Search

In recent years the concept of "translational medicine" has been advanced in an attempt to catalyze the medical applications of basic biomedical research. However, there has been little discussion about the readiness of scientists themselves to respond to what we believe is a required new approach to scientific discovery if this new concept is to bear fruit. The present paradigm of hypothesis-driven research poorly suits the needs of biomedical research unless efforts are spent in identifying clinically relevant hypotheses. The dominant funding system favors hypotheses born from model systems and not humans, bypassing the Baconian principle of relevant observations and experimentation before hypotheses. Here, we argue that that this attitude has born two unfortunate results: lack of sufficient rigor in selecting hypotheses relevant to human disease and limitations of most clinical studies to certain outcome parameters rather than expanding knowledge of human pathophysiology; an illogical approach to translational medicine. If we wish to remain true to our responsibility and duty of performing research relevant to human disease, we must begin to think about fundamental new approaches. NIH is the nation's medical research agency - making important medical discoveries that improve health and save lives. NIH is the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation. Its mission is science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability [1]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Journal of Translational Medicine is pleased to announce a prize to recognize outstanding contributions in the field of translational medicine. This year, the Bedside-to-Bench Award was provided by an anonymous donor and supported by the Journal of Translational Medicine Editorial Board. Applications should be submitted directly to the Journal of Translational Medicine [1]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In December 2011 the United States House of Representatives introduced a new bill, the Research Works Act (H. R.3699), which if passed could threaten the public's access to US government funded research. In a digital age when professional and lay parties alike look more and more to the online environment to keep up to date with developments in their fields, does this bill serve the best interests of the community? Those in support of the Research Works Act argue that government open access mandates undermine peer-review and take intellectual property from publishers without compensation, however journals like Journal of Translational Medicine show that this is not the case. Journal of Translational Medicine in affiliation with the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer demonstrates how private and public organisations can work together for the advancement of science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Society for Biological Therapy of Cancer (iSBTc, recently renamed the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, SITC) hosted a one-day symposium at the National Institutes of Health on September 30, 2010 to address development and application of biomarkers in cancer immunotherapy. The symposium, titled Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers 2010 and Beyond: Perspectives from the iSBTc/SITC Biomarker Task Force, gathered approximately 230 investigators equally from academia, industry and governmental/regulatory agencies from around the globe for panel discussions and presentations on the following topics: 1) immunologic monitoring: standardization and validation of assays; 2) correlation of immunity to biologic activity, clinical response and potency assays; 3) novel methodologies for assessing the immune landscape: clinical utility of novel technologies; and 4) recommendations on incorporation of biomarkers into the clinical arena. The presentations are summarized in this report; additional program information and slides are available online at the iSBTc/SITC website. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]