Admission is open for (i Research Programmes [
PhD
/
M.Sc
] (ii Integrated Ph D Programmes and (iii External Registration Programmes (Ph D only at the Institute. Eligibility criteria, specialization, areas of research and other details are available at our website
www.iisc.ernet.in/admissions. Candidates who are yet to complete their qualifying examinations and expect to complete all the requirements for the degree (including all examinations, project dissertation, viva-voce etc. before July 31, 2012, are also eligible to apply.
(i RESEARCH PROGRAMMES [
PhD
]
1.
PhD
in Science Faculty :
Biochemistry
, Ecological Sciences,
Microbiology
&
Cell Biology
, Molecular Biophysics, Molecular Reproduction, Development & Genetics, Neuroscience
2.
PhD
in Interdisciplinary areas : Bioengineering, Nanoscience
ELIGIBILITY :
1. Candidates possessing a minimum of second class in the following degrees are eligible to apply:
2. Bachelor's or Master's degree in an appropriate field of Engineering/Technology/Architecture/ Medicine/
Agriculture
/ Pharmacy/ Veterinary Sciences; or Master's degree in Science in an appropriate field including
Biotechnology
, or Master's in Economics, Geography, Social Work, Psychology, Management, Mathematics, Statistics, Commerce, Operations Research, Computer Science/ Application as applicable to the respective departments.
3. Qualifying in one of the following appropriate Tests (with validity as on 1st of August 2012 is mandatory :
CSIR
-UGC
NET
for
JRF
; or UGC-
NET
for
JRF
; or
DBT
JRF
; or ICMR
JRF
; or JEST 2012; or NBHM 2012; or IISc Entrance Test 2012; or GATE 2011/2012. Qualifying in these tests is not mandatory but desirable for candidates who possess a Master's degree in Engineering/Technology/
M.Sc
(Engg or MS or MBA (post BE/
B.Tech
and wish to apply for the departments in the Engineering Faculty, including those candidates awarded with INSPIRE Fellowship.
Biological sciences
, Ecological Sciences subjects.
(ii INTEGRATED
PhD
PROGRAMMES
(1
Biological sciences
,
(2 Chemical Sciences
ELIGIBILITY :
- Candidates possessing a minimum of first class in Bachelor's degree in Chemical Sciences,
Biological sciences
, (including Pharmaceutical, Veterinary Sciences and Agricultural Sciences
- The short-listing of candidates for interview is based on the performance in the IISc Entrance Test 2012.
(iii EXTERNAL REGISTRATION PROGRAMMES (Ph D only
External Registration Programme (ERP is the Research programme for working professionals from (1 R&D Organizations / Industries and (2 for Faculty members from Engineering, Agricultural, Pharmaceutical, Veterinary, Medical Colleges/ Universities, recognized by the appropriate government agencies. The candidates must be officially sponsored by their employing organization.
Ph D in Science : All the Science departments as indicated in (i except Neuroscience, High Energy Physics and Solid State & Structural Chemistry.
ELIGIBILITY :
- Qualifications remain the same as for the regular candidates. Further, the candidates should have two years of continuous service in a permanent position in the present organisation Age: NOT higher than 40 years as on 01.04.2012.
- Desirable : Qualifying in one of the tests;IISc Entrance Test,
CSIR
-UGC
NET
for
JRF
,UGC-
NET
for
JRF
,
DBT
JRF
,ICMR
JRF
, GATE, NBHM, etc.
Selection will be based on candidates performance in the interview to be conducted at IISc.
HOW TO APPLY :
- Application for all the programmes mentioned above are available online only, prospective candidates should apply online. Visit our website
www.iisc.ernet.in/admissions for e-brochure and application.
- Sponsored candidates from Defence, DRDO, BARC, ISRO, NAL, KSRTC, BMTC, BDA and CPRI applying for the course programmes should compulsorily fill in the online application form and submit the printed version on or before March 15, 2012.
- Printed version of the online application form should be sent to the Assistant Registrar, Admissions Unit, IISc, Bangalore-560012.
APPLICATION FEE( non refundable
Category : Application Fee*
- General / OBC : Rs 600/-
- SC / ST / PH : Rs 300/-
- ERP candidates (All categories : Rs 1500/-
- Sponsored candidates from Defence, DRDO, BARC, ISRO, NAL, KSRTC, BMTC, BDA and CPRI : Rs 600/-
*Bank service charge extra (to be borne by the applicants
Mode of Payment for Application fee: Mode of payment options available are : (1 Online Payment - SBI/Canara Bank which provides
NET
- banking and Card Payments Visa/Master/Maestro. (2 Offline Payment - SBI/Canara Bank branches accepts Challan payment across the country.
