the Pharmacologist A Publication by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Vol. 58 • Number 2 • June 2016 Inside: Farewell Message from the President 2016 Annual Meeting in Review Call for 2017 Award Nominations Taxol: Barking Up the Right Tree
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
t h ePharmacologist
A Publication by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics
Vol. 58 • Number 2 • June 2016
Inside:Farewell Message from the President
2016 Annual Meeting in Review
Call for 2017 Award Nominations
Taxol: Barking Up the Right Tree
Message from the President
2016 Annual Meeting in Review
Call for 2017 Award Nominations
Feature Story: Taxol: Barking Up the Right Tree
Meeting News
Science Policy News
Education News
Journals News
Membership News Obituaries: Dale Louise Birkle Dreer
Nancy Rutledge Zahniser
Members in the News
Division News
Chapter News
Contents6769818496101107110112
118120130
The Pharmacologist is published and distributed by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. THE PHARMACOLOGIST
PRODUCTION TEAM
Rich DodenhoffCatherine L. Fry, PhDDana KauffmanJudith A. Siuciak, PhD Suzie Thompson
COUNCIL
President Kenneth E. Thummel, PhD
President-Elect David R. Sibley, PhD
Past President Annette E. Fleckenstein, PhD
Secretary/Treasurer Dennis C. Marshall, PhD
Secretary/Treasurer-Elect Charles P. France, PhD
Past Secretary/Treasurer Paul A. Insel, MD
Councilors Wayne Backes, PhD
John D. Schuetz, PhD
Margaret E. Gnegy, PhD
Chair, Board of Publications Trustees Mary E. Vore, PhD
ASPET assumes no responsibility for the statements and opinions advanced by contributors to The Pharmacologist.
Postmaster: Send address changes to: The Pharmacologist, ASPET, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3995.
67
June 2016 • The Pharmacologist
Message from
The PresidentMy Fellow Pharmacologists,
With the close of another highly successful ASPET Annual Meeting at Experimental Biology (EB) in San Diego in April,
my term as President of the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET) is coming to an
end. I think we have accomplished much together that I hope has strengthened the society and helped secure its future.
At the outset, I want to thank Dr. Judy Siuciak, ASPET Executive Officer, and all of the ASPET office staff for their superb
and dedicated attention to the operations of the society, including most importantly the Experimental Biology meeting,
and the support that they provided to me during the past 12 months.
Some of the accomplishments that I would like to highlight played out at EB2016. They include an increase in the
number of travel awards made to post-doctoral fellows, graduate and undergraduate students, some of which were
supported by the BIG IDEAS project on Enhancing Undergraduate Engagement in ASPET at EB Meetings, an initiative led
by Dr. Carol Beck and Dr. Catherine Davis. Enhancing the attendance of young scientists at EB is one way in which ASPET
can support their careers and foster a lasting relationship between them and the society. An ASPET Mentoring Network
was established and, at EB2016, there was an inaugural meeting/workshop of “coaches” and “mentees” that is part of
the funded BIG IDEAS project – From Senior Mentor to Highly Skilled Career Coach: A Novel Approach to Breaking the
Diversity Roadblock, led by Dr. Lynn Wecker and Dr. Susan Ingram. ASPET is also launching this Summer the Pharmacology
Industry Internships for PhD Students (PIIPS) program, which will be overseen by ASPET staff with support from Dr. Kay
Meier and a PIIPS steering committee. This program is intended to provide graduate students with an industry-based
research experience that can help shape critical career decisions. In addition, during its Spring meeting at EB2016, ASPET
Council approved funding of a new BIG IDEAS initiative, Surmounting the Insurmountable: Obstacles in Drug Discovery
and Development – Real World Case Studies. It will be led by Dr. Kan He, Dr. Tom Woolf and Dr. Paul Hollenberg, as well as
other members from the academic and industrial communities. A major goal of this new initiative will be to teach beginning
pharmacologists, through discussion of case studies, how to think critically to solve biochemical, pharmacological and
pharmaceutical problems that can arise during the discovery and development of new therapeutic agents.
Other educational and mentoring events at EB2016 that bear mentioning include the Undergraduate Research:
Cultivating the Next Generation of Researchers Through SURF and Beyond Symposium, with presentations from
current institutional SURF directors, individual mentors and truly inspiring talks by past recipients of a SURF award
(Natalie Arabian, USC; Chelesa Fearce, Spelman College; and Michael Little, UNC-Chapel Hill) who clearly illustrate how
transformative this form of financial support and mentoring can be for emerging young research scientists. Of note,
the ASPET SURF program has been in existence since 1992 (25th anniversary in 2017) and has supported research
experiences for over 2000 undergraduates. A SURF task force was formed last year to evaluate its performance
outcomes and to chart future directions; early results of that analysis suggest remarkable success in fostering careers
in the allied health sciences, including pharmacology. ASPET also held for the first time at EB2016 the Undergraduate
Networking and Career Development Luncheon, with presentations by Dr. Janet Clark, director for fellowship training
at the National Institutes of Mental Health and Dr. Alexandra Newton, professor of pharmacology at the University
of California, San Diego. The Graduate Student-Postdoctoral Colloquium featured a provocative and well-received
presentation by Dr. Rick McGee, associate dean for faculty recruitment and professional development at Northwestern
University, on “Mentoring Your Mentor.”
68
The Pharmacologist • June 2016
EB2016 also marked the inaugural in-person meeting of the ASPET Young Scientists Committee (YSC), led by
Dr. Karen Tonsfeldt, and predoc/post-doc members representing a variety of divisions and other committees. This
committee was formed to give young pharmacologists a stronger voice in setting the agenda of our society and to
provide them with opportunities for leadership and career development. One of the first accomplishments of the
committee was the development and submission of symposium proposals to be considered for EB2017 programming.
They also reached out to their brethren attending EB2016, through the YSC Photo Booth, to build camaraderie among
the young scientists attending the meeting and elicit feedback for focusing future efforts of the committee in the coming
year. One of the ideas that is being considered is a plan for the Young Scientists Committee and the Mentoring and
Career Development Committee to collaborate on an outreach event for the local (Chicago) K-12 and undergraduate
community to foster an interest in the sciences, a basic understanding of the field of pharmacology, and how research in
this area can benefit society.
Each of these educational and mentoring initiatives and EB events benefited greatly from the superb support and
leadership of Dr. Catherine Fry and Carla Burns in the ASPET office, and were implemented as part of a long-term
strategy that I supported at the outset of my presidency to foster development of the next generation of pharmacologists
and leaders of ASPET.
For those of you who couldn’t make the EB meeting this year, we were delighted to help celebrate the 50th
anniversary of PhRMA by recognizing during the Business Meeting their long history of financial support for ASPET
members (specifically its young scientists) and reminiscing on that incredible relationship during a joint reception that
followed. The San Diego weather that evening was wonderful, as advertised, and contributed to an incredible ambience
and heightened level of enthusiasm for events that took place over the next four days. As always, the EB meeting was
filled with stimulating lectures from society members and other invited speakers, in particular those special presentations
given by winners of the major ASPET society awards.
As President of ASPET, I was honored to host the Presidential Symposium on a topic of personal scientific interest –
Precision Medicine in Anti-Cancer Pharmacology. Read more about this event on page 74.
