Advances in clinical translational research have led to an explosion of interest in infrastructure development and data sharing facilitated by biorepositories of specimens and linked health information. These eff orts are qualitatively diff erent from the single-center sample collections that preceded them and pose substantial new ethics and regulatory challenges for investigators and institutions. New research governance approaches, which can address current and anticipated challenges, promote high-quality research, and provide a robust basis for ongoing research participation, are urgently required. For next-generation biorepository research, anonymization will therefore no longer suffi ce as a means of protecting participants' privacy, nor will it provide a satisfactory basis for forgoing research oversight, particularly when broad data sharing is anticipated. Instead, renewed attention to the control and retention of coded identifi ers, combined with innovative approaches to data security and research oversight, will be required. BENEFITS OF INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWOn the basis of current guidance, research using coded rather than anonymized data will necessarily be subject to institutional oversight and ongoing review. Some will view this inevitability as undesirable-even potentially disastrous-for the pursuit of next-generation biorepository research. Not only will many more individual research projects require review, but a sea change could entail new (potentially burdensome) interactions with participants and the restriction or delay of particular kinds of sensitive or risky research. However, many institutions already require review of research using biorepository data, whether in fact samples are anonymized, so a move to the routine use of coded deidentifi ed data may not be as onerous as many fear. Indeed, investigators should regard oversight as an important opportunity to align their research activities with participants' interests in, and expectations for, biorepository research.In fi rst-generation biorepository research, many participants were recruited by a known investigator for the purposes of advancing a specifi c form of, usually disease-related, research (2). Although secondary users of biorepository data might be at a physical or temporal remove from subject recruitment, the specifi c intentions of participants could be readily communicated by the originating investigator(s) or inferred from the types of data contributed to the resource and/or terms of consent. Next-generation biorepository research, by contrast, relies increasingly on amalgamating diverse data sources from participants recruited to independent, frequently geographically widely dispersed biorepositories, for a broad range of potential research uses (5). Even though wide sharing maximizes the range of scientifi c questions that can be addressed, these new research arrangements increase the distance between investigators and participants, interfering with researcher accountability (20). Explicit research oversight can help scien...

We discovered a thalidomide analogue [5-hydroxy-(2,6-diisopropylphenyl)-1H-isoindole-1,3-dione (5HPP-33)] with antiproliferative activity against nine cancer cell lines in vitro. Flow cytometric analyses showed that the compound caused G 2 -M arrest, which occurred mainly at the mitotic phase. In addition, immunofluorescence microscopy and in vitro tubulin polymerization studies showed that 5HPP-33 has antimicrotubule activity with a paclitaxel-like mode of action. It is effective against four different paclitaxel-resistant cell lines. Thus, 5HPP-33 represents a potential antitumor agent. [Mol Cancer Ther 2006;5(2):450 -6]

No abstract

This article seeks to bring more nuance to recent discussions about the role of faith in faith based organisations (FBOs), and particularly in religious development NGOs. In recent years questions about the specific role of faith in the work of religious development NGOs have stimulated a rather polarized debate. Some scholars argue that the main purpose of FBOs is to spread their religion and that development activities are at best a 'means to an end' and at worse a kind of 'trojan horse'providing a way to get access to vulnerable communities which veils the true intention of the organisation. These scholars consider that faith plays a very negative role and they argue that FBOs misuse their power as aid providers in an attempt to induce religious conversion (Bradley 2005, Hopgood and Vinjamuri 2012, Thaut 2009). On the other side of the debate a different group of scholars argue that faith can play an extremely positive role in development work because it enables FBOs to engage more comfortably with local populations, who are, for the most part, themselves religious (Benthall 2012). It is argued that because faith-based approaches to development often give particular emphasis to personal transformation they can bring about more lasting results and sustainable change (Bond 2004, Candland 2000, Tyndale 2006). Furthermore, they argue that FBOs have access to national and local networks of religious institutions, generally churches or mosques, and this allows them to extend their reach deep into local communities, to enter as co-believers and to work in a more sustainable manner with local institutions which will continue to exist within the community even when the development project is completed (