1. Commencement of online Application Form :
06.02.2012
2. Last date for submission of online application forms (website closure
a. Sponsored candidates (course programmes and ERP :
08.03.2012
b. Regular candidates :
21.03.2012
3. Receipt of printed version of the online applications at IISc:
a. Sponsored candidates (course programmes and ERP :
15.03.2012
b. Regular candidates :
26.03.2012
4. IISc Entrance Test :
29.04.2012
Reservation for OBC/SC/ST/Physically-Handicapped(PH and Kashmiri-Migrant(KM candidates: As per the Government of India regulations. Grade/Class of qualifying examination is relaxed to a 'pass class' for SC/ST candidates.
Scholarships : All the regular students who join the Institute are eligible for IISc scholarship / fellowship from
CSIR
/ UGC/ ICMR/ MHRD/ AICTE/ NBHM as the case may be. Scholarships from many Indian and multinational agencies and business houses are also available for meritorious students.
Deadline : 21.03.12
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY
Admission Announcement : 2012-13
(Category-A ADMISSION THROUGH ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
The University will hold Entrance Examination on May 22, 23, 24 and 25, 2012 for admission to various full-time programmes of study at the following 51 cities : Agartala, Ahmedabad, Aizawl, Allahabad, Amritsar, Bangalore, Bareilly, Bhubaneshwar, Calicut, Chandigarh, Chennai, Coimbatore, Dehradun,
Delhi
, Dimapur, Gangtok, Guwahati, Goa, Gorakhpur, Gwalior, Hyderabad, Imphal, Indore, Itanagar,
Jaipur
, Jammu, Katihar,
Kolkata
, Lucknow, Madurai, Mumbai, Nagpur, Noida, Pant Nagar, Patna, Pondicherry, Pune, Raipur, Ranchi, Sambalpur, Secunderabad, Shillong, Shimla, Silchar, Siliguri, Srinagar, Thiruvananthapuram, Udaipur,
Varanasi
, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam. In addition, the University will hold entrance examination at Kathmandu (Nepal . (The University reserves the right to change/cancel any centre of examination without assigning any reason.
SCHOOL OF LIFE SCIENCES :
(A M.PHIL./PH.D. IN AREAS OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH IN
molecular biology
, GENETIC ENGINEERING, PLANT
Biotechnology
, GENETICS, DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY,
Cell Biology
, IMMUNOLOGY, NEUROBIOLOGY,
Microbiology
, RADIATION AND CANCER BIOLOGY, BIO-PHYSICS AND STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY.
ELIGIBILITY : Candidates with
M.Sc
. or equivalent degree, with at least 55% marks or equivalent grades, in
Biological sciences
,
Bioinformatics
or Physical Sciences, as well as those with M.B.B.S or M. Tech. or
M.Sc
. (
Agriculture
or M. Sc. (Veterinary Sciences degree with 55% marks are also eligible. Candidates having the
M.Sc
. or equivalent degree in allied subjects of
Life Sciences
, including
Biochemistry
, Biophysics,
Biotechnology
,
Botany
, Genetics,
Microbiology
, Pharmacology, Physiology,
Zoology
, or in Chemistry or Physics are also eligible. (B
M.Sc
. in LIFE SCIENCES : An integrated interdisciplinary programme in Modern Biology.
ELIGIBILITY : Bachelor’s degree (B.Sc. or
B.Tech
or equivalent in Biological, Physical or Agricultural Sciences under 10+2+3 pattern of education with at least 55% marks.
SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES :
(A M.PHIL./PH.D. IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES INCLUDING INTERDISCIPLINARY AREAS OF BIOLOGY(ECOLOGY,
Biotechnology
, BIOPHYSICS, BIOREMEDIATION , CHEMISTRY (AIR, WATER, SOIL POLLUTION , GEOLOGY AND PHYSICS.
ELIGIBILITY :
M.Sc
. degree or equivalent in any branch of basic or applied science or MBBS or
B.Tech
./B.E. with minimum 55% marks.
(B
M.Sc
. in ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES : AN INTERDISCIPLINARY COURSE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ORIENTATION, DRAWN FROM RELEVANT AREAS OF BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL, EARTH AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES.
ELIGIBILITY : Bachelor’s degree in any branch of basic or applied science under 10+2+3 pattern of education with at least 55% marks.
SCHOOL OF
Biotechnology
:
PRE-PH.D./PH.D. IN AREAS OF GENE TRANSFER AND EXPRESSION IN EUKARYOTIC SYSTEMS, TRANSCRIPTION CONTROL AND GENE REGULATION, PROTEIN ENGINEERING,
molecular biology
OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, PROTEIN FOLDING AND STABILITY, OPTIMIZATION OF RECOMBINANT PROTEIN PRODUCTION, STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY & MOLECULAR
Bioinformatics
, AND BIOCHEMICAL ENGINEERING, MOLECULAR VIROLOGY, CANCER BIOLOGY, MOLECULAR
Cell Biology
.
