Research Centers Of Excellence Research Articles

Preface Special Issue on Latin-American Transport Research

Latin America is a living laboratory for transportation innovation. Innovativesolutions, such as the pioneering implementations of Bus Rapid Transit systems inCuritiba (Brazil) and Bogota (Colombia), are examples of the work done in LatinAmerica. A growing community of practitioners and researchers in transportation iscreating research centers of excellence of international stature. An importantcomponent of this process is the Pan-American Conference on Traffic andTransportation Engineering (PANAM), which, for three decades, has been thegathering place for academics from Latin-America, Europe, United States, andCanada interested in the exchange of ideas with Latin-American professionals.This Special Issue includes a sample of the work conducted by Latin Americantransportation researchers, in several cases in collaborations with scholars comingfrom other countries. Due to the breadth of the topics discussed, the Editors decidedto organize the papers according to the level of aggregation of the analysis, startingthe volume with papers dealing with the individual’s behavior and ending with thosethat focus on behavior of the entire markets.In bringing these papers to the attention of NETS readers, the Editors hope toraise the level of awareness about the research done throughout Latin-America andSpain, and foster collaboration among researchers from all over the world.The Special Issue is comprised of eight works. In the first paper, entitled “On theTreatment of Repeated Observations in Panel Data: Efficiency of Mixed LogitParameter Estimates,” Maria F. Yanez, Elisabetta Cherchi, Benjamin G. Heydecker

Escherichia coli-Related Diseases in Latin America Remain in the Spotlight: the Brazilian Efforts to Understand E. coli Pathogenesis

Although the 21st century has seen significant changes in health care reforms and practices, and has experienced quick progression in the understanding of infectious diseases, diarrhea caused by enteric infections is a major factor in morbidity and mortality worldwide and it is estimated 2-4 billion episodes of infectious diarrhea occur each year and are especially prevalent in infants. Further, diarrhea as well as other infections associated with different pathogenic Escherichia coli strains continue to be a health problem in some tropical and subtropical areas and are one of the leading causes of disease and death in humans and animals [1]. In Latin America, infectious disease research, as well as basic and applied science in general, is receiving significant attention, despite many challenges that the scientific community are still facing in this region. In response to the significant increase in the number of scientific papers published by Latin American authors, governments (particularly those of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Mexico) have announced packages and incentives to foster science and technology [2]. A good example from incentives that have begun to deliver results are those made by the Brazilian government which in the past 15 years have increased the number of graduate school programs, support research centers of excellence, and to establish and to consolidate a national system for science, technology and innovation [2]. Apart from the country's estimated 7.5% economic growth in 2010, efforts continue for the consolidation and expansion of research at traditional Universities and Institutes, allowing the investigators to partner with private investors and/or companies, advancing Research and Development [3], while promoting science and technology to Society. The significant scientific advances currently happening in different Brazilian laboratories is represented in this mini hot topic issue entitled “Recent advances in the study of pathogenic Escherichia coli in Brazil”. The issue highlights the diversity of research topics in the E. coli field currently explored in this country; including the identification of potentially virulent E. coli strains in parrots and parakeets; the discovery that different avian pathogenic E. coli subgroups are associated to a specific infectious syndrome in poultry; the characterization of different phenotypic characteristics of human pathogenic E. coli strains; and the importance of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli O157 as agents of Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome in Brazilian patients. The highlighted research papers in this issue are part of a largest effort in Latin America by the pathogenic E. coli scientific community to foster long-standing continent-wide collaborations for the promotion and dissemination of their research and to educate and prepare the next generation of Latin American E. coli investigators. In response to this effort, the Latin American Coalition for Escherichia coli Research (LACER) was created, consisting of a multidisciplinary network of more than 60 international research groups working on pathogenic E. coli, with the ultimate goal of advancing our understanding and disseminating the E. coli research in this region. One of the fist accomplishments of LACER was the publication of an e-book that contains a comprehensive analysis of the most common categories of E. coli associated with diarrheal illness in Latin America [1]. As a second major effort to disseminate the research performed in specific laboratories in the region, the minihot topic issue in The Open Microbiology Journal became a reality.

Prionet Canada: A Network of Centres of Excellence for Research on Prion Diseases—Ongoing and Future Research Directions

It is PrioNet's vision to build a network that shapes and sustains prion research in Canada, translating basic science into accessible socioeconomic benefits for global betterment. PrioNet's research is developing surveillance measures, diagnostic tools, vaccines, and potential therapies and determining the various impacts of prion diseases on people. PrioNet seeks to integrate scientifically informed risk management strategies and to use this knowledge to address ongoing problems posed by bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the gathering crisis of chronic wasting disease (CWD), emerging issues of human prion disease, and basic scientific understanding of the nature of prions. PrioNet is strategically responding to prion threats by focusing its network of highly accomplished researchers and trainees to implement integrated risk management strategies that could not be supported by other mechanisms.

Leveraging on being small—Singapore's strategy to catalyze integrative innovations

Microtechnology is not unfamiliar to Sin-gapore. Around the 1980s, Singapore es-tablished itself as one of the leading manufacturers of semiconductor micro-chips. Over the last 10 years, Singapore has established a biomedical research industry, epitomized by Biopolis, a two million square feet research campus. Biopolis is home to the national biomedical research institutes under the administration of the Agency of Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), as well as corporate labs from GlaxoSmithKine (GSK), No-vartis and Eli Lily. A stone’s throw away is another major research hub, Fusionopolis, the physical science and engineering equivalent of Biopolis. Microtechnology also finds its way into this vibrant research community facilitating inter-disciplinary and translational research between biomedical and physical sciences. Other research centers, such as the Research Centres of Excellence initiated by the National Research Foundation, at the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University are also in close proximity. Engineers or physical scientists need not look very far to find a myriad of opportunities to apply their technologies to help expedite biomedical sciences. Here, we feature a number of research centers where mi-crotechnologies are finding headway in advancing biomedical and fundamental sciences.

Advancing diagnosis, care and treatment for people with neuromuscular diseases around the world: a network of excellence to catalyse research infrastructure globally

The TREAT-NMD (Translational Research Europe: Assessment and Treatment of Neuromuscular Diseases) network was initiated in January 2007. With 21 partners encompassing clinical and research centres of excellence in the field together with industrial and advocacy partners, the NoE was launched in response to the need for infrastructure to support a growing translational agenda in the field of neuromuscular diseases (NMD), supported by a strong group of advocacy organisations. From the outset, TREAT-NMD has embraced the need to work on a truly international stage by developing partnerships with groups across the world. This approach has led to international collaborations on infrastructure projects such as the definition of animal models for preclinical studies in NMD, patient registries and biobanks, a care and trial site registry, harmonised standards of care, standardised outcome measure assessments and ethical and regulatory interactions. The network has also initiated a new committee to advise on the multifaceted issues facing drug development in NMD- the TREAT-NMD advisory committee on therapeutics or TACT. From an initial focus on Duchenne muscular dystrophy and spinal muscular atrophy, the utility of the tools developed through the network is now recognised across a wide range of NMD and the “toolkits” generated are also relevant to other rare diseases with the need to address the pathway to therapy delivery. EU investment in the network has provided a model which has added enormous value to the field. This is reflected in industrial investment in the tools of the network as well as the ability to generate additional grant income through the utilisation of the newly available infrastructure. Guaranteeing the sustainability of such successful infrastructure projects is an important consideration for the future.

The CounterACT Research Network: Basic Mechanisms and Practical Applications

The National Institutes of Health has developed a comprehensive research program that includes research centers of excellence, individual research projects, small business projects, contracts, and interagency agreements to conduct basic, translational, and clinical research aimed at the discovery and/or identification of better medical countermeasures against chemical threat agents. Chemical threats include chemical warfare agents, toxic industrial and agricultural chemicals, and toxins and other chemicals that could be used intentionally as an act of terror or by large-scale accidents or natural disasters. The overarching goal of this research program is to enhance our medical response capabilities during an emergency. The program is named Countermeasures Against Chemical Threats (CounterACT). It supports translational research, applying ideas, insights, and discoveries generated through basic scientific inquiry to the treatment or prevention of mortality and morbidity caused by chemical threat agents. The categories of research supported under this program include creation and development of screening assays and animal models for therapy development, identification of candidate therapeutics, obtaining preliminary proof-of-principle data on the efficacy of candidate therapeutics, advanced efficacy and preclinical safety studies with appropriate animal models using Good Laboratory Practices (GLP), and clinical studies, including clinical trials with new drugs. Special consideration is given to research relevant to people who are particularly vulnerable, including the young, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.

