Epidemiologic Inquiry

Nominations for Society for Epidemiology Research (SER)-Student Caucus 2008-2009

2008-03-19T19:15:00.000-04:00

Dear students, post-docs, fellows, trainees and interns:

The Society for Epidemiology Research (SER)-Student Caucus is a student organization and student-initiated program focused on opening new possibilities for addressing student members' professional needs.

The SER-Student Caucus is gearing up to begin its fifth year and is now accepting nominations for officers and chair/co-chair positions for the Executive Council of 2008-2009 year. If you are a student member of SER or interested in becoming a member and would like to nominate yourself for a leadership position in the SER-Student Caucus, please visit http://www.epiresearch.org/students/08nominations.html for position descriptions, procedures for self-nomination and election timeline. The self-nomination involves a brief personal statement (250 words) and will be accepted until *next Sunday, March 23, 2008*

The SER-Student Caucus is currently accepting nominations for the following positions:
• President Elect
• Secretary
• Membership/Nominations Committee Chair(s)
• Program Committee Chair(s)
• Abstracts Committee Chair/Treasurer

Holders of these positions, officers and chairs, will constitute the SER-SC Executive Council. These positions will be in effect for the June 2008-June 2009.

We hope you will consider serving in the SER-Student Caucus executive council this upcoming year! If you have any questions, please email Simone at spinheir@hsph.harvard.edu.

With our best regards,

SER-Student Caucus Executive Council

If you are interested in learning more about SER-SC, please visit http://www.epiresearch.org/students/index.html

If you would like to receive email notifications about SER-SC programs, opportunities and events, please sign up for our listserv at http://www.epiresearch.org/students/listserv.html

If you would like to become a student member of SER, please visit http://www.epiresearch.org/renew/memberform.html

New public health certification credentialing exam offered in August 2008 by National Board of Public Health Examiners

2008-02-14T18:47:00.002-05:00

For several years, the APHA (American Public Health Association) and the ASPH (Association of Schools of Public Health) have considered the issue of credentialing the public health workforce. The goal of those involved in this effort is to set a standard for those in the practice of public health.

A National Board of Public Health Examiners (NBPHE), an independent entity governed by a board of representatives from a diverse range of public health practice and academic organizations, has been working for the past two years to develop a certification exam for public health professionals. This examination will be offered for the first time in August 2008. The examination, which will consist of 200 multiple choice questions, is based on testing your knowledge of core and cross-cutting competencies in public health that were developed by the ASPH. A copy of those competencies can be found on the ASPH website at http://asph.org/document.cfm?page=851. Individuals who pass the examination will receive the new public health credential of CPH (Certified in Public Health).

Registration for the first examination is occurring right now, and will continue until April 30, 2008. Registration for the exam is open now through April 30, 2008. The registration fee is $400. Please visit the NBPHE website http://www.publichealthexam.org to learn more about the exam and http://www.asph.org/cphstudyguide to learn more about the study guide.

However, since the examination is new, it is unclear at this time how public health employers will value the CPH credential. The examination is still in the process of being developed. There are no plans to beta test the examination before it is offered for the first time, so those taking it in August 2008 will be the first group to experience the test. If you are considering taking the examination, we strongly encourage you to learn more from the websites above.

Reader thoughts and comments are welcome.

Abstract Submission 2008: American College of Epidemiology annual meeting. "Dawn of Evolutionary Epidemiology"

2008-02-14T17:04:00.001-05:00

The American College of Epidemiology is pleased to announce the launching of a web portal for electronic submission of abstracts for the 2008 annual meeting. The annual meeting will be held at The Westin LaPaloma Resort & Spa, Tucson, AZ from September 14-16, 2008. This year's meeting theme is "Dawn of Evolutionary Epidemiology: Applying evolutionary theory in an epidemiologic context."

The Publications Committee of the American College of Epidemiology is sponsoring five student travel awards, and four general poster awards, that will be selected based on scientific merit of the abstracts submitted for presentation at the annual meeting.

So hurry up! log on to http://ees.elsevier.com/ace/ and submit your abstracts ELECTRONICALLY now. You can submit as many as TWO abstracts as a FIRST AUTHOR. There is no limit on submitting number of abstracts as a second or higher author. Be a part of an exciting gathering of epidemiologists.

Abstracts must be received online by April 1, 2008.

Form more information email info@acepidemiology.org or visit www.acepidemiology2.org

Science Education in America: NIH Director Elias Zerhouni

2008-01-28T22:18:00.000-05:00

The following is profound essay by NIH Director Elias Zerhouni on addressing science education in America... its worth 2 minutes to read...

===============================================

"You may have read the recent news stories about the disappointing performance of U.S. students on an international science and math exam.1 The future of biomedical research and the health of this nation both hinge on getting young people excited about science and health. Unfortunately, too many of them are leaving school without the analytical skills they need to be successful in today’s economy, much less to become competitive researchers. Here at NIH, we are taking a multifaceted approach to engaging students from diverse populations in science and inspiring some of them to choose careers in research. However, there is only so much that we can do from Bethesda. Our best hope for making a broad impact on the children of this nation would be to have a grassroots movement of scientists across the country, rallying for improved science education in their own communities.

At the end of this Desk-to-Desk, I will suggest ways that you might use the tools developed at NIH to partner with local teachers and officials, and help revitalize American science education. I hope that many of you rise to this challenge. If those of us already passionate about science don’t carry the torch, who will?

Our Children's Science Education: What You Should Know
Science education has been a concern in this country since the launch of Sputnik in 1957. Seeing our biggest adversary beat us into space lit a fire under American policy makers, educators, and the public. However, as detailed in books such as Thomas Friedman's The World Is Flat and the National Academy of Science's Rising Above the Gathering Storm, that fire desperately needs to be rekindled. 2, 3 American leadership in science and technology is once again at risk.

The performance of U.S. students is behind most other rich nations in the world—and quite a few that aren't rich. A 2003 study by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) compared the problem-solving abilities of 15-year-old students from 40 nations around the world. (See the graph below.) The U.S. placed 29th. More than half of our children scored in the range that suggests they will have serious difficulties as they enter the workforce or even try to face the normal challenges of adulthood. American students were less than half as likely as students in the top-performing nations to achieve the highest level of problem-solving performance. (For more about the PISA and other education assessments, please see Appendix I in the new guide Scientists in Science Education. (PDF - 308 KB)

I believe that we scientists can agree that this is not what we want for our children, for our nation, or for the future of our field.

Figure from Problem Solving for Tomorrow's World. Countries are ranked in descending order of percentage of 15-year-olds at the two highest levels of proficiency (Levels 2 and 3, above the 0 line). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member nations are depicted with a black font and non-members with a colored font. A larger version of this graph is available at the Web site http://science.education.nih.gov/pisa. The entire report can be downloaded at the Web site http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_32252351_32236173_34002550_1_1_1_1,00.html.