ELIGIBILITY : Master’s Degree in
Biotechnology
, Biochemical Engineering,
Biochemistry
, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics or any branch of Physical or Biological or Engineering Sciences with atleast 55% marks
CENTRE FOR MOLECULAR MEDICINE :
PRE-PH.D/PH.D IN AREAS OF METOBOLIC DISORDERS, INFECTIOUS AND NONINFECTIOUS DISEASES, DIAGNOSTICS AND MOLECULAR ENDOCRINOLOGY
ELIGIBILITY : Master’s degree or equivalent from recognized University/Institution in any branch of
Biological sciences
/MBBS/ BVSc./B.Pharm. with at least 55% marks.
(Category-B DIRECT ADMISSION TO PH.D. PROGRAMME :
The University admits a limited number of candidates directly to Ph.D. programme either on the basis of viva-voce or written examination and viva-voce both as may be decided by each Centre/ School both in Monsoon and Winter Semesters in all Schools/Centres. In addition direct admission to Ph.D. is also offered in Centre for Comparative Politics and Political Theory, Adult Education, Women's Studies and Study of Discrimination and Exclusion. Candidates are required to check the availability of seats in each Centre/School before applying for admission in Winter Semester. Candidates are advised to refer to the admission announcement being notified separately.
(Category-C ADMISSION OF
JRF
HOLDERS TO M.PHIL./PH.D. AND PRE-PH.D./
PH.D. PROGRAMME IN SCIENCE SCHOOLS :
The University admits a limited number of candidates to M.Phil./Ph.D. and Pre-Ph.D./Ph.D. programmes either on the basis of viva-voce or written examination and viva-voce both as may be decided by each School who have qualified a National Test entitling them to a
JRF
in Schools of
Life Sciences
, Physical Sciences, Environmental Sciences, Computer & Systems Sciences, Computational and Integrative Sciences and
Biotechnology
.
ELIGIBILITY: Only those candidates who fulfil the minimum eligibility requirements as prescribed for admission of candidates to M.Phil./Ph.D. and Pre-Ph.D. programmes through Entrance Examination under category A above in above Science Schools and have qualified a National Test entitling them to a
JRF
are eligible to apply.
HOW TO APPLY : A candidate can apply either “Online” or “Offline”. Online Application:
Candidates can apply Online on payment of prescribed fee if they have access to a computer, a printer and Internet by logging on to JNU website
www.jnu.ac.in or
www.jnuonline.in. The sites have been designed in a ‘user friendly’ way to help candidates for applying Online in a step-by-step fashion. Online application portal will remain open from 10:00 AM (IST on 6th February, 2012 till 5:00 PM (IST on 21st March, 2012. Offline Application : Set of
Application Form and Prospectus can be obtained through Post by sending crossed Bank Draft for Rs.300/- (Rs. Three Hundred only drawn in favour of JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY payble at NEW
Delhi
alongwith a self addressed (unstamped envelope of the minimum size of 30 cms x 25 cms. clearly indicating the programme of study for which the Application Form is required on the self-addressed envelope to the SECTION OFFICER (ADMISSIONS , Room No.28, Administrative Block, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New
Delhi
110067.
Candidates seeking a set of Application Form and Prospectus from Nepal are required to send a Demand Draft of Rs.400/- or equivalent in US Dollars. Money Orders and Cheques are not accepted. PLEASE DO NOT SEND YOUR REQUEST FOR SET OF APPLICATION FORM AND PROSPECTUS THROUGH COURIER. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE WILL BE
NO CASH COUNTER FOR SALE OF SET OF APPLICATION FORM AND PROSPECTUS. BPL card holders will be issued a set of application form & prospectus free of cost on submissiion of a copy of the BPL card issued by the competent authority showing their name in the card.
Deadline : 21.03.12
Around 400 high profile doctors, medical researchers and scientists recently joined forces to form lobby group Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM in order to have "alternative medicine" degrees removed from Australian universities.
Chiropractic, osteopathy, Chinese medicine, naturopathy, iridology, kinesiology, reflexology, homeopathy and aromatherapy are some of the courses on their blacklist.
The issue has had significant media coverage, but one question has failed to be properly answered.
Why is a group of prestigious doctors and scientists who have the backing of the most profitable industry in the world according to Fortune 500 – the pharmaceutical industry – targeting a few poorly-funded natural medicine courses?
The official line of the group is that these "alternative medicines" are making Australia look bad and "trashing" the universities' reputation. But is that really the reason? With all the countries and all the universities in the world that provide alternative medicines?
A similar move was made in the UK recently – the British will no longer be able to study certain natural medicine degrees – this does not include chiropractic or osteopathy – at publicly-funded universities from this year. Yet natural medicine has been utilised across Asia and Europe for thousands of years.
The United States and Canada are pioneers of chiropractic as we see it today, providing university courses long before they were ever offered in Australia. Also, nearly 85 per cent of US medical schools offer elective courses in alternative medicines.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO , 80 per cent of the world's population relies on natural therapies. The figures in Australia are much the same.
