Academy Report Research Articles

Senior doctors’ non-clinical work may suffer because of revalidation, says academy

Most hospital doctors believe that revalidation will take substantial time over and above their time for appraisal, and as a result some input into non-clinical activities may be lost, says a report of a survey by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. However, no strong evidence was found that the direct care of patients would be compromised in the short term by the requirements of the revalidation process, the academy reports. Its survey, which was done in 2011 to explore how revalidation would affect the responsibilities of hospital doctors, contains the views of more than 2600 doctors working in the NHS (80% of whom were consultants and 20% staff and associate specialist (SAS) doctors) in …

Forensic science, an enabler or dis-enabler for criminal investigation?

It would be hard to imagine any significant criminal investigation today to which some aspect of forensic science did not contribute. But does this mean forensic science is used effectively in the broader justice system? Media headlines abound with criticisms of forensic work delaying the justice process. DNA is often held up as the gold standard to which other aspects of forensic science should aspire. The recently released US National Academies Report, Strengthening forensic science in the US: a path forward1, raised significant concerns about the knowledge baseand practice of forensic science, at least as it is conducted in the US. So where does the truth lie? Is forensic science robust and reliable? Is forensic science effective and/or efficient in support of criminal investigation? This article explores these issues and offers some thoughts for the forensic profession but also challenges the justice system community to develop a more collegiate approach to the use of forensic science to improve its efficiency in supporting the criminal justice system.

3. Participants of the Teen Medical Academy Report Fewer Acts of Violence

3. Participants of the Teen Medical Academy Report Fewer Acts of Violence

President's Annual State of the Academy Report

President's Annual State of the Academy Report

Streamlining regulation of clinical trials – update on the Academy of Medical Sciences review and government’s response

The UK has a world leading reputation for clinical research. However this position is being undermined by an overly complex regulatory and governance environment that has had a very negative effect on undertaking clinical trials in an efficient way. The European Clinical Trials Directive (EUCTD) was implemented into UK law in May 2004 and was intended to provide greater protection to patients and volunteers participating in clinical trials and increase the quality of trial conduct. At the same time the Research Governance Framework (RGF) was introduced into the NHS. Increasingly the research community has viewed implementation of both the EUCTD and RGF as being disproportionate and ‘gold plated’. In 2010 the Academy of Medical Sciences was invited by Government to review the regulation and governance of health research and make recommendations to improve current processes. Despite recent attempts to improve parts of the regulation pathway, the review identified that significant challenges remain, including: delays and duplication in obtaining NHS research permissions; a lack of proportionality in the regulation of clinical trials; and a healthcare culture that fails to fully support the value and benefits of health research. The Academy’s report recommended the creation of a new health regulator to rationalise the regulation and governance of health research; steps to streamline the approval of research studies by NHS Trusts; and changes to improve the UK environment for clinical trials. Since the publication of the Academy’s report a number of positive changes have been made. The 2011 Plan for Growth outlined a package of government measures to foster growth in the healthcare and life sciences and took forward a number of recommendations from the Academy report, including establishment of a new Health Research Authority to streamline regulation and improve the cost effectiveness of clinical trials, and making future funding by the National Institute for Health Research to NHS Trusts conditional on meeting benchmarks. The Government has created a new duty for clinical commissioning groups to promote research innovation and for the NHS Commissioning Board to ensure provision of treatment costs for patients who are taking part in research. The MHRA are introducing a risk based approach to management of clinical trials based on the marketing status of an investigational medicinal produce and the standard medical care that would facilitate a proportionate approach to trial activities. The ongoing review of the EUCTD may offer a further opportunity to reduce the regulatory burden on academic trials. The above changes are welcome and should result in reductions in the time to obtain approvals and permissions for clinical trials and some reduction in trial management costs. However it remains to be seen whether the health research regulatory agency will have sufficient authority to achieve more efficient working between regulators, researchers and the NHS to maintain the UKs historical position as a world leader in designing and delivering high quality clinical trials.

Safe sedation?

Safe sedation?

The Valencia Harbour survey (1895 and 1896) in Ireland, with special reference to the work of Edward Thomas Browne (1866–1937)

In 1895 and 1896 a group of English naturalists led by Edward Thomas Browne visited Ireland to carry out survey work in Valencia Harbour, which involved shore collecting, dredging and sampling the pelagic fauna. The area was selected because of the rich fauna in the harbour and the railway connection, but more importantly the presence of the Reverend Alexander Delap and his family who were naturalists. Browne, assisted by Gamble, organized the two visits and team work with other scientists produced the Royal Irish Academy report based on their findings.

