Current News

There has been an interesting discussion going on at the message board for editors of PLoS One. I've posted a comment to this discussion I thought may be interesting to others as well. Here it is (slightly edited):I may be thinking a little too far ahead here, but so is the entire PLoS One endeavor. I see at least two major reasons why any sort of journal impact is meaningless: It's absolutely irrational to assume that where something is published can say anything valid about the quality of a particular papers content.As most journals, in the long run, are most likely going to die out in their present form anyway, why bother comparing One to others (other than maybe during a transitional period)?IMHO, individual paper assessment is the obvious way to steam ahead. No publication is providing a comprehensive paper assessment. Some are showing citations, others list their most accessed papers, but none of them exhaust the full technial potential. (un)Fortunately, there is no substitute for reading a paper, when you want to find out how good it is. "Quality" means something different for everybody. Hell, it means something different for me, depending on what kind of paper it is! The only thing quantitative measures can grasp is something along the ways of popularity, attention and fashion. This is not necessarily diminutive, as an attention grabbing paper mostly means something in science, not necessarily good, but very often. Therefore, I think every single one of the values Peter Binfield mentioned for inclusion in PLoS One papers are important:Number of citationsAFAIK, only the citations intrinsic to the PLoS system can be counted unambiguously. Ideally, PLoS could use this as an opportunity for developing an open citation standard, such that authors can collect a standard set of citations from multiple sources using a common protocol. This would be transparent and public pressure would force others (Google, Scopus, etc.) to adopt the standard, making it as transparent and complete as possible. One may then develop an interface to attach all of this to the paper itself, if one so wishes.Number of downloads / viewsAccess from the PLoS system can only give the lower bounds of access statistics, but cooperating sites could agree to add their request data to a common database (a solvable technical problem). Of course download doesn't mean read, but neither does citation. Nobody can get access to 'read' data anyway, so why bother? Gaming this system can be reduced by standard IP or cookie-based flood controls.Amount of 'Relevant' Blog CoverageIf people like/dislike the paper enough to leave a trackback, count the coverage. Just like 'quality', 'relevance' cannot be assessed unambiguously anyway.Amount of News CoverageIn each press release, encourage media to leave a (maybe separate from blogs) trackback, by visiting a link which is only acessible for accredited news media. This counter should include the press release itself, to how many outlets it went and how many agencies have picked it up (as far as technically feasible). That way, the press release is attached to the paper itself as well as at least some of the media coverage for at least some period of time (for those who want to check for the 'relevance' of the coverage).Number of Times Bookmarked in Social Bookmarking Sites (analogous to citations)Great idea! Given the way these sites work, it shouldn't be to difficult to crawl them to get fairly accurate numbers. I don't think it will be very easy to game that system, unless you know a few hundred people who are willing to help you or have a few hundred email addresses to sign yourself up for.The more variables there are to game, the more difficult it becomes. Now we have one variable (IF) and we all know who is gaming it ad nauseum. In this thread we have 5 measures, add ratings and comments and you have 7. This should be impossible to game for anyone but the hacker who can get thousands to machines on the net to just hype this one paper All of these measures are relevant even long after publication. Some papers ignored by the media may later turn out to harbor the most important discovery of the century, while some of those tossed around everywhere turn out to be completely irreproducible. Having these measures in place, if nothing else, would allow us to quantify and study such events.But again, no matter how many numbers you have, these measures cannot substitute for actually reading the papers! The numbers barely give you a rough idea of where a paper or a scientist can be placed with respect to others in the same field. Yet, these measures would be light-years ahead of any one-dimensional, irreproducible, obviously manipulated and corrupt measure such as the IF. (Source: bjoern.brembs.net - a neuroscientist's blog : RSS feed of bjoern.brembs.net)

This document aims to provide ambulance services with performance improvement tools and best practice examples. Its key purpose is to provide trusts... (Source: Clinical Governance Sitewide RSS Feed)

The Modernising Allied Health Professions Career (MAHPC) work is a workforce initiative to maximise the contribution AHPs can make to transforming health and social care. There was a need to develop a flexible and responsive approach to allied health... (Source: Clinical Governance Sitewide RSS Feed)

The Ministry of Justice has published this review, by the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas and Mark Walport, of data sharing in government. This follows reports into data losses at HMRC and... (Source: Clinical Governance Sitewide RSS Feed)

The Ministry of Justice has published this review, by the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas and Mark Walport, of data sharing in government. This follows reports into data losses at HMRC and... (Source: Clinical Governance Sitewide RSS Feed)

The Ministry of Justice has published this review, by the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas and Mark Walport, of data sharing in government. This follows reports into data losses at HMRC and... (Source: Clinical Governance Sitewide RSS Feed)

All alerts, directives, tools and guidance found in this section of the Patient Safety Division website can now be searched for using the database. (Source: Clinical Governance Sitewide RSS Feed)

