User login
A consensus document that summarizes the status of basic, translational, and clinical hematology research and identifies areas of unmet scientific and medical needs in Europe has been published in the February 2016 issue of Haematologica.
“For the first time, hematologists in Europe came together to develop a road map to guide hematology research in Europe,” Professor Andreas Engert, chair of the European Hematology Association’s Research Roadmap Task Force, said in a written statement. “Hematology ... must focus and collaborate to be efficient and remain successful in improving patient outcomes.”
Some 300 experts from over 20 countries in Europe helped to draft the road map. A wide variety of stakeholders, such as national hematology societies, patient organizations, hematology trial groups, and other European organizations, were consulted to comment on the final draft.
“The document reflects the views of the hematological research community in Europe, Professor Tony Green, president of the European Hematology Association (EHA), noted in the statement. “This is crucial if we want to convince policy makers to support the realization of this important research.”
“With an aging population, the slow recovery from the financial and Euro crises, costly medical breakthroughs and innovations – quite a few of which involve hematology researchers, Europe faces increased health expenditures while budgets are limited,” Professor Ulrich Jäger, chair of the EHA European Affairs Committee, said in the statement. “So it is our responsibility to provide the policy makers with the information and evidence they need to decide where their support impacts knowledge and health most efficiently, to the benefit of patients and society. ... Now it is up to the policy makers in the EU to deliver, too.”
You may find the full article in Haematologica 2016 Jan. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2015.136739.
In a time of restricted federal budgets, research funding becomes somewhat of a luxury. Yet, research and innovation are the primary movers of change and progress, both of which are needed to drive growth to ease budget restrictions. In order to ensure that precious resources are allocated to the most promising endeavors, federal governments establish bureaucracies charged with the task of allocating funding to the “best” proposals. Unfortunately, the task of defining “best” is imprecise and largely subjective.
To address this systemic deficiency and to improve the efficient allocation of resources, the scientific community often provides guidance to funding agencies to help choose among competing proposals. In 2015, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) announced its “Agenda for Hematology Research.” The agenda included recommendations to prioritize funding to projects in the following domains: genomic profiling and chemical biology, immunologic treatments of hematologic malignancies, genome editing and gene therapy, stem cell biology and regenerative medicine, epigenetic mechanisms, and venous thromboembolic disease.
 |
Dr. Matt Kalyacio |
More recently, the European Hematology Association has published its Roadmap for European Hematology Research. Ostensibly similar to the ASH Agenda, the EHA document is a much more detailed policy statement that calls out the most promising research opportunities across the nine major components of hematology: normal hematopoiesis, malignant lymphoid disorders, malignant myeloid disease, anemias and related diseases, platelet disorders, blood coagulation and hemostatic disorders, transfusion medicine, infections in hematology, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and other cell based therapies.
I find the two documents complementary in that the ASH Agenda is more accessible to grant reviewers and funding agencies, while the EHA Roadmap seems more directed to the scientific community. Whether a grant writer or a grant reviewer, these documents should help researchers focus their applications on preferred projects and help reviewers prioritize proposals.
While laudable in their goals globally, such consensus documents place much faith in the knowable future and less in the unknowable, disruptive future. Researchers with innovative ideas that do not fall into the prioritizations set forth by the community at large might find themselves struggling for resources. This unintended consequence of consensus building risks the loss of inspired science on the altar of groupthink. The “moonshot” championed by Vice-President Biden will be more likely to succeed when consensus science allows for novel approaches that have yet to be revealed.
Dr. Matt Kalaycio is the editor-in-chief of Hematology News and chairs the department of hematologic oncology and blood disorders at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland. Leave your comments on our website or write to Dr. Kalaycio at [email protected].
In a time of restricted federal budgets, research funding becomes somewhat of a luxury. Yet, research and innovation are the primary movers of change and progress, both of which are needed to drive growth to ease budget restrictions. In order to ensure that precious resources are allocated to the most promising endeavors, federal governments establish bureaucracies charged with the task of allocating funding to the “best” proposals. Unfortunately, the task of defining “best” is imprecise and largely subjective.
To address this systemic deficiency and to improve the efficient allocation of resources, the scientific community often provides guidance to funding agencies to help choose among competing proposals. In 2015, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) announced its “Agenda for Hematology Research.” The agenda included recommendations to prioritize funding to projects in the following domains: genomic profiling and chemical biology, immunologic treatments of hematologic malignancies, genome editing and gene therapy, stem cell biology and regenerative medicine, epigenetic mechanisms, and venous thromboembolic disease.
|
Dr. Matt Kalyacio |
More recently, the European Hematology Association has published its Roadmap for European Hematology Research. Ostensibly similar to the ASH Agenda, the EHA document is a much more detailed policy statement that calls out the most promising research opportunities across the nine major components of hematology: normal hematopoiesis, malignant lymphoid disorders, malignant myeloid disease, anemias and related diseases, platelet disorders, blood coagulation and hemostatic disorders, transfusion medicine, infections in hematology, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and other cell based therapies.
I find the two documents complementary in that the ASH Agenda is more accessible to grant reviewers and funding agencies, while the EHA Roadmap seems more directed to the scientific community. Whether a grant writer or a grant reviewer, these documents should help researchers focus their applications on preferred projects and help reviewers prioritize proposals.
While laudable in their goals globally, such consensus documents place much faith in the knowable future and less in the unknowable, disruptive future. Researchers with innovative ideas that do not fall into the prioritizations set forth by the community at large might find themselves struggling for resources. This unintended consequence of consensus building risks the loss of inspired science on the altar of groupthink. The “moonshot” championed by Vice-President Biden will be more likely to succeed when consensus science allows for novel approaches that have yet to be revealed.
Dr. Matt Kalaycio is the editor-in-chief of Hematology News and chairs the department of hematologic oncology and blood disorders at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland. Leave your comments on our website or write to Dr. Kalaycio at [email protected].
In a time of restricted federal budgets, research funding becomes somewhat of a luxury. Yet, research and innovation are the primary movers of change and progress, both of which are needed to drive growth to ease budget restrictions. In order to ensure that precious resources are allocated to the most promising endeavors, federal governments establish bureaucracies charged with the task of allocating funding to the “best” proposals. Unfortunately, the task of defining “best” is imprecise and largely subjective.
To address this systemic deficiency and to improve the efficient allocation of resources, the scientific community often provides guidance to funding agencies to help choose among competing proposals. In 2015, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) announced its “Agenda for Hematology Research.” The agenda included recommendations to prioritize funding to projects in the following domains: genomic profiling and chemical biology, immunologic treatments of hematologic malignancies, genome editing and gene therapy, stem cell biology and regenerative medicine, epigenetic mechanisms, and venous thromboembolic disease.
|
Dr. Matt Kalyacio |
More recently, the European Hematology Association has published its Roadmap for European Hematology Research. Ostensibly similar to the ASH Agenda, the EHA document is a much more detailed policy statement that calls out the most promising research opportunities across the nine major components of hematology: normal hematopoiesis, malignant lymphoid disorders, malignant myeloid disease, anemias and related diseases, platelet disorders, blood coagulation and hemostatic disorders, transfusion medicine, infections in hematology, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and other cell based therapies.
I find the two documents complementary in that the ASH Agenda is more accessible to grant reviewers and funding agencies, while the EHA Roadmap seems more directed to the scientific community. Whether a grant writer or a grant reviewer, these documents should help researchers focus their applications on preferred projects and help reviewers prioritize proposals.
While laudable in their goals globally, such consensus documents place much faith in the knowable future and less in the unknowable, disruptive future. Researchers with innovative ideas that do not fall into the prioritizations set forth by the community at large might find themselves struggling for resources. This unintended consequence of consensus building risks the loss of inspired science on the altar of groupthink. The “moonshot” championed by Vice-President Biden will be more likely to succeed when consensus science allows for novel approaches that have yet to be revealed.
Dr. Matt Kalaycio is the editor-in-chief of Hematology News and chairs the department of hematologic oncology and blood disorders at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland. Leave your comments on our website or write to Dr. Kalaycio at [email protected].
A consensus document that summarizes the status of basic, translational, and clinical hematology research and identifies areas of unmet scientific and medical needs in Europe has been published in the February 2016 issue of Haematologica.
“For the first time, hematologists in Europe came together to develop a road map to guide hematology research in Europe,” Professor Andreas Engert, chair of the European Hematology Association’s Research Roadmap Task Force, said in a written statement. “Hematology ... must focus and collaborate to be efficient and remain successful in improving patient outcomes.”
Some 300 experts from over 20 countries in Europe helped to draft the road map. A wide variety of stakeholders, such as national hematology societies, patient organizations, hematology trial groups, and other European organizations, were consulted to comment on the final draft.
“The document reflects the views of the hematological research community in Europe, Professor Tony Green, president of the European Hematology Association (EHA), noted in the statement. “This is crucial if we want to convince policy makers to support the realization of this important research.”
“With an aging population, the slow recovery from the financial and Euro crises, costly medical breakthroughs and innovations – quite a few of which involve hematology researchers, Europe faces increased health expenditures while budgets are limited,” Professor Ulrich Jäger, chair of the EHA European Affairs Committee, said in the statement. “So it is our responsibility to provide the policy makers with the information and evidence they need to decide where their support impacts knowledge and health most efficiently, to the benefit of patients and society. ... Now it is up to the policy makers in the EU to deliver, too.”
You may find the full article in Haematologica 2016 Jan. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2015.136739.
A consensus document that summarizes the status of basic, translational, and clinical hematology research and identifies areas of unmet scientific and medical needs in Europe has been published in the February 2016 issue of Haematologica.
“For the first time, hematologists in Europe came together to develop a road map to guide hematology research in Europe,” Professor Andreas Engert, chair of the European Hematology Association’s Research Roadmap Task Force, said in a written statement. “Hematology ... must focus and collaborate to be efficient and remain successful in improving patient outcomes.”
Some 300 experts from over 20 countries in Europe helped to draft the road map. A wide variety of stakeholders, such as national hematology societies, patient organizations, hematology trial groups, and other European organizations, were consulted to comment on the final draft.
“The document reflects the views of the hematological research community in Europe, Professor Tony Green, president of the European Hematology Association (EHA), noted in the statement. “This is crucial if we want to convince policy makers to support the realization of this important research.”
“With an aging population, the slow recovery from the financial and Euro crises, costly medical breakthroughs and innovations – quite a few of which involve hematology researchers, Europe faces increased health expenditures while budgets are limited,” Professor Ulrich Jäger, chair of the EHA European Affairs Committee, said in the statement. “So it is our responsibility to provide the policy makers with the information and evidence they need to decide where their support impacts knowledge and health most efficiently, to the benefit of patients and society. ... Now it is up to the policy makers in the EU to deliver, too.”
You may find the full article in Haematologica 2016 Jan. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2015.136739.
