Despite available recommendations on infection control for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), information is limited on actual practices in Asian hospitals during the epidemic. We describe practices observed by mobile SARS containment teams (mobile teams) during outbreak investigations.
This report describes the results of a survey designed to evaluate the contribution of F1 neurobehavioral testing to hazard identification and characterization in safety assessment studies. (To review the details of the distributed survey, please see the Supplementary Data for this article on the journal’s Web site.) The survey provided information about studies completed in industrial laboratories in the United States, Europe, and Japan since 1990 on 174 compounds. The types of compounds included were pharmaceutical (81%), agricultural (7%), industrial (1%), or were undefined (10%). Information collected included the intended use of the test agent, general study design and methodology, the types and characteristics of F1 behavioral evaluations, and the frequency with which agents affected neurobehavioral parameters in comparison to other F0 and F1 generation parameters. F1 general toxicology parameters such as mortality, pre- and postweaning body weight, and food intake were assessed in most studies and were affected more frequently than other parameters by the test agents. F1 behavioral parameters were assessed less consistently across studies, and were less frequently affected by the agents tested. Although affected by agents less often than general toxicology parameters, F1 behavioral parameters along with other parameters defined the no-observed-effect level (NOEL) in 17/113 (15%) of studies and solely defined the NOEL in 3/113 (2.6%) of studies. Thus, F1 behavioral parameters sometimes improved on the standard toxicological measures of hazard identification. While not detecting agent effects as readily as some measures, the F1 behavioral parameters provide information about agent effects on specialized functions of developing offspring not provided by other standard measures of toxicity. The survey results emphasize the need for further research into the methods of behavioral assessment as well as the mechanisms underlying the neurobehavioral alterations.
The question of changing the Society name was certainly not a new one. It has been discussed repeatedly over many years, often most actively following a strategic planning meeting where it was a recurring topic. The first debate I recall was early in my career, more years ago than I choose to admit. It was at the annual business meeting, and the line for comment was to the back of the room, with equally compelling, robust, and heartfelt arguments on both sides. The desire to both honor and preserve the Society's rich history as well as to broaden its recognition and reach in the future was clear. As a new member, I was most impressed by the energy and passion demonstrated by the members during that exchange, which reinforced my desire to be an active part of this organization. Fast forward to the most recent strategic planning session in April 2017, where the debate of the Society name continued. Following the discussion, the Council decided to take action to finally resolve the question. A significant rebranding initiative was planned so the timing was right to incorporate a new name if membership supported a change. An initial survey of members regarding a possible name change in September/October 2017 brought an impressive 185 responses, underscoring the level of concern of members on both sides of the issue and their support of the Society. Results showed a majority favored consideration of a name change, pending proposed names. But now came the real challenge—defining a new name. In response to the initial survey, 59 members readily volunteered to serve on focus groups to explore possible names. Each focus group was specifically assigned to include a diversity of members with regard to discipline and organization, with the exception of one focus group made up exclusively of trainees, as their perspective was of particular interest to Council. Speaking for my own group, as well as hearing the experiences of others, the level of enthusiasm and engagement of participants was exciting to be a part of. The task proved extremely challenging. How do we represent who we are as a Society and all that we do in a few short words, ideally with a catchy acronym? The diversity of the Society membership and scientific disciplines represented has always been recognized as what makes us unique and what members value most. No other organizations bring such a breadth of perspectives together, including basic and mechanistic research, developmental, and reproductive toxicology, genetics, epidemiology, maternal/fetal medicine, neonatology and pediatrics, public health, and policy makers. A long and varied list of names was proposed, many that tried to capture the full diversity and scope of these activities. If you think sBDRP is a mouthful…! Ultimately, names were selected to present to membership that the Council and focus group participants felt best represented what unites us as an organization and defines our mission, to understand the causes of birth defects through research and education in order to ultimately prevent them. Beyond the name, and regardless of which side of the debate, the dedication and passion of our members to the study and prevention of birth defects and to the Society, the desire to remain connected to our history as well as to advance the field and ensure our future was clear. I have been a part of no other organization where that commitment is so tangible, and evident in our annual meeting, where named awards, sessions, and events that honor our founders are highlights, as are awards and sessions that showcase new technologies and innovations in birth defects research. The high level of energy and engagement from our trainees to our emeritus members is infectious. As we look back on our first 60 years, and forward to the next 60, it is truly an exciting time to be member.
