Needs to End: How Scientific Curation Can Transform Education

Analysis of Utilizing LPBI Group’s Scientific Curation Platform as an Educational Tool: New Paradigm for Student Engagement

Global Alliance for Genomics and Health Issues Guidelines for Data Siloing and Sharing

Multiple Major Scientific Journals Will Fully Adopt Open Access Under Plan S

eScientific Publishing a Case in Point: Evolution of Platform Architecture Methodologies and of Intellectual Property Development (Content Creation by Curation) Business Model 

Share this:

• X
• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Print
• Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Read Full Post »

Cancer Policy Related News from Washington DC and New NCI Appointments

Posted in Bio-Ethics, Cancer - General, Funding Opportunities for Cancer Research, Interviews with Scientific Leaders, Precision Cancer Medicine, SBIR, SBA, NIH, NSF, Translational Science, Women in Life Sciences, tagged cancer news, Joe Biden, NCI, NIH, Obama "Moonshot" program, US government on October 4, 2022| Leave a Comment »

Cancer Policy Related News from Washington DC and New NCI Appointments

Reportor: Stephen J. Williams, PhD.

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

Biden to announce appointees to Cancer Panel, part of initiative to cut death rate

The president first launched the initiative in 2016 as vice president.

By Mary Kekatos

July 13, 2022, 3:00 PM

Share

1:50

about:blank

America This Morning

America This Morning

President Joe Biden will announce Wednesday his appointees to the President’s Cancer Panel, ABC News can exclusively reveal.

The Cancer Panel is part of Biden’s Cancer Moonshot Initiative, which was relaunched in February, with a goal of slashing the national cancer death rate by 50% over the next 25 years.MORE: Biden relaunches cancer ‘moonshot’ initiative to help cut death rate

Biden will appoint Dr. Elizabeth Jaffee, Dr. Mitchel Berger and Dr. Carol Brown to the panel, which will advise him and the White House on how to use resources of the federal government to advance cancer research and reduce the burden of cancer in the United States.

Jaffee, who will serve as chair of the panel, is an expert in cancer immunology and pancreatic cancer, according to the White House. She is currently the deputy director of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University and previously led the American Association for Cancer Research.

Berger, a neurological surgeon, directs the University of California, San Francisco Brain Tumor Center and previously spent 23 years at the school as a professor of neurological surgery.

Brown, a gynecologic oncologist, is the senior vice president and chief health equity officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. According to the White House, much of her career has been focused on eliminating cancer care disparities due to racial, ethnic, cultural or socioeconomic factors.

Additionally, First Lady Jill Biden, members of the Cabinet and other administration officials are holding a meeting Wednesday of the Cancer Cabinet, made up of officials across several governmental departments and agencies, the White House said.

The Cabinet will introduce new members and discuss priorities in the battle against cancer including closing the screening gap, addressing potential environmental exposures, reducing the number of preventable cancer and expanding access to cancer research.MORE: Long Island school district found to have higher rates of cancer cases: Study

It is the second meeting of the cabinet since Biden relaunched the initiative in February, which he originally began in 2016 when he was vice president.

Both Jaffee and Berger were members of the Blue Ribbon Panel for the Cancer Moonshot Initiative led by Biden.

The initiative has personal meaning for Biden, whose son, Beau, died of glioblastoma — one of the most aggressive forms of brain cancer — in 2015.

“I committed to this fight when I was vice president,” Biden said at the time, during an event at the White House announcing the relaunch. “It’s one of the reasons why, quite frankly, I ran for president. Let there be no doubt, now that I am president, this is a presidential, White House priority. Period.”

The initiative has several priority actions including diagnosing cancer sooner; preventing cancer; addressing inequities; and supporting patients, caregivers and survivors.

The White House has also issued a call to action to get cancer screenings back to pre-pandemic levels.

More than 9.5 million cancer screenings that would have taken place in 2020 were missed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the National Institutes of Health.MORE: Louisiana’s ‘Cancer Alley’ residents in clean air fight

“We have to get cancer screenings back on track and make sure they’re accessible to all Americans,” Biden said at the time.

Since the first meeting of the Cancer Cabinet, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued more than $200 million in grants to cancer prevention programs, the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services implemented a new model to reduce the cost of cancer care, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said it will fast-track applications for cancer immunotherapies.

ABC News’ Sasha Pezenik contributed to this report.

• SCIENCEINSIDER
• PEOPLE & EVENTS

Biden to tap prominent Harvard cancer surgeon to head National Cancer Institute

Monica Bertagnolli brings leadership experience in cancer clinical trials funded by the $7 billion research agency

• 21 JUL 2022
• 7:15 PM
• BYJOCELYN KAISER

SHARE:

• Twitter
• Linked In
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Wechat
• Email

President Joe Biden is expected to pick cancer surgeon Monica Bertagnolli as the next director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Bertagnolli, a physician-scientist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the Dana-Farber Cancer Center, and Harvard Medical School, specializes in gastrointestinal cancers and is well known for her expertise in clinical trials. She will replace Ned Sharpless, who stepped down as NCI director in April after nearly 5 years.

The White House has not yet announced the selection, first reported by STAT, but several cancer research organizations closely watching for the nomination have issued statements supporting Bertagnolli’s expected selection. She is “a national leader” in clinical cancer research and “a great person to take the job,” Sharpless told ScienceInsider.

With a budget of $7 billion, NCI is the largest component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the world’s largest funder of cancer research. Its director is the only NIH institute director selected by the president. Bertagnolli’s expected appointment, which does not require Senate confirmation, drew applause from the cancer research community

Margaret Foti, CEO of the American Association for Cancer Research, praised Bertagnolli’s “appreciation for … basic research” and “commitment to ensuring that such treatment innovations reach patients … across the United States.” Ellen Sigal, chair and founder of Friends of Cancer Research, says Bertagnolli “brings expertise the agency needs at a true inflection point for cancer research.”

Bertagnolli, 63, will be the first woman to lead NCI. Her lab research on tumor immunology and the role of a gene called APC in colorectal cancer led to a landmark trial she headed showing that an anti-inflammatory drug can help prevent this cancer. In 2007, she became the chief of surgery at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center.

She served as president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2018 and currently chairs the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, which is funded by NCI’s National Clinical Trials Network. The network is a “complicated” program, and “Monica will have a lot of good ideas on how to make it work better,” Sharpless says.

ADVERTISEMENT

One of Bertagnolli’s first tasks will be to shape NCI’s role in Biden’s reignited Cancer Moonshot, which aims to slash the U.S. cancer death rate in half within 25 years. NCI’s new leader also needs to sort out how the agency will mesh with a new NIH component that will fund high-risk, goal-driven research, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H).

Bertagnolli will also head NCI efforts already underway to boost grant funding rates, diversify the cancer research workplace, and reduce higher death rates for Black people with cancer.

The White House recently nominated applied physicist Arati Prabhakar to fill another high-level science position, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). But still vacant is the NIH director slot, which Francis Collins, acting science adviser to the president, left in December 2021. And the administration hasn’t yet selected the inaugural director of ARPA-H.

