Want to be and Intern or Fellow?

In the past couple of days, two excellent opportunities have come up in my reader that I thought I'd share.

First, The Alternative Scientist wrote about a science writing internship at the Ecological Society of America.

Second, DrugMonkey posted about the Hayre Fellowship in Public Outreach at Americans for Medical Progress.

Have you heard about any programs that would help your fellow New Voices get engaged in science policy, communication, or research?

New Voices on the State of the Union

Disclaimer: Today's post includes the opinions of the noted authors, which are not representative of the thoughts, policies, or beliefs of anyone (or any organization) but ourselves.

On Tuesday, we encouraged all U.S. citizens to take the time to listen to (or read) President Obama's first State of the Union. As promised, you can read or watch the speech online if you missed it. (C-SPAN also has a prepared version of the text of the speech, this does not include any ad libs.)

Some of the New Voices regulars share their thoughts on the national address below.

Kimberly's reaction from her apartment.

President Obama reminded me of who he was on the campaign trail. The speech was one of the most humorous presidential speeches that I have ever heard! My favorite line was “and if there’s one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it’s that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal”.

Outside of the humor, Obama tackled the major issues: jobs, the banking industry, expanding the middle class, the economy, and most importantly (to me) health care. As a student of public health, I have been a little disappointed in how the health care bill has been progressing through Congress. I am glad that we have gotten this far in reform, but I hoped that President Obama would have put more involvement in its details. Even though the bill has been passed through partisan lines, I’m pleased that Obama called on both sides of the aisle to stay the course, and not walk away from health care reform.

With sincerity, he acknowledged the problems that his administration has had thus far. Despite the roadblocks, he made it clear that he is laying the foundation for our nation’s “new economy” of research and innovation. I’m looking forward to seeing the fiscal support and policies that will make that statement a reality.

Sarah's take from Local 16 in DC.

In 2008, the majority of U.S. citizens were desperate for change. From soaring unemployment to costly international conflicts, Americans felt the country needed a new course. Obama’s promise of hope for a better tomorrow won him the election and inspired millions. As the election wrapped up, it was clear the American people would be in for a letdown, but not because Obama is not capable of bringing us the things we need. Many people I spoke with seemed to have a poor concept of the time frame such dramatic change would take. And as I expected, in less than a year, people lost hope that things would be any different by 2012.

In the State of the Union address, I was glad that Obama acknowledged the growing lack of faith Americans have in their government and reminded the people that the change they desired is inevitably going to be ‘messy and complicated’. But I was happier that Obama reminded those in government that he needed their help, even though important votes would not necessarily be the popular decision, but were necessary for the future of the country. Obama said, “The only reason we are is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain…”

With the 2010 elections approaching, our Members of Congress are in a tough spot. However, I think elements of Obama’s speech reminded us of the way he excited the nation, and as a result suggested the best way for the legislative branch to facilitate the process. Congress needs to sell the American people on the changes that are happening. Many of the changes they have put into bills, such as health care reform, will actually improve our lives and security, we just need to hear it from them, because if people truly understood the majority would support these bills and again be hopeful and eager for change.

Heather's impressions from a friend's couch.

I am definitely an oratorical snob, but even so, I felt like the president delivered a decent speech. What I found interesting was how much of the speech was directed at Congress. Though the constitutional function of the SOTU is to address Congress, many presidents address the network television cameras; until the end, President Obama did not. Why does this matter?

The truth is, Congress has the bulk of the responsibility when it comes to getting legislation signed, sealed, and delivered to the American people. As the president mentioned, if Congress doesn't act, he must issue executive orders to get things done. I'm pretty sure this is why Article II, Section 3 is in the Constitution anyway.

Politically, President Obama needed this speech to win him back some popular support; we'll see how long the polling boost lasts. He proposed controversial topics (getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell) and admonished the people who were holding up change (hello, Senators, your president is talking to you). He also made a clear statement in opposition to a recent Supreme Court decision (to allow corporations unlimited contributions to candidates).

There weren't any big surprises. As far as I know, everything he mentioned were things already passed in the House of Representatives or that have been announced by the White House in recent weeks. However, I think it was a smart play to stick to pre-released news. For one, most Americans have no idea it isn't new news and secondly, because it gave him an opportunity to elaborate personally.

All in all, he re-set his tone. There weren't really any gimics, he was light, he was charming, he was hoping for change. It's a similar story to the one we heard last year around this time. With a year under the administration's belt, will 2010 see some of the big changes in Washington we keep hearing about?

Your thoughts?

Welcome Two New Voices

It's time to welcome two New Voices to the blog!

Name: Sarah Gallagher
Position: Research!America Science Policy Fellow
Education: PhD in Chemistry, Columbia University
MA in Chemistry, Columbia University
BA in Chemistry, Franklin & Marshall College
Previous experience: Sarah worked on public lands policy for Rep. Grijalva this past fall and spent considerable time campaigning during the 2008 presidential primary. Her background in chemistry is applicable to both health and environmental studies.
Fun fact: Sarah first started advocating with a letter to the president at age 11 about the destruction of the rainforests.


Name: Kimberly Brown
Position: Research!America Science Policy Intern
Education: Studying Public Health Management and Policy at the University of Florida for an expected MPH in May 2010
BA in Biology, Fisk University
Previous experience: Kimberly worked for the Metro Nashville Health Department educating parents and community members about the importance of check-ups for children.
Fun fact: Kimberly's first journey out of the country was to Jamaica on a trip that her mother won during a showing of The Attack of the 50 foot Woman.

State of the Union

Tomorrow night at 9 p.m. Eastern, President Barack Obama is going to give a State of the Union address. I’m not going to speculate on the content, or tell you what I hope he’ll discuss. Rather, I’d like to give you a little history on the State of the Union and tell you why you should be listening tomorrow night.

“He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

-Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution

The first State of the Union address was given by George Washington on January 8, 1790. Since then, every president has either given a speech or written a memo (that was later read aloud to Congress) on an annual basis that detailed where the nation was and where it was going. This may seem a rather dated tradition in an age where almost everyone has access to national news, but the value isn’t in the reporting of the actual state of the union, it is in the framing of the details in the address.

That may not seem clear, so let me explain. There are certain facts about our country. Then there is the interpretation of those facts. Considering the breadth of geography, people, and political opinions – we don't all have the same vision of America. As citizens, we should know our leader’s thoughts on what is important (you can tell he thinks it’s important if he includes it in the speech) and why it is important.

Here at New Voices we do our best to help provide resources that empower you to become better communicators and advocates for research and science. Part of being good at communicating and advocacy is being informed; knowing where our elected officials stand on the issues and what they plan to do (so we can either encourage or discourage it).

I encourage you to take the time to listen to the State of the Union tomorrow night. If you won’t be home or near a radio, record it. If you can’t record it, we’ll have a link to a transcript up on Thursday (and we know you have Internet, or you wouldn’t be reading this). We don’t all have to agree with the president, but we have a duty to know how he sees our nation.

Bringing From Ideas to Treatments Home

Photo credit: Sarah Gallagher

This is the last post in the From Ideas to Treatments series.

In the last two posts in the series, I highlighted the importance of getting clinical researchers, health care professionals, and patients to think about the importance of diversity in clinical research. But there's more in the works that I think will also have a huge effect in getting the spotlight on this topic.

You've probably heard about the emergence of personalized medicine. What might that mean for you? Imagine one day being prescribed a treatment based on your specific genetic code. Now that's customer service!

Personalized medicine is touted as the health care system of the future, and as we further develop these techniques, diversity in research is going to mean something entirely different. Population-focused medicine will be a thing of the past, and so diversity will take on a whole new meaning. No longer will it refer to African-Americans, Whites, or Asians as entire populations. The focus will be on me, or you, as individuals. The diversity aspect will be unique to my genetic code, not my race or ethnicity.

But until we get there, we need to continue thinking about how best to utilize our clinical research paradigm, and that means continuing to improve the inclusion of diverse populations in clinical research trials.

How might America do that?

First, it seems that you can't turn on the news without hearing about health care reform. My purpose here isn't to pass judgment on any of the bills offered thus far, but to highlight how the idea of reform could work to improve inclusion in clinical research trials.

If we can get more people covered by health care, then they will have better access to health care professionals. This has the potential to introduce even more people to the idea of participating in clinical research trials.

Further, we've all heard about the movement to electronic records in the medical industry. Some of these programs are extremely advanced. They have a "smart" feature, that for example, will tell doctors when a drug that they have prescribed is not ideal for the patient. Imagine the capability to enter a patient’s diagnosis and have the system tell the doctor what trials that patient is eligible for.

Finally, one of NIH’s goals, currently in progress, is the formation of research consortiums, which recruit research institutions nationwide to collaborate and share resources, making the clinical research process more productive and efficient.

It takes a lot of time, energy and effort to translate an idea into a treatment and then make it accessible to the populations that need it most.

I hope that this series has helped enhance your interest in the research pipeline - and specifically in clinical research trials. I look forward to any thoughts or questions you may have!


This is Part 13 of 13 in our From Ideas to Treatments series.
Part 1 - From Ideas to Treatments
Part 2 - Basic Research: It Starts with an Idea
Part 3 - You're an Animal!
Part 4 - Can I care about animals and do research too?
Part 5 - Regulations for Animal Research
Part 6 - Clinical Research Trials
Part 7 - Patient Safety in Clinical Trials: IRB Approval
Part 8 - Recruitment
Part 9 - Health Disparities in Clinical Research
Part 10 - A Brief History of Inclusion Policies
Part 11 - Breaking News: Women and Men are Different
Part 12 - Including Minorities in Clinical Trial Research
Part 13 - Bringing From Ideas to Treatments Home

Including Minorities in Clinical Trial Research

On Wednesday, I focused on the data about NIH's inclusion of women in trials for 2007. When I asked the same question for minorities, the answer was harder to come by, primarily because NIH doesn't have information on its enrollment for minority-only studies. So, the numbers that I have from them are likely skewed because we can't separate the participation of minorities in diverse studies versus minority-only studies.

My answer to this was to look at the literature again. The vast consensus here, was that we really don't know how much minority participation there is. Most studies Don't report the distribution of races included in their studies; many don't even mention if there was a diverse population participating. So of course, if many aren't reporting this, then you'd expect that there's not much analysis of differences between minority and non-minority populations... and you'd be right.

We know that some minority populations are more prone to certain conditions, so if we want to see the populations that need these therapies most have access to them, minorities need to be involved in the studies. So for my second plea of the week - after asking researchers to start analyzing differences in effect of these treatments between men and women - is for researchers to add minority inclusion and analysis to clinical trial reports.

In order to get great data from these studies, clinical researchers and health care professionals need to consider the importance of diversity. Beyond that, they need to actually ask the questions, what is the difference between these groups, and report the findings... even if the findings are that there are no differences.

As participants, and patients that want to benefit from these drugs, we can also start demanding this. Patient-driven research is on the rise. Organizations like the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation have an excellent network of patients who are not only demanding the research, but are making themselves available to participate when trials arise. We all should be following their lead.


This is Part 12 of 13 in our From Ideas to Treatments series.
Part 1 - From Ideas to Treatments
Part 2 - Basic Research: It Starts with an Idea
Part 3 - You're an Animal!
Part 4 - Can I care about animals and do research too?
Part 5 - Regulations for Animal Research
Part 6 - Clinical Research Trials
Part 7 - Patient Safety in Clinical Trials: IRB Approval
Part 8 - Recruitment
Part 9 - Health Disparities in Clinical Research
Part 10 - A Brief History of Inclusion Policies
Part 11 - Breaking News: Women and Men are Different
Part 12 - Including Minorities in Clinical Trial Research
Part 13 - Bringing From Ideas to Treatments Home

A New Voice at ScienceOnline 2010

Allison sporting her map of the human genome t-shirt (courtesy of AAAS) after returning from ScienceOnline 2010.

For months, I had watched the Facebook event, the #scio10 hashtag on Twitter, and the Wiki. I had my hotel roommate and a Google map of directions to each conference location. But it was a couple days before leaving for ScienceOnline 2010, and I was nervous. I had experienced blogger star-strucked-ness before, and I didn’t want to clam up during such a great opportunity to learn from some of the best science communicators out there.

Fortunately, I had nothing to worry about. ScienceOnline retained the “dinner party” feel you often get on Twitter, where the person sitting next to you, shaking your hand, or leading your session could be a book author, a trained scientist, or someone from one of the many institutions and organizations in the Research Triangle Park area. All forms of participation were welcomed and rewarded, and I left feeling more connected to a community of science bloggers than I had before.

As a communication fellow at Research!America, I look through discussions about science communication through an advocacy lens. During the session “Rebooting Science Journalism in the Age of the Web,” Ed Yong of Not Exactly Rocket Science (I could listen to him talk, er, blog all day) asked whether the publication where science-related content even mattered anymore. “If it’s on the internet, people can find it,” he said.

For me, this raises issues of access: how can we create new advocates for research if the communicators aren’t pushing content to new audiences and instead pull them into a specialized community through blogs and other channels (thanks for BoraZ for this distinction)? I thought this question was answered constructively in David Kroll and Damond Nollan’s session on engaging underrepresented groups in online science media, where the discussion turned to using mobile phones and Facebook at historically black colleges and universities.

Who will be the next voice for research? There was so much potential among the ScienceOnline participants. I thought Anil Dash made a convincing case for Expert Labs, a new initiative supported by the American Association for the Advancement of Science which would serve as a filter for policymakers who seek answers from scientists and other experts, but may not know the right questions to ask.

Additionally, Michael Specter, Friday’s keynote speaker and author of Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives, ignited the conference with his impatience for misleading information about science, but reminded us throughout the weekend that he was dedicated to promoting scientific interest through his journalism. “Science is much bigger than special interest stories,” he responded to Ed Yong’s question above.

The diversity of the body of ScienceOnline made for lively sessions and informal conversations, and there are many themes not considered here. Based on the amount of content created during ScienceOnline--video, Twitter, blogs, images and Slideshare--I think you could spend a couple days sifting through it and feel as if you experienced the conference firsthand. All content should be marked with the #scio10 hashtag, so keep that in mind in your searching and posting.

Next up: ScienceOnline 2011!


Allison Bland is a communications fellow at Research!America and a graduate of McGill University with degrees in English and history of science. She has previously contributed to New Voices with posts on science education and how-to effectively use Twitter.

Breaking News: Women and Men are Different

It's hard to believe, I know. Women and men are different. This is going to be big, and I mean BIG.

Actually, we know it isn't big news, but it took awhile to notice that in clinical research trials. Which is why adoption of the inclusion policies by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is so important for eliminating health disparities when conducting research trials.

NIH every year publishes its clinical research enrollment demographics for the year. I decided to take a look at the enrollment reports for 2007 and see how NIH is doing in meeting its inclusion policies.

First, I looked at enrollment of males and females in all trials (Phase I-III), and found that, overall, females are very well represented. However, I took this information one step further, and divided it into single-sex and mixed-sex studies.

A single sex study is one in which the researcher focuses on questions that involve either males or females, but not both. For example, they might be interested in treatments for ovarian cancer or testicular cancer, respectively. When I accounted for these trials. I saw that the vast majority of participants in mixed-sex trials were males.

I then looked at Phase III trials alone, because NIH policy focuses on inclusion specifically for this last phase. Again, my initial findings showed a higher proportion of women enrolled than men. When I further divided this into single- and mixed- sex, I found a more equal distribution of males and females in mixed sex studies.

So, it appears NIH is doing a pretty good job of meeting its stated policy goals for enrollment of women. However, I can’t help thinking that this policy may not be good enough.

Not all drugs make it to Phase III trials. What if we are overlooking drugs that might be more effective in women than men, but we don't see it because there aren't enough women in earlier trials? That drug might never make it to Phase III trials, and an entire population might miss out on a therapy that could really help them.

But beyond enrollment, when I looked at some independent publications to see how many clinical trials are actually asking the very obvious question: is there a difference between the reactions in males and females? The consensus: not many.

So either clinical researchers are not asking this question, or they are asking it, finding no differences, and not publishing this information. Either way, we need to know; so researchers, if you're reading this, start reporting!


This is Part 11 of 13 in our From Ideas to Treatments series.
Part 1 - From Ideas to Treatments
Part 2 - Basic Research: It Starts with an Idea
Part 3 - You're an Animal!
Part 4 - Can I care about animals and do research too?
Part 5 - Regulations for Animal Research
Part 6 - Clinical Research Trials
Part 7 - Patient Safety in Clinical Trials: IRB Approval
Part 8 - Recruitment
Part 9 - Health Disparities in Clinical Research
Part 10 - A Brief History of Inclusion Policies
Part 11 - Breaking News: Women and Men are Different
Part 12 - Including Minorities in Clinical Trial Research
Part 13 - Bringing From Ideas to Treatments Home

A Brief History of Inclusion Policies

When we last visited the From Ideas to Treatments series, we were discussing diversity in clinical trials...

Inclusion of all groups is important, but it's taken some time to get federal policies established to focus on getting women and minorities enrolled in clinical research trials.

In the 1970's an Federal Drug Administration (FDA) policy actually barred women of birthing age from participating in trials. Seems counter-intuitive, huh? Why keep women out, when we know it's important to see their reaction to these drugs? Well, in part, the government was worried that their participation would put any unborn children at risk. Given the recently discovered effects of thalidomide, its difficult to fault them for this.

Thalidomide was a drug used to treat nausea, so of course, it was widely prescribed to pregnant women for morning-sickness. It wasn't until a generation of kids was born that the link between thalidomide and birth defects was discovered. This event played a large role in the reasoning behind the FDA ban.

For minorities, by the 1970s, there was a distrust that existed, particularly in the African-American community. It was a distrust for clinical research trials, and it stemmed from the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, a horrible event in clinical research history that took advantage of African American participants in the most unethical way.

In the 1980s, the U.S. government realized its mistake in banning women from trials, and began to adopt policies of inclusion for both women and minority populations. This led to the passage of the NIH revitalization in 1993. This act required both women and minorities to be represented in clinical research trials, and charged NIH with defining the policy.

Over the next 5-8 years, the remaining federal agencies sponsoring research followed suit. After receiving a less than stellar report in 2000 by the Government Accountability Office concerning NIH’s implementation of its policies, NIH further revised its policy. This revision specifically called for Phase III trials to include women and minorities in a representative number, and highly recommending analysis of these groups.

In recommending analysis, they also made the point that inclusion, while important, is not the last step. Having the diverse representation is important, but how useful is it if you’re not asking the obvious questions: 1) Do females show a difference in response compared to males? and 2) Do minorities show a difference in response compared to one another or the non-minority population?

In the next two posts in this series, we'll take a look at the answers to both of those questions.


This is Part 10 of 13 in our From Ideas to Treatments series.
Part 1 - From Ideas to Treatments
Part 2 - Basic Research: It Starts with an Idea
Part 3 - You're an Animal!
Part 4 - Can I care about animals and do research too?
Part 5 - Regulations for Animal Research
Part 6 - Clinical Research Trials
Part 7 - Patient Safety in Clinical Trials: IRB Approval
Part 8 - Recruitment
Part 9 - Health Disparities in Clinical Research
Part 10 - A Brief History of Inclusion Policies
Part 11 - Breaking News: Women and Men are Different
Part 12 - Including Minorities in Clinical Trial Research
Part 13 - Bringing From Ideas to Treatments Home

Day On

New Voices is officially off today in celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr.

However, we hope you are also out making your day off a "day on."

If you still aren't sure what you can be doing, check out mlkday.gov for a list of projects going on in your area.

New Voices suggests: donating blood, volunteering for a clinical research trial, contributing to international relief efforts (particularly those in Haiti), and giving your time.

You can also try:

• Picking up trash or litter in your neighborhood


• Doing some community gardening


• Going through closets, attics, basements, etc. in search of donateable goods


• Collecting recycleables that aren't usually picked up in your area to drop off at a local recycling center


• Recording yourself reading books, short stories, etc. for the blind or children

It's amazing what you can do in a day.