Introduction of the BIG IDEAS initiatives during the last year, with their focus on education and mentoring of the next
generation of pharmacology leaders, prompted further introspection by Council and resulted in a decision to embark
on a thorough and comprehensive strategic planning process that will determine who we are, where we want to be
in the next 5 and 10 years, and how we will get there. This challenging but necessary exercise will be overseen by my
successors, Dave Sibley (president-elect) and John Schuetz (president-elect-elect), our Executive Officer Judy Siuciak,
and the rest of ASPET Council and office staff. I strongly encourage you to participate in our strategic planning when
called upon for input through planned surveys and other data collection and feedback mechanisms.
In closing, I want to express to the ASPET membership my sincere thanks for bestowing on me the distinct honor to
serve as president of the Society. It has been an incredible experience, one filled with wonderful memories that I will
cherish always.
Kenneth E. Thummel
ASPET President
June 2016 • The Pharmacologist
This year’s business meeting took place on
Saturday, April 2 led by President Ken Thummel from
the University of Washington. Dr. Thummel updated
members on the Society’s current activities, programs,
and initiatives. Highlights from his presentation
included:
• The Otto Krayer Award
• An update on the member-driven BIG IDEAS
initiatives
• A summary of ongoing global pharmacology
partnerships
• A review of the ASPET Summer Undergraduate
Research Fellowship (SURF) program
• ASPET’s increased undergraduate opportunities
• Highlights of the EB2016 meeting including
the inaugural programming for the Division for
Cancer Pharmacology
• Improved member communications
A report on ASPET’s financial status was presented
by Secretary/Treasurer Dennis Marshall, and a
presentation on ASPET’s journals was given by Board
of Publications Trustees Chair Mary Vore. Directly
following the business agenda, Dr. Thummel was
honored to present awards to this year’s scientific
achievement award winners and travel award winners.
2016 ANNUAL MEETING
The ASPET Annual Meeting at Experimental Biology 2016 took place on April 2–6, 2016 in San Diego, CA. With over 12,000 attendees at EB, members enjoyed a successful meeting experience with an excellent scientific program and great networking and social events.
IN REVIEW
Incoming President David Sibley thanks President Ken Thummel for his services.
place to relax between sessions. The Meet-a-Mentor
sessions, Meet-the-Editor sessions, and the ASPET
Young Scientist Committee’s photo booth were
hosted in the lounge.
Meet-a-Mentor session in the member lounge
Meet-the-Editor session in the member lounge
The 2016 Student and Postdoctoral Poster
Competition gave students and young scientists an
opportunity to present their work in a lively and fun
atmosphere. ASPET divisions held their competitions
simultaneously and allowed students to talk about their
work and network with senior members, colleagues,
and friends. The ASPET divisions presented their
award winners with cash prizes and award certificates.
To learn who won the division competitions, please
turn to the division news section on page 120.
Poster Competition
“I found it [the new members lounge] so helpful in catching my breath, organizing my thoughts and planning my next stop, as the week progressed.”
– Ken Thummel
June 2016 • The Pharmacologist
73
The 2016 Dolores C.
Shockley Best Presentation
Awards were given out at
the Student and Postdoctoral
Poster Competition. Dr.
Shockley was the first African
American woman to earn a
PhD in pharmacology and the
first black woman appointed
to chair a pharmacology
department in the US.
In the graduate student category, prizes were awarded to Jenaye Robinson (1st) from Texas Southern University, Dominique Jones (2nd) from University of Louisville, and Antoinette Nelson (3rd) from Rutgers University. In the postdoctoral scientist category, prizes were awarded to Rheaclare Fraser-Spears (1st) from the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio and Inigo Valiente-Alandi (2nd) from the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
Following the poster competition, ASPET students
and postdocs socialized at the Student/Postdoc Mixer.
free of charge for the NCI’s clinical programs (1, 13).
In 1991, the company supplied about 3,750 vials per
month, enough to treat 500 patients (1, 14).
In 1992, the company increased supplies from
5,000 to 50,000 vials per month (13, 14). This
permitted the NCI to establish an ovarian cancer
treatment referral program, as well as a referral
protocol to treat breast cancer patients (13).
A mere 18 months after signing the CRADA, Bristol-
Myers Squibb submitted the accumulated taxol data
to the Food and Drug Administration. Taxol worked in
patients who had become resistant to platinum-based
therapy, which was the current “best drug” for ovarian
cancer, and it was effective in patients who had been
heavily pretreated with radiation and chemotherapy—
factors that usually reduced responses to subsequent
therapy (9, 11).
June 2016 • The Pharmacologist
93
On December 29, 1992, FDA
approved taxol to treat refractory
ovarian cancer, making it the
first and only approved drug
to emerge from NCI’s plant
screening program (3, 17).
Taxol by Any Other NameTo further protect its
investment, Bristol-Myers Squibb
secured a trademark for its new
product. In a rather controversial
move, the US Patent and
Trademark Office granted the
company’s request to register
Taxol on May 26, 1992 (4).
At this point, taxol had been in widespread use as
a generic name for more than 20 years. Also, going
unnoticed was a laxative product that Continental
Laboratories had trademarked and sold as taxol in the
early 20th century (5).
Regardless, Bristol-Myers Squibb now had
exclusive rights to call its anticancer drug Taxol. Within
a couple of years, Taxol had been registered in more
than 50 countries (2). In 1993, the USAN authorized
“paclitaxel” as the new generic name of the molecule
that had formerly been called taxol.
Yew TurnWhile optimizing extraction procedures, Bristol-
Myers Squibb was working equally hard to reduce,
if not eliminate, its dependence on Pacific yew bark
(14). The long-term solution to the supply problem was
making taxol semi-synthetically, and the company was
receptive to Robert Holton’s offer (13).
On April 1, 1990, Bristol-Myers Squibb signed an
exclusive licensing agreement with Florida State
University to use Holton’s taxol patents, including an
improved method that gave an 80% overall yield in
just four steps (2). In exchange, Florida State would
receive royalties on the revenues derived from
Holton’s patents.
Bristol-Myers Squibb made speedy progress in
scaling up Taxol production at its plant in Ireland,
using Holton’s improved method and 10-DAB obtained
from Indena, a natural products company in Milan,
Italy (2, 8, 13, 16). Indena extracted large quantities of
10-DAB from renewable biomass (needles and twigs)
of European (Taxus baccata) and Himalayan (Taxus
wallichiana) yews (13, 15).
Bristol-Myers Squibb needed regulatory approval
to change Taxol manufacturing from bark extraction
to the new semi-synthetic process (13). The FDA
approved the change on October 14, 1994, making
further bark collections unnecessary (17).
The Bristol-Myers Squibb contract with Hauser
was not renewed, and with that, the Pacific yew
crisis ended. Environmentalists rejoiced and federal
conservation officials were relieved (15). The little yew
tree had gone from trash to treasure to trivial (2).
A Quantum LeapAbundant Taxol supplies hastened the pace of
clinical trials for other cancers. The first reports of
efficacy in refractory advanced breast cancer came
from the MD Anderson Cancer Center in October
1990 (1). The response rate of 56% was even better
than in ovarian cancer (18). A trial at Memorial Sloan-
Kettering in 1992 confirmed the results (19). Taxol was
effective even in patients who had become resistant to
anthracycline-based therapy, the current “best drug”
for breast cancer (9). The FDA approved Taxol for
refractory breast cancer in April 1994 and for non-small
cell lung cancer in June 1998 (17).
