Connection Between Epigenome, Selective Mutability, Evolution, and Human Disease
Li, Harris et al., PLoS Genetics
Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine and elsewhere propose a "connection between the epigenome, selective mutability, evolution, and human disease" based on the findings of their study on associations of structural mutability with germline DNA methylation and with non-allelic homologous recombination mediated by low-copy repeats. "Combined evidence from four human sperm methylome maps, human genome evolution, structural polymorphisms in the human population, and previous genomic and disease studies consistently points to a strong association of germline hypomethylation and genomic instability," the Baylor-led team writes.
Francis Collins' Funding Problem
NIH is coming off a budget binge: the money given to the agency from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is about to run out. Next month, the last of the money will be disbursed and the recipients are required to spend most of it by September 2011, says Nature's Meredith Wadman. Now, researchers are looking to Francis Collins to figure out a solution. Collins has already weathered criticism that his Christian faith informs the way he does science, that he favors "NIH-initiated mega-projects over proposals by individual scientists," and that he overpromises on the possibilities of genomic research, Wadman writes. But even with all the challenges he has already dealt with at NIH, the biggest may be the budget. Even with President Obama's recommendation for a 3.2 percent increase to NIH's 2011 budget, Congress may not approve it. The agency has already been asked to cut programs from its plan for 2012 that amounts to about five percent of the budget for that year, Wadman says. Collins has some plans, like launching an award in 2011 that would make it possible for promising young investigators to skip the postdoc stage and give them five years of funding to open their own labs, and allowing NIH grantees to spend their ARRA money over more than two years, so the budget cliff is more of a "ramp." "I don't have any magic here," Collins says. 'I wish I did."
In view of the large numbers
In view of the large numbers of new and established investigators that are having difficulty securing stable funding in the United States and elsewhere, it seem ludicrous to propose making it possible for "promising young investigators" to skip the postdoc stage and to provide them with 5 years of funding to open their own labs. There are so many skill sets that have to be mastered for a trainee to be able to eventually lead his or her own research group and program. I encourage my graduate student trainees to complete their Ph.D. training as soon as possible, but be prepared to spend at least 3 to 5 years as a post-doctoral fellow. I spent five years as a post-doctoral fellow myself, and it was a critical component to my success as a scientist to be able to work with outstanding individuals like Sir Philip Cohen and Nobel laureate Dr. Edwin Krebs. In my reviewing of grant applications from new investigators that have received very significant funding for 3 to 4 years, I have commonly observed a relatively poor rate of productivity. Part of this reflects the difficulty of the task at hand for a starting principal investigator. It is also hard to judge how much of the apparent recent productivity of a new grant applicant is really a reflection of the input of their former supervisor. If that last supervisor happened to be their Ph.D. graduate studies mentor, I would be even more concerned about the true capabilities of a new applicant. Prematurely funding a trainee to try to succeed on their own is probably the fastest way to waste money and doom a promising young investigator to early failure.