So why Australia? What is FSM so worried about?
The group seems to be particularly concerned about an increase in chiropractic courses after it was announced recently that Central Queensland University would be offering a new chiropractic science degree. The move could also be partly to do with the ruling in 2010 that all chiropractors in Australia may use the title 'Doctor'.
FSM has accused what it labels as Australia's "lesser" universities that offer alternative medicine courses of "putting the public at risk".
However, this is a difficult notion to fathom when you compare the tiny number of injuries inflicted on natural medicine patients compared to the hundreds of thousands of deaths recorded each year due to medical errors.
WHO estimates that one in 10 hospital admissions leads to an adverse event while one in 300 admissions leads to death. WHO puts medical errors as among the top 10 killers in the world. According to the US's Institute of Medicine, preventable medical errors kill 98,000 people in the US alone each year and injure countless more.
One of the group's biggest complaints, according to FSM co-founder Emeritus Professor John Dwyer from the University of NSW, is that natural medicine "doesn't strive to be tested". He says that modern medicine is "totally devoted" to taking an "evidence-based approach" and "do good science and do good research into the things we do to people".
The argument that modern medicine is evidence-based as opposed to other types of medicine is an argument that is often used by medical lobbyists, and tends to be generally accepted by the public. However, according to a report by a panel of experts assembled by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, "well below half" of medical care in the US is based on or supported by adequate evidence.
According to the report, between 1993 and 2004 there was a more than 80 per cent increase in the number of medications prescribed to Americans. The panel believes this boom in pharmaceuticals is outpacing the rate at which information on their effectiveness can be generated. "If trends continue, the ability to deliver appropriate care will be strained and may be overwhelmed," the report concluded.
What FSM fails to recognise is that natural medicine courses taught at universities incorporate a much higher level of evidence-based studies, such as health science and human physiology, than if they were to be taught outside of a university.
The Australian universities that have been criticised have all defended their courses, saying they are very much evidence and science-based.
In naturopathy, for example, on top of herbal medicine and nutrition, students also learn the same things that a physiotherapist, medical doctor or nurse learn. As well as chiropractic studies, chiropractors study biology, physiology, neuroscience, anatomy and pathology, for example. These are all scientific studies.
Acting head of RMIT's Health Sciences School Dr Ray Myers has defended its programs as "evidence-based education and practice", saying clinical research of natural medicine treatments are funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC .
If FSM really was so worried about public safety they would not be trying to exclude natural medicine from universities where they are taught with much more of a medical focus. Graduates of these courses are much more likely to refer patients to medical doctors when necessary.
As Nick Klomp, dean of the science faculty at Charles Sturt University, points out, thousands of practitioners already provide alternative medicine and they are very much in demand. "I could ignore them or I could train them better," he said. "We actually create graduates who are much better health care providers. It's all about evidence based, science based."
The other question to ask is just how representative the group is of Australian doctors. Dr Wardle, a NHMRC Research Fellow at the University of Queensland's School of Population Health conducted a survey of every rural GP in NSW and found a third did not refer to alternative medicine providers, a third were incredibly open to it, and a third would refer patients to practitioners that they knew achieved results.
The Australian Medical Association president has withdrawn his support from the lobby group. A number of researchers and doctors have also pulled out of FSM reportedly saying they were not aware of the full picture.
Many Australian medical doctors recognise their limits and refer to natural providers when necessary. However, others continue to believe that modern medicine – which is only 100 years old – is the only way of curing pain.
Natural therapies have been used for more than 10,000 years, and so they deserve a place in society, in Australian universities, and even in modern medicine. According to Australian trauma and general surgeon Dr Valerie Malka, former director of trauma services at Westmead Hospital, while modern medicine is revolutionary when it comes to surgery, particularly in emergencies, for pretty much everything else, traditional, natural or alternative medicine is much more effective.
She says in particular, modern medicine is completely unable to treat or cure chronic illness. Rather than focusing on symptom control, natural medicines work on the body's ability to heal the cause of the illness while modern medicine suppresses the body's healing mechanism with drugs that attack the body's natural defence mechanisms, throwing the immune system out of whack.
Dr Malka believes the attack on natural medicine has more to do with the threat to modern medicine's power base as well as its "unhealthy relationship" with the "trillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry".
This is not the first time natural medicines have been attacked by the medical industry.
Alternative healthcare professionals such as chiropractors, naturopaths, and midwives have been targeted by the American Medical Association (AMA for nearly a century, in spite of a federal court injunction against the AMA in 1987 for illegally trying to create a monopoly in the healthcare market.
Up until 1983, the AMA had held that it was unethical for MDs to associate with "unscientific practitioners" and they labelled chiropractic "an unscientific cult". They also had a committee on "quackery" which challenged what it considered to be unscientific forms of healing. Five chiropractors including Chester Wilk sued the AMA, claiming that the committee was established specifically to undermine chiropractic.
