Search

The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) recommended steps to redesign the process of developing the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) are based on 5 guiding principles (enhance transparency; promote diversity of expertise and experience; support a deliberative process; manage biases and conflicts of interest; and adopt state-of-the-art processes and methods). Using these principles and recommendations, the USDA and HHS updated the process for developing the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines, including the process for appointing members and managing the work of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Modifications included having public comment on the topics and questions to be addressed by the Federal Advisory Committee, reviewing professional and financial activities on potential appointees to the committee prior to their appointment, redesigning the website to provide status updates on the work of the committee as analytical frameworks and draft conclusions were developed, strengthening the approaches for conducting systematic reviews, and adding a public meeting for discussion of the final report before its submission to the Secretaries of the USDA and HHS. Because the DGA is reviewed and updated every 5 y, it is possible to learn from each cycle what works well and where improvements in the process can be implemented. The current article illustrates, from the perspective of the advisory committee, the impact of the NASEM report on the development of the scientific report by examining changes in the process consistent with the 5 principles.

Objectives: To summarize the major activities of the International Academy of Health Sciences Informatics (IAHSI) in the 2020 time period and to welcome its 2020 Class of Fellows. Method: Report from the members of the Academy’s Board. Results: Due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, both Plenary meetings in 2020 had to be organized as virtual meetings. Scientific discussions, focusing on mobilizing computable biomedical knowledge and on data standards and interoperability formed major parts of these meetings. A statement on the use of informatics in pandemic situations was elaborated and sent to the World Health Organization. A panel on data standards and interoperability started its work. 34 Fellows were welcomed in the 2020 Class of Fellows so that the Academy now consists of 179 members. Conclusions: There was a shift from supporting to strategic activities in the Academy’s work. After having achieved organizational stability, the Academy can now focus on its strategic work and so on its main objective.

This paper presents newly discovered evidence from the personal correspondence of four US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) Genetics Panelists that their 1956 report to the public was written by a third party and was neither reviewed nor approved by the Panel prior to its publication and release to the public. The letters revealed that the 1956 Report contained serious errors and did not represent the views of the Panel. The failure of the US NAS to notify the public that the Report had not been reviewed and approved by the Panel represents a serious breach of ethics. Further ethical issues relate to the failure of the NAS to (1) correct the errors in the Report within an appropriately timely manner and (2) reveal the lack of approval by the Panel even after the Report's release. In light of these discoveries and the profound historical-and continuing-significance of the 1956 Report to all conventional cancer-related risk assessment processes, we opine that this ethical improbity must be acknowledged and that this document must be retracted by the NAS.

The present paper provides a summarized identification of critical historical milestones in the discovery of the flawed and corrupt foundations of cancer risk assessment, with particular focus on the LNT Dose Response model. The milestone sequence presented herein is based on a large body of published findings by the author. The history of LNT and cancer response represents what may be the most significant case of scientific misconduct reported in the US, with its revelation severely damaging the scientific credibility and moral authority of leading US regulatory agencies and organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the journal Science. The consequences of this corrupt history are substantial, affecting cancer risk assessment throughout the world, critical aspects of national economies, the development of critical technologies and public health practices.

Cell biologist Sandra L. Schmid has compared some of her skills to that of a watchmaker. “I like to take things apart, put them back together, and understand exactly how they work,” she explained in an essay commemorating the American Society for Cell Biology’s 50th anniversary (1). For much of the past 40 years, she has uncovered the molecular mechanisms and regulation of clathrin-mediated endocytosis (CME), the major pathway for uptake of materials into cells. Her laboratory pioneered studies of the large protein dynamin, revealing its role in CME and linking certain of its functions to cancer. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2020, Schmid led a rigorous analysis of endocytic accessory proteins, resulting in a new model for the complex CME process reported in her Inaugural Article (2). The article is Schmid’s last from her own laboratory, which she is closing at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center to focus on her new position as the first Chief Scientific Officer at the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub (CZ Biohub) in San Francisco. Sandra L. Schmid. Image credit: David Gresham (UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX). Schmid was born in Vancouver, Canada. Her father was a high school teacher who coauthored the textbooks she used in science classes in grades 8 to 10. She says, “By the third grade, I knew I wanted to be a scientist.” Her mother was also an important influence. While raising Schmid and her three siblings, her mother served as a respected community leader who led a nonprofit cooperative housing organization that placed thousands of low-income and middle-income families into safe homes. Schmid’s decision to focus on cell biology was made while she was a student at the University of British Columbia and during a class taught by biologist Beverly Green. “She revealed the …

Advances in the biological sciences have led to an ongoing paradigm shift in toxicity testing based on expanded application of high-throughput in vitro screening and in silico methods to assess potential health risks of environmental agents. This review examines progress on the vision for toxicity testing elaborated by the US National Research Council (NRC) during the decade that has passed since the 2007 NRC report on Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century (TT21C). Concomitant advances in exposure assessment, including computational approaches and high-throughput exposomics, are also documented. A vision for the next generation of risk science, incorporating risk assessment methodologies suitable for the analysis of new toxicological and exposure data, resulting in human exposure guidelines is described. Case study prototypes indicating how these new approaches to toxicity testing, exposure measurement, and risk assessment are beginning to be applied in practice are presented. Overall, progress on the 20-year transition plan laid out by the US NRC in 2007 has been substantial. Importantly, government agencies within the United States and internationally are beginning to incorporate the new approach methodologies envisaged in the original TT21C vision into regulatory practice. Future perspectives on the continued evolution of toxicity testing to strengthen regulatory risk assessment are provided.

This work summarizes the review undertaken by a joint committee of the European Science Foundation and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine into the transfer of viable organisms from the surface of Mars to its moons-Phobos and Deimos-as a consequence of a giant impact on the martian surface. The possibility that viable organisms could survive ejection from Mars and subsequent deposition on Phobos and Deimos is an important consideration in determining whether samples returned from the moons by spacecraft missions be classified as restricted or unrestricted Earth return in the consensus planetary protection guidelines maintained by the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) of the International Council for Science. Having reviewed recent research undertaken in Europe and Japan, the joint committee recommended that samples returned from the martian moons be classified as unrestricted Earth return. This paper is not intended to be a standalone work. Rather, it should be regarded as a summary of, and advertisement for, the material presented in the joint committee's formal report, Planetary Protection Classification of Samples Return Missions from the Martian Moons (the National Academies Press, 2019).

