Basic science under threat: Lessons from the Skirball Institute.

Support for basic science has been eclipsed by initiatives aimed at specific medical problems. The latest example is the dismantling of the Skirball Institute at NYU School of Medicine. Here, we reflect on the achievements and mission underlying the Skirball to gain insight into the dividends of maintaining a basic science vision within the academic enterprises.

The Basel Institute for Immunology.

At the Centennial Exhibition of the Nobel Prize, the Nobel Foundation called it one of the ten cradles of creativity. The journal Nature likened its ideals to those of the French revolution--Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité--and called it a paradise devoted to the science of immune systems: the Basel Institute for Immunology (BII). Founded by Roche in 1968, inaugurated in 1971, and closed in 2000, it was home to almost 450 scientific members, over 1,000 scientific visitors, and nearly 100 scientific advisors from more than 30 countries who worked in complete academic freedom and without commercial motives on over 3,500 projects, publishing more than 3,200 scientific papers, almost all of them on the structure and functions of immune systems of different species. This review contains a first collection of historical facts and dates that describe the background of the exceptionally successful performance and the strong scientific impact of the institute on the field of immunology.

You, Me, and We: Biolabs for the 21st Century.

Twenty-first century biomedical research is advantaged by institutional infrastructures that foster a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach. A few critical elements in the design of labs, research buildings, or campus can make interaction easier while preserving privacy and comfort for the individual researcher.

Rescuing the Lost in Translation.

The translation of medically relevant academic inventions that could transform public health has been notoriously difficult, stemming largely from cultural differences been academia and industry. New initiatives to kindle academic entrepreneurship and establish stronger public/private partnerships are helping to align these differences and accelerating the translation of promising new therapies.

Trends in U.S. public confidence in science and opportunities for progress.

In recent years, many questions have been raised about whether public confidence in science is changing. To clarify recent trends in the public's confidence and factors that are associated with these feelings, an effort initiated by the National Academies' Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust (the Strategic Council) analyzed findings from multiple survey research organizations. The Strategic Council's effort, which began in 2022, found that U.S. public confidence in science, the scientific community, and leaders of scientific communities is high relative to other civic, cultural, and governmental institutions for which researchers regularly collect such data. However, confidence in these institutions has fallen during the previous 5 years. Science's decline, while real, is similar to or less than that in the other groups. A recent study goes into greater detail by exploring public views of science. From these data, we observe that many of the surveyed U.S. public question the extent to which scientists share their values or overcome personal biases when presenting conclusions. At the same time, large majorities agree on certain types of actions that they want scientists to take. For example, 84% respond that it is "somewhat important" or "very important" for scientists to disclose their funders. Ninety-two percent (92%) offer the same responses to scientists "being open to changing their minds based on new evidence." Collectively, these data clarify how the U.S. public views science and scientists. They also suggest actions that can affect public confidence in science and scientists in the years to come.

Key attributes of successful research institutes.

Science does not take place in a vacuum: The physical and social workplace has a profound influence on scientific discoveries. Everyone at a research institute can contribute to its scientific output and productivity, from faculty research groups to facilities and platforms staff to administration and corporate services. Although the researchers addressing exciting scientific questions are key, their efforts can be fostered and directed by the overarching strategy of the institute, interconnection with facilities and platforms, and strong and directed support of the administration and corporate services. Everybody counts and everybody should be empowered to contribute. But what are the characteristics that make scientific organizations and their people flourish? This Essay looks at the structure and culture of successful research institutes, laying out different operational strategies and highlighting points that need be taken into consideration during their implementation.

EMBL's European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) in 2023.

The European Molecular Biology Laboratory's European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) is one of the world's leading sources of public biomolecular data. Based at the Wellcome Genome Campus in Hinxton, UK, EMBL-EBI is one of six sites of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), Europe's only intergovernmental life sciences organisation. This overview summarises the latest developments in the services provided by EMBL-EBI data resources to scientific communities globally. These developments aim to ensure EMBL-EBI resources meet the current and future needs of these scientific communities, accelerating the impact of open biological data for all.

Gender gaps at the academies.

Historically, a large majority of newly elected members of the National Academy of Science (NAS) and the American Academy of Arts and Science (AAAS) were men. Within the past two decades, however, that situation has changed, and in the last 3 y, women made up about 40% of the new members in both academies. We build lists of active scholars from publications in the top journals in three fields-psychology, mathematics, and economics-and develop a series of models to compare changes in the probability of selection of women as members of the NAS and AAAS from the 1960s to today, controlling for publications and citations. In the early years of our sample, women were less likely to be selected as members than men with similar records. By the 1990s, the selection process at both academies was approximately gender neutral, conditional on publications and citations. In the past 20 y, however, a positive preference for female members has emerged and strengthened in all three fields. Currently, women are 3 to 15 times more likely to be selected as members of the AAAS and NAS than men with similar publication and citation records. The positive preference for women may be in part a reflection of concerns that women face higher barriers to publishing in top journals and may receive less credit for their work.

A qualitative study of the barriers to using blinding in in vivo experiments and suggestions for improvement.

