Matching Items (6)
Filtering by
- Creators: Harrington Bioengineering Program
Description
In the medical industry, there have been promising advances in the increase of new types of healthcare to the public. As of 2015, there was a 98% Premarket Approval rate, a 38% increase since 2010. In addition, there were 41 new novel drugs approved for clinical usage in 2014 where the average in the previous years from 2005-2013 was 25. However, the research process towards creating and delivering new healthcare to the public remains remarkably inefficient. It takes on average 15 years, over $900 million by one estimate, for a less than 12% success rate of discovering a novel drug for clinical usage. Medical devices do not fare much better. Between 2005-2009, there were over 700 recalls per year. In addition, it takes at minimum 3.25 years for a 510(k) exempt premarket approval. Plus, a time lag exists where it takes 17 years for only 14% of medical discoveries to be implemented clinically. Coupled with these inefficiencies, government funding for medical research has been decreasing since 2002 (2.5% of Gross Domestic Product) and is predicted to be 1.5% of Gross Domestic Product by 2019. Translational research, the conversion of bench-side discoveries to clinical usage for a simplistic definition, has been on the rise since the 1990s. This may be driving the increased premarket approvals and new novel drug approvals. At the very least, it is worth considering as translational research is directly related towards healthcare practices. In this paper, I propose to improve the outcomes of translational research in order to better deliver advancing healthcare to the public. I suggest Best Value Performance Information Procurement System (BV PIPS) should be adapted in the selection process of translational research projects to fund. BV PIPS has been shown to increase the efficiency and success rate of delivering projects and services. There has been over 17 years of research with $6.3 billion of projects and services delivered showing that BV PIPS has a 98% customer satisfaction, 90% minimized management effort, and utilizes 50% less manpower and effort. Using University of Michigan \u2014 Coulter Foundation Program's funding process as a baseline and standard in the current selection of translational research projects to fund, I offer changes to this process based on BV PIPS that may ameliorate it. As concepts implemented in this process are congruent with literature on successful translational research, it may suggest that this new model for selecting translational research projects to fund will reduce costs, increase efficiency, and increase success. This may then lead to more Premarket Approvals, more new novel drug approvals, quicker delivery time to the market, and lower recalls.
ContributorsDel Rosario, Joseph Paul (Author) / Kashiwagi, Dean (Thesis director) / Kashiwagi, Jacob (Committee member) / Harrington Bioengineering Program (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
The inherent risk in testing drugs has been hotly debated since the government first started regulating the drug industry in the early 1900s. Who can assume the risks associated with trying new pharmaceuticals is unclear when looked at through society's lens. In the mid twentieth century, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published several guidance documents encouraging researchers to exclude women from early clinical drug research. The motivation to publish those documents and the subsequent guidance documents in which the FDA and other regulatory offices established their standpoints on women in drug research may have been connected to current events at the time. The problem of whether women should be involved in drug research is a question of who can assume risk and who is responsible for disseminating what specific kinds of information. The problem tends to be framed as one that juxtaposes the health of women and fetuses and sets their health as in opposition. That opposition, coupled with the inherent uncertainty in testing drugs, provides for a complex set of issues surrounding consent and access to information.
ContributorsMeek, Caroline Jane (Author) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis director) / Brian, Jennifer (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
The concept of “good” research is concrete in terms of technique, but complex in theory. As technology advances, the complexity of problems we must solve also grows. Research is facing an ethical dilemma—which projects, applied or basic, should be funded. Research is no longer an isolated sector in society, and the decisions made inside of the laboratory are affecting the general public more directly than ever before. While there is no correct answer to what the future of research should be, it is clear that good research can no longer be only defined by the current classification system, which is rooted in antiquated, yet ingrained, social status distinctions.
