ASH Clinical News ACN_4.5_FULL_ISSUE_DIGITAL - Page 42

BACK of the BOOK Heard in the Blogosphere ASH @ASH_hematology Today, @SenatorTimScott & @SenBooker introduced a bill authorizing grants that will improve data collections & access to care for people with #SickleCell disease. Alexis Thompson, MD, MPH, 2018 ASH president @DrAlexisThompsn Once again so proud that @ASH_hematology has taken a leadership role in advocating on this important issue. Kudos also to the @ConquerSCD coalition @SCDAAorg and others working to unify and amplify SCD voices to improve outcomes through research and treatment. Remedying the Shortage of Health-Care Providers? “Why has so little attention been paid to the number and quality of health-care providers? Physician education, licensing, and credentialing are determined by an alphabet soup of organizations that change at a glacial pace. Their roles and interactions are difficult to delineate, … and this complexity makes change difficult. … While insurance and health expenditures continue to grab the headlines, let’s not ignore the vital role of health providers in the health-care equation. We need more providers who are better suited to the challenges and opportunities of tomorrow’s world, and there is no legitimate reason why we shouldn’t start getting them today.” —Jeffrey S. Flier, MD, on solutions for the looming health-care provider shortage, in The Boston Globe Protect the “Petri Dish Warriors” Jordan Gauthier, MD, MSc @drjgauthier I cannot help but wonder: Considering my background – lower-middle class boy raised by a single mother – would I have become a physician, had I been born in the US? I doubt I would have ever been able to afford medical school. Mike Thompson, MD, PhD @mtmdphd It’s a crazy world we live in when I need to start a new Evernote file on “Post Truth” for social media. #scicomm Anita J. Kumar, MD @anitajkumarMD Good friend is told she needs to urgently be induced today (baby is okay). First response is “You have to give me 4 hours to go close all my EPIC charts!” #SumsUpMedicine Chadi Nabhan, MD, MBA @chadinabhan Could Alexa write, edit, revise, or review manuscripts? Asking for a friend? ... Follow ASH and ASH Clinical News on: @ASH_Hematology, @BloodJournal, @BloodAdvances, and @ASHClinicalNews Facebook.com/AmericanSocietyofHematology @ASH_Hematology 40 ASH Clinical News “Basic science may not make a great meme, but curiosity-driven research helps us understand how nature works at the most fundamental level. … Research often is hard to explain to those not directly exposed to it. It’s self-driven, has a lot of failures, takes long periods of time and has a certain randomness to it. People want to know what will happen if they fund a specific line of research, and the honest answer is that we don’t know. … Research funding faces an uphill battle because it’s not easy to invest in something you can’t see or hold in your hands. But that’s exactly what we must do if we are to find cures for diseases such as breast cancer and Alzheimer’s.” —Rebecca Blank and Brad Schwartz, MD, call for increasing research funding in the U.S. budget, in The Hill Pulling Peer Review out of the 17th Century? The technology that drives science forward is forever accelerating, and some scientists are concerned that the peer review system is hav- ing trouble keeping pace. On NPR’s “Weekend Edition,” investigators discussed the potential drawbacks and advantages to modernizing the peer review system. “What we want to see happen next is to allow the scientists who are reading papers [as part of their normal work] to review them. … The fact that people are going to be reviewing and assessing the work ... should provide a very strong incentive back to authors to try to produce work that’s actually reproducible and durable, rather than work that is just flashy and gets into the right journal.” —Michael Eisen, PhD, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) investigator at University of California, Berkeley “[By the time a study is ready to publish], peer review is not going to help. It doesn’t matter how transparent the peer review is, we’re not going to be able to solve [a study design’s fundamental] problem.” —Michael Lauer, MD, deputy director for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health “To me, [the fact that scientists are judged by which journal publishes their work] is one of the very biggest problems in the system today, and it drives a lot of [unwanted] behavior. ... Science moves slower because research isn’t available immediately.” — Erin O’Shea, PhD, president of HHMI “There’s a worry that the Wild West version [of preprint publishing, where] everyone posts what they like, will lead to a lot more garbage out there that people can’t make out what to make of it. … For a while we’ll see a parallel track where the journals still provide some imprint of thorough review, statistical review, methodological review, [and preprints will] allow the community to share more with each other much more rapidly.” —Theodora Bloom, PhD, executive editor of The BMJ April 2018