Top 5 Junior Member Abstract Program Winners Announced at CAP24 Meeting

Background:European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) task force (TF) requires participation of at least three representative members - one health professional in Rheumatology (HPR) and two patient research partners...

Responding to a survey by an APS task force on ethics, younger members of the physics community have raised significant concerns about the treatment of subordinates and about other ethical issues.

ObjectiveEuropean Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) task forces (TF) requires participation of ≥2 junior members, a health professional in rheumatology (HPR) and two patient research partners for the development...

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Junior Members (JM) comprise the largest EAACI section with around 4000 clinicians and scientists under 35 years of age working in the field of allergy and clinical immunology. The Junior Member collaboration with Clinical and Translational Allergy Journal is a mutually beneficial relationship providing Junior Members of EAACI with excellent opportunities to publish their work in the Journal, enhance their visibility in their respective field, and get involved with Journal-related activities and processes. In the future, this collaboration will grow, not only by the consolidation of these activities, but also by the implementation of new initiatives, such as a platform for discussing and/or publishing Junior Members’ dissertations in the Journal. From the CTA perspective, the collaboration presents an opportunity to promote a new generation of allergists with experience of conducting and presenting research, with improved skills in critical review.

The purpose of this study was to compare current awareness of the "On a Code of Conduct for Scientists" (OCCS) among members of the Japanese Society for Hygiene (JSH). An anonymous self-administered questionnaire was mailed to JSH members, including 439 councilors and 376 junior members (who were under 50 years of age with a membership of 3 years or longer, excluding councilors). Councilors were surveyed from November to December 2007, while junior members were surveyed from November to December 2008. The overall response rate was 40.6% (n = 331/815), with responses from 46.7% of the councilors (n = 205/439) and 33.5% of the junior members (n = 126/376). Among the respondents, 36.0% of councilors (n = 68) and 59.8% of junior members (n = 73) did not know the contents of "On the Code of Conduct for Scientists" (P < 0.01), while 76.3% of councilors (n = 145) and 61.4% of junior members (n = 75) had not heard of it (P < 0.05). However, a majority of the respondents reported interest in the Code [70.0% of councilors (n = 133), 68.6% of junior members (n = 83)] (P < 0.05) and a favorable attitude towards research ethics education [69.3% of councilors (n = 133), 68.9% of junior members (n = 84)] (P < 0.54). In addition, 24.3% of the responding councilors (n = 46) and 15.7% of the responding junior members (n = 19) believe it necessary for JSH to formulate its own code of conduct for scientists (P < 0.01). We clarified the current state of awareness of the OCCS among JSH members as well as the opinion of members for the JSH to have its own Code of Conduct for Scientists. This result provides important information that should be considered during the formulation of an individual code of conduct for scientists in the JSH.

The top 5 abstracts submitted by Junior Members of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) to the CAP ’11 meeting were recognized during ceremonies held at the meeting. CAP President Stanley J. Robboy, MD, and Archives of Pathology &amp; Laboratory Medicine Editor in Chief Philip T. Cagle, MD, personally congratulated the winners on Sunday, September 11. That day, the winners were also recognized during the CAP ’11 Spotlight Event and Reception and were presented with their award checks.All abstracts accepted for presentation at the CAP ’11 meeting and for publication in the Archives that were submitted by CAP Junior Members were eligible for selection as one of the top 5 abstracts. The winning abstracts were reviewed and selected by a group of experts within various anatomic and clinical pathology disciplines who were blinded to the authors' identities.The winning abstracts, including the Junior Members (shown in bold), author affiliations, and abstract titles, are as follows:First Place ($1,500 award): Utility of Lymphoid-Specific Helicase in Differentiating Follicular Hyperplasia From Follicular Lymphoma. Gitika Aggarwal, MD1 (gaggarwal@mcg.edu); Elizabeth Manaloor, MD1; Preetha Ramalingam, MBBS.2 1Department of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia; 2Department of Pathology, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.Second Place ($1,000 award): Primary Medulloblastomas Express Functional CD1d and Can Be Targeted for Immunotherapy With NKT Cells. Liping Song, MD, PhD1 (lp2014@gmail.com); Daofeng Liu, PhD2; Leonid Metelitsa, MD, PhD.2 1Department of Pathology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Texas; 2Department of Hematology/Oncology, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas.Third Place ($750 award): Evaluation of Subepithelial Fibrosis and Subepithelial Eosinophilia in Differentiating Eosinophilic Esophagitis From Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in Pediatric Patients. Komal P. Dhiran, MD1 (Komaldhiran@gmail.com); Shella K. Mongia, MD1; Rupa Gill, MD2; William Treem, MD2; Raavi Gupta, MD.1 Departments of 1Pathology and 2Pediatrics, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY.Fourth Place ($500 award): Pathologic Evaluation of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography-Positive Lesions in Patients With Cutaneous Melanoma. Vicki Chu, MD1 (vhchu@bcm.edu); Peeyush Bhargava, MD2; Ida Orengo, MD3; Bhuvaneswari Krishnan, MD.4 1Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Departments of 2Nuclear Medicine and 3Dermatology, Michael E. Debakey VA Medical Center, Houston, Tex; 4Department of Pathology, Michael E. Debakey VA Medical Center/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.Fifth Place ($500 award): β–Globin Gene Sequencing of Hemoglobin Austin Revises the Historically Reported, Electrophoretic Migration Pattern. Lori Racsa, DO (Lori.racsa@phhs.org); Hung Luu, MD; Jason Park, MD, PhD; Charles Timmons, MD, PhD. Department of Pathology, Children's Medical Center, Parkland Health and Hospital System, University-of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.The Abstract/Case Study Review Committee for CAP ’11 acknowledges the efforts of the following individuals for their assistance in selecting the winning Junior Member abstracts:Kevin Leslie-ChairAlain BorczukKim CollinsS. David HudnallMaria PickenJae RoDavid SchwartzRhonda YantissDavid YawnQihui (Jim) Zhai

Individual self concept is influenced by internal and external factors. Family environment is the first environment in building self concept. The role of social and group environment also provide contribution in its development. Basically, individual self concept is built by means of interaction process, organization and experience. Cosplay community is a community whose members are fond of make-up and dressed like his idols from movies or animations. They pretend to be their idols. However, some junior members show negative self concept on themselves, impotence over bullying, physical rejection, and social interaction. The objective of this study is to describe the difference between senior members and junior members self concept. The resluts show that junior members have negative self concept and senior members have positive self concept. This is a comparative study with 29 people as the sample of research population. Based on theory of self acceptance by Fitts (1971) that self concept is the self that is seen, perceived, experienced by an individual by using the instrument of Tennessee Self Concept Scale (TSCS). The results show that seniors have more positive self concept than juniors.

Education and training in Allergy and Clinical Immunology (A/I) are characterized by a great variability worldwide. However, objective and worldwide data regarding this topic are lacking. To investigate personal information, education, and involvement in scientific societies of juniors engaged in A/I field, a questionnaire was developed by representatives from the JMs' boards of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI), and the World Allergy Organization (WAO). A total of 543 questionnaires were collected from 76 regions of all continents. The geographic distribution of responders was as follows: Africa-Middle East 3.0%, Asia-Pacific 21.4%, Europe 48.2%, Latin America 12.1%, and North America 15.3%. 59.0% of responders declared that A/I is recognized as a separate specialty in their country, Europe mostly accounting for that proportion. Primary interest in the field represents the main motivation for choosing A/I specialty. Concerning involvement in scientific societies, 41.1% of responders ever attended an EAACI Congress, 20.6% an AAAAI Congress, and 20.4% a WAO Congress. According to 40.3% of responders, scientific societies do not provide enough opportunities for young members, and 96.4% believes in a more intensive cooperation between the A/I Societies. The survey provides the first worldwide perspective about A/I specialty. It represents the first ever example of a structured collaboration between the junior members (JMs) of the three main A/I Societies. The findings suggest the need for harmonization, at least in terms of training and formation in the field of A/I worldwide.

DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.1275 The first time I saw the term, I was mystified. “Hey, Dr S! We’re getting a few KOLs together to give us some advice about how to develop our new compound,” began the friendly e-mail from a pharmaceutical liaison, her return address reflecting her third employer in as many years. “Are you available to come to Atlanta next Saturday? We’ll give you an honorarium for your time.” KOL? What was that? Because “Google” had not yet become a verb, I pulled out my old college dictionary, but its sole suggestion seemed implausible: the Knights of Labor, a nineteenth century workingman’s organization. In response to my puzzled reply, the liaison patiently explained that KOL in this context meant “Key Opinion Leader,” a respected person who can influence others’ beliefs and actions. I was flattered: someone valued my opinions enough to pay real money for them? But I also found the term peculiar. Opinions seemed like a nebulous area in which to be a leader; much better to be recognized for expertise in scientific discovery, for development of new effective therapies, or for something else tangible and useful. I once had an uncle who was an opinion leader at family gatherings, always willing to share ill-informed viewpoints, half-baked ideas, and elaborate conspiracy theories with anyone polite or bored enough to listen. As Clint Eastwood crudely quipped in an early Dirty Harry film, “Opinions are like a**holes— everyone has one.” Later, I received other invitations that used a synonym for KOL, cribbed from public relations jargon: “thought leader.” This term, too, seemed strange when taken at face value, with its implied suggestion that if I could not lead in productivity, at least I might distinguish myself in thinking about being productive. In The Adventure of the Greek Interpreter, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s master sleuth Sherlock Holmes described his brother Mycroft as just such a leader: a brilliant deductionist who could have been a better detective than Sherlock, but who instead lived mostly in his own mind, rarely bothering to stir his ample backside from its familiar armchair in London’s stuffy Diogenes Club. Sherlock complained to his companion Dr Watson, “[Mycroft] has no ambition and no energy. He will not even go out of his way to verify his own solutions, and would rather be considered wrong than take the trouble to prove himself right.” Imagination without execution, like a hypothesis without supporting data, is vapor. I went to Atlanta and enjoyed the meeting with other KOLs, each of whom had far more experience than me. (At the time, I still had a six-figure medical school debt, so I also appreciated the honorarium.) Because all the advisory board involved was thinking and talking—not frantically washing dishes to keep up with a busy restaurant, mowing lawns on a muggy August afternoon, dodging punches from angry drunks while moonlighting in an emergency room, or any of the other jobs I have taken to earn a buck—it felt like the easiest day’s work ever. The company that had called that first advisory board was new to oncology, was planning a clinical trial to test a drug they had obtained in a merger, and needed some help from physicians who treated patients. I, in turn, appreciated hearing the perspectives of senior colleagues, especially views or interpretations of data that I had not considered before. It also felt good to be included in a “club” of active investigators in the area of diseases, even if only as a junior member—a tangible reward for long nights and weekends of work. The company asked us good questions and took our collective advice to heart. The advisory group’s recommendations largely coalesced, and the resulting clinical trial was successful, eventually leading to a US Food and Drug Administration approval. Over the years, I’ve participated in many other advisory committee meetings and, although many have been models of healthy and productive academic-industry collaboration, not all have been as enjoyable as that first one. In some cases, the panel seemed less a forum for exchange of opinion and instead just another way for a company to disseminate a marketing message—a chance to raise awareness of a drug’s profile or quell emerging fears on drug safety. Too often, a company’s representatives have already decided on a clinical trial design and drug development plan and seem to be simply going through the motions of soliciting external advice, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY A R T O F O N C O L O G Y VOLUME 33 NUMBER 28 OCTOBER 1 2015

Junior members' meeting 2000

Junior members' meeting 2001

Junior members' meeting 1999

Although much has been written on the critical congressional reforms of the 1970s, few studies have analyzed support for reform systematically. In this article, we draw upon previously untapped sources of information that make an individual‐level, quantitative analysis possible. We analyze 20 indicators that measure support for a wide variety of reforms in both chambers. Our results reveal a remarkably consistent pattern: in virtually every case, junior members and liberals were more pro‐reform than were senior members and conservatives. Also, Republicans were often more likely than Democrats to back reform. Our findings challenge the view that the reform movement was essentially a Democratic party phenomenon; liberals and junior members in both parties—not just Democrats—supported reform.

Astronomy & GeophysicsVolume 42, Issue 5 p. 5.26-5.26 Library accessions; Fellow and Junior Members. First published: 08 October 2003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-4004.2001.t01-1-42523.xAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract Click HERE to view the article Volume42, Issue5October 2001Pages 5.26-5.26 RelatedInformation

Junior members' meeting