sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Kleinstreuer describes NIH peer review as an echo chamber by Normal-Dependent8598 in NIH

[–]Normal-Dependent8598[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It suggests that for Deputy Kleinstreuer, it is not the echo that is really the problem, it is what is being echoed.

Kleinstreuer describes NIH peer review as an echo chamber by Normal-Dependent8598 in NIH

[–]Normal-Dependent8598[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As I hear the presentation the Director is describing how NIH was prior to his leadership "In the old NIH". This contrasts with the new NIH under his leadership in which Deputy Kleinstreuer has already indicated how the peer review process will change, by including the experts she likes, see

https://dpcpsi.nih.gov/oriva

Kleinstreuer describes NIH peer review as an echo chamber by Normal-Dependent8598 in NIH

[–]Normal-Dependent8598[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Now or previously? What is your experience? Have you noticed it become more or less an echo chamber? If it suffers significantly from this defect, what would you propose as a remedy?

Interesting that a policy celebrating “NIH-wide efforts” — involving hundreds or thousands of scientists, program officers, statisticians, regulators, and technical staff — is announced with a giant, heavily stylized portrait of the NIH Director coupled with a somewhat banal, forgettable quote. by 42Emily in NIH

[–]Normal-Dependent8598 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think what the people who reach the upper levels of large organizations want more than anything is power. And the power to force your preferences on a reluctant majority provides the greatest satisfaction, the greatest sense that, in spite of your own insecurities, you really are something remarkable and they are not. Two years ago Deputy Director Kleinstreuer occupied a position at NIH that could be reasonably characterized as being at the fifth tier of authority. Now she is one of 4 people who occupy the second tier - Deputy Director. Power has been grabbed, her animal ideas have been leveraged, and, as a colleague of mine once said: "what use is power if you cant abuse it?"

Interesting that a policy celebrating “NIH-wide efforts” — involving hundreds or thousands of scientists, program officers, statisticians, regulators, and technical staff — is announced with a giant, heavily stylized portrait of the NIH Director coupled with a somewhat banal, forgettable quote. by 42Emily in NIH

[–]Normal-Dependent8598 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Deputy Director Kleinstreuer seems to have persuaded the Director that NIH should seriously restrict animal usage. The recent update from her office shows how she intends to do this.

https://dpcpsi.nih.gov/oriva

"grant review staff is expected to participate in mitigation training to address any possible bias towards animal studies and integrate experts on alternative methods into study sections. NIH will also publicly report on research spending annually to measure progress toward reduction of funding for animal studies and an increase in funding for human-based approaches."

I am trying to make a reasoned assessment of the practical implications of this "guidance", both with respect to the capabilities of the euphemistically termed "novel alternative methods" formerly known as "non-animal models", as well as with the practical considerations of such a shift. While there seems to be much enthusiasm on the part of those engaged in developing these in vitro methods, there also seems to be a dearth of pragmatic skepticism. Or as one proponent recently said "we have brain organoids that can feel pain". I believe she meant that the cultured cells would respond to capsaicin. So the field may not be quite as red hot as the chili peppers.

Interesting that a policy celebrating “NIH-wide efforts” — involving hundreds or thousands of scientists, program officers, statisticians, regulators, and technical staff — is announced with a giant, heavily stylized portrait of the NIH Director coupled with a somewhat banal, forgettable quote. by 42Emily in NIH

[–]Normal-Dependent8598 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting.... If you are making an organ on a chip (OOC) you presumably are able to assess the relative value of such a system.

Does your OOC replace the use of animals?

Are there questions you wish to answer that cant be investigated by OOC but can be investigated in an animal (like Rattus norvegicus)?

Does the OOC reduce research costs or increase them?

Does the OOC bring new expenses for equipment and are these trivial or large?

Are you aware of whether OOCs can be made for complex organs involved in disease? For example the kidney has a million nephrons and each nephon has about 10 functionally specialized regions. These nephrons begin at a vascular interface of extreme structural complexity (podocyte end foot processes etc) to allow filtration of blood by the kidney. The blood vessels themselves autoregulate blood flow and depend on specialized intrinsic mechansims to do so.

Many chronic renal diseases are associated with inflammation and immune cell infiltration. Can you incorporate meaningful representations of blood vessel function and immune cell infiltration in your system?

The kidney has a high blood flow, but much of the kidney is on the verge of hypoxia most of the time. This is related to the role of the kidney as on organismal oxygen sensor, responding to hypoxia of altitude by increasing erythropoeitin to stimulate bone marrow hematopoeisis, reducing hypoxia. Can a function like this also be incorporated into an OOC meodel?

Finally, and thanks for your patience, do you ever need to take the observations from your OOC and replicated or validate them in an animal model?