Primary care is well-poised to address unmet social needs that affect health. Integrated primary care is increasingly common and can be leveraged to facilitate identification of practice and clinician-level modifiable characteristics and assist practices to address unmet social needs for patients and families. A recent National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM)'s consensus report identified 5 critical system-level activities to facilitate the integration of addressing social needs into health care: awareness (ask patients), adjustment (flexible intervention delivery), assistance (intervention to address the social need), alignment (link with community resources), and advocacy (policy change). This article outlines how integrated primary care characteristics, such as routine screening, functional workflows, interprofessional team communication, and patient-centered practices, exemplify the NASEM report's activities and offer robust biopsychosocial tools for addressing social needs. We provide a case to illustrate how these strategies might be used in practice.

Todd R. Klaenhammer (1951–2021) dedicated his professional life to the study of bacteria of importance to food. He conducted his doctorate under the guidance of Larry McKay at the University of Minnesota, who inspired him to apply the newest advances in bacterial genetics to the lactic acid bacteria, responsible for many food fermentations. Todd stood out from his peers at an early age. He was offered a position and started his 40-year academic career in the prestigious Food Science Department at North Carolina State University before he had even defended his doctorate. Todd always had a singular focus. While most food scientists followed the lead of the funding agencies and “better” journals by working on foodborne pathogens responsible for infectious diseases, he preferred to study the beneficial bacteria associated with food. Todd forged his illustrious career by working on commercially important bacteria, such as the dairy starter cultures responsible for cheese fermentations and probiotics that were associated with diverse health benefits. Over his long career, Todd managed to combine fundamental science with commercially relevant research. It is a measure of his accomplishments that you could spend a long time in your university library reading the many influential scientific articles Todd wrote, but if you took a lunch break and went to the dairy section of the canteen you could also choose from a variety of cheeses that were made with phage-resistant starter cultures that he generated, or perhaps enjoy a yogurt formulated with some of the health-promoting probiotics he pioneered. Todd R. Klaenhammer. Image credit: North Carolina State University/Marc Hall. Throughout his career, Todd navigated the food microbiology research landscape with flair and intuition. He was always true to his favored lactic acid bacteria, but he repeatedly and skillfully adjusted the focus of his laboratory group, often leading the field … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: rbarran{at}ncsu.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

Summary The clinical application of genetics and genomics to advance precision health is one of the most dynamic and promising areas of medicine. In 2020, building on nearly 15 years of work, the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine undertook a strategic planning process to assess its strengths, consider the current challenges facing the field, and set out new goals for its future work. As a result, the Roundtable has updated its vision and mission and prioritized four major areas of inquiry—innovation, dialogue, equity, and adoption—while keeping true to its founding goal of providing a neutral convening space for the diversity of stakeholders in genomics and precision health. The Roundtable is unique for its breadth of membership and is committed to fostering a new era for precision health built on decades of expanding knowledge and the emergence of new technologies. To achieve its goals, the Roundtable seeks to broaden its membership’s diversity and to engage with new audiences. Roundtable members explore how evidence-based discoveries in genomics could be adopted and used in innovative ways to better serve human health, how equitable access to genomic and precision health technologies can be ensured, and how the Roundtable and broader genomics and precision health community can communicate more effectively to inform the public regarding genomics and precision health. As a first principle, the Roundtable is working to support the overall goal that all people benefit from genomics for precision health.

This paper demonstrates that unethical conduct by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Genetics Panel led to their recommendation of the Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) Model for radiation risk assessment and its subsequent adoption by the US and the world community. The analysis, which is based largely on preserved communications of the US NAS Genetics Panel members, reveals that Panel members and their administrative leadership at the NAS displayed an integrated series of unethical actions designed to ensure, (1) the acceptance of the LNT and (2) funding to radiation geneticist panel members and professional colleagues. These findings are significant because major public policies in open democracies, such as cancer risk assessment and other issues impacted by public fears of radiation or chemical exposures, require ethical foundations. Recognition of these ethical failures of the BEAR I Genetics Panel should require a high level administrative, legislative and scientific reassessment of the scientific foundations of cancer risk assessment, with the likely result necessitating revision of current policies and practices. The BEAR I Genetics Panel, 1956 Science journal publication should immediately be retracted because it contains deliberate misrepresentations of the scientific record that were designed to manipulate scientific and public opinion on radiation risk assessment in a dishonest manner.

U.S. scientists use words like disastrous, damaging, and catastrophic to describe the performance of President Donald Trump during his 45 months in office, citing his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, his repeated public dismissals of scientific expertise, and his disdain for evidence. But there are other aspects of the administration9s overall record that elicit a more positive response, including sustained funding for most research agencies and the high quality of many of the people he has chosen to manage those programs. On the eve of the 3 November presidential election, Science takes a close look at Trump9s complicated legacy in science.