Differences between basic and applied research were explored through a wet-lab case study. Vaccinia virus (VACV) infections are a prime model of the competition between a virus and its host. VACV contains a gene that is highly evasive of the host immune system, gene E3L. The protein encoded by E3L is E3, which contains two highly conserved regions, a C-terminus, and a N-terminus. While the C-terminus is well-understood, the mechanism by which the N-terminus grants IFN resistance was previously unknown. This project demonstrated that the N-terminus prevents the initiation of programmed necrosis through host-encoded cellular proteins RIP3 and DAI. These findings provide insight into the function of the N-terminus of E3, as well as the unique functions of induced programmed necrosis.
This project was an example of “basic” research. However, it highlights the interconnectivity of basic and applied research and the danger in isolating both projects and perspectives. It points to the difficult decisions that must be made in science, and the need for a better research classification system that considers what makes science “good” outside of antiquated social class ideologies that have shaped science since ancient Greece. While there are no easy answers to determine what makes research “good,” thinking critically about the types of research projects that will be pursued, and the effects that research has on both science and society, will raise awareness, initiate new conversations, and encourage more dialogue about science in the 21st century.
Differences between basic and applied research were explored through a wet-lab case study. Vaccinia virus (VACV) infections are a prime model of the competition between a virus and its host. VACV contains a gene that is highly evasive of the host immune system, gene E3L. The protein encoded by E3L is E3, which contains two highly conserved regions, a C-terminus, and a N-terminus. While the C-terminus is well-understood, the mechanism by which the N-terminus grants IFN resistance was previously unknown. This project demonstrated that the N-terminus prevents the initiation of programmed necrosis through host-encoded cellular proteins RIP3 and DAI. These findings provide insight into the function of the N-terminus of E3, as well as the unique functions of induced programmed necrosis.
This project was an example of “basic” research. However, it highlights the interconnectivity of basic and applied research and the danger in isolating both projects and perspectives. It points to the difficult decisions that must be made in science, and the need for a better research classification system that considers what makes science “good” outside of antiquated social class ideologies that have shaped science since ancient Greece. While there are no easy answers to determine what makes research “good,” thinking critically about the types of research projects that will be pursued, and the effects that research has on both science and society, will raise awareness, initiate new conversations, and encourage more dialogue about science in the 21st century.
ContributorsSnyder, Caroline Jane (Author) / Jacobs, Bertram (Thesis director) / Hurlbut, Ben (Committee member) / Mateusz, Szczerba (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disorder that is becoming increasingly common. Autism does not yet have a known etiology, nor a definitive diagnostic test, thus making diagnosis a difficult and rarely uniform task. Currently, ASD is behaviorally diagnosed based on criteria defined by the American Psychiatric Association in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Recently, a change was made in the criteria from more lenient criteria in DSM-IV-TR, to more narrow criteria laid out by the DSM-V, which supersedes the DSM-IV-TR. This drastic change raised many questions and debates about which set of criteria are better. The more lenient criteria offers a more inclusive diagnosis giving greater access to therapies; while the narrow diagnostic criteria excludes some individuals, creating a more uniform diagnosis that's easier to use in research. This thesis analyzes the change in diagnostic criteria from the DSM-IV-TR to the DSM-V and the effects of these changes on the practices of diagnosis. In addition, it explores the implications of this change for the families of children with autism and for those involved in autism research, examining their respective opinions and interests pertaining to narrow verses broad diagnostic criteria. Building on this analysis, the thesis offers recommendations about diagnostic criteria should be set. It argues that the wellbeing of patients takes priority over the interests of researchers, and thus diagnosis should be done in a way that offers the best prognosis for all children who suffer from autistic symptoms.
