Search

The article states that the U.S. National Library of Medicine has released a selection of papers written by molecular biologist and science administrator Harold Varmus. He was a former cancer researcher, National Institutes of Health Director, and Nobel laureate. Varmus helped develop the theory that cancer is caused by mutations in a person's own genes. The papers can be found at the web site http://www.profiles.nlm.nih.gov. The Library worked with the University of California, San Francisco to digitize Varmus' papers.

Discusses an ban by the United States Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control last year that journals could publish manuscripts from authors living in countries facing United States trade embargoes, but could not edit such papers. Reason why journals cannot edit foreign manuscripts, in regards to economic value of the manuscripts; Amount of fines that could be levied against journals if they were to edit foreign manuscripts; Efforts by Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers to get the United State's government to soften its stance; Renewed stance of the government on the editing of foreign manuscripts.

Importance: Recent discussion has focused on questions related to the repeal and replacement of portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, issues central to the future of health and health care in the United States transcend the ACA provisions receiving the greatest attention. Initiatives directed to certain strategic and infrastructure priorities are vital to achieve better health at lower cost.Objectives: To review the most salient health challenges and opportunities facing the United States, to identify practical and achievable priorities essential to health progress, and to present policy initiatives critical to the nation's health and fiscal integrity.Evidence Review: Qualitative synthesis of 19 National Academy of Medicine-commissioned white papers, with supplemental review and analysis of publicly available data and published research findings.Findings: The US health system faces major challenges. Health care costs remain high at $3.2 trillion spent annually, of which an estimated 30% is related to waste, inefficiencies, and excessive prices; health disparities are persistent and worsening; and the health and financial burdens of chronic illness and disability are straining families and communities. Concurrently, promising opportunities and knowledge to achieve change exist. Across the 19 discussion papers examined, 8 crosscutting policy directions were identified as vital to the nation's health and fiscal future, including 4 action priorities and 4 essential infrastructure needs. The action priorities-pay for value, empower people, activate communities, and connect care-recurred across the articles as direct and strategic opportunities to advance a more efficient, equitable, and patient- and community-focused health system. The essential infrastructure needs-measure what matters most, modernize skills, accelerate real-world evidence, and advance science-were the most commonly cited foundational elements to ensure progress.Conclusions and Relevance: The action priorities and essential infrastructure needs represent major opportunities to improve health outcomes and increase efficiency and value in the health system. As the new US administration and Congress chart the future of health and health care for the United States, and as health leaders across the country contemplate future directions for their programs and initiatives, their leadership and strategic investment in these priorities will be essential for achieving significant progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The professional integrity of scientists is important to society as a whole and particularly to disciplines such as medicine that depend heavily on scientific advances for their progress.Objective: To characterize the professional norms of active scientists and compare them with those of individuals with institutional responsibility for the conduct of research.Design: A mailed survey consisting of 12 scenarios in 4 domains of research ethics. Respondents were asked whether an act was unethical and, if so, the degree to which they considered it unethical and to select responses and punishments for the act.Participants: A total of 924 National Science Foundation research grantees in 1993 or 1994 in molecular or cellular biology and 140 representatives from the researchers' institutions to the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity.Main Outcome Measures: Percentage of respondents considering an act unethical and the mean malfeasance rating on a scale of 1 to 10.Results: A total of 606 research grantees and 91 institutional representatives responded to the survey (response rate of 69% of those who could be contacted). Respondents reported a hierarchy of unethical research behaviors. The mean malfeasance rating was unrelated to the characteristics of the investigator performing the hypothetical act or to its consequences. Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism received malfeasance ratings higher than 8.6, and virtually all thought they were unethical. Deliberately misleading statements about a paper or failure to give proper attribution received ratings between 7 and 8. Sloppiness, oversights, conflicts of interest, and failure to share were less serious still, receiving malfeasance ratings between 5 and 6. Institutional representatives proposed more and different interventions and punishments than the scientists.Conclusions: Surveyed scientists and institutional representatives had strong and similar norms of professional behavior, but differed in their approaches to an unethical act. INSET: Scenario. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a call for papers to be published in a special October, 2008 issue devoted to the health of the U.S. Preference will be given to papers describing original research that presents new scientific understanding backed by solid data. Any topic related to the nation's health is eligible, including national health status, the composition of the health care work force, econometric analysis of health care reform, and comparative analyses with health care systems in other countries.

Reports on the President's Council on Bioethics and its white paper "Alternative Sources of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells," in light of research in South Korea that developed a method for creating embryos with cloning. The U.S. stance on federal funding on stem cell research; Methods the council considered to generate stem cells; The debate over ethical and scientific issues related to embryonic stem cell research; Views of council members, including Janet D. Rowley; The pros and cons of blastomere extraction and other approaches for deriving stem-cell lines.