Wilk won the case, with Judge Susan Getzendanner ruling that the AMA had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade "to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession," also saying that the "AMA had entered into a long history of illegal behaviour".
If you look at the history of attacks on natural healthcare providers over the last 100 years, it is difficult not to associate this attack by FSM as the latest attempt to influence the public into believing that natural medicine is, as it says, "quackery" by spreading propaganda that most of the time is simply not true.
"It's just extraordinary that such undisciplined nonsense is being taught in universities around Australia," Mr Dwyer has said.
Why does this group feel that it has the right to talk this way about natural medicines that are ages old and used by 80 per cent of people across the world?
If FSM really was concerned about patient care and safety in Australia, then perhaps it would investigate medical practices which, unfortunately, seriously injure and kill thousands of people every year, rather than target natural medicine.
Sarah Schwager is an Australian journalist currently working in South America. View her full profile
here.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091305711001018
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2011 Aug; 99(2 :130-45,
Wallace TL,
Ballard TM,
Pouzet B,
Riedel WJ,
Wettstein JG, Center for Neuroscience, SRI International, CA
In 2009, the FDA told Johnson & Johnson it could no longer sell an unsafe hip replacement in the United States. That didn’t stop the New Jersey health care giant from selling the device in other countries.
Now, the New Brunswick company faces up to $3 billion in legal and medical costs over the device, which J&J finally recalled in 2010 after evidence was revealed that it was leaving tiny, painful slivers of metal in many of those overseas patients.
Inside J&J, workers take pride in the corporation’s famous credo. Summarized, it says: Act ethically and responsibly, no matter the cost, and profits will follow.
J&J is proof that profits follow bad corporate behavior, too.
In 2010, the company earned a record $13 billion. At the same time, it paid roughly $750 million in government fines and settlements for a laundry list of wrongs. It was fined $70 million for overseas bribery, shut down a children’s drug factory for safety violations and was investigated for a “phantom” recall of tainted Motrin.
Defenders of the 1 percent insist corporations and their executives have every right to amass whatever fortunes they can in America’s free market.
But the headlines reveal that many big businesses are raking in billions without conscience. What we’re seeing is a grotesque shift in corporate values that undermines Corporate America’s image as the benevolent job creator.
Occupy Wall Street zeroed in on the enormous gap in pay between corporate executives and the so-called 99 percent. But not enough was said about the erosion of corporate citizenship and the lengths to which Big Banking, Big Pharma and Big Oil, just to name a few, will go to increase profits at the expense — even the victimization — of humanity. (See accompanying chart for some awful offenses.
We see deadly accidents in coal mines and on oil rigs as owners cut corners on worker and environmental protections; patients put at risk when pharmaceutical companies take already successful drugs and try to drive profits even higher by selling them for diseases the FDA never studied nor approved; taxpayers footing fraudulent bills as contractors look at government like a blank check, overcharging millions or more.
It is understandable for companies to pull back on their charitable works in tough times, or even trim the workforce. In the throes of the Great Recession, even companies with a social conscience often did that. Who could justify million-dollar gifts for charity when employees are being laid off?
But this is different. This is despicable behavior, and it’s widespread. If the same acts were committed by an individual, that person would likely find himself in prison. Corporations typically face only the loss of cash. Don’t worry, they’ll make more.
The U.S. Supreme Court is inching toward full personhood for corporations — see Citizens United vs. FEC, which granted them freedom of speech. Perhaps it’s time they were punished like people, too.
Applications are invited on plain paper for the post of Study Coordinator (01 in an Industry sponsored project at Department of Pharmacology, PGIMER, Chandigarh
Post : Study Coordinator (01
Project title : "A multicentric, open label, non-comparative, prospective evaluation of misuse potential (if any , of Proxyvon (Combination of Propoxyphene Napsylate and Acetaminophen in Indian patients with mild to moderate pain"
Essential Qualification :
M.Sc
. in Pharmacology or any equivalent Master's Degree in
Life Sciences
from a Recognized Institute or University with two years research experience.
Pay : Rs 15,000 per month (fixed
Interesting candidates fulfilling the above conditions are required to submit their bio-data along with necessary testimonials/certificates by 1st March, 2012 to Dr. Bikash Medhi, Additional Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Research Block-B, PGIMER, Chandigarh.
The short-listed candidates will be intimated through e-mail to attend the interview (along with original certificates in Department of Pharmacology, Research Block-B, PGIMER, Chandigarh. No separate interview letters will be sent. No TA/DA will be paid.
Deadline : 01.03.12
Watch Video |
Listen to the Audio
JEFFREY BROWN: On this Presidents Day, the Republicans who would be president drove home their points in key upcoming primary states. And the latest seeming front-runner drew crowds and criticism.
