Project description:BackgroundIn 1971, Cambridge physiologist Robert Edwards and Oldham gynaecologist Patrick Steptoe applied to the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) for long-term support for a programme of scientific and clinical 'Studies on Human Reproduction'. The MRC, then the major British funder of medical research, declined support on ethical grounds and maintained this policy throughout the 1970s. The work continued with private money, leading to the birth of Louise Brown in 1978 and transforming research in obstetrics, gynaecology and human embryology.MethodsThe MRC decision has been criticized, but the processes by which it was reached have yet to be explored. Here, we present an archive-based analysis of the MRC decision.ResultsWe find evidence of initial support for Edwards and Steptoe, including from within the MRC, which invited the applicants to join its new directly funded Clinical Research Centre at Northwick Park Hospital. They declined the offer, preferring long-term grant support at the University of Cambridge, and so exposed the project to competitive funding mode. Referees and the Clinical Research Board saw the institutional set-up in Cambridge as problematic with respect to clinical facilities and patient management; gave infertility a low priority compared with population control; assessed interventions as purely experimental rather than potential treatments, and so set the bar for safety high; feared fatal abnormalities and so wanted primate experiments first; and were antagonized by the applicants' high media profile. The rejection set MRC policy on IVF for 8 years, until, after the birth of just two healthy babies, the Council rapidly converted to enthusiastic support.ConclusionsThis analysis enriches our view of a crucial decision, highlights institutional opportunities and constraints and provides insight into the then dominant attitudes of reproductive scientists and clinicians towards human conception research.
Project description:BackgroundTo ensure a next generation of female leaders in academia, we need to understand challenges they face and factors that enable fellowship-prepared women to thrive. We surveyed woman graduates of the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program (CSP) from 1976 to 2011 regarding their experiences, insights, and advice to women entering the field.MethodsWe surveyed every CSP woman graduate through 2012 (n = 360) by email and post. The survey, 12 prompts requiring open text responses, explored current work situation, personal definitions of success, job negotiations, career regrets, feelings about work, and advice for others. Four independent reviewers read overlapping subsets of the de-identified data, iteratively created coding categories, and defined and refined emergent themes.ResultsOf the 360 cohort, 108 (30%) responded. The mean age of respondents was 45 (range 32 to 65), 85% are partnered, and 87% have children (average number of children 2.15, range 1 to 5). We identified 11 major code categories and conducted a thematic analysis. Factors common to very satisfied respondents include personally meaningful work, schedule flexibility, spousal support, and collaborative team research. Managing professional-personal balance depended on career stage, clinical specialty, and children's age. Unique to women who completed the CSP prior to 1995 were descriptions of "atypical" paths with career transitions motivated by discord between work and personal ambitions and the emphasis on the importance of maintaining relevance and remaining open to opportunities in later life.ConclusionsWomen CSP graduates who stayed in academic medicine are proud to have pursued meaningful work despite challenges and uncertain futures. They thrived by remaining flexible and managing change while remaining true to their values. We likely captured the voices of long-term survivors in academic medicine. Although transferability of these findings is uncertain, these voices add to the national discussion about retaining clinical researchers and keeping women academics productive and engaged.
Project description:Paleopathological diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) essentially relies on the identification of macroscopic lesions in the skeleton that can be related to different manifestations of TB. Among these alterations, granular impressions (GIs) on the inner skull surface have been considered as pathognomonic features of tuberculous meningitis (TBM). GIs may be established by pressure atrophy of the tubercles formed on the outermost meningeal layer during later stages of TBM. Although GIs were used as diagnostic criteria for TBM in the paleopathological practice since the late 20th century, their diagnostic value has been questioned. To contribute to strengthening the diagnostic value of GIs, a macroscopic investigation-focusing on the macromorphological characteristics and frequency of GIs-was performed on skeletons of known cause of death from the Terry Collection. The χ2 analysis of our data revealed that GIs were significantly more common in individuals who died of TB than in individuals who died of non-TB causes. Furthermore, GIs were localized on the inner surface of the skull base and of the lower lateral skull vault. The localization pattern and distribution of GIs on the endocranial surface resemble that of the tubercles observed in the affected meninges during the pathogenesis of TBM. Our results strengthen the tuberculous origin of GIs and imply that they can be considered as specific signs of TBM. Therefore, GIs can be used as diagnostic criteria for TBM in the paleopathological practice, and the diagnosis of TBM can be established with a high certainty when GIs are present in ancient human bone remains.