Translational research: Crossing the valley of death

Abstract

more than half a century ago to serve the nation's public health, and its mission now is to pursue fundamental knowledge and apply it "to reduce the burdens of illness and disability". So when employees at the agency have to check their name tag, some soul searching must be taking place. There is no question that the NIH excels in basic research. What researchers such as Schechter are asking is whether it has neglected the mandate to apply that knowledge. Outside

Modern Approaches to the Organization of Translational Research

“…E.g., Fitzgerald Center in Philadelphia (functioning under the CTSC program) launched analysis of adverse effects of the use of the selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX2) inhibitors, which are no longer manufactured due to a proven increased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, in 2006. Scientists are looking for the biomarkers, which will help to identify the patients, who were not affected by therapy-induced complications, in order to improve this class of drugs [28].…”

Close to the bench as well as at the bedside: involving service users in all phases of translational research

“…While there have been extraordinary advances in the basic sciences in the last few decades (e.g. the mapping of the human genome, the vigorous growth of the neurosciences), there is concern that this progress has not led to many significant cures and that a Ôvalley of deathÕ 4 has opened between basic and clinical research. Contopoulos-Ioannidis et al, 5 for example, found 101 articles published in basic science journals between 1979 and 1983 that explicitly stated that the technologies studied had novel therapeutic or preventive promise; by 2002, only five of those findings were licensed for clinical use.…”

Translational biomedicine in action: Constructing biomarkers across laboratory and benchside

“…From a scientific perspective, this argument has been justified by claiming the weakness of experimenting on animal models for the production of clinically relevant evidence (Contopoulos-Ioannidis et al, 2003;Butler, 2008;Shanks et al, 2009). From a socio-organisational perspective, some authors have insisted that the main factors hampering the construction of epistemological and institutional dialogue between bench and bedside are the divergent objectives, role expectations and different professional cultures that characterise physicians and scientists.…”