Rick Santorum's rise in the polls continued today heading into next week's primary contest and two weeks before Super Tuesday. The new Gallup tracking poll showed Santorum leading with 36 percent of Republican voters. Mitt Romney is eight points back at 28 percent. Next is Newt Gingrich at 13 percent. And Ron Paul comes in fourth at 11 percent.
Polls out yesterday showed Santorum ahead in Oklahoma and in Ohio, an upcoming Super Tuesday state where he grabbed support from the state's attorney general, who previously endorsed Mitt Romney.
In Ohio today, the former Pennsylvania senator continued a line of attack against President Obama which he had begun yesterday, arguing that global warming is -- quote -- "not climate science, but political science."
RICK SANTORUM (R : They have nothing to do with real cost-benefit analysis, real understanding of how we have to value both the environment and its impact on man and the world. They have radical ideas.
JEFFREY BROWN: Over the weekend, Santorum also drew attention for how he described -- quote -- "the president's agenda" at a rally in Columbus, Ohio.
RICK SANTORUM: It's about some phony ideal, some phony ideal, some phony theology, oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology.
JEFFREY BROWN: Yesterday, on ABC's "This Week," Obama campaign strategist Robert Gibbs said the comments went too far.
ROBERT GIBBS, Obama campaign strategist: I can't help but think that those remarks are well over the line. It's wrong. It's destructive. It makes it virtually impossible to solve the problems that we all face together as Americans.
BOB SCHIEFFER, "Face the Nation": He's the man of the hour in Republican politics.
JEFFREY BROWN: But that same day, on CBS's "Face the Nation," Santorum defended his remarks.
RICK SANTORUM: I wasn't suggesting the president is not a Christian. I accept the fact that the president is a Christian. I just said that when you have a world view that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can't take those resources because we're going to harm the Earth by things that are -- that frankly are just not scientifically proven. . .
JEFFREY BROWN: Meanwhile, Santorum's Republican opponents continue to campaign in crucial Super Tuesday states.
In Ohio today, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney insisted he's the only candidate capable of beating President Obama in November.
MITT ROMNEY (R : I have had the experience of leading. I have led four different enterprises. I happen to think that one of the criteria for selecting a president ought to be, has this person led something before? Our current president had not. And I think we've seen the consequence of that in some of the errors he's made.
JEFFREY BROWN: In Tulsa, Okla., former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said he's not planning on drop out of the race any time soon. And continuing to focus on states with caucuses, Texas Rep. Ron Paul turned his attention on North Dakota.
Today, his campaign said it had raised $4.5 million in January. Nonetheless, most attention today was on Santorum, who has seen his stock rise since winning contests in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri three weeks ago. That scrutiny will only increase as his numbers rise in Romney's home state of Michigan, site of one of next week's two key primary contests.
And late today, the newest Gallup poll was released showing Santorum up by 10 points over Mitt Romney.
And we take a closer look now at Rick Santorum's rise with Susan Page, Washington bureau chief of USA Today, and from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College.
Susan, start with some context here. Who is Rick Santorum speaking to or reaching out to? And what kind of reception is getting on the trail?
SUSAN PAGE, USA Today: He's getting a great reception among Republican primary voters. This is a group of voters that is very conservative, lots of Tea Party supporters. A majority of them in some states like Michigan say they are evangelical or born-again Christians.
So when he talks about public education or about global warming in the way that he's doing, this has really drawn him big crowds and brought him to a standing in the poll and sustained a standing in the poll that is pretty remarkable.
On the other hand, there are big risks for him in audiences that are also hearing what he's saying. And that would be more moderate Republicans and especially the people who you turn to when you're the nominee in a general election, like independent voters and women voters. They may be hearing some of the things he's saying and thinking, is this someone I would really feel comfortable with in the Oval Office?
JEFFREY BROWN: I'm also wondering after so many months where the economy was the main focus of all this, to turn to these kinds of issues -- you just named some of them -- but also in the past couple of days prenatal care, you mentioned public school education, birth control, health care mandate, does he see these as these issues in a sense, as opposed to economic issues?
SUSAN PAGE: The social conservative issues have been his calling card at the beginning, have sort of made him different, say, from Mitt Romney.
But he has been trying to look like a more three-dimensional candidate, to talk about foreign policy, for instance, policy toward Iran, to talk about manufacturing policy. I was with him in Detroit last Thursday when he addressed the Detroit Economic Club, talking about the deficit, talking about economic policy, talking about the manufacturing sector and how to encourage it.
And he's had some appeal in his home state of Pennsylvania, as I'm sure Terry will talk about, with the kind of voters, the kind of blue-collar voters that predominate in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania and in Ohio.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Terry Madonna, let me bring you in there. You've followed Santorum for a long time. Is this -- the appeal to conservatives and talking about social issues, has that been part of who he is for as long as he's been in politics?