In animal experiments, blinding (also known as masking) is a methodological strategy to reduce the risk that scientists, animal care staff, or other staff involved in the research may consciously or subconsciously influence the outcome. Lack of masking has been shown to correlate with an overestimation of treatment efficacy and false positive findings. We conducted exploratory interviews across academic and a commercial setting to discuss the implementation of masking at four stages of the experiment: during allocation and intervention, during the conduct of the experiment, during the outcome assessment, and during the data analysis. The objective was to explore the awareness, engagement, perceptions, and the barriers to implementing masking in animal experiments. We conducted multiple interviews, to explore 30 different experiments, and found examples of excellent practice but also areas where masking was rarely implemented. Significant barriers arose from the operational and informatic systems implemented. These systems have prioritised the management of welfare without considering how to allow researchers to use masking in their experiments. For some experiments, there was a conflict between the management of welfare for an individual animal versus delivering a robust experiment where all animals are treated in the same manner. We identified other challenges related to the level of knowledge on the purpose of masking or the implementation and the work culture. The exploration of these issues provides insight into how we, as a community, can identify the most significant barriers in a given research environment. Here, we offer practical solutions to enable researchers to implement masking as standard. To move forward, we need both the individual scientists to embrace the use of masking and the facility managers and institutes to engage and provide a framework that supports the scientists.

The European Nucleotide Archive in 2022.

The European Nucleotide Archive (ENA; https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena), maintained by the European Molecular Biology Laboratory's European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), offers those producing data an open and supported platform for the management, archiving, publication, and dissemination of data; and to the scientific community as a whole, it offers a globally comprehensive data set through a host of data discovery and retrieval tools. Here, we describe recent updates to the ENA's submission and retrieval services as well as focused efforts to improve connectivity, reusability, and interoperability of ENA data and metadata.

The socioeconomic impact of cancer on patients and their relatives: Organisation of European Cancer Institutes task force consensus recommendations on conceptual framework, taxonomy, and research directions.

Loss of income and out-of-pocket expenditures are important causes of financial hardship in many patients with cancer, even in high-income countries. The far-reaching consequences extend beyond the patients themselves to their relatives, including caregivers and dependents. European research to date has been limited and is hampered by the absence of a coherent theoretical framework and by heterogeneous methods and terminology. To address these shortages, a task force initiated by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) produced 25 recommendations, including a comprehensive definition of socioeconomic impact from the perspective of patients and their relatives, a conceptual framework, and a consistent taxonomy linked to the framework. The OECI task force consensus statement highlights directions for future research with a view towards policy relevance. Beyond descriptive studies into the dimension of the problem, individual severity and predictors of vulnerability should be explored. It is anticipated that the consensus recommendations will facilitate and enhance future research efforts into the socioeconomic impact of cancer and cancer care, providing a crucial reference point for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome instruments aimed at measuring its broader effects.

Women and Minorities Encouraged to Apply (Not Stay).

The Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has deepened gender and racial diversity problems in academia. Mentorship shows women and other under-represented groups where the ladders to success are, and helps them avoid the chutes, a revised leaky pipeline metaphor. Here, we identify tangible strategies that will improve gender equity, including increasing active mentorship by male academics.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Colon Polyp Diagnosis and Management: Commentary.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update (CPU) is to review the available evidence and provide expert commentary on the current landscape of artificial intelligence in the evaluation and management of colorectal polyps. METHODS: This CPU was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This Expert Commentary incorporates important as well as recently published studies in this field, and it reflects the experiences of the authors who are experienced endoscopists with expertise in the field of artificial intelligence and colorectal polyps.

Assessing the Relationship between Radiology Department Research Funding and Institutional Community Inclusion and Investment.

Background Health care access disparities and lack of inclusion in clinical research have been well documented for marginalized populations. However, few studies exist examining the research funding of institutions that serve historically underserved groups. Purpose To assess the relationship between research funding awarded to radiology departments by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included radiology departments awarded funding from the NIH between 2017 and 2021. The 2021 Lown Institute Hospitals Index rankings for inclusivity and community benefit were examined. The inclusivity metric measures how similar a hospital's patient population is to the surrounding community in terms of income, race and ethnicity, and education level. The community benefit metric measures charity care spending, Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue, and other community benefit spending. Linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients (r values) were used to evaluate the relationship between aggregate NIH radiology department research funding and measures of inclusivity and community benefit. Results Seventy-five radiology departments that received NIH funding ranging from $195 000 to $216 879 079 were included. A negative correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding received and institutional rankings for serving patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities (r = -0.34; P < .001), patients with low income (r = -0.44; P < .001), and patients with lower levels of education (r = -0.46; P < .001). No correlation was observed between the amount of radiology department research funding and institutional rankings for charity care spending (r = -0.19; P = .06), community investment (r = -0.04; P = .68), and Medicaid as a proportion of patient revenue (r = -0.10; P = .22). Conclusion Radiology departments that received more NIH research funding were less likely to serve patients from racial and/or ethnic minorities and patients who had low income or lower levels of education. © RSNA, 2024 See also the editorial by Mehta and Rosen in this issue.