Science Isn't Just for Scientists!
Obviously, the next generation of biomedical researchers needs to be taught science, but why worry about everyone else? There are a few good reasons. Economists have estimated that as much as half of the post-World War II growth in GDP in the U.S. is attributable to technological progress that resulted from research and development. The world economy is changing, and with it, the skills that will be demanded in the promising jobs and the productive workforce of tomorrow. The international competition for a greater share of the wealth is heating up.4 It is important for our citizens to understand more math and science than they ever have in the past, if we dream of continuing the American tradition of leadership.

Labor economists are now warning that more than half of our children may leave school without the skills they need to enter the middle class.5 Business reports such as Building a Nation of Learners and Tapping America's Potential are suggesting that many companies are having increasingly difficult times finding the employees with the critical-thinking, problem-solving, and communications skills they need to do their jobs. 6, 7 A rigorous education in math and science can help prepare all students for good jobs, even those who will never wear a white lab coat. I encourage each of you to familiarize yourself with the National Academy of Science's recent report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, which discusses many of these issues.3

Science Literacy and the Burden of Illness
Improving science education may improve not only a child's economic prospects, but his or her health status as well. Children who learn about health and the science that underpins it will be better equipped to make smart choices—about diets and exercise, about smoking and drugs, and about choosing lifestyles that will help keep them mentally and physically fit. They will grow into adults better able to pick the insurance plans and choose the treatment plans that best suit their needs and the needs of their families. Better science education is one key to a more participatory style of healthcare, which will engage individuals and communities in building a healthier society, understanding and minimizing health disparities, and reducing the suffering and costs associated with chronic disease for all Americans. We are working on this with our sister agencies in HHS and will be announcing some bold, new initiatives soon.

Promoting Science, Health, and Science Education: NIH Curriculum Supplements
To many laypeople, science and technology are essentially one and the same. Many don't understand that science isn't about the high-tech devices we use or even what we choose to study. It is a way of knowing. It is a method of making sense of our world and of our universe. Science builds models of what is and tests hypotheses about what will be. At NIH, we use the tools of science to investigate human health and disease, and to improve the human condition. But we also recognize that the same thought processes we use can also propel our society, culture, and economy, making a brighter future for our children and our children's children.
Therefore, although we focus our primary efforts on efficiently finding and funding the best research today and work to ensure the health of the scientific enterprise of tomorrow, we also make strategic investments in broader K-12 science education. An excellent example is the NIH Curriculum Supplement Series-16 free, interactive modules for elementary, middle, and high schools that combine the latest science from our institutes and centers with state-of-the-art instructional approaches. The supplements are available free to educators at the Web site http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements. The supplements have been aligned to state and national science education standards so that teachers can fulfill their requirements, as they introduce students to the science surrounding important human health problems. More than 300,000 supplements have been distributed to date, each in response to a request from an educator. (Take a look at a map illustrating how the NIH curriculum supplement requests correspond to population density across the U.S. at this Web site http://science.education.nih.gov/map.) While we are thrilled by the broad interest, we would love to see them in even wider use. There is always an "activation energy" required when trying something new, and even good teachers can be intimidated by working state-of-the-art science into their curriculum for the first time—especially in urban and rural environments where the appropriate tools and support may not be as readily available. That is where we hope you can help!

What Can You Do to Help?
Take a few minutes to explore the demonstration page we created for the NIH Curriculum Supplements, http://science.education.nih.gov/demos. It features one supplement for elementary school, one for middle school, and two for high school. Each will take you no more than 5 to 10 minutes and will show you how different the approach of the supplements is from what you probably experienced in grades K-12. If you like the samples, tell your child's science teacher or school principal about the free NIH Curriculum Supplements Series and how well the lessons portray the scientific process. Better yet, find the supplement that is closest to your research. Offer to assist the teacher with that supplement by giving a demonstration related to one of the activities or serving as the teacher's "personal science resource" while he/she works through the lesson plans.

Read over the new guide Scientists in Science Education. The guide was written by scientists and educators to help you—whether you are considering devoting an hour to a local "career day" or a hundred hours to reviewing your state's science education standards. It has some simple suggestions for making the most of your time. It includes some references if you would like a deeper understanding of the performance of U.S. students, the importance of "inquiry" in modern science education, the roles of national and state science education standards, and the No Child Left Behind Act.

Thank you for all you are doing to advance medical science today and to ensure the vitality of the American scientific enterprise in the years to come. Please let me know if you have any comments on this Desk-to-Desk or on NIH's science education efforts. I am especially interested in hearing about your own experiences in promoting science education in your community—using the NIH curriculum supplements or however else you choose to get involved.
Please contact Bruce Fuchs, director of the NIH Office of Science Education, if you have questions about our science education efforts or if you need help with the science education projects you are considering (bruce.fuchs@nih.gov).

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

I invite you to share any comments you have with me, directly, at zerhounidirect@nih.gov.
Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D., Director National Institutes of Health For information about NIH programs, useful health information, and additional resources, see the NIH web site at http://www.nih.gov/. "

An archive of the Director's Newsletter is available at http://www.nih.gov/about/director/newsletter/archive.htm.

1. Gold, M. U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around World on Math-Science Test. Washington Post, Dec. 5, 2007: A07.2. Friedman, T.L. The World Is Flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006.3. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2007. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html#orgs.4. Domestic Policy Council (White House Office of Science and Technology Policy). American Competitiveness Initiative. February 2006. Available at http://www.ostp.gov/html/ACIBooklet.pdf.(PDF - 7.53 MB)5. Murnane, R.J., and F. Levy. Teaching the New Basic Skills: Principles for Educating Children to Thrive in a Changing Economy. New York: The Free Press, 1996.6. Business-Higher Education Forum. Building a Nation of Learners: The Need for Changes in Teaching and Learning to Meet Global Challenges, 2003. Available at http://www.bhef.com/publications/2003_build_nation.pdf.(PDF - 546 KB)7. Business Roundtable (and 14 others). Tapping America's Potential: The Education for Innovation Initiative, 2005. Available at http://www.tap2015.org/about/TAP_report2.pdf (PDF - 136 KB).

New Open-Access Publishing Rules by the NIH: Required PubMed Central Submission for All NIH-Funded Research

2008-01-11T22:53:00.000-05:00

another victory today for open-access science and free information for mankind...

======================================
Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research

Notice Number: NOT-OD-08-033

Key Dates
Release Date: January 11, 2008
Effective Date: April 7, 2008

Issued by
National Institutes of Health (NIH), (http://www.nih.gov/)
Department of Health and Human Services

Action
Notice; Revised Policy Statement

Summary

In accordance with Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL 110-161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 ), the NIH voluntary Public Access Policy (NOT-OD-05-022) is now mandatory. The law states:

The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.

Specifics

1. The NIH Public Access Policy applies to all peer-reviewed articles that arise, in whole or in part, from direct costs 1 funded by NIH, or from NIH staff, that are accepted for publication on or after April 7, 2008.

2. Institutions and investigators are responsible for ensuring that any publishing or copyright agreements concerning submitted articles fully comply with this Policy.

3. PubMed Central (PMC) is the NIH digital archive of full-text, peer-reviewed journal articles. Its content is publicly accessible and integrated with other databases (see: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/).

4. The final, peer-reviewed manuscript includes all graphics and supplemental materials that are associated with the article.

5. Beginning May 25, 2008, anyone submitting an application, proposal or progress report to the NIH must include the PMC or NIH Manuscript Submission reference number when citing applicable articles that arise from their NIH funded research. This policy includes applications submitted to the NIH for the May 25, 2008 due date and subsequent due dates.

Obituary of Epidemiology Legend: Brian MacMahon

2007-12-09T00:13:00.001-05:00

Passing of Brian MacMahon, MD, MBChB, DPH, PhD

Brian MacMahon, chair of the Department of Epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health for 31 years, passed away on December 5th, 2007 at the age of 84.

Brian was a giant in the field of cancer epidemiology and became particularly recognized for his work on breast cancer etiology. In 1970, he was the lead author on a renowned international collaborative study that detailed an association between risk of breast cancer and the age at which women gave birth to their first child. The findings provided new insight into the protective mechanisms of pregnancy and prompted broader thinking about the causes of breast cancer.

In 1960, Brian co-authored Epidemiologic Methods with Tom Pugh. This textbook became Epidemiology: Principles and Methods, which is widely recognized as a landmark epidemiology textbook in the U.S.

In addition to his cancer studies, Brian was well-known for his papers on pyloric stenosis in infants. This condition interferes with the ability to digest food. At a time when genes were the primary focus of research underlying pyloric stenosis, Brian’s research shed light on associated environmental factors.

In the 1940s, Brian attended the University of Birmingham, England, earning diplomas of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, as well as an MB, ChB, and DPH. From 1946 to 1948, he worked as a ship’s doctor in the English Merchant Navy. In 1952, he earned a PhD in social medicine from the University of Birmingham. The following year, he came to HSPH, achieving a master’s degree in epidemiology in 1953. Two years later, he obtained an MD with honors from the University of Birmingham.

Brian held appointments at the University of Birmingham and at the State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center, before accepting the position as head of the HSPH Department of Epidemiology in 1958. He served as the department’s leader until 1989, passing the mantle to Professor Dimitrios Trichopoulos.

In 1974, he was appointed Professor of Public Health at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, School of Public Health. In 1976, he was appointed Henry Pickering Walcott Professor of Epidemiology at HSPH. From 1977 to 1978, he served as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the School.

Brian received the National Divisional Distinguished Service Award from the American Cancer Society in 1971 and was elected to the Institute of Medicine in 1973. He was conferred the John Snow Award from the American Public Health Association in 1980, and he received the Charles S. Mott Prize from the General Motors Cancer Research Foundation in 1992. He received honorary doctorates from the University of Athens, the State University of New York, and the University of Birmingham, England.

A native of England, Brian became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1962.

WHO- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifications of carcinogens (cancer causing agents)

2007-12-08T22:41:00.000-05:00

Definitions of IARC classifications of carcinogens:

Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity.

Group 2.
This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents are assigned to either Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and mechanistic and other relevant data. The terms probably carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic have no quantitative significance and are used simply as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity, with probably carcinogenic signifying a higher level of evidence than possibly carcinogenic.

Group 2A: The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent may be classified in this category when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence that the carcinogenesis is mediated by a mechanism that also operates in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. An agent may be assigned to this category if it clearly belongs, based on mechanistic considerations, to a class of agents for which one or more members have been classified in Group 1 or Group 2A.

Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data.

Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
This category is used most commonly for agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals.
Exceptionally, agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans but sufficient in experimental animals may be placed in this category when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans.
Agents that do not fall into any other group are also placed in this category.
An evaluation in Group 3 is not a determination of non-carcinogenicity or overall safety. It often means that further research is needed, especially when exposures are widespread or the cancer data are consistent with differing interpretations.

Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans.
This category is used for agents for which there is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in humans and in experimental animals. In some instances, agents for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, consistently and strongly supported by a broad range of mechanistic and other relevant data, may be classified in this group.

IARC: cancer hazards associated with shiftwork, painting and firefighting

2007-12-08T22:37:00.000-05:00

IARC Monographs Programme finds cancer hazards associated with shiftwork, painting and firefighting

After a thorough review and discussion of the published scientific evidence, an expert Working Group convened by the IARC Monographs programme has concluded that
· Shiftwork that involves circadian disruption is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).
· Occupational exposure as a painter is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).
· Occupational exposure as a firefighter is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).
These three occupations involve complex exposure patterns that make it difficult to attribute risk to specific factors. The Working Group, comprising 24 scientists from 10 countries, met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer research agency of the World Health Organization.
A summary of these conclusions is being published in the December issue of The Lancet Oncology. Full results will be published next year as volume 98 of the IARC Monographs.

Shiftwork that involves circadian disruption is “probably carcinogenic to humans”

Epidemiological studies have found that long-term nightworkers have a higher risk of breast cancer risk than women who do not work at night. These studies have involved mainly nurses and flight attendants. The studies are consistent with animal studies that demonstrate that constant light, dim light at night, or simulated chronic jet lag can substantially increase tumour development. Other experimental studies show that reducing melatonin levels at night increases the incidence or growth of tumours.

These results may be explained by the disruption of the circadian system that is caused by exposure to light at night. This can alter sleep-activity patterns, suppress melatonin production, and disregulate genes involved in tumour development. Among the many different patterns of shiftwork, those that include nightwork are most disruptive to the circadian system.
"Nearly 20% of the working population in Europe and North America is engaged in shiftwork, which is most prevalent in the health-care, industrial, transportation, communications, and hospitality sectors: To date, most studies have focussed on breast cancer in nurses and flight attendants. Now more studies are needed to examine this potential risk in other professions and for other cancers," noted Dr Cogliano, Head of the IARC Monographs Programme.

Occupational exposure as a painter is “carcinogenic to humans”

Epidemiological studies of painters have consistently found small but significant increases in the risk of lung cancer and bladder cancer. In addition, several studies of painters have found increased levels of genetic damage.
Four of five case-control studies found significant increases in childhood leukaemia associated with maternal exposure before or during pregnancy, although findings were inconsistent for lymphatic and haematopoietic cancers in the painters themselves.
Painters are exposed to numerous chemical solvents, pigments, and additives. They can also be exposed to other workplace hazards such as asbestos and crystalline silica. The available information is not specific enough to identify particular agents as the cause of the excess lung or bladder cancers. It also cannot be determined whether the cancer risks have increased or decreased with changes in the solvents, pigments, and additives used in paints.

Occupational exposure as a firefighter is “possibly carcinogenic to humans”

Epidemiologic studies of firefighters have noted excess cancer risks compared with the general population. Consistent patterns are difficult to discern due to the large variations in exposure across different types of fires and different groups of firefighters. Relative risks were consistently increased, however, for three types of cancer: testicular cancer, prostate cancer, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Acute and chronic inflammatory respiratory effects have been noted in firefighters, and this would provide a plausible mechanism for respiratory carcinogenesis. Firefighters are exposed to numerous toxic chemicals, including many known or suspected carcinogens. These intermittent exposures can be intense, and short-term exposure levels can be high for respirable particulate matter and for several carcinogens, notably benzene, benzo[a]pyrene, 1,3-butadiene, and formaldehyde.

What is new, and what do these results mean to me?
"These are IARC’s first evaluations of shiftwork and firefighting. Because there is credible evidence linking these occupations with increased risks of cancer, it is important that further studies be conducted to better identify what it is about such occupations that may increase the risk of cancer so that preventive measures can be implemented to avoid such risks", concluded Dr Peter Boyle, Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Occupational exposure as a painter has been classified since 1989 as carcinogenic to humans, and this new evaluation has linked painting to lung cancer and bladder cancer. The new evaluation also suggests that maternal exposure may be associated with childhood leukaemia. It is important that further studies be conducted in this area to confirm whether this risk is real and to identify precautionary measures that are appropriate to consider.

(from IARC press release 180a)

Abstract Submission: 2008 SER Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL

2007-12-04T04:28:00.000-05:00

Abstract submission is now open for the 2008 Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) Annual Meeting, June 24(eve) - 27 in Chicago, IL.

http://www.epiresearch.org/abstracts/

For more information, contact:

Jacqueline C Brakey
for the SER Executive Committee
PH: 801-525-0231
meeting@epiresearch.org

Covert sleuthing on tobacco smoke levels by a graduate student

2007-11-25T14:51:00.000-05:00

We epidemiologists should all occassionally roll up our sleeves, leave our computers running SAS and STATA programs behind, and get down and dirty in the field once in a while following this student's example...

A resourceful doctoral student conducts his thesis research on tobacco smoke air pollution by covertly descending upon a cigar/tobacco convention and secretly taking air quality samples.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/nyregion/22cigar.html

Feel demoralized as a professional SAS programmer yet?

Sensitivity Analysis for an Unmeasured Confounder

2007-10-04T15:00:00.000-04:00

In this week's issue of NEJM, a group of investigators examine the association between influenza vaccination and outcomes in multiple HMO cohorts. However, a major limitation of the HMO cohorts was the lack of covariate data on socioeconomic status and other sociological factors that may potentially confound ...

Thus, the analysis conducted special sensitivity analsysis assuming the existence of an unknown confounder. Using the confounding triangle paradigm, they 1) assumed that a confounder is associated with the exposure with a RR=2 (i.e. low SES individuals are twice as likely to not receive vaccination), and 2) simultaneously assumed that the confounding factor of low SES associated with outcome under varying prevalence scenarios of the confounder, ranging from RR=2 to RR=3, and finally 3) varied the prevalence of the confounder from 0% (no confounding) to 60% under different scenarios. (The sensitivity analysis method applied utilized the method of Lin et al. Biometrics 1998)

All in all, the protective association between influenza vaccination and outcomes (hospitalization for influenza or pneumonia, or death) remained significant across all scenarios, suggesting that unmeasured confounding by a single powerful confounder, with associations of RR=2-3 strength in the confounding triangle, could not have explained the association.

In future epidemiologic settings, perhaps we should all consider performing such detailed sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our own findings...

References:

Nichol KL, Nordin JD, Nelson DB, Mullooly JP, Hak E. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in the community-dwelling elderly. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1373-1381
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/357/14/1373

Lin DY, Psaty BM, Kronmal RA. Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies. Biometrics 1998;54:948-963

Obituary of Epidemiology Legend: Ralph S. Paffenbarger Jr.

2007-09-02T08:52:00.000-04:00

Ralph S. Paffenbarger Jr., M.D. Dr.P.H.

July, 2007

Dr. Ralph S. Paffenbarger Jr., an epidemiologist who led an early and long-running health study of Harvard graduates that has been influential in promoting vigorous exercise as a primary tool in preventing heart disease, died Monday at his home in Santa Fe, N.M. He was 84.

The cause was heart failure, his family said.

In the early 1960s, Dr. Paffenbarger and other researchers began to look at exercise and its effects on about 17,000 Harvard graduates, all men ranging in age from their 30’s to 70’s. The study, which was conducted at Harvard and Stanford, considered physical activities like sports, walking and climbing stairs and translated the exercise into calories expended by the men in the course of a week.

By the 1970s, the study’s preliminary findings suggested that men burning 2,000 or more calories a week faced a substantially lower risk of death from heart disease than their more sedentary peers. Indeed, in 1984, Dr. Paffenbarger concluded that, among 640 men in the study who had died of cardiovascular disease, the death rate for the most sedentary was nearly twice that for the most active. By the ’90s, the study refined that figure, finding that regular exercise reduced coronary death rates by 25 percent to 33 percent.

The results of the Harvard study became a major impetus for the aerobic exercise movement of the 1980s, as Dr. Paffenbarger and others argued that the benefits of exercise could accrue even if it was begun in middle age. He later calculated that vigorous activity, started early enough, could increase further life expectancy by one or even two years at age 80, adding that quality of life would probably also be enhanced, as there would be fewer chronic diseases like diabetes. In the 1990s, the study found that men ages 45 to 54 who began to exercise could expect to live 10 months longer on average than their sedentary peers.

By that time, Dr. Paffenbarger had taken the findings to heart. He was himself a sedentary man who became a long-distance runner at 45, eventually completing marathons in Boston and South Africa as well as the Western States Endurance Run, a grueling 100-mile race on a mountainous course.

Dr. Terence Kavanagh, an internist and professor of exercise sciences at the University of Toronto, said Dr. Paffenbarger was “a scientist who practiced what he preached,” showing “conclusively that sedentary individuals who became active got increasing protection from cardiovascular disease.”

The Harvard study was modeled in part on Dr. Paffenbarger’s earlier health study of 6,000 longshoremen working along San Francisco Bay. The Harvard study, which continues, also built upon the findings of Jeremy N. Morris, an English researcher who in the 1950s and ’60s conducted studies of exercise and cardiovascular disease among drivers and conductors of London’s bus system. Dr. Morris found that conductors, who climbed the stairs of double-decker buses, had lower coronary risks than the seated drivers.

Ralph Seal Paffenbarger Jr. was born in Columbus, Ohio. He graduated from Ohio State University and received a medical degree from Northwestern University. Dr. Paffenbarger then earned a doctorate in public health from Johns Hopkins University in 1954.

