Gary Gibbons
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
August 13, cardiologist Gary Gibbons became director of 3 billion National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) $. Gibbons, who turns 56 next week, is the third largest National Institutes of Health (NIH) component of Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, where he founded a research center which studied cardiovascular diseases among minorities. Previously, he was a faculty member at Stanford University and Harvard Medical School.
Gibbons served this year on a working group that advised NIH on how to promote diversity. It was formed after a study found that among scientists that require NIH research grant, blacks had a success rate of 10 percent points less than whites. Part of his reason for coming to NHLBI, said Gibbons was to address this problem. It will maintain a laboratory at the National Clearinghouse on Minority Health and Health Disparities.
Gibbons spoke with Science Insider last week; his remarks were published.
Q: Why were you interested in this position?
g.g. I think this organization has an inspiring and noble mission. It is one that resonates with me as a clinical scientist. I am always motivated me to address scientific issues that have implications for patients and patient care and public health. And what is it.
Similarly, an essential part of the NHLBI mission of this institute about to train the next generation. And I have a passionate commitment especially to expand the diversity of biomedical workforce. This position gives me the opportunity to really pursue that goal.
Q: What motivates you to continue the public service
GG: One of my heroes growing up was my mother, who exemplified this notion of community service, giving back. This comes from his personal experience as an orphan growing up in the Great Depression. Its survival was due to the kindness of strangers. She has always felt compelled to give back. That value system was instilled in us as children. I wear in this kind of family tradition.
Q: What was your reaction to the report in August 2011 to find a low success rate for African American scientists who apply for NIH research grants?
g.g. Having a life experience, it is not surprising that there are differences. I think it is also clear that even if we think we have a review system superb peers, outcomes and results are not always driven only by the assumption that was written and specific objectives. There are other factors that come to bear and race happens to be one of them, apparently. But what institution you are also delivered in the analysis as well.
One of the key points [the diversity working group] report is that it can be assumed that part of the reason why people in some institutions, say the first 25, outperform those of other institutions that have less funding from the NIH perhaps they are not as well supported by people who are successful senior investigators who know the best strategies to receive funding.
I am encouraged that it is something remediable. This mentoring is something we can do more accessible to candidates and I hope it is something that we can expect to tackle.
Q: How will you balance priorities in a flat budget NHLBI
GG: The success of NHLBI is based on sustainable principles including being a priority investment in the fundamental basic science discovery. This will be a main part of our portfolio. Another key element is a balanced portfolio that appreciates the basis of additional value, translational, clinical and scientific population. I think it is essential that we maintain this balance because they all mutually reinforcing.
Q: Do you have to think more if you can finance large clinical trials
GG: It will be important to take careful consideration in ensuring that each of our budget lines that we are more strategic, thinking about the profitability of our approaches. ...
I can understand that the clinical trial costs can attract attention within our overall budget, but I think it is also important to step back and recognize the impact of these tests. Many of them are truly transformative to change the way we treat patients.
Q: What are the major challenges ahead
gg. One is: We are in the midst of an obesity epidemic . And we have children who start to get the risk factors for cardiovascular disease at an age earlier and earlier. This has an incredible impact on our nation and our public health. And so it will be very important to work on preventive measures that can be a mediator obesity-related cardiovascular disease. ...
This will take a multidimensional approach. There is certainly the basis of scientific discovery to be done that can help narrow the effect of obesity on cardiovascular disease. In terms of clinical investigation, there may be opportunities to intervene in ways such as inflammation in a prevention strategy.
To be more provocative, we tend to think of [heart, lung, and blood diseases] that chronic diseases. Hypertension is something that you just forever. You take a pill forever. And yet, what we learn in the fields of biology remedial in terms of epigenomics, these advances suggest ways to intervene so that can delete or restart the body's memory and modify these processes such as atherosclerosis that span decades and change the natural history [of these conditions].
We often get jealous of our colleagues in oncology [who] about the remission of the disease. We are not quite there, but these are the boundaries that we would be happy to continue.
0 Komentar