Recent scandals and controversies, such as data fabrication in federally funded science, data manipulation and distortion in private industry, and human embryonic stem cell research, illustrate the importance of ethics in science. Responsible Conduct of Research, now in a completely updated second edition, provides an introduction to the social, ethical, and legal issues facing scientists today.

The second edition of this innovative work again provides a unique perspective on the clinical discovery process by providing input from experts within the NIH on the principles and practice of clinical research. Molecular medicine, genomics, and proteomics have opened vast opportunities for translation of basic science observations to the bedside through clinical research. As an introductory reference it gives clinical investigators in all fields an awareness of the tools required to ensure research protocols are well designed and comply with the rigorous regulatory requirements necessary to maximize the safety of research subjects. Complete with sections on the history of clinical research and ethics, copious figures and charts, and sample documents it serves as an excellent companion text for any course on clinical research and as a must-have reference for seasoned researchers.*Incorporates new chapters on Managing Conflicts of Interest in Human Subjects Research, Clinical Research from the Patient's Perspective, The Clinical Researcher and the Media, Data Management in Clinical Research, Evaluation of a Protocol Budget, Clinical Research from the Industry Perspective, and Genetics in Clinical Research *Addresses the vast opportunities for translation of basic science observations to the bedside through clinical research*Delves into data management and addresses how to collect data and use it for discovery*Contains valuable, up-to-date information on how to obtain funding from the federal government

This report provides an assessment of NIH's programs for increasing the participation in biomedical science of individuals from underrepresented minority groups. The report examines, using available data and the results of a survey of NIH trainees, the characteristics and outcomes of programs at the undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral, and junior faculty levels. The report provides recommendations for improving these programs and their administration. It also recommends how NIH can improve the data it collects on trainees in all NIH research training programs so as to enhance training program evaluation.

EPIDEMIOLOGISTS ARE SCIENTISTS who study diseases and other health risks within specific populations, such as geographical areas, cultures, occupations, demographic groups, or those who are genetically connected. They are "disease detectives," so-called because they are the investigators who discover how and where disease outbreaks start, then find ways to prevent them from spreading and recurring in the future. It is believed that the first epidemiologist was Hippocrates, who studied how the outbreaks of different diseases correlated with environmental factors in Ancient Greece. That was nearly 2500 years ago. Since then, epidemiologists have saved millions of lives. They prevented the return of the Black Plague, identified how AIDS was transmitted, and quickly put a stop to the recent outbreak of Ebola in the US. These are just a few historical examples. The types of diseases that epidemiologists study are vast, ranging from food poisoning, to "clusters" of children with cancer, to mad cow disease. The work of epidemiologists is based on intense research, which involves the collection of samples and data, and the application of statistical analysis. Much of it is accomplished in laboratories, but many of these professionals never set foot in a lab. Instead, they might be found in hospitals informing the medical staff of infectious outbreaks, or developing containment solutions for infections within the facility. Some work for pharmaceutical companies working on new drugs or monitoring vaccine development. Others may be out in epidemic ravaged communities, ensuring public safety as quarantine officers or investigating possible toxic agents in the environment. Still others are employed in the academic world, teaching and conducting research at universities. To do this work, epidemiologists must be good with numbers, particularly statistics, in order to collect and accurately analyze data. That skill is of primary importance, but there is plenty more to learn before entering this career. You should expect to spend about six years following high school acquiring a master's degree in public health (MPH) or a related field, such as health, biology, medicine, or statistics. When exploring an epidemiology career, you will find plenty of attractive features. For example, you will be generously compensated for your contribution to the public health of the world. The working conditions are generally excellent, the hours rarely include overtime, and travel is an option for those who want to experience other cultures. The future looks bright for future epidemiologists. The United States is placing a high priority on building up the nation's public health workforce. There are many questions that bright, energetic people are needed to help answer. What does this mean for you? It means that with a degree in public health, you will enjoy unparalleled job security and a career path filled with advancement opportunities. Best of all, you will be working in an exciting field that offers the personal and professional satisfaction of saving countless lives.

In 2006 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program, recognizing the need for a new impetus to encourage clinical and translational research. At the time it was very difficult to translate basic and clinical research into clinical and community practice; making it difficult for individual patients and communities to receive its benefits. Since its creation the CTSA Program has expanded, with 61 sites spread across the nation's academic health centers and other institutions, hoping to provide catalysts and test beds for policies and practices that can benefit clinical and translation research organizations throughout the country. The NIH contracted with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2012 to conduct a study to assess and provide recommendations on appropriateness of the CTSA Program's mission and strategic goals and whether changes were needed. The study was also address the implementation of the program by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) while exploring the CTSA's contributions in the acceleration of the development of new therapeutics. A 13-member committee was established to head this task; the committee had collective expertise in community outreach and engagement, public health and health policy, bioethics, education and training, pharmaceutical research and development, program evaluation, clinical and biomedical research, and child health research. The CTSA Program at NIH: Opportunities for Advancing Clinical and Translational Research is the result of investigations into previous program evaluations and assessments, open-session meetings and conference class, and the review of scientific literature. Overall, the committee believes that the CTSA Program is significant to the advancement of clinical and translational research through its contributions. The Program would benefit from a variety of revisions, however, to make it more efficient and effective.

A rising median age at which PhD's receive their first research grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is among the factors forcing academic biomedical researchers to spend longer periods of time before they can set their own research directions and establish there independence. The fear that promising prospective scientists will choose other career paths has raised concerns about the future of biomedical research in the United States. At the request of NIH, the National Academies conducted a study on ways to address these issues. The report recommends that NIH make fostering independence of biomedical researchers an agencywide goal, and that it take steps to provide postdocs and early-career investigators with more financial support for their own research, improve postdoc mentoring and establish programs for new investigators and staff scientists among other mechanisms.

Professionals in need of such training and bioethicists will be interested.

Nervous system diseases and disorders are highly prevalent and substantially contribute to the overall disease burden. Despite significant information provided by the use of animal models in the understanding of the biology of nervous system disorders and the development of therapeutics; limitations have also been identified. Treatment options that are high in efficacy and low in side effects are still lacking for many diseases and, in some cases are nonexistent. A particular problem in drug development is the high rate of attrition in Phase II and III clinical trials. Why do many therapeutics show promise in preclinical animal models but then fail to elicit predicted effects when tested in humans? On March 28 and 29, 2012, the Institute of Medicine Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders convened the workshop "Improving Translation of Animal Models for Nervous System Disorders" to discuss potential opportunities for maximizing the translation of new therapies from animal models to clinical practice. The primary focus of the workshop was to examine mechanisms for increasing the efficiency of translational neuroscience research through discussions about how and when to use animal models most effectively and then best approaches for the interpretation of the data collected. Specifically, the workshop objectives were to: discuss key issues that contribute to poor translation of animal models in nervous system disorders, examine case studies that highlight successes and failures in the development and application of animal models, consider strategies to increase the scientific rigor of preclinical efficacy testing, explore the benefits and challenges to developing standardized animal and behavioral models. Improving the Utility and Translation of Animal Models for Nervous System Disorders: Workshop Summary also identifies methods to facilitate development of corresponding animal and clinical endpoints, indentifies methods that would maximize bidirectional translation between basic and clinical research and determines the next steps that will be critical for improvement of the development and testing of animal models of disorders of the nervous system.