‘Mis-investigating alleged research misconduct can have dire consequences’ and ‘Regulating research, regulating professionals’

The research community has long been concerned about research misconduct. It can have wide-ranging and damaging consequences. The UK Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) welcomes your recent article1 and editorial2 as important contributions to raising awareness of this subject. Unfortunately, both the article and editorial contain serious errors concerning UKRIO, which we chair. The article states that: ‘What seemed to have been missing is ready access to the expertise needed to mount a timely and effective investigation of the facts that need to form the basis for any fair and effective ruling as to whether there has been research misconduct. This experience does not reside in the UK's Panel of Research Integrity, nor is that body wholly independent.’ That is incorrect and refers to an editorial in the Lancet3 which was regrettably full of errors. We wrote to the Lancet pointing out these errors4 and it is unfortunate that this was not mentioned in your article. UKRIO is an independent body and, as the only dedicated research integrity organization in the UK, has amassed significant expertise through its considerable experiences in helping employers, researchers and the public address research misconduct across all subject areas. No other organization has comparable experience in providing such support to the UK research community. Currently UKRIO receives about 30–40 formal requests for advice each year. We have provided assistance to individuals and institutions with concerns about research ranging from the health and biomedical sciences to the arts and humanities. We have found that many issues of research conduct are common to all subject areas but provide specialist expertise when necessary. Some research organizations may feel that they have issues of research integrity well in hand; however, it has become clear that many more institutions value being able to seek advice from an external source. We are not beholden to, nor directed by, any section of the research community. UKRIO is funded and supported by many different organizations but is not responsible to any external body other than in accounting for the funding it receives in regular reports. Additionally, UKRIO is governed by an independent Board, rather than by instructions from any of its funding bodies. None of the organizations which fund us have any role in determining which cases we may become involved with or the guidance and support that we might give and any advance and assistance given is kept confidential within UKRIO. The editorial states that: ‘A procedure for investigating alleged misconduct in research has been launched by the UK Research Integrity Office (a body that itself lacks a statutory basis), but it remains voluntary, and it is not clear how widely used it is.’ It would have been straightforward to contact UKRIO to seek clarification on the use of our published guidance and we are surprised that this was not done. The response to our Procedure for the Investigation of Misconduct in Research5 has been very positive. Individual research staff have commented favourably on it, and universities and NHS Trusts have adopted the Procedure, in full or in part, or used it as a reference tool when revising their existing mechanisms for investigating research misconduct. Research Councils UK has recommended use of the Procedure6 and we regularly receive enquiries from institutions seeking to adopt it or its sister publication, UKRIO's Code of Practice for Research.7 It is correct that UKRIO is not a regulatory body and has no formal legal powers. The advice and guidance it offers is not mandatory but reflects best practice in the conduct of research and addressing misconduct. From the volume of cases that we deal with, it is evident that researchers and organizations, which might be expected to be hesitant about sharing problems with a non-regulatory body, are willing to come forward and seek guidance on difficult issues. To pass on the lessons learned from our experiences, UKRIO will shortly be publishing a review of the first three years of its advisory service, including anonymized summary data and illustrative case studies. Over the past four years UKRIO has established the service that it was intended to provide: support to researchers, research organizations and the public where there was none. Our remit extends beyond academic institutions to cover research wherever it is carried out. Parliament may in the end decide that a statutory body for regulating research is desirable but UKRIO does not seek the creation of such a body. Instead, we are increasingly providing support to researchers, universities and NHS Trusts, all of which recognize that scientific misconduct and questionable practices can tarnish the UK's well-earned reputation as a centre of excellence in research and look to UKRIO for help and advice.