When Taxol made its debut in January 1993, it
was hailed as the most important anti-cancer drug in
15 years, but it was not perfect (2, 8). As with other
chemotherapy agents, bone marrow suppression and
white blood cell depletion were common. Taxol also
caused neuropathy, typically in the hands and feet,
and cardiac disturbances (9).
Nevertheless, Taxol
was the best thing
clinicians could offer at
the time (2). In 1995,
it was the best-selling
cancer drug in the world
with more than $500 million in sales. In 2000, sales
reached nearly $1.6 billion (2).
Totally SynthesizedChemists were still lured to the challenge of
synthesizing Taxol from scratch . As Robert Holton
explained to a reporter, “The ring systems are
unexplored ground. The stereochemistry, the variety of
substituents, the conformational peculiarities, the strange
reactivity…it’s an incredible challenge” (1). More than 100
academic groups worldwide were working on it (1, 2).
Re
pri
nte
d w
ith p
erm
issi
on
fro
m F
lori
da
Sta
te U
niv
ers
ity O
ffice
of
Re
sea
rch
. Ph
oto
: Ra
y S
tan
yard
.
The little yew tree
had gone from trash
to treasure to trivial
The Pharmacologist • June 2016
94
Then, in a virtual photo finish, two groups
succeeded (2, 4). On February 17, 1994, Kyriacos
Nicolaou and his team at the Scripps Research
Institute reported their success (20). Within a week,
Holton’s group at Florida State University published
their work (21).
Total synthesis of Taxol was a major intellectual
achievement, but it was of little practical importance.
Nicolaou’s method involved 28 steps (9). Holton’s
synthesis required 40 steps, and the yield was an
abysmal 2% (2, 4).
Enter TaxotereWhile Taxol made headlines in the US, Potier,
Greene, and their colleagues in France continued
to improve their own semi-synthetic method. In
collaboration with Rhône-Poulenc Rorer, they also
studied the structure-activity relationships of about 40
intermediates and analogs (1).
Among those compounds was RP56976, which was
slightly more active than Taxol in the tubulin assay.
RP56976 also exhibited significant antitumor activity
(6). Most impressively, it was 25% more soluble and
had better bioavailability than Taxol (1, 6, 9). RP56976
was named Taxotere (generic name, docetaxel).
In 1990, Rhône-Poulenc Rorer began Phase I clinical
trials in Europe and the US under a research and
development agreement with the NCI (1, 9). Referring
to their own semi-synthetic method, Potier boasted,
“Our group has solved the problem of industrial
production…We are today producing very large
amounts of Taxotere” (1).
The FDA approved Taxotere for advanced breast
cancer treatment in 1995 (4). It was subsequently
approved alone or in combination with other agents
for non-small cell lung cancer, prostate cancer, and
head and neck cancer (1, 14, 17).
University RoyaltyTraditionally, American universities aggressively
insulated their research from all commercial
influences. But the tech-transfer deal between Florida
State University and Bristol-Myers Squib caught the
attention of many university administrators (2). In 1996,
Florida State received more than $28 million in Taxol
royalties, and by the end of the decade, the royalties
topped $200 million. It was one of the largest patent
pay-outs for a single university in history (2).
Florida State used the royalties to underwrite a
dozen endowed professorships. Also, under its policy,
the university awarded faculty inventors 40% of the
royalties arising from their patents, making Holton a
very wealthy man (2).
The royalties fundamentally changed Holton’s
perspective. His achievements were widely
publicized, and hundreds of cancer patients and their
loved ones contacted him. He shifted his academic
chemistry pursuits and invested his royalties in applied
research. He wanted to find a better Taxol analog. “If
you have the opportunity to do something that could
save someone’s life, you just have to do it” (2).
References1. Borman S (September 2, 1991) Scientists mobilize to increase
supply of anticancer drug taxol. Chem Eng News 69(35): 11-18.
2. Stephenson F (Fall 2002) A tale of taxol. Research in Review,Florida State University; available from: http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/fall2002/taxol.html.
3. Ginsberg J (April 23, 2003) A National Historic ChemicalLandmark: The Discovery of Camptothecin and Taxol®. Sciencethat Matters, American Chemical Society; available from: http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/camptothecintaxol.html.
Chemical structures of paclitaxel (Taxol™), docetaxel (Taxotere™)
4. Goodman J and Walsh V (2001) The Story of taxol: Nature and Politics in the Pursuit of an Anti-Cancer Drug, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
5. Kingston DGI (2007) The shape of things to come: structural and synthetic studies of taxol and related compounds. Phytochem 68(14): 1844-1854.
6. Guénard D, Guéritte-Voegelein F, and Potier P (1993) Taxol and Taxotere: discovery, chemistry, and structure-activity relationships. Acc Chem Res 26: 160-167.
7. Wani MC, Taylor HL, Wall ME, Coggon P, and McPhail AT (1971) Plant antitumor agents. VI. Isolation and structure of taxol, a novel antileukemic and antitumor agent from Taxus brevifolia. J Am Chem Soc 93(9): 2325-2327.
8. Kolata G (May 13, 1991) Tree yields a cancer treatment, but ecological cost may be high. New York Times; available from: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/13/us/tree-yields-a-cancer-treatment-but-ecological-cost-may-be-high.html.
9. Joel SP (March 7, 1994) Taxol and Taxotere: from yew tree to tumor cell. Chemistry & Industry, pp. 172-175.
10. Schiff PB, Fant J, and Horwitz SB (1979) Promotion of microtubule assembly in vitro by taxol. Nature 227: 665-667.
11. McGuire WP, Rowinsky EK, Rosenshein NB, Grumbine FC, Ettinger DS, Armstrong DK, and Donehower RC (1989) Taxol: A unique antineoplastic agent with significant activity in advanced ovarian epithelial neoplasms. Ann Intern Med 111: 273-279.
12. Denis JN, Greene AE, Guenard D, Gueritte-Voegelein F, Mangatal L, and Potier P (1988) Highly efficient, practical approach to natural taxol. J Am Chem Soc 110(17): 5917-5919.
13. DeFuria MD and Horovitz Z (1993) Taxol commercial supply strategy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 15: 195-198.
14. Pink Sheet (March 9, 1992) Bristol-Myers Squibb plans taxol NDA filing by “mid-1992”: 1993 approval possible: supply to NCI will cover all 12,500 refractory cancer patients; available from: https://www.pharmamedtechbi.com/publications/the-pink-sheet/54/010/bristolmyers-squibb-plans-taxol-nda-filing-by-mid1992-1993-approval-possible-supply-to-nci-will.
15. Barnard J (March 13, 1994) Old-growth yew spared as cancer drug source: health: drug firm decides it can’t risk millions producing medication that comes only from slow-growing wild trees. Los Angeles Times; available from: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-13/local/me-33404_1_national-cancer-institute.
16. New York Times (January 30, 1993) New source of cancer drug spares yew tree; available from: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/31/us/new-source-of-cancer-drug-spares-yew-tree.html.
17. New York Times (December 12, 1994) New version of taxol is approved by FDA; available from: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/13/science/new-version-of-taxol-is-approved-by-fda.html.
18. Holmes FA, Walters RS, Theriault RL, Forman AD, Newton LK, Raber MN, Buzdar AU, Frye DK, and Hortobagyi GN (1991) Phase II trial of taxol, an active drug in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 83(24): 1797-1805.
19. Reichman BS, Seidman AD, Crown JPA, Heelan R, Hakes TB, Lebwohl DE, Gilewski TA, Surbone A, Currie V, Hudis CA et al. (1993) Paclitaxel and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as initial chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 11(10): 1943-1951.
20. Nicolaou KC, Yang Z, Liu JJ, Ueno H, Nantermet PG, Guy RK, Claiborne CF, Renaud J, Couladouros EA, Paulvannan K et al. (1994) Total synthesis of taxol. Nature 367: 630-634.
21. Holton RA, Kim HB, Somoza C, Liang F, Biediger RJ, Boatman PD, Shindo M, Smith CC, and Kim S (1994) First total synthesis of taxol. 2. Completion of the C and D rings. J Am Chem Soc 116(4): 1599-1600.
ASPET recognizes that Taxol is a registered trademark of Bristol-Myers Squibb and that Taxotere is a registered trademark of Sanofi.
The American Society for Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET) Submitted for the record to the Senate Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Senator Roy Blunt, Chairman; Senator Patty Murray, Ranking Member
Regarding
Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Appropriations for the National Institutes of Health
• Steady and sustained investment in NIH is critical to improving human health, stimulating state and local economies, and maintaining the nation’s global competitiveness.
• The short-term implications of decreased funding for NIH is that only 1 out of 6 grant applications are funded, the lowest rate in the agency’s history, leaving unfunded many highly innovative ideas that have important implications for human health.
• The long-term implications of a lack of sustained federal investment in biomedical research are more dire: the U.S. share of global research and development will decline, as a consequence of increasing research-related spending by China, Russia, and the European Union. In addition, an increasing number of scientists who trained in and/or working in the U.S. will leave to pursue careers in other countries, further compromising our competiveness and leadership in the health sector of the global economy.
• Lawmakers must secure a bipartisan, balanced approach to deficit reduction so that vital investments in biomedical research can be sustained in the best interests of the nation.
• We call upon Congress to ensure that NIH remains a national priority, by awarding an FY2017 minimum budget of $35 billion to restore purchasing power lost over the last decade and to increase the pool of talented young scientists who pursue a career in biomedical research that will advance the health of the American people.
The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET) respectfully submits the following testimony regarding Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 federal appropriations for biomedical research. ASPET is a 5,100-member professional society, whose members conduct basic, translational, and clinical pharmacological research within the academic, industrial and government sectors and are educators of research, medical, dental, pharmacy and other health professionals. Our members discover and develop new therapeutic agents that fight existing and emerging diseases, and disseminate that knowledge to improve human health. Sustainable, consistent funding for research is critical to the development of new disease prevention and treatment modalities. To this end, ASPET recommends a minimum of $35 billion for NIH in FY 2017. Overview ASPET recognizes and very much appreciates the investment in research made by Congress with the $2 billion increase in funding for NIH included in the FY2016 omnibus appropriations bills. However, sustained commitment from Congress in FY 2017 is essential to mitigate losses from budget sequestration initiated in FY 2013. From 2003-2013, NIH budget failed to keep pace with inflation in research costs leading to a nearly 25% reduction in the agency’s purchasing power and 34% reduction in the primary grant mechanism that supports investigator-initiated research. Budget sequestration since 2013 has effectively codified the loss. A FY 2017 budget of $35 billion would help restore the agency’s lost purchasing power that has occurred over the past decade and enable the NIH to fund 465 more research grants.
Council
Kenneth E. ThummelPresidentUniversity of Washington
David R. SibleyPresident-ElectBethesda, Maryland
Annette E. FleckensteinPast PresidentUniversity of Utah
Dennis C. MarshallSecretary/TreasurerFerring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Charles P. FranceSecretary/Treasurer-ElectUniversity of Texas Health ScienceCenter –- San Antonio
Paul A. InselPast Secretary/TreasurerUniversity of California – San Diego
John D. SchuetzCouncilorSt. Jude Children’s Research Hospital
Margaret E. GnegyCouncilorUniversity of Michigan Medical School
Wayne L. BackesCouncilorLouisiana State University Medical Center
Mary E. VoreChair, Board of Publications TrusteesUniversity of Kentucky
Brian M. CoxFASEB Board RepresentativeUniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Scott A. WaldmanChair, Program CommitteeThomas Jefferson University
Diminished Support for NIH Will Negatively Impact Human Health Industry, venture capital, and private philanthropy can supplement some elements of health research but they cannot replace the investment in basic, translational and clinical biomedical research provided by NIH. Much of the research undertaken by industry builds upon the discoveries generated from NIH-funded projects. The majority of NIH’s investment in basic biomedical research is broad with a long-term commitment, thereby providing an ongoing source of discoveries that are utilized by commercial entities to manufacture and market diagnostics, drugs and devices. Many such entities have shrunk their research and development programs and thus, are making smaller commitments to invest in research that may be of higher risk and require several years to fully mature. High-risk but high impact efforts, especially in basic research, represent the essential role played by NIH and its funded investigators. Past investment in NIH-funded basic research has led to many innovative medicines. In addition, NIH-funded research has provided major gains in our knowledge of the human genome, resulting in enhanced drug efficacy and a reduction in adverse drug reactions that currently limit the effectiveness of potential life-saving medications. NIH is the world leader in efforts to prevent and treat HIV-AIDS; recent genetic studies have pinpointed disease-causing variants that have led to improved cure rates, but further advances and improvements in technology will be delayed with diminished NIH funding. The evolution of patient care into what has been termed “personalized” or “precision medicine” and its application to a wide range of clinical disorders, including cancer, necessitates research to identify and test optimal diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for individuals. Past investigator support from NIH has revealed new frontiers of immunopharmacology and regenerative medicine, which are saving millions of dollars by reducing in-patient hospital care for debilitative autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, and restoring movement and function through regenerative interventions. Moreover, NIH is the only health organization capable of mounting an effective response to understand the mechanisms and develop treatments for rapidly emerging infectious diseases such as the Zika virus. Enhanced and sustained funding of NIH is essential for continued improvements in the prevention and treatment of these and many other diseases. Investing in NIH Helps America Compete Economically NIH research funding catalyzes private sector growth. More than 83% of NIH funding is awarded to over 3,000 universities, medical schools, teaching hospitals and other research institutions in every state in our nation. One national study found that combined federal and state funded research at the nation’s medical schools and hospitals supports almost 300,000 jobs and adds nearly $45 billion to the U.S. economy. NIH funding also provides the foundation for major scientific innovations in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, with new drug targets being discovered through NIH-supported basic research that can then be translated into novel drug treatments. Thus, an investment in NIH will help create jobs and promote economic growth. By contrast, a stagnating NIH budget will mean forfeiture of future discoveries and jobs to other countries, which are eager to “pick up this slack”. If funding for the next ten years is similar to that of the past decade, the nation will lose a generation of young scientists. Increasingly, these individuals, seeing no prospects for careers in biomedical research, will leave the research enterprise or look for employment in foreign countries. The “brain drain” of young scientific talent seriously jeopardizes the nation’s leadership in biomedical research and compromises future advances in the prevention and treatment of disease. A 2013 survey of ASPET’s membership revealed that 45% of post-doctoral trainees and 25% of graduate students say they are no longer considering a career in biomedical research due to the restrictive funding environment; 50% of graduate students and 29% of post-doctoral trainees say they are willing to consider leaving the U.S. in order to pursue a career in biomedical research. It is a sobering fact that the U.S. share of global research and development investment has declined substantially over that last two decades. In contrast, other nations are investing aggressively in science. For example, China has grown its science portfolio with annual increases to the research and development budget averaging over 20% annually since 2000. Russia plans to increase support for research substantially over the next decade. The European Union, despite great economic distress among its member nations, has proposed to increase spending on research and innovation by 45% between 2014 and 2020. All of these nations recognize the long-term economic value of scientific research and they are prioritizing their budgets accordingly. Conclusion ASPET acknowledges the many competing and important spending decisions that are made by the Subcommittee. However, NIH’s contribution to the nation’s economic well-being and to the health of its citizens should make it one of the nation’s top funding priorities. Ensuring a long-term commitment to discovering cures for disease is one major way in which we can work together as a Nation to reduce Medicare Medicaid expenditures without cutting benefits. Moreover, investment in research today has the potential, through new discoveries, to improve the quality, while lowering the cost of, health care, especially through efforts on the major causes of death of Americans. Lawmakers must replace sequestration in 2016 and beyond with a bipartisan, balanced approach to deficit reduction so that vital investments can be made that are in the best long-term interest of the nation. With enhanced and sustained funding, NIH can begin to reverse the decline in its operational footprint and help achieve its potential to address the most promising scientific opportunities and critical healthcare needs of our country. A budget of at least $35 billion in FY 2017 will build on the progress of the FY2016 funding, expand opportunities for investigation and increase the likelihood of new discoveries that prevent, diagnose, and treat disease.
105
June 2016 • The Pharmacologist
ASPET Washington Fellows Visit Congress
For the fourth consecutive year,
ASPET’s Washington Fellows traveled to
Washington, DC for meetings with their
congressional delegations to discuss the
importance of funding for biomedical
research; making the case for steady
and sustained support for the National
Institutes of Health.
The 2016 Fellows, comprised of
eleven graduate students, postdoctoral
scientists, and junior faculty, visited fifty-seven
congressional offices from all over the country.
Fellows informed their congressional delegation that
their home institutions are under great stress, with
pharmacology and other related departments often
smaller than they were just a few years ago. Fellows
questioned the viability of their institutions and the
country’s biomedical research enterprise if the next
decade is anything like the past ten years. Another
recurring theme was that once labs close and jobs
are lost, it is very difficult to bring the infrastructure
and intellectual capital back in their home districts.
Fellows did an excellent job of incorporating state
funding data into their discussions, and all of them
offered to make themselves available to their
congressional offices as a future resource or host at
their respective institutions.
2015 Washington Fellow Philip Saccone, a
graduate student from the University of Michigan
Medical Center, appropriately asserts that effective
advocacy requires a consistent effort for a relatively
long period of time: “Advocates need to make an
effort to build a relationship with members and their
staff, and to be a resource for them on a particular
issue. The political landscape is always shifting,
and you never know where or when an opportunity
will arise—it may appear in the most unlikely of
circumstances and be delivered by the most unlikely
people. Much like research, advocacy requires
persistence and resilience. If you’re not involved,
you can’t expect to have a seat at the table when
something important comes up.”
ASPET would like to thank and acknowledge the
commitment and great effort by the 2016 Washington
Fellows for being great representatives of ASPET,
advocates for biomedical research, and future
leaders!
Lauren Haar of Loyola University of Chicago following her meeting with Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).
Susanna Aguirre, ASPET’s manager of government affairs and science policy, Congressman James P. McGovern (MA-02), and Allyson Marshall of the University of Massachusetts School of Medicine.
106
The Pharmacologist • June 2016
Program Mission
The mission of the ASPET Washington Fellows Program is to enable developing and early career scientists interested in science policy to learn about and become more engaged in public policy issues. Fellows will develop an understanding of how public policy decisions made in Washington help shape and impact science policy, such as funding for the National Institutes of Health and other science agencies. Fellows will also learn how to advocate eff ectively on Capitol Hill and in their home districts. This program will help Fellows develop the skills and insights to become future leaders in science.
What Will ASPET Fellows Do?
Advocate on Capitol Hill: ASPET Fellows will come to Washington, DC, to meet with their congressional delegation to advocate for biomedical research and increased funding for the NIH. Fellows will be well trained by ASPET and prepared with the appropriate message to deliver to Congress. ASPET will cover transportation costs, hotel, and other reasonable expenses that follow ASPET’s reimbursement policy.
Become Advocates in their Home Districts: ASPET Fellows will meet with Members of Congress in their home district, act as a conduit to inform colleagues within their departments/institutions about federal legislative matters, write op-ed pieces to local papers, etc. All these activities will be undertaken with the support and advice of ASPET.
Attend the ASPET Annual Meeting at Experimental Biology 2017: ASPET Fellows will receive complimentary registration to attend the 2017 ASPET Annual Meeting in Chicago.
Who Should Apply?
The ASPET Washington Fellows Program is open to any graduate student, postdoctoral trainee, or researcher no more than four years past the completion of his/her postdoctoral training. Applicants must be members of ASPET in good standing and have a strong interest in science and its intersection with public policy. Fellows will be selected by the ASPET Science Policy Committee.
Application Information
ASPET anticipates up to 10 Washington Fellows Program participants in 2017. Fellows serve one-year terms.
All applications must contain the following information and be submitted by September 6, 2016, as a single combined PDF:
A letter (no more than two pages) from the applicant stating their interest in public policy and why they are interested in the ASPET Washington Fellows Program A Curriculum Vitae A letter of support from the candidate’s mentor and/or department chair
Incomplete applications and/or applications received after September 6, 2016, will not be considered.
aspet.org
2017 Washington Fellows Program
Submit your application by September 6, 2016
For more info:www.aspet.org/ASPET_Washington_Fellows_Program(301) 634-7060publicaff [email protected]
S
2017 Wash Fellows Flyer.indd 1 5/26/2016 11:50:30 AM
107
June 2016 • The Pharmacologist
Program Mission
The mission of the ASPET Washington Fellows Program is to enable developing and early career scientists interested in science policy to learn about and become more engaged in public policy issues. Fellows will develop an understanding of how public policy decisions made in Washington help shape and impact science policy, such as funding for the National Institutes of Health and other science agencies. Fellows will also learn how to advocate eff ectively on Capitol Hill and in their home districts. This program will help Fellows develop the skills and insights to become future leaders in science.
What Will ASPET Fellows Do?
Advocate on Capitol Hill: ASPET Fellows will come to Washington, DC, to meet with their congressional delegation to advocate for biomedical research and increased funding for the NIH. Fellows will be well trained by ASPET and prepared with the appropriate message to deliver to Congress. ASPET will cover transportation costs, hotel, and other reasonable expenses that follow ASPET’s reimbursement policy.
Become Advocates in their Home Districts: ASPET Fellows will meet with Members of Congress in their home district, act as a conduit to inform colleagues within their departments/institutions about federal legislative matters, write op-ed pieces to local papers, etc. All these activities will be undertaken with the support and advice of ASPET.
Attend the ASPET Annual Meeting at Experimental Biology 2017: ASPET Fellows will receive complimentary registration to attend the 2017 ASPET Annual Meeting in Chicago.
Who Should Apply?
The ASPET Washington Fellows Program is open to any graduate student, postdoctoral trainee, or researcher no more than four years past the completion of his/her postdoctoral training. Applicants must be members of ASPET in good standing and have a strong interest in science and its intersection with public policy. Fellows will be selected by the ASPET Science Policy Committee.
Application Information
ASPET anticipates up to 10 Washington Fellows Program participants in 2017. Fellows serve one-year terms.
All applications must contain the following information and be submitted by September 6, 2016, as a single combined PDF:
A letter (no more than two pages) from the applicant stating their interest in public policy and why they are interested in the ASPET Washington Fellows Program A Curriculum Vitae A letter of support from the candidate’s mentor and/or department chair
Incomplete applications and/or applications received after September 6, 2016, will not be considered.
aspet.org
2017 Washington Fellows Program
Submit your application by September 6, 2016
For more info:www.aspet.org/ASPET_Washington_Fellows_Program(301) 634-7060publicaff [email protected]
S
2017 Wash Fellows Flyer.indd 1 5/26/2016 11:50:30 AM
Education NewsIntroducing the Pharmacology Education Project (PEP)
Many educators have
scoured the Internet
using a search engine
to find just the right
presentation or part of
a presentation that can
be used in teaching
pharmacology. Students,
too, use a search engine
to find pharmacology-
related content for their
use in education or
research. The results
are often disappointing.
This was the rationale
behind the creation
of the International
Union of Basic and
Clinical Pharmacology
(IUPHAR) Pharmacology
Education Project (PEP).
With initial funding from
the American Society
for Pharmacology
and Experimental
Therapeutics (ASPET),
the dream of a site where
students and educators
can find curated
pharmacology content is
becoming a reality. We are
pleased to announce the availability of the IUPHAR
PEP website, www.pharmacologyeducation.org.
The IUPHAR PEP developed out of the need to
deliver an online resource with a clear educational
focus as a complement to the Guide to Pharmacology.
The IUPHAR PEP is a simple, attractive, easily
searchable resource that supports students of
pharmacological and other biomedical sciences such
as medicine, nursing, and pharmacy, as well as those
who teach them. The project should be particularly
attractive to those in resource-poor countries or
where pharmacology is less well developed.
The layout of the PEP website is divided into four
main sections (Principles of Pharmacology, Principles
of Clinical Pharmacology, Drugs, and Therapeutics),
each comprised of several modules (e.g., adverse
drug reactions under Principles of Pharmacology)
that, in turn, are divided into topics (e.g.
pharmacovigilance under adverse drug reactions).
The format for each topic includes a brief summary of
the topic followed by curated and annotated links to
other resources.
The Project is led by Simon Maxwell, secretary,
IUPHAR-Education Section and University of
Edinburgh, UK, and John Szarek, councilor, ASPET
Division of Pharmacology Education and The
Commonwealth Medical College, Scranton PA. They
convened an inaugural Editorial Board comprised of
an international group of educators and innovators
in pharmacology education, including Leszek
Wojnowski, University Medical Center, Mainz,
Germany; Antonio Sarikas, Technische Universität,
Munich, Germany; Elizabeth Davis, Monash
University, Australia; Kelly Karpa, Penn State College
of Medicine, United States; and Chay-Hoon Tan,
National University of Singapore, Singapore. Elena
Faccenda is the curator of the IUPHAR PEP website.
• Stay informed about opportunities by following us on Facebook and Twitter and reading our NewsBrief;
make sure you are receiving our direct emails as well
One of the questions we hear most frequently from members is “how do I become more engaged with the society?” Whether you are looking for leadership opportunities,
developmental experiences, networking, or a chance to be more involved in divisions and committees,
there are many opportunities for engagement in the work of the society. Below are some of the ways you
can contribute to ASPET while furthering your own growth and professional development.
(1) BEH Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the postdoctoral scientist category, the top prizes were awarded to Jacques Nguyen (1st), Jessica Anand (2nd), Brenda Gannon (2nd), and Sarah Withey (2nd).
(2) BEH Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the undergraduate student category, the top prizes were awarded to Caitlin Labay (1st) and Mary Logan (2nd).
(3) CVP Trainee Showcase Winners (Oral Sessions) - In the graduate student category, the top prizes for trainee talks were awarded to Kristin Luther (1st), Nadia Ayala-Lopez (2nd) (not pictured), and Goutham Vasam (3rd).
(4) DM Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the graduate student category, the top prizes were awarded to Julie Lade (1st), Joseph Jilek (2nd), and Faith Stevison (3rd).
BEH = Division for Behavioral PharmacologyDCP = Division for Cancer PharmacologyCVP = Division for Cardiovascular PharmacologyDDD = Division for Drug Discovery and DevelopmentDM = Division for Drug Metabolism
MOL = Division for Molecular PharmacologyNEU = Division for NeuropharmacologyDPE = Division for Pharmacology EducationTOX = Division for ToxicologyTCP = Division for Translational and Clinical Pharmacology
2
1
43
121
June 2016 • The Pharmacologist
(1) DCP Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the undergraduate student category, the top prize was awarded to Gloria Le (1st). In the graduate student category, top prizes were awarded to Chen Shan Woodcock (1st) and Kristan Cleveland (2nd). In the postdoctoral scientist category, the top prize was awarded to Shu Zhou (1st).
(2) CVP Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the graduate student category, the top prizes were awarded to Krish-naraj Rathod (1st), Alexa Hendricks (2nd), Santosh Suryavanshi (3rd), and Lingxin Zhang (HM) (not pictured).
(3) BEH Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the graduate student category, the top prizes were awarded to Rachel Altshuler (1st) and Fernando Moura (2nd).
(4) CVP Trainee Showcase Winners (Oral Sessions) - In the postdoctoral scientist category, the top prizes for trainee talks were awarded to Inigo Valiente-Alandi (1st) and Jacob Myerson (2nd) (not pictured).
(5) CVP Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the undergraduate student category, the top prizes were awarded to Patrick Liu (1st) (not pictured) and Brendan Mullan (2nd).
2
1
3
4
5
122
The Pharmacologist • June 2016
(1) TOX Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the postdoctoral scientist category, the top prizes were awarded to Alessandro Venosa (1st) and Hailiang Liu (2nd) (not pictured).
(2) MOL Best Presentation Competition Winners (Oral Sessions) - In the postdoctoral scientist category, the top prizes for oral presentations were awarded to Jennifer Cash (1st), Laurel Grisanti (2nd), and Kathryn Luderman (3rd).
(3) DDD Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the young scientist category, the top prizes were awarded to Jenaye Robinson (1st) and Amit Sharma (2nd).
(4) TOX New Investigator Award winner Jamie J. Bernard, PhD
(5) MOL Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the graduate student category, the top prizes for poster presentations were awarded to Jason Davis (1st), Doungkamol Alongkronrusmee (finalist), Jugajyoti Baruah (finalist), Robert Cameron (finalist), and Kathryn Livingston (finalist).
(6) TCP Young Investigator Platform Session Winners (Oral Sessions) - In the postdoctoral scientist category, the top prizes were awarded to Naeem Patil (1st) and Matthew Jennis (2nd).
4
5
3
12
6
123
June 2016 • The Pharmacologist
BEH = Division for Behavioral PharmacologyDCP = Division for Cancer PharmacologyCVP = Division for Cardiovascular PharmacologyDDD = Division for Drug Discovery and DevelopmentDM = Division for Drug Metabolism
MOL = Division for Molecular PharmacologyNEU = Division for NeuropharmacologyDPE = Division for Pharmacology EducationTOX = Division for ToxicologyTCP = Division for Translational and Clinical Pharmacology
(1) TOX Junior Investigator Award winner Brian S. Cummings, PhD
(2) NEU Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the undergraduate student category, the top prizes for poster presentations were awarded to Tyler Hinshaw (1st) and Nicole Colon Carrion (2nd) (not pictured). In the graduate student category, the top prizes for poster presentations were awarded to Sumitra Pati (1st), Sophia Kaska (2nd), and Danielle Tomasello (3rd).
(3) NEU Best Presentation Competition Winners (Oral Sessions) - In the postdoctoral scientist category, the top prizes for oral presentations were awarded to Matthew Robson (1st), Erin Calipari (2nd), and Erin Bobeck (3rd).
(4) TCP Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the graduate student category, the top prizes were awarded to Jamie Moscovitz (1st), Jeremy Miyauchi (2nd), Clark Sims (3rd), Mikeal Boberg (HM) (not pictured), and Blessy George (HM) (not pictured).
(5) TCP Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the undergraduate student category, the top prize was awarded to Mark Wiley (1st).
5
3
4
2
1
124
The Pharmacologist • June 2016
BEH = Division for Behavioral PharmacologyDCP = Division for Cancer PharmacologyCVP = Division for Cardiovascular PharmacologyDDD = Division for Drug Discovery and DevelopmentDM = Division for Drug Metabolism
MOL = Division for Molecular PharmacologyNEU = Division for NeuropharmacologyDPE = Division for Pharmacology EducationTOX = Division for ToxicologyTCP = Division for Translational and Clinical Pharmacology
1
2
3
4 5
6
7
(1) DM Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the postdoctoral scientist category, the top prizes were awarded to Sasmita Tripathy (1st), Luc Rougee (2nd), and Aanchal Mehrotra (3rd).
(2) TOX Career Award winner John D. Schuetz, PhD
(3) TOX Best Presentation Competition Winners (Poster Sessions) - In the graduate student category, the top prizes were awarded to Katiria Flores (1st), Souvarish Sarkar (2nd), and Rachel Murphy (3rd).
(4) NEU Early Career Independent Investigator Award winner Ryan A. Drenan, PhD
(5) TCP Young Investigator Platform Session Winners (Oral Sessions) - In the graduate student category, the top prizes were awarded to Amanda Stolarz (1st) and Brett McGregor (2nd).
(6) TCP Awards for the Early Career Faculty Showcase were given to Michelle Kimple and Avner Schlessinger.
(7) DPE Travel Awards for Pharmacology Educators were awarded to Katharina Brandl, PhD and Dovenia Ponnoth, PhD.
125
June 2016 • The Pharmacologist
Read about the James R. Gillette Drug Metabolism Best Paper Award winner in the drug transport and
pharmacokinetics category, Dr. Lilly East, in the March 2016 issue of The Pharmacologist: http://bit.ly/1piu9fm
Each year the Division for Drug Metabolism
presents two James R. Gillette Best Paper Awards:
one for the best paper in the area of drug metabolism
and the other for the best paper in drug transport and
pharmacokinetics.
The Gillette award in the drug metabolism category
was given to Yun-Chen Tien, PhD, for her work done in
the laboratory of Xiaobo Zhong, PhD, at the University
of Connecticut. Dr. Tien received a cash award and
certificate, and this work was presented by Dr. Zhong
at the James Gillette Award and Platform Session at
the 2016 ASPET Annual Meeting in San Diego.
The award-winning paper was titled “Dose of
Phenobarbital and Age of Treatment at Early Life
Are Two Key Factors for the Persistent Induction of
Cytochrome P450 Enzymes in Adult Mouse Liver,” and
was authored by Y.C. Tien, K. Liu, C. Pope, P. Wang,
X. Ma, and X.B. Zhong. The authors investigated
possible consequences on adult drug metabolism
after receiving drug treatment at neonate and infant
stages. Phenobarbital was used as a model drug and
mouse as an in vivo model to demonstrate that the
phenobarbital dose and the age at which treatment
occurred are the two key factors for the persistent
induction of gene expression and consequential
increases of enzyme activities of several tested P450
genes in adult liver. These results may stimulate
studies to evaluate the long-term impacts of drug
treatment with different doses at neonatal and infant
ages in humans on drug metabolism, therapeutic
efficacy, and drug-induced toxicity throughout the rest
of life.
Dr. Tien has been a postdoctoral fellow in Dr.
Zhong’s Lab since 2013. She received her PhD in
pharmacology from China Medical University. In
addition to this award, she also received the first place
Best Presentation Award in the postdoctoral category
at the 19th North American ISSX/29th JSSX meeting
in 2014 and the first place Best Presentation Award in
the postdoctoral category from the Division for Drug
Metabolism at the ASPET Annual Meeting at EB2015.
Dr. Zhong is an associate professor of pharmacology
and toxicology at the University of Connecticut, School
of Pharmacy. He received a PhD degree in molecular
biology from Wageningen University in the Netherlands
and trained as a postdoctoral fellow in genomics at the
Yale University School of Medicine. Dr. Zhong was an
assistant and associate professor at the University of
Kansas Medical Center before he joined the University
of Connecticut in 2012. A former councilor of the
Division for Drug Metabolism, he currently serves
on numerous editorial boards and several NIH study
sections, including Developmental Pharmacology and
Environmental Epigenomics. Dr. Zhong is currently
funded by the National Institutes of General Medical
Sciences and the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences at the NIH. Research areas in his
laboratory include P450-mediated drug metabolism,
developmental pharmacology, pharmacogenetics, and
pharmacoepigenetics for precision medicine.
The Gillette Award honors the late NIH
Pharmacologist James R. Gillette, Ph.D. (http://dmd.
aspetjournals.org/cgi/reprint/31/12/1474.pdf ), who
was a scholar, scientist, philosopher, and supervisor
of pharmacologists worldwide. During his career,
Gillette published more than 300 papers and chapters
and co-edited seven books. He was considered a
visionary and significant contributor to the field of drug
Mark T. Nelson, PhD, winner of the Vanhoutte Distinguished Lectureship with Paul M. Vanhoutte, MD, PhD.
Dr. Mark Nelson delivered this year’s Paul M.
Vanhoutte Distinguished Lectureship in Vascular
Pharmacology titled “Capillaries as Decoders of the
Neural Rhythm of the Brain: Translating Thought into
Blood Flow.” This award is sponsored by the Division
for Cardiovascular Pharmacology and was established
to honor Dr. Vanhoutte’s lifelong scientific contributions
to the field of endothelial and vascular smooth muscle
biology and for his outstanding contributions to
mentoring numerous prominent trainees in the field
of vascular physiology and pharmacology. Dr. Nelson
is the chair of the Department of Pharmacology and
distinguished professor at the University of Vermont.
He received a $1000 honorarium, a custom designed
crystal bowl, and travel expenses to the ASPET Annual
Meeting at Experimental Biology 2016. Dr. Nelson
was recognized for his significant contributions to the
field of vascular pharmacology and for his exceptional
mentoring and service to ASPET and the Division for
Cardiovascular Pharmacology.
2016 Paul M. Vanhoutte Distinguished Lectureship in Vascular Pharmacology
127
June 2016 • The Pharmacologist
The Academy of Pharmacology Educators
was established in 2010 in order to recognize
individuals who have made exemplary contributions
to pharmacology education in one or more of
the following areas: student-teacher interaction,
innovative contributions, scholarly endeavors,
professional development, and service. Three new
members were inducted into the Academy during
the Annual Meeting of the Division for Pharmacology
Education at EB 2016. More information about the
Academy, including application instructions and a
roster of inductees, can be found at http://www.aspet.
org/Education/Academy.
Academy inductee A. Laurel Gorman, PhD received
her BS in interdisciplinary studies (neurosciences)
from the University of Florida and her PhD in
pharmacology from LSU Medical School. After
completing post-doctoral research
at Weill Cornell Medical College
and the University of Miami School
of Medicine, she joined the faculty
at Nova Southeastern University.
In 2009, she became part of the
Founding Faculty for the University
of Central Florida College of
Medicine. In her 19 plus years of
teaching, she has taught most topics
in pharmacology to medical, dental,
and optometry students and also to
allied health undergraduates in both
small classrooms and large lecture-
style classes. She received a travel
award from ASPET’S Division for
Pharmacology Education in 2013 and
is currently serving on the Executive
Committee of DPE. She has received
multiple teaching awards for her
excellence and creativity in teaching.
Her medical education research
interests include the use of simulations, innovative
and blended learning teaching techniques, and
curriculum development and assessment, all in the
context of pharmacology education.
Academy inductee Nicole C. Kwiek, PhD is clinical
assistant professor and director of undergraduate
studies at the Ohio State University College of
Pharmacy. She received her BS in biochemistry
from Ohio State, a PhD in pharmacology from Duke
University, followed by a postdoctoral fellowship at the
Duke Center for Science Education. Since joining the
OSU faculty, she has received the BS Pharmaceutical
Sciences Distinguished Teaching Award three times.
She currently co-directs the Generation Rx Initiative,
a learning community of Ohio State faculty, staff, and
students studying the problem of prescription drug
abuse. This project, designed to prevent misuse and
Division for Pharmacology Education Inducts Three New Fellows into the Academy of Pharmacology Educators
A. Laurel Gorman, PhD, Nicole C. Kwiek, PhD, and Thomas C. Westfall, PhD (not pictured) were inducted into the Academy of Pharmacology Educators pictured with Carol Beck, PhD (center).
educational materials and hands-on learning at Ohio
State University’s Center of Science and Industry. She
has developed and taught MOOCs on pharmacology-
related topics through Coursera and iTunesU. Dr.
Kwiek is the lead administrator and teacher of Ohio
State University’s College of Pharmacy’s Pills, Potions,
and Poisons science enrichment program for high
school students.
Academy inductee Thomas C. Westfall, PhD is the
William Beaumont Professor and chair emeritus of
the Department of Pharmacology and Physiology at
St. Louis University School of Medicine. He received
his PhD from West Virginia University. Dr. Westfall
has been actively teaching pharmacology to medical
students and other health care profession students
for over 52 years as part of the faculty at universities
in Missouri, West Virginia, and Virginia. He has
been a PhD supervisor for 27 PhD students, a post-
doctoral mentor for 17 fellows, and has served on
over 100 prelim or thesis committees for PhD or MD/
PhD students. Dr. Westfall has been honored with
multiple teaching awards at St. Louis University. He
has authored or co-authored chapters in multiple
pharmacology textbooks, particularly chapters related
to autonomic pharmacology or neuropharmacology.
He has served on multiple ASPET committees and
in leadership roles, including chair of the Division for
Neuropharmacology (1991-1993). He was recognized
in 2015 for having been an ASPET member for 50
years. His successful research career consisted
of more than 28 NIH grants with more than $12
million in funding and a total of 103 years of support.
During his 34 years as chair of the Department of
Pharmacological and Physiological Science at St. Louis
University School of Medicine, Dr. Westfall hired and
mentored many junior faculty and was the principal
investigator on two NIH T32 training grants.
The Division for Pharmacology Education considers
it a privilege to add these three educator scholars to
the roster of the Academy of Pharmacology Educators
and is greatly appreciative of the many contributions
made by these three individuals.
Have You Joined a Division?Take full advantage of ASPET Membership by joining a Division!• Participate in creating scientific programming for the annual meeting
• Network with people in your field at mixers, Division programs, and on each Division’s
LinkedIn group
• Participate in running the Division and planning activities
• Receive special notices about events and activities of interest in your field
129
June 2016 • The Pharmacologist
2016 Division MixersASPET members attended division-sponsored mixers at
EB2016 to network and socialize with friends and colleagues.
Many divisions held their award ceremonies and honored their
out-going leadership at the mixers.
View our photo collection from the 2016 annual meeting on Flickr: http://bit.ly/1rU8yeo
The ASPET Career Center is the best resource for matching job seekers and employers in the pharmacology and related health science fi elds. Our vast range of resources and tools will help you look for jobs, fi nd great employees, and proactively manage your career goals.
No registration fee
Advanced search options
Sign up for automatic email notifi cations of new jobs that match your criteria
Free & confi dential résumé posting
Access to jobs posted on the National Healthcare Career Network (NHCN)
Career management resources including career tips, coaching, résumé writing, online profi le development, and much more
Reach ASPET’s Twitter followers (over 1,000), LinkedIn Members (over 2,000), and email subscribers (over 4,000)
Post to just ASPET or to entire NHCN network
Sign up for automatic email notifications of new résumés that match your criteria
Job activity tracking
ASPET Career Center Full Page Ad 2015 Updated.indd 1 2/26/2016 1:43:53 PM
132
The Pharmacologist • June 2016
Explore PharmacologyGraduate Studies in Pharmacology
Promote your graduate program in our 2016 edition of Explore Pharmacology. This publication gives college students an overview of the fundamentals and applications of pharmacology.
In addition, it describes the many employment opportunities that await graduate pharmacologists and outlines the academic path that they are advised to follow. There is no better place to advertise your graduate program!
Bene ts of Advertising with Explore Pharmacology:Distributed to 1,100+ undergraduate students and ASPET Undergraduate Student Members who have a direct interest in pharmacology and related graduate programs
Distributed at the Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS), the Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS) meeting, and the Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting where over 30,000 attendees are expected
Copies will be sent to each of the 21 universities that participate in ASPET’s Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) program
Advertising OpportunitiesAdvertise with a ¼ page, ½ page, or full page, 4-color display ad
Enhance your visibility by advertising on one of the covers (inside front, inside back, or back cover) with a full page, 4-color ad
Your ad will be highlighted on the ASPET Departments and Training Programs in Pharmacology webpage with a link to your website from September 1 - December 31, 2016
Act quickly, the Space and Materials deadline is Friday, July 15.
If you have questions or would like to see sample ads, contact ASPET’s advertising department:
Jason WellsAdvertising [email protected] 301.634.7117www.faseb.org/adnet/aspet
ExplorePharmacologyGraduate Studies in Pharmacology
American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeuticswww.aspet.org
Explore Pharmacology - June 2016.indd 1 5/18/2016 2:47:14 PM