TERRY MADONNA, Center for Politics and Public Affairs, Franklin and Marshall College: Yeah. Well, Susan is exactly right.
I mean, when he started, for example, in 1980, when he defeated an incumbent Democrat, no one gave then Senator Santorum -- or then Rick Santorum, lawyer Santorum, a chance to win that race in a Democratic district. And he amassed lots of volunteers, many of whom were pro-life.
Then he won his Senate seat in 1994 with the help of the Christian coalition. And he was solidly pro-life. But the fact of the matter is, until you get to the late 1990s, it doesn't become sort of an overarching, overreaching issue, compelling issue, the way it certainly has become in the last decade.
He talked about fiscal matters, government reform, tax policies. That's what got him elected in 1990 to the House and what got him elected in 1994 in the Senate. The other thing that Susan points out that is, I think, very important, he's the only one of the four Republican candidates who had the niche among social conservatives.
He could always sort of rely on them. And in the polls that I have done and others have done, Tea Party activists are overwhelmingly social conservatives. So, he could reach that blend of fiscal conservatism, small government, limited government, get rid of the deficits. at the same time, he could talk about social issues.
JEFFREY BROWN: And, Terry, what about as a legislator in the state and then in the Senate? What became the key sort of issues that he worked on or became associated with? One was welfare reform, right?
TERRY MADONNA: Oh, absolutely. Yeah, he was the floor leader for welfare reform.
By the way, that's the first time we really see this aspect of sort of the religious issues, moral issues come to play, when he fought for and insisted on faith-based grants and tax cut -- you know, use of the money in welfare to go to faith-based organizations.
As a senator he did -- and his critics are accurate -- he did fight and brought home hundreds of millions of dollars for Pennsylvania projects. He supported minimum wage. He was never cozy or close to the unions, but he was certainly helpful to U.S. Steel. He had worked on projects for the pharmaceutical and technology industries in the southeastern part of the state.
He was a typical sort of light-blue, if I can, senator who could not ignore the interests of the state.
JEFFREY BROWN: Okay.
Well, now, Susan, you talked about some of the risks of getting into some of these issues. Now you have, of course, the other Republicans hitting back. You have, I guess what you would call the Republican mainstream sort of expressing some worry, some publicly, some, you know, behind the scenes. What are you hearing there?
SUSAN PAGE: I think there's tremendous concern among Republicans in Washington, among elected officials, including members of the House who are going to run, be running with whoever the presidential nominee is in November, about Rick Santorum and his ability to appeal to a broader electorate than the electorate we see in, say, the Iowa caucuses.
I think there is talk about whether -- if Rick Santorum wins in Michigan next Tuesday, that would be a catastrophic event for Mitt Romney and raise questions about a rather smooth path to the nomination perhaps for Rick Santorum. And would the Republican elites then try to step in, in some way, draft somebody new to get into this race?
Or could you get to a convention where no one had a mathematical clinch on the nomination and you might have negotiations about who was going to get that prize?
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Terry Madonna, I suppose one thing that Republican leaders would be worried about is exactly what happened to Rick Santorum in 2006. He lost, and he lost real big, right, in his home state. What happened there?
TERRY MADONNA: Yes, by -- yes, by -- well, yes, in 2006 by 18 points to Bob Casey.
Well, it was the -- no doubt about it, the Democratic wave, the Iraq war election. There was also his social conservatism hurt him -- back to Susan's pointing, really hurt him in the southeastern part of Pennsylvania, in the suburbs of Philadelphia, where -- Now, Sen. Casey was pro-life, just as Rick Santorum was, but I think Sen. Santorum's outspokenness and some of the provocative things that he had said about gays, about abortion and Supreme Court decisions, and about women's role in the work force, very provocative.
Sen. Casey used some of that against him in the campaign. And then there was his residency. He had a home in Virginia. Sen. Casey made the argument that he wasn't a resident of Pennsylvania anymore and his kids were going to school, paid for by the taxpayers of Pennsylvania while they lived in Virginia. It was a cyber-school.
All in all, I mean, it wasn't a good year for Santorum. It's like the revolution had simply run away from him. And he lost in the vital areas of the states, in Pennsylvania and Virginia and Florida and Missouri, that -- that Republicans are going to have -- a Republican candidate is going to have to win or he's not going to win the electoral votes of those swing states.
JEFFREY BROWN: And, Susan, just briefly, what about President Obama and his advisers? Do you sense they're taking Rick Santorum a little more seriously now?
SUSAN PAGE: Well, taking him a little more seriously because he looks a little more serious.
But I have got to say that they continue to think that Mitt Romney is the stronger general election candidate. And the longer Rick Santorum stays in this beating up on Mitt Romney, that's fine with them. If he ends up being the nominee, I think they think that would all right as well, although of course there is some history for watching out what you wish for.
I remember the first campaign I covered in 1980 where the Carter people were so pleased that Ronald Reagan had the nomination. That didn't turn out the way they had hoped.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Susan Page, Terry Madonna, thank you both very much.
SUSAN PAGE: Thank you, Jeff.
An experimental drug combination may provide “a new weapon against pancreatic cancer”, BBC News has reported.
In a search for new ways to fight the aggressive cancer, scientists combined an existing chemotherapy drug called gemcitabine with an experimental chemical called MRK003. The chemical can block the actions of a protein called "gamma secretase" that plays a range of roles in the body. To test the effect of this combination they gave the mixture to mice genetically engineered to develop pancreatic cancer. They found that that the mice survived 26 days with the combination treatment, compared with just nine days when given an inactive dummy drug. Cancer Research UK reports that a human trial of gemcitabine combined with another gamma secretase blocker are now underway.
Pancreatic cancer often has a poor prognosis as it’s usually only diagnosed at an advanced stage, by which time it is resistant to many conventional treatments. It is the fifth most common cause of cancer death in the UK, and patients with metastatic disease (where the cancer has spread survive between two and six months on average.
This animal study has reported promising results for a new form of combination therapy. However, there are limits to what can be learnt from animal tests, so the results of the current clinical trial will provide a much clearer indication of how safe or successful this regime is for treating patients.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute, Cambridge University and Merck Research Laboratories, USA. It was funded by the University of Cambridge and Cancer Research UK, the Li Ka Shing Foundation and Hutchison Whampoa Limited, the UK National Institute for Health Research, Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre and the collaborative research programme at Merck, a pharmaceutical company. The study was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Experimental Medicine.
This story was covered by the BBC and Metro. The coverage was accurate and explained that the drug is part of an ongoing phase I/II clinical trial.
What kind of research was this?
This study examined the use of an experimental drug in a mouse model of pancreatic cancer and on cells grown in the laboratory. Animal models of disease provide a useful way to test what might happen if human patients were given a particular drug. Although the animal models don’t necessarily reflect what would happen in humans, they can be invaluable in exploring the properties of potential treatments. The mouse model in this research has already been used to test several pancreatic cancer drugs, with researchers finding that it accurately modelled the responses seen in patients with the condition.
This is the ideal study design for preliminary trials of new drugs. Drugs need to be well-tolerated and effective in the laboratory and in animals before trials on humans can happen.
What did the research involve?
The researchers took mice that modelled the main subtype of pancreatic cancer, called pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This type accounts for around 90% of pancreatic cancer cases. The researchers wanted to test a novel drug called MRK003, a type of “inhibitor” that blocks the gamma secretase pathway. Gamma secretase is involved in a signalling pathway between cells, which is disrupted in many cancers.
To test their theory, the researchers looked at the effect of several treatment regimes involving MRK003, administering it alone or in combination with a drug called gemcitabine that is already clinically used to treat pancreatic cancer. In particular, the researchers looked at:
- the way treatment affected the expression of certain markers that are characteristic of pancreatic cancer
- the effect on mice survival
- the effect on the tumour cells
What were the basic results?
The researchers found that MRK003 could reduce the expression of certain pancreatic cancer markers. When given alone, MRK003 had no effect on the survival of pancreatic cancer model, but when given in combination with gemcitabine the median survival time of the mice was significantly increased, from nine days when given a placebo to 26 days when given MRK003 and gemcitabine in combination (p=0.002 . The researchers found that combination treatment promotes tumour cell death and suppresses tumour growth.
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers concluded that this research supports the further investigation of gamma secretase inhibitors (drugs such as MRK003 in combination with gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Conclusion
Patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer can have a poor outlook, as the disease is aggressive and often advanced by the time it produces any symptoms. Despite being a relatively rare form of cancer (with around 7,800 cases diagnosed each year , it’s the fifth most common cause of cancer death in the UK. Patients with metastatic disease (where the cancer has spread have a median survival of between two and six months.
Given the current poor outlook for pancreatic cancer patients, there is a real need for new treatment options for the condition. This experimental study, although only in mice, has produced positive results for the combination therapy involving a gamma secretase inhibitor and gemcitabine. Gemcitabine is an established treatment for pancreatic cancer, but it currently attains only modest survival results.
The combination treatment was found to promote the death of tumour cells and suppress tumour growth, and increased survival time to 26 days (compared to nine days with a placebo .
These are exciting early results in an area with a clear need for better treatments. However, it will take the results of further clinical trials, such as the phase I/II clinical trial currently underway, to tell how successful or safe this regime is for treating patients.
Analysis by Bazian
Links To The Headlines
Pancreatic cancer: Trial drug MRK003 shows promise. BBC News, February 21 2012
Drugs mixture offers new hope in pancreatic cancer fight. Metro, February 21 2012
Links To Science
Cook N, Frese KK, Bapiro TE et al. Gamma secretase inhibition promotes hypoxic necrosis in mouse pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The Journal of Experimental Medicine, February 20 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment