Have you met Melinda Hurst?

by Elizabeth Cooper, Program Assistant

With the 2012 Advancing Ethical Research (AER) Conference right around the corner, I am reminded of the strength and dedication of unaffiliated and non-scientific members who serve on institutional review boards (IRBs). These individuals contribute a unique perspective that is critical to our mission of advancing ethical research. At this year’s conference, we are honored and delighted to have the opportunity to recognize one such individual, Melinda Hurst, for her work as a community member on an IRB, and for her tireless and pioneering efforts to strengthen the role of unaffiliated, non-scientific members in the review of research.

Ms. Hurst served as a community member for 27 years on the ethics committee and IRB of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, CA. She also served on California’s human subjects protection committee. For 30 years, she was a member of both the research committee of the Los Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center and the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) of the University of Southern California.

Ms. Hurst has played an instrumental role in integrating community members into the work of the IRB, beginning at a time when community members were neither required nor particularly appreciated in the research review process. She has fought to establish and reinforce the value of the contributions that community members make within the research community, by virtue of their unique “outsider” perspective on the research process and their ability to represent the community, without a bias for or interest in the research itself. Because of the breadth of her experience, she has also been in a position to offer guidance, which has in turn shaped the evolution of the role of community members in human subject protections.

For Ms. Hurst’s exemplary contributions to the field and her principled commitment to protecting the human subjects who participate in research, PRIM&R is proud to be able to honor her at the 2012 AER Conference. If you are joining us in San Diego for the conference, you may also consider joining Ms. Hurst for a luncheon on Thursday, December 6, from 12:45 to 1:45 PM.

In addition to recognizing her during the 2012 AER Conference, we conducted an interview with Ms. Hurst as part of PRIM&R’s new oral history initiative, People & Perspectives. You can view an excerpt below. Please stay tuned for more stories from People & Perspectives in the coming year and look for the project’s launch in late 2013, as part of PRIM&R’s 40th anniversary celebration. To learn more about People & Perspectives, please email me or leave a question in the comments field.

Meet the PRIM&R Blog Squad at the 2012 AER Conference: Jackie Tekiela

by Jackie Tekiela, MS, CIP, Institutional Review Board (IRB) Administrator at Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare

Looking forward to the gorgeous San Diego weather during PRIM&R’s 2012 Advancing Ethical Research (AER) Conference? Me too! I will be coming from Milwaukee, WI where we are currently experiencing record high temperatures…in the 30’s. I am also excited for the amazing offerings and events at this year’s AER Conference and for the opportunity to be a part of the PRIM&R Blog Squad.

I have worked in the human research protections field for about five years. For the last three years, I have been the IRB administrator at Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare, a Catholic healthcare organization based in Southeast Wisconsin with locations in Illinois and Iowa. We have one IRB that  reviews primarily industry sponsored clinical trials and some social-behavioral research. I have also worked in quality improvement and have a background in basic science and animal research.

Lucky for me, I was able to attend my first AER Conference shortly after joining the field. It was an amazing, invaluable, though slightly overwhelming, experience. Five years later, I expect I will learn just as much at this AER Conference, and be just as overwhelmed! PRIM&R’s annual AER Conference is a wonderful opportunity for those involved in human subjects research to come together, obtain information, hear new ideas, and network with other professionals. Coming from a small institution, I find it to be an especially useful event, and one I always hope that I am able to attend. I enjoy the opportunity to discuss issues unique to similar institutions, and also enjoy learning about issues with which  I am not familiar, which allows me to hear different perspectives. The conference is also a chance for me to step back from the day-to-day and think about the field more broadly. It always amazes me how discussions on common topics (think informed consent) are always evolving, interesting, and relevant. PRIM&R does such a wonderful job of finding speakers who not only have the expertise but who are also engaging and passionate about the field. You always leave the presentations and discussions thinking.

I am looking forward to a number of sessions and events at this year’s AER Conference. I am ready to sit down to a tasty muffin with other individuals from small institutions at the Affinity Group Networking Breakfast on Tuesday, December 4. Our organization uses the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Central IRB (CIRB), so I am also looking forward to the session titled  Rewriting the NCI Informed Consent Template (A18)  in which the NCI will present the finalized NCI informed consent template for discussion. Since compensation for research injuries is a topic often discussed at my institution, I am eager to attend Panel XII – Compensation for Research-Related Injury: Is it Finally Time for a Nationalized System? to gather information that I can bring back and share with my IRB!

What sessions are you most excited for? Share in the comments!

Nothing lasts forever: An interview with Roberto Veloso

Today we’d like to introduce you to Roberto Veloso, JD, who serves as a member of PRIM&R’s Diversity Advisory Group.

Roberto has been a PRIM&R member for three years. He is an associate professor and chair of the IRB at Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions (RMU) in Provo, Utah. He is also an attorney practicing law in Annapolis, Maryland.

Working remotely from Annapolis, Roberto leads the institutional review board (IRB) at RMU and oversees the design, development, and implementation of online curricula to educate researchers at the university regarding human research protections issues. Over the course of his career, Roberto has worked as an assistant attorney general for the state of Maryland, as a trial lawyer in private practice and for the insurance industry. Roberto has an active civic life and has served on a number of municipal boards and commissions.

Roberto received his Bachelor of Arts degree from the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC, and his Juris Doctor at American University, Washington College of Law, in Washington, DC. 

Joanna Cardinal (JC): When and why did you join the field?
Roberto Velso (RV): I first became involved in the field in 2008, when I was asked to serve as a non-affiliated community member on an IRB. Given my extensive background as an attorney handling regulatory compliance matters, as well as my work in several municipal commissions on civil rights issues, I felt I could really make a contribution to the IRB. I found the work to be fascinating and incredibly rewarding as it involved the overlap of my two favorite academic fields: philosophy and law. A year later, I was appointed chair of the IRB.

JC: What skills are particularly helpful in a job like yours?
RV: The most challenging work I’ve done as an attorney has involved dealing with the grey areas—those situations where a particular set of facts doesn’t quite fit with the requirements of the law, or laws that are unclear or subject to a variety of interpretations. Learning how to operate in these grey areas has been invaluable as I lead the IRB in asking the difficult questions and making the tough calls, which we invariably have to do sometimes.

JC: Tell us about one or more articles, books, or documents that have influenced your professional life. 
RV: The seminal works of Plato, Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau that I read as philosophy major in my undergraduate days continue to inform my world view and professional life to this day. More recent books that I’ve found invaluable include Robert Amdur and Elizabeth Bankert’s  Institutional Review Board: Management and Function and OHRP’s IRB Guidebook, which I turn to time and time again. Additionally, I’ve found several books written by Jerry Menikoff to also be particularly interesting and thought provoking.

JC: Why is the issue of diversity important to you? 
RV: As an immigrant from a biracial family, I have unique insights into the subtle and not so subtle barriers posed by prejudice and discrimination. These barriers are a huge hindrance to our society and it ends up hurting everyone. Improving diversity in the workplace is one of the steps our society can take towards breaking down the barriers posed by prejudice and discrimination.

JC: Why did you agree to serve on PRIM&R’s Diversity Advisory Group (DAG)? 
RV: Improving the diversity of PRIM&R’s membership is a logical first step to improving the diversity of the human research protections and clinical research fields. This is especially important because, as we look back at some of the more egregious cases of human rights violations in clinical research settings (e.g., Nazi experimentation, the Guatemala syphilis studies, the US Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee, and even in the Havasupai Indians genetic testing studies), race and/or ethnicity played a significant role. Increasing diversity in the fields of human research protections and clinical research could help prevent future human rights violations from occurring.

JC: What would you suggest to readers who are looking to strengthen the diversity of their institution, organization, or company? 
RV: The subtle forms of prejudice and racism that create barriers to diversity can best be conquered on a personal level. It’s a lot harder to pre-judge a person who is different from you when you happen to know someone that shares some of those same differences. So while exploring ways to increase the diversity of an institution, look for ways to increase the diversity of the personal and professional relationships of the individuals working for the institution.

JC: What advice have you found most helpful in your career?  
RV: Nothing lasts forever: even the most problematic study will eventually come to an end.

JC: What is something you know now that you wish someone had told you when you first entered this field? 
RV: When an IRB-related question has you really stumped, go back and read the Belmont Report!


Interested in hearing more from the DAG? Join us on December 6 at the 2012 AER Conference for Grand Finale 7 -The Uncomfortable Conversation: Talking about Diversity.

Your thoughts on this important topic are welcome. To share your perspective on diversity with the DAG, please leave a comment or email membership@primr.org. 

Meet the PRIM&R Blog Squad at the 2012 AER Conference: Rebecca Boxhorn

by Rebecca Boxhorn, JD, Research Associate at the Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment & the Life Sciences at the University of Minnesota

Greetings from Minnesota! I am a member of the PRIM&R Blog Squad at the 2012 Advancing Ethical Research (AER) Conference. Unlike the other members of this year’s Blog Squad, I will be attending the 2012 AER Conference Virtual Meeting. Through the magic of the internet, I will watch and report back to you on the keynote addresses and plenaries streamed live online through PRIM&R’s Conference Passport. This is my first PRIM&R conference and I am thrilled to have access to many of the same fantastic speakers and presentations as my fellow PRIM&R Blog Squad members and conference attendees.

As a Research Associate at the Consortium on Law and Values in Health, Environment & the Life Sciences, I get paid to research and write articles about the most interesting and cutting edge issues in law, ethics, and health. Pretty nice setup, right? I work closely with Professor Susan Wolf, JD, a panelist at this year’s AER Conference, on the legal and ethical questions around returning individual research results and incidental findings generated in genetics and genomics research. I am particularly excited to watch Professor Wolf, Laura M. Beskow, MPH, PhD, and Edward Quigley, PhD, discuss the logistical, ethical, and regulatory complexities of returning research results from biobanks during Panel IX on Thursday, December 6.

Prior to working at the Consortium, I obtained my JD at the University of Minnesota and (thankfully) passed the bar in Minnesota. While in law school, I spent a semester in Washington, D.C., working as a law clerk for U.S. Senator Al Franken. As a law clerk, I assisted the Senator in his work as the Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommitte on Privacy, Technology, and the Law. I worked on a wide range of issues, including health privacy and security in the age of electronic health records and internet research. I am excited to see that this year’s AER Conference delves into the complexities of internet research, with a pre-conference program, Regulatory, Ethical, and Technical Challenges in Internet Research, and workshop, Privacy in the Information Age: The Ethical and Regulatory Implications of Data Mining on Social Networking Sites, on the topic.

I look forward to taking in these and the other fantastic presentations at the 2012 AER Conference, and I am excited that PRIM&R offers a Virtual Meeting for those who cannot make it out to San Diego.

Reach out aggressively: An interview with Dorotha Love Hall

Today we’d like to introduce you to Dorotha Love Hall, PhD, CIP, who serves as a member of PRIM&R’s Diversity Advisory Group.

Dorotha Love Hall has been a PRIM&R member for three years. She received her Bachelor of Arts from the University of Arkansas Pine Bluff. She then when on to earn her Masters of Public Administration from the University of Arkansas Little Rock and her PhD in Public Health Administration from the University of South Carolina in Columbia. She is currently employed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where she serves as the Acting Country Director for Angola. In this position, she facilitates and manages all research activities and behavior surveillance studies conducted for CDC Angola.

Joanna Cardinal (JC): When and why did you join the field? 
Dorotha Love Hall (DLH): I joined the field in August 2007 when I began work with the Division of Global HIV/AIDS Science Office. One of my primary tasks was reviewing documents for human subject issues.

JC: What skills are particularly helpful in a job like yours? 
DLH: The ability to conduct an objective review of activities and the ability to not allow personal knowledge of the submitter or program to “cloud your judgment.” Impartiality is imperative to ensure the protection of human subjects. Being able to take a stand and argue for the protection of research participants is crucial for ultimate performance of my duties.

JC: Tell us about one or more articles, books, or documents that have influenced your professional life. 
DLH: My professional life was influenced by the book by David Felshul, Miss Evers’ Boys. The reality of the United States Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee was quite an ‘eye opener’ for me.  I faced the fact that the government could and has used its power to harm innocent people. I had to acknowledge the fact that “to some people, science is more important than the life of a human being.”

JC: Have there been any PRIM&R events or talks that you have attended that have significantly impacted your approach to your work? If so, what were they and how did they influence you? 
DLH: Yes, I attended the pre-conference program titled Listening to the Voices of Minorities and Researchers on Building Trust and Capacity for Respectful Engagement. The instructors presented a genuine sense of candor about the topic. The discussion and the various perspectives presented expressed many of my own concerns. I was pleased that PRIM&R found the topic worthy of presentation. I was even more pleased to learn about PRIM&R’s ongoing collaboration with the group who presented the session.

JC: How has membership in PRIM&R’s community of research ethics professionals helped you to advance in your career? 
DLH: Through PRIM&R I have had the opportunity to meet renowned authors and many people with a genuine concern for the protection of human subjects in research.

JC: Why is the issue of diversity important to you? 
DLH: Diversity is important because this world is made up of so many different people, coming from so many different backgrounds, each with so much to contribute. The world can only be a better place if everyone understands the importance of diversity and everyone who wishes to do so can contribute. Diversity is important to some people “for the money”—they contribute and support diversity because it just happens to be their job. Others support diversity because they have lived through prejudices and inequitable treatment, and they want to alleviate this as much as possible. And still others feel people simply have a right to expect that they will be given an equal opportunity. Diversity is important to me for all the reasons listed above and because I believe that the rejection of the contribution of any person, could delay the resolution of major problem and/or issues.

JC: Why did you agree to serve on PRIM&R’s Diversity Advisory Group (DAG)? 
DLH: Because I want to contribute to the development of any initiative that might make the world a more equitable place.

JC: What would you suggest to readers who are looking to strengthen the diversity of their institution, organization, or company? 
DLH: Reach out aggressively. You might find what you need in places you least expect.

JC: What is something you know now that you wish someone had told you when you first entered this field? Or, what is an example of a lesson you had to learn the hard way? 
DLH:  I now know that just because someone “talks about diversity” and say that they “stand against prejudice” does not mean that these things (diversity and equitable treatment) are really important to them.


Interested in hearing more from the DAG? Join us on December 6 at the 2012 AER Conference for Grand Finale 7 -The Uncomfortable Conversation: Talking about Diversity.

Your thoughts on this important topic are welcome. To share your perspective on diversity with the DAG, please leave a comment or email membership@primr.org. 

Meet the PRIM&R Blog Squad at the 2012 AER Conference: Susan Trinidad

by Susan Trinidad, MA, Research Scientist in the Department of Bioethics & Humanities at the Center for Genomics & Healthcare Equality at the University of Washington

Hello out there! I’m very happy to be attending the Advancing Ethical Research (AER) Conference again this year, and I’m especially pleased to have the chance to share some of the meeting highlights with the larger PRIM&R community.

I’m up to my ears in research ethics. I’ve served as a member of the University of Washington’s only combined biomedical/behavioral institutional review board (IRB) since 2009. In my day job, I conduct empirical ethics research. And, of course, I strive to carry out all that ethics research … ethically! The AER Conference is always a great opportunity to hear about others’ research and to glean lessons I can apply in my own research and bring back to share with my IRB colleagues.

“Empirical ethics research,” at least in my work, is shorthand for interview and focus group studies aimed at understanding how people (e.g., patients, primary care physicians, IRB members, geneticists, life scientists) think about the ethical implications of a given issue. When all goes well, the results of this work can inform practice and contribute to policy development. For example, in one study, I am helping to figure out how investigators doing basic genetic research can meet the ethical obligation of sharing what they’re learning with the Alaska Native communities engaged in those studies. In another, I’ll be interviewing patients who’ve been referred for a possible familial cancer syndrome and have had their whole genome sequenced. We’ll talk about what it was like for them to receive their test results around hereditary cancer, and also about their feelings, thoughts, and questions about other information (incidental findings) generated by this comprehensive look at their DNA.

This year, there are several sessions that are directly related to studies I am working on. I’m looking forward to learning more from the experts about comparative effectiveness research (Session A04) and tribal participatory research approaches (Session E24). I’m eager to hear the latest on the debate around return of individual genetic research results (Plenary Panel IX), too, and from some of the leading researchers in this area. As a bonus, that session will be moderated by Pearl O’Rourke, so I know it will be lively as well as informative.

Now that I’ve almost recovered from the frenzy around the Presidential election, I’m looking forward to Jonathan Haidt’s luncheon discussion of his new book, The Righteous Mind:  Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. I’m also planning to attend Laura Stark’s Research Ethics Book Group Lunch about Behind Closed Doors: IRBs and the Making of Ethical Research. Having encountered certain challenges in recruiting IRB staff and committee members for interviews in my own work, I’ll be interested to hear her insights about doing research on and within the human subjects protection community.

And, I won’t lie – it doesn’t hurt a bit to leave the rain and gray of Seattle for a week in San Diego! I’ll do my best to weave some of the sunshine into my posts.

Ethics CORE: A New Home for Ethics on the Web

by Megan Hayes Mahoney, Visiting Digital Library Research Librarian at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

In 2010, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) began work on a multi-year project designed to make ethics information and training resources readily accessible to those working in the fields of science and engineering. PRIM&R was honored to be a part of the effort, which was supported by a grant awarded to UIUC by the National Science Foundation (NSF). PRIM&R contributed encyclopedia entries for commonly used terms in human subjects and animal research, as well as a listing of exemplary research forms, policies, manuals, and checklists related to conducting research with human subjects and animals. The resulting website, Ethics CORE, which was formally launched in September of this year, provides a wealth of resources for educating scientists about ethics. We are incredibly pleased to share with you this piece from Megan Hayes Mahoney, visiting digital library research librarian at UIUC. We hope that it will help acquaint you with this new, invaluable resource. 

The field of medical research has been engaged in dialogue about ethics for a number of years, driven by major events such as the United States Public Health Service syphilis study in Tuskegee, Alabama (1932-1972) and the resulting Belmont Report in 1979. Increasingly, questions of research and professional ethics have also arisen in other branches of scientific research. Ethics CORE, or the Ethics Collaborative Online Resource Environment, was created as a forum for this dialogue.

The development of Ethics CORE started soon after the 2007 America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES) Act was passed. This act requires, among other things, that “each institution that applies for financial assistance from the [National Science] Foundation (NSF) for science and engineering research or education describe in its grant proposal a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers participating in the proposed research project” (42 USC 1862o-1). Because there was no singular, trusted source to which scientists seeking NSF funding could turn for educational resources, scholarly literature, or best practices to facilitate the development of ethics training plans, the NSF decided to create one.

With this prerogative and some NSF funding, our team got to work and created Ethics CORE, a hybrid of digital library and social media software that combines access to resources with forums for discussion about those materials. The digital library contains videos, syllabi, articles, and case studies that we have collected or were contributed by users. Our resources have ratings and comments features, which allow registered Ethics CORE community members to evaluate materials and recommend them to one another. Ethics CORE also has a full-text searchable archive of records and links to materials available through other institutions, thus allowing all users to discover and print electronic materials beyond our resources. Similarly, the Ethics CORE has a special search feature that scours the Scopus database for peer-reviewed ethics research while simultaneously looking for books, other Ethics CORE materials, and Google items on the search topic. Our goal was to create a resource that brings information from many places into one collection so that users can find everything they need in one space.

Anyone can join Ethics CORE, which has many features that make connecting with others easy. Once registered, a user can email other users, create a blog, read a blog, join interest groups, create an interest group, and even have live discussions with other users. One group, Sustainability Ethics, consists of members from two different universities who use Ethics CORE as a digital learning space for playing and discussing environmental resource simulation games. This type of collaboration would be more difficult in an environment associated with a single institution. Our tech team has also created special features, such as a live group chat space, in response to specific groups’ needs. Ethics CORE runs on open source software that can be adapted to respond to user needs. We are here to serve you and other scientists as you advance your understanding of research ethics and build a strong community of responsible researchers.

We invite the PRIM&R community to come explore Ethics CORE!

Research Ethics Roundup: Housing retired chimps, NYC research rescue efforts, and much more!

Thanksgiving is just around the corner, so before you start stuffing turkeys and mashing potatoes, take a moment to check out this week’s Research Ethics Roundup. The latest installment of our biweekly series features articles on a range of issues, including recent debate over the use of newborn blood samples, challenges to improving research in Nigeria, and more.

A collective effort to save decades of research as the water rose: Hurricane Sandy devastated the east coast last month, leaving a large portion of New York City underwater, without power, or both. The massive outpouring of support offered to researchers and institutions affected by the storm is not only a heartwarming story of scientific solidarity, but also indicative of how interdependent the field has become.

Debate over newborn blood samples: Blood samples taken from newborn babies for the purpose of disease screening are often also used by researchers to study public and individual health issues. Recent lawsuits in Texas and Minnesota have raised concerns over whether research involving newborn blood samples violates individuals’ privacy rights, and whether samples ought to be destroyed after the preliminary disease screening is performed.

How to strengthen health research capacity in Africa, by researchers: The third International Scientific Conference of the Nigerian Institute of Medical Research (NIMR) met last week to discuss challenges involved in strengthening health research capacity in Africa. Innocent Ujah, the director general of NIMR, cited systematic and institutionalized problems within the African research enterprise as reasons why research there fails to effectively compete in terms of content, budget, and justifications with that of developed countries.

NIH faces chimp housing quandary: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) made headlines in September when director Francis Collins declared all 110 NIH-owned chimpanzees at the New Iberia Research Center “permanently ineligible” for research. As of this week, there has yet to be a clear consensus regarding where these animals will live out their retirement. Budgetary restrictions and bureaucratic roadblocks have further muddled this sensitive issue.

Looking for more news? PRIM&R members can visit our Knowledge Center to find more recent scholarly journal and popular media articles pertaining to research ethics. Not yet a member? Learn more about becoming a member by visiting our website.

Research Ethics Roundup: Research integrity, budget cuts, and more!

Suffering from a little campaign fatigue? Turn off the television and check out this week’s Research Ethics Roundup! This edition features stories on a whistle-blowing principal investigator, preparing for sequestration, and the candidates’ views on science (sorry, we couldn’t resist!).

World science academies release report to promote research integrity: The InterAcademy Council (IAC) and IAP, the global network of science academies, have issued a new report on responsible science. The report is the first product of the IAC and IAP's project on scientific integrity, which was "initiated in response to several major trends reshaping the research enterprise, including the increasingly global and interdisciplinary nature of science, its heightened role in policy debates, and the continued emergence of high-profile cases of irresponsible research behavior in many countries." The report "identifies fundamental values and principles that researchers should incorporate into every part of the process, from developing a research plan to reporting results and communicating with policymakers and the public."

Whistleblower wins unfair contract termination suit: When Dr. Weihua Huang reported his supervisor, Dr. Ming Li, for unauthorized modifications to the terms of a research grant, he was subsequently terminated from his position at the University of Virginia. Last month, Dr. Huang received more than $800,000 in compensation after a federal jury decided he had been unfairly fired.

U.S. medical researchers brace themselves for budget cuts: The fear of sequestration, which would cause federal science budgets to fall by at least 8.2%, has left some in the research community feeling nervous about the future. This article outlines the effect smaller budgets would have on the research enterprise, as well as how some creative scientists and administrators are preparing.

The top American science questions: 2012: ScienceDebate.org worked with the leading US science and engineering organizations, including the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academies, and Scientific American, to form a consensus on what are the most important science policy questions facing the United States in 2012. Both presidential candidates’ answers can be found on this webpage.

Looking for more news? PRIM&R members can visit our Knowledge Center to find more recent scholarly journal and popular media articles pertaining to research ethics. Not yet a member? Learn more about becoming a member by visiting our website.

Encourage others: An interview with Natalie Mays

by Joanna Cardinal, Assistant Director for Membership and IT Operations

Today we’d like to introduce you to Natalie Mays, BA, LATG, CPIA, who serves as a member of PRIM&R’s Diversity Advisory Group. Read previous posts in the series here.

Natalie Mays has been a PRIM&R member for five years. She is the director of the office of the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) and institutional biosafety committee (IBC) at New York University Langone Medical Center (NYULMC). Prior to joining the team at NYULMC, Natalie was the IACUC director at Columbia University and Columbia University Medical Center. There she was responsible for the administrative management of the IACUC for a large animal care and use program. She has been involved with the work of IACUCs since 1988, and has served on various IACUCs as the regulatory compliance and training coordinator in northeast Ohio. Natalie has been active in the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS) at the local and national levels serving on various committees.

Joanna Cardinal (JC): When and why did you join the field? 
Natalie Mays (NM): My first job in this field was as a laboratory research assistant in 1980. My Bachelor’s degree is in microbiology so I was hired to maintain bacterial cultures for an assay performed in our lab. The assay preparation involved animal tissue which was my introduction to animal research.

JC: What skills are particularly helpful in a job like yours? 
NM: My current position as a director involves not only diplomacy but extensive regulatory knowledge. Those skills were also vital as a research compliance coordinator.

JC: Tell us about one or more articles, books, or documents that have influenced your professional life. 
NM: I read all of the AALAS certification exam training manuals in preparation for the laboratory animal technologist (LATG) exam. They were very helpful since I didn’t enter this field as an animal technician which would have given me some basic facility knowledge. Also, The Biology and Medicine of Rabbits and Rodents was very interesting to me. Many years after reading the book, it was a pleasure being able to work with one of the authors, Dr. John E. Harkness.

JC: Have there been any PRIM&R events or talks that you have attended that have significantly impacted your approach to your work? If so, what were they and how did they influence you? 
NM: Many years ago, the ARENA (the former membership division of PRIM&R) conferences helped me transition from the researcher side of this field to the regulatory compliance side. Also, the networking that occurred at the ARENA meetings helped introduce me to others affiliated with the regulatory field including veterinarians and IACUC members. More recently, information on the Certified Professional IACUC Administrator (CPIA®) credential was instrumental in my decision to seek CPIA certification.

JC: How has membership in PRIM&R’s community of research ethics professionals helped you to advance in your career?
NM: I have served as a member of PRIM&R’s IACUC Conference faculty for several years. As a presenter, I’ve had attendees approach me to request my contact information. Some attendees indicate that they feel comfortable talking to me because I am a person of color and my background in this field is so varied. This is viewed favorably by senior management at my current institution. I was also a co-presenter on a PRIM&R webinar. That experience not only gave me a better appreciation for all of the hard work that the PRIM&R staff performs to advertise and present these webinars but it also provided me with a good opportunity to re-evaluate our institutional policies and suggest updates.

JC: Why is the issue of diversity important to you? 
NM: When I first entered this field more than 30 years ago, I didn’t encounter many individuals who looked like me in the research labs. I did encounter many people of color working as animal caretakers or supervisors in the animal facilities but not many vet techs, senior administrative, or regulatory personnel. I wasn’t interested in remaining in a lab and wanted to move into the regulatory area. I found out about professional organizations such as AALAS that sponsored local meetings. That is where the networking occurred. I met my mentor, Bob Voigt, at a local meeting. He encouraged me to network with others in the field and also to encourage others to join.

JC: Why did you agree to serve on PRIM&R’s Diversity Advisory Group (DAG)? 
NM: After attending many PRIM&R and ARENA conferences both to give and listen to presentations, I’ve been fairly disappointed by the lack of diversity in the faculty and attendees. As an African-American female, I try to identify with and encourage those in similar situations. Thanks to PRIM&R, I’ve successfully mentored others. Being a member of the DAG provides me with the opportunity to take part in promoting diversity within the animal care and use community. I feel that as a “seasoned” individual in this field, I possess the knowledge and the experience to encourage others in pursuing careers in animal research specifically in the IACUC and IBC arenas. As the director of both the IACUC and the IBC, I often encounter individuals who are not accustomed to seeing someone such as me in this position. I once met a researcher who was the first Jewish person admitted into the dental school he attended. Even though this researcher attended dental school in the 1950’s, he thought enough of me to let me know that he was proud of me simply because of my gender, job title, and race. I want to provide that type of encouragement to others. That can be accomplished by being a member of the DAG.

JC: What would you suggest to readers who are looking to strengthen the diversity of their institution, organization, or company? 
NM: Networking is good for those looking to fill open or prospective positions with qualified individuals. Decide the type of person you’re interested in hiring. Are you in a major metropolitan area with a diverse population or are you in a more homogeneous area? Utilize your human resources staff to develop a plan that will attract diverse populations to your institution. Also, work with community colleges or trade schools in your location to identify individuals who might add diversity to your workforce.

JC: What advice have you found most helpful in your career? 
NM: My mentor always told me to keep current and never stop looking for the next better opportunity.

JC: What is something you know now that you wish someone had told you when you first entered this field?
NM: I’m a very sensitive person. When I first entered the regulatory compliance area of animal research, I had to learn not to take things personally. I also quickly learned to let individuals know that the regulations aren’t my rules; they are the federal government’s rules.

Interested in hearing more from the DAG? Join us on December 6 at the 2012 AER Conference for Grand Finale 7 -The Uncomfortable Conversation: Talking about Diversity.

Your thoughts on this important topic are welcome. To share your perspective on diversity with the DAG, please leave a comment or email membership@primr.org. 

Mentoring Program Satisfaction Survey: You’re each other’s best resource!

by Megan Frame, Membership Coordinator

This past summer we asked our Mentoring Program participants to tell us about their relationships with their mentors/mentees, their thoughts on how best to communicate, their satisfaction with the program, and what we can do to make this member benefit even more rewarding.

Here’s what we learned:

1. Different Strokes for Different Folks - Mentoring means different things to different people. You showed us that there is no one right way to engage in a mentoring relationship. Some of you are in contact every other week, while others of you connect a few times a year. In both cases, participants said they felt satisfied with their relationships. It’s a matter of setting expectations from the beginning and adjusting them as necessary as time moves on.


2. I Heard It Through the Grapevine - Methods of communicating are growing and changing. Mentoring program participants are using email, phone calls, Skype sessions, and in-person meetings to support and network with one another (many pairs use a combination of all of the above), taking the flexibility of a mentoring relationship to a whole new level. 


3. Right In Your Own Backyard – You prefer your mentor/mentee to be in close proximity. We were excited to hear that some of you are scheduling in-person lunches and site visits with your mentor/mentee. You are making time for one another and your institutions are better off for it. With this in mind, we are going to strive to make more matches between individuals who work in the same region of the country, but to do this we need you to get involved! If you are attending the 2012 Advancing Ethical Research (AER) Conference in San Diego, CA, come visit the PRIM&R Booth to get started with the program, tell us more about your mentoring experience, and meet up with others who are benefitting from this program, too. Can’t make it to AER? Fill out our online matching survey.


4. Jack of All Trades – Many of you are doing a little bit of everything. Whether you are a mentor to one individual and a mentee to another, or simultaneously playing both roles in your mentoring relationship, you all have something to give and something to learn. Remember, you don’t have to have 38 years of experience to be a mentor! Some of you asked for an additional mentee, while others of you explained how beneficial it is to have another professional off whom to bounce ideas when you’re in a pinch. We’re thrilled you’re making this program your own.

Of course, there is nothing better than hearing directly from participants. Here’s what they've been saying:

• “I have been a mentor and mentee and found that both relationships have helped me in my current job.” 


• “The mentoring program is one of the best benefits of being a PRIM&R member. I have worked with my mentor through thick and thin, and his guidance has helped me navigate both regulatory and professional quagmires.”


• “My mentor is very knowledgeable and answers my questions quickly and cheerfully.”


• “I feel very fortunate to have been paired with my mentor. I greatly value his advice and learn a lot every time we speak.”


• “My mentor has been a tremendous asset to me.”


• “My experience as a mentee has been overwhelmingly positive. I have gotten so much out of the mentoring relationship from both a professional and personal standpoint. I highly value this program and believe that my mentor has made a strong contribution to my development as an IRB professional.”

If you are interested in joining the hundreds of PRIM&R members who are already participating in the Mentoring Program, simply fill out PRIM&R’s online Mentoring Program Survey and identify your personal areas of interest, institution type, and goals for the future. Based on this information, PRIM&R will connect you with another individual who complements your needs, and, as you learned above, the rest is up to you!