Prionet Canada: A Network of Centres of Excellence for Research into Prions and Prion Diseases

PrioNet Canada's strength in basic, applied, and social research is helping to solve the food, health safety, and socioeconomic problems associated with prion diseases. Prion diseases are transmissible, fatal neurodegenerative diseases of humans and animals. Examples of prion diseases include bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, commonly known as “mad cow” disease), Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease in humans, and chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer and elk. As of March 31, 2008, PrioNet's interdisciplinary network included 62 scientific members, 5 international collaborators, and more than 150 students and young professionals working in partnership with 25 different government, nongovernment, and industry partners. PrioNet's activities are developing strategies based on a sustained, rational approach that will mitigate, and ultimately control, prion diseases in Canada.

Women’s cognitive health special edition

Women’s cognitive health special edition

Build a Relationship between Research and Practice

This spring, Canadian governments will decide the fate of two organizations with important roles in fostering education research in Canada. The Canadian Language and Learning Research Network (CLLRNet: www.cllrnet.ca) was established in 2001 as one of the National Centres of Excellence in research, funded by the government of Canada. Almost all of the other research networks in this program are in the sciences. CCLRNet was set up to promote research and the sharing of research knowledge around literacy, especially literacy in children. For five years, it has built a strong network of Canadian researchers and produced a number of useful resources to inform literacy policy and practice. In 2007, despite a very positive external assessment, the National Centres Program decided not to renew CLLRNet's funding. The National Centres are heavily focused on research leading to commercialization, a model that has never worked very well in the social sciences, where research effects tend to be less direct and less commercial. Since that decision, CLLRNet has been seeking funds from various other funders to continue operating. Most important of these are provincial governments through the Council of Ministers of Education (CMEC), the national body that brings together all provincial and territorial education ministers. The network's future status remains uncertain at the time of writing. The second organization is the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL: www.ccl-cca.ca/ccl). The CCL is an independent nonprofit organization with its own board of directors but is funded by the federal government for a five-year period that expires this spring. Its main work has been making research and data more accessible and meaningful to Canadians--for example, by publishing indicators of education progress. The council created some controversy from its creation, as Heather-jane Robertson reported in this column three years ago. In Canada, provinces carefully guard their constitutional jurisdiction over education, and some provinces saw the creation of CCL as an intrusion by the federal government. Jurisdiction over education is especially important in Quebec, where education is closely connected with language and the perceived ability of the French-language polity to flourish in the overwhelmingly English environment of North America. Early in its existence, CCL tried to come to an agreement with the provinces by which it would provide funds for agreed-on activities related to education research and data, but the jurisdictional issues were too strong and no agreement was reached. Now the federal government has to decide whether to renew the existence and funding of the council. An external evaluation of CCL was very positive, and the organization has achieved national recognition in a short time. Still, given the financial crisis, continued opposition from some provinces, and the fact that CCL was created by a different political party than the current federal government, a renewal remains uncertain. One possibility is that the federal government will try to maintain many of the same functions but in a different organizational form. The fate of these two organizations has some important implications for how research is developed and used to support policy and practice in education in Canada. Unlike every other developed country, Canada has had no national or pan-Canadian agency that works to support and promote research in education, and especially to build connections between research, policy, and practice. Even a highly decentralized education system such as Switzerland has a national center for education research. Canada has a national granting council that funds academic research in all fields, including education (the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada), and a national statistics agency (Statistics Canada), but both have man-dates much broader than education, and they are not focused on mobilizing research knowledge. …

The MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology: a New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence

The MacDiarmid Institute is a New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence, established in 2002 to draw together some of the disparate activities in these fields. It is named after Nobel prize-winner, Alan MacDiarmid, a New Zealander who brought his scientific insights and vision to the Institute during the first five years of its existence. We review the brief history of the Institute here, putting it in the context of the New Zealand scientific research environment, and outline the activities that are being undertaken in its six research Themes: Nano-engineered Materials and Devices; Electronic and Optical Materials; Molecular Materials; Soft Materials; Inorganic and Hybrid Materials; and The Intersection of Nanoscience and Biology. This research is distributed amongst approximately 40 Principal Investigators at five New Zealand universities and two Crown Research Institutes (CRIs), and involves a significant amount of international collaboration. Funding is largely through the New Zealand Ministry of Education, so there is a strong emphasis on training graduate students and increasing the public awareness and uptake of nanotechnology research.