In a rapidly changing world it is vital that nursing continues to command the confidence and trust of patients. For the growing numbers of older people admitted to our busy hospital wards this is determined by the whole care experience; yet we constantl... (Source: Clinical Governance Sitewide RSS Feed)

In a rapidly changing world it is vital that nursing continues to command the confidence and trust of patients. For the growing numbers of older people admitted to our busy hospital wards this is determined by the whole care experience; yet we constantl... (Source: Clinical Governance Sitewide RSS Feed)

Impact Assessment of Health Care and Associated Professions (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order (Source: Clinical Governance Sitewide RSS Feed)

Impact Assessment of Health Care and Associated Professions (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order (Source: Clinical Governance Sitewide RSS Feed)

Resources will be available for download on the H&SE website for the duration of the campaign. The Action Packs provide useful information on the European Week campaign, a range of HSE guidance ma... (Source: Clinical Governance Sitewide RSS Feed)

[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]  [More] (Source: Scientific American - Official RSS Feed)

Sitting by the window of a posh coastal hotel in Half Moon Bay, Calif., wearing a baby-blue sweater and khakis, Ian Wilmut doesn’t project the image of a scientist who pulled off one of the most dramatic experiments in modern biology. When he and his collaborators unveiled Dolly the cloned sheep in 1997, they ignited the embryonic stem cell research field, struck awe in the public and set off a panic about the imminent cloning of humans. “Dolly was a big surprise to everyone,” recalls stem cell biologist Thomas Zwaka of the Center for Cell and Gene Therapy at the Baylor College of Medicine. Cloned frogs had refused to grow past the tadpole stage, and a seeming success in mice had proved to be a fake. According to scientific consensus back then, cloning adult mammals by the method Wilmut used was biologically impossible.As Dolly matured, the cloning technology that created her--called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT)--grew into a rich research enterprise. Scientists hoped to eventually be able to take a patient’s cell, place its nucleus into an unfertilized human egg and then harvest embryonic stem cells to treat intractable conditions such as Parkinson’s disease. But the first human clinical trial continues to seem remote, with embryonic cloning constrained by a federal funding ban, deeply controversial ethical issues and technical challenges. In mid-May safety concerns led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to put on hold a bid by Geron Corporation in Menlo Park, Calif., to conduct trials on patients who have acute spinal cord injury. [More] (Source: Scientific American - Official RSS Feed)

Human Genome Head ResignsOn August 1, Francis S. Collins, the face of the Human Genome Project, was scheduled to have stepped down as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), after some 15 years of leadership. While announcing his plans, Collins said that he is proud of his accomplishments and those of his colleagues--most notably, the mapping of the human genome [see “Deciphering the Code of Life”; SciAm, December 1999]. On leaving his post, the 58-year-old geneticist stated that he wanted the freedom to write books and explore opportunities that are off-limits to federal employees. [More] (Source: Scientific American - Official RSS Feed)

Ian Wilmut, famed for creating Dolly the cloned sheep, announced recently that he is abandoning the technique to concentrate on a popular new approach: making induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. Such cells would get around the ethical and legal issues surrounding embryonic stem cell work, of which cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer, has been an integral part. For the Insights story, "No More Cloning Around," in the August 2008 Scientific American, Sally Lehrman asked Wilmut about his change in focus, whether somatic cell nuclear transfer is still relevant, and what lessons he learned in his experience with Dolly. Here is an edited excerpt of that interview. [More] (Source: Scientific American - Official RSS Feed)

The tempest over bubble fusion--the much-disputed 2002 claim that collapsing bubbles can spark fusion reactions--may finally have fizzled out. [More] (Source: Scientific American - Official RSS Feed)

Good news for the world's vanishing corals: a new study shows that commercial fishing bans in Australia's Great Barrier Reef kept a lid on coral-gobbling starfish."This is definitely good news for coral," says John Bruno, an associate professor of marine science at the University of North Carolina (U.N.C.) at Chapel Hill. [More] (Source: Scientific American - Official RSS Feed)

This is a transcript of my recent podcast interview with Dr. Michael Banks. David Williams:  This is David Williams, co-founder of MedPharma Partners and author of The Health Business Blog. I am speaking today with Dr. Michael Banks, who is co-founder and vice president of The Doctor’s Channel. Michael, thanks for your time today. Dr. Michael Banks:  Sure, thanks for having me David. David:  Michael, how did you come up with the idea for The Doctor’s Channel? Dr. Banks:  Well, the whole world is media snacking. Whether it is in health care or in other businesses or consumers, everybody is consuming their media in very small, digestible one to two minute bites. Whether it is looking at email on your iPhone, looking at RSS newsfeeds on your desktop or wherever you are, everyone is consuming media in very small chunks.