Correction, 22 July, 9 a.m.: This story has been updated to reflect that Francis Collins is acting science adviser to the president, not acting director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Share this:

• X
• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Print
• Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Read Full Post »

Joe Biden Announced Science Team Nominations for the New Administration

Posted in and Bioethics, Biological Engineering, Evidence-based decision-making, Foundations for supporting Science and Education, Funding Opportunities for Cancer Research, Health Law & Patient Safety, Health Law Policy, HealthCare IT, Interviews with Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs), Leadership, Power, Social Interlocking Connections, National Academy of Sciences AWARDS, Nobel Prize Winners, Personalized and Precision Medicine & Genomic Research, Precision Cancer Medicine, Women in Life Sciences, women in science, tagged aerospace, bioengineering, Broad Institute, Eric Lander, genomics, global warming, Human Genome Project, Joe Biden, MIT, nobel leureates, precision medicine, Princeton University, Science Advisory Panel, science policy, US science on January 17, 2021| Leave a Comment »

Joe Biden Announced Science Team Nominations for the New Administration

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

In an announcement televised on C-Span, President Elect Joseph Biden announced his new Science Team to advise on science policy matters, as part of the White House Advisory Committee on Science and Technology. Below is a video clip and the transcript, also available at

https://www.c-span.org/video/?508044-1/president-elect-biden-introduces-white-house-science-team

 

 