On April 10, 2020, only about 2 months ago in this terrible year, PNAS published my editorial addressing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis (1), which, at that point, had killed more than 100,000 people around the world and more than 18,500 in the United States. The escalating spread, for which the United States was tragically unprepared, prompted a transformation in scientific publishing, undertaken in order to ensure “rapid communication of critically important scientific findings relating to the pandemic” that, in theory, could be applied to slow the spread of the virus and save lives. PNAS implemented several changes for COVID-related submissions, including expediting manuscript review and publishing COVID papers with a Creative Commons attribution (CC BY) license to allow widespread distribution. We weren’t alone in this effort; by May 13, Brainard (2) reported that an estimated 23,000 papers on COVID-19 had been published since January, to create “among the biggest explosions of scientific literature ever.” The social science community has successfully mounted an enormous effort to generate research on which recommendations for behaviors to minimize infection risk and spread could be based. Of the PNAS papers published or accepted on COVID-19 to date, for example, just over half (17 of 33) are in the social science arena. May R. Berenbaum. The year 2020, however, had more death in store. On June 5, a video surfaced of the killing of George Floyd, an African American resident of Minneapolis, MN, by a law enforcement officer. In the wake of several other deaths of African Americans in 2020 caused by current or former law enforcement officers without provocation or due process, the death of George Floyd ignited protests across the country and ultimately the world, with demonstrations in more than 700 cities and towns across all 50 states and on all continents …

When Christopher A. Walsh was still a teenager, his parents gave him a choice of either skipping a year of high school or a year of college. Deciding to forgo his high school senior year, Walsh found himself, just a month after turning 17, a freshman at Bucknell University with no clear idea of the subject in which he wanted to major. Christopher A. Walsh. Image credit: Boston Children’s Hospital and Katherine C. Cohen (photographer). A couple of months before college, Walsh received a letter inviting him to take an honors psychology course. Intrigued, Walsh enrolled in the class, which was taught by Alan Leshner, who later went on to direct the National Institute of Drug Abuse. “He was a totally inspiring and entertaining lecturer, and I just got really excited about studying the brain,” Walsh says. Walsh also took organic chemistry that first semester and realized he loved it. “I feel like that’s what I've been doing ever since, a combination of chemistry and psychology,” says Walsh. Over a distinguished career, Walsh has studied the genes and mechanisms mediating the development of the brain, specifically the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain responsible for human traits, such as intelligence, creativity, and language. His research has helped identify genes involved in human brain development and those underlying disorders associated with cerebral palsy, seizures, and autism. Walsh, who holds appointments at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, is a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator and was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2018. His Inaugural Article uses cutting-edge technology to address questions about cerebral cortex development (1). “It’s about the sequence of formation of the cells that form our organ of consciousness,” says Walsh. “This paper has a lot of personal meaning to me, since it uses …

The 2018 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, and Engineering (NASEM) on sexual harassment of women in academic sciences raised awareness in our community about the high prevalence of sexual harassment, the harm it causes, and the need for change at the systemic level and in our

Evaluation of ration balancing systems such as the National Research Council (NRC) Nutrient Requirements series is important for improving predictions of animal nutrient requirements and advancing feeding strategies. This work used a. literature data set (n = 550) to evaluate predictions of total-tract digested neutral detergent fiber (NDF), fatty acid (FA), crude protein (CP), and nonfiber carbohydrate (NFC) estimated by the NRC (2001) dairy model. Mean biases suggested that the NRC (2001) lactating cow model overestimated true FA and CP digestibility by 26 and 7%, respectively, and under-predicted NDF digestibility by 16%. All NR,C (2001) estimates had notable mean and slope biases and large root mean squared prediction error (RMSPE), and concordance (CCC) ranged from poor to good. Predicting NDF digestibility with independent equations for legumes, corn silage, other forages, and nonforage feeds improved CCC (0.85 vs. 0.76) compared with the re-derived NRC (2001) equation form (NRC equation with parameter estimates re-derived against this data set). Separate FA digestion coefficients were derived for different fat supplements (animal fats, oils. and other fat types) and for the basal diet. This equation returned improved (from 0.76 to 0.94) CCC compared with the re-derived NRC (2001) equation form. Unique CP digestibility equations were derived for forages, animal protein feeds, plant protein feeds, and other feeds, which improved CCC compared with the re-derived NRC (2001) equation form (0.74 to 0.85). New NFC digestibility coefficients were derived for grain-specific starch digestibilities, with residual organic matter assumed to be 98% digestible. A Monte Carlo cross-validation was performed to evaluate repeatability of model fit. In this procedure, data were randomly subsetted 500 tunes into derivation (60%) and evaluation (40%) data sets, and equations were derived using the derivation data and then evaluated against the independent evaluation data. Models derived with random study effects demonstrated poor repeatability of fit in independent evaluation. Similar equations derived without random study effects showed improved fit against independent data, and little evidence of biased parameter estimates associated with failure to include study effects. The equations derived in this analysis provide interesting insight, into how NDF, starch, FA, and CP digestibilities are affected by intake, feed type, and diet composition. Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant [2011-68004-30340]; USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Washington, DC) [2015-03656]; Papillon (Easton, MD) In addition to the funding sources listed in the title page footnote, funding for this project was provided by Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2011-68004-30340 and no. 2015-03656 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Washington, DC) and by Papillon (Easton, MD). The authors acknowledge the contributions of the late L. F. Reutzel (Land O'Lakes/Purina Mills) to portions of the initial code used in the project and the late Gale Bateman (Akey, Lewisburg, OH) for help in assembling and collating the dietary ingredient data.