He was a professor of epidemiology at Stanford from 1977 to 1993, and continued his research until last year. He also taught at Harvard.

In 1987, he was named president of the American Epidemiological Society.

Dr. Paffenbarger is survived by his wife, the former Jo Ann Schroeder. The couple lived in Berkeley, Calif., before moving to Santa Fe about a year ago. Dr. Paffenbarger’s first wife, Mary Dale Higdon, died in 1988.

He is also survived by a daughter, Ann Dow of Portland, Ore.; three sons, Charles, of Berkeley; Timothy, of Oakland, Calif.; and Dr. Ralph S. Paffenbarger III, a dentist, of Ann Arbor, Mich., all from his first marriage; and four grandchildren.

Reflecting on his own late conversion to exercise, a habit that eventually included running 50 miles or more a week, Dr. Paffenbarger said, “By the second week, I was hooked.”

He continued: “I found it invigorating. I could consider my thoughts and conflicts, I could prepare letters, ponder problems, prepare talks.”

From the New York Times

Obituary of Epidemiology Legend: George W. Comstock

2007-09-02T08:44:00.000-04:00

George W. Comstock, M.D. Dr.P.H.

July, 2007

Dr. George W. Comstock, an epidemiologist who made major contributions to the treatment and prevention of tuberculosis and was regarded by many peers as the world’s foremost expert on the disease, died Sunday at his home in Smithsburg, Md. He was 92 and had worked until last week.

The cause was cancer of the prostate, said the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, where Dr. Comstock taught for more than 40 years.

Two sets of studies by Dr. Comstock in the 1940s and ’50s had a critical impact on the federal government’s response to tuberculosis. One set led public health officials to reject the tuberculosis vaccine known as BCG, which had been under consideration for routine use among American children.

The second series of studies led the health profession to adopt the use of the drug isoniazid (INH) as a mainstay in treating tuberculosis, which mainly affects the lungs and remains a leading killer in the world today.

Many BCG vaccines are used throughout the world. By the late 1940s, one such vaccine had been found effective in two trials in the United States. But the government wanted further research and dispatched a team led by Dr. Comstock to conduct studies among schoolchildren in Georgia and Alabama from 1947 to 1950. The studies found that the vaccine was largely ineffective. Public health officials then decided against routinely vaccinating children in the United States with BCG.

On receiving an award from the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases for his work, Dr. Comstock said he suspected he was the first person to be so honored for persuading people not to use a vaccine.

Dr. Comstock attributed the discrepancies among the trials to variations in different strains of the BCG vaccine and a lack of standard manufacturing techniques. Later, genetics studies documented that there was no uniformity among BCG vaccines, said Dr. Richard E. Chaisson, a tuberculosis researcher at Johns Hopkins.

In 1957, the United States Public Health Service sought a doctor to study tuberculosis patterns in Alaska, where one of every 30 natives was in a tuberculosis hospital. Dr. Comstock volunteered, saying he saw an opportunity to study preventive treatment.

He conducted a controlled trial in 29 villages near Bethel, Alaska, where tuberculosis was rampant. Members of each household were given the drug INH or a placebo for a year, Dr. Chaisson said.

The study showed the effectiveness of INH in preventing tuberculosis: after a year, INH produced a 70 percent decline in cases of the disease; a follow-up study five years later showed the drug’s benefit had been sustained.

In the trial, Dr. Comstock and his family took INH themselves to convince the participants of his belief in the therapy’s safety, Dr. Chaisson said. After the trial, Dr. Comstock returned and gave INH to those who had received the placebo.

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest guidelines on INH therapy use Dr. Comstock’s data to this day.

George Wills Comstock was born in Niagara Falls, N.Y., on Jan. 7, 1915, the son of George Frederick Comstock, a metallurgical engineer, and Ella Gardner Wills Comstock. He entered Antioch College planning to become a metallurgist.

While working eventually on the vitamin deficiency disease pellagra, for the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, he developed an interest in nutritional diseases. He went on to earn a medical degree from Harvard Medical School in 1941 and a master’s degree and a doctorate in public health from the University of Michigan and Johns Hopkins, respectively.

In medical school, Dr. Comstock, a thin, considerate man who stood about 6 feet 6 inches, rejected his parents’ wish that he study piano and instead bought a recorder, using money he had made by selling his blood for transfusions, a customary means of income for medical students in those days. Later, he took up the bassoon and played in symphony orchestras.

He interned with the Public Health Service and later became chief of its tuberculosis epidemiologic studies. After he retired from the agency in 1962, he moved to Johns Hopkins. He was editor of the American Journal of Epidemiology from 1979 to 1988.

Dr. Comstock founded the Johns Hopkins Training Center for Public Health Research and Prevention in Hagerstown, Md., where for 30 years he oversaw community-based research studies on cancer, heart disease and an eye disease known as histoplasmosis. The center was renamed for Dr. Comstock in 2005.

He was a lifelong advocate of public health efforts and expressed disappointment in later years that more doctors were not devoting their services to it. In an interview in 2003, Dr. Comstock said that members of medical school faculties had little contact with public health departments.

Dr. Comstock was preceded in death by his first wife, of 60 years, Margaret Karr Comstock, and his sister, Ruth Comstock Dunlap. He is survived by his wife, the former Emma Lou Davis; two sons, Dr. Gordon Frederick Comstock of Arcade, N.Y., and Dr. Lloyd Karr Comstock of Chapel Hill, N.C.; a daughter, Martha Wills Comstock Williams of Marietta, Ga.; five grandchildren; one great-granddaughter; two stepchildren, Jonathan Davis and Anna Davis; and two step-grandchildren.

From the New York Times

Message from SER President: Impact of NIH Peer Review Process on Epidemiology

2007-08-17T19:38:00.000-04:00

From the president of SER:

Dear SER Colleagues:

As many of you know, NIH is about to make important changes to its grant applications peer review system. A blue ribbon committee has been established (http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun2007/od-08.htm) by NIH Director Zerhouni to lead this effort. Currently, there are no epidemiologists on this committee and most members are bench scientists. Therefore, it is important that epidemiologists make their views known.

NIH has created a website to receive comments from scientists regarding what changes should be made. The perception is widespread among our membership, and among members of other major epidemiology societies, that grant applications to the NIH from epidemiologists are not being funded for reasons having more to do with the problems in the process of peer review and composition of study sections than with the actual merits of the grant application.

Therefore, the SER executive board would like to encourage you to read the NIH (one page) solicitation for comments and then submit comments/recommendations that might well improve our chances to receive better informed, and more balanced, reviews by NIH study sections. The deadline for submitting your comments/recommendations is September 7, 2007; the URL is http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-074.html . There is an online comment form at this site. You may need to copy the above links and paste them into your web browser.