COMING UP TONIGHT ON C-SPAN, NEXT, PRESIDENT-ELECT JOE BIDEN AND VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT KAMALA HARRIS ANNOUNCE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THEIR WHITE HOUSE SCIENCE TEAM. AND THEN SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER TALKS ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE WEEKLY DEMOCRATIC ADDRESS. AND AFTER THAT, TODAY’S SPEECH BY VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE TO SAILORS AT NAVAL AIR STATION LAMORE IN CALIFORNIA. NEXT, PRESIDENT-ELECT JOE BIDEN AND VICE PRESIDENT-ELECT KAMALA HARRIS ANNOUNCE SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THEIR WHITE HOUSE SCIENCE TEAM. FROM WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, THIS IS ABOUT 40 MINUTES. PRESIDENT-ELECT BIDEN: GOOD AFTERNOON, FOLKS. I WAS TELLING THESE FOUR BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS AS I STOOD IN THE BACK, IN A WAY, THEY — THIS IS THE MOST EXCITING ANNOUNCEMENT THAT I’VE GOTTEN TO MAKE IN THE ENTIRE CABINET RAISED TO A CABINET LEVEL POSITION IN ONE CASE. THESE ARE AMONG THE BRIGHTEST MOST DEDICATED PEOPLE NOT ONLY IN THE COUNTRY BUT THE WORLD. THEY’RE COMPOSED OF SOME OF THE MOST SCIENTIFIC BRILLIANT MINDS IN THE WORLD. WHEN I WAS VICE PRESIDENT AS — I I HAD INTENSE INTEREST IN EVERYTHING THEY WERE DOING AND I PAID ENORMOUS ATTENTION. AND I WOULD — LIKE A KID GOING BACK TO SCHOOL. SIT DOWN AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME AND THEY WERE — VERY PATIENT WITH ME. AND — BUT AS PRESIDENT, I WANTED YOU TO KNOW I’M GOING TO PAY A GREAT DEAL OF ATTENTION. WHEN I TRAVEL THE WORLD AS VICE PRESIDENT, I WAS OFTEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN TO WORLD LEADERS, THEY ASKED ME THINGS LIKE DEFINE AMERICA. TELL ME HOW CAN YOU DEFINE AMERICA? WHAT’S AMERICA? AND I WAS ON A TIBETAN PLATEAU WITH AT THE TIME WITH XI ZIN PING AND WE HAD AN INTERPRETER CAN I DEFINE AMERICA FOR HIM? I SAID YES, I CAN. IN ONE WORD. POSSIBILITIES. POSSIBILITIES. I THINK IT’S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE’VE OCCASIONALLY BEEN REFERRED TO AS UGLY AMERICANS. WE THINK ANYTHING’S POSSIBLE GIVEN THE CHANCE, WE CAN DO ANYTHING. AND THAT’S PART OF I THINK THE AMERICAN SPIRIT. AND WHAT THE PEOPLE ON THIS STAGE AND THE DEPARTMENTS THEY WILL LEAD REPRESENT ENORMOUS POSSIBILITIES. THEY’RE THE ONES ASKING THE MOST AMERICAN OF QUESTIONS, WHAT NEXT? WHAT NEXT? NEVER SATISFIED, WHAT’S NEXT? AND WHAT’S NEXT IS BIG AND BREATHTAKING. HOW CAN — HOW CAN WE MAKE THE IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBLE? AND THEY WERE JUST ASKING QUESTIONS FOR THE SAKE OF QUESTIONS, THEY’RE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS AS CALL TO ACTION. , TO INSPIRE, TO HELP US IMAGINE THE FUTURE AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT REAL AND IMPROVE THE LIVES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. THIS IS A TEAM THAT ASKED US TO IMAGINE EVERY HOME IN AMERICA BEING POWERED BY RENEWABLE ENERGY WITHIN THE NEXT 10 YEARS. OR 3-D IMAGE PRINTERS RESTORING TISSUE AFTER TRAUMATIC INJURIES AND HOSPITALS PRINTING ORGANS FOR ORGAN TRANSPLANTS. IMAGINE, IMAGINE. AND THEY REALLY — AND, YOU KNOW, THEN RALLY, THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY TO GO ABOUT DOING WHAT WE’RE IMAGINING. YOU NEED SCIENCE, DATA AND DISCOVERY WAS A GOVERNING PHILOSOPHY IN THE OBAMA-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. AND EVERYTHING FROM THE ECONOMY TO THE ENVIRONMENT TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM AND TO NATIONAL SECURITY. AND ON HEALTH CARE. FOR EXAMPLE, A BELIEF IN SCIENCE LED OUR EFFORTS TO MAP THE HUMAN BRAIN AND TO DEVELOP MORE PRECISE INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINES. IT LED TO OUR ONGOING MISSION TO END CANCER AS WE KNOW IT, SOMETHING THAT IS DEEPLY PERSONAL TO BOTH MY FAMILY AND KAMALA’S FAMILY AND COUNTLESS FAMILIES IN AMERICA. WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA ASKED ME TO LEAD THE CANCER MOON SHOT, I KNEW WE HAD TO INJECT A SENSE OF URGENCY INTO THE FIGHT. WE BELIEVED WE COULD DOUBLE THE RATE OF PROGRESS AND DO IN FIVE YEARS WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD TAKE 10. MY WIFE, JILL, AND I TRAVELED AROUND THE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD MEETING WITH THOUSANDS OF CANCER PATIENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES, PHYSICIANS, RESEARCHERS, PHILANTHROPISTS, TECHNOLOGY LEADERS AND HEADS OF STATE. WE SOUGHT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND AND BREAK DOWN THE SILOS AND STOVE PIPES THAT PREVENT THE SHARING OF INFORMATION AND IMPEDE ADVANCES IN CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT WHILE BUILDING A FOCUSED AND COORDINATED EFFORT HERE AT HOME AND ABROAD. WE MADE PROGRESS. BUT THERE’S SO MUCH MORE THAT WE CAN DO. WHEN I ANNOUNCED THAT I WOULD NOT RUN IN 2015 AT THE TIME, I SAID I ONLY HAD ONE REGRET IN THE ROSE GARDEN AND IF I HAD ANY REGRETS THAT I HAD WON, THAT I WOULDN’T GET TO BE THE PRESIDENT TO PRESIDE OVER CANCER AS WE KNOW IT. WELL, AS GOD WILLING, AND ON THE 20TH OF THIS MONTH IN A COUPLE OF DAYS AS PRESIDENT I’M GOING TO DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO GET THAT DONE. I’M GOING TO — GOING TO BE A PRIORITY FOR ME AND FOR KAMALA AND IT’S A SIGNATURE ISSUE FOR JILL AS FIRST LADY. WE KNOW THE SCIENCE IS DISCOVERY AND NOT FICTION. AND IT’S ALSO ABOUT HOPE. AND THAT’S AMERICA. IT’S IN THE D.N.A. OF THIS COUNTRY, HOPE. WE’RE ON THE CUSP OF SOME OF THE MOST REMARKABLE BREAKTHROUGHS THAT WILL FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE WAY OF LIFE FOR ALL LIFE ON THIS PLANET. WE CAN MAKE MORE PROGRESS IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS, I PREDICT, THAN WE’VE MADE IN THE LAST 50 YEARS. AND EXPONENTIAL MOVEMENT. WE CAN ALSO FACE SOME OF THE MOST DIRE CRISES IN A GENERATION WHERE SCIENCE IS CRITICAL TO WHETHER OR NOT WE MEET THE MOMENT OF PERIL AND PROMISE THAT WE KNOW IS WITHIN OUR REACH. IN 1944, FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT ASKED HIS SCIENCE ADVISOR HOW COULD THE UNITED STATES FURTHER ADVANCE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE CRITICAL YEARS FOLLOWING THE SECOND WORLD WAR? THE RESPONSE LED TO SOME OF THE MOST GROUND BREAKING DISCOVERIES IN THE LAST 75 YEARS. AND WE CAN DO THAT AGAIN. AND WE CAN DO MORE. SO TODAY, I’M PROUD TO ANNOUNCE A TEAM OF SOME OF THE COUNTRY’S MOST BRILLIANT AND ACCOMPLISHED SCIENTISTS TO LEAD THE WAY. AND I’M ASKING THEM TO FOCUS ON FIVE KEY AREAS. FIRST THE PANDEMIC AND WHAT WE CAN LEARN ABOUT WHAT IS POSSIBLE OR WHAT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE TO ADDRESS THE WIDEST RANGE OF PUBLIC HEALTH NEEDS. SECONDLY, THE ECONOMY, HOW CAN WE BUILD BACK BETTER TO ENSURE PROSPERITY IS FULLY SHARED ALL ACROSS AMERICA? AMONG ALL AMERICANS? AND THIRDLY, HOW SCIENCE HELPS US CONFRONT THIS CLIMATE CRISIS WE FACE IN AMERICA AND THE WORLD BUT IN AMERICA HOW IT HELPS US CONFRONT THE CLIMATE CRISIS WITH AMERICAN JOBS AND INGENUITY. AND FOURTH, HOW CAN WE ENSURE THE UNITED STATES LEADS THE WORLD IN TECHNOLOGIES AND THE INDUSTRIES THAT THE FUTURE THAT WILL BE CRITICAL FOR OUR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY AND NATIONAL SECURITY? ESPECIALLY WITH THE INTENSE INCREASED COMPETITION AROUND THE WORLD FROM CHINA ON? AND FIFTH, HOW CAN WE ASSURE THE LONG-TERM HEALTH AND TRUST IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN OUR NATION? YOU KNOW, THESE ARE EACH QUESTIONS THAT CALL FOR ACTION. AND I’M HONORED TO ANNOUNCE A TEAM THAT IS ANSWERING THE CALL TO SERVE. AS THE PRESIDENTIAL SCIENCE ADVISOR AND DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, I NOMINATE ONE OF THE MOST BRILLIANT GUYS I KNOW, PERSONS I KNOW, DR. ERIC LANDER. AND THANK YOU, DOC, FOR COMING BACK. THE PIONEER — HE’S A PIONEER IN THE STIFFING COMMUNITY. PRINCIPAL LEADER IN THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT. AND NOT HYPERBOLE TO SUGGEST THAT DR. LANDER’S WORK HAS CHANGED THE COURSE OF HUMAN HISTORY. HIS ROLE IN HELPING US MAP THE GENOME PULLED BACK THE CURTAIN ON HUMAN DISEASE, ALLOWING SCIENTISTS, EVER SINCE, AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME TO EXPLORE THE MOLECULAR BASIS FOR SOME OF THE MOST DEVASTATING ILLNESSES AFFECTING OUR WORLD. AND THE APPLICATION OF HIS PIONEERING WORK AS — ARE POISED TO LEAD TO INCREDIBLE CURES AND BREAKTHROUGHS IN THE YEARS TO COME. DR. LANDER NOW SERVES AS THE PRESIDENT AND FOUNDING DIRECTOR OF THE BRODE INSTITUTE AT M.I.T. AND HARVARD, THE WORLD’S FOREMOST NONPROFIT GENETIC RESEARCH ORGANIZATION. AND I CAME TO APPRECIATE DR. LANDER’S EXTRAORDINARY MIND WHEN HE SERVED AS THE CO-CHAIR OF THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON ADVISORS AND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DURING THE OBAMA-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. AND I’M GRATEFUL, I’M GRATEFUL THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AGAIN. I’VE ALWAYS SAID THAT BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION WILL ALSO LEAD AND WE’RE GOING TO LEAD WITH SCIENCE AND TRUTH. WE BELIEVE IN BOTH. [LAUGHTER] GOD WILLING OVERCOME THE PANDEMIC AND BUILD OUR COUNTRY BETTER THAN IT WAS BEFORE. AND THAT’S WHY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, I’M GOING TO BE ELEVATING THE PRESIDENTIAL SCIENCE ADVISOR TO A CABINET RANK BECAUSE WE THINK IT’S THAT IMPORTANT. AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND SCIENCE AND — SCIENCE AND SOCIETY, I APPOINT DR. NELSON. SHE’S A PROFESSOR AT THE INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY. THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL. AND ONE OF AMERICA’S LEADING SCHOLARS IN THE — AN AWARD-WINNING AUTHOR AND RESEARCHER AND EXPLORING THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND OUR SOCIETY. THE DAUGHTER OF A MILITARY FAMILY, HER DAD SERVED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY AND HER MOM WAS AN ARMY CRIPPING TO RAFFER. DR. NELSON DEVELOPED A LOVE OF TECHNOLOGY AT A VERY YOUNG AGE PARTICULARLY WITH THE EARLY COMPUTER PRODUCTS. COMPUTING PRODUCTS AND CODE-BREAKING EQUIPMENT THAT EVERY KID HAS AROUND THEIR HOUSE. AND SHE GREW UP WITHIN HER HOME. WHEN I WROTE THAT DOWN, I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, I MEAN, HOW MANY KIDS — ANY WAY, THAT PASSION WAS A PASSION FORGED A LIFELONG CURIOSITY ABOUT THE INEQUITIES AND THE POWER DIAMONDICS THAT SIT BENEATH THE SURFACE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND THE TECHNOLOGY WE BUILD. DR. NELSON IS FOCUSED ON THOSE INSIGHTS. AND THE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY, LIKE FEW BEFORE HER EVER HAVE IN AMERICAN HISTORY. BREAKING NEW GROUND ON OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE SCIENCE PLAYS IN AMERICAN LIFE AND OPENING THE DOOR TO — TO A FUTURE WHICH SCIENCE BETTER SERVES ALL PEOPLE. AS CO-CHAIR OF THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON ADVISORS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, I APPOINT DR. FRANCIS ARNOLD, DIRECTOR OF THE ROSE BIOENGINEERING CENTER AT CALTECH AND ONE OF THE WORLD’S LEADING EXPERTS IN PROTEIN ENGINEERING, A LIFE-LONG CHAMPION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS WHO HAS BEEN INDUCTED INTO THE NATIONAL INVENTORS’ HALL OF FAME. THAT AIN’T A BAD PLACE TO BE. NOT ONLY IS SHE THE FIRST WOMAN TO BE ELECTED TO ALL THREE NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, MEDICINE AND ENGINEERING AND ALSO THE FIRST WOMAN, AMERICAN WOMAN, TO WIN A NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY. A VERY SLOW LEARNER, SLOW STARTER, THE DAUGHTER OF PITTSBURGH, SHE WORKED AS A CAB DRIVER, A JAZZ CLUB SERVER, BEFORE MAKING HER WAY TO BERKELEY AND A CAREER ON THE LEADING EDGE OF HUMAN DISCOVERY. AND I WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT AGAIN. I WANT — IF ANY OF YOUR CHILDREN ARE WATCHING, LET THEM KNOW YOU CAN DO ANYTHING. THIS COUNTRY CAN DO ANYTHING. ANYTHING AT ALL. AND SO SHE SURVIVED BREAST CANCER, OVERCAME A TRAGIC LOSS IN HER FAMILY WHILE RISING TO THE TOP OF HER FIELD, STILL OVERWHELMINGLY DOMINATED BY MEN. HER PASSION HAS BEEN A STEADFAST COMMITMENT TO RENEWABLE ENERGY FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR PLANET AND HUMANKIND. SHE IS AN INSPIRING FIGURE TO SCIENTISTS ACROSS THE FIELD AND ACROSS NATIONS. AND I WANT TO THANK DR. ARNOLD FOR AGREEING TO CO-CHAIR A FIRST ALL WOMAN TEAM TO LEAD THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WHICH LEADS ME TO THE NEXT MEMBER OF THE TEAM. AS CO-CHAIR, THE PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, I APPOINT DR. MARIE ZUBER. A TRAIL BLAZER BRAISING GEO PHYSICIST AND PLANETARY SCIENTIST A. FORMER CHAIR OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD. FIRST WOMAN TO LEAD THE SCIENCE DEPARTMENT AT M.I.T. AND THE FIRST WOMAN TO LEAD NASA’S ROBOTIC PLANETARY MISSION. GROWING UP IN COLE COUNTRY NOT FAR FROM HEAVEN, SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA, IN CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, ABOUT 50 MILES SOUTH OF WHERE I WAS A KID, SHE DREAMED OF EXPLORING OUTER SPACE. COULD HAVE TOLD HER SHE WOULD JUST GO TO GREEN REACH IN SCRANTON AND FIND WHERE IT WAS. AND I SHOULDN’T BE SO FLIPPANT. BUT I’M SO EXCITED ABOUT THESE FOLKS. YOU KNOW, READING EVERY BOOK SHE COULD FIND AND LISTENING TO HER MOM’S STORIES ABOUT WATCHING THE EARLIEST ROCKET LAUNCH ON TELEVISION, MARIE BECAME THE FIRST PERSON IN HER FAMILY TO GO TO COLLEGE AND NEVER LET GO OF HER DREAM. TODAY SHE OVERSEES THE LINCOLN LABORATORY AT M.I.T. AND LEADS THE INSTITUTION’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN. GROWING UP IN COLD COUNTRY, NOT AND FINALLY, COULD NOT BE HERE TODAY, BUT I’M PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT I’VE HAD A LONG CONVERSATION WITH DR. FRANCIS COLLINS AND COULD NOT BE HERE TODAY. AND I’VE ASKED THEM TO STAY ON AS DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND — AT THIS CRITICAL MOMENT. I’VE KNOWN DR. COLLINS FOR MANY YEARS. I WORKED WITH HIM CLOSELY. HE’S BRILLIANT. A PIONEER. A TRUE LEADER. AND ABOVE ALL, HE’S A MODEL OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND I’M HONORED TO BE WORKING WITH HIM AGAIN. AND IT IS — IN HIS ABSENCE I WANT TO THANK HIM AGAIN FOR BEING WILLING TO STAY ON. I KNOW THAT WASN’T HIS ORIGINAL PLAN. BUT WE WORKED AN AWFUL LOT ON THE MOON SHOT AND DEALING WITH CANCER AND I JUST WANT TO THANK HIM AGAIN. AND TO EACH OF YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES, AND I SAY YOUR FAMILIES, THANK YOU FOR THE WILLINGNESS TO SERVE. AND NOT THAT YOU HAVEN’T BEEN SERVING ALREADY BUT TO SERVE IN THE ADMINISTRATION. AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, TO ALL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THIS IS A TEAM THAT’S GOING TO HELP RESTORE YOUR FAITH IN AMERICA’S PLACE IN THE FRONTIER OF SCIENCE AND DISCOVER AND HOPE. I’M NOW GOING TO TURN THIS OVER STARTING WITH DR. LANDER, TO EACH OF OUR NOMINEES AND THEN WITH — HEAR FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT. BUT AGAIN, JUST CAN’T THANK YOU ENOUGH AND I REALLY MEAN IT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR WILLING TO DO THIS. DOCTOR, IT’S ALL YOURS. I BETTER PUT MY MASK ON OR I’M GOING TO GET IN TROUBLE.

 

Director’s Page

Share this:

• X
• LinkedIn
• Facebook
• Print
• Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

• Follow Blog via Email

  Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  Email Address

  Follow

  Join 2,056 other subscribers

• Recent Posts

  • Grok thinks like PhDs – Hybrid Model for Autonomous Update of Doctoral Dissertations with Original PhD Student Author editing and acceptance of Grok’s updated output. 3rd Joint article, a pilot study for Validation of an Autonomous Journal Articles Updating System (AJAUS) tested on Autonomous Update of Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN Doctoral Thesis, UC, Berkeley, 1983. January 31, 2026
  • 2026 World Economic Forum, 1/19 – 1/23/2026, Davos, Switzerland, LPBI Group’s KOLs interpretation of AI in Health Videos January 24, 2026
  • Evolving LPBI Group’s Portfolio of Intellectual Properties (IP): From 2021 Vision to 2026 Reality January 12, 2026
  • Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN – Biography ->> Grokepedia Entry January 11, 2026
  • List of Articles included in the Article SELECTION from Collection of Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN Scientific Articles on PULSE on LinkedIn.com for Training Small Language Models (SLMs) in Domain-aware Content of Medical, Pharmaceutical, Life Sciences and Healthcare by 15 Subjects Matter January 10, 2026
  • Article SELECTION from Collection of Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN Scientific Articles on PULSE on LinkedIn.com for Training Small Language Models (SLMs) in Domain-aware Content of Medical, Pharmaceutical, Life Sciences and Healthcare by 15 Subjects Matter January 10, 2026
  • Collection of Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN Scientific Articles on PULSE on LinkedIn.com January 10, 2026
  • The youngest leader in AI in Health: Tanishq Mathew Abraham, Ph.D. (@iScienceLuvr) January 8, 2026
  • 2026 Grok Multimodal Causal Reasoning on Proprietary Cariovascular Corpus: From 2021 Wolfram NLP Baseline to Thousands of Novel Relationships – A Second Head-to-Head Validation of LPBI’s Domain-Aware Training Advantage January 6, 2026
  • Workflow for Dynamic Linkage and Transition between two Authoring Systems: LPBI Group’s WordPress.com Multi-Authors Authoring System and Microsoft PowerPoint product for Slide show presentation – Part 10.1 in Composition of Methods January 6, 2026

• Archives

  Archives Select Month January 2026  (10) December 2025  (8) November 2025  (8) October 2025  (12) September 2025  (2) July 2025  (4) June 2025  (8) May 2025  (4) April 2025  (2) March 2025  (1) February 2025  (2) January 2025  (3) December 2024  (1) November 2024  (5) October 2024  (7) September 2024  (7) August 2024  (1) June 2024  (1) May 2024  (2) April 2024  (2) January 2024  (1) November 2023  (1) October 2023  (3) September 2023  (3) August 2023  (2) July 2023  (2) June 2023  (7) May 2023  (4) April 2023  (2) March 2023  (5) February 2023  (2) January 2023  (3) December 2022  (2) October 2022  (6) September 2022  (2) August 2022  (1) July 2022  (3) June 2022  (3) May 2022  (8) April 2022  (10) March 2022  (7) February 2022  (7) January 2022  (3) December 2021  (3) November 2021  (4) October 2021  (11) September 2021  (5) August 2021  (8) July 2021  (21) June 2021  (8) May 2021  (10) April 2021  (8) March 2021  (15) February 2021  (17) January 2021  (20) December 2020  (10) November 2020  (12) October 2020  (26) September 2020  (17) August 2020  (22) July 2020  (27) June 2020  (33) May 2020  (26) April 2020  (42) March 2020  (22) February 2020  (11) January 2020  (7) December 2019  (20) November 2019  (13) October 2019  (11) September 2019  (3) August 2019  (8) July 2019  (25) June 2019  (47) May 2019  (40) April 2019  (27) March 2019  (29) February 2019  (17) January 2019  (50) December 2018  (14) November 2018  (17) October 2018  (18) September 2018  (17) August 2018  (8) July 2018  (20) June 2018  (22) May 2018  (17) April 2018  (12) March 2018  (20) February 2018  (26) January 2018  (16) December 2017  (6) November 2017  (20) October 2017  (13) September 2017  (16) August 2017  (16) July 2017  (19) June 2017  (20) May 2017  (32) April 2017  (21) March 2017  (10) February 2017  (24) January 2017  (21) December 2016  (43) November 2016  (8) October 2016  (40) September 2016  (67) August 2016  (59) July 2016  (75) June 2016  (37) May 2016  (95) April 2016  (152) March 2016  (175) February 2016  (196) January 2016  (139) December 2015  (90) November 2015  (287) October 2015  (237) September 2015  (115) August 2015  (96) July 2015  (63) June 2015  (44) May 2015  (53) April 2015  (76) March 2015  (95) February 2015  (83) January 2015  (75) December 2014  (75) November 2014  (88) October 2014  (135) September 2014  (117) August 2014  (88) July 2014  (88) June 2014  (109) May 2014  (60) April 2014  (85) March 2014  (58) February 2014  (72) January 2014  (107) December 2013  (104) November 2013  (136) October 2013  (62) September 2013  (32) August 2013  (46) July 2013  (74) June 2013  (110) May 2013  (112) April 2013  (86) March 2013  (92) February 2013  (63) January 2013  (63) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (71) October 2012  (84) September 2012  (82) August 2012  (122) July 2012  (59) June 2012  (34) May 2012  (46) April 2012  (2)

