The NCI Physical Sciences - Oncology Network.

Nastaran Zahir is Associate Director of the Physical Sciences - Oncology Network in the Division of Cancer Biology at the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Zahir coordinates cross-cutting efforts to integrate physical sciences perspectives with cancer research by fostering transdisciplinary research collaborations, supporting education and outreach programs, and promoting resources for data sharing and biospecimen standards.

Integration of physics and biology: synergistic undergraduate education for the 21st century.

This is an exciting time to be a biologist. The advances in our field and the many opportunities to expand our horizons through interaction with other disciplines are intellectually stimulating. This is as true for people tasked with helping the field move forward through support of research and education projects that serve the nation's needs as for those carrying out that research and educating the next generation of biologists. So, it is a pleasure to contribute to this edition of CBE-Life Sciences Education. This column will cover three aspects of the interactions of physics and biology as seen from the viewpoint of four members of the Division of Undergraduate Education of the National Science Foundation. The first section places the material to follow in context. The second reviews some of the many interdisciplinary physics-biology projects we support. The third highlights mechanisms available for supporting new physics-biology undergraduate education projects based on ideas that arise, focusing on those needing and warranting outside support to come to fruition.

Curriculum for education and training of medical physicists in nuclear medicine: recommendations from the EANM Physics Committee, the EANM Dosimetry Committee and EFOMP.

PURPOSE: To provide a guideline curriculum covering theoretical and practical aspects of education and training for Medical Physicists in Nuclear Medicine within Europe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: National training programmes of Medical Physics, Radiation Physics and Nuclear Medicine physics from a range of European countries and from North America were reviewed and elements of best practice identified. An independent panel of experts was used to achieve consensus regarding the content of the curriculum. RESULTS: Guidelines have been developed for the specialist theoretical knowledge and practical experience required to practice as a Medical Physicist in Nuclear Medicine in Europe. It is assumed that the precondition for the beginning of the training is a good initial degree in Medical Physics at master level (or equivalent). The Learning Outcomes are categorised using the Knowledge, Skill and Competence approach along the lines recommended by the European Qualifications Framework. The minimum level expected in each topic in the theoretical knowledge and practical experience sections is intended to bring trainees up to the requirements expected of a Medical Physicist entering the field of Nuclear Medicine. CONCLUSIONS: This new joint EANM/EFOMP European guideline curriculum is a further step to harmonise specialist training of Medical Physicists in Nuclear Medicine within Europe. It provides a common framework for national Medical Physics societies to develop or benchmark their own curricula. The responsibility for the implementation and accreditation of these standards and guidelines resides within national training and regulatory bodies.

Radiotherapy physics research in the UK: challenges and proposed solutions.

In 2011, the Clinical and Translational Radiotherapy Research Working Group (CTRad) of the National Cancer Research Institute brought together UK radiotherapy physics leaders for a think tank meeting. Following a format that CTRad had previously and successfully used with clinical oncologists, 23 departments were asked to complete a pre-meeting evaluation of their radiotherapy physics research infrastructure and the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats within their own centre. These departments were brought together with the CTRad Executive Group and research funders to discuss the current state of radiotherapy physics research, perceived barriers and possible solutions. In this Commentary, we summarise the submitted materials, presentations and discussions from the meeting and propose an action plan. It is clear that there are challenges in both funding and staffing of radiotherapy physics research. Programme and project funding streams sometimes struggle to cater for physics-led work, and increased representation on research funding bodies would be valuable. Career paths for academic radiotherapy physicists need to be examined and an academic training route identified within Modernising Scientific Careers; the introduction of formal job plans may allow greater protection of research time, and should be considered. Improved access to research facilities, including research linear accelerators, would enhance research activity and pass on developments to patients more quickly; research infrastructure could be benchmarked against centres in the UK and abroad. UK National Health Service departments wishing to undertake radiotherapy research, with its attendant added value for patients, need to develop a strategy with their partner higher education institution, and collaboration between departments may provide enhanced opportunities for funded research.