Showing papers by "Mildred K. Cho published in 2016"
New York University1, Marine Biological Laboratory2, Stanford University3, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill4, Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center5, University of Oregon6, University of California, San Diego7, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory8, University of California, San Francisco9, University of California, Berkeley10
TL;DR: This work outlines strategies to move microbiome research into an era of causality, and proposes that a coordinated, cross-disciplinary effort is required to understand, predict, and harness microbiome function.
Abstract: Microorganisms have shaped our planet and its inhabitants for over 3.5 billion years. Humankind has had a profound influence on the biosphere, manifested as global climate and land use changes, and extensive urbanization in response to a growing population. The challenges we face to supply food, energy, and clean water while maintaining and improving the health of our population and ecosystems are significant. Given the extensive influence of microorganisms across our biosphere, we propose that a coordinated, cross-disciplinary effort is required to understand, predict, and harness microbiome function. From the parallelization of gene function testing to precision manipulation of genes, communities, and model ecosystems and development of novel analytical and simulation approaches, we outline strategies to move microbiome research into an era of causality. These efforts will improve prediction of ecosystem response and enable the development of new, responsible, microbiome-based solutions to significant challenges of our time.
144 citations
TL;DR: A need to identify appropriate ways to integrate patient preferences into prevailing regulatory interpretations as institutional review boards increasingly apply research regulations in the context of research on medical practices is highlighted.
Abstract: Background/aims:In the context of research on medical practices, which includes comparative effectiveness research and pragmatic clinical trials, empirical studies have begun to raise questions about the extent to which institutional review boards’ interpretations and applications of research regulations align with patients’ values. To better understand the similarities and differences between these stakeholder groups, we compare and contrast two surveys: one of institutional review board professionals and one of patients, which examine views on consent for research on medical practices.Methods:We conducted online surveys of two target populations between July 2014 and March 2015. We surveyed 601 human subjects research professionals out of 1500 randomly selected from the Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research membership list (40.1% response rate), limiting analysis to 537 respondents who reported having had institutional review board experience. We also surveyed 120 adult patients out of 225 appr...
33 citations
TL;DR: Evidence-based guidance that supports institutional review board members in providing adequate and effective oversight of ROMP without impeding the research process or harming the physician–patient relationship is necessary to realize the full benefits of the learning health system.
Abstract: Background: Human subjects protection in health care contexts rests on the premise that a principled boundary distinguishes clinical research and clinical practice. However, growing use of evidence-based clinical practices by health systems makes it increasingly difficult to disentangle research from a wide range of clinical activities that are sometimes called “research on medical practice” (ROMP), including quality improvement activities and comparative effectiveness research. The recent growth of ROMP activities has created an ethical and regulatory gray zone with significant implications for the oversight of human subjects research. Methods: We conducted six semistructured, open-ended focus-group discussions with institutional review board (IRB) members to understand their experiences and perspectives on ethical oversight of ROMP, including randomization of patients to standard treatments. Results: Our study revealed that IRB members are unclear or divided on the central questions at stake in ...
30 citations
TL;DR: A web‐based survey of a sample of the US public to examine how attitudes towards disability inform views of prenatal testing in the context of these rapidly advancing prenatal genetic screening technologies.
Abstract: Recently, new noninvasive prenatal genetic screening technologies for Down syndrome and other genetic conditions have become commercially available. Unique characteristics of these screening tests have reignited long-standing concerns about prenatal testing for intellectual and developmental disabilities. We conducted a web-based survey of a sample of the US public to examine how attitudes towards disability inform views of prenatal testing in the context of these rapidly advancing prenatal genetic screening technologies. Regardless of opinion toward disability, the majority of respondents supported both the availability of screening and the decision to continue a pregnancy positive for aneuploidy. Individuals rationalized their support with various conceptions of disability; complications of the expressivist argument and other concerns from the disability literature were manifested in many responses analyzed.
13 citations
3 citations