Please act on this at your earliest opportunity.

Sincerely,

Sherman A. James, PhD
SER President

2007 Journal Impact Factors for leading medical and science journals (2006 citation data)

2007-07-14T16:47:00.000-04:00

2007 Impact Factors for leading medical and science journals
(newly released for journal citation data in 2006)
(Source: ISI Journal Citation Reports impact factors tabulated from each journal's public website)

General (internal) medicine

New England Journal of Medicine 51.3
Nature Medicine 28.6
The Lancet 25.8
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) 23.2
Annals of Internal Medicine 14.8
Public Library of Science (PLOS) Medicine 13.8
British Medical Journal (BMJ) 9.2
Archives of Internal Medicine 7.9
Canadian Medical Association Journal 6.9
Medicine 5.2

Basic Science and Biology

Science 30.0
Cell 29.2
Nature Immunology 27.6
Nature 26.7
Nature Genetics 24.2
Nature Materials 19.2
Nature Cell Biology 18.5
Immunity 18.3
J Clinical Investigation 15.8
PLOS Biology 14.1
Molecular Cell 14.0
Developmental Cell 13.5
J Cell Biology 10.2
PNAS 9.6

(note: review journals are not included)

Old 2006 impact factor rankings (using 2005 journal citation data)

Student Resources at 2007 Boston SER Conference

2007-05-31T11:45:00.000-04:00

As a reminder to students attending the June 2007 Society for Epidemiologic Research (SER) conference in Boston, there are a wealth of resources and opportunities for students on the SER website: http://www.epiresearch.org/meeting/students.html

These include registrations for:

Breakfast Round Table Session: Breakfast with the Experts
Guided Poster Tours (with experts)

Seminars:

Workshop on Developing an Epidemiologic Research Project
The Role of the Epidemiologist in the Multidisciplinary Research Environment
What Do Editors Look for in a Manuscript: A Chat with an AJE Editor
SER-Student Caucus Business Meeting (SER-SC homepage: http://www.epiresearch.org/students/index.html)

--> SER conference registration can be found at: http://www.epiresearch.org/meeting/reginfo.html

Higher ‘femininity' in men and decreased risk of death from coronary heart disease

2007-05-31T07:47:00.001-04:00

An interesting recent study published in IJE regarding degree of 'feminity' in men and risk of CHD mortality... however the methods are rather vague on the definitions of 'feminity' or the index components.

Decreased risk of death from coronary heart disease amongst men with higher ‘femininity’ scores: a general population cohort study
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/dym022v1

Comments on this study are welcome.

Should the NIH R01 Grant Application Be Shorter? Results of National Public Survey and NIH Peer Review Advisory Committee

2007-05-31T07:23:00.000-04:00

At the recent NIH Peer Review Advisory Committee (PRAC) meeting, co-chairs of the NIH Grant Application Committee presented responses to the NIH’s Request for Information (RFI): Possible Page Limit Reduction For the Research Plan Section of the Research Project Grant (R01) Application submitted by over 5,000 applicants and reviewers.

Background:

Applicants and reviewers often express that the R01 grant application focuses too much on detailing methods and not enough on scientific significance and impact
NIH grant applications are very long and take a lot of time to write and to peer-review
Insufficient numbers of quality reviewers willing to review grants

An preliminary analysis of responses indicate that the most supported shortening the grant application. Of the total responses submitted, committee members then analyzed 500 randomly selected responses in detail. Based on this input, the committee made the following recommendations:

The research plan section of the application should be shortened—a majority favored 15 pages
Instructions to applicants and reviewers should be modified to emphasize impact
Sections of the application should be more closely aligned with the review criteria

Other selected findings:

Health Budget: U.S. Federal Government FY 2008

2007-04-22T04:06:00.000-04:00

SUMMARY OF BUSH ADMINISTRATION FY’ 08 HEALTH BUDGET

On February 5, 2007, the President Bush released his FY ’08 Budget. This budget would increase discretionary spending to $929.8 billion, an increase of $57 billion or 6.5%. But fully $53.5 billion of the total increase will go to security programs – defense, homeland security, and international affairs. Domestic discretionary programs, such as health care and education, will grow by only 1%, or $3.5 billion. Below is a brief summary of the President’s FY ’08 proposals for health programs of interest to the academic medical community.

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH – TOTAL FUNDING: $29.8 BILLION, a cut of 1.7% or $511 million below the FY 07 Continuing Resolution that is currently funding federal programs. The President’s Budget includes a $300 million transfer from NIH to the Global AIDS fund, reducing the available total for NIH to $28.321 billion. The cut from FY ’07 is further reduced when the biomedical inflator, expected to be above 3%, is factored in.

Individual Institutes: except for the NIAID, which would receive a $210 million increase, no other institute would receive more than a $7 million increase.
The NIH Director - increase of $38 million.
Road Map for Medical Research – $486 million, a 17% increase. The Road map includes interdisciplinary research involving different Institutes.
Grant Support – the Administration emphasized in its announcement that despite the overall cut for NIH, the budget would allow funding for 10% more new grants than in 2006. This will translate to 10,188 new grants and competitive renewals, indicating an increase close to the 10,411 new grants funded in 2003, the final year of the doubling of the NIH budget process. The Administration explained that it is able to provide these grant increases because currently funded multi-year grants will not receive inflationary increases. The grant success rate will remain at about 20%, or about 1 in 5 grants (by comparison, in 2001, the rate was 1 in 3).
National Research Service Awards – 17,520 training positions supported.
Pathways to Independence - $31 million, doubled from previous year for these five-year research grants for post-doctoral researchers.
National Children’s Study – 0 funding. This program, which is intended
to track 100,000 children from birth to adulthood, with special attention to autism, diabetes and other childhood diseases, is expected to cost $2.7 billion and was considered too expensive, in light of other priorities.
Executive Level I Salaries – $168,000, by reducing NIH, SAMHSA, and AHRQ extramural Level I grant salaries to ’07 Executive Level II. The current Executive Level I rate is $186,600.