Research sans frontières

Academy report finds that international collaboration is on the rise, and should not be seen as an 'easy target' for cuts.

US science academy report calls for 'bipolar' research

US science academy report calls for 'bipolar' research

President's Annual State of the Academy Report

President's Annual State of the Academy Report

Global Health: A Successful Context for Precollege Training and Advocacy

Despite a flourishing biomedical and global health industry [1] too few of Washington state's precollege students are aware of this growing sector and emerging ideas on bacteria, fungi, parasites and viruses. Against the backdrop of numerous reports regarding declining precollege student interest in science [2], a precollege program was envisioned at Seattle Biomedical Research Institute (as of 2010, Seattle BioMed) to increase youth engagement in biomedical research and global health, increase community interest in infectious diseases and mobilize a future biomedical workforce. Since 2005, 169 rising high school juniors have participated in the BioQuest Academy precollege immersion program at Seattle BioMed. Assembling in groups of 12, students conduct laboratory experiments (e.g., anopheline mosquito dissection, gene expression informed tuberculosis drug design and optimizing HIV immunization strategies) related to global health alongside practicing scientific mentors, all within the footprint the institute. Laudable short-term impacts of the program include positive influences on student interest in global health (as seen in the students' subsequent school projects and their participation in Seattle BioMed community events), biomedical careers and graduate school (e.g., 16.9% of teens departing 2008–2009 Academy report revised goals of attaining a doctorate rather than a baccalaureate diploma). Long-term, 97% of alumni (2005–2008) are attending postsecondary schools throughout North America; eight graduates have already published scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals and/or presented their scientific data at national and international meetings, and 26 have been retained by Seattle BioMed researchers as compensated technicians and interns. Providing precollege students with structured access to practicing scientists and authentic research environments within the context of advancing global health has been a robust means of both building a future pool of talented leaders and engaged citizenry and increasing the visibility of health disparities within the community.

President's Annual State of the Academy Report

Since 2004, Presidents of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) have provided the readership of The Clinical Neuropsychologist with the President's Annual State of the Academy Rep...

Hand hygiene and virus transmission

We write in response to the recent controversy over the effectiveness of hand hygiene to prevent influenza virus transmission. [1][1] Recent studies provide more updated data than the Council of Canadian Academies report from two years ago. A study conducted in Hong Kong found that hand hygiene with

Conflict emerges over value of handwashing

There’s no evidence that good hand hygiene practices prevent influenza transmission, according to a Council of Canadian Academies report commissioned by the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). But N95 particulate respirator-type masks are a proven “final layer of protection” against even

Biologically Relevant Exposure Science for 21st Century Toxicity Testing

High visibility efforts in toxicity testing and computational toxicology including the recent National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) report, Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and Strategy (NRC, 2007a), raise important research questions and opportunities for the field of exposure science. The authors of the National Academies report (NRC, 2007a) emphasize that population-based data and human exposure information are required at each step of their vision for toxicity testing and that these data will continue to play a critical role in both guiding development and use of the toxicity information. In fact, state-of-the-art exposure science is essential for translation of toxicity data to assess potential for risk to individuals and populations and to inform public health decisions. As we move forward to implement the NRC vision, a transformational change in exposure science is required. Application of a fresh perspective and novel techniques to capture critical determinants at biologically motivated resolution for translation from controlled in vitro systems to the open multifactorial system of real-world human-environment interaction will be critical. Development of an exposure ontology and knowledge base will facilitate extension of network analysis to the individual and population for translating toxicity information and assessing health risk. Such a sea change in exposure science is required to incorporate consideration of lifestage, genetic susceptibility, and interaction of nonchemical stressors for holistic assessment of risk factors associated with complex environmental disease. A new generation of scientific tools has emerged to rapidly measure signals from cells, tissues, and organisms following exposure to chemicals. Investment in 21st century exposure science is now required to fully realize the potential of the NRC vision for toxicity testing.