UK public health research centres of excellence

UK public health research centres of excellence

Real-time or faster-than-real-time simulation of airflow in buildings

Real-time flow simulation is crucial for emergency management in buildings, such as fire and accidental or intentional release of chemical/biological agents (contaminants). The simulation results can then be used to impose proper measures to minimize casualties. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is accurate, but too time-consuming. Nodal models are fast, but not informative. To obtain a quick and informative solution, this study proposes an intermediate approach between nodal models and CFD by introducing a fast fluid dynamics (FFD) method. This investigation used the FFD methods with and without turbulence treatments to study systematically four basic flows in buildings, and compared the numerical results with the corresponding CFD results and the data from the literature. The results show that, on one hand, the FFD can offer much richer flow information than nodal models, but less accurate results than CFD. On the other hand, the FFD is 50 times faster than the CFD. The results also show that the FFD with the laminar assumption has the best overall performance as regards both accuracy and speed. It is possible to conduct faster-than-real-time flow simulations with detailed flow information by using the FFD method. The paper introduces a fast fluid dynamics (FFD) method, which can simulate airflow and contaminant dispersion in buildings with real-time or faster-than-real-time speed and provide informative solutions. As an intermediate approach between nodal models and the computational fluid dynamics (CFD), the FFD can be a very useful tool for emergency management in case of fire and accidental or intentional release of chemical or biological agents in a building or around the buildings. The FFD can also be used as a preliminary test tool for quick assessment of indoor airflows before a detailed CFD analysis.

The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders

Study Design: Best evidence synthesis. Reprinted from methodological im 2010 Task Force o 2008;S214-S220. Williams & Wilkin From the a De Alberta Centre for Health, University b Department of of Medicine, Univ c Centre of Re comes (CREIDO Solutions, Toronto ments of Public H and Evaluation, Health Care and O Institute, Toronto, Canada. d Institute for W Health Sciences, U e Department o School of Medici Surgery Service, S f Departments and Program of Medicine and Gra University, New Y paedic Center (O New York, NY. g Institute of E Sweden. S244 Objective: To report on gaps in the literature and make methodologic recommendations based on our review of the literature on frequency and risk factors, assessment, intervention, and course and prognostic factors for neck pain and its associated disorders. Summary of Background Data: The scientific literature on neck pain is large and of variable quality. We reviewed 1203 studies and judged 46% to be of sufficient scientific validity to be included in the best evidence synthesis. Scientific quality varied across study topics, and fundamental questions remain about important issues. Methods: The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) conducted a critical review of the literature published between 1980 and 2006 to assemble the best evidence on neck pain and its associated disorders. Studies meeting criteria for scientific validity were included in a best evidence synthesis. Carroll LJ et al. Research priorities and plications. The Bone and Joint Decade 2000n Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine Reprinted with permission from Lippincott s. partment of Public Health Sciences, and the Injury Control and Research, School of Public of Alberta, Canada. Public Health Sciences, John A. Burns School ersity of Hawaii at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI. search Expertise in Improved Disability Out), University Health Network Rehabilitation Western Hospital, Toronto, Canada; Departealth Sciences and Health Policy, Management University of Toronto, Canada; Division of utcomes Research, Toronto Western Research Canada; Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, ork and Health, Toronto; Department of Public niversity of Toronto, Canada. f Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University ne, CA; Orthopaedic Spine Center and Spinal tanford University Hospital and Clinics, CA. of Orthopedics and Environmental Medicine Ergonomics and Biomechanics, School of duate School of Arts and Science, New York ork, NY; Occupational and Industrial OrthoIOC), New York University Medical Center, nvironmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, h Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto; Institute for Work & Health, Toronto; Centre of Research Excellence in Improved Disability Outcomes (CREIDO), University Health Network Rehabilitation Solutions, Toronto Western Hospital; Division of Health Care Outcomes and Research, Toronto Western Research Institute, Canada. i Centre of Research Expertise in Improved Disability Outcomes (CREIDO), University Health Network Rehabilitation Solutions, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Canada; Division of Health Care and Outcomes Research, Toronto Western Research Institute, Toronto, Canada; Departments of Public Health Sciences and Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada. j Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia; Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC, Canada. k Endocrinology, Analgesia and Inflammation, Merck & Co. Rahway, NJ. l Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. The manuscript submitted does not contain information about medical device(s)/drug(s). Corporate/Industry, Foundation, and Professional Organizational funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Linda J. Carroll, 4075 RTF, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E1 (e-mail: lcarroll@ualberta.ca). 0161-4754/$36.00 Copyright © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2008.11.024 S245 Carroll et al Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics Research Implications Volume 32, Number 2S Results: We outline a large number of gaps in the current literature. For example, we found important gaps in our knowledge about neck pain in children (risk factors, screening criteria to rule out serious injury, management, course and prognosis); and in the prevention of neck pain-related activity limitations. Few studies addressed the impact of culture or social policies (such as governmental health policies or insurance compensation policies) on neck pain. A number of important questions remain about the effectiveness of commonly used interventions for neck pain. Conclusion: The Neck Pain Task Force undertook a best evidence synthesis to establish a baseline of the current best evidence on the course and prognosis for whiplash-associated disorders. We identify a number of gaps in the current knowledge, and provide recommendations for the conduct of future studies. (JManipulative Physiol Ther 2009;32:S244-S251)