• Categories

  Categories Select Category 3D Printing for Medical Application  (239)    3D Plotting Scaffolds  (44)    BioInks  (34)       Biopolymer Blend Open Porous  (18)       Dental Applications  (10)    BioPrinting in Regenerative Medicine  (77)       Cell Level  (16)       MicroEngineering Cell-Tissue & Systems  (31)       Tissue Engineering  (37)    Cardiovascular and Vascular Systems  (30)       Artificial Vascular Structures  (9)       Cardiovascular Tissue  (8)    Drug Development using MultiOrgan Chip  (11)    Drug Development/Formulation using 3D Printing  (10)    MEMS  (16)       Bio-MEMS  (12)    Organ-on-a-Chip  (11)    Programmable Sensors (Carbon Nano Tubes)  (5) 3rd Party IP: Drug DIscovery  (1) 4D Printing and Meta Materials  (10) Academic Publishing  (223)    Key Opinion Leaders in eScientific Publishing – Interviews with  (8) Advanced Drug Manufacturing Technology  (96)    Antimalarial Preparation  (8)    Autologous Cell Therapy  (14)    Automated Cell Processing  (13) Allergy and Infectious Diseases  (12) Alzheimer’s Disease  (163)    Etiology  (77)    Medical Device Therapies for Altzheimer’s Disease  (15)    Pharmacotherapy and Cell Activity  (51) Anticancer Resistance  (31) Art Exhibits on the Human Condition  (1) Art Inspires Science  (4) Article Type  (2)    Authored  (1)    Curated  (2)    Scientific report  (1) Artificial Heart  (2) Artificial Intelligence – General  (232)    An executive’s guide to AI  (10)    Artificial Intelligence – Breakthroughs in Theories and Technologies  (115)    Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care  (125)       Artificial Intelligence in CANCER  (39)       Artificial Intelligence in Health Care – Tools & Innovations  (74)    Artificial Intelligence in Medicine – Application for Diagnosis  (69)       Artificial intelligence applications for cardiology  (31)          AI-assisted Cardiac MRI  (10)       Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry  (6)       Deep Learning in Pathology  (18)    Artificial Intelligence in Medicine – Applications in Therapeutics  (64)    ChatGPT, GPT-4  (7)       ChatGPT at LPBI Group  (3)       ChatGPT in Academic Education  (3)    Machine Learning  (71)       Deep Learning  (25)       Natural Language Processing (NLP)  (45)    Machine learning in predicting type 2 diabetes  (5) Auditory and vision  (13) Autism Spectrum Disorders  (10) Autoimmune Inflammatory DIseases  (24)    Crohn’s disease  (5)    Tolerance-inducing Autoimmune Disease Therapeutics  (6)    Ulcerative Colitis  (3) Autophagosome  (4) Bacterial Resistance  (25) Behavior  (26) Behavioral Genetics  (21) Big Data  (88)    Intelligent Information Systems  (51) Bio Instrumentation in Experimental Life Sciences Research  (368)    Analytical Instruments Industry  (5)    Microfuidics  (8) Bio-Ethics  (15) BioBanking  (36) Biodegradable Drug-eluting Material  (8) Bioengineering & reverse engineering design  (43) BioIT: BioInformatics  (147) BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics  (135)    Advanced Computing Platform  (32)       Blockchain Transactions System  (6)          Platform for Content Monetization embedded Content Promotion  (1)    Pancreatic adenocarcinoma classifier  (4)    Simulation Modeling in NGS  (5) Biological Engineering  (43) Biological Networks  (193) Biological Networks, Gene Regulation and Evolution  (479)    Virology  (10) Biomarkers & Medical Diagnostics  (571)    VOC – Volatile Organic Compounds as BioMarkers  (2) Biomedical Measurement Science  (173) BioSimilars  (112) BioTechnology – Venture Creation  (131)    Foundations for supporting Science and Education  (14)    Philanthropy to Academic Institution  (3) BioTechnology – Venture Creation, Venture Capital  (108)    Seeking Talent  (3) BiVAD  (1) Blindness  (6) Bone Disease and Musculoskeletal Disease  (82) Brain Basis of Emotion  (5) Business Career Consideration  (1) Ca2+ triggered activation  (61) Calcium  (21) Calcium Signaling  (71) Calmodulin Kinase and Contraction  (36) Cancer – General  (186) Cancer and Current Therapeutics  (411)    interventional oncology  (49)       Breast Cancer – impalpable breast lesions  (20)       Prostate Cancer: Monitoring vs Treatment  (9) CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer Therapy  (1,122)    Anaerobic Glycolysis  (51)    Cachexia  (18)    Cancer Genomics  (84)       Circulating Tumor Cells (CTC)  (27)          Liquid Biopsy Chip detects an array of metastatic cancer cell markers in blood  (17)             mRNA  (6)          MagSifter chip  (1)       KRAS Mutation  (9)       Li-fraumeni syndrome.  (3)       TP53 – Germline mutations  (8)    cancer metabolism  (28)    Funding Opportunities for Cancer Research  (12)    Genomic Expression  (150)    Glioblastoma  (7)    Hexokinase  (14)    Loss of function gene  (18)    Metabolic Immuno-Oncology  (21)    Metastasis Process  (15)    Methylation  (33)    Microbiome and Responses to Cancer Therapy  (10)    Monoclonal Immunotherapy  (29)    mtDNA  (13)    Oxidative phosphorylation  (56)    Pancreatic cancer  (10)    Pyruvate Kinase  (27)    The NCI Formulary  (1)    tumor microenvironment  (16)    Warburg effect  (50) Cancer Informatics  (104) Cancer Prevention: Research & Programs  (131) Cancer Screening  (108) Cancer Vaccines: Targeting Cancer Genes for Immunotherapy  (30)    Engineering Enhanced Cancer Vaccines  (3) cancer-general  (6) Cardiac and Cardiovascular Surgical Procedures  (328)    Aortic Valve: TAVR, TAVI vs Open Heart Surgery  (91)       Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch (PPM) in TAVI vs SAVR  (2)       TAVI vs Open Heart Surgery  (6)       Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement via the Transcarotid Access  (3)       Transcaval TAVR Procedure  (3)       Valve-in-Valve Procedure  (5)    Atrial Fibrilation (a-Fib), Cardiac Pacing and Arrhythmias  (18)    BackBeat’s Cardiac Neuromodulation Therapy (CNT) bioelectronic therapy  (1)    CABG  (47)    Cancer Surgery of the Heart  (10)    Cardiovascular Fluid Management: algorithms  (1)    Heart Transplant  (16)    Heart-Lung Transplant  (11)    Implantation  (3)    Left Main Coronary Artery Disease (LMCAD)  (3)    Mechanical Assist Devices: LVAD, RVAD, BiVAD, Artificial Heart  (22)    Mitral Valve: Repair and Replacement  (64)       TMVR – Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair  (5)    PCI  (108)       Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (BVS)  (4)       Invasive FFR for PCI  (2)       Multivessel PCI FFR Guidance  (1)       Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention  (2)       Stent Retriever in endovascular thrombectomy  (3)    Peripheral Arterial Disease & Peripheral Vascular Surgery  (65)       Abdominal Aorta  (20)       Carotid Artery  (15)       Limb ischemia  (4)       Thoracic Aorta  (16)    Pulmonary Valve Replacement and Repair  (3)    Renal Denervation  (20)    Replacement  (1)    Robotically assisted Cardiothoracic Surgery  (2)    Tricuspid Valve Repair  (7)    Vena Caval Filters: Device for Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism and Thrombosis  (2) Cardiovascular Pharmacogenomics  (171) Cargo  (3) Cell Biology  (323) Cell Biology, Signaling & Cell Circuits  (672)    Apoptosis  (17)    Autophagy-Modulating Proteins  (6)    “Antibody–enzyme conjugates”  (6)    Cell Processing System in Cell Therapy Process Development  (27)    Endoplasmic reticulum  (3)    Enzymatic mechanism underlying the synthesis of adenosine triphosphate (ATP)  (3)    Ubiquitin  (11) Cerebrovascular and Neurodegenerative Diseases  (123)    Stroke  (9) Chemical Biology and its relations to Metabolic Disease  (464)    #BIGAxisSummit  (1)    Gut Microbiome and Obesity  (8) Chemical Genetics  (350) Child and Adolescent Psychiatry  (13) Childhood cancer  (17) Childhood malnutrition  (3) children  (3) Circulating Progenitor Cells  (27)    Bone marrow derived cells  (17)    Endothelial cells  (7)    Umbilical cord cells  (6) Clinical & Translational  (238) Clinical Diagnostics  (220)    Mass automation of plasma proteins  (13) Clinical Genomics  (144) Coagulation Therapy and Internal Bleeding  (83) Cognition  (47) Commercialization  (20) Components and IRB related issues  (4) Computational Biology/Systems and Bioinformatics  (470)    Computational Histopathology  (3)    Meta-analysis of transcriptome data  (10) Conference Coverage with Social Media  (494)    MassBio  (3) coronavirus  (18) COVID-19  (20) CRISPR/Cas9 & Gene Editing  (192)    CRISPR alternative for editing genes without cutting  (14)       CAST – Alternative to CRISPR/Cas9  (3)       Transposon-encoded CRISPR–Cas systems direct RNA-guided DNA integration  (4)    CRISPR applied to Human Germ Line  (13)       Gene Editing Impact on Longevity  (6) CT  (20) Cytokines  (20) Cytoskeleton  (85) Developmental biology  (107) Diabetes Mellitus  (146)    Artificial Pancreas for Type 2 Diabetes  (4)    Artificial Pancreas for Type1 Diabetes  (8)    Gestational diabetes  (5) Diagnostic Immunology  (61) Diagnostics and Lab Tests  (128)    Liquid Biopsy: Circulating Tumor Cells in Urine and Blood  (9) Digital HealthCare – biotech & internet joint ventures  (47) Disease Biology  (334) Disease Biology, Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic Drugs  (487) DNA repair  (73)    Apoptosis  (13)    Autophagy  (13)    Cell death pathways  (19)    Proteolysis  (8)    Proteosome  (8) Drug Delivery Platform Technology  (157)    Drug Carrier Design  (21)       Medication Remote Compliance Monitoring  (3)    Exosomes: Natural Carriers for siRNA Delivery  (9) Drug Toxicity  (74) Ecosystems & Industrial Concentration in the Medical Device Sector  (172)    Cardiac & Vascular Repair Tools Subsegment  (128)    Exec Compensation in the Cardiac & Vascular Repair Tools Subsegment  (14)    Massachusetts Niche Suppliers and National Leaders  (20) Electronic Health Record  (10) Embryology  (24) Empathy  (6) Endocrine Diseases  (60) Enzyme Induction  (46)    ion-transporting enzyme  (2)    K + -ATPase.  (1)    Na +  (2) Epigenetics and Environmental Factors  (35) Ethics and Leadership  (10) Executive Compensation – Big Pharma  (3) Fat soluble vitamins  (4) FDA  (71) FDA Regulatory Affairs  (358)    FDA, CE Mark & Global Regulatory Affairs: process management and strategic planning – GCP, GLP, ISO 14155  (52)    ISO 10993 for Product Registration: FDA & CE Mark for Development of Medical Devices and Diagnostics  (30) Fetal Ultrasound  (2) Fiction and medicine  (5) Frontiers in Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disorders  (929)    Acute Myocardial Infarction  (63)       Cardiogenic Shock  (5)    Anemia in CVD Patients  (6)    Cardio-Oncology  (4)    Cardiomyopathy  (57)    Cardiovascular Research  (187)       Myocardial metabolism, Myocardial ischemia, myocardial perfusion, Myocardial adenine nucleotide metabolism  (64)       Pre-Clinical Animal Model Development  (23)    Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension (CTEPH) and Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH)  (20)    Cost of Inpatient Stay for Cardiovascular Diagnosis for Admission  (1)    Electrophysiology  (111)       Ablation Procedure vs Drug Therapy  (2)       Arrhythmia Detection with Machine Learning Algorithms  (7)       Cardiotoxic Risks of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors  (1)       Genomic Analysis of EKG Electrophysiology Genomics  (3)       implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and External Defibrillation  (1)       implantable pacemaker  (2)       Rare heart rhythm disorders and Long QT syndrome (LQTS)  (7)    Epigenetics and Cardiovascular Risks  (57)    Heart Failure (HF)  (51)       Acute coronary syndrome  (7)       congestive heart failure  (19)       Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy  (1)    Medical Devices R&D and Inventions  (212)       Assist Devices: LV  (3)       RV  (1)       Stents & Tools  (90)       Valves & Tools  (67)    Origins of Cardiovascular Disease  (422)       Atherogenic Processes & Pathology  (180)       Congenital Heart Disease  (34)          Genetic Mutations in Congenital Heart Disease  (4)       inflammation independent of lipid levels  (13)       Systemic Inflammatory Diseases as CVD Risk  (12)    Pharmacotherapy of Cardiovascular Disease  (356)       HTN  (176)       HTN in Youth  (8)       Resident-cell-based  (43)       Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH)  (1)       Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM)  (1)    Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection (SCAD)  (6)    Stroke  (15)       endovascular thrombectomy  (6)    Vascular Diseases  (21)       mesenteric ischemia  (3) Future Pandemics Inform-graphics  (1) Gastroenterology  (38) Gene Regulation  (232) Gene Regulation and Evolution  (137) Genetics & Innovations in Treatment  (176) Genetics & Pharmaceutical  (203) Genome Biology  (967)    Exosomes  (25)    Gene Therapy & Gene Editing Development  (42)    mRNA Therapeutics  (20)    Mutagenesis  (27)    Single Cell Genomics  (25)    Single-cell sequencing  (20)    Variation in human protein-coding regions  (35) Genomic Endocrinology  (42) Genomic Testing: Methodology for Diagnosis  (416) Genomics Pharmacy  (40) Global Market of Medical Devices Technology  (2) Global Medical Publishers by Country  (3) Global Partnering & Biotech Investment  (47) GLP  (4) Glycobiology: Biopharmaceutical Production  (16) Glycobiology: Biopharmaceutical Production, Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics  (28) Health Care System by Country  (58)    AI Models in Healthcare  (12)    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services  (8)    Health in Israel  (2)    India  (1)    United States  (27)       Hospital-based Medical Innovations  (10)       Medical Recertification and Maintenance of Certification (MOC)  (1) Health Economics and Outcomes Research  (384)    Women Health  (18)       Heart and Brain Disease in Women  (3) Health Law & Patient Safety  (165)    and Bioethics  (14)    Biotechnology  (12)    Health Law Policy  (13) HealthCare IT  (138) Healthcare Reform  (117)    Accountable Care Organizations  (26)    Affordable Care Act  (29)       Repair  (1)       Repeal ACA  (1)       Replace  (1)    Federal Budget Appropriations  (26)    Healthcare costs and reimbursement  (59)    Indigent Nutrition  (14)    Medicare and Medicaid  (20)    Prescription Drugs Costs  (21)    Skilled Nursing Facilities  (6)    Technology Capital Expenses  (15)    Uninsured and Underinsured  (20) Hematology  (100)    Acute lymphocytic leukemia  (18)    Acute myelocytic leukemia  (21)    Hematopoiesis  (48)    Lymphoma  (21) History and physical exam  (6) Human aging  (27) Human Immune System in Health and in Disease  (246) Human Sensation and Cellular Transduction: Physiology and Therapeutics  (21) Image Processing/Computing  (41) Imaging-based Cancer Patient Management  (116) Immuno-Oncology & Genomics  (133)    mRNA platform in Drug DIscovery  (6) Immunodiagnostics  (139)    Cancer-Immune Interactions  (29)    CNS-Immune Interface  (5)    Neuronal Circuits  (4) Immunology  (123)    Adaptive Immune Response to Biomaterials and Tissue Repair  (13)    Antibody Responses Predict Antigen Exposure  (17)    Cytokine Receptor Structure  (8)    Human Antibody Response  (18)    Human Circulating Antibody Repertoire  (11)    Human Naive B Cell Repertoire  (8)    MHC Repertoires for Antigen Prediction  (8)    Protection Against Autoimmune Disease  (11)    Synthetic Immunology: Hacking Immune Cells  (15) Immunotherapy  (133)    CAR-T  (14)    combination immunotherapies.  (14)    Efficacy of Anti-Tumor T Cells  (13)    Engineering Better T Cells  (8)    Immune Engineering  (17)    Immune Modulatory  (15)    Integrin-targeted Combination Immunotherapy  (6)    Modulating Macrophages in Cancer Immunotherapy  (16)    NK Cell-Based Cancer Immunotherapy  (19)    Synergistic Innate and Adaptive Immunotherapy  (14) Income Disparity  (2) Infectious Disease & New Antibiotic Targets  (162)    Antibiotic resistance  (7)    Viral diseases  (37)       Myocarditis  (1) Infectious Disease Immunodiagnostics  (58)    Virology – Vector-borne DIsease  (17) Inflammasome  (29)    Anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs (TNF inhibitors)  (3) Innovation in Immunology Diagnostics  (111)    Universal Immune Cell Therapies (uICT)  (11) Innovations  (186)    R&D Expenditure  (8) Innovations in Neurophysiology & Neuropsychology  (145)    Age and Life Expectancy  (3)    autism spectrum disorder  (1)    Circadian Rhythm and Sleep  (6)    hNPCs  (1)    Nervous System Function  (2)    Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis  (1) Intellectual Property  (83)    Disputes and Settlements  (9)    IP Valuation Models – Pricing Intangible Assets  (7)    Patent Law in Biotech  (12) Intellectual Property, Innovations, Commercialization, Investment in technological breakthrough  (119) International Global Work in Pharmaceutical  (190) Interventional Oncology: Radiofrequency Ablation, Transarterial Chemoembolization, Microwave Ablation and Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)  (12) Interviews with Scientific Leaders  (315)    Albany Medical Center Prize in Medicine and Biomedical Research  (2)    Annual Breakthrough Prize  (4)    Annual Lewis S. Rosenstiel Award  (2)    Awards in Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine  (6)    CEOs of Biotech Companies  (3)    Gerald D Aurbach Award for Outstanding Translational Research  (2)    Interviews with Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs)  (10)    James Prize in Science and Technology Integration  (2)    Jessie Stevenson Kovalenko Medal – Medical Sciences  (2)    Lemelson-MIT Prize  (2)    Life Sciences Breakthrough Prize  (5)    Mosteller Statistician of the Year Award  (2)    Mourning the Loss of a Scientific Leader  (3)    National Academy of Sciences AWARDS  (4)    Nobel Prize Winners  (29)    Noble Prize (Not Nobel Prize)  (2)    Paul Marks Prize for Cancer Research  (2)    Russ Prize recognizes bioengineering achievements worldwide  (2)    The Dan David Prize  (6)    Warren Alpert Foundation Prize Recipients  (4)    Wolf Prize  (2)    Wolf Prize in Medicine  (2)    women in science  (5) Investment in Technological Breakthrough  (60) Ionic Transporters Na+  (25) IP Development by LPBI Group Team  (14) IP Development by LPBI Group Team & Other Organizations  (8) ISO 14155  (3) Joint Venture – SBH & M3DP: SOP and Arrangements  (1) Justice & Law  (1) K  (15) Lab-on-a-chip  (2) Landscape  (1) Lasers and photonics  (18)    Midrange IR spectroscopy  (1) Law and Medicine Conflicts  (14) Leadership, Power, Social Interlocking Connections  (13) Lipid metabolism  (109)    Fatty acids  (38)    Lipids  (38)    PCSK9 Inhibitor Therapy  (19) Lipidomics  (11) Liposome  (4) Liver & Digestive Diseases Research  (122) LPBI Group, e-Scientific Media, DFP, R&D-M3DP, R&D-Drug Discovery, US Patents: SOPs and Team Management  (143)    Award Nominations  (5)    BioMed e-Books e-Series by LPBI Group  (9)    Feedback from Investors: LPBI Portfolio of Five Businesses  (2)    LPBI Group Founder – Aviva