- Email: [email protected]
Latin American network promotes translational research
Newsdesk Latin American network promotes translational research
Bolivia
y ua
Claudia Orellana
Brazil Peru
ag
THE LANCET Oncology Vol 4 September 2003
theoretical scientist and the other a clinical doctor with an established practice. “This is the type of collaboration we aim to propagate in the network”, he states. Meanwhile, Diaz anticipates incremental growth for the network, with Chilean universities the most likely to join next. However, he cautions that in Latin America today such an institution can only hope to prosper if it continues to attract private sector funding and international aid.
r Pa
To help ensure that Latin American discoveries achieve their clinical potential, a molecular oncology network has been launched by researchers from Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. “Normally in Latin America the universities and research institutes fail to exploit their knowledge; they don’t develop, transfer or patent technology despite possessing the capacity to do so”, says Alberto Diaz, National University of Quilmes, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Sponsored by Genesica and supported by UNESCO, local universities, and research institutes, the initiative’s main objective is to translate research into products or services that make it into clinical practice. University research historically lacks long-term funding and is often narrowly focused. The network aims to enable research groups in different Latin American countries to establish joint ventures. Diaz gives the example of his own university working with the Butantan Institute, Sao Paulo, Brazil, to investigate the antitumour properties of peptides isolated from snakes by Brazilian researchers. Another of the network’s founder members, Jose Chabalgoity (Biotechnology Department, Hygiene Institute, School of Medicine, Montevideo, Uruguay), emphasises the need for research and remedies which are appropriate to the region: “The problem of buying technologies from the first world is that they are incredibly expensive for our health systems. It is paramount for us to create alternative diagnostic and treatment procedures that we can afford.” A longstanding obstacle to achieving these goals is the divide between laboratory investigation and clinical practice. The network plans to run technology transfer courses and workshops that bring researchers and doctors together. Chabalgoity also points to the School of Medicine’s new postgraduate programme in Uruguay which encourages young doctors to undertake research degrees with two personal tutors, one a
Chile Argentina
Uruguay
Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay form network.
NCI’s “special status” under review A high-profile committee has recommended that the US National Cancer Institute’s “special status”—as set out in the National Cancer Act—be reexamined. This proposal forms part of a comprehensive list of structural changes aimed at streamlining the National Institutes of Health (NIH; Bethesda, MD, USA). At the request of Congress, representatives from the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science (Washington, DC, USA), met to discuss structural changes to NIH. The panel did not recommend sweeping consolidation of institutes. “The committee did not believe that a wholesale consolidation is called for at this time because the costs—a lengthy, uncertain process and loss of support from many key constituencies, outweigh any benefits likely to be achieved”, stated Committee Chairman Harold Shapiro (Princeton University, NJ, USA), at the public briefing about the report. “NIH is an extremely strong organisation”, says Alan Leshner, a member of the discussion committee. “Therefore, you want mechanisms that will allow it to move from strength to strength. This is what our report aims to do.” The committee’s fourteen recommendations included suggestions that would enhance strategic plan-
ning, aid funding distribution, strengthen the office of the NIH Director, improve support for high-risk and innovative research, and reform the activities of the advisory council. Changes in the “special status” granted to the NCI by the National Cancer Act would have to be mandated by the US Congress. Leshner comments: “The perception that the NCI is independent from the rest of the NIH, whether true or not, implies that it doesn’t need to collaborate in the same way that other institutes do.” He adds that historically, NCI directors have been quite collaborative, but the idea that there’s something inherently different about the NCI, “detracts from the sense that you really can and do insist upon trans-NIH activities”. The committee’s report was issued shortly after the NIH announced establishment of a steering group to provide “crisp strategic direction” to the agency and streamline its decision-making processes. Although officials at NIH have refused to comment directly on the report, NIH Deputy Director Raynard Kington, in an interview with The Scientist, stated that the steering committee had been under consideration for several years, and would provide a good mechanism for considering the report’s recommendations. Mary Weideman
http://oncology.thelancet.com
For personal use. Only reproduce with permission from The Lancet.