Erratum: Routine stair climbing in place of residence and body mass index: a pan-European population based study

Correction to: International Journal of Obesity advance online publication, 23 October 2007; doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803755 The authors omitted to state the following in the article. ‘Dr Daskalakis was partially supported by funding from the Pennsylvania Department of Health, through a grant to Thomas Jefferson University's Center of Excellence for Research on Obesity’.

Latin American Science Moves into the Spotlight

With new incentives, some governments in Latin America are starting to increase investment in basic and applied research. Although the news is encouraging, scientists in this region still face many challenges ahead.

Psychology of education in the UK: development in the 1960s

This paper attempts an account and evaluation of the historical development of psychology of education in the 1960s in the UK. It contributes to both the history of the academic discipline of educational studies and to the history of higher education. Progress of the subject is introduced in the general context of university developments and the research environment of educational studies and then examines the growth of research and scholarship in psychology of education through an assessment of the contributions of individual psychologists, including the inheritance from pre‐1960s scholars, an analysis of the authorship of papers in the British Journal of Educational Psychology, and case studies of selected university centres of research excellence. A brief discussion of external research funding is followed by a consideration of advanced course development and the provision of suitable textbooks. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research.

Viewpoint: Science Cities: refreshing the concept for 21st-century places

In 2005 the government designated six cities in England - Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham and York - as 'science cities'. This new status did not come with a prescription as to its meaning nor a set of targets for delivery, but rather was presented as a challenge to those places to step up their economic performance. In announcing the designation, HM Treasury (2005, Box 3.8) stated that the cities were selected because they were places 'that have strong science-based assets such as a major university or centre of research excellence and which have particular potential to use these assets to attract a critical mass of innovative businesses and become drivers of regional growth'. No additional funds were initially identified to support development. This Viewpoint explores the thinking which lies behind the designation and the potential implications for these cities and their residents. The concept of a science city is not new. Many places adopted the term in the late 1960s and 1970s and today's science cities come in many shapes and sizes. A recent review (Anttiroko, 2005) has characterised them into three groups: * science-based new town construction, such as Tsukuba in Japan, Daedeok in South Korea or Akademgorodok in Russia; * local or regional development projects, such as Kansai in Japan and Science City York in the UK; and * extensions of science parks - focused on high-tech industry, such as Kista in Stockholm. In addition there are many 'technopoles' within larger urban developments, science museums and theme parks for recreational learning such as Valencia's City of Arts and Science and Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri and even specific research sites and virtual networks which have been named 'science cities'. The variety is considerable. Each of the designated English science cities therefore has the opportunity to examine which model they should adopt and it is argued here that each city should take advantage of the lack of prescription to foster an approach which suits not only their uniqueness, but also takes emerging global best practice into consideration. A sense of laissez-faire, however, should not be seen as a reflection of unimportance. There can be little doubt that this designation lies at the heart of economic policy in the UK. Science cities combine two powerful threads of economic thinking, one well established, one emergent. First, there is a firm belief that the UK economy will be able to remain successful only if UK businesses innovate and if economic activity moves up the value chain. Principally this is seen as being linked to the ability to draw on the UK's excellence in science, technology, research and knowledge, with highly educated workers in growing innovative and globally competitive companies. These firms will drive future growth (this can be loosely described as the basis of endogenous growth theory). Secondly, while cities have until recently been regarded as problem places, characterised by industrial decline, deprivation and high unemployment, they are now increasingly being seen as the places which are driving growth in the economy (the new economic geography). The reasoning then follows that by challenging six cities to step up their performance, the UK as a whole could benefit. What's in a name? The importance of 'science' for future economic growth is undeniable, but I contend that the name is not sufficient to describe the conditions under which growth might flourish in the six cities. The name is not sufficient in three respects: * economically - growth is being driven in the UK by many sectors which do not have their roots in 'science' as such; * spatially - the physical environment in which science may thrive is neither necessarily appropriate nor attractive to the many individuals and firms that are needed to drive the UK's future economy; * socially and culturally - the creative individuals of the 21st century knowledge-based economy include many who have limited or no connection to 'science'. …