The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data

The carcinogenic risk induced by low doses of ionizing radiation is controversial. It cannot be assessed with epidemiologic methods alone because at low doses the data are imprecise and often conflicting. Since the 1970s, the radiation protection community has estimated the risk of low doses by means of extrapolation from the risk assessed at high doses, generally by using the linear no-threshold (LNT) model. The LNT relationship implies proportionality between dose and cancer risk. This approach is based on one set of data and two hypotheses: (a) The relationship between dose and DNA damage in vivo seems linear from 1 mGy to 100 Gy with use of H2AX foci as a marker for DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs)—however, this marker is not specific (1); (b) each DSB is hypothesized to have the same probability of inducing cell transformation, irrespective of the quantity of DSBs present simultaneously in the cell; and (c) each transformed cell is hypothesized to have the same probability of developing into an invasive cancer, irrespective of the dose delivered to the tissue. The advances during the past 2 decades in radiation biology, the understanding of carcinogenesis, and the discovery of defenses against carcinogenesis challenge the LNT model, which appears obsolete (2–6). Life developed in a bath of ionizing radiation and solar ultraviolet radiation and created aerobic organisms requiring (a) defenses against the metabolically induced reactive oxygen species, (b) DNA repair, and (c) elimination of damaged cells. Several sets of data show the efficacy of these defenses to be much higher at low than at high doses and for fractionated or protracted irradiation than for acute irradiation. The LNT model was introduced as a concept to facilitate radiation protection (7). But the use of this model led to the claim that even the smallest dose (one electron traversing a cell) may initiate carcinogenesis—for instance, from diagnostic x-ray sources (8,9). This claim is highly hypothetical and has resulted in medical, economic, and other societal harm. The French Academies report (10) concluded that the LNT model and its use for assessing the risks associated with low doses are not based on scientific evidence. In contrast, the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report (11) and that of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (12) recommended the use of the LNT model. We wish to update this debate by using recent radiation biologic and epidemiologic data.

Geoengineering: What, how, and for whom?

I have been thinking about geoengineering for climate modification since I worked on the committee that produced the 1992 National Academies report, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming. Over the years, and increasingly now, I have been puzzled by the scientific community’s attitudes toward the issue; those puzzles were raised again by Barbara Goss Levi’s story (Physics Today, August 2008, page 26).It has been customary to discuss geoengineering without offering an explicit definition. I propose the following one: Geoengineering is purposeful action intended to manipulate the environment on a very large—especially global—scale. Geoengineering is, presumably, undertaken to reverse or reduce impacts of human actions.Decreasing human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a good idea for many reasons, including climate modification; yet it is not clear to me why manipulating the CO2 content of the atmosphere is not considered geoengineering. If, using the above definition but narrowing it to the case under consideration, geoengineering includes purposeful manipulation of physical, chemical, and biological variables on the global scale for the purpose of changing global climate, then manipulation of carbon dioxide concentrations fits the definition as well as do, for example, manipulating atmospheric aerosol content to control albedo or manipulating the ocean’s iron content to increase the long-term oceanic storage of carbon. Exclusion of carbon dioxide manipulation from geoengineering has led to a double standard in considering possible negative consequences. There is legitimate concern about side effects of particulate manipulation and the like, but I have not heard much worrying about manipulating carbon dioxide. In a highly nonlinear feedback-controlled system like global climate, we would expect complex hysteresis effects: Decreasing a control variable such as greenhouse gas will not necessarily lead the climate back along some path like the one it followed when the control variable was increased. The end state of control-variable manipulation may not at all resemble the original state before the control variable was increased, nor will it necessarily be a state we want to be in. I have heard of no concern about those possibilities, which might be rate dependent, involve transient behavior not to our liking, or lead us through bifurcations into unexpected states.It seems to me we need to be concerned about possible not-so-benign effects of decreasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases before we grab the control knob and turn it down. I hope someone is at least exercising suitable climate models, if relevant ones exist, to examine possible end states, paths to them, and transient effects of carbon dioxide geoengineering.© 2009 American Institute of Physics.

President's Annual State of the Academy Report

President's Annual State of the Academy Report

AAP President's Address

Journal of PeriodontologyVolume 79, Issue 10 p. 1821-1822 Academy Report AAP President's Address† Susan Karabin, Susan KarabinSearch for more papers by this author Susan Karabin, Susan KarabinSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 October 2008 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.0810001 † Presented at the American Academy of Periodontology Annual Meeting in Seattle, WA on September 6, 2008. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport 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 No abstract is available for this article. Volume79, Issue10October 2008Pages 1821-1822 RelatedInformation

National subject profile for biochemistry: Higher Education Academy report

National subject profile for biochemistry: Higher Education Academy report