523
Bolivia
y ua
Claudia Orellana
Brazil Peru
ag
THE LANCET Oncology Vol 4 September 2003
theoretical scientist and the other a clinical doctor with an established practice. “This is the type of collaboration we aim to propagate in the network”, he states. Meanwhile, Diaz anticipates incremental growth for the network, with Chilean universities the most likely to join next. However, he cautions that in Latin America today such an institution can only hope to prosper if it continues to attract private sector funding and international aid.
r Pa
To help ensure that Latin American discoveries achieve their clinical potential, a molecular oncology network has been launched by researchers from Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay. “Normally in Latin America the universities and research institutes fail to exploit their knowledge; they don’t develop, transfer or patent technology despite possessing the capacity to do so”, says Alberto Diaz, National University of Quilmes, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Sponsored by Genesica and supported by UNESCO, local universities, and research institutes, the initiative’s main objective is to translate research into products or services that make it into clinical practice. University research historically lacks long-term funding and is often narrowly focused. The network aims to enable research groups in different Latin American countries to establish joint ventures. Diaz gives the example of his own university working with the Butantan Institute, Sao Paulo, Brazil, to investigate the antitumour properties of peptides isolated from snakes by Brazilian researchers. Another of the network’s founder members, Jose Chabalgoity (Biotechnology Department, Hygiene Institute, School of Medicine, Montevideo, Uruguay), emphasises the need for research and remedies which are appropriate to the region: “The problem of buying technologies from the first world is that they are incredibly expensive for our health systems. It is paramount for us to create alternative diagnostic and treatment procedures that we can afford.” A longstanding obstacle to achieving these goals is the divide between laboratory investigation and clinical practice. The network plans to run technology transfer courses and workshops that bring researchers and doctors together. Chabalgoity also points to the School of Medicine’s new postgraduate programme in Uruguay which encourages young doctors to undertake research degrees with two personal tutors, one a
Chile Argentina
Uruguay
Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay form network.
NCI’s “special status” under review A high-profile committee has recommended that the US National Cancer Institute’s “special status”—as set out in the National Cancer Act—be reexamined. This proposal forms part of a comprehensive list of structural changes aimed at streamlining the National Institutes of Health (NIH; Bethesda, MD, USA). At the request of Congress, representatives from the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science (Washington, DC, USA), met to discuss structural changes to NIH. The panel did not recommend sweeping consolidation of institutes. “The committee did not believe that a wholesale consolidation is called for at this time because the costs—a lengthy, uncertain process and loss of support from many key constituencies, outweigh any benefits likely to be achieved”, stated Committee Chairman Harold Shapiro (Princeton University, NJ, USA), at the public briefing about the report. “NIH is an extremely strong organisation”, says Alan Leshner, a member of the discussion committee. “Therefore, you want mechanisms that will allow it to move from strength to strength. This is what our report aims to do.” The committee’s fourteen recommendations included suggestions that would enhance strategic plan-
ning, aid funding distribution, strengthen the office of the NIH Director, improve support for high-risk and innovative research, and reform the activities of the advisory council. Changes in the “special status” granted to the NCI by the National Cancer Act would have to be mandated by the US Congress. Leshner comments: “The perception that the NCI is independent from the rest of the NIH, whether true or not, implies that it doesn’t need to collaborate in the same way that other institutes do.” He adds that historically, NCI directors have been quite collaborative, but the idea that there’s something inherently different about the NCI, “detracts from the sense that you really can and do insist upon trans-NIH activities”. The committee’s report was issued shortly after the NIH announced establishment of a steering group to provide “crisp strategic direction” to the agency and streamline its decision-making processes. Although officials at NIH have refused to comment directly on the report, NIH Deputy Director Raynard Kington, in an interview with The Scientist, stated that the steering committee had been under consideration for several years, and would provide a good mechanism for considering the report’s recommendations. Mary Weideman
http://oncology.thelancet.com
For personal use. Only reproduce with permission from The Lancet.
523