September 2015 - The Pharmacologist

The Early Days of L-Dopa

Inside:EB2016 Preliminary Program

Awards Deadline

Postdoctoral Survey Results

t h ePharmacologist

A Publication by The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

Vol. 57 • Number 3 • September 2015

134

The Pharmacologist • September 2015

Message from the President

EB2016 Meeting Highlights

Feature Story: Sleepy Sickness, Oliver Sacks, and the Early Days of L-DOPA

Science Policy News

Education News

Journal News

Membership News

Members in the News

Division News

Chapter News Meetings & Congresses

Contents...135137144

155160166168173175176179

The Pharmacologist is published and distributed by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. THE PHARMACOLOGIST

PRODUCTION TEAM

Prateeksha NagarSuzie Thompson Rich DodenhoffCatherine L. Fry, PhDJudith A. Siuciak, PhD

COUNCIL

President Kenneth E. Thummel, PhD

President-Elect David R. Sibley, PhD

Past President Annette E. Fleckenstein, MD, PhD

Secretary/Treasurer Dennis C. Marshall, MD

Secretary/Treasurer-Elect Charles P. France, PhD

Past Secretary/Treasurer Paul A. Insel, PhD

Councilors Wayne Backes, PhD

John D. Schuetz, PhD

Margaret E. Gnegy, PhD

Chair, Board of Publications Trustees Mary E. Vore, PhD

Chair, Program Committee Scott Waldman, MD, PhD

FASEB Board Representative Brian M. Cox, PhD

Executive Officer Judith A. Siuciak, PhD

The Pharmacologist (ISSN 0031-7004) is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3995. Annual subscription rates: $20.00 for ASPET members; $45.00 for U.S. nonmembers and institutions; $70.00 for nonmembers and institutions outside the U.S. Single copy: $20.00. Copyright © 2015 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Inc. All rights reserved. Periodicals postage paid at Bethesda, MD. GST number for Canadian subscribers: BN:13489 2330 RT.

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.

135

September 2015 • The Pharmacologist

Message from

The PresidentDear ASPET Members,

It is a great privilege and honor to serve you as the 84th President of the American Society for Pharmacology

and Experimental Therapeutics. When considering the incredible scope of research, educational, and public service

activities being pursued by the membership of ASPET, I am awed to find myself in this leadership role. Like many of you,

I suspect, I operated for many years within a relatively small world of like-minded colleagues pursuing research and

education in a narrow sub-discipline of pharmacology (drug metabolism and disposition, in my case). I crept out for the

annual EB meeting and thoroughly enjoyed my time there, with the opportunity to get immersed in a greater diversity

of scholarly thought, but largely constrained daily activities to my niche, my real world – the one that pays the bills. That

has changed, and I firmly believe for the better. In this day and age of competing interests for limited resources and

reduced attention spans of government leaders, it is absolutely essential that we as a society function as a collective,

a well-tuned machine, with a common vision and an unwavering will in order to achieve our mission of transforming

discoveries into therapies. During the next 12 months, I invite you to join me in this exciting collective endeavor.

At the outset of my tenure, I want to thank ASPET’s Past-President Annette Fleckenstein, Executive Officer Judy

Siuciak, the entire ASPET office staff, as well as departing and remaining Council members for their tireless and

outstanding service to our organization. Just a few highlights of their accomplishments from the past year include

implementation of the first round of BIG IDEAS, with an investment of resources in three educational initiatives that

should foster new and a more diverse membership in the society and expand the career horizons of our youngest

members. This is part of a broader initiative from the society leadership to grow membership and ensure the relevance

of our discipline in the prevention and treatment of human disease. In addition, the number of ASPET divisions

expanded, with creation of a Division for Cancer Pharmacology that will be led by Susan Cole (Chair) and Kip Guy

(Secretary/Treasurer). The new division is expected to be highly popular, addressing an unmet intellectual need of our

current membership, and brings the opportunity to attract new members to ASPET who are seeking kindred spirits

and a rich environment for the exchange of research and educational advances in the development and use of drugs

to treat and prevent cancer. In the past year, our society leadership oversaw the highly successful launch of the David

Lehr Award and Reynold Spector Award in Clinical Pharmacology at the 2015 EB meeting in Boston. These add to a rich

array of what are now fully-endowed award opportunities that recognize the scholarly accomplishments of our members,

and others, working in the field of pharmacology. Finally, I want to extend my sincere thanks to Annette, Judy, Rich

Dodenhoff, Mary Vore and the rest of the Board of Publications Trustees for ably representing the society during the

recent public discourse on reproducibility of scientific results. Working with directors at NIH and the leadership of other

scientific journals, including our sister pharmacology societies, they directly addressed this critically important issue and

developed a serious, realistic implementation plan for ASPET journals that should enhance the quality of work published

in our journals and assure the public that their support of biomedical research is well placed.

Looking forward to the next year, I am delighted to tell you about some new initiatives and changes to ASPET

operations that should improve your experience when engaging in society activities and increase our visibility within

the US government and biomedical science community. First and foremost, the ASPET office has recruited two new

staff members: Susanna Aguirre, as Manager of Government Affairs and Science Policy, and Carla Burns, as Program

Coordinator. Susanna will be leading efforts to further develop our science policy and government affairs programs,

including highly successful initiatives such as the ASPET Washington Fellows program begun by her predecessor Jim

136


Bernstein, and to increase the visibility and impact of ASPET within the government organizations and associated

enterprises that are critical to our membership and their scientific and educational activities. Carla will be a liaison to

all of the society divisions and importantly will be providing staff support for our expanding educational and mentoring

initiatives. In addition to these important personnel changes, following the recommendations of an Awards task force

and with approval of Council, we are implementing a new electronic portal for submitting ASPET award nominations, as

well as the submission of abstracts for presentation at EB and application for trainee travel awards. We expect that this

will be a more user-friendly platform than what existed in the past, that it will help ensure that opportunities to apply are

not missed, and that it will greatly facilitate the review process by ASPET members who provide that invaluable service

to the society.

Council also voted to expand the eligibility for general travel awards to include undergraduates, beyond the limited

number that attend EB as part of the SURF program. They join graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in what will

now be a unified “Young Scientists” travel award competition. These trainees represent the very best and brightest

young minds and must be encouraged to attend EB, where we can engage them in a variety of scientific, educational,

and social activities, planting the seeds for a lifetime of membership in ASPET and a career in pharmacology. While the

number of undergraduate awards planned for EB2016 will be relatively modest (approximately 25), this can be increased

in future years if the expected demand is realized. As part of ongoing efforts to develop future leaders in pharmacology,

we are pleased to announce a new Young Scientists Committee that will build on the wonderful momentum of the

Graduate Student/Postdoc Colloquium at EB2015. This committee initiated and led by ASPET postdoctoral members,

will provide greater visibility to the needs of these members and to their ideas for a more enriching experience that

promotes, once again, a life-long career in pharmacology and association with ASPET.

As briefly described above, it is my goal for the next year to expand and enhance the ways in which the society

leadership can serve its membership. But I also call upon you to consider your involvement in the society and how

you can support ASPET’s mission and its fiscal health. With this in mind, I want to encourage you to publish your

most impactful and exciting research in the ASPET peer-reviewed journals – Molecular Pharmacology, Journal of

Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Drug Metabolism and Disposition, Pharmacological Reviews and

Pharmacology Research & Perspectives. There will always be pressure on you to publish in journals with the highest

impact factors, but consider that by our collective action we can change that publication mindset and ensure that ASPET

journals remain the ultimate source for transformative pharmacological research discoveries. There is an added benefit

to the society: the revenue generated by subscriptions to our journals constitutes a critical source of funding for society

operations. This revenue allows us to keep membership fees low, to enhance the quality of service provided to our

members; and to nurture future members and leaders of our society and the discipline of pharmacology. Publishing in

ASPET journals is in our best interest.

Finally, as my predecessors have said so eloquently in the past, the door to ASPET leadership is always open and I

welcome your feedback and suggestions that can help us better serve you, the members, who are the heart and soul of

our society.

With the very best regards,

Kenneth E. Thummel

137


The 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Society

for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics will

be held in conjunction with the Experimental Biology

2016 meeting in San Diego. The meeting will be held

at the San Diego Convention Center from April 2 – 6,

2016. ASPET’s program will include a wide variety of

scientific symposia from invited speakers in addition

to award lectures, division sessions, education

and career development sessions, a student and

postdoctoral poster competition, and numerous mixers

and networking events.

The annual meeting can help you learn about

the latest developments in your field to push your

research forward. Not only will your participation help

you gain scientific information, but it will also bring you

in contact with others from your scientific community

who can advise you on any research issues and

career concerns. Save the date to attend the ASPET

Annual Meeting at EB2016. We look forward to your

participation and abstract submissions.

Exciting Meeting Events• Presentation of scientific achievement awards and

travel awards

• Opening reception and celebration of award recipients

• Keynote lectures by award winners

• Student-Postdoc poster competition

• Student-Postdoc mixer

• Nightly division mixers

• Early morning networking walk

• Poolside closing reception

• New! ASPET members lounge

• The Shop ASPET store open in ASPET booth #1802

137

Jean Rossier, MD, PhDSince 2012, Dr. Rossier has worked at Hôpital Sainte Anne in Paris on translational research on imaging the brain in action. He will present the Julius Axelrod Award in Pharmacology Lecture: Therapies of Brain Diseases, Past, Present and Future.

Rita J. Valentino, PhDDr. Valentino is a professor and director of the Division for Stress Neurobiology in the Departments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the University of Pennsylvania. She will deliver the Ray Fuller Lecture in the Neurosciences: Sex Biased Stress Signaling.

Joan Heller Brown, PhD Dr. Brown is a distinguished professor and chair of the Department of Pharmacology at the University of California, San Diego. She will present a special Invited Lecture: RhoA in Focus: Pathways from GPCRs to Disease.

2016 Lecture Highlights

137

ASPET Annual Meeting at EB2016

Meeting Highlights


138

The ASPET 2016 Annual Meeting Website

The 2016 ASPET Annual Meeting website has a simple

user-friendly interface and easy navigation customized

for a rich, informative user experience. Visit the microsite

at www.aspet.org/EB2016 to access information on the

meeting program, abstracts, speakers, special events,

sponsorship opportunities, and more!

ASPET Travel Awards to Experimental BiologyApplication Deadline: Friday, December 11, 2015

ASPET Best Presentation AwardsApplication Deadline: Monday, November 23, 2015

Best presentation awards are presented by

ASPET’s divisions for abstracts that have been

submitted by postdoctoral fellows, graduate students,

and undergraduates attending the ASPET Annual

Meeting at Experimental Biology 2016. These awards

are only open to ASPET members and you must

also submit an abstract to EB2016 in an ASPET topic

category by the EB deadline of November 5, 2015.

Selected finalists may be asked to present their

research at the best poster competition on Sunday

evening, April 3, 2016 or at a division oral session.

For more information and to apply for a best

presentation award, please visit: www.aspet.org/

awards/best-presentation/

138

Undergraduate students, graduate students, and

postdoctoral fellows are invited to apply for a travel

award to help defray the costs of registration, travel,

and housing to attend the ASPET Annual Meeting

at EB2016. Travel awards are only open to ASPET

members and you must also submit an abstract to

EB2016 in an ASPET topic category by the EB

deadline of November 5, 2015.

For more information and to apply for a travel

award, please visit: www.aspet.org/awards/travel

Important Dates

Thursday, November 5, 2015 .........Abstract Submission Deadline

Tuesday, February 23, 2016 ............Discounted Housing Deadline

Tuesday, March 1, 2016 ....................Discounted Registration Deadline

April 2 – 6, 2016 ................................EB2016 in San Diego

Saturday, April 2, 2016 .....................ASPET Annual Business Meeting

http://www.aspet.org/EB2016

https://www.aspet.org/awards/best-presentation/

https://www.aspet.org/awards/best-presentation/

http://www.aspet.org/awards/travel

139


ASPET Best Presentation AwardsApplication Deadline: Monday, November 23, 2015

Lectures

John J. Abel Award in Pharmacology Lecture

Keynote to be announced in January

Julius Axelrod Award in Pharmacology Lecture

Therapies of Brain Diseases, Past, Present

and Future

Keynote: Jean Rossier

Goodman and Gilman Award in Receptor

Pharmacology Lecture


Ray Fuller Lecture in the Neurosciences

Sex Biased Stress Signaling

Keynote: Rita J. Valentino

Invited Lecture: RhoA in Focus: Pathways from

GPCRs of Disease

Keynote: Joan Heller Brown

Bernard B. Brodie Award in Drug Metabolism Lecture


P.B. Dews Lifetime Achievement Award for Research

in Behavioral Pharmacology Lecture


Paul M. Vanhoutte Distinguished Lectureship in

Vascular Pharmacology


Symposia

ASPET Presidential Symposium:

Precision Medicine in Anti-Cancer Pharmacology

Chairs: Kenneth Thummel and Susan Cole

Julius Axelrod Symposium:

New Vistas on Drug and Gene Therapies of

Cognitive Deficits in Down Syndrome, Autism,

Leucodystrophies and Alzheimer’s Disease

Chair: Jean Rossier

ASPET Journal Symposium:

Hear it from the Editors: Navigating the Course

through Journal Submission and Publication

Chairs: Mary Vore and Edward Morgan

Ray Fuller Symposium:

Sex Differences in Biology: Challenges and

Opportunities for Drug Development

Chair: Rita J. Valentino

Undergraduate Research: Cultivating the

Next Generation of Researchers through SURF

and Beyond

Chairs: Catherine Fry and Catherine Davis and

Lauren Aleksunes

Preliminary ProgramFor additional program details and highlights, visit: www.aspet.org/eb2016.

http://www.aspet.org/eb2016

140


Division for Behavioral Pharmacology

Beyond Traditional Assessments of Pain: Implications

for Drug Discovery of Novel Pain Therapeutics

Chairs: Carol A. Paronis and Harshini Neelakantan

Keep Calm and Target Peptides: Modulation of Stress-

Related Behaviors by Neuropeptide Systems

Chairs: Stewart Clark and Valentina Sabino

Nicotinic Agonist/Antagonist Drug Development:

Implications for Treatment of Neurodegenerative and

Addictive Disorders

Chairs: Annette Fleckenstein and Maryka Quik

Quantitative Pharmacological Analysis of In Vivo Data

and its Implications in CNS Drug Discovery

Chairs: Jun-Xu Li and Lisa Gerak

Division for Cardiovascular Pharmacology

Invited Lecture: RhoA in Focus: Pathways from GPCRs

to Disease (Joan Heller Brown)

Symposium: GPCR and RhoA as Mediators of Disease

Co-sponsored with the Division for Molecular

Pharmacology

Chairs: Rick Neubig and Shigeki Miyamoto

Novel Platelet Therapies: Attacking Them from the

Inside and Out

Chair: Marvin T. Nieman

Sex Differences in Cardiovascular and Renal

Pharmacology

Chairs: Sarah H. Lindsey and Eman Gohar

Novel Targets for Treatment of Cardiometabolic

Diseases

Chairs: Jun Ren and Sreejayan Nair

Cardiovascular Pharmacology Division Trainee

Showcase

Applications accepted through 11/23/2015. Abstract

submission to EB2016 using the online ASPET Awards

Portal is required.

Division for Cancer Pharmacology

Cancer Stem Cells as Pharmacological Targets

Chairs: J. Silvio Gutkind and Tannishtha Reya

Chronopharmacology in Cancer: Does Time

Really Matter?

Chair: Shobhan Gaddameedhi

Translating MicroRNA Cancer Biology to Therapy

Chairs: Aiming Yu and Andreas G. Bader

Division for Drug Discovery and Development

The Biology and Translational Potential of

Hydrogen Sulfide: One Person’s Trash is Another

Person’s Treasure

Chairs: John L. Wallace and Andreas Papapetropoulos

Emerging Roles for the Ubiquitin-Proteasome System

in Therapeutics

Chairs: Benita Sjogren and Henry L. Paulson

Current Trends in Antibody Drug Conjugates: From

Discovery to the Clinic

Co-sponsored with the Division for Drug Metabolism

Chairs: Tim Esbenshade and Larry C. Wienkers

Role of Chemical Biology in Drug Design

and Discovery

Chairs: John S. Lazo and Craig Beeson

Division for Drug Metabolism

Current Trends in Antibody Drug Conjugates: From

Discovery to the Clinic

Co-sponsored with the Division for Drug Discovery and

Development

Chairs: Tim Esbenshade and Larry C. Wienkers

Dose Selection Using Physiologically Based Modeling

Chair: Jan Wahlstrom

Substrate Modulation of Organic Anion and Cation

Transporters

Chairs: Bruno Hagenbuch and Jed Lampe

141


141

Drugs of Abuse and Antiretrovirals: Interactions

and Toxicities

Chairs: Santosh Kumar and Kelly Jordan-Sciutto

James Gillette Award and Platform Session



Portal is required.

Division for Molecular Pharmacology

Invited Lecture: RhoA in Focus: Pathways from

GPCRs to Disease (Joan Heller Brown)

Symposium: GPCR and RhoA as Mediators

of Disease

Co-sponsored with the Division for Cardiovascular

Pharmacology

Chairs: Rick Neubig and Shigeki Miyamoto

From Ligands to Signaling: Recent Advances in

Adhesion GPCR Pharmacology and Biology

Chairs: Xianhua Piao and Randy A. Hall

Wnt Signaling: From Disease Mechanisms to

Therapeutic Interventions

Chairs: Reinoud Gosens and W. Matthijs Blankesteijn

Intracellular GPCR and Lipid Signaling

Chairs: Adriano Marchese and Alan Smrcka

Abstract submission to EB2016 using the online

ASPET Awards Portal is required.

Division for Molecular Pharmacology Postdoctoral

Scientist Award Finalists



Portal is required.

Division for Neuropharmacology

New Twists on Neurotransmitter Transport:

Unraveling Novel Therapeutic Targets for Addiction

and Psychiatric Disorders

Chairs: Lynette C. Daws and Harald H. Sitte

Cannabinoid Signaling in Pain and Addiction:

Translating Preclinical Basic Research to the Clinic

Chairs: Daniel Morgan and Josee Guindon

Central Mechanisms Contributing to Novel

Antidepressant Efficacy

Chair: Dan Lodge

Division for Neuropharmacology Postdoctoral

Scientist Award Finalists



Portal is required.

Division for Pharmacology Education

Meet the New POPS – They’ll Flip Your Teaching

Chairs: Mark A. Simmons and Robert Theobald

A Pharmacokinetics Primer: From Equations to

Application

Chair: Reza Mehvar

Teaching Institute: Developing Mentees Using IDPs

Chair: Kelly Karpa

Securing NIH Intramural Fellowships to Enhance

Your Pharmacology Training

Chairs: Janet Clark and Margarita Valencia

Division for Translational and Clinical Pharmacology

Newly Recognized GPCRs in Health, Disease and as

Therapeutic Targets

Chairs: Ross Corriden and Paul A. Insel

Drug Transporter Protein Quantification by LC-MS/

MS for In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation (IVIVE)

and Prediction of Interindividual Variability of

Transporter-Mediated Drug Disposition

Chairs: Bhagwat Prasad and Yurong Lai

Pharmacometabolomics Enabling Tools for Systems

Pharmacology and Precision Medicine

Chairs: Rima Kaddurah-Daouk and Richard

Weinshilboum

Young Investigator Awards Platform Session



Portal is required.

142


Sponsored by ASPET and the Academic Drug Discovery Consortium

Thursday, April 7, 2016

8:00 am – 9:00 pm

This one-day colloquium sponsored by ASPET and the Academic

Drug Discovery Consortium will include a full day of lectures,

platform sessions, case studies, panel discussions, and scientific

posters. It will explore drug discovery in academia, in particular,

biological therapies, small-molecule success stories, and rare and

neglected diseases.

Poster presenters for the colloquium will be selected from those

submitted to EB2016 by November 5 specifically to the colloquium

topic category (#3061-ASPET).

This is a satellite meeting to EB2016. Registration will be separate

from your EB badge. Visit www.aspet.org/EB2016/Drug_Discovery_

Colloquium/ for more details.

Give a Day of Service at

EB2016Since 2009, attendees at the

EB meeting have given a day

of volunteer service in the local

communities (Boston, New Orleans,

Washington DC, and San Diego).

Volunteer activities have ranged

from home construction, to painting,

cleaning, stocking, food preparation,

and service. ASPET will again

sponsor a volunteer opportunity

at EB2016 in San Diego. For the

third time we will spend the day

at St. Vincent de Paul Village,

doing whatever we can to help the

dedicated people at Father Joe’s

Villages provide assistance to San

Diegans. If you plan to join us, please

contact Charles P. France at france@

uthscsa.edu or 210-567-6969 at your

earliest convenience. Further details

will follow to those who express an

interest in volunteering.

Division for Toxicology

Patient-Specific Stem Cells as Models for Gene-

Disease, Drug, and Environment Interactions

Chair: Jason Richardson

Advances in Toxicogenetics of Metals

Chairs: Jonghan Kim and Timothy Maher

Modulation of BSEP and MDR3 in Drug-Induced

Liver Injury (DILI)

Chairs: Kan He and David Rodrigues

Fortuitous Protein Modification in Disease

Pathogenesis and Treatment

Chair: Serrine Lau

Mentoring and Career Development Committee

Graduate Student – Postdoctoral Colloquium

Saturday, April 2, 2016, 2:45 pm – 5:15 pm

https://www.aspet.org/EB2016/Drug_Discovery_Colloquium/

https://www.aspet.org/EB2016/Drug_Discovery_Colloquium/

http://[email protected]


143


Annual Meetings of:

American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

American Society for Investigative Pathology American Society for Nutrition

2016San DiegoAbstract Deadline: Thursday, November 5, 2015

April 2 – 6

See youNext Year!

144


Rebecca J. Anderson, PhD

Sleepy Sickness, Oliver Sacks, and the Early Days of L-DOPA

Even before HIPAA, clinicians always concealed the identity of

patients described in their published reports and monographs to

ensure patient privacy. But Oliver Sacks told tales so fascinating –

and so fantastic – that a reviewer once wrote, “This is an amazing

book, the more so since Sacks is talking about non-existent

patients in a nonexistent hospital and a non-existent disease” (1).

Yet, the patients and hospital did exist. And so did the disease.

Like his fellow neurologists, Sacks cared for patients with

Parkinson’s disease, and he had seen impressive results

after administering L-DOPA. However, he published cases

of a different sort. The “nonexistent” patients suffered from

encephalitis lethargica, an increasingly rare disorder that caused

© Luigi Novi / Wikimedia Commons

Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks (July 9, 1933 - August 30, 2015) at the 2009 Brooklyn Book Festival

As this issue of The Pharmacologist

was going to press, Oliver Sacks,

neurologist, author, and the subject

of this article, passed away. Dr. Sacks

died on August 30th, 2015 at his home

in Manhattan. He was 82 years old.

145


complex nervous system deficits, including severe

Parkinsonian symptoms. Sacks claimed his patients

responded intensely to L-DOPA but in unusual and

unpredictable ways, including adverse reactions

neurologists had never seen in patients with ordinary

Parkinson’s disease.

Acute Encephalitis LethargicaIn the winter of 1916–1917, a new illness suddenly

appeared in Europe and subsequently spread to

become a worldwide epidemic. The signs and

symptoms were so varied that no two cases were

exactly alike and were so strange that physicians

initially ascribed various names to it: epidemic

delirium, epidemic disseminated sclerosis, acute

dementia, epidemic stupor, epidemic lethargic

encephalitis, bulbar paralysis, hysteron-epilepsy, or

just “an obscure disease with cerebral symptoms” (2).

Despite the variations from one patient to another,

a “classic triad” of symptoms soon emerged: fever,

somnolence, and eye signs. The abnormal eye signs

took many forms, including double-vision, squint,

ptosis, and pupil irregularities. The most characteristic

sign was oculogyric crisis. Abruptly and without

warning, the eyes would be forced downward,

upward, or to either side, in a sudden involuntary

attack. The patient’s gaze would be fixed in that

direction for several minutes before switching to

another direction. These oculogyric crises would recur

weekly, monthly, or at irregular intervals.

Somnolence, from which the disease eventually

took its name, differed from normal sleep. Although

patients appeared to be asleep, they reported that

they were aware of everything that was going on

around them but could not rouse themselves. They

would “fall asleep” while sitting or standing, and even

while walking or during meals. Their breathing pattern

simulated normal sleep, including snoring. But if they

were aroused by calling or shaking, they immediately

“woke up,” fully oriented and conscious (3).

The lethargy typically lasted from days to a

few weeks. In some cases, it lasted for months,

progressing to a deeper and sometimes comatose

state from which recovery was unlikely (3).

In Vienna, Constantin von Economo meticulously

documented these puzzling cases and autopsied the

brains of the lethargic patients who died. The curious

constellation of signs, symptoms, and postmortem

pathology did not fit any previously established

neurological disease. To distinguish it from other forms

of encephalitis (such as meningitis, polio, or rabies),

some physicians called it epidemic encephalitis.

Von Ecomono named it encephalitis lethargica,

which became the official clinical designation,

but the general public and lay press called it “the

sleepy sickness” (not to be confused with sleeping

sickness, the African parasite-born, endemic disease,

trypanosomiasis).

Sleepy sickness was something of a misnomer.

Although most patients were lethargic, some

paradoxically exhibited intense catatonic excitement

and uncontrollable impulses (4). These patients were

unable to sleep and showed ceaseless movement. In

the worst cases, their frenzied state of mind and body

led to total exhaustion, which proved fatal within 10 to

14 days (2).

In children especially, the main characteristic of

encephalitis lethargica was a profound emotional

instability. They showed impulsive, tic-like, hyperactive

states, including abrupt changes in personality and

sudden tantrums, rages, and destructive outbursts (2).

Respiratory tics (hiccups, yawning, dry cough,

sneezing, etc.) and other respiratory anomalies

(hyperventilation, sighing, breath-holding, noisy

expiration, etc.) were also common in the acute phase

of sleepy sickness (2, 5, 6).

The number, type, and sequence of symptoms

varied widely. In fact, sleepy sickness patients

In the Public Domain

Constantin von Economo (August 21, 1876 – October 21, 1931)

146


exhibited a “maze of contradictory phenomena almost

impossible to read anything like a rational order of

events” (4). Besides the symptoms already mentioned,

sleepy sickness patients sometimes exhibited

paralysis, chorea, convulsions, head and limb pain,

giddiness, delirium, and mania (4). Altogether, von

Economo enumerated more than 500 distinct forms or

varieties of these (2).

The brain pathology was consistent with the

clinical profile. Pathologists saw vascular congestion

leading to thrombosis, infarction, and hemorrhage in

all parts of the brain. The grey matter was primarily

affected, largely in the pons, basal ganglia, midbrain,

and most of all, the cranial nerve nuclei, especially

cranial nerve III (3, 6).

Between 1917 and 1930, an estimated

five million patients suffered from

sleepy sickness

Despite the limited technology of the 1920s,

clinicians were convinced, based on their

observations of thousands of patients, that sleepy

sickness was caused by a virus (4, 6, 7). But, it

was comparatively nonvirulent. Even in enclosed

environments such as hospitals, asylums, military

barracks, and within households, person-to-person

transmission rarely occurred (3, 6). The era’s most

talented researchers tried but could not isolate and

identify the virus. Only recently have investigators

obtained evidence suggesting that it belonged to the

genus Enterovirus (9).

People from 10 to 35 years of age were most at risk

(3, 6). Between 1917 and 1930, an estimated five million

patients suffered from sleepy sickness, and 20-40%

of them died, either from a coma that could not be

reversed or from a hyperactive insomnia that could

not be calmed by sedation (2, 3, 5, 6). However, the

sleepy sickness epidemic was largely overshadowed

by the chaos surrounding World War I and the

concurrent influenza pandemic of 1919. Except for the

physicians who were managing afflicted patients and

the communities that were hardest hit, sleepy sickness

received little notice.

The sleepy sickness epidemic ended in the late

1920s, and only a trickle of new cases have been

reported since 1930 (9). Of those who survived the

acute stage of sleepy sickness, some exhibited

“residual troubles” that seemed to disappear over

time. Other patients continued to show clinical

abnormalities, and some got worse (5).

Interestingly, some patients were not definitively

diagnosed with encephalitis lethargica until months,

years, or even decades later. In these cases, the initial

“sleepy” symptoms were mild and dismissed as a

minor complaint. About 30% of the patients who were

diagnosed retrospectively had medical histories that

contained no record of an initial illness resembling the

symptoms of sleepy sickness (3).

Despite the baffling mixture, variability, or perhaps

total absence of initial symptoms, the sequelae of

sleepy sickness were unambiguous and permitted

a definitive diagnosis (4, 6). Those characteristic

sequelae also emerged, eventually, in the patients

who had seemingly made a complete recovery from

their initial sleepy sickness; after months or years of

productive life, they became gravely disabled. As one

physician commented in 1927, “The distressing result

is that we never know when the patient is cured. (5).

Post-encephalitic ParkinsonismThe clinical sequelae of sleepy sickness were

called “post-encephalitic symptoms.” Post-encephalitic

patients, as they came to be called, exhibited a

progressive syndrome consisting of both neurological

and psychiatric abnormalities. No other disorder has

been shown to produce these symptoms in the same

manner (3).

At the onset of this post-encephalitic stage, many

patients exhibited movements that were unexpected,

playful, and abnormally fast. This actually gave

them a distinct advantage in sports requiring speed

and agility (2). However, motor function slowly

deteriorated to a Parkinsonian-like syndrome, which

was the most common disability and was often called

post-encephalitic Parkinsonism (5). Features typically

included loss of automatic or synergistic movements,

slight rigidity of all muscles, loss of equilibrium, and a

running or shuffling gait (6). The face was especially

affected, with a mask-like expression, slightly

open mouth, staring eyes, infrequent blinking, and

quivering eyelids (5).

However, the post-encephalitic syndrome was

distinctly different from ordinary Parkinson’s disease.

Unlike the “pill-rolling” movement in ordinary

Parkinsonian patients, the tremor of post-encephalitic

patients was coarse (6). Their “explosive” bursts

of involuntary movement were aggravated by

emotional distress and largely disappeared during

147


sleep (2, 5). Other common features included

greasy skin, excessive sweating, drooling, attacks

of hyperventilation, and – occasionally – excessive

weight gain (4).

Despite the onset of movement abnormalities,

patients often continued to work, though with

difficulty, for a considerable time. Gradually, movement

and speech became slower and less animated.

Physical exertion and mental exercise aggravated

the sensation of weakness, and ultimately the

patients gave up the struggle, preferring to lie in

bed or sit in a chair doing nothing. Rest did little to

restore the patient, and insomnia was often a serious

complication. The persistent fatigue was both physical

and mental, and the worries of patients with family

responsibilities contributed to feelings of depression,

fearfulness, and irritability (5).

Many post-encephalitic patients

spent years in state institutions and

psychiatric hospitals, misdiagnosed as

schizophrenic

Almost as common as the movement disorders,

and frequently co-existing with them, were a wide

range of psychotic-like abnormalities. The psychotic

attacks would last a few minutes or hours and then

disappear as suddenly as they came (2). Like the

motor weakness, the psychotic outbursts were greatly

influenced by suggestion, emotional problems, and

other external events. Many post-encephalitic patients

spent years in state institutions and psychiatric

hospitals, misdiagnosed as schizophrenic (2). But

they were not schizophrenic. Nearly half of the post-

encephalitic patients suffered extraordinary crises

consisting of simultaneous neurologic and psychiatric

abnormalities: Parkinson-like movement, catatonia,

tics, obsessions, and hallucinations, among many

other things (2).

Some survivors of sleepy sickness – despite their

movement abnormalities and other problems – led

active and independent lives. But most of them

developed catatonia, melancholia, immobility, frigidity,

and apathy, a unique kind of “sleep” that would

become characteristic of their clinical condition for

many decades (2). They looked like living statues –

totally motionless for hours, days, weeks, or years

on end. Their symptoms drove them to isolation

and a timeless state, but they retained their higher

brain functions of intelligence, memory, imagination,

judgment, and humor (2).

A sudden event (such as fire alarms, dinner gongs,

or the unexpected arrival of friends) might catch their

attention and arouse them, momentarily, from their

motionless, statuesque state. Shifts from immobility

to motor activity were very characteristic of post-

encephalitic patients, but these flashes of mental

alertness were rare (2). Mostly, their thoughts and

feelings were fixed at the point in time when their long

“sleep” had closed in on them. They could not react

or relate. Their minds remained perfectly clear and

unclouded, but it was as though their brains had been

put on hold (1, 2).

Unable to work or care for themselves and

difficult to look after, these patients were frequently

abandoned by their families and friends. They were

put away in chronic care hospitals, nursing homes,

lunatic asylums, or special colonies. There they

stayed, almost totally forgotten for decades, and there

they died by the hundreds of thousands (2).

Autopsies showed brain abnormalities similar

to patients with ordinary Parkinson’s disease (6).

Catastrophic damage to the substantia nigra was the

hallmark of the post-encephalitic brain: an almost

total loss of neurons and pigment and replacement

by a pale glial scar (6, 8). There was also calcification

and hyaline degeneration of the blood vessels, most

notably in the corpus striatum (6). Neurofibrillary

tangles were noted in the substantia nigra, coeruleus,

hippocampus, parahippocampus, and amygdala (6). In

some patients, the loss of grey matter extended to the

spinal cord, particularly the anterior horns; the cortex

was usually spared. And, in general, the white matter

was spared (8).

After 1935, the medical literature on sleepy

sickness came to an abrupt end. Few attending

physicians took an academic interest in post-

encephalitic patients, and over time there were fewer

of them to study (2). New cases rarely emerged, and

the disease was all but forgotten. Consequently, the

more profound forms of encephalitis lethargica and

its long-term outcomes were not documented in

medical journals (1, 2).

Renewed InterestDuring the 1920s and 1930s, hospitals around the

world had been built or converted to accommodate

and care for the influx of post-encephalitic patients.

148


One of them was Beth Abraham Hospital, which

opened in 1920 in the Bronx, New York (1).

When Oliver Sacks arrived in the fall of 1966, a

year out of his neurology residency, Beth Abraham’s

population of sleepy sickness survivors had dwindled

to about 80 patients. Fortunately for Sacks, it was

perhaps the largest such group remaining in the

United States (1, 2). The post-encephalitic patients

were scattered in various wards among the hospital’s

500 residents, who suffered from a variety of

degenerative neurologic diseases, including motor

neuron disease (ALS), syringomyelia, Charcot-Marie-

Tooth disease, Parkinson’s disease, strokes, brain

tumors, and senile dementia (1).

Sacks was well suited to the task before him: an

unconventional physician who had always taken

the road less traveled. When he was only 12, his

schoolmaster had accurately predicted, “Sacks will go

far, if he does not go too far” (1).

During his medical school training at Oxford

University, he read the entire 12 volumes of his

personal copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, along

with first edition books by Johnson, Gibbon, Pope,

and Darwin in the Queen’s College library. The newly

minted physician moved to the United States in 1961,

feeling that “there were too many Dr. Sackses in

London” (1). (His parents, two brothers, an uncle, and

three first cousins were all British physicians.)

Sacks completed his internship and neurology

residency in California while also breaking the

California state squat-weightlifting record (600

pounds). On weekends, he shed his white coat for

black leather and rode his motorcycle to the Grand

Canyon, 1,000 miles round-trip. On Monday mornings,

he reported “bright and fresh” for neurology

rounds (1).

In September 1965, Sacks moved to New

York to begin his fellowship in neurochemistry

and neuropathology at Albert Einstein College of

Medicine. He aspired to be a “real” bench scientist,

but he lacked the temperament and manual skills for

laboratory work. His recreational drug use, begun

during his residency in California, had ramped up to

huge doses of amphetamines every day and, unable

to sleep, huge doses of the hypnotic, chloral hydrate,

every night (1). Laboratory mistakes were, perhaps,

inevitable. His bosses pulled him aside and in the

kindest manner possible advised, “Why don’t you go

and see patients – you’ll do less harm” (1).

In October 1966, Sacks reported to Beth

Abraham Hospital, and indeed he “felt better,” not

only because he enjoyed seeing patients but also

because he had ended his self-administered drug

experiments (1). Sacks was intrigued by the post-

encephalitic patients. They defied the prevailing

view that neurologic and psychiatric disorders

were distinct. He was also surprised that most of

the post-encephalitic patients, although now in

their 50s or 60s, looked half their actual age. Their

consciousness had been suspended at the point

when the disease locked and imprisoned parts

of their brains, and somehow, their suspended

animation had also suspended the aging process.

“It was my first encounter with disease of a depth

I had never seen, read of, or heard of, before” (2).

He sifted through the patients’ original charts

from the 1920s and 1930s to confirm that they

were survivors of the sleepy sickness epidemic.

Chronically institutionalized, they were profoundly

isolated, and many had no contact with anyone

but the nursing staff (2). Sacks arranged to have

the post-encephalitic patients moved into a single

ward, hoping that this environment might foster a

community atmosphere. Over the next few years,

through intensive observation, Sacks got to know

each of them not only as patients but as people (1).

L-DOPA Changes Everything

Casimir Funk, a Polish

chemist working in London,

first synthesized L-3,4-

dihydroxyphenylalanine

in 1912 (10). The amino

acid was of interest as

a probable precursor

of epinephrine, but the

name was unwieldy.

Bruno Bloch at the

Basel County Hospital in

Switzerland coined DOPA,

an acronym derived from

the chemical’s German

name, Dioxyphenylalanin.

Scientists subsequently adopted Bloch’s acronym,

despite its mildly scatological meaning in Polish (10).

In the 1950s, investigators found unusually rich

concentrations of dopamine in the extrapyramidal

system, especially the striatum, and Arvid Carlsson

proposed that dopamine was involved with the


Casimir Funk (February 23, 1884 – November 19, 1967)

149


control of motor function (10, 11). In Montreal, André

Barbeau showed that urinary excretion of dopamine

was significantly lower in patients with Parkinson’s

disease (12). In parallel in Vienna, Oleh Hornykiewicz

and coworkers reported that patients who died of

Parkinson’s disease had virtually no dopamine in the

striatum and subnormal amounts in the substantia

nigra and pallidum (13). The dopamine losses were

more prominent in post-encephalitic patients than in

patients with ordinary Parkinson’s disease (12, 13).

Dopamine replacement was a reasonable

therapeutic strategy. Barbeau and Hornykiewicz,

working independently but frequently communicating,

conducted the first clinical trials in 1961. Because

dopamine does not cross the blood-brain barrier,

they administered L-DOPA, the active enantiomeric

precursor of dopamine.

Barbeau reported that L-DOPA rapidly reduced the

rigidity of Parkinson’s disease, but the effect lasted

only three hours. Similarly, Hornykiewicz observed that

L-DOPA reduced the akinesia of Parkinson’s disease in

a dose-dependent manner (13). Soon afterward, many

other centers conducted similar clinical trials and

confirmed the ameliorative effect of L-DOPA (10, 13).

They looked like living statues—

totally motionless for hours, days,

weeks, or years on end

Other agents had been used with limited success

to treat Parkinson’s disease: anticholinergics,

antihistamines, apomorphine, and amantadine. Those

treatments had been discovered empirically, whereas

the clinical introduction of L-DOPA represented a

successful example of translational research. Basic

research on the central and sympathetic nervous

systems had led directly to L-DOPA, the first rational

therapy for Parkinson’s disease (10).

Unfortunately, the pharmacologic effect of L-DOPA

was short-lived, and follow-up clinical studies disputed

its value as a therapeutic agent. At Brookhaven

National Laboratory in New York, George Cotzias

applied the ancient axiom, “if some is good, more is

better.” He sought “to saturate (and keep saturating)

the enzyme, DOPA decarboxylase, which generates

dopamine from L-DOPA in the brain” (14). Cotzias

escalated the daily dose of L-DOPA until he achieved

a lasting response – at doses that were up to a

thousand times larger than those previously used.

Other neurologists soon adopted Cotzias’s dose-

escalation procedure and confirmed his findings (10).

To suppress the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular

effects of excess peripheral dopamine, L-DOPA

is often combined with Carbidopa, a peripheral

decarboxylase inhibitor. The L-DOPA/Carbidopa

combination remains the standard of care and most

effective treatment for ordinary Parkinson’s disease.

Cotzias published his findings in February 1967,

and the impact was immediate (2). Patients who had

been facing only misery and increasing Parkinsonian

disability were suddenly given hope that they might

be transformed by this new drug (1).

AwakeningAt Beth Abraham, Sacks read Cotzias’s paper and

a half-dozen other clinical reports with great interest,

but he hesitated giving L-DOPA to his patients. Their

post-encephalitic syndromes were far more complex

than ordinary Parkinson’s disease, and they had been

institutionalized far longer. “I did not know what might

happen” (2). Some of his patients had been violently

impulsive and hyperkinetic in the early stages of

their illness – before becoming enveloped in their

Parkinson-like cocoon – and he worried that L-DOPA

might unmask or exacerbate those psychomotor

abnormalities (1, 2). He overcame his reluctance in the

summer of 1968 when an especially fierce heat wave

claimed the lives of some of his patients. “The need to

do something became even clearer and stronger” (2).

Sacks and Beth Abraham Hospital applied to the

Food and Drug Administration to use L-DOPA, which

was still an experimental drug. In March 1969, he


The L-dopa molecule

150


began a 90-day double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

with six post-encephalitic patients. Within a few weeks,

L-DOPA produced “clear and spectacular” responses,

and he could infer from the precise 50% failure rate

the three patients who had received placebo (1, 2).

With such convincing results, Sacks felt he could

not justify continuing the clinical trial. He abandoned

the placebo treatment and offered L-DOPA to any

patient who wanted to try it (1). He also abandoned the

90-day limit of L-DOPA treatment. “This would have

been like stopping the very air that they breathed” (2).

By contrast, the post-encephalitic

patients exhibited a profound and rapid

awakening. Once the dose escalation

of L-DOPA reached a certain threshold,

the patient snapped to life

As Sacks expanded treatment through the

summer of 1969, nearly all of his patients exhibited an

astonishing, festive “awakening.” Suddenly, the ward

of silent, stationary post-encephalitic patients was

electric with excitement (2). After living for decades

in a state of suspended memory, perception, and

consciousness, the patients came back to life, fully

conscious. Patients who had been mute for 40 years

were talking. Patients who had spent their days

motionless in their chairs now stood up and walked

without effort. Their muscles functioned with full

strength on their command – not the slow recovery

so typical of a limb weakened by being immobilized

in a plaster cast.

Most remarkably, their intellectual and emotional

faculties returned, but in a sort of time-warp. They

spoke of events and people from the time that their

post-encephalitic symptoms had enclosed them,

as if those people were still alive and those events

had just happened. Even their colloquial speech and

mannerisms reflected the 1920s and 1930s, but they

were not disoriented or unaware of the intervening

years. As one patient explained (after decades of

silence), “I can give you the date of Pearl Harbor; I

can give you the date of Kennedy’s assassination. I’ve

registered it all – but none of it seems real. I know I’m

64, but I feel I’m 21” (2).

Sacks asked his patients to keep personal diaries.

Their entries confirmed that their higher brain functions

had remained intact, but for decades they had been

unable to connect with the world around them.

The FDA wanted Sacks to document these results

on standard case report forms, but the responses to

L-DOPA were so complex in both neurological and

human terms that the standard forms “could not begin

to accommodate the reality of what I was witnessing”

(1). He kept detailed notes and started carrying a

tape recorder, camera, and Super 8 movie camera

“because I knew that what I was seeing might never

be seen again” (1).

Some of the patients slept much of the day and

were wide awake at night. That meant that he, too,

needed to keep a 24-hour schedule. He volunteered

to be the hospital’s “permanent” on-call physician for

all 500 patients at Beth Abraham but spent much of

his time in the post-encephalitic patient ward (1).

In addition, the hospital staff (neurologists,

psychologists, social workers, physiotherapists,

speech therapists, and music therapists) were in

constant communication, talking to each other

excitedly, phoning each other on weekends and at

night, and discussing the unprecedented events

unfolding before them (1, 2).

Virtually all patients with ordinary Parkinson’s

disease show some sort of awakening when given

L-DOPA. They improve gradually over days, reaching

a plateau in about two weeks. By contrast, the post-

encephalitic patients exhibited a profound and rapid

awakening. Once the dose escalation of L-DOPA

reached a certain threshold, the patient snapped to life.

Patients with the severest disease awakened almost

instantaneously (2). In addition, the post-encephalitic

patients were much more sensitive to L-DOPA and

were awakened with a fraction of the dose required for

patients with ordinary Parkinson’s disease (2).

Patients with ordinary Parkinson’s disease are

usually in excellent behavioral health, apart from their

Parkinsonian symptoms, which may be mild. Their

response to L-DOPA consists chiefly of a reduction or

apparent abolition of the Parkinsonism. By contrast,

the post-encephalitic patients suffered from a large

number of disabilities. L-DOPA caused a profound

reduction in both the Parkinsonian symptoms and the

patients’ innumerable other problems, such as torsion-

spasms, involuntary writhing, chorea, tics, catatonia,

depression, apathy, and torpor – some of which were

not thought to be mediated by dopamine or amenable

to L-DOPA (2).

L-DOPA also reversed the post-encephalic patients’

feelings of being cut off and withdrawn from the

151


world. They became intensely interested and amazed

at everything around them as if they were children

again or released from prison (2). In the words of one

patient, “I feel so contented, like I’m at home at last

after a long hard journey. Just as warm and peaceful

as a cat by the fire” (2).

Unfortunately, the beneficial effects of L-DOPA,

which had returned the post-encephalitic patients to

near-normal mental and physical functioning, lasted

only a few weeks or in some patients, only days. Then,

things became much more complicated.

TribulationBy August 1969, almost all of the post-encephalitic

patients ran into trouble. Some developed an extreme

sensitivity to L-DOPA, and Sacks had to severely cut

back the dose. He stopped treating some patients

completely, inserting a “drug holiday” for weeks or

months, and then reintroduced L-DOPA. Some of

these patients did better after the drug holiday, but

others reacted differently – and adversely – to the

drug each time he re-administered it. He tried carefully

titrating the dose to optimize efficacy, without success.

“There seemed to be, with many patients, nothing

between too much L-DOPA and too little” (1).

In addition, the patients’ responses grew more

complicated, splitting into numerous and more bizarre

abnormalities: new phenomena (chorea, tics), over-

excitement (restlessness, mania), and fluctuations

that rapidly developed into sudden and catastrophic

oscillations (2).

Patients became increasingly excited, going from

impatience and restlessness to a state of mania and

frenzy. Then, they suddenly crashed into a deep

depression – worse than their pre-DOPA state (2).

Once these oscillating episodes emerged, their severity

could sometimes be softened by increasing L-DOPA,

sometimes by decreasing L-DOPA, and sometimes by

neither (2). Patients would shuttle between the “up”

and “down” states almost instantly, spending less and

less time in an “in-between” state. Sacks called these

sudden oscillations a “yo-yo effect” (1).

Sacks was dismayed by the extreme sensitivity

to L-DOPA, the sudden unpredictable responses,

the rapid development of oscillations, and finally, the

absolute impossibility of matching dose and effect (2).

“The ‘system’ now seemed to have a dynamic of its

own” (2).

Despite the bizarre reactions caused by L-DOPA,

stopping treatment was sometimes not an option.

Withdrawing the drug plunged some patients

immediately into a stupor and life-threatening coma.

The drug caused disturbing effects, but without it, they

would die.

These phenomena, in 1969, had not been seen

by other clinicians. Patients with ordinary Parkinson’s

disease typically showed a long period of therapeutic

benefit with L-DOPA and the side effects, when

they came, were usually mild. The post-encephalitic

patients, on the other hand, appeared much more

prone to early and severe adverse reactions (2).

Sacks knew he “had been given the rarest of

opportunities; I knew that I had something important

to say” (1). In September 1970, he sent a letter to

JAMA, describing his observations in 60 patients

who had been maintained on L-DOPA for a year (15).

Half were post-encephalitic patients and half had

ordinary Parkinson’s disease. Nearly all of them had

done well at first, but almost all of them, sooner or

later, developed complex, sometimes bizarre, and

unpredictable adverse reactions (1).

In December, several clinicians responded to Sacks

in letters to JAMA. They had treated hundreds of

Parkinsonian patients with L-DOPA and questioned

his findings. One correspondent said that even if

Sacks’s observations were real, he should not publish,

because it would “negatively impact the atmosphere

of optimism” that surrounded the introduction of

L-DOPA (1).

Sacks had shaken conventional wisdom about the

dose-response relationship. “The effects of L-DOPA

should have been straightforward – but weren’t. They

were straightforward at first and then something

happened” (2). Convincing his colleagues would

require more comprehensive evidence. He wrote

a detailed clinical report – full of statistics, figures,

tables, and graphs – and sent it to Brain, the oldest

and most respected journal of neurology. The paper

was rejected (1).

Sacks’s findings could not be easily conveyed in

a medical journal report. Encephalitis lethargica was

a complex disorder, and the post-encephalitic

patients’ responses to L-DOPA were unpredictable

and unreproducible. To describe the phenomena

faithfully, Sacks turned to writing detailed, individual

patient narratives. He compiled 20 of these case

studies in a book, Awakenings, which was published

in June 1973 (2).

The book was largely ignored by the medical

community, but several documentary film producers

152


approached Sacks. He hesitated. A

documentary would expose his patients’

identities, which he had diligently

concealed in Awakenings. But when

asked, they said, “Go ahead; film us. Let us

speak for ourselves” (1).

In October 1973, a film crew from

Yorkshire Television arrived at Beth

Abraham to interview the patients. In

moving descriptions, they looked back

on their illness and described how they

were now living their lives after having

been cut off from the world for so many

years (1). The filmmakers supplemented

the interviews with some of Sacks’s Super

8 footage, showing the patients before

treatment and their awakenings in 1969

after receiving L-DOPA. The documentary,

also entitled Awakenings, was broadcast

in England in 1974, the only documentary

account of a forgotten epidemic and how

the patients’ lives were transformed, for a

while, by a new drug (1).

The Yorkshire documentary was

subsequently shown at a psychiatry

conference (1). Neurologists who had been

skeptical of Sacks’s clinical observations

saw, many for the first time, the dizzying

array of bizarre reactions in post-

encephalitic patients who had received

L-DOPA treatment (2).

After L-DOPA’s approval by the

FDA in 1970, experience with the drug

expanded to millions of patients, and a

greater understanding of the complex

responses to L-DOPA gradually emerged.

Sacks’s patients had been harbingers

of the complicated pharmacological

response induced by long-term L-DOPA

administration. Despite the greater

magnitude of the post-encephalitic

patients’ reactions to L-DOPA, the breadth

and types of those reactions – both short

term and long term – were the same in

patients with ordinary Parkinson’s disease

(2). The adverse reactions simply took

longer to develop and were usually milder

in patients with ordinary Parkinson’s

disease (1).

The sudden oscillations, extraordinary

“sensitization” to L-DOPA, and wide array

of extrapyramidal effects were being

reported by everyone. The yo-yo effect

described by Sacks became a textbook

sign of long-term L-DOPA therapy: the

on/off phenomenon. Although dosing

remains constant, patients rapidly

fluctuate between an “off” state in which

they receive no therapeutic benefit to

being “on” in which they benefit from

L-DOPA but may also exhibit disturbing

motor abnormalities.

In 1977, Sacks partnered with P. C.

Carolan to study the electrical brain

activity of his post-encephalitic patients

under a variety of conditions, with and

without L-DOPA treatment (16). Untreated

patients, during their trance-like state,

generated EEGs with exceedingly slow

and irregular brain activity, similar to

patients who are in a stupor. After taking

L-DOPA (or other anti-Parkinsonian drugs),

their EEGs suddenly shifted to faster,

better organized, and more rhythmical

activity at the instant they become alert

and animated. With continued drug use, as

the patients became increasingly frenzied,

the EEG showed repeated bursts of high-

voltage paroxysmal activity (2).

AccommodationSome post-encephalitic patients never

achieved a satisfactory therapeutic benefit

and were forced either to cease taking

L-DOPA altogether or, because of the

possibility of a life-threatening coma, to

accept a very miserable compromise.

They were maintained on a constant or

periodic schedule of L-DOPA, tolerating

tics and other dyskinesias as the price for

a marginally alert and functional state (2).

Fortunately, some post-encephalitic

patients, as well as the majority of patients

with ordinary Parkinson’s disease,

eventually achieved a satisfactory net

benefit from L-DOPA. In these patients,

L-DOPA efficacy gradually diminished, but

the patients reached a sort of steady state.

Biosketch:

Rebecca J. Anderson

holds a bachelor’s

in chemistry from

Coe College and

earned her doctorate

in pharmacology

from Georgetown

University. She has 25

years of experience

in pharmaceutical

research and

development and now

works as a technical

writer. Her most recent

book is Nevirapine

and the Quest to End

Pediatric AIDS. Email

rebeccanderson@msn.

com.

In the next issue of The Pharmacologist…

Dr. Anderson will tell

us a story about the

birth of modern cancer

chemotherapy. Don’t

miss the exciting

December 2015 issue.



153


This stable response resulted from a compromise

dosage that permitted a fairly satisfactory level of

functioning, in between a full therapeutic response

and serious adverse reactions. The patients were

much better than their pre-DOPA state, but “they are

no longer very well or very ill” (2).

Successful treatment of the post-encephalitic

patients depended on comprehensive medical care,

of which L-DOPA was only one component. They

required adequate rest (12 hours or more) and needed

to avoid stress. The therapeutic power of music

allowed many of them an ease of movement that

was not otherwise possible. Patients who were able

to re-establish personal relationships enjoyed the

best outcomes. Caring family members helped them

restore a connection to the world around them (2).

With advancing age, the post-encephalitic patients

developed a highly specific impairment in speech and

motor function, but they retained their intellect, good

humor, and interest in life (2). They survived “by being

uncomplaining, undaunted, and finally laughing; not

succumbing to nihilism or despair, but maintaining an

inexplicable affirmation of life” (2).

After 1974, Sacks’s clinical interests broadened,

but he continued to monitor his post-encephalitic

patients at Beth Abraham and elsewhere. Perhaps

no other physician had observed and cared for more

post-encephalitic patients, nor observed the effects

of L-DOPA for so long (2). In 1990, Columbia Pictures

released a movie, also entitled Awakenings, starring

Robin Williams as a fictional neurologist based on

Sacks and Robert De Niro as one of his patients.

In 2008, Oliver Sacks was named Commander of

the Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth II.

Although he gave up his motorcycle, he continued to

swim daily and frequently trekked mountain trails. As

Stephen Jay Gould wrote in a poem about his friend:

“Oliver Sacks / Still lives life to the max” (1).

In addition to sleepy sickness, Sacks wrote

compelling patient narratives on migraine, Tourette’s

syndrome, hallucinations, autism, and other

neurological conditions. But Awakenings remains

his signature work. “I cannot think back on this time

without profound emotion,” he said, “– it was the most

significant and extraordinary in my life, no less than in

the lives of our patients” (2).

References1. Sacks O (2015) On the Move: A Life. Knopf, New York.

2. Sacks O (1990) Awakenings. Vintage, New York.

3. Foley P B (2009) Encephalitis lethargica and the influenza virus. II. The influenza pandemic of 1918/19 and encephalitis lethargica: epidemiology and symptoms. J Neural Transm 116(10):1295-1308.

4. McKenzie I (1927) Discussion on epidemic encephalitis. I. Epidemiological considerations. Brit Med J 2(3481):532-524.

5. Riddoch G (1927) Discussion on epidemic encephalitis. III. Chronic encephalitis. Brit Med J 2(3481):537-539.

6. Dourmashkin R R (1997) What caused the 1918-30 epidemic of encephalitis lethargica? J Royal Soc Med 90:515-520.

7. Greenfield J G (1927) Discussion on epidemic encephalitis. II. The pathology of epidemic encephalitis. Brit Med J 2(3481):535-537.

8. Foley P B (2009) Encephalitis lethargica and the influenza virus. III. The influenza pandemic of 1918/19 and encephalitis lethargica: neuropathology and discussion. J Neural Transm 116(10):1309-1321.

9. Dourmashkin R R, Dunn G, Castano V, and McCall S A (2012) Evidence for an enterovirus as the cause of encephalitis lethargica. BMC Infect Dis 12:136.

10. Sourkes T L and Gauthier S (1983) Levodopa and dopamine agonists in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, in Discoveries in Pharmacology: Psycho- and Neuro-pharmacology (Parnham MJ and Bruinvels J eds) pp 249-267, Elsevier, New York.

11. Carlsson A (1959) The occurrence, distribution and physiological role of catecholamines in the nervous system. Pharmacol Rev 11:490-493.

12. Barbeau A, Murphy GF, and Sourkes TL (1961) Excretion of dopamine in diseases of basal ganglia. Science 133:1706-1707.

13. Hornykiewicz O (1966) Dopamine (3-hydroxytyramine) and brain function. Pharmacol Rev 18:925-964.

14. Cotzias GC (1969) Metabolic modification of some neurologic disorders. JAMA 210(7):1255-1262.

15. Sacks OW, Messeloff CR, and Schwartz WF (1970) Long-term effects of levodopa in the severely disabled patient. JAMA 213(13):2270.

16. Sacks OW and Carolan PC (1979) EEG findings in post-encephalitic and Tourettic patients. Proc Annual Meeting, Metropolitan EEG Society, New York.

154


155


Science Policy

It’s beginning to look a lot like…2013!

Despite efforts to return to

“regular order” for FY2015,

appropriators are once again facing

the reality of having to rely on a

“continuing resolution” (CR) to keep

government agencies running this

fall. When Congress returns from

summer recess on September 8th,

there will be just 3 ½ weeks and

12 legislative days to complete

the appropriations process. This

is even more unfortunate, given

that it is the first time in six years

that both chambers’ appropriations

committees have approved all

twelve spending bills. Despite the

momentum generated from this

progress, the full House has passed

only six bills and the Senate has yet

to bring any to the floor.

Now the priority has shifted

to keeping the government from

another shutdown, with little chance

of completing the appropriations

process by October 1st. Congress

will have to pass a short-term CR

to keep the government running

while they negotiate either a

sequestration relief deal or the terms

of a yearlong CR. Speaker Boehner,

confronting the realities of the

legislative calendar, has conceded

that a CR is on the horizon to avert

a government shutdown, saying,

“It’s pretty clear, given the number

of days we’re going to be here in

September, that we’re going to need

a CR of some kind.” How long that

CR would run, or what form it will

take is very much unclear.

Things are at a standstill on the

Senate side as well, with Democrats

promising to filibuster every spending

bill in a bid to force negotiations over

156


strict spending caps and Republicans refusing to

come to the bargaining table. With at least a short-

term CR all but inevitable at the end of September,

lawmakers will then be faced with one of two

outcomes: an omnibus appropriations bill or yet

another long-term CR. A successful CR will require

the cooperation of Speaker Boehner’s caucus and

many are weary as they recall the revolt in 2013

led by Senator Ted Cruz that foiled plans to pass a

short-term, clean CR and resulted in a three-week

government shutdown. House HAC Chairman Hal

Rogers has insisted that he does not want a full

year CR and reports indicate that leadership may

be leaning toward a short-term CR that goes until

December but no details have been released.

The 2016 primary season will likely add an

additional strain to the negotiations process as

lawmakers typically move further left or right

respectively; if a CR is extended into the election

year, hot-button issues are sure to be used as

political footballs, further complicating the process.

A new budget agreement to lift the $1.017

trillion spending cap set under sequestration

will be a critical first step for lawmakers. Some

Democrats have suggested amenability to an

agreement like the deal struck in 2013 by Rep.

Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)

that eased sequestration for two years and set

spending levels across the government. To that

end, several Democratic lawmakers have been

strategically pushing a variety of proposals and

amendments in the markups with the intention of

addressing them in future budget talks. Senator

Jeff Merkley (D-OR), for example, recently offered

an amendment that would have added $890

million to a $20.5 billion Agriculture and Food

and Drug Administration (FDA) funding bill and

said openly that the measure was intentionally

structured to be part of a new budget deal. All of

the proposals from Senate Democrats to increase

funding explicitly say the money cannot be made

available until a bipartisan budget act is signed

into law.

While the current state of affairs may render

them moot, the House and Senate approval of

their respective FY2016 Labor, Health and

Human Services (LHHS) spending bills cannot

be overlooked:

With at least a short-term CR all

but inevitable at the end of

September, lawmakers will then be

faced with one of two outcomes: an

omnibus appropriations bill or yet

another long-term CR.

In a 30-21 vote following a nearly seven hour

markup, appropriators advanced a $153 billion bill

funding Labor, HHS, Education and other related

services (LHHS) for the next fiscal year. This

marks the first time in six years the full committee

has advanced a funding measure for these

departments, which would receive $3.7 billion

less than current funding levels and $14.6 billion

less than President Obama’s request for FY2016.

However, the bill provides a total $31.2 billion for

NIH; $1.1 billion above the FY2015 enacted level

and $100 million above the President’s budget

request. Additional HHS funding included $7

billion for the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC), up $140 million from FY2015.

Notable cuts in the measure included:

• $7 billion in funding for the Center for

Medicare and Medicaid Innovation

• $100 million from the Patient-Centered

Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

House Appropriations Advances First Labor-HHS Funding Bill in Six Years

157


The bill would also eliminate funding for the

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

(AHRQ), a $440 million unit that supports research

designed to identify best clinical practices that

improve patient quality and safety. Supporters

of this measure have asserted that eliminating

AHRQ would cut costs and allow for limited funds

to go to areas with seemingly greater impact, like

the National Institutes of Health, (set to receive a

$1.1 billion increase). A motion by Representative

Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) to restore the funding

failed by a voice vote.

Senate Appropriators Adopt LHHS Bill

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved

the LHHS bill by a vote of 16-14 with all Democrats

opposed. NIH received $32 billion, an increase

of $2 billion (5.6 percent) above FY2015 (and

equal to FASEB’s recommendation, which ASPET

supported). The $32 billion total meets the specific

funding requests for the Precision Medicine

and Combatting Antibiotic Resistance Initiatives

outlined in the administration’s FY2016 NIH budget

request and increases support for the Institutional

Development Award program by nearly $27 million

above the current funding level. Senate LHHS

Subcommittee Chairman Roy Blunt (R-MO) noted

that the $2 billion increase for NIH was the largest

provided since 2003.

The proposed funding will support the following

NIH initiatives:

• $200 million for Precision Medicine

• $350 million increase for the National Institute

on Aging, the lead Institute researching

Alzheimer’s disease

• $135 million, an increase of $70 million, for

the BRAIN Initiative to map the human brain

• $461 million, an increase of $100 million, to

Combat Antibiotic Resistance

• $300 million, an increase of $26.7 million, for

the Institutional Development Award

There are several items of interest in the report

language, including a significant expansion of data

to be collected in the NIH’s existing database on

research spending by disease and condition, and

a provision requiring each Institute and Center

(I/C) Director to adopt a policy for reviewing and

approving every grant that is funded.

The report also features statements on conflict

of interest, research prioritization, reproducibility,

young researchers, protection of human subjects

and non-human primate research, as well as

language criticizing NIH for requesting new

initiatives each year without asking for proper long-

term funding to support them. Additional language

is included expressing support for the Maximizing

Investigators Research Award (MIRA) and Capstone

grant proposal. Finally, the Committee requested

that the NIH FY2017 budget justification provide

updates on dozens of initiatives and projects

currently underway at the agency.

The report introduction states that “the

Committee recommendation reflects the

challenges inherent in achieving deficit reduction

solely through reductions in discretionary

spending.” It also notes that funding for

biomedical research was a priority in the bill,

including support for Alzheimer’s research and the

precision medicine initiative in the FY2016 NIH

budget request.

No GuaranteesIt’s not clear if the White House will agree to a

continuing resolution with the priorities demanded

by House Republicans such as additional military

spending and less domestic. Also unclear is the

likelihood of Republicans considering a straight CR

that simply continues all programs at their current

The $32 billion total meets the

specific funding requests for the

Precision Medicine and Combatting

Antibiotic Resistance Initiatives

outlined in the administration’s

FY2016 NIH budget request and

increases support for the Institutional

Development Award program by

nearly $27 million above the current

funding level.

158


levels. The GOP turmoil in the Senate, combined

with the Democratic unity against appropriations

bills and the division between House and Senate

Republicans, makes a shutdown impossible to

eliminate as an outcome. Budget Tracker has

reported that Democrats will start negotiations by

pushing for a two-year sequestration relief deal to

get through the 2016 election. With GOP leaders

showing little interest in early negotiations, they

may be vying for a high stakes winter showdown

to tackle spending and the debt ceiling together.

Debt CeilingWhile the fiscal focus right now is on a deal to

replace sequestration and keep the government

running, Congress will have to face the debt

ceiling early in the fiscal year. All indications point

toward a messy battle as we can surely expect

Republicans to make demands for concessions

on the debt ceiling and President Obama and

Democrats to hold firm on refusal to negotiate

raising the limit. This will be pivotal for the GOP as

it will mark Republicans’ first reckoning with the

debt limit since they took full control of Congress.

On March 16th, the government hit the

current borrowing limit of $18.1 trillion and the

Treasury Department has been forced to use

so-called “extraordinary measures” (essentially

moving money between accounts) to allow the

government to continue operating without going

into default. This is only a short-term solution;

the agency has not provided a hard deadline by

which Congress must act. Budget forecasters have

suggested that unless Congress acts to raise the

$18.1 trillion debt limit, the Treasury could run short

of funds for the first time to pay obligations by

November or December.

House Passes 21st Century Cures Legislation

Despite roadblocks in the appropriations

process, House Energy and Commerce Committee

Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and ranking member

Diana DeGette (D-CO) achieved a major victory

with the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act (HR

6) by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 344-

77. The legislation, which ASPET has supported

since its introduction last year, authorizes funding

increases for NIH of $1.5 billion annually over three

years. It also establishes a new “NIH Innovation

Fund” to provide $8.75 billion in mandatory

funding ($1.75 billion per year) for biomedical

research from FY2016 to FY2020. The additional

money from the Innovation Fund is intended to

supplement regular NIH appropriations.

Another key provision would allow the FDA

to grant early market approval to a drug with

breakthrough designation based on its early-stage

testing for safety and effectiveness. Medical-

device makers would also be able to apply for

breakthrough designation for products that treat

conditions where no alternative exists or that

significantly improve on approved therapies.

Passage of the bill came after a coalition of

research advocacy groups, including ASPET,

engaged in an aggressive campaign that

The GOP turmoil in the Senate,

combined with the Democratic unity

against appropriations bills and the

division between House and Senate

Republicans, makes a shutdown

impossible to eliminate as an outcome.

159


defeated an amendment from Representative

David Brat (R-VA) and four of his colleagues.

The Brat amendment proposed shifting the NIH

Innovation Fund from mandatory to discretionary

funding. This would place further pressure on the

discretionary budget and jeopardize the chances

NIH would ever receive the additional money

because appropriators would still be limited by

the Budget Control Act (BCA) caps. ASPET joined

FASEB in the advocacy effort and sent a letter to

all members of the House urging them to vote “no”

on the Brat amendment.

Now attention shifts to passage in the Senate;

stay tuned to ASPET for updates in this space.

Looking Ahead

Back in July, the White House Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Director

John Holdren, PhD, sent a memo to all federal

departments outlining the science and technology

priorities for the Administration’s last budget

cycle. The OSTP, in partnership with the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB), advises

the President on the Federal Research and

Development (R&D) budget and shaping R&D

priorities across those federal agencies that have

significant portfolios in science and technology, as

well as the coordination of interagency research

initiatives. The OSTP is charged with assisting in

the development and implementation of sound

science and technology policies that reflect

Administration priorities toward important national

policy goals.

The memo encourages agencies to focus

on investments in the life sciences and to

prioritize programs that support fundamental

biological discovery research that could

generate unexpected, high-impact scientific and

technological advances in health, energy, and food

security. Other priority areas mentioned in the

OSTP memo include “improving interoperability of

health records, addressing privacy concerns, and

launching research that will enable discoveries

derived from Big Data.”

160


Education News

The Association of American Medical Colleges

Council of Faculty and Academic Societies (AAMC-

CFAS) was established to facilitate communication

and engagement between the AAMC and medical

school faculty and member academic societies. CFAS

meetings allow faculty representatives to identify,

communicate, and advise the AAMC on critical issues

facing medical schools and academic societies and

to educate faculty representatives on ways to affect

change at their institutions to help strengthen the

core missions of academic medicine.

Joe Blumer (Medical University of South Carolina)

represented ASPET at the Spring 2015 AAMC-CFAS

meeting held in San Diego March 5-7, 2015. Nearly

200 of 366 total AAMC-CFAS representatives of

70 academic societies and 140 medical schools

and teaching hospitals attended, including fellow

pharmacologists Kurt Varner (LSUHSC), Gary Rankin

(Marshall University), Kent Vrana (Penn State) and

Amy Wilson-Delfosse (Case Western). Discussion

topics and programming were diverse, but emphasis

was placed on faculty resiliency, the evolution

and future of medical education, the economics

of academic medicine, NIH funding of biomedical

research, the life cycle of faculty members, and

career development.

The first plenary session addressed the issue of

faculty burnout and resiliency in academic medical

centers (AMCs). Burnout is typically defined by

prolonged, work-related stress resulting in a loss of

physical, emotional, and mental energy. Kimberly

Gerhart (University of Arizona) pointed out that

such work-related stress can lead to detachment,

loss of satisfaction and sense of accomplishment,

and ineffective teaching. A potential solution is to

change the culture of academic medicine to improve

lifestyles among faculty with reduced stress and

decreased demands on time.

A plenary session on the future of medical

education introduced several important

transformations currently affecting medical education.

Amy Wilson-Delfosse (Case Western) addressed

the role of basic science in undergraduate medical

education, including: the value of basic science in

helping physicians make nonroutine, difficult decisions

for patients; that understanding the molecular

mechanisms of diseases and drug action is one of

the primary factors that distinguishes physicians

from other health care professionals; and that a

strong basic science background provides value

for the safest care of patients. Dr. Wilson-Delfosse

pointed out that instead of overwhelming students

with information, educators should focus on helping

students find and evaluate data and to teach those

basic sciences that allow future clinicians to justify

medical decisions. Instead of remaining in silos, Dr.

Wilson-Delfosse encouraged discussions between

basic science and clinical faculty to identify which

basic science material is most appropriate to allow

future clinicians to interpret clinical findings. To this

end, the common Flexnerian approach to medical

education, which separates learning basic science and

2015 AAMC-CFAS Meeting in Review

Participants also discussed the

current duration of medical education,

not only with respect to curriculum

consolidation but also in regard to

student debt.

161


clinical medicine, is being revised at many schools

to include earlier exposure to clinical care and later

exposure to basic science. Case Western, for example,

is implementing a small-group, case-based approach

to integrate basic science into the third and fourth

(clinical) years of medical school. Participants also

discussed the current duration of medical education,

not only with respect to curriculum consolidation but

also in regard to student debt. One possibility piloted

at other institutions includes combining the fourth

year of medical school with the first year of residency.

Another approach consolidates the first two years into

12–15 months.

With respect to the political climate and the future

of governmental support for biomedical research, the

AAMC leadership, including AAMC President Darrell

Kirch and AAMC Chief Public Policy Officer Atul

Grover, stressed the importance of research literacy

among the public and political leaders, with a need

for a positive public image of research, NIH funding,

and biomedical science. Biomedical science should

not be regarded as a “fee for service,” a view held by

some in Congress that once money is given, some

type of tangible “deliverable” is expected at the end

of the funding period. Rather, research funding should

be seen as an investment in foundational discoveries

that provide a platform for future breakthroughs,

and as scientists we should engage in a dialogue

with the public (including public servants) about the

process and nature of discovery, including the role of

NIH funding. Claire Pomroy, president of the Lasker

Foundation, stressed that academic medicine and

research are a powerful and important public good,

and that academic medicine must work with the

public as partners to make the greatest impact on the

patients and public we serve.

Dr. Lawrence Tabak, principal deputy director of

the NIH, discussed the role of the NIH in funding

AMCs. He stated that the NIH has had a “contract”

with AMCs for many years of funding applications

based on scientific merit, providing a significant

amount of money to offset faculty salaries with

limited expectations for how AMCs use nonindividual

research project grant funds to support infrastructure.

He then posed several questions. Should the NIH

continue this current model, or should it broaden

its distribution to investigators and/or institutions?

Should the NIH and AMC community renegotiate

this “contract” to help catalyze right-sizing of the

biomedical research force? Dr. Tabak said that the

NIH should optimize funding policies and mechanisms

to enhance longer-term stability for researchers,

including the areas of salary support, award length,

and the number of grants per investigator and/or

institution (e.g., the new MIRA/R35 mechanism offered

by NIGMS). In addition, there should be a realignment

of NIH funding to core facilities to maximize efficiency

and research output, incentivizing the hiring of

new tenure-track faculty and perhaps creating an

“emeritus award” for investigators making the

transition to the next phase of their careers.

A breakout session was held to discuss NIH

funding of biomedical research and how to address

the current funding crisis. Participants discussed

the recent FASEB report “Sustaining Discovery in

Biological and Biomedical Sciences” (www.faseb.

org/Portals/2/PDFs/opa/2015/Sustaining%20

Discovery%20Report%20Final.pdf) regarding possible

solutions for current funding issues. Discussion

topics included strategies for maintaining support

for current programs, facilitating early career PIs in

critical transitions, and educating policy makers and

the public regarding the benefits of basic science

research (the phrase “discovery science” was

proposed as an alternative descriptor). In addition to

the topics mentioned above, AAMC-CFAS seeks to

address the changing roles and responsibilities of

faculty at AMCs and the different models that AMCs

are adopting as part of these changes. These points

and others will be discussion topics at upcoming

meetings, and AAMC-CFAS is encouraging more

communication between faculty and the AAMC,

including more small-group interaction, so that more

voices are heard during these meetings. As one of

your AAMC-CFAS representatives, I welcome any

comments and suggestions you may have (blumerjb@

musc.edu).

Joe Blumer

Medical University of South Carolina

http://www.faseb.org/Portals/2/PDFs/opa/2015/Sustaining%20Discovery%20Report%20Final.pdf



mailto:blumerjb%40musc.edu?subject=

mailto:blumerjb%40musc.edu?subject=


162

Postdoc Member Survey Suggests Strategies for Supporting Young Scientists

Recent national reports on the status and

career outcomes of postdoctoral researchers

have highlighted a number of issues with the

current training paradigms for young scientists.

Over the past 15 years, there have been dramatic

increases in both the number of individuals pursuing

postdoctoral training and the cumulative time spent

as a trainee. While these issues affect all scientists,

they disproportionately impact life scientists, who

compose 65% of those serving in postdoctoral

positions. As the number of postdoctoral life

scientists continues to expand, career trajectories

are rapidly shifting away from the historical trend

of obtaining independent research or faculty

positions. Approximately one-third of life sciences

Ph.D. recipients ultimately move into jobs unrelated

to research.2 Those who do obtain academic

positions face a rapidly declining number of tenure-

track opportunities and are more likely to serve in

contingent or adjunct roles with little job security.

Other commonly cited concerns include low and

stagnant wages for postdoctoral researchers and

an increasing reliance on external funding to

support trainees.1

Despite the expanding numbers of postdocs,

surprisingly little is known about them. Their titles,

responsibilities, and compensation levels can vary

widely across institutions. At many institutions, they

lack adequate mentoring, recognition, and benefits.1

In general, their career outcomes are not tracked in

the same manner as graduate students, if they are

tracked at all. Owing to the wide variation in their job

titles, employment status, and funding mechanisms,

there are currently only rough estimates of the

number of postdocs in the U.S. In a recent report, the

National Academy of Sciences issued a call to action

that encouraged professional societies to contribute

to what is known about postdoctoral researchers.1

In light of this recommendation, ASPET invited its

postdoctoral members to take a survey in June and

July 2015. The response rate for the survey was 24%

(56 out of 234 active postdoctoral members). What

follows are some highlights of the findings. We hope

that the survey data will allow us to better support

our own postdoctoral members while contributing

to the knowledge base about this crucial group of

young scientists.

1 National Academy of Sciences (2014) The postdoctoral experience revisited. Committee to Review the State of Postdoctoral Experience in Scientists and Engineers; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, Policy and Global Affairs, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.2 National Institutes of Health (2012) Biomedical research workforce working group report. Bethesda, MD.


163

The majority of respondents are serving as postdocs

at academic institutions, although employers reflect a

range of organizations, including the pharmaceutical

industry, federal agencies, and hospitals.

While most respondents are called “postdoctoral

fellows” by their employers, some diversity in job titles

is apparent, mirroring that found by national reports.

Respondents to the survey were mainly new postdocs,

with one or two years spent in postdoctoral positions.

When asked if they participate in the leadership of

any ASPET divisions or committees, the large majority

of respondents said “no.” Free-response comments

suggested that this is mainly due to either a lack of

opportunities or a lack of awareness about possible

service. Notably, nearly one-third of the respondents

indicated that they were seeking nonresearch

positions, which parallels national data on career

trajectories.2 Leadership opportunities such as service

on committees may be even more desirable to those

who are building nonacademic resumes.


Respondents were asked to rate the usefulness

of a variety of professional development activities.

While all were seen as potentially useful, increased

access to mentors was identified as a significant need.

Free-response comments also suggested workshops

on grant writing, CV writing, conflict resolution, salary

negotiation, and interview skills.

The views expressed in the survey largely mirror

those from a recent symposium called the Future

of Research, organized by and for postdoctoral

scientists on the future of the biomedical research

enterprise. Symposium participants called for greater

transparency about postdoc outcomes, improved

advocacy and connectivity, and suggested strategies

for incentivizing effective mentoring.3 Through

member-led initiatives, ASPET is beginning to address

some of these issues. The BIG IDEA project “From

senior mentor to highly skilled career coach: A novel

approach to breaking the diversity roadblock” will

match mid- to late-career scientists with cohorts

of junior scientists to guide them in their career

development. The newly established Young Scientists

committee aims to provide and increase postdoc

representation in existing ASPET committees and to

enhance the trainee experience at the ASPET Annual

Meeting at EB. Survey respondents suggested a

variety of ways to better integrate them at the ASPET

Annual Meeting, and these will be shared with the

Young Scientists committee as well as with other

relevant committees (e.g., the Mentoring and Career

Development committee). We thank those who

shared their views in the survey, and look forward to

expanding ASPET’s role in developing the talent of our

postdoctoral members.

3 McDowell GS, Gunsalus KTW, MacKellar DC, et al. (2015) Shaping the future of research: a perspective from junior scientists. F1000Research, 3:291.

To What Extent Would the Following Contribute to Your Professional Development?

not at all somewhat a moderate amount

a substantial amount

not sure or no opinion

Career fair at the Annual Meeting7%

4

14%

8

36%

20

43%

24

0%

0

Availability of statistics about

salaries within your discipline

5%

3

34%

19

25%

14

36%

20

0%

0

Availability of statistics about

career paths within your discipline

4%

2

13%

7

30%

17

52%

29

2%

1

Availability of information about job

market trends within your discipline

0%

0

16%

9

34%

19

48%

27

2%

1

Availability of mentors outside your

institution/organization

0%

0

9%

5

20%

11

66%

37

5%

3

Greater opportunities to speak and/

or organize events at conferences

0%

0

9%

5

34%

19

50%

28

7%

4

164


In 2014, ASPET announced its BIG IDEAS initiative,

a unique opportunity for members to propose a project

that would directly benefit ASPET’s membership. The

three projects selected for the initial round of funding

are now in development, and each one addresses an

educational need that will ultimately serve the broader

community of ASPET members as well as the discipline

of pharmacology. What follows are brief highlights of

the current status of each of the projects.

Enhancing Undergraduate Engagement in ASPET at EB Meetings

Submitted by Carol L. Beck, Catherine M. Davis, and the

Division for Pharmacology Education

The goal of this project is to increase undergraduate

engagement in ASPET in general, and specifically at

the ASPET Annual Meeting at Experimental Biology.

ASPET is now working to add new undergraduate

travel and best presentation awards to its offerings,

and an undergraduate networking luncheon is under

development for EB2016.

Pharmacology Industry Internships for PhD Students (PIIPS)

Submitted by ASPET members Kathryn Meier, Joan

Heller Brown, Mike Jarvis, Jim Barrett, Jeff Herz, and Jeff

Jasper, with advice from Glenn Prestwich

This program provides a unique funding opportunity

for PhD students to obtain internship experiences

in industrial settings by encouraging partnerships

between academia and industry. A PIIPS steering

committee has been established and has been working

on developing the program guidelines, application

process, review criteria, and other program details. The

launch of the program is anticipated later this year.

From Senior Mentor to Highly Skilled Career Coach: A Novel Approach to Breaking the Diversity Roadblock

Submitted by Lynn Wecker, the Mentoring and

Career Development Committee, and the Division for

Pharmacology Education

The ASPET Mentoring Network proposed by this

project follows a mentoring model that will match

mid- to late-career scientists with cohorts of young

scientists to help guide them in their development and

career advancement. The first year-long cohort will

begin during EB2016 with in-person activities and be

followed by virtual interactions throughout the year.

The Mentoring and Career Development Committee is

currently working to finalize the first group of coaches

and is developing the application process for mentees.

They are also working with ASPET staff to plan related

events at EB2016.

Update on the BIG IDEAS I Initiative

ASPET Big Ideas II InitiativeAfter the tremendous success of the BIG IDEAS I initiative, the ASPET council announced the second cycle of

the initiative at the annual business meeting in March 2015. Once again, we are asking members to put forward

their best ideas for projects. Submit your initial proposal to Judy Siuciak at [email protected] no later than

Monday, September 28, 2015. For more information, visit: www.aspet.org/ASPET_Big_Ideas_II/

165

http://www.aspet.org/ASPET_Big_Ideas_II/


166

Journal NewsNew DMD Editorial Advisory Board Member

Dr. Donald Mercante, Emory University School of

Medicine, joined the Drug Metabolism and Disposition

Editorial Advisory Board in June. Dr. Eddie Morgan and

the other members of ASPET’s Board of Publications

Trustees welcome him to the journal and are grateful

for his service.

Image Forensics Added to ASPET’s Journals

Since July 20, 2015, figures in manuscripts

considered for acceptance in ASPET’s four wholly

owned journals have been examined for evidence

of manipulation. Although certain modifications of

primary data are often needed for clarity and/or

brevity, image manipulation for deceptive purposes,

to unfairly enhance or eliminate or otherwise obscure

data, are grounds for rejection and may constitute

misconduct. Inappropriate image manipulation will

result in rejection of the manuscript. Suspected

misconduct may be reported to the authors’

institution(s) and funder(s).

Revised figures submitted after acceptance also

undergo image forensics.

The section on figures in each journal’s Instructions

to Authors provides information about image

manipulation. Authors should carefully read and follow

these requirements prior to submission. The Office

of Research Integrity’s “Guidelines for Best Practices

in Image Processing” at 1.usa.gov/1EyhKVe provides

additional information.

The implementation of image forensics supports

ASPET’s commitment to high standards of scientific

rigor and the Society’s support for the National

Institutes of Health Principles and Guidelines

for Reporting Preclinical Research (see 1.usa.

gov/1x8pOe9). That support was first expressed in an

announcement from ASPET’s Board of Publications

Trustees published in the July issue of each of the

Society’s four wholly owned journals and in the last

issue of The Pharmacologist.

Author Beware…From time to time, concerned members notify

the ASPET journals department that they have been

solicited to submit to a new publication with a name

similar to one of ASPET’s journals. They are typically

author-fee-based open-access online-only predatory

journals from little known publishers. In some cases,

a predatory journal simply copies the name of an

established, reputable journal. Predatory publishers

and their journals have been the topic of multiple

posts on The Scholarly Kitchen blog from the Society

for Scholarly Publishing (scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/),

articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education, and

commentaries in Nature, Science, BMJ, and other

research journals.

ASPET staff members have been asked what

we can do to stop these journals. Unfortunately,

the answer is nothing. Journal titles cannot be

copyrighted, and trademark protection applies only to

the graphic presentation of a title and not the words

(think of the consequences of trademarking “science,”

“nature,” and “cell”). There are legitimate, well

regarded journals with titles similar to ASPET’s, some

of which have been published for many years.

What we can do is educate authors. Although this

problem has been around for a few years, authors

continue to be tricked into submitting to these journals

not infrequently. The burden lies on authors (and

readers) to discern legitimate journals from the rest.

Check before submitting!

A useful resource is Beall’s List: Potential, possible,

or probably predatory scholarly open-access

publishers available at scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

that is compiled and maintained by Jeffrey Beall,

a librarian at the University of Colorado Denver. In

addition, there are signs to look for:

http://1.usa.gov/1EyhKVe

http://1.usa.gov/1x8pOe9

http://1.usa.gov/1x8pOe9

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/


167

• Does the journal have an editor and an editorial board, and do you recognize any of the people on the

board? A journal with a title similar to JPET’s was recently brought to our attention. It has no editor and no

editorial board but is gladly accepting submissions. If you know anyone on the editorial board, contact that

person to ask about the journal. Predatory journals have been known to list respected researchers on their

boards without those researchers even knowing they are listed. This is a case when Googling your name

isn’t necessarily an exercise in vanity – are you on an editorial board without your knowledge?

• Is the journal indexed? MEDLINE/PubMed and Thompson Reuters thoroughly screen the journals they

index. It can take years for a new journal to be included, so also check PubMed Central if the title is not

indexed by PubMed or Web of Science. PMC screens journals but adds new titles faster than the others (our

own Pharmacology Research & Perspectives is a case in point).

• Last, who is the publisher? New, legitimate publishing companies do come into being. If it is a name you do

not recognize, Google it to find out more. I enjoy looking at the “contact us” page of predatory publishers.

One lists 16 contact people, 5 of whom share the same telephone extension. That seems a little odd. Some

have a full name, some have no last name, some only an initial – not something you would expect from a

legitimate company. Digging into the publisher’s and the journal’s website can be informative.

If things were not bad enough with predatory

journals, some of the people who produce them

are moving into predatory conferences. One lists

a “World Congress of Pharmacology” alternatively

called “Pharmacology 2015” – conference names

used by IUPHAR and the British Pharmacological

Society, respectively. Potential submitters and

registrants beware!

168


Dr. E. Leong Way,

known as “Eddie” to those

who love and work with

him, celebrated his 100th

birthday in San Francisco

on July 9, 2015. Many

former students, postdocs,

faculty from the Department

of Pharmacology in the

UCSF School of Medicine,

colleagues, and friends

from around the United

States came to help Eddie

celebrate by holding a

Chinese banquet. Friends

included his current golf

partners and his ballroom dancing partners! Dr. E. L.

Way was President of ASPET in 1976, and received

the 1992 Torald Sollman Award in Pharmacology. He

was also awarded the 1979 Nathan B. Eddy Memorial

Award for outstanding research in drug dependency.

Honored by both the East and the West, in 1978 he

received the Gold Medal and Cultural Citation from the

Ministry of Education in China.

Dr. E. Leong Way Celebrates 100th Birthday

Professional Event Photography by Frank Jang

Eddie with faculty and staff

Professional Event Photography by

Frank Jang

Dr. E. Leong Way

Thomas C. Westfall, PhDRichard H. Adamson, PhDThomas R. Tephly, MD, PhDHarold H. Wolf, PhDJane H. Chin, PhDMarvin E. Rosenthale, PhDFrederick F. Cowan, PhDDonald C. Kvam, PhDLincoln T. Potter, MDJoseph R. Davis, MD, PhDSalvatore J. Mule, PhDAlan C. Sartorelli, PhDLarry Stein, PhD

Herbert Weissbach, PhDRoger A. Yeary, DVMPeter K. Gessner, PhDOakley S. Ray, PhDJoseph R. Bertino, MDJay N. Cohn, MDStanley Deutsch, MD, PhDEdwin I. Goldenthal, PhDPlinio Prioreschi, MD, PhDAbel M. Dominguez, PhDAngelo R. Furgiuele, PhDKarl L. Gabriel, PhD, VMDVelayudhan Nair, PhD, DSc

Arnold Schwartz, PhDPhilip A. Khairallah, MDFranklin J. Rosenberg, PhDPhilip F. Hirsch, PhDI. A. Michaelson, PhDJiro Nakano, MD, PhDArthur J. Weiss, MDJoseph H. Gans, PhD, VMDThomas C. Hall, MDMelville W. Osborne, PhDHerbert Wells, DMDStanley E. Gitlow, MDArthur Jeske, PhD

ASPET Commemorates the Following Members for Their 50 Years with the Society

Membership News

169


Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, the physician and

pharmacologist who played a critical role in preventing

the distribution of the drug thalidomide in the US,

passed away on August 7th, 2015 at 101 years of age.

Dr. Kelsey was a member of ASPET

since 1942.

Dr. Kelsey was born in British Columbia in 1914. She

received her BSc in 1934 and MSc in 1935 from McGill

University. She subsequently moved to the United

States to the University of Chicago, earning her PhD

in pharmacology in 1938 and her MD in 1950. While

in graduate school, Kelsey participated in studies

identifying diethylene glycol as the toxic agent in the

elixir of sulfanilamide that killed 107 people in 1937.

She taught at both the University of Chicago and

the University of South Dakota and also practiced

medicine in Vermillion, South Dakota.

In 1960, she took a position as medical officer

at the Food and Drug Administration and moved

to Washington, DC. She later became chief of the

Division of New Drugs, director of the Division of

Scientific Investigations, and deputy for Scientific and

Medical Affairs, Office of Compliance. She remained at

the FDA until her retirement at the age of 90.

Dr. Kelsey’s first assignment at the FDA was to

review an application for the use of thalidomide,

which had already been used throughout Europe and

Great Britain as an anti-nausea drug to treat morning

sickness. After noting a number of concerns with the

application, she requested additional information and

ultimately blocked approval of the drug in the United

States. However, by late 1961, evidence was growing

that thalidomide was causing serious birth defects in

other parts of the world. Thalidomide was taken off the

market in 1962, but not before approximately 10,000

children had been impacted.

On August 7, 1962, President John F. Kennedy

awarded Frances Kelsey the highest honor given to a

civilian in the United States, the President’s Award for

Distinguished Federal Civilian Service. She was the

second woman to ever receive the award. In 2010,

the FDA established a Dr. Frances O. Kelsey Award for

Excellence and Courage in Protecting Public Health,

which is given annually to an FDA staff member.

More information about Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey

can be found here in an article about her published in

Molecular Interventions.

A Tribute to Dr. Frances Kathleen Oldham (1914-2015)

Frances Kathleen Oldham Kelsey received the President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service from President John F. Kennedy in 1962

http://triggered.stanford.clockss.org/ServeContent?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmolinterv.aspetjournals.org%2Fcontent%2F11%2F1%2F3.full.pdf%2Bhtml

170


New MembersREGULAR MEMBERS Carlos Barajas-Lopez

IPICYT, MexicoFarhat Batool

Univ of Nottingham, UKBhaskar U. Bhattacharya

Cancer Science Inst of SingaporeChun Cheng Andy Chen

Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine

Alan Davis Pharmedicor

Laurent A. Decosterd Univ Hospital and Univ of Lausanne, Switzerland

Vanja Duric Des Moines Univ

Jane E. Ishmael Oregon State Univ

Mohita Kumar Ferring Pharmaceuticals

Robert Lukowski Univ of Tuebingen, Germany

Gary A. Piazza Univ of South Alabama Mitchell Cancer Inst.

Dominique Schols Rega Inst for Medical Research, Belgium

Amit K. Tiwari Univ of Toledo

Adam L. VanWert Wilkes UnivKarthick Vishwanathan, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

Bradley K. Wong Tonn and Wong DMPK Solutions LLC

POSTDOCTORAL MEMBERSFatima Z. Alshbool

Western Univ of Health SciencesAndy R. Eugene

MNPatrycja Kleczkowska

Medical Univ of Warsaw, PolandValerie F. Miller

National Institutes of HealthJohnathan P. Neiswinger

National Institutes of HealthKruti Patel

Univ of Massachusetts DartmouthIuliana Popescu

Univ of Kentucky Coll of Med

PS Shantanu Rao Univ of Tennessee Health Science Center

Tahmineh Tabrizian SUNY Stony Brook

AFFILIATE MEMBERS Francis Rainer B. AtanacioFood and Nutrition Res Inst, PhillipinesJohnny L. Barr

USA ISRJennifer L. Cubeta

The Univ of ArizonaRitika KurianThomas L. McCormick

Coventry Diagnostics Tod L. Steinfeld

Reset Therapeutics

GRADUATE STUDENT MEMBERSGisella Campanelli

Long Island UnivShannon A. Coghlan

Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers Univ

Sabrina C. Fechtner Washington State Univ

Mayuresh S. Garud SVKM’s NMIMS Shobhaben Pratapbhai Patel Sch of Pharmacy and Techn Mgmt, India

Maciej Gonek Virginia Commonwealth Univ

Juliet D. Gotthardt Rutgers Univ

Amber L. Guidry Univ of Alabama at Birmingham

Ashley M. Hopkins Univ of South Australia

Asti Jackson Virginia Commonwealth Univ

Joanna C. Jacob Virginia Commonwealth Univ

Oluwafemi E. Kale Babcock Univ, Nigeria

Miki Katuwal The Univ of Kansas Medical Center

Gayatri Mamidanna Univ of Memphis

Muhammad A. Musa Usmanu Danfodiyo Univ, Nigeria

Michael Ohene-Nyako Rush Univ Medical Center

Annie M. Racine Univ of Wisconsin-Madison

Alejandro N. Rondon MCPHS Univ

Fatima O. Saeed Univ of Cincinnati

Ekundayo S. Samuel University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Justin D. Schumacher Rutgers Univ

Santu K. Singha Univ of Mississippi

Zachary E. Tibbs Univ of Alabama at Birmingham

Julia Tobacyk Univ of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

Justin K. Tomblin Marshall Univ

UNDERGRADUATE MEMBERS Kevin M. Adams

Vanderbilt UnivStephanie O. Agba

Franklin CollegeEda Algur

Harvard CollegeMudassir S. Ali

Univ of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignKristin Allan

The College of WoosterRoseanna Amrit

Univ at BuffaloYiran An

Univ of PittsburghJason M. Arne

Case Western Reserve UnivNathan G. Arnett

Pennsylvania State UnivTiara D. Askew

Bowie State UnivSainath Asokan

Univ of North Carolina - Chapel HillAaron A. Bickert

Medical College of WisconsinAlejandro R. Botas

Rice Univ

171


Elise M. Bowler Univ of IL at Chicago

Edward G. Brauer Michigan State Univ

Kiera J. Broussard Xavier Univ of Louisiana

Veronica M. Campbell Texas A&M Univ - Corpus Christi

Dorsin Chang Univ of Pittsburgh

Sonam Chodon Rutgers Univ

Randall B. Clapp Gannon Univ

Bridget G. Condon Loyola Univ

Emma K. Dallon Washington State Univ

Tayyeb DinNhu Y T. Doan

Pomona CollegeChristian L. Dohring

Univ at BuffaloKevin N. Eddy

Rutgers UnivMichael A. Epp

Baker UnivAbdelrahman A. Ewis

Rutgers Univ - Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy

Chelesa T. Fearce Spelman College

Rachel M. Felger Trinity Univ

Katherine R. Ferrick Southwestern Univ

Courtney L. Fisher Michigan State Univ

Kailey M. Fogo Univ of Arkansas for Med Sci

Eric Franklin Univ of Rochester

Anne E. Freeman Univ of Texas Health Science Center

Daniel M. Frey Milwaukee School of Engineering

Claire A. Gianakas Carnegie Mellon Univ

HyunJung Go Rutgers Univ

Delfina P. Gonzalez Pomona College

Patrice Groomes Brown Univ

Shivani Gupta Rutgers Univ Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy

Patrick C. Gurley Univ of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

Ronald J. Harris Livingstone College

Nathaniel J. Hayes Medical College of Wisconsin

Kionna L. Henderson Univ of Arkansas at Pine Bluff

Kevlyn M. Holmes Louisiana State Univ Health Sciences

Amy Huang Rutgers Univ

Rachel D. Hutchison Univ of Arkansas at Little Rock

Brittany M. Jack Rockhurst Univ

Sinthia Jahan Univ of Arkansas at Little Rock

Jennifer R. Jensen Univ of North Carolina

Arianna J. Kee Rutgers Univ

Willa G. Kerkhoff Oberlin College

Junga Kim Rutgers Univ

Holly E. Kraus Wheeling Jesuit Univ

Minseo Kwak Rutgers Univ

Jasmine Kyung Univ of California, San Diego

Caitlin E. Labay Univ of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio

Sharmaine A. Lee Stritch School of Medicine: Loyola Univ Chicago

JongWon Lee Rutgers Univ

Rebecca Lee Cornell Univ

Sophie L. Lewandowski Univ of Virginia School of Medicine

Diana H. Mansour Univ of Pittsburgh

Emily E. Marra Univ at Buffalo

Kaitlin E. Marrison Michigan State Univ

After the success of last year’s campaign, ASPET

will be launching the Member-Get-A-Member

campaign this September! Any current active

member who recommends a new regular, affiliate, or

postdoctoral member will receive a complimentary

ASPET t-shirt. In addition, any current member who

recommends a new member join ASPET (including

new graduate student and undergraduate members)

will receive entry in the raffle for the Grand Prize, a

$100 American Express gift card!

Speak with your students, professional contacts,

and other interested individuals and let them know

about the exciting

benefits of ASPET

membership. Helping

to grow the ASPET

membership ensures

the strength of the

organization and allows

us to continue to offer

our many benefits and explore new ways to help

grow the field of pharmacology and experimental

therapeutics. For more details, visit: www.aspet.org/

membership/member-get-a-member/

Member-Get-A-Member Campaign

http://www.aspet.org/membership/member-get-a-member/

http://www.aspet.org/membership/member-get-a-member/

172


Brian P. McHugh University of Rhode Island

Ian M. McVinney Hendrix College

Vivek Medepalli Univ of California, San Diego

Sarah L. Metcalfe St. Bonaventure Univ

Kendrique A. Morgan Tougaloo College

Michael Mudrak Rutgers Univ

Brendan F. Mullan Michigan State Univ

Lailun Nahar Univ of Rochester

Rachan V. NaralaIvy D. Ngo

Gordon CollegeJessica M. Noll

Manchester UnivIshmael L. Ochir

Univ of IllinoisDaniella I. Olan

Rutgers UnivKayla L. O’Sullivan

Washington State Univ College of Pharmacy

Hope Pan Vanderbilt Univ

Rohan J. Peer Case Western Reserve Univ

Morgan S. Phillips McGill Univ, Montreal

Matthew J. Purcell Northern Illinois Univ

Christopher V. Radcliffe West Virginia Univ

Ashley L. Rand Oral Roberts Univ

David T. Reich Brown University

Lindsay L. Robinson The College of Wooster

Jasper N. Rubin-Sigler Emory Univ

Matthew M. Rusgis Univ of Missouri, Columbia

Isaac Sappington Washington State Univ

Kendall J. Schick Concordia Univ

Regina D. Schnegelberger Northwest Missouri State Univ

Zaheera Shabbir Binghamton Univ

Harsh Shah Univ of Florida

Li Ching Sheng Rutgers Univ

Byron S. Sigel Grinnell College

Kara L. Smith Miami Univ

Calvin G. Snyder Univ of North Carolina – Chapel Hill

Alexander C. Stoudt Washington State Univ

Gabriel D. Tallent Univ of Michigan

Kevin A. Tam Univ of Illinois College of Pharmacy

Amr M. Tawfik Rutgers Univ

Kristian E. Teichert Northeastern Univ

Daniel L. Theisen The Univ of Kansas

Raghav Tripathi Case Western Reserve Univ

Kalu E. Udensi Stony Brook

Emma Vargas Gordon College

Randy E. Verduguez Univ of Dayton

Kaliana M. Veros Univ at Buffalo

Maria J. Vides Pomona College

Laura A. Vinck Graceland Univ

Eric J. West Lafayette College

Stephen D. Williams Norfolk State Univ

Andrew P. Wodrich Univ of Miami

Keegan B. Wolter Michigan State Univ

Hanan Yacoub Univ of Illinois at Chicago

Haoyue Zhou Rutgers, State Univ of New Jersey

Wenyi Zhu Rutgers Univ

In Sympathy

G. Alan RobisonFrances Kathleen Oldham KelseyHeather Hostetler

It’s time to renew your membership! Be sure to watch your email for

your 2016 Dues Notice later this month. 2016 is going to be a great year

for ASPET members with the annual meeting taking place in San Diego this

April, continued growth of the education department, and further exploration

of the BIG IDEAS II Initiative. We hope you continue your membership and

take advantage of all of the many benefits ASPET membership has to offer.

Thank you for your valued support of ASPET!

2015 Membership Renewal

173


Members in the News

Achievements, Awards, Promotions, and Scientific Breakthroughs

Dr. Bradley McConnell

University of Houston

Dr. Bradley McConnell of the

University of Houston, Texas Medical

Center, received a National Institutes

of Health/NHLBI R15 Academic

Research Career Enhancement

Award to study the biophysical,

cellular, and physiological properties

of A-kinase anchoring proteins

(AKAP) scaffolding protein network

dynamics using molecular-defined

mutants to integrate structure-function

relationships, local sub-cellular

signaling, and co-complex regulation

associated with cardiac cell signaling.

Dr. McConnell along with his team

will investigate the effect of human

mAKAP mutations on the modification

of protein-protein interaction

binding kinetics and its role as an

interaction network to regulate second

messenger dynamics. McConnell

said that “Characterization of mAKAP

scaffolding protein-protein interactions

will improve our understanding

for this central regulator of kinase,

phosphodiesterase, and phosphatase

cardiac intracellular signaling.”

As a new principal investigator

of an R15 award, Dr. McConnell

has already spearheaded a mini

symposium at the University of

Houston titled “Opportunities in

Science, Technology, Engineering and

Mathematics (STEM): An Introduction

of Health Sciences to High School

Students” this past June. The mini

symposium hosted several local area

high school students and the primary

goal was to expose them to a variety

of activities including basic science

research presentations by faculty and

students, laboratory demonstrations,

and a campus tour.

In recognition of his recent success

in receiving a grant, along with his

longstanding devotion to integrate

education and research while

supporting outreach and service, and

creating opportunities for students,

he was recently recognized by the

University of Houston and the College

of Pharmacy with a 2015 Certificate of

Achievement for Excellence in Service.

Dr. McConnell has been a member

of ASPET since 2013. He is a member

of the Division for Cardiovascular

Pharmacology.

174


Main Line Health has named

Charles Antzelevitch, PhD, FACC,

FAHA, FHRS, executive director of

the cardiovascular research program

at Lankenau Institute for Medical

Research and director of research

at Lankenau Heart Institute. Dr.

Antzelevitch is an internationally

recognized expert in cardiac

electrophysiology and arrhythmia

syndromes. In his new role at Main

Line Health, he will assemble a

cardiovascular research team of

clinical investigators and basic

scientists to advance understanding

of the underlying mechanisms of

cardiac arrhythmias and to translate

these discoveries into novel

approaches to therapy.

Dr. Antzelevitch joins Main Line

Health after more than 31 years

as executive director, director of

research, and Gordon K. Moe scholar

(endowed chair in experimental

cardiology) at the Masonic Medical

Research Laboratory in Utica, NY. He

also holds an academic appointment

as professor of pharmacology at

SUNY Upstate Medical University in

Syracuse, NY.

Since the start of his scientific

career, Dr. Antzelevitch has been

awarded more than $24 million in

research grants. Together with his

research colleagues, Dr. Antzelevitch

discovered and characterized the

physiological basis for how life-

threatening arrhythmias begin.

Dr. Antzelevitch’s contributions to

the scientific literature on cardiac

arrhythmias include nearly 500

original articles and book chapters

and 6 edited reference texts. His

achievements have been widely

recognized, with many professional

honors.

Dr. Antzelevitch has been a member

of ASPET since 2013. He is a member

of the Division for Cardiovascular

Pharmacology.

Dr. Charles Antzelevitch

Lankenau Institute for

Medical Research

Is there something exciting happening in your career that is worth sharing with other ASPET members? Let us put the word out! Submit a brief 150-word summary of your recent career achievements, awards, promotions, and scientific breakthroughs for inclusion in the members in the news segment of The Pharmacologist.

Share Your Career Achievements with ASPET Membership

175


Division NewsDivision for Translational & Clinical Pharmacology

Update on the Division Website Redesign Project

The Division for Translational & Clinical

Pharmacology (TCP) is delighted to begin hosting the

Ray Fuller Lecture and Symposium beginning with the

ASPET Annual Meeting at EB2018. This will serve as

our flagship venue for recognizing bench-to-bedside-

to-bench research at the Experimental Biology meeting.

More information about how the division will be

soliciting nominations and selecting an awardee for the

inaugural TCP Ray Fuller Lecture and Symposium will

be available in the future.

As part of our commitment to provide resources

and opportunities for showcasing and mentoring

junior faculty and trainees, we are developing three

key initiatives:

1) Following the inaugural and highly successful

Meet the Experts Luncheon at EB2015, we will hold a

similar event at EB2016 with a few twists that will enable

our members to meet an even greater diversity of

experts in translational and clinical pharmacology.

2) We are launching Career Development Site Visits

with travel and lodging support for trainees seeking to

get a glimpse of science in an environment outside of

their current lab. Options for these 2–3 day site visits

will be announced soon; trainees will then be invited to

submit a letter of intent that will be followed by a more

complete application. The selected candidates will be

announced at the TCP business meeting

at EB2016.

3) We will also provide travel support for a Junior

Faculty Showcase to enable our early-career

investigators to highlight their work presented

at EB2016.

More updates will follow for each of these exciting

initiatives.

Are you interested in learning more about

membership or serving on the Executive Committee?

The secretary/treasurer position is currently open for

nominations. Please contact Pam Hornby at phornby@

its.jnj.com or Ben Green at [email protected].

As part of our continuing efforts to improve the

user experience on all of ASPET’s web properties, the

ASPET marketing and communications team proposed

a website redesign initiative for all ten division websites

at the division communication officer’s meeting held

during EB2015 in Boston this year.

The revisions of the division websites include

achieving consistency in branding and layout,

improving navigation, updating content as it relates to

each division, and linking the sites to ASPET’s social

media channels along with the the division LinkedIn

group pages.

We are happy to report that the redesign project

commenced in a timely manner earlier this summer

and is making good progress. After incorporating all

redesign changes, we hope to set a new standard

in terms of how the ASPET division websites are

viewed and utilized as hubs of divisional information

not only by current and new Society members but

also nonmembers interested in learning more about

the specific disciplines within pharmacology that the

divisions represent.

Stay tuned for an announcement as we gear up to

roll out the new changes on all ten division websites

later this year.

mailto:ben.green%40ars.usda.gov?subject=

176


The fourth annual NYPS meeting highlighting

“G-Protein Coupled Receptor Signaling Systems

in Health and Disease” held at the University of

Rochester on Tuesday, May 19, 2015 was a great

success! There were nearly a hundred attendees

including students, faculty, and industry scientists

representing Albany College of Pharmacy and Health

Sciences, Cornell University, D’Youville College

School of Pharmacy, SUNY College at Brockport,

Roswell Park Cancer Institute, SUNY Upstate

Medical University, University at Buffalo, University of

Rochester, and industry research organizations.

Dr. J. Silvio Gutkind,

chief of the Oral and

Pharyngeal Cancer Branch

of the NIDCR and soon to

be of the UC San Diego

Moores Cancer Center,

delivered the keynote

address entitled “G-Protein

Coupled Receptor Signaling

Circuitries and Cancer.”

Dr. Gutkind described how

activation of the PI3K/Akt/

mTOR-signaling axis is

one of the most frequent

events in cancer and

alterations in these and

other specific signaling

pathways may drive remarkable expansion of

the stem cell compartments and rapid carcinoma

formation. Additional invited thematic speakers

were Xianhua Piao MD, PhD of Harvard Medical

Center and the Boston Children’s Hospital and Peter

A. Friedman, PhD of the University of Pittsburgh,

School of Medicine. Dr. Piao spoke of her research

on the adhesion G-protein coupled receptor GPR56

and its role in neurodevelopment, particularly in

oligodendrocyte precursor cell (OPC) proliferation

and myelination. Dr. Friedman spoke of his research

on the mechanisms of parathyroid hormone

receptor (PTHR) action and how specific ligands can

promote either receptor recycling or ubiquitination-

downregulation.

Presidential Graduate Student Symposium

speakers included six advanced graduate students

from regional universities and research institutes:

Shannon Clough of the University at Buffalo, Jesi Lee

Anne To of the University of Rochester, Forrest Wright

of SUNY Upstate Medical University, Walter Knight of

the University of Rochester, Kirstie Cummings of the

University at Buffalo, and Bharti Patel of the University

of Rochester. Early Career Scientist talks were made

Dr. Jianwen Que of the University of Rochester and

Dr. Jun-Xu Li of the University at Buffalo.

Outgoing president Gregory G. Tall of Rochester

gave final remarks and welcomed the new president

Paul J. Kammermeier, also of Rochester. Further

details can be found at https://www.aspet.org/NYPS/.

2015 NYPS Annual Meeting in Review(formerly known as UNYPS)

Chapter News

NYPS keynote speaker J. Silvio Gutkind

https://www.aspet.org/NYPS/

177


In June 2015, the Great Lakes Chapter of

the American Society for Pharmacology and

Experimental Therapeutics (GLC-ASPET) hosted

its annual meeting to foster interactions among

pharmacologists in the Great Lakes region and

to provide a forum for graduate students and

post-doctoral fellows to present their research.

The annual meeting had a very interesting

program, including the scientific symposium on

“Epigenetics and Human Disease: From Etiology

to New Therapeutics” that featured nationally

and internationally recognized researchers in

epigenetics and human disease research.

John Christman, MD, director of the

Critical Care Signature Program, chief of the

Section of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care

and Sleep Medicine, The Ohio State University

Wexner Medical Center, discussed in his talk

“Epigenetic Regulation of Macrophage Gene

Expression in ARDS Associated with Severe

Sepsis” novel molecular pathways by which

macrophages contribute to the pathogenesis

and recovery of ARDS. His recent data indicate

that the macrophage inflammatory phenotype

is regulated, at least in part, through epigenetic

mechanisms. He addressed the pivotal role for

macrophages in the generation and recovery

phase of ARDS and several mechanisms of

epigenetic regulation of macrophage gene

expression as a major determinant of the

macrophage inflammatory phenotype.

Ali Shilatifard, PhD, chairman, Department

of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics,

Northwestern University, Feinberg School

of Medicine, discussed in his talk “Enhancer

Malfunction in Cancer” some recent studies

on the identification of factors that function in

the regulation of the chromatin state and the

activities of enhancers during development.

Tao Pan, PhD, professor, Department

of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,

The University of Chicago, discussed in his

presentation “Dynamic RNA Modifications

in the Regulation of Gene Expression” the

N6-methyladenosine (m6A) modification in

mammalian mRNA/lncRNA and its role in

regulating mRNA abundance, alternative splicing,

and nucleocytoplasmic translocation with a

particular emphasis on how m6A regulates the

access of mRNA/lncRNA binding proteins to their

target sites.

William N. Pappano, PhD, senior group leader

at AbbVie, Greater Chicago Area presented in

his talk “Targeting Histone Methyltransferases in

Cancer” some new studies to generate several

small molecule chemical probes against a number

of methyltransferases and explore the biology

and druggability of these targets in vitro and

in vivo.

Jindan Yu, MD, PhD, associate professor of

Medicine-Hematology/Oncology, Northwestern

University Feinberg School of Medicine,

discussed in her talk “IncRNA Regulation of

Androgen Receptor Signaling and Prostate

Cancer” how key transcription factors as well

as epigenetic regulators, such as lncRNAs, in

prostate cancer promote disease progression

through altering the androgen receptor

transcriptional program.

2015 GLC Annual Meeting in Review

Poster session at the 2015 GLC Annual Meeting

178


179


180


September 2015Amer. Physiological Soc. 14th Ann. Conf. on Endothelinwww.the-aps.org/et-14Sept. 2–5, Savannah, GA

2015 DIA/FDA Oligonucleotide-based Therapeutic Conf. bit.ly/16NZaOMSept. 9–11, Washington DC

67th Clin. Endocrinology Updatewww.endocrine.org/ceuSept. 10–12, Miami, FL

North Amer. Artery 5th Ann. Mtg.www.naartery.orgSept. 11–12, Chicago, IL

Eurotox: 51st Cong. of the Europ. Socs. of Toxicol.www.eurotox2015.comSept. 13–16, Porto, Portugal

21st Scientific Symp. of the Austrian Pharmacological Soc.www.bps.ac.uk/meetings/14844de2424Sept. 16–18, Graz, Austria

The Mobile Genome: Genetic & Physiological Impacts of Transposable Elementsbit.ly/1DIHbDqSept. 16–19, Heidelberg, Germany

Int’l Soc. for Eye Res. XXII Biennial Mtg.www.iserbiennialmeeting.orgSept. 26–30, Tokyo, Japan

Amer. College of Clin. Pharmacology Ann. Mtg.accp1.org/2015_meetings_welcome.shtml Sept. 27–29, San Francisco, CA

15th Ann. Mtg. of Safety Pharmacology Soc.www.safetypharmacology.org/annualmeetings.aspSept. 28–Oct. 1, Prague, Czech Republic

October 2015 2015 Amer. Soc. of Human Genetics www.ashg.org/2015meeting/index.shtmlOct. 6–10, Baltimore, MD

2015 IPA Int’l Cong.www.ipa-online.org/wordpress/event/2015-international-congress-berlinOct. 13–16, Berlin, Germany

25th Neuropharmacology Conf. 2015www.neuropharmacology-conference.elsevier.comOct. 15–16, Chicago, IL

Advances in Breast Cancer Res.www.aacr.org/Meetings/Pages/MeetingDetail.aspx?EventItemID=49#.VWTTrWdFCUkOct. 17–20, Bellevue, WA

Soc. for Neuroscience: Neuroscience 2015www.sfn.org/annual-meeting/neuroscience-2015Oct. 17–21, Chicago, IL

20th North Amer. ISSX Mtg. www.issx.org/BlankCustom.asp?page=20NAISSXInviteOct. 18–22, Orlando, FL

Int’l Soc. for Applied Cardiovascular Biology & NAVBO www.navbo.org/events/vb2015Oct. 18–22, Hyannis, MA

2015 Soc. of Forensic Toxicologists Ann. Mtg.www.soft-tox.org/meetingOct. 19–23, Atlanta, GA

4th AACR Int’l Conf. on Frontiers in Basic Cancer Res.www.aacr.org/Meetings/Pages/MeetingDetail.aspx?EventItemID=59#.VWTTdmdFCUkOct. 23–26, Philadelphia, PA

2015 SACNAS Nat‘l Conf. www.sacnas.org/events/national-confOct. 29–31, Washington, DC

November 2015 Pharma Middle East 2015middleeast.pharmaceuticalconferences.comNov. 2–4, Dubai, UAE

Amer. Soc. of Nephrology: Kidney Week 2015www.asn-online.org/education/kidneyweekNov. 3–8, San Diego, CA

AACR-NCI-EORTC Int’l Conf. on Molecular Targets & Cancer Therapeuticswww.aacr.org/Meetings/Pages/MeetingDetail.aspx?EventItemID=59#.VWTTdmdFCUkNov. 5–9, Boston, MA

Translational Cancer Res. for Basic Scientists Workshopwww.aacr.org/Meetings/Pages/MeetingDetail.aspx?EventItemID=67#.VWXQL2dFCUkNov. 8–13, Boston, MA

63rd Amer. Soc. of Cytopathology Ann. Scientific Mtg. www.cytopathologymeeting.org/2015Nov. 13–16, Chicago, IL

8th AACR Conf. on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities & the Medically Underservedwww.aacr.org/Meetings/Pages/MeetingDetail.aspx?EventItemID=68#.VWXSeGdFCUkNov. 13–16, Atlanta, GA

Cardiovascular, Renal & Metabolic Diseases: Physiology & Genderwww.the-aps.org/mm/Conferences/APS-Conferences/2015-Conferences/Physiology-and-GenderNov. 17–20, Hyannis, MA

Developmental Biology & Cancerwww.aacr.org/Meetings/Pages/MeetingDetail.aspx?EventItemID=67#.VWXQL2dFCUkNov. 30–Dec. 3, Boston, MA

December 2015EORTC-NCI-EMA-AACR Int’l Conf. on Innovation & Biomarkers in Cancer Drug Developmentwww.aacr.org/Meetings/Pages/MeetingDetail.aspx?EventItemID=71#.VWXS6mdFCUkDec. 3–4, Brussels, Belgium

54th Ann. Mtg. of the Amer. Coll. of Neuropsychopharmacologywww.acnp.org/annualmeeting/default.aspxDec. 6–10, Hollywood, FL

Meetings & Congresses

http://www.the-aps.org/et-14

http://bit.ly/16NZaOM

http://www.endocrine.org/ceu

http://www.naartery.org

http://www.eurotox2015.com

http://www.bps.ac.uk/meetings/14844de2424

http://bit.ly/1DIHbDq

http://www.iserbiennialmeeting.org

http://accp1.org/2015_meetings_welcome.shtml

http://www.safetypharmacology.org/annualmeetings.asp

http://www.safetypharmacology.org/annualmeetings.asp

http://www.ashg.org/2015meeting/index.shtml

http://www.ipa-online.org/wordpress/event/2015-international-congress-berlin

http://www.ipa-online.org/wordpress/event/2015-international-congress-berlin

http://www.neuropharmacology-conference.elsevier.com

http://www.neuropharmacology-conference.elsevier.com

http://www.aacr.org/Meetings/Pages/MeetingDetail.aspx?EventItemID=49#.VWTTrWdFCUk



http://www.sfn.org/annual-meeting/neuroscience-2015

http://www.sfn.org/annual-meeting/neuroscience-2015

http://www.issx.org/BlankCustom.asp?page=20NAISSXInvite

http://www.issx.org/BlankCustom.asp?page=20NAISSXInvite

http://www.navbo.org/events/vb2015

http://www.soft-tox.org/meeting

http://www.aacr.org/Meetings/Pages/MeetingDetail.aspx?EventItemID=59#.VWTTdmdFCUk



http://www.sacnas.org/events/national-conf

http://middleeast.pharmaceuticalconferences.com

http://www.asn-online.org/education/kidneyweek




http://www.aacr.org/Meetings/Pages/MeetingDetail.aspx?EventItemID=67#.VWXQL2dFCUk



http://www.cytopathologymeeting.org/2015

http://www.aacr.org/Meetings/Pages/MeetingDetail.aspx?EventItemID=68#.VWXSeGdFCUk



http://www.the-aps.org/mm/Conferences/APS-Conferences/2015-Conferences/Physiology-and-Gender






http://www.aacr.org/Meetings/Pages/MeetingDetail.aspx?EventItemID=71#.VWXS6mdFCUk



http://www.acnp.org/annualmeeting/default.aspx

181


San Antonio Breast Cancer Symp. www.sabcs.orgDec. 8–12, San Antonio, TX

2015 Ann. Mtg. of the Amer. Soc. of Cell Biologywww.ascb.org/2015meetingDec. 12–16, San Diego, CA

2015 British Pharmacological Soc. Mtg. www.bps.ac.uk/meetings/Pharmacology2015Dec. 15–17, London, UK

January 2016 Systems Immunology: From Molecular Networks to Human Biology www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1431January 10–14, Big Sky, MT

Cytokine JAK-STAT Signaling in Immunity & Disease www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1372January 10–14, Steamboat Springs, CO

Metabolism, Transcription & Disease www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1390January 10–14, 2016, Snowbird, UT

Molecular & Cellular Basis of Growth & Regeneration www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1385January 10–14, 2016, Breckenridge, CO

Nuclear Receptors: Full Throttle www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1389January 10–14, Snowbird, UT

Axons: From Cell Biology to Pathology www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1422January 24–27, Santa Fe, NM

Biology of Down Syndrome: Impacts Across the Biomedical Spectrum www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1426January 24–27, Santa Fe, NM

Cancer Immunotherapy: Immunity and Immunosuppression Meet Targeted Therapies www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1377January 24–28, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Drug Discovery for Parasitic Diseases www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1416January 24–28, 2016, Tahoe City, CA

Purinergic Signaling www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1371January 24–28, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Small RNA Silencing: Little Guides, Big Biology www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1396January 24–28, Keystone, CO

Traumatic Brain Injury: Clinical, Pathological & Translational Mechanisms www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1424January 24–27, Santa Fe, NM

Cell Biology and Immunology of Persistent Infection www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1409January 31–February 4, Banff, AB, Canada

Ligand Recognition & Molecular Gatingwww.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=12689January 31–February 5, Lucca (Barga), Italy

Neurological Disorders of Intracellular Trafficking www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1384January 31–February 4, Keystone, CO

February 2016 Alcohol & the Nervous Systemwww.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=16702February 7–12, Galveston, TX

The Cancer Genome www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1374February 7–11, Banff, AB, Canada

Fibrosis: From Basic Mechanisms to Targeted Therapies www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1407February 7–11, Keystone, CO

Genomics & Personalized Medicine www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1394February 7–11, Banff, AB, Canada

Stromal Cells in Immunity www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1405February 7–11, Keystone, CO

ACNS Ann. Mtg.www.acns.org/meetings/annual-meeting-and-courses/2016February 10–14, Orlando, FL

Plasminogen Activation & Extracellular Proteolysis (GRS)www.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=14484February 13–14, Ventura, CA

Plasminogen Activation & Extracellular Proteolysiswww.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=12243February 14–19, Ventura, CA

Thalamocortical Interactionswww.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=17257February 14–19, Ventura, CA

Obesity & Adipose Tissue Biology www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1429February 15–19, Banff, AB, Canada

Angiotensin (GRS)www.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=15143February 20–21, Lucca (Barga), Italy

Angiotensinwww.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=13998February 21–26, Lucca (Barga), Italy

Enhancer Malfunction in Cancer joint with the meeting on Noncoding RNAs in Health and Disease www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=Web.Meeting.Program&Meetingid=1392February 21–24, 2016, Santa Fe, NM

Immunometabolism in Immune Function & Inflammatory Disease www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1400February 21–25, Banff, AB, Canada

G Protein-Coupled Receptors: Structure, Signaling & Drug Discovery www.keystonesymposia.org/16B3February 21–25, 2016, Keystone, CO

New Frontiers in Understanding Tumor Metabolism joint with the meeting on Immunometabolism in Immune Function and Inflammatory Disease (Q8)www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1375February 21–25, Banff, AB, Canada

http://www.sabcs.org

http://www.ascb.org/2015meeting

http://www.bps.ac.uk/meetings/Pharmacology2015

http://www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1431







































http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=12689

















http://www.acns.org/meetings/annual-meeting-and-courses/2016

http://www.acns.org/meetings/annual-meeting-and-courses/2016









http://www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=Web.Meeting.Program&Meetingid=1392






http://www.keystonesymposia.org/16B3




182


Noncoding RNAs in Health & Disease www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1395February 21–24, Santa Fe, NM

Peptides, Chemistry & Biology of (GRS)www.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=15395February 20–21, Ventura, CA

Peptides, Chemistry & Biology of Crossing Barriers by Peptide Science for Health and Wellnesswww.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=11886February 21–26, Ventura, CA

T Follicular Helper Cells & Germinal Centers www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1401February 26–March 1, Monterey, CA

Basal Ganglia (GRS)www.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=17132February 27–28, Ventura, CA

Basal Gangliawww.grc.org/programs.aspx?id=16708February 28–March 4, Ventura, CA

Immunity in Skin Development, Homeostasis & Disease www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1406February 28–March 2, Tahoe City, CA

Tuberculosis Co-Morbidities & Immunopathogenesis www.keystonesymposia.org/index.cfm?e=web.Meeting.Program&meetingid=1411February 28–March 3, Keystone, CO

















183


Due to the tremendous success of the last BIG IDEAS Initiative, ASPET is once again asking members to put forward their best ideas for projects. The requirements for these projects are that they:

Have broad appeal to ASPET membership Have long term positive impact on the discipline of pharmacology or on ASPET membership Are creative and transformative for ASPET Invest in the future of ASPET

Submit your proposal by September 28, 2015!

Do you have a BIG IDEA for ASPET?

Submit your proposal today!

epbmptS

Subm

www.aspet.org/ASPET_BiG_Ideas_IIFor more information and to submit your BIG IDEA visit:

ASPET BIG IDEAS II

vi

BIG IDEAS II Ad.indd 1 6/9/2015 10:49:52 AM

184


ASPET Member-Get-A-Member

Participate Today!

Participate in the ASPET Member-Get-A-Member program, get a free ASPET t-shirt, and be entered into a raffl e to

win a $100 American Express Gift Card!

By helping us recruit new members,

you will be contributing to the growth and sustainability of

ASPET. A growing ASPET means great recognition for the fi eld of pharmacology, more resources and support for our members,

and a louder voice with policy makers.

Get Started Today!

Tell a friend, colleague or student about the benefi ts of ASPET membership.

Encourage them to fi ll out an application form online at: www.aspet.org

Tell the applicant that they must enter your name in the “Sponsor Name/Email” fi eld on the application form.

Tell the applicant that they must enter the marketing code “MGM” in the fi eld that asks, “Where did you hear about ASPET?”

Once they are approved for membership and their dues payment has been made, you will receive credit for your recruitment eff orts.

For more information about this program, visit www.aspet.org/member-ship/member-get-a-member or contact

the membership department at [email protected] or call

(301) 634-7060.

*T-shirts will be given to participants who recruit paying members (not students). T-shirt sizes are subject to availability and will be given out on

a fi rst come, fi rst served basis.

Full Page Ad for TPharm 2016.indd 1 9/8/2015 1:35:54 PM

September 2015 - The Pharmacologist

Documents

Transcript of September 2015 - The Pharmacologist