Structured Abstract Background In a dynamic healthcare system, strong leadership has never been more important for surgeons. Little is known about how to effectively design and conduct a leadership program specifically for surgeons. We sought to critically evaluate a Leadership Development Program for practicing surgeons by exploring the strengths and weaknesses of program components on surgeons’ development as physician-leaders. Methods At a large academic institution, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 surgical faculty members who voluntarily applied, were selected, and completed a newly-created Leadership Development Program in December 2012. Interview transcripts underwent qualitative descriptive analysis with thematic coding based on grounded theory. Themes were extracted regarding surgeons’ evaluations of the program on their development as physician-leaders. Results After completing the program, surgeons reported personal improvements in the following 4 areas: self-empowerment to lead, self-awareness, team-building skills, and business and leadership knowledge. Surgeons felt “more confident about stepping up as a leader” and more aware about “how others view me and my interactions.” They described a stronger grasp on “giving feedback” as well as “business/organizational issues.” Overall, surgeon participants reported positive impacts of the program on their day-to-day work activities, general career perspective, as well as their long-term career development plans. Surgeons also recommended areas for potential improvement for the program. Conclusions These interviews detailed self-reported improvements in leadership knowledge and capabilities for practicing surgeons who completed a Leadership Development Program. A curriculum designed specifically for surgeons may enable future programs to better equip surgeons for important leadership roles in a complex healthcare environment.

Transgenic crops have the potential to benefit both developed and developing countries. To ensure safe crops to humans and the environment, a strong, but not stifling, regulatory system needs to be established and properly implemented. This paper explores some essential components of a strong regulatory structure for transgenic crops. First, five different regulatory systems for transgenic crops--the United States, the European Union, South Africa, Taiwan, and Argentina--are described and explained. The major components of those systems are then compared to components necessary to a regulatory system that ensures safe products and engenders public trust. The key components discussed include: (1) mandatory pre-market approval; (2) established safety standards; (3) transparency; (4) public participation; (5) use of outside scientists for expert scientific advice; (6) independent agency decisions; (7) post-approval activities; and (8) enforcement authority and resources. Although no one of the existing systems analyzed adequately achieves all the necessary components of a strong regulatory system, those systems serve as models for deciding which regulatory procedures should be emulated and which should be avoided. A mandatory pre-market approval system that applies established safety standards in procedures that are transparent and allows for public participation with no pre-conceived notions or biases will best achieve both safe products and consumer trust.

Background Although numerous leadership development programs exist in healthcare, no programs have been specifically designed to meet the needs of surgeons. This study aimed to elicit practicing surgeons’ motivations and desired goals for leadership training in order to design an evidence-based Leadership Development Program (LDP) in surgery. Materials and Methods At a large academic health center, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 surgical faculty members who voluntarily applied and were selected for participation in a newly created LDP. Transcriptions of the interviews were analyzed using analyst triangulation and thematic coding in order to extract major themes regarding surgeons’ motivations and perceived needs for leadership knowledge and skills. Themes from interview responses were then used to design the program curriculum specifically to meet the leadership needs of surgical faculty. Results Three major themes emerged regarding surgeons’ motivations for seeking leadership training: 1) Recognizing key gaps in their formal preparation for leadership roles; 2) Exhibiting an appetite for personal self-improvement; and 3) Seeking leadership guidance for career advancement. Participants’ interviews revealed four specific domains of knowledge and skills that they indicated as desired takeaways from a leadership development program: 1) leadership and communication; 2) team building; 3) business acumen/finance; and 4) greater understanding of the healthcare context. Conclusions Interviews with surgical faculty members identified gaps in prior leadership training and demonstrated concrete motivations and specific goals for participating in a formal leadership program. A Leadership Development Program that is specifically tailored to address the needs of surgical faculty may benefit surgeons at a personal and institutional level.

The Cartagena Biosafety Protocol is the primary driving force behind countries establishing national biosafety regulatory systems for genetically engineered crops and animals. That international agreement attempts to set forth the scientific and legal boundaries for those systems, and establish a minimum set of rules and procedures. This paper analyses whether the Protocol will achieve a degree of legal certainty in the field of biosafety regulations and some level of global harmonization. The paper concludes that, while the Protocol is a good model for certain portions of a national biosafety regulatory system, it provides little guidance on several issues key to biosafety regulation. The Protocol gives discretion to individual countries to decide on what the applicable safety standard should be, how to incorporate socioeconomic considerations, how to address food safety and how to incorporate public participation. The resolution of these four issues by each country could have a far greater influence than the Protocol itself on the nature of their national biosafety regulatory system. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract