Department Blog

Health Sciences Libraries

Comparison of Research Networking Tools and Research Profiling Systems

January 26th, 2012 by

A team of researchers and librarians at Northwestern University have compiled an extensive chart comparing Research Networking tools and Research Profiling Systems. Modeled after a Wikipedia entry comparing reference management software, “Comparison of Research Networking Tools and Research Profiling Systems”  resides at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Research_Networking_Tools_and_Research_Profiling_Systems.

The team worked hard to ensure inclusion of the most up-to-date and accurate information in the Wikipedia article, but recognize that they may have made inadvertent errors or omissions.  Readers are welcome to edit and update the article at any time on their own.

Research Opportunity Funds available from the UCOP Office of Research and Graduate Studies

November 3rd, 2010 by Deanna Johnson

The Office of Research and Graduate Studies (ORGS) has a limited pool of Research Opportunity Funds available to support one‐time funding requests to initiate multi‐campus research programs. Funding is for small projects that are intended to spawn larger, long‐term programs, supported by external funding, that will increase UC’s competitiveness, advance research discoveries, impact the lives of Californians, inform public policy or support innovative graduate student research.

.
Examples may include support for:
– Workshops or Meetings to facilitate system‐wide networking, initiatives or research collaborations;
– Grant Development or planning for large, multi‐campus extramural funding proposals;
– Public Outreach initiatives which can effectively communicate the impact of research discoveries;
– Industry Outreach efforts to better engage researchers from UC with industry; or
– Other projects of system‐wide benefit to UC research.

.
Typical requests should be no more than $20,000; larger requests will be considered in rare cases for programs of unusual large impact. Projects eligible for competitive grant funding through the Research Grants Program Office (RGPO) should apply through the appropriate grant programs (see the RGPO website for upcoming opportunities). Projects rejected by peer‐review will not be considered. However, projects that fall between RGPO funding cycles or do not fit within the criteria of existing grants may be eligible for Research Opportunity Funds. Requests may be submitted to ORGS throughout the year, and will be considered on a quarterly basis.

.
Funding requests must have a UCOP sponsor, who will take responsibility for the award, and work with the awardees to produce a product or result. For assistance in finding a UCOP sponsor, contact your campus Office of Research, or email our office at orgs@ucop.edu. Email your letter of request to orgs@ucop.edu. Requestors will be asked to provide:
• Names of participating faculty and campus/national lab affiliation
• Description of proposed activities and demonstration of system‐wide nature of the research
• One page budget and budget justification
• Anticipated outcomes and benefits of the project
• Letter(s) of support from the campus Vice Chancellor(s) for Research
• Letter(s) of commitment of matching funds from supporting campuses

.
What do we mean by “system‐wide nature of the research” and how you can you demonstrate this in your funding request? Below are questions you may want to consider addressing in your request. Not all questions will apply.
– Are my project goals and objectives of strategic value to UC as a system? Is this a field of research of particular importance to UC? Does this project foster research of direct relevance to California?
– Is this project the best way to achieve your stated goals? Are there other comparable efforts at UC? How are they involved with your project?
– Will this project enhance UC’s competitiveness in attracting extramural funding? What types of external funding are currently available in this field? Is there currently external support of your project? How will these seed funds be leveraged to attract additional funds?
– Will this project enhance UC’s competitiveness in attracting top‐notch faculty, graduate students or researchers? Does this project foster collaborations among researchers across campuses? Does it provide access to unique facilities or resources not broadly available to researchers across the UC system?
– Will this project share resources, establish best‐practices or promote efficiencies across the UC system?

“Planning for a Pandemic” webcast archived

November 5th, 2009 by Deanna Johnson
The “Planning for a Pandemic” Webcast from November 30 has been archived and is now available on the Public Health Reports website.

.

Attention! This webcast may be for you.

Pandemic[West Coast:  10:00 AM]


Webcast: Planning for a Pandemic – Can History Inform Action?

November 30, 2009 : http://www.publichealthreports.org/interactive/webcast.cfm

The next PHR Meet the Author web cast series brings together public health historians and practitioners to connect the U.S. experience of the 1918 flu pandemic to the ongoing practice issues facing influenza preparedness planning.

The program will address cutting-edge questions including:
• How did diverse communities and local leaders respond to the 1918 flu?
• How can these responses inform contemporary planning?
• How are these lessons being applied to inform the U.S. response to H1N1?
• What are the implications for planning at the local level, both in urban and rural America?

Title:
Planning for a Pandemic – Can History Inform Action?

Date/Time:
Monday, November 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM (PST)

Speakers:
Howard Markel, MD, PhD
George E. Wantz Professor of The History of Medicine, University of Michigan
Alexandra Stern, PhD
Zina Pitcher Collegiate Professor in The History Of Medicine, University Of Michigan
Marty Cetron, MD
Ronald H. Lauterstein Professor Director of the Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Respondents:
Implications for cities: David Rosner, PhD
Ronald H. Lauterstein Professor of Sociomedical Sciences and History
Implications for rural areas: Michael Meit MA, MPH
Director, Walsh Center for Rural Health Analysis, National Opinion Research Center

Reserve your Webinar seat now at:
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/941279587

System Requirements
PC-based attendees
Required: Windows® 2000, XP Home, XP Pro, 2003 Server, Vista

Macintosh®-based attendees
Required: Mac OS® X 10.4 (Tiger®) or newer.

.

Teach-it-forward!

August 21st, 2009 by

 

This year I got the chance to be involved again in the “Summer Scrubs & Beyond”, a three-day intensive program for fifty high schoolers from three schools in Sacramento (last year there were thirty or so), with a general focus on neuroscience throughout the classes and lectures. My class, an hour each day, was “reading and writing”. I tried to make the instruction as general as possible so the students could take the principles with them to apply to some other subjects.

Standard MRI

Standard MRI

 

To help accomplish this I gave them, the first day, a research article about MRI scanning of the brain during direct perception of musical chords in different modes and how that correlated to emotional response. We went through the article on day two to see how it demonstrated medical research and writing principles.

 

My general goals were to teach them

·      the broad scope and flow of medical research.

·      how research ends up in journal articles.

·      how to read a journal article.

·      looking up unknown words in dictionaries and online

·      some principles of medical jargon—Greek and Latin roots and combining forms.

·      how articles are abstracted.

 

At the end of the second session, I gave them a second article in the same general subject, from which the abstract had been removed. Their assignment was to write an abstract.

 

I gave them some guidelines: an abstract should be about 5% of the length of the article, and it should tell the reader.

·      What they were trying to discover;

·      Why the study needed to be done:

·      How did they go about it, and

·      What did they learn in the end.

 

The third day we went over the second article, reinforced some of the points we learned in the previous days, and talked about the abstract.

 

The response of the students was remarkably encouraging. There were very few blank stares during class, lots of questions, several students willing (or even eager) to participate; and fair number of the students did the assignment and wrote an abstract for the article.

 

The Articles:

 

I. Khalfa, S., D. Schon, et al. (2005). “Brain regions involved in the recognition of happiness and sadness in music.” Neuroreport 16(18): 1981-4.

Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to test for the lateralization of the brain regions specifically involved in the recognition of negatively and positively valenced musical emotions. The manipulation of two major musical features (mode and tempo), resulting in the variation of emotional perception along the happiness-sadness axis, was shown to principally involve subcortical and neocortical brain structures, which are known to intervene in emotion processing in other modalities. In particular, the minor mode (sad excerpts) involved the left orbito and mid-dorsolateral frontal cortex, which does not confirm the valence lateralization model. We also show that the recognition of emotions elicited by variations of the two perceptual determinants rely on both common (BA 9) and distinct neural mechanisms.

 

II. Pallesen, K. J., E. Brattico, et al. (2005). “Emotion processing of major, minor, and dissonant chords: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study.” Ann N Y Acad Sci 1060: 450-3.

Musicians and nonmusicians listened to major, minor, and dissonant musical chords while their BOLD brain responses were registered with functional magnetic resonance imaging. In both groups of listeners, minor and dissonant chords, compared with major chords, elicited enhanced responses in several brain areas, including the amygdala, retrosplenial cortex, brain stem, and cerebellum, during passive listening but not during memorization of the chords. The results indicate that (1) neural processing in emotion-related brain areas is activated even by single chords, (2) emotion processing is enhanced in the absence of cognitive requirements, and (3) musicians and nonmusicians do not differ in their neural responses to single musical chords during passive listening.

 

About the image:

The public domain image was made available through Wikipedia.