Developing Reflection and Collaboration in Translational Medicine Toward Patients and Unmet Medical Needs.

This perspective article aims to highlight the importance of values-driven personal reflection and collaboration for effective translational medicine training. We frame the dilemma in translational medicine and provide an approach for solution emphasizing collaboration and co-creation for innovative change in translational medicine. We cite the science in transition literature suggesting why personal reflection and a collaborative approach is important. We identify the problem with publication pressures and the bibliometric mindset. We focus on motivation to seek and find results that really matter for patients and individuals to maintain health in the real world. We review how the international EUREKA Institute for Translational Medicine (established in 2007) works with students, to harness their core values and develop personal growth skills to improve their leadership effectiveness, to work toward collaborative gain and potentially more meaningful results for patients and medical needs. We describe how the EUREKA Institute's unique setting, curriculum and hidden curriculum aspects effectively train program participants. The article highlights creating an immersive safe space, personal reflection, connection, structured brainstorming, group problem solving, collaboration and co-creation to facilitate innovation in translational medicine. The article relates program features to their theoretical underpinnings such as Theory U, Mediation Theory and Strategic Innovation Theory. The six authors from different global regions, ages, career stages, translational medicine contexts and years of attendance at the EUREKA Institute provide their reflections on training impact. Lessons learned and recommendations for research and application are discussed.

Medulloblastoma Down Under 2013: a report from the third annual meeting of the International Medulloblastoma Working Group.

Medulloblastoma is curable in approximately 70% of patients. Over the past decade, progress in improving survival using conventional therapies has stalled, resulting in reduced quality of life due to treatment-related side effects, which are a major concern in survivors. The vast amount of genomic and molecular data generated over the last 5-10 years encourages optimism that improved risk stratification and new molecular targets will improve outcomes. It is now clear that medulloblastoma is not a single-disease entity, but instead consists of at least four distinct molecular subgroups: WNT/Wingless, Sonic Hedgehog, Group 3, and Group 4. The Medulloblastoma Down Under 2013 meeting, which convened at Bunker Bay, Australia, brought together 50 leading clinicians and scientists. The 2-day agenda included focused sessions on pathology and molecular stratification, genomics and mouse models, high-throughput drug screening, and clinical trial design. The meeting established a global action plan to translate novel biologic insights and drug targeting into treatment regimens to improve outcomes. A consensus was reached in several key areas, with the most important being that a novel classification scheme for medulloblastoma based on the four molecular subgroups, as well as histopathologic features, should be presented for consideration in the upcoming fifth edition of the World Health Organization's classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Three other notable areas of agreement were as follows: (1) to establish a central repository of annotated mouse models that are readily accessible and freely available to the international research community; (2) to institute common eligibility criteria between the Children's Oncology Group and the International Society of Paediatric Oncology Europe and initiate joint or parallel clinical trials; (3) to share preliminary high-throughput screening data across discovery labs to hasten the development of novel therapeutics. Medulloblastoma Down Under 2013 was an effective forum for meaningful discussion, which resulted in enhancing international collaborative clinical and translational research of this rare disease. This template could be applied to other fields to devise global action plans addressing all aspects of a disease, from improved disease classification, treatment stratification, and drug targeting to superior treatment regimens to be assessed in cooperative international clinical trials.

Research performance evaluation: the experience of an independent medical research institute.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the social and economic outcomes of health research funding is an area of intense interest and debate. Typically, approaches have sought to assess the impact of research funding by medical charities or regional government bodies. Independent research institutes have a similar need for accountability in investment decisions but have different objectives and funding, thus the existing approaches are not appropriate. METHODS: An evaluation methodology using eight indicators was developed to assess research performance across three broad categories: knowledge creation; inputs to research; and commercial, clinical and public health outcomes. The evaluation approach was designed to provide a balanced assessment across laboratory, clinical and public health research. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: With a diverse research agenda supported by a large number of researchers, the Research Performance Evaluation process at the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute has, by necessity, been iterative and responsive to the needs of the Institute and its staff. Since its inception 5 years ago, data collection systems have been refined, the methodology has been adjusted to capture appropriate data, staff awareness and participation has increased, and issues regarding the methodology and scoring have been resolved. CONCLUSIONS: The Research Performance Evaluation methodology described here provides a fair and transparent means of disbursing internal funding. It is also a powerful tool for evaluating the Institute's progress towards achieving its strategic goals, and is therefore a key driver for research excellence.

The returns from cardiovascular research: the impact of the National Heart Foundation of Australia's investment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of the research investment of the National Heart Foundation of Australia (NHF). DESIGN AND SETTING: The NHF Research Evaluation Working Group was established in 2002 to oversee evaluation of research funding and outcomes data collected over a 5-year period. The evaluation included a bibliometric analysis conducted by the Research Evaluation and Policy Project at the Australian National University. OUTCOME MEASURES: Level and leverage of research funding; funding levels across the disciplines of biomedical, clinical, and public health research; and visibility and knowledge impact of NHF-supported research in international cardiovascular journals. RESULTS: The NHF's investment in research increased by 27% from 2001 to 2005. This increase resulted from leveraged support for fellowships and scholarships of $1.5 million over this period, and $2.2 million from the pharmaceutical industry. There was an increase in fellowship and scholarship funding from 26% in 2001 to 46% in 2005. There was a 75% increase in the funding allocated to public health research from 2002 to 2004. NHF-funded research publications were found in high impact journals at levels above Australian and world averages, but received fewer citations than expected based on citation rates for all similar articles. CONCLUSIONS: The NHF has been successful in implementing a policy to allocate 50% of its research funding to people and 50% to projects. This strategy has led to an increase in funding support for public health research. NHF-funded research has performed very well in terms of knowledge impact. The NHF is now well placed to strategically fund relevant research in the future.