This work evaluated the National Research Council (NRC) dairy model (2001) predictions of rumen undegradable (RUP) and degradable (RDP) protein compared with measured postruminal non-ammonia, nonmicrobial (NANMN) and microbial N flows. Models were evaluated using the root mean squared prediction error (RMSPE) as a percent of the observed mean; mean and slope biases as percentages of mean squared prediction error (MSPE), and concordance correlation coefficient, (CCC). The NRC (2001) over-estimated NANMN by 18% and under-estimated microbial N by 14%. Both responses had large mean biases (19% and 20% of MSPE, respectively); and NANMN had a slope Dias (22% of MSPE). The NRC NANMN estimate had high RMSPE (46% of observed mean) and low CCC (0.37); updating feed library A, B, and C protein fractions and degradation rate (K-d) estimates with newer literature only marginally improved fit. The re-fit NRC models for NANMN and microbial N had CCC of 0.89 and 0.94, respectively. When compared with a prediction of NANMN as a static mean fraction of N intake; the re-derived NRC approach did not have improved fit. A protein system of intermediate complexity was derived in an attempt to estimate NANMN with improved fit compared with the static mean NANMN model. In this system, postruminal appearance of A, B, and C protein fractions were predicted in a feed-type specific mariner rather than from estimated passage and degradation rates. In a comparison to independent data. achieved through cross-validation; the new protein system improved RMSPE (34 vs. 36% of observed mean) and CCC (0.42 vs. 0.30) compared with the static mean NANMN model. When the NRC microbial N equation was re-derived, the RDP term dropped from the model. Consequently, 2 new microbial protein equations were formulated, both used a saturating (increasing at a decreasing rate) form: one saturated with respect to TDN and the other saturated over increasing intakes of rumen degraded starch and NDF. Both equations expressed maximal microbial N production as a linear function of RDP intake. The function relating microbial N to intake of rumen degradable carbohydrate improved RMSPE (24 vs. 28% of the observed mean) and CCC (0.63 vs 0.30) compared with the re-derived NRC model. The newly derived equations showed modest improvements in model fit and improved capacity to account for known biological effects; however, substantial variability in NANMN and microbial N estimates remained unexplained. Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant [2011-68004-30340]; USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Washington, DC) [2015-03656]; Papillon (Easton, MD) In addition to the funding sources listed in the title page footnote, funding for this project was provided by Agricultural and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2011-68004-30340 and no. 2015-03656 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Washington, DC) and by Papillon (Easton, MD). The authors acknowledge the contributions of the late L. F. Reutzel (Laud O'Lakes/Purina Mills) to portions of the initial code used in the project and the late Gale Bateman (Akey, Lewisburg, OH) for help in assembling and collating the dietary ingredient data.

The objective of this work was to evaluate the precision and accuracy of the milk yield predictions made by the PREP10 model in comparison to those from the National Research Council (NRC) Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle . The PREP10 model is a ration-balancing system that allows protein use efficiency to vary with production level. The model also has advanced AA supply and requirement calculations that enable estimation of AA-allowable milk (Milk AA ) based on 10 essential AA. A literature data set of 374 treatment means was collected and used to quantitatively evaluate the estimates of protein-allowable milk (Milk MP ) and energy-allowable milk yields from the NRC and PREP10 models. The PREP10 Milk AA prediction was also evaluated, as were both models' estimates of milk based on the most-limiting nutrient or the mean of the estimated milk yields. For most milk estimates compared, the PREP10 model had reduced root mean squared prediction error (RMSPE), improved concordance correlation coefficient, and reduced mean and slope bias in comparison to the NRC model. In particular, utilizing the variable protein use efficiency for milk production notably improved the estimate of Milk MP when compared with NRC. The PREP10 Milk MP estimate had an RMSPE of 18.2% (NRC = 25.7%), concordance correlation coefficient of 0.82% (NRC = 0.64), slope bias of −0.14 kg/kg of predicted milk (NRC = −0.34 kg/kg), and mean bias of −0.63 kg (NRC = −2.85 kg). The PREP10 estimate of Milk AA had slightly elevated RMSPE and mean and slope bias when compared with Milk MP . The PREP10 estimate of Milk AA was not advantageous when compared with Milk MP , likely because AA use efficiency for milk was constant whereas MP use was variable. Future work evaluating variable AA use efficiencies for milk production is likely to improve accuracy and precision of models of allowable milk.

The 2017 Vilcek Prize in Biomedical Science has been awarded to Lily Y. Jan and Yuh Nung Jan, professors in the department of physiology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigators. The Jans are being recognized for demonstrating how ion channels contribute to neuronal signaling and how neurons acquire their cell fates and morphologies. Lily and Yuh Nung Jan. Image courtesy of Cindy Chew (photographer). Side view of a Drosophila larva, with body wall innervated by two types of sensory neurons (green and red). Image courtesy of Chun Han (Cornell University, Ithaca, NY). Dendritic arbor of Drosophila larval neuron. Image courtesy of Lily and Yuh Nung Jan. Vilcek Prizes—accompanied by an unrestricted cash award of $100,000 each—have been awarded annually since 2006 to prominent foreign-born biomedical scientists and artists. To recognize a younger generation of distinguished immigrant scientists, in 2009 the Vilcek Foundation also established annual Prizes for Creative Promise in Biomedical Science. Currently, three scientists, 38 years of age or younger, are selected for the latter awards, each carrying a cash prize of $50,000. The Jans are the first Chinese-born scientists to receive the main biomedical prize awarded by the Foundation. Today, numerous Chinese American scientists play invaluable roles in science and technology in the United States. By contrast, when the Jans arrived in this country in 1968 to pursue graduate studies, there were few scientists of Chinese origin in laboratories in this country. Perhaps even more significantly, the 2017 Vilcek Prizes reflect the fact that the proportion of foreign-born researchers among highly accomplished American scientists greatly exceeds the fraction of foreign-born people living in the United States. The remarkable achievements of these scientists attest to the vital and well-documented role of immigrants in sustaining the American economy. Beginning in 1979, neurologist … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: pnair{at}nas.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

International audience; Net energy and protein systems (hereafter called feed evaluation systems) offer the possibility to formulate rations by matching feed values (e.g., net energy and metabolizable protein) with animal requirements. The accuracy and precision of this approach relies heavily on the quantification of various animal digestive and metabolic responses to dietary changes. Therefore, the aims of the current study were, first, to evaluate the predicted responses to dietary changes of total-tract digestibility (including organic matter, crude protein, and neutral detergent fiber) and nitrogen (N) flows at the duodenum (including microbial N and undigested feed N together with endogenous N) against measurements from published studies by 2 different feed evaluation systems. These feed evaluation systems were the recently updated Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA, 2018) and the older, yet widely used, National Research Council (NRC, 2001) system. The second objective was to estimate the accuracy and precision of predicting milk yield responses based on values of net energy (NEL) and metabolizable protein (MP) supply predicted by the 2 feed evaluation systems. For this, published studies, with experimentally induced changes in either NEL or MP content, were used to calibrate the relationship of NEL and MP supply, with milk component yields. Based on the slope, root mean square prediction error, and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), the results obtained show that total nonammonia nitrogen flow at the duodenum was predicted with similar accuracy and precision, but considerably better prediction was achieved when the INRA model was used to predict organic matter and neutral detergent fiber digestibility responses. The average NEL and MP content predicted by both models was similar, but NEL and MP content of individual diets differed substantially between both models as indicated by determination coefficients of 0.45 (NEL content) and 0.50 (MP content). Despite these differences, this work shows that when response equations are calibrated with NEL and MP values either from the INRA model or from the NRC model, the accuracy and precision (slope, root mean square prediction error, and CCC) of the predicted milk component yields responses is similar between the models. The lowest accuracy and precision were observed for milk fat yield response, with CCC values in the range of 0.37 to 0.40, compared with milk lactose and protein yields responses for which CCC values were in the range of 0.75 to 0.81.