The Michigan Clinical Research Collaboratory: Following the NIH Roadmap to the Community

This case study describes a successful National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap application that has created a new and innovative translational science partnership at the University of Michigan. We describe the institution within which the grant application was developed, the role played by the Department of Family Medicine, the role of prior successes in translational and community-based research, the associated infrastructure development, the application development process, and some features of the final project. A partnership among 2 clinical and research centers of excellence at the University of Michigan, 3 practice-based research networks, and a clinical research center was created as the platform to support an NIH Roadmap. The result was a funded 3.3 million dollar, 3-year project supporting the creation of the Michigan Clinical Research Collaboratory (MCRC), a research infrastructure that will support the design, conduct, and dissemination of community-based clinical translation research. The MCRC depends to a considerable degree on the experience, expertise, and infrastructure in community-based translational research of the Department of Family Medicine. The successful funding of the MCRC grant will support influential translational research programs of high impact and visibility that would not otherwise have occurred. The MCRC grant is an acknowledgment of the important research to be done in the community, the critical nature of infrastructure investment and prior work in competing successfully for such funding, and the personnel and information technology investments required for success. Collaboration between practice-based family medicine investigators and traditional clinical investigators at the University of Michigan has led to successful competition for an NIH Roadmap grant, which has led in turn to greater institutional recognition for the importance and legitimacy of community-based translational research.

NIH Countermeasures Against Chemical Threats (CounterACT) Research Program

The NIH is taking a leadership role in pursuing the development of new and improved medical countermeasures designed to prevent, diagnose, and treat the conditions caused by potential and existing chemical agents of terrorism. In addition, many of the same chemicals posing a threat as terrorist agents may also be released from transportation and storage facilities by industrial accidents or during a natural disaster. The NIH has developed a comprehensive Countermeasures Against Chemical Threats (CounterACT) Research Network that includes Research Centers of Excellence, individual research projects, Small Business Grants and Contracts, and other programs (see http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/research/counterterrorism/index.htm ). The network will conduct basic, translational, and clinical research aimed at the discovery and/or identification of better therapeutic and diagnostic medical countermeasures against chemical threat agents. The overarching goal of this research program is to enhance our diagnostic and treatment response capabilities during an emergency. The civilian chemical threat spectrum now includes chemical warfare agents, toxic industrial chemicals, toxins and other chemicals. Many of the highest priority chemical threat agents target the nervous system and require new and improved neurotherapeutics that can be used as safe and rapid medical countermeasures during a mass casualty situation. Examples of these chemical agents include anticholinesterase nerve “gases” such as sarin or VX, metabolic poisons such as cyanide, and biological neurotoxins such as saxitoxin. The type of research supported within the CounterACT research program includes: (1) mechanistic research to identify targets for therapeutic/diagnostic development, (2) development of in vitro and animal models for efficacy screening of therapeutics and diagnostic tools, (3) efficacy screening of therapeutics/diagnostics using new and validated in vitro and animal models, (4) advanced efficacy studies with appropriate animal models including nonhuman primates, and (5) clinical studies, including trials, when appropriate. Special consideration will be given to research relevant to people who are particularly vulnerable, including the young, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. Interested parties are encouraged to contact Dr. David A. Jett, via email at jettd@ninds.nih.gov or by telephone at (301) 496-6035 for more information and funding opportunities within the NIH CounterACT research program.