Lev-Ari  (27)    PhD  (1)    RN  (1) LPBI Management  (23) Massachusetts Academy of Sciences (MAS)    (2) Materials Science & Engineering  (37)    Organic BioElectronics  (2) Math  (13)    Great Discoveries  (7) Mechanical Assist Devices: LVAD  (4) Medical and Population Genetics  (193) Medical Devices R&D Investment  (242)    21st Century Cures Act  (2)    CE Mark & Global Regulatory Affairs: process management and strategic planning – GCP  (14)    Rhythm management device hardware: dual-chamber pacemakers  (1)       Systolic HTN  (1) Medical Imaging Technology  (59) Medical Imaging Technology, Image Processing/Computing, MRI, CT, Nuclear Medicine, Ultra Sound  (164)    Circumferential-Intravascular-Radioluminescence-Photoacoustic-Imaging (CIRPI)  (3)    Echocardiography  (3)    MRI  (18)    Noninvasive Diagnostic Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) CT  (6)    Ultra Sound  (10) Melatonin & Circadian Regulation  (9) memory loss  (1) Metabolism  (239)    Biochemical pathways  (144)       Enzymes and isoenzymes  (73)          Dehydrogenase  (16)          Kinase  (28)          Phosphatase  (9)          Phosphorylase  (22)          tyrosine decarboxylases  (3)    Inosine nucleotides  (9)    Leloir pathway  (6)    microbiome  (7)    Pentose monophosphate shunt  (14)    Pyridine nucleotides  (28)       Pyridine nucleotide transhydrogenase  (7) Metabolomics  (321) Methods  (37) Mg++  (10) Microbiologial genetics  (36) Microbiology  (68)    Virology  (14) Micronutrients  (16) Microvesicle  (7) Microwave Ablation and Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)  (1) Mobile Healthcare  (5) Molecular Genetics & Pharmaceutical  (377)    Organoids  (3) Monoclonal antibody therapy  (14) Mutant Gene Expression  (42) Myocardial adenine nucleotide metabolism  (6) Myocardial Ischemia  (26) Myocardial Metabolism  (36) Na-K transport  (40) Na-K-ATPase  (27) Nanotechnology for Drug Delivery  (99) Nephrology  (46) Nephrology & Regenerative medicine  (9) Neurodegenerative Diseases  (89)    hNPCs  (3)    MS  (5) Neurohumoral Transmission  (68)    Ca2+ triggered activation  (21)    Calmodulin  (13)    Parkinson’s disease dyskinesia levodopa  (3)    PKC  (13)    Synaptic vesicle  (20) Neurological Diseases  (121) Neuroscience  (126) Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)  (27)    Nanopore sequencing  (1) NIH Common Fund  (1) Nitric Oxide in Health and Disease  (136) Nuclear Medicine  (11) Nutrigenomics  (68) Nutrition  (195)    Nutritional Supplements: Atherogenesis, lipid metabolism  (50) Nutrition and Phytochemistry  (62)    Minerals in Medicine  (4)    Plant extract  (22) Nutrition Disorders  (31) Nutritional Supplements: Atherogenesis  (31) Obesity  (19) Oligonucleotide Therapeutics & Delivery  (7) Oncolytic virus & OncoViro-Therapy  (22)    Synthetic Virology  (1) Organ-on-a-Chip & 3D Printing in Life Sciences  (7) Pain: Etiology, Genetics & Innovations in Treatment  (24) Parasitology  (5)    Malaria  (4)    Tropical diseases  (1) Patents  (34) Patient Experience  (66)    Art therapy  (1)    Hospital reputation  (7)    Humor  (1)    Music therapy  (2)    Pain Alleviation  (7)    Patient Outlook  (28)    Reputation of Interventionist  (4)    Support Staff  (13)    Supportive therapies  (6)       laughfter  (1)    Surgical Procedure  (9) Patient Experience: Personal Memories of Invasive Medical Intervantion  (30) Patient’s Voice: Personal Experience with Invasive Medical Procedures  (18) Perioperative Statins at Noncardiac Surgery  (2) Personal Health Applications: Tech Innovations serves HealhCare  (43) Personalized and Precision Medicine & Genomic Research  (736)    Longevity  (3)    New Drug Approval  (5)    Patient-centered Medicine  (39)       cell-based therapy  (9)       stem cell biology and patient-specific  (7)    Personalized Medicine Coalition  (10)    Precision Cancer Medicine  (31) Phagophore  (2) Pharmaceutical Analytics  (261)    Pharmacologic toxicities  (62) Pharmaceutical Discovery  (109)    Rapid automation of plasma protein pools  (17) Pharmaceutical Drug Discovery  (200)    Drug Development Process  (55)       Drug Discovery Chemistry  (29)    drug repurposing  (10) Pharmaceutical Industry Competitive Intelligence  (343)    Pharmacovigilance  (7)    Value-based Drug Pricing  (8) Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics  (44) Pharmaceutical R&D Investment  (299) Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics  (24) Pharmacogenomics  (159) Photography Collection  (1) Physics  (12) Placenta  (7) Population genetics  (27) Population Health Management  (204)    Evolution of Biology Through Culture  (14)    U.S. Employment-to-Population Ratio  (8) Population Health Management, Genetics & Pharmaceutical  (643)    COVID-19  (157)       Biomarkers: Inflammation  (37)       Cancer Researchers Fighting COVID-19  (14)       COVID-19 effects on Human Heart  (15)       COVID-19: Pandemic Surgery Guidance  (19)       Economic Impact of Coronavirus Pandemic  (41)       number of asymptomatic infections  (27)       Treatment Protocols for COVID-19  (62)    SARS-CoV-2  (141)       Coronavirus Gene Expression  (66)          SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants   (14)          SARS-CoV-2 Viral Variants  (19)       Glycosylation and its Role in SARS-CoV-2 Viral Pathogenesis  (2)       Immune-Mediation (independent immunopathology: lung and reticuloendothelial system)  (30)       Mechanisms of infection by SARS-CoV-2  (21)       SAR-Cov-2 a vasculotropic (blood vessels) RNA Virus  (35)          SARS-COV2 Hijacking the Complement and Coagulation Systems  (19)       Seasonality & Environmental Factors in Resurgence  (26)       Serology tests for coronavirus antibodies  (44)       T-cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection  (14)       Vaccinology  (51)          Mechanism of Thrombosis with AZ & J&J COVID-19 Vaccines  (5)       Virtual Drug Molecule Screening targeting SAR-CoV-2 proteins  (8)    Virus Infective Acute Respiratory Syndrome: SARS-CoV  (92) Population Health Management, Nutrition and Phytochemistry  (162) Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Reproductive Genomics  (13) Protein-energy malnutrition  (12) Proteomics  (367)    Amino acids  (54)    Proteins  (138) Pulmonary diseases  (16)    Lung and pulmonology  (15) Pulmonary pathology  (8) Radio Frequency (RF)-based Surgical Solutions  (2) REAL TIME Conference Coverage Twitter’s Hashtags and Handles per Presentation/session  (50) Regenerative Biology and Medicine  (92) Regulated Clinical Trials: Design, Methods, Components and IRB related issues  (265) Reproductive Andrology, Embryology, Genomic Endocrinology, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Reproductive Genomics  (113) Reproductive Biology & Bio Instrumentation  (78) RNA Biology  (81)    RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic  (4) RNA Biology, Cancer and Therapeutics  (64) RVAD  (1) SBIR, SBA, NIH, NSF  (3) Schizophrenia  (16) Scientific & Biotech Conferences: Press Coverage  (182) Scientific Publishing  (609)    Curation  (585)       Curation methodology  (40)       De novo synthesis  (16)       Dialectic  (17)       Discovery process  (72)       Evolutionary cognition  (52)       Experimental validation  (91)       Explanatory  (91)       Historical relevance  (71)       Technology Advance Assessment of  (69)       Theoretic convergence  (27)    Open Access Journals  (37) Scientist: Career considerations  (197)    Big Data & Analytics  (17)    Data Science  (13)    Women in Life Sciences  (12) Scoop.it  (19) Sensors & Analytics  (18) Sepsis  (2) Severe Autism  (3) Signaling  (102)    Phosphorylation  (43)    S-nitrosylation  (13)    Ubiquitinylation  (34) Signaling & Cell Circuits  (130) single cell sequencing  (3) Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic Drugs  (71) Social Development  (15) Specialized 3D BioPrinters (Cornea  (1) Statistical Methods for Research Evaluation  (137) Stem Cells for Regenerative Medicine  (177)    Cardiac muscle regeneration  (19)    Competition in regenerative stem cell science  (18)    Human neural progenitor cells  (8)    Skeletal muscle regeneration  (9) STORM  (2) Stress Disorders  (19) Substance Abuse  (4) Systemic Inflammatory Response Related Disorders  (161)    Inflammatory Pathophysiology  (9) Technology Transfer: Biotech and Pharmaceutical  (354) therapeutics  (3) Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine  (22) Tissue Microenvironment  (5) Transarterial Chemoembolization  (2) Transcriptomics  (47) Transformative Technologies in Healthcare  (23) Translational Science  (230)    Best evidence  (52)    Bias measurement tools  (2)    Evidence-based decision-making  (29)    Inferential analysis  (25)    Intra-rater error  (1)    Quality Assurance  (8)    Random Error  (2)    Systematic Error (Bias)  (6)    Total error  (2)    Translational Effectiveness  (49)    Translational Research  (92) Trends in Global Economy  (6) Uncategorized  (1,019) Unfolded Protein Response (UPR)  (6) US and Global Economy: Trends and Findings  (9) Venture Capital  (47)    Income Geographic Distribution  (3)    Institutional Capital Raised by Female Founders  (6) virology  (10) Vision  (7) Voices of Patients and Healthcare Providers  (22) Water Transporters  (8) Wearable Tech + Digital Health  (5) Anemia  (22) Neutropenia  (8) Neutrophilia  (9) Platelet count disorder  (9) Folate and B12  (7) Iron deficiency  (5) Myelodysplasia  (13) Myelofibrosis  (10)

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

• • 2012pharmaceutical
  • sjwilliamspa