Other health and science programs:

Ryan White HIV/AIDS programs - $2.2 billion, an increase of $95 million.
Health Professions Training - $10 million, a cut of $135 million that eliminates all Title VII programs but Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students.
Title VII Student Loan Rescissions – approximately $105 million cut, achieved by the Administration recalling the federal portion of Title VII and VIII student loans programs that include Health Professions Student Loan, Loans for Disadvantaged Students, Primary Care Loans, and Nursing Student Loans. Institutions would be required to return all uncommitted loan funds, amounting to approximately $4 million per institution.
National Health Service Corps - $116 million, a $7.2% decrease from ’07. $31 million would come from the NHSC field program, and $85 million from the NHSC recruitment appropriations, which provides scholarship and loan repayment awards.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) - $330 million, an increase of $11 million. Patient safety would receive $34 million, Personalized Health Care Initiative $15 million, and health information technology $45 million, including $26 million for the Ambulatory Patient Safety Program.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): would receive $5.8 billion, a 5.9% cut. $93 million of this total would be committed to increased testing for HIV/AIDS among high-risk populations; $138 million, a $1 million cut from FY ’06, would go towards injury prevention and control; and public health research would receive $31million. The Preventive Services Block Grant, funded at $99 million in FY ’06, would be eliminated. The National Center for Health Statistics would receive $109 million, derived from transfers from other agencies.
Bioterrorism Preparedness: The Health Research Services Administration (HRSA) would receive level funding at $474 million for preparedness, but its training and curriculum development programs would be cut 43% to $ 9 million.
CDC biodefense would total $1.7 billion, including $593 million for the Strategic National Stockpile, $3 million for botulinum toxin research, $824 for state and local preparedness, and $136 for CDC’s own preparedness capacity.
NIH would receive $1.9 billion for biodefense.
Veterans Administration:
VA Research would receive a total of $414 million, a decrease of $13 million, or 3.0% below FY ’06. The VA estimates that this funding will support 2,045 research projects, - 66, or 3.2% below FY ’06. The total funding would support:
Medical and Prosthetics Research funded at $399 million, 3.2% below FY’ 06;
Research IT, the VA’s contribution to the new national IT Fund, funded at $15 million, $50 thousand more than last year.
VA Medical Care: would receive $33.075 billion, a 12.1 % increase. The Administration is depending on legislation that would increase veterans’ enrollment fees and pharmacy co-pays to generate additional funds (but also decrease veterans’ enrollment).
National Science Foundation: would receive a 7.9% increase for a total of $6.020 billion. This increase is part of the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative, aimed at strengthening the country’s research and development in the physical sciences. Of the overall total, NSF Research – would receive $4.666 billion (a 7.7% increase).

Abstract Submission: American College of Epidemiology 2007 Annual Meeting

2007-04-10T22:31:00.000-04:00

ABSTRACT SUBMISSION DEADLINE EXTENDED FOR ACE 2007

The abstract deadline for submission to the 2007 annual meeting of the American College of Epidemiology has been extended to May 1st, 2007. Abstracts should be submitted electronically to info@acepidemiology.org.

The American College of Epidemiology invites the submission of abstracts for consideration for poster presentations. Poster presentations provide an opportunity for participants in the ACE annual meeting to hare their work with interested colleagues in an informal, relaxed setting. Poster sessions are prominently scheduled during the meeting. Poster sessions will include poster discussion groups and oral presentations by some authors. Your abstract will be published in the program.

For further information on submission guidelines, visit: http://www.acepidemiology2.org/meetings/2007Miami/2007AMCallforAbstracts.asp

There will be five student travel awards, $1000 each, given to graduate students or post-doctoral trainees who completed their research as graduate students. Don't miss this opportunity to share your research with your colleagues and to attend the annual meeting of the American College of Epidemiology in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida from September 15-18, 2007.

Society for Epidemiologic Research- Student Caucus Executive Council leadership - Call for self-nominations of officers

2007-04-08T22:38:00.000-04:00

Society for Epidemiologic Research Student Caucus leadership - Call for self-nominations

***UPDATE: The call for self-nominations deadline for positions on the SER-SC executive council has been extended until April 20th 2007***

Dear epidemiology student and post-doctoral trainees:

The SER-SC is gearing up to the 2007 SER Annual Meeting where the SER Student Caucus SER-SC will begin its fourth year. SER-SC is a student organization (additionally open to post-docs, trainees, and fellows) and and student-initiated program focused on opening new possibilities for addressing student members' professional needs.

A call for self-nomination for officers and committee chairs for the SER-SC
executive council: Self-nominations - a 250-word personal statement – will be accepted from March 31, 2007 to April 20, 2007. Officers must be either current SER dues-paying student members, or a student who will become an SER member by the annual meeting.

Position descriptions, procedures for self-nomination and an election time line are described below. The newly elected leadership will assume responsibilities immediately following the Annual Meeting held this year in Boston, MA and will be effective during the June 2007-June 2008 year. The incoming president elect and other officers are strongly encouraged to attend the annual meeting. For more information on the annual meeting and student room-share options go to http://www.epiresearch.org.

Please direct specific questions to the current SER-SC nominations committee chair Vasanti Malik at vmalik@hsph.harvard.edu. Please write "nominations" in the e-mail subject line.

Thanks,
Vasanti Malik—SER-SC Nominations Chair

For more information about SER-SC please visit:
http://www.epiresearch.org/students/studentinfo.php

To become a Student Member of SER, please visit:
http://www.epiresearch.org/renew/memberform.html

Also please take note of new websites!!

Epidemiology Fellowship board
Epidemiology Job board

Students can sign up at both sites to receive fellowship and/or job listing alerts.

Positions in the SER-Student Caucus’ Leadership

We are currently accepting nominations for officers and chair/co-chair positions in the SER – Student Caucus (SER-SC). Holders of these positions, officers and chairs, will constitute the SER-SC Executive Council. These positions will be in effect for the June 2007-June 2008 year.

If you are a student member of SER or interested in becoming a member and would like to nominate yourself for a leadership position in the SER-Student Caucus, please write a brief personal statement (250 words) pertaining to the position you're interested in. The self-nomination statement will be accepted from March 31 to April 20, 2007. The statement should include:

--A short bio - e.g. school, interests etc.
--Previous experiences or pertinent skills you have developed that will enable you to serve the SER-SC Executive Council effectively.
--Priority issues you would work on, if elected.

Please send your personal statement to the current nominations chair of the SER student caucus , Vasanti Malik at vmalik@hsph.harvard.edu . Contact Vasanti if you have any questions about the positions or initial procedures.

Description of available SER-SC Executive Council positions:

The President Elect

assume the position of Interim President if the President is temporarily unable or unavailable to attend to duties;
preside over the SER-SC Business Meeting if the President is unable to attend;
preside over any SER-SC meetings/conference calls if the President is unable to attend;
assist President with the oversight of all Standing and Ad Hoc Committees;
represent the SER-SC to the SER Executive Board and other organizations if the President is unable to do so;
fulfill other duties as assigned by the President;
assume the position of President following the term as President Elect.

