Podcasts about career development award

Send us a Text Message.Dr. William Padula, PhD, MS, MSc, is Assistant Professor, Pharmaceutical & Health Economics and Fellow, Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, at the Alfred E. Mann School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Southern California ( https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/author/william-padula-phd/ ). His research explores the theoretical foundations of medical cost-effectiveness analysis, especially pertaining to issues around the value of vaccines, healthcare delivery and patient safety in hospitals for acquired conditions such as pressure injuries. He has received grant funding in the form of a Career Development Award from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the PhRMA Foundation Frontier Award. He has authored 100+ scientific papers, letters and book chapters that have been published in leading medical, economic, and health policy journals. Dr. Padula is also Co-Founder & Principal of Stage Analytics ( https://stageanalytics.com/william-v-padula-phd/ ), a consulting firm that is committed to providing the highest quality of scientific solutions to advance health care. Dr. Padula is an Associate Editor of Value in Health, and serves on the editorial boards of Applied Health Economics and Health Policy and Journal of Clinical Nursing. His work has been featured in the New York Times, The Atlantic, The Hill, Forbes and other media. He is a past recipient of the Award for Excellence in Health Economics and Outcomes Research from the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR); the Academy Health Outstanding Dissertation Award; and the Society for Advancement in Wound Care (SAWC) Young Investigator Award. He served as President for the U.S. National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) from 2021-2022. He was also Commissioner for the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) Magnet® Recognition Program from 2016-2019. Dr. Padula has previously held appointments as an Assistant Professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, USA, and as a postdoctoral fellow at The University of Chicago. He was a visiting scholar at the University of York Centre for Health Economics in York, UK, the Oxford Institute for Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health in Oxford, UK, and the University of Technology Sydney in Sydney, Australia. He received his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Northwestern University, M.S. in Evaluative Clinical Science from Dartmouth College, M.S. in Data Analytics from University of Chicago, and Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Economics from University of Colorado. #HealthEconomics #USC #WoundCare #Pharmacy #PressureSores #Pharmaceuticals #WilliamPadula #HealthcareValue #Outcomes #WastefulSpending #Medicare #Medicaid #progresspotentialandpossibilities #IraPastor #podcast #podcaster #viralpodcast #STEM #Innovation #Technology #Science #Research Support the Show.

In this episode, Dr. Andrew Cutler interviews Dr. Tiffany Greenwood about the intersection of genetics, personality traits, temperament and cognitive traits in bipolar disorder and creativity. What is psychiatric genetics? What is known about dopamine's role in creativity? Dr. Tiffany Greenwood address these questions and much more. Dr. Greenwood received her B.S. in Molecular Biology and her Ph.D. in Biomedical Sciences from UC San Diego, with an emphasis in psychiatric genetics. She then augmented her molecular genetic background with postdoctoral training in applied statistical genetics and acquired supplemental training in clinical psychopathology through a Career Development Award from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). She joined the Department of Psychiatry at UC San Diego in 2007 and is currently an Associate Professor. As the Director of the Laboratory for Psychiatric Spectrum Research, Dr. Greenwood's research focuses on the use of dimensional and intermediate phenotypes, as well as clinical subphenotypes, to reduce clinical heterogeneity and refine the genetic signal. Such measures provide increased specificity, both within and across diagnostic categories, as well as a better reflection of the underlying biological processes. In this vein, Dr. Greenwood participates in a number of large-scale collaborations aimed at identifying genetic risk variants for psychiatric illness, including the Consortium on the Genetics of Schizophrenia (COGS), the Bipolar Genome Study (BiGS), and the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC). Her research in this area has been supported by a NARSAD Young Investigator Award for the development and utilization of a customized candidate gene array for schizophrenia and related phenotypes, as well as a K01 from the NIMH aimed at quantifying and interpreting the overlapping and unique aspects of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Dr. Greenwood has served as a Principal Investigator or Co-Investigator on a number of University and NIH-funded grants, including a current study exploring bipolar disorder as a dimensional phenotype existing at the extreme of normal population variation in positive traits, such as temperament, personality, creativity, and cognitive flexibility. Dr. Greenwood also recently received funding for a pilot project to implement a comprehensive screening and risk assessment program at UC San Diego. This project aims identify behavioral, environmental, and genetic factors associated with risk for mental health conditions, particularly mood disorders and suicide, and develop a risk prediction model to be used for early intervention. With this special series, brought to you by the NEI Podcast we will address a different theme in psychopharmacology every 3 months. Each theme is split into 3 parts, with one part released each month. This theme is on practical psychopharmacology. Episodes to be released under this theme include: Part 1: The Lightning in the Storm: Creativity in Bipolar Disorder Part 2: Nikola Tesla's Evil Twins: Genius and Madness with Marko Perko Part 3: History of Creative Famous Individuals with Bipolar Disorder Subscribe to the NEI Podcast, so that you don't miss another episode!

Jafar Tabebordbar was in his early 30's, living and working as an accountant in Shiraz, Iran, when he became a father. It was 1986, nearly a decade after the 1979 revolution, and Jafar's muscles were already beginning to whither. As his sons grew, and watched, their father Jafar lost his balance, his ability to walk, to drive, and eventually, the reliable use of his hands. There were no answers, and no treatments to be found. Two questions haunted his sons as they grew: What was causing their father's suffering? And would they get it next? Quinn's guest today, 30 years later, is Dr. Sharif Tabebordbar, Jafar's oldest son, and the man closest to a cure. Sharif received his bachelors and masters degrees in biotechnology from University of Tehran and a Ph.D. in Developmental and Regenerative Biology from Harvard University. He is the recipient of Distinction in Teaching Award from Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning at Harvard, the Albert J. Ryan Foundation Award for Outstanding Graduate Students in Biomedical Sciences, the Excellence in Research Award and the Career Development Award from the American Society of Gene and Cell Therapy, and the Royan International Research Award in Regenerative Medicine.  In 2020, Sharif was listed as a finalist in the MIT “35 innovators under 35” competition. In 2021, Sharif and others posted an article in the journal Cell that may change the world. All of these years later, Jafar's son Sharif has figured out how to help: He stands on the cusp of transforming gene therapy for nearly all muscle wasting diseases. ----------- Have feedback or questions? http://www.twitter.com/importantnotimp (Tweet us), or send a message to questions@importantnotimportant.com New here? Get started with our fan favorite episodes at http://podcast.importantnotimportant.com/ (podcast.importantnotimportant.com). ----------- INI Book Club: https://bookshop.org/a/8952/9780062407801 ("Never Split the Difference" )by Chris Voss https://bookshop.org/a/8952/9781524763138 ("Becoming") by Michelle Obama Find all of our guest recommendations at the INI Book Club: https://bookshop.org/lists/important-not-important-book-club (https://bookshop.org/lists/important-not-important-book-club) Links: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mohammadsharif-tabebordbar-76818830/ (Sharif Tabebordbar) Sharif on https://twitter.com/shbordbar?lang=en (Twitter) Follow us: Subscribe to our newsletter at http://newsletter.importantnotimportant.com/ (newsletter.importantnotimportant.com) Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/ImportantNotImp (twitter.com/ImportantNotImp) Follow Quinn: http://twitter.com/quinnemmett (twitter.com/quinnemmett) Edited by https://anthonyluciani.com (Anthony Luciani) Intro/outro by Tim Blane: http://timblane.com/ (timblane.com) Artwork by https://amritpaldesign.com/ (Amrit Pal)

While academic and medical research has led to incredible breakthroughs in breast cancer care—including new treatments and screening methods—these advances have not reached every patient in every corner of the globe. With breast cancer now the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world, it's critical that lifesaving advances are deployed more equitably and universally—especially to women and men in lower-income and -resource countries. Dr. Fadelu discussed his work that lies at the intersection of breast cancer and global health services research Each year, BCRF underwrites several grants to breast cancer researchers in partnership with Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation. Dr. Temidayo Fadelu recently received the Career Development Award for Diversity, Inclusion and Breast Cancer Disparities. His BCRF-supported project aims to improve adherence to endocrine therapies among patients in Rwanda and Haiti. 

In this episode, Imani and Reginald discuss with Dr. Backhus and Dr. Goodney the historical implications of the longstanding poor relationship between the Black community and the medical community, and its effect on current practices and patient care in vascular surgery. They also explore the role of research in creating demonstrable changes in practice to aid in ameliorating this relationship. Leah Backhus, MD, MPH, FACS (@leahbackhusmd) practices at Stanford Hospital and is Chief of Thoracic Surgery at the VA Palo Alto, where she focuses on thoracic oncology and minimally invasive surgical techniques. She is also Co-Director of the Thoracic Surgery Clinical Research Program and has grant funding through the Veterans Affairs Administration and NIH. Her current research interests are in imaging surveillance following treatment for lung cancer and cancer survivorship. She is a member of the National Lung Cancer Roundtable of the American Cancer Society serving as Chair of the Task Group on