Australian cardiologist regrows monkey hearts with human stem cells

An Australian cardiologist has accomplished what could demonstrate a key breakthrough in treating heart disease, following operating with US scientists to use human stem cells to regenerate the broken hearts of monkeys.

A evidence-of-principle examine, published in Nature, showed that human embryonic stem cells boosted heart regeneration when transplanted into injured macaque hearts.

The findings represent the very first time that scientists have been ready to develop stem cell-derived heart muscle at a scale to treat huge animals. The study was also profitable in displaying that the transplanted cells worked in tandem, rather than towards, host tissue.

Preceding work has shown that the human cardiac stem cells, known as cardiomyocytes, could be utilised on rodents. But the breakthrough with the macaque monkeys exhibits it could be possible to use the same remedy in people, albeit following many much more years of research. A lot more than twenty,000 Australians die from heart failure every single 12 months.

Dr James Chong, a cardiologist at the Westmead Hospital and Sydney University lecturer, authored the study paper in collaboration with a University of Washington group, led by Charles Murry.

The researchers induced a heart attack in eight macaque monkeys by impeding the blood flow into the organ. Two weeks later on, the stem cells had been injected into the heart.

In excess of a time period of 3 months, the hearts had been proven to have regenerated dead tissue by up to forty% and accomplished electromechanical coupling with the unique host heart. Even so, it is unclear from the examine whether a full recovery would be achievable by way of stem cell remedy.

Chong explained the investigation was a “very important advance” in the work to locate much better ways to treating heart failure.

“I feel it is practical to presume that this could be used in humans sooner or later on,” he informed Guardian Australia. “A whole lot of function needs to be accomplished but I don’t believe we’re also far away.

“Heart failure is a increasing issue. We’ve acquired much better at treating heart attacks but it means that a whole lot of people are living longer with damaged heart muscle. This harm gradually spirals out of handle and the drugs we have only slow down the approach.

“The only remedy truly is a heart transplant, which is certainly problematic. The human heart and brain are the least regenerative parts of the physique.”

The researchers are now looking for even more funding to advance the studies so that human clinical trials can eventually be undertaken.

Australian cardiologist regrows monkey hearts with human stem cells

Cardiologist Tapped To Run The Smithsonian Institution

A cardiologist has been picked by its Board of Regents to be the subsequent leader of the Smithsonian Institution Smithsonian Institution.  David Skorton, who is at present the president of Cornell University, will be the Institution’s 13th Secretary, effective July 2015. He will be not only the 1st cardiologist but the very first physician to run the Smithsonian.

Before going to Cornell Skorton had been the president of the University of Iowa from 2003 to 2006.

“David Skorton has demonstrated keen vision and experienced leadership as the president of two excellent American universities,” said the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, Jr., who is also a board member of the Smithsonian. “His character, expertise and talents are an perfect match for the Smithsonian’s broad and dynamic variety of interests, endeavors and aspirations. I look forward to operating with David to improve the influence of an incomparable American institution across the spectrum of arts, sciences, schooling, and culture.”

John McCarter, the chair of the Smithsonian Board, explained that Skorton was chosen due to the fact he is a well-rounded, completed leader. “As a successful president of two universities, David has led complicated organizations. He is an completed research scientist and a powerful advocate for the arts and humanities, which make him an extraordinary fit for the Smithsonian.”

Skorton, who is 64, has been a effective fund-raiser at each Cornell, where he raised much more than $ 5 billion, and at the University of Iowa, the place he raised far more than $ one billion. He is also regarded to be a strong supporter of industry–university partnerships.

As a cardiologist Skorton’s investigation and clinical interests centered on congenital heart ailment and applying personal computer examination to cardiac imaging. Skorton was a co-editor, with his mentor Melvin Marcus, of Cardiac Imaging, a textbook that accompanied Braunwald’s Heart Ailment, and grew to become the editor of a later on edition of the textbook when it became known as Marcus Cardiac Imaging.

On the Smithsonian Magazine website Skorton answered a question about what attracted him to the Smithsonian work:

Variety one particular, the fact that this is a wonderful interface with the public. On the mall, and across the country, and in the towns that have the affiliate museums, and close to the globe based on the World wide web, it’s a way for them to nearly palpably get their arms all around these exhibits and this expertise that’s right here. And as a lifelong educator and physician, that interface of explaining issues, understanding factors is genuinely, actually crucial to me. That is a single.

Quantity two, from a life in medication, I’ve discovered that the very first factor a doctor has to do—and I was a diagnostician, I’d like to consider that I even now am—is to be quiet and listen. Be quiet and observe. Be quiet and try out to make sense of what I see. And this is a spot that permits you to do that.

And I’m extremely passionate about striving to express that likelihood to do any sort of education, and you guys do a whole lot of it. Perhaps more widespread than any entity I’ve ever worked with.

English: The Smithsonian Developing in Washington D.C., United States. Edit of Wikipedia:Image:Smithsonian_Constructing.jpg to minimize luminance noise in the sky. 中文: 位于华盛顿特区的史密森尼古堡。 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Cardiologist Tapped To Run The Smithsonian Institution

Major European Cardiologist Accused Of Plagiarism

Thomas Lüscher, the editor of the European Heart Journal and one of the most prominent cardiologists in Europe, has been accused of plagiarism. An irony in the situation is that  Lüscher has taken a robust public place towards scientific misconduct of all sorts, which includes plagiarism.

The present accusation (which has been widely reported in Switzerland) entails Lüscher’s authorship of a chapter in a German language  textbook, Siegenthaler’s Differenzialdiagnose [Siegenthaler"s Differential Diagnosis]. The textbook, now in its 20th edition, has been translated into a dozen languages and is usually referred to as the bible of inner medicine in Europe. A Swiss cardiologist, Christoph Scharf, had been the author of two chapters, on vertigo and syncope and on cardiac arrhythmias, in the book’s 19th edition but was replaced by Lüscher in the 20th edition, which appeared in 2012.

The publisher asked Scharf to transfer his rights to his chapters but Scharf refused given that Lüscher was unwilling to checklist him as a co-author. The publisher then informed Scharf that Lüscher had said that he would completely rewrite the chapters. One chapter, the cardiac arrhythmia chapter, which lists Lüscher and a junior colleague as a co-writer, was entirely rewritten. But the chapter on vertigo and syncope, for which Lüscher was accountable for all of the the cardiology portions (two neurologists covered the non-cardiac content of the chapter) is practically identical to the earlier version by Scharf, containing only two little adjustments in wording and the deletion of 1 table. Almost everything else in the part is precisely the identical. Scharf is not listed as an writer, although his identify appears in an acknowledgement.

In its first response to the dilemma the University of Zurich, the place Lüscher operates, suggested that Scharf and Lüscher sit down to go over the difficulty. Scharf, however, insisted on a complete investigation. The result of the university investigation, which is becoming led by a retired professor, is anticipated in the up coming handful of weeks.

In its initial response to the blowup the publisher, Thieme, eliminated the book from the industry for a time period of time final year, from the finish of August right up until mid October. Product sales resumed when Scharf told the publisher that he considered that the dispute was not a good cause to punish medical college students who required the guide.

Responding to a request, Lüscher sent the following comment:

As I am only the third writer and involved in much less than 10% of the whole chapter and have listed the authors of the preceding edition by name, the dispute is actually small as also established by a committee of our university. In the meantime, we have reached a consensus amid the five present and previous authors that a completely rewritten edition with all authors involved will be printed in even more printing and Editions situation of this textbook.

Note and Comment: 

I really don’t think that Lüscher has offered an sufficient response to the plagiarism charge. It is not “really small.” If a student did this it would be grounds for severe punishment. There is a quite huge difference between an acknowledgement and authorship. The fact is that Scharf’s phrases had been used with no permission and he is not listed as an author. Lüscher, by contrast, is listed as an writer of the chapter but did not create or have any involvement with the cardiology portion of the published chapter. Further, I am informed that Lüscher is not right in his statement that the  ”5 existing and previous authors” have reached an agreement about the long term of the chapter. In addition, the university investigation has not stated that “the dispute is truly small.” This is an ongoing controversy,  far from resolved.

Some of my readers may have observed that Lüscher was also the topic of my prior website post, in which I defended an earlier  post of mine from criticism by Lüscher and other EHJ editors. A key portion of that story was the “disappearance” of a controversial EHJ write-up by two fairly junior authors. I was struck by the spectacle of senior figures like Lüscher removing an report with which they disagreed and replacing it with an editorial presenting their personal “correct” place.

I am further struck by a related theme in these two episodes. In the two cases the position of junior, less potent authors has been suppressed in favor of powerful senior figures. Both episodes illustrate the possible dangers and abuses of electrical power.

There is an even bigger theme connecting these two episodes, as well as numerous of the circumstances of scientific misconduct and plagiarism that have occurred in current years. In a scientific culture that values amount over top quality expenses of plagiarism need to be neither surprising nor unbelievable. The obsessive drive to publish, to garner as many references and citations as achievable, is incredibly unhealthy. Quantity has become the enemy of high quality and personal responsibility. I am constantly astonished when scientists and authors boast (or have others boast for them) about their CVs containing hundreds of publications. In my opinion this need to be considered a badge of shame. The author is, in essence, admitting that he or she is inclined to take credit score for perform for which he or she has had no involvement.

Here’s what one leading editor wrote about the connected dilemma of  ”guest” authorship:

This raises the question: who is an author? As we noticed, guest authorships, notably those of great stature, can be abused to give credibility to questionable information. Therefore, every time we accept an authorship, we should be mindful of the accountability connected with it. At greatest we should be capable to defend the whole study, if needed, or at least that component to which we contributed, e.g. statistical evaluation, distinct assays, and so on. At the quite least, we must have proofread the final version of the manuscript—anything else is inappropriate.

The writer of the passage: Lüscher himself. For the past twenty years Lüscher has been the writer or co-author of between thirty and 90 articles every year. I agree with the common sentiment in the very first part of the quote, although I wonder no matter whether most men and women will agree that proofreading by itself ought to be a sufficient requirement for authorship.

Click right here for my preceding publish: This Blog Is ‘Not Suitable For Dissemination By means of The Internet’

Major European Cardiologist Accused Of Plagiarism