The Secretary/Communications

record and send the minutes of all official meetings of the SER-SC and official correspondence to the SER-SC Executive Committee after each SER-SC Executive Committee meeting;
resent semi-annual reports to the SER-SC Executive Committee;
make all reports to the Executive Committee available to the general membership via the SER-SC listserve and/or website;
provide administrative support to all Standing and Ad Hoc committees;
forward important announcements for posting on the website to the SER staff;
promote the Annual SER Meeting and SER-SC sponsored programs and other events;
review and update SER-SC bylaws as necessary

Nominations/Membership Committee Chair(s)

serve as chair of the Membership Committee and Nominations Committee;
assist SER Executive Board and SER staff in all membership outreach and recruitment;
encourage involvement by the membership in the SER-SC Executive Committee and committee leadership and affairs;
coordinate and oversee the nomination and election of officers. If the Membership/Nominations chair(s) him/herself is running, then another SER-SC member will be appointed by the president to also oversee the elections process;
verify SER membership status of all nominees for positions in the SER-SC Executive Committee;
implement election procedures according to the timelines and process specified in the Bylaws;
disseminate results of elections to the membership;
present semi-annual reports to the SER-SC Executive Committee;
recruit SER Champions and SER-SC Champions ;
disseminate information to SER Champions and SER-SC Champions

Program Committee Chair(s)

serve as chair of the Annual Meeting Programs Committee;
encourage and solicit ideas and suggestions from the general membership regarding Annual SER Meeting programming, specifically for SER-SC sponsored workshops, panels, poster sessions or presentations;
plan and implement SER-SC programs for the Annual SER Meeting plan and implement other programming events and services for the membership, as necessary;
present semi-annual reports to the SER-SC Executive Committee

Abstract Committee Chair/Treasurer(s)

serve as chair of the Abstract Committee and act as Treasurer for SER-SC;
develop, submit for SER-SC Executive Committee approval and maintain the annual budget;
present semi-annual financial reports to the SER-SC Executive Committee;
maintain and archive all financial records;
sign all checks in addition to the President;
promote abstract submission among student membership;
coordinate student abstract committee in order to facilitate review of abstracts submitted for the SER annual meeting;
assist in the SER student poster judging process as requested

Procedure and time line:

The 2007 election of the SER - Student Caucus leadership, will be implemented by the current nominations committee. Votes will be submitted via website ballot and tallied by SER staff, who will notify the nominations committee chair(s) of the results. All SER-SC members in good standing or those who will be members by the annual meeting are eligible to be nominated and to vote. All SER-SC Executive Council positions except for President elect may be held by a student member living outside the United States. This limitation is due to the financial costs of the President elect attending SER Executive Council Board Meetings and conference calls among SER-SC Executive Council officers should the president be unable to fulfill these duties. In the event of a tie for the position of president elect, a run-off election will occur, consisting of one week of additional voting. In the event of a tie for any other Executive council position, if both candidates agree, co-chairs are permissible, otherwise, a run-off election will occur, consisting of one week of voting. Committee co-chairs are permissible for the top two vote-receiving candidates in any position, providing both agree to share the office prior to the election. In the event of open positions on the ballot, space for write-ins will be included. For write-in candidates, it will be verified that he/she is interested in running for office, if so, an additional week of voting will take place. Information on when on-line voting will occur will be sent out after all nominations have been received.

A New 500,000-person National Cohort or Pooling Existing Cohorts?

2007-03-13T01:48:00.000-04:00

Recently, raging debates and power struggles have been looming in the world of epidemiology and genome research between two factions-- one supporting the establishment of a massive national cohort, the other supporting the approach of pooling existing large cohorts. Several leading scientists debated these opposing approaches in a recent pair of articles in Nature.

Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Institute of the NIH, envisions forming a massive cohort project of 500,000 participants to create a vast database of genetic and biomarker data linked to information about participants' geography, diet, lifestyle and many other factors. Collins cites the advantages of representativeness of the national cohort population, standardized methods of assessment, new technologies of assessment, updated exposure data, more current age cohort, wider age ranges, and more minorities participants.

In contrast, Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, backs a more efficient approach that pools existing cohort studies. Given the very tight government budget for medical research in recent years, he fears many other important high priority projects will get squeezed. Additionally, existing cohorts comprised of 1,400,000 participants with 845,000 biological samples can give answers quickly without waiting 10, 20, or 30 years or more.

READER POLL: What do you think- should we expand collaborative pooling of existing cohort studies, or initatiate a new large national cohort?

[an article from The Scientist picks up the rest of the story]...

"If it only cost a few hundred million dollars to start a new cohort, there wouldn't be much of an issue at all," Willett said. But with a projected cost of $3 billion or more for a study that includes subjects representative of the country's ethnicities and walks of life, "then it's going to displace a lot of other research at a time when research is being hugely squeezed," he said.

On the other hand, a new cohort study holds several advantages over a cohort that combines existing studies, said Collins. For instance, researchers could apply exactly the same methods to gather data from each subject, include enough minorities and other groups without statistical adjustments, collect data on entire lifespans, and employ the latest technology, such as mass spectrometers.

One advantage of larger cohorts that was not explored in the commentaries is that their standardized approach makes it easier to combine data on subjects, while some detail gathered by small cohorts could be lost when they are pooled, said Willett. When researchers examine pooled data, they must use a "common denominator" of data, potentially ignoring variables that had been gathered by some studies, he said.

But this drawback is partly countered by another advantage of pooled studies: time. In addition to its high cost, a new, large-scale cohort study will take as long as 10 years to produce any results, due to time-consuming planning and enrollment, as well as the time needed to research common diseases, argues Willett.

In contrast, combining existing cohorts would take much less time, given that most of the data already exist, Willett says. He lists 13 studies -- such as the Nurse's Health Study -- that he feels are suited for pooling, including about 1.4 million subjects and 845,000 biological samples. However, some are hesitant, as such a project would place nearly a large proportion of the resources in the hands of Harvard.

Willett estimates the kind of cohort study model he envisions might require a budget of $20 million to $50 million per year, with perhaps 50-75 percent coming from existing funding from smaller constituent cohort studies.

A pooled cohort project is "certainly a much more cost-efficient strategy," said Roberta Ness, chair of the University of Pittsburgh department of epidemiology. However Ness adds that "It won't get you everything -- there will be real limitations with respect to the age composition of the cohorts, the baseline data collection, [and standardization of] the specimen-collection techniques," she said.

A pooled cohort's shortcomings will hinder the study of diseases that develop early in life, such as asthma and major psychoses, because it would lack adequate data from children, argues Collins. He is also concerned that research into changing environmental factors, such as emerging infections, will suffer, because researchers using a pooled cohort might not concentrate on updating their information past a number of basic variables.

This isn't an insurmountable problem, insisted Carolyn Williams, chief of epidemiology in the division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that gaps like this are routinely filled in with existing pooled cohorts, where researchers check study subjects for a new set of variables once the cohorts have been pooled.

The NHGRI has already taken expensive steps toward a large cohort study, including its $40 million Genes and Environment Initiative, which is developing genotyping facilities, data analysis infrastructure, disease biomarkers, and better tools for measuring environmental exposures.

W. Willett, "Merging and Emerging Cohorts," Nature, January 18, 2007.
F. Collins, "Necessary but Not Sufficient," Nature, January 18, 2007.
C. Womack. Cohort models debated. [THE SCIENTIST 17th January 2007]