Globally, there are growing concerns about rates and consequences of loneliness, especially among older adults. In response, 2018 saw the launch of a UK loneliness strategy and the first minister for loneliness in the world appointed. In the USA, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine set up a special committee to examine the problem.1 Demographic shifts suggest that the numbers experiencing loneliness are likely to increase.However, it is important to recognise that most older adults are not chronically lonely and loneliness is also experienced by other age groups, especially young adults. Large gaps remain in our understanding of loneliness, rates and drivers of loneliness in different populations, its effect on health and wellbeing, and evidence on effective interventions. We believe loneliness can be defined as a subjective negative experience that results from inadequate meaningful connections, but neither definitions nor assessments of loneliness have achieved wide-scale consensus. The variety of scales and single-item measures of loneliness used to date should be standardised to advance knowledge with an agreed common set of valid measures.Currently, there is inadequate causal evidence of the consequences of loneliness but associations with poor health and wellbeing have been established. The evidence shows associations with depression, anxiety, non-communicable diseases, poor health behaviours, stress, sleep, cognition, and premature mortality (with the evidence especially strong for depression).2 However, further work is required to establish causality between loneliness and specific health outcomes, and vice versa, as well as to investigate social consequences that remain unclear.Structural and cultural changes (eg, technology and social media use) and societal forces (eg, perceptions and expectations around ageing and ageism) and their effect on loneliness also need to be better understood. The evidence base for loneliness interventions is characterised by poorly constructed trials with small samples, a lack of theoretical frameworks, undefined target groups, heterogeneous measures of loneliness, and short follow-up periods. Within this context the charity, voluntary or community sectors, and government are delivering programmes, often with inadequate empirical evidence.Key therapeutic elements of interventions must be identified, as well as their optimal intensity, frequency, and duration. Although inevitably more complex to implement and evaluate, evidence indicates that interventions must be tailored and matched to specific root causes of loneliness. This Correspondence is based on discussions from a meeting in Belfast, held in December, 2018, of international researchers that led to the establishment of an International Loneliness and social Isolation research NetworK (I-LINK) to drive this work. Research, policy, and practice can only benefit from a greater pooling of expertise and knowledge exchange to address this global challenge.

Molecular Reproduction and Development is delighted to announce that editorial board member Mariana F. Wolfner has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Here, Dr Wolfner is interviewed by two of her former postdocs. She discusses her path to studying reproduction and her career as a researcher and mentor.

The Ohio State University biological anthropologist Clark Spencer Larsen has conducted pioneering research on biocultural adaptation that occurred during the last 10,000 years of human evolution. He was among the first to apply multidisciplinary approaches to the study of temporal trends in diet, health, mobility, and interpersonal conflict. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in 2016, Larsen was part of a 25-year project at Catalhoyuk, a site in south-central Turkey that was continuously occupied for more than 1,150 years (7100–5950 BC). Larsen’s Inaugural Article (1) synthesizes his team’s bioarchaeological findings. These findings shed light on how early farming affected Catalhoyuk’s Neolithic societies and others, with impacts continuing to the present. Clark Spencer Larsen. Image courtesy of John Nixon (photographer). Larsen grew up in Beatrice, Nebraska. Near this town is the national monument and associated museum for the initial homestead following President Abraham Lincoln’s signing of the Homestead Act of 1863. “In my family’s first of many visits to the Homestead National Monument, my parents, Leon and Patricia Larsen, showed me artifacts associated with early pioneer settlement,” Larsen says. “As an 8-year-old, I was enthralled with what I was seeing. Ever since, I have continued to be interested in earlier people, especially those documented and interpreted by archaeologists and paleontologists.” By his early teens, Larsen decided that archaeology was to be his life’s work. Larsen’s mother facilitated a meeting at their home with late archaeologist R. Clark Mallam, who was teaching at the University of Nebraska. He advised Larsen to get fieldwork experience and to apply to Kansas State University (KSU). Larsen followed Mallam’s guidance. Days after graduating from Beatrice Senior High School, Larsen worked on an excavation project at Nebraska’s Fort Atkinson before attending KSU. As a KSU freshman, Larsen took a human osteology course taught by biological …

Harvard University experimental social psychologist Mahzarin Banaji is on the frontlines of the “implicit revolution,” a paradigm shift in psychology that, since the 1980s, has been reconceiving the relationship between unconscious and conscious mental processes. Banaji and her colleague Anthony Greenwald applied the concept to social psychology via the intertwined concepts of attitude, belief, and identity. In 1995, the duo defined implicit social cognition, introduced the term “implicit bias,” and foreshadowed the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to detect and measure automatic, unintentional biases. The IAT and other methods have enabled Banaji and her colleagues to uncover hidden biases in the form of attitudes and beliefs (stereotypes) of gender, race/ethnicity, age, sexuality, and other common social group identifiers. Elected in 2018 to the National Academy of Sciences, Banaji reports evidence in her Inaugural Article (IA) suggesting that implicit beliefs and attitudes are inextricably linked due to shared evaluative content. Photograph of Mahzarin Banaji. Image courtesy of Robert Taylor (photographer). Banaji was raised Zoroastrian in the Hindu and Muslim cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, India. “My family and I remained largely within the borders of a small and homogenous Parsi community, while voraciously learning about the world through the printed page,” she says. Her father Rustom shared his love of the arts with his children, but the scientist in Banaji was equally captivated by the inner workings of toys and mechanical objects. She says, “It seemed obvious that whatever was inside and hidden from view was infinitely more fascinating than whatever was outside and accessible.” Her mother Coomi was a teacher who, with Banaji’s aunt, opened a small school in their home. To keep her precocious daughter from getting bored, Coomi recruited five-year-old Banaji to mentor younger students. This continued until Banaji entered St. Ann’s, a local parochial school. Years later, after …

The National Academy of Sciences has come under pressure to address misconduct in recent years. The National Academy of Sciences has come under pressure to address misconduct in recent years.

A 2011 National Academies of Sciences report called for an “Information Commons” and a “Knowledge Network” to revolutionize biomedical research and clinical care. We interviewed 41 expert stakeholders to examine governance, access, data collection, and privacy in the context of a medical information commons. Stakeholders' attitudes about MICs align with the NAS vision of an Information Commons; however, differences of opinion regarding clinical use and access warrant further research to explore policy and technological solutions.

The National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council Twin Registry (NAS-NRC Twin Registry) is a comprehensive registry of White male twin pairs born in the USA between 1917 and 1927, both of the twins having served in the military. The purpose was medical research and ultimately improved clinical care. The cohort was assembled in the early 1960s with identification of approximately 16,000 twin pairs, review of service records, a brief mailed questionnaire assessing zygosity, and a health survey largely comparable to questionnaires used at that time with Scandinavian twin registries. Subsequent large-scale data collection occurred in 1974, 1985 and 1998, repeating the health survey and including information on education, employment history and earnings. Self-reported data have been supplemented with mortality, disability and medical data through record linkage. Potential collaborators should access the study website [http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Veterans/TwinsStudy.aspx] or e-mail the Medical Follow-up Agency at [Twins@nas.edu]. Questionnaire data are being prepared for future archiving with the National Archive of Computerized Data on Aging (NACDA) at the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), University of Michigan, MI.

Scientific integrity is at the forefront of the scientific research enterprise. This paper provides an overview of key existing efforts on scientific integrity by federal agencies, foundations, nonprofit organizations, professional societies, and academia from 1989 to April 2016. It serves as a resource for the scientific community on scientific integrity work and helps to identify areas in which more action is needed. Overall, there is tremendous activity in this area and there are clear linkages among the efforts of the five sectors. All the same, scientific integrity needs to remain visible in the scientific community and evolve along with new research paradigms. High priority in instilling these values falls upon all stakeholders.

The Endangered Species Act’s best available science mandate has been widely emulated and reflects a Congressional directive to ensure that decisions made under the Act are informed by reliable knowledge applied using a structured approach. We build on a standing literature by describing the role of the best science directive in the Act’s implementation and best practices that can be employed to realize the directive. Next we describe recurring impediments to realizing determinations by the federal wildlife agencies that are based on the best available science. We then identify the types of data, analyses, and modeling efforts that can serve as best science. Finally, we consider the role and application of best available science in effects analysis and adaptive management. We contend that more rigorous adherence by the wildlife agencies to the best available science directive and more assiduous judicial oversight of agency determinations and actions is essential for effective implementation of the Act, particularly where it has substantial ramifications for listed species, stakeholder segments of society, or both.

On September 23, 2016, Bruce M. Alberts was presented with the Lasker-Koshland Special Achievement Award in Medical Science, which honored him for “fundamental discoveries in DNA replication and protein biochemistry; for visionary leadership in directing national and international scientific organizations to better people’s lives; and for passionate dedication to improving education in science and mathematics” (1). In presenting the award to Alberts, Lasker Awards Jury Chair Joseph Goldstein compared him to the renowned chef Julia Childs, citing their common “missionary spirit, boundless curiosity, endearing klutziness, and a deep desire to teach and to teach well” (1). What an inspired comparison! The only addendum I would make to that description is “brilliant biochemist and public servant extraordinaire.” Bruce Alberts in his office at UCSF, Mission Bay, October 2014. Image courtesy of Christopher Reiger (photographer). Bruce began his scientific career as a graduate student at Harvard, working with Paul Doty, where he embarked upon his lifelong quest to understand the molecular mechanism of DNA replication. Legend has it that he failed his initial doctoral thesis defense because of a stubborn conviction that DNA could be replicated by a single enzyme, DNA polymerase. After his thesis committee delivered that rude wake-up call, and 6 months of additional work, Bruce passed with flying colors. From that experience he learned that the best experiments are those that provide insight into the biological question being posed, even if the outcome is not the one he either expected or hoped for. Bruce embarked on his independent career in 1966, first at Princeton University and then at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Having abandoned the one-enzyme hypothesis, he took a cue from the genetics of bacteriophage T4, which implied that DNA replication required at least six gene products. Bruce set about developing techniques to isolate and … [↵][1]1Email: smt{at}princeton.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

Pain is a significant public health problem that needs policy at the national and local level to resolve incidents of insufficient, ineffective, and disparate pain treatment while limiting the risk of inadvertently increasing the use of treatment such as opioids that can result in public harm. The National Pain Strategy serves as the first comprehensive approach to address pain and provides a roadmap with substantial broad and specific policy implications. Although much has been accomplished to date, transitions in political power, available data and funding, and the current opioid epidemic continue to have an impact on implementation of the National Pain Strategy. A sustained, coordinated effort with multipronged policies in many forms on both federal and state levels via regulations, laws, and guidelines is warranted. However, research is needed to evaluate the impact and potential unintended consequences of increased legislation and regulation. Nevertheless, policy related to the management of pain may provide the path to new treatments and models of care to reduce the impact of pain as a public health crisis in this country.

Mainstream film and television play a critical role in inspiring public interest in science. It can provide an enticing platform to share scientific information through storytelling. This requires collaboration between storytellers and scientists. However, such opportunities often lie outside the awareness or perceived interest of both filmmakers and scientists. The National Academy of Sciences therefore created The Science & Entertainment Exchange (The Exchange) to serve as a credible conduit to facilitate scientific input on film and television projects. In this paper, we combine Hollywood storytelling with academic research to describe the history, mission, and activity of The Exchange as a model for science engagement with the public. By connecting entertainment professionals to great science communicators, The Exchange aims to improve the science that appears in narrative mainstream media and generate positive portrayals of STEM professionals. Since its launch in 2008, The Exchange has completed more than 2300 consultations on films such as Avengers: Infinity War, A Wrinkle in Time, and Black Panther. Additionally, the program has produced more than 250 live events, primarily in New York and Los Angeles. Over the course of the program’s 8 years, it has built a guest list of 6000 entertainment professionals and scientists and created a database of more than 2700 science communicators. The Exchange’s ongoing work, as well as those of scientists, engineers, and medical professionals who take additional time to work as film and media consultants, improves STEM depictions and brings more science to the public through engaging stories. We discuss the future potential impact of popular media on science literacy and perception, and encourage scientists to embrace opportunities to use popular media to engage the public with science.

Fifteen years have elapsed since a report was released by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on the scientific status of polygraph testing. The NAS report concluded that the scientific basis of the comparison question technique (CQT) was weak, the extant research was of low quality, the polygraph profession's claims for the high accuracy of the CQT were unfounded, and, although the CQT has greater than chance accuracy, its error rate is unknown. Polygraph proponents argue that current research indicates that the CQT has 90% or better accuracy, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences' (2003) analysis supports this accuracy claim, and the CQT qualifies as legally admissible scientific evidence. We review the scientific literature that has appeared since the appearance of the NAS publication, including a new method for estimating polygraph accuracy. We show that the NAS report has been misrepresented and misinterpreted by those who support use of the CQT in forensic settings. We conclude that the quality of research has changed little in the years elapsing since the release of the NAS report, and that the report's landmark conclusions still stand. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

We have a problem in the academy. According to an extensive meta-analysis cited by the U.S. National Academies in their 2018 report [ Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine ][1], more than 50% of women faculty and staff at academic institutions in the United States report having been sexually harassed—as do some 20 to 50% of women students, depending on their field and level of study. ![Figure][2] PHOTO: NEIL ORMAN/AAAS > “The problem is systemic, as are its impacts…it hinders the process and progress of science.” As troubling as this is, the problem, according to the National Academies report, is particularly egregious in the sciences, engineering, and medicine (SEM). It notes that SEM environments have four main characteristics that contribute to the problem: They have long been dominated by men; at an organizational level, they tolerate sexually harassing behavior; their mentorship structure of a hierarchy of individuals based on expertise and professional position creates dependent relationships between trainees and faculty mentors; and they often isolate faculty and trainees for considerable periods of time in labs, field sites, clinics, and hospitals. None of this will come as a surprise to women who work or study in SEM fields. Many have experienced sexual harassment firsthand or know colleagues who have. This harassment distorts their environment and undermines the effectiveness of the communities in which they work. The problem is systemic, as are its impacts: It affects the physical and emotional health of victims and alters their career pathways and opportunities—it hinders the process and progress of science. It's time for systemic change. The scientific community must act with urgency to create an inclusive organizational culture and professional standards of behavior that will allow all of its members to reach their full potential. Recognizing this, last week the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the publisher of Science ) Council approved a new policy ([www.aaas.org/FellowsRevocation][3]) that defines sexual and gender-based harassment as a breach of professional ethics. The policy enables the revocation of elected AAAS Fellows “in cases of proven scientific misconduct, serious breaches of professional ethics, or when the Fellow in the view of AAAS otherwise no longer merits the status of Fellow.” The policy will go into effect on 15 October 2018. This is only one step among many that need to be taken in the months and years ahead. AAAS and other professional organizations can foster change by using their networks and influence to bring attention to policies and practices that support a culture of equality and integrity. Many scientific and engineering societies, funding organizations, and institutions are already doing important work on this front, but much remains to be done. To that end, AAAS will continue to host discussions across the national and international scientific community to facilitate the exchange and dissemination of policies, procedures, and best practices for the adoption and enforcement of professional standards. The goal to end sexual harassment across the scientific community is achievable only through sustained attention and commitment. Our community must no longer tolerate harassment in its labs, classrooms, clinics, hospitals, and other institutions. The health, quality of life, and productivity of all members of the scientific community depend on everyone's response to this problem. [1]: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24994/sexual-harassment-of-women-climate-culture-and-consequences-in-academic [2]: pending:yes [3]: http://www.aaas.org/FellowsRevocation

This paper summarizes the historical and scientific foundations of the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) cancer risk assessment model. The story of cancer risk assessment is an extraordinary one as it was based on an initial incorrect gene mutation interpretation of Muller, the application of this incorrect assumption in the derivation of the LNT single-hit model, and a series of actions by leading radiation geneticists during the 1946-1956 period, including a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Genetics Panel (Anonymous, 1956), to sustain the LNT belief via a series of deliberate obfuscations, deceptions and misrepresentations that provided the basis of modern cancer risk assessment policy and practices. The reaffirming of the LNT model by a subsequent and highly influential NAS Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) I Committee (NAS/NRC, 1972) using mouse data has now been found to be inappropriate based on the discovery of a significant documented error in the historical control group that led to incorrect estimations of risk in the low dose zone. Correction of this error by the original scientists and the application of the adjusted/corrected data back to the BEIR I (NAS/NRC, 1972) report indicates that the data would have supported a threshold rather than the LNT model. Thus, cancer risk assessment has a poorly appreciated, complex and seriously flawed history that has undermined policies and practices of regulatory agencies in the U.S. and worldwide to the present time.

This paper is an historical assessment of how prominent radiation geneticists in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s successfully worked to build acceptance for the linear no-threshold (LNT) dose-response model in risk assessment, significantly impacting environmental, occupational and medical exposure standards and practices to the present time. Detailed documentation indicates that actions taken in support of this policy revolution were ideologically driven and deliberately and deceptively misleading; that scientific records were artfully misrepresented; and that people and organizations in positions of public trust failed to perform the duties expected of them. Key activities are described and the roles of specific individuals are documented. These actions culminated in a 1956 report by a Genetics Panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR). In this report the Genetics Panel recommended that a linear dose response model be adopted for the purpose of risk assessment, a recommendation that was rapidly and widely promulgated. The paper argues that current international cancer risk assessment policies are based on fraudulent actions of the U.S. NAS BEAR I Committee, Genetics Panel and on the uncritical, unquestioning and blind-faith acceptance by regulatory agencies and the scientific community.

The position of the American College of Medical Toxicology (ACMT) and American Academy of Clinical Toxicology (AACT) is as follows:Fentanyl and its analogs are potent opioid receptor agonists, but ...

This article summarizes a presentation made in February 2017 as part of the National Academy of Sciences' Roundtable on Obesity Solutions webinar, "The Potential Role of Sleep in Obesity Prevention and Management: A Virtual Workshop." Briefly described are the patterns of childhood sleep duration in the United States, the state of the science relating insufficient sleep to overweight and obesity in infancy and early childhood, and the potential mechanisms for the association. Also discussed are intervention efforts to date. Despite research gaps, interventions aimed at increasing sleep quality and quantity may help prevent childhood obesity.

“Interdisciplinary” has become a buzzword in science in recent years. According to David Heeger, a professor of psychology and neural science at New York University (NYU), “You don’t do interdisciplinary science by putting a physicist and a biologist in the same office. Nor do you make interdisciplinary science happen by taking a grant proposal and assigning it for review to people from a different field who know nothing about it. You have to be willing to learn the other field’s language…techniques…and literature.” Heeger, who was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2013, understands interdisciplinary science more than most. For decades, Heeger’s research has straddled the boundaries between psychology, neuroscience, and computer science, with lasting impacts on all three fields. David Heeger. Image courtesy of the National Academy of Sciences. David Heeger was born into science. His father, Alan Heeger, is a physicist whose discovery of conductive polymers earned him the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2000. In addition, his brother, Peter, is a transplant immunologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. Heeger believes that his father’s work at the interface between physics and chemistry influenced his own interest in working across scientific disciplines. He was thrilled when his father won the Nobel Prize, recalling that “[my father] called and woke me up at 6:00 that morning, and I woke up my family screaming!” As an undergraduate, Heeger attended the University of Pennsylvania, mainly because his father was on the faculty at the time, and tuition was free. It was during his senior year at Penn that he was first exposed to the field of vision science. At the time, there was a thriving vision research group at Penn, which included faculty from engineering, psychology, and the medical school. Heeger would sit in …

This paper extends a series of historical papers which demonstrated that the linear-no-threshold (LNT) model for cancer risk assessment was founded on ideological-based scientific deceptions by key radiation genetics leaders. Based on an assessment of recently uncovered personal correspondence, it is shown that some members of the United States (US) National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation I (BEAR I) Genetics Panel were motivated by self-interest to exaggerate risks to promote their science and personal/professional agenda. Such activities have profound implications for public policy and may have had a significant impact on the adoption of the LNT model for cancer risk assessment.

[][1] PHOTO: UCONN PHOTOS The term “diversity,” which came about in connection with the passage of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, has been expanding to include an ever-growing list of identities—from race, gender, and sexual orientation to physical appearance, belief systems, thought styles, socioeconomic status, and rural/urban geographic location, among others. This is a welcome extension of representation, but this added texture has a downside—it threatens to muddle targets and obscure actions when achieving diversity is the goal. This consequence is particularly serious in the context of addressing equity for specific underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. Next week, the U.S. National Academies will convene the Roundtable on Black Men and Black Women in Science, Engineering and Medicine to focus on confronting issues that threaten the future of Blacks broadly in science. Forging systemic changes that bring Black diversity at all education and career levels will hopefully bring racial equity to practices in these fields and in doing so, expand the benefits of science, engineering, and medicine to society. There are unintended negative consequences of the expanded definition of diversity. With so many groups, success in achieving diversity is increasingly measured in a pick-and-choose manner, where progress is defined through any lens that shows success. Also, with so many groups, diversity is often described through the lens of gender, leaving other groups as seemingly less important, or unimportant. And with so many groups, it has become easier for diversity efforts to disregard the historical and present drivers of discrimination that concepts of diversity began with. In other words, the greater context of inclusion and equity can get lost, making strides to diversify meaningless. The latter point is particularly relevant to Blacks in the United States who have experienced slavery, legally enforced segregation and discrimination, and now battle conscious and unconscious racism, and mass incarceration. Institutionalized racism, past and present, has resulted in the disregard, disrespect, and dismissal of Black people from all walks of life, and this is true in science, engineering, and medicine. These may be factors in the crisis-level changes seen across the academic landscape of Blacks in science, engineering, and medicine. For example, the number of Black males entering medical school between 2013 and 2014 in the United States was only 500, a historic low. Black men represented only 37.7% of Blacks entering medical school, which represented only 2.5% of all students entering medical school. This occurred during a historic increase in the number of medical schools in the nation. While this was happening at the trainee level, the U.S. National Academy of Medicine's most recent election in 2019 had no Black men in a class that recently increased by over 30% in size. Thus, there is a crisis taking place at all points in the medical educational and career spectrum for this particular group. In response to this downward trend of Blacks in science and medicine, a number of individuals, including me, convened a U.S. National Academies workshop in 2017 that focused specifically on the growing absence of Black men in medicine in the United States. The ideas became a blueprint for actions that address not only Black men in medicine, but also the trajectory for Black women, and issues in engineering and science overall. Embracing the expanding definition of diversity is easy, but using the word with focus so as not to weaken the paths for achieving diversity will take great attention. Next week, as leaders from academia, industry, government, foundations, and other nonprofits gather at the U.S. National Academy for this historic first meeting, the goal will be to begin to understand the barriers, explore opportunities, and develop actionable plans to increase the number of Blacks pursuing science, engineering, and medicine. The Roundtable will have a laser focus on racism and bias, early to graduate education, financing, public advocacy, mentorship, and mental health/behavioral factors. We're at the starting point of a roadmap that could potentially break cycles so rooted in the past for Blacks, and perhaps also help other groups navigate their pursuit of success in science too. [1]: /embed/graphic-1.gif