 When we thought about it, there is one audience that really has a short attention span, that has no time during the day to consume their information, and that is the doctor. So we wanted to create a website for physicians that could present cutting edge information in a peer to peer fashion, to provide rich information for physicians in an enjoyable fashion. Hence The Doctor’s Channel. David:  So how does video fit in and why is this a good time to be introducing video to doctors? Dr. Banks:  The whole world is going to video. People asked the same question 50, 60 years ago when they said ‘Why television?’ Because of course, it enhances the experience and doctors are consumers like everyone else. So, there is no reason why physicians need to just read print articles or they just need to read PowerPoint slides online or they need to get a small talking head in the corner with big PowerPoint slides. These videos certainly enhance any educational experience. David:  I had a chance to look at the site and noticed that you have a pretty broad array of content on there. I saw one physician explaining clinical guidelines from one of the medical societies and then there were some pretty funny videos including some songs. You seem to have a daily program and then there are explanations of some pharmaceutical company trials. What is the content strategy? What are you thinking about in the portfolio of content that you are presenting? Dr. Banks:  Physicians are consumers just like anyone else. They are professionals and they are consumers. So, we want to give them video content that will appeal to all those different parts of their lives. They need cutting edge clinical information but they also need humor videos and they need lifestyle tips. A lot of physicians actually have said back to us, ‘The clinical information is great. We love the format. We also love the humor and keep the tips coming.’


That is the part of the site called Doc Life and that gives one to two minute tips about restaurants, theater or other kinds of non-medical, lifestyle tips for physicians. We try to feature different convention cities that the physicians may be going to so that they can really enhance their experience when they are traveling around the country. David:  Some of that content sounds like something that people would like to see on other sorts of devices or in other places, too. Do you expect to package up some of the content that you have and put it on cable TV or other places just your website? Dr. Banks:  Well, we are certainly going to be looking in terms of making it available on other devices, whether it is for the iPod or for other mobile devices. Cable television may be something that we would look at in the future. David:  What do you expect the typical doctor would do as they start to use the site and get used to it? Is it something where they would come every day and spend a couple of minutes or would they cluster their time? What sort of pattern would you expect to emerge? Dr. Banks:  There are two types of sites. There are destination sites where you go to browse, or you might go as a reference where you would expect all the different types of information. Initially we set the site up as a destination. We had hoped that people would go every day to look at what new videos have gone on the site. People have said back to us that they have gone to the site, they have browsed the videos. In fact, some physicians are even using it in a teaching setting and they are creating play lists around different topics and using it either in the classroom or using it for their own education. David:  I have seen some places where you have been positioning The Doctor’s Channel as a sort of educational YouTube for physicians, which to me implies that people can upload their own content. You do have on the site a way that people can upload video. Maybe it is just the videos that I have seen, but most of them appear to be quite professionally produced with a consistent look to them and high production value. Is it, in fact, meant to be a site amateur videographers can produce something and upload it or is it really more of a professionally produced site? Dr. Banks:  Well, people can produce their own video and upload it to the site. But, even if you look at YouTube, a very small percentage of the actual audience base uploads their own video. In fact, less than about 0.16% of viewers actually create their own videos. We never expected physicians to be out there in droves creating their own videos. We expected it to be less than YouTube, but certainly those physicians who are into video and want to make their own videos can go ahead and upload video to the site. David:  You have established the company as a for-profit organization, so how do you expect to make money? What is the business model? Dr. Banks:  It is a blended business model. We are going to be rolling out different types of programming that can be sponsored by different industries, whether it is the pharmaceutical industry or others. There will be the traditional banner ads. We will also be incorporating some new technologies into the site. It will be a blended model of custom videos for certain clients as well as different promotional programs. David:  You have announced a variety of partnerships. One was with Ozmosis (and I did a podcast with the founder there a little while back.) You also have Doctor’s Digest and VerusMed and MD Net Guide and some hospitals and medical centers. How do you think about the partnership strategy and what do those different groups bring to you? Dr. Banks:  Each group brings a different strength to the table. We are working with a number of different content partners to provide different types of content. So, for example, Doctor’s Digest will be one of our practice management providers. We are working with a number of academic institutions because they see the value in this form of education through videos, so that those doctors can be featured and explain the types of research that they are doing. They can explain the different types of programs that are going on at the individual hospitals. We have worked with a number of different academic centers, anywhere from Yale, to Temple, to University of Chicago, all the way out into Seattle, Seattle Children’s and Swedish Medical Center. So, they see the benefit and their doctors are featured. The research is highlighted. And then the Doctors Channel benefits from featuring those physicians, as well. David:  In the case of Ozmosis, it sounds as though they are typifying or personifying what you described up front about a way for doctors to learn from one another and to interact. 