ContributorsBremer, Michelle Nichole (Author) / Hurlbut, Ben (Thesis director) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / Brian, Jennifer (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
The production and incineration of single-use micropipette tips and disposable gloves, which are heavily used within laboratory facilities, generate large amounts of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) and accelerate climate change. Plastic waste that is not incinerated often is lost in the environment. The long degradation times associated with this waste exacerbates a variety of environmental problems such as substance runoff and ocean pollution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of possible solutions for minimizing micropipette tip and disposable glove waste within laboratory spaces. It was hypothesized that simultaneously implementing the use of micropipette tip washers (MTWs) and energy-from-glove-waste programs (EGWs) would significantly reduce (p < 0.05) the average combined annual single-use plastic micropipette tip and nitrile glove waste (in kg) per square meter of laboratory space in the United States. ASU’s Biodesign Institute (BDI) was used as a case study to inform on the thousands of different laboratory facilities that exist all across the United States. Four separate research laboratories within the largest public university of the U.S. were sampled to assess the volume of plastic waste from single-use micropipette tips and gloves. Resultant data were used to represent the totality of single-use waste from the case study location and then extrapolated to all laboratory space in the United States. With the implementation of EGWs, annual BDI glove waste is reduced by 100% (0.47 ± 0.26 kg/m2; 35.5 ± 19.3 metric tons total) and annual BDI glove-related carbon emissions are reduced by ~5.01% (0.165 ± 0.09 kg/m2; 1.24 ± 0.68 metric tons total). With the implementation of MTWs, annual BDI micropipette tip waste is reduced by 92% (0.117 ± 0.03 kg/m2; 0.88 ± 0.25 metric tons total) and annual BDI tip-related carbon emissions are reduced by ~83.6% (4.04 ± 1.25 kg/m2; 30.5 ± 9.43 metric tons total). There was no significant difference (p = 0.06) observed between the mass of single-use waste (kg) in the sampled laboratory spaces before (x̄ = 47.1; σ = 43.3) and after (x̄ =0.070; σ = 0.033) the implementation of the solutions. When examining both solutions (MTWs & EGWs) implemented in conjunction with one another, the annual BDI financial savings (in regard to both purchasing and disposal costs) after the first year were determined to be ~$7.92 ± $9.31/m2 (7,500 m2 of total wet laboratory space) or ~$60,000 ± $70,000 total. These savings represent ~15.77% of annual BDI spending on micropipette tips and nitrile gloves. The large error margins in these financial estimates create high uncertainty for whether or not BDI would see net savings from implementing both solutions simultaneously. However, when examining the implementation of only MTWs, the annual BDI financial savings (in regard to both purchasing and disposal costs) after the first year were determined to be ~$12.01 ± $6.79 kg/m2 or ~$91,000 ± $51,200 total. These savings represent ~23.92% of annual BDI spending on micropipette tips and nitrile gloves. The lower error margins for this estimate create a much higher likelihood of net savings for BDI. Extrapolating to all laboratory space in the United States, the total annual amount of plastic waste avoided with the implementation of the MTWs was identified as 8,130 ± 2,290 tons or 0.023% of all solid plastic waste produced in the United States in 2018. The total amount of nitrile waste avoided with the implementation of the EGWs was identified as 32,800 ± 17,900 tons or 0.36% of all rubber solid waste produced in the United States in 2018. The total amount of carbon emissions avoided with the implementation of the MTWs was identified as 281,000 ± 87,000 tons CO2eq or 5.4*10-4 % of all CO2eq GHG emissions produced in the United States in 2020. Both the micropipette tip washer and the glove waste avoidance program solutions can be easily integrated into existing laboratories without compromising the integrity of the activities taking place. Implemented on larger scales, these solutions hold the potential for significant single-use waste reduction.
ContributorsZdrale, Gabriel (Author) / Mahant, Akhil (Co-author) / Halden, Rolf (Thesis director) / Biyani, Nivedita (Committee member) / Driver, Erin (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Harrington Bioengineering Program (Contributor)
Created2022-05
DescriptionNavigating Germany is a website for STEM students at ASU that provides resources regarding academic and research opportunities in Germany. The project includes essential information, practical tips, and cultural insights to help students effectively navigate academic, social, and logistical aspects of life in Germany.
ContributorsHelfrich, Bayley (Author) / Murphy, Megan (Co-author) / Reves, Christiane (Thesis director) / Sadowski-Smith, Claudia (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Harrington Bioengineering Program (Contributor)
Created2024-05