With Ozmosis people can actually discuss the videos. Is that what you have in mind with them? Are there other ways that you think about people learning from one another, communicating with one another on the site? Dr. Banks:  Well, certainly Ozmosis does provide a closed network of physicians to discuss back and forth. Our philosophy with the Doctors Channel is that we are targeted to the physician audience but we are open. So, if consumers do eavesdrop on the site –and we have had some consumers eavesdrop on the site– it is like people watching The McLaughlin Group, or people watching experts debate a topic.


 Our philosophy is that if physicians are having a discussion, other people who can understand it at that level will benefit and should be allowed to view that conversation. David:  As you think about measuring the success of the business and the growth, what are the kind of metrics you are looking at? Are you looking at the number of registered physicians or the number of page views? What do you look at and how is it going so far? Dr. Banks:  The marks of success are fairly traditional: page views and registered physicians. We are still in our launch phase. We are going to be announcing a number of new initiatives in the next few months that we think are really going to be driving both traffic and registered users to the site. David:  How are you publicizing the site, beyond some of these partnerships? Dr. Banks:  We are going to be releasing a series of press releases over the next few months, as well as some more academic partnerships. Really, we’re focused on promoting through the viral channel and through that physician-to-physician interaction.


We think that is the best way for physicians to discover the site. If they can discover it, watch a video, we think that they’ll be impressed with the type and the form of the content and that they’ll want to come back for more. David:  What do you expect the pharmaceutical industry reaction to be? Are you positioning The Doctor’s Channel as a good way for them to reach physicians? How do you think some of the changes that are going on, in terms of pharmaceutical marketing practices, might affect your chances of being successful there? Dr. Banks:  We think it will actually help The Doctor’s Channel, if anything. Because in an era where there is worry about bias and there’s worry about all the external things surrounding medicine, here’s something where clearly disclosure can be made if it is a pharmaceutical company that is sponsoring a program and it can get their message to the physician in a very short period of time in an engaging, interactive format. David:  Do you think it will be helpful also in terms of how more and more physicians are not seeing pharmaceutical reps where they are working in organizations that have banned reps? Will it be a channel that the pharmaceutical industry can use to reach some of those difficult-to-see physicians? Dr. Banks:  Absolutely. And we’ve had a lot of interest already from the pharmaceutical industry to put content on that will discuss their products and services in that engaging video format in one to two minutes. Of course, like you said, it’s becoming more and more difficult for representatives to get into those busy physicians’ offices whether by regulations or by the physician’s own decision.


 So here you can have a thought leader delivering a one to two minute message in the place of what would have been the sales representative. David:  A lot of the video seems very educational. Is there a way that people can get CME credits for viewing? Dr. Banks:  Yes, we’re actually going to be adding a CME activity center to the site in the upcoming months. We are partnering with Temple University and their CME department and a number of CME providers to provide content for The Doctor’s Channel. We call it Micro CMEs.


 So, we’re going to be featuring five to seven minute videos where the physician can watch, answer the questions and receive a quarter credit for each video. We’ll be having programs that range anywhere from a quarter credit to two credits in duration. And we’ve gotten a lot of interest already in those types of programs. David:  As I look down on your site, I notice most of the categories are for different medical specialties and then for things like humor, as we discussed. But, I have to ask you, what is the Pharma Film Festival? Dr. Banks:  The Pharma Film Festival, we’re very excited about. A lot of people will go to the physician and they may walk in and say: ‘Doc, I think, I have restless leg syndrome.


’ And then the physician will ask: ‘Why do you think you have restless leg syndrome?’ ‘Well, I saw it on television.’ What do they expect the physician to do? They’re not going to go watch four hours of television waiting to see the commercial, so what we have created here is a central repository for all public service announcements and TV commercials produced by the pharmaceutical industry.


 So a physician can go in and find that public service announcement or television commercial here and view that on The Doctor’s Channel. David:  Who’s going to be responsible for uploading those and also for taking them down? Dr. Banks:  We’re working with different agencies on that process. David: Sometimes a commercial is on and there is some objection to it from the regulatory authorities and then it is pulled. Of course, that’s when people are most interested to see what it actually said. Do you have an idea of whether you would maintain some of those pulled commercials on the site? Dr. Banks:  We would conform to whatever the current regulatory and legal environment was at the time. David:  I’ve been speaking today with Dr. Michael Banks, co-founder and vice president at the Doctors Channel. Michael thanks for your time. Dr. Banks:  Thanks again, David, for having me. (Source: Health Business Blog)

Global warming is bad for your health, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The agency last week warned in a report that more people will die during heat waves, freshwater supplies will shrink, and diseases will spread in coming years, among other impacts of increasing global temperatures. Just weeks ago, it cautioned that a warming climate will also spawn more smog, which is linked to heart disease and respiratory ills. [More] (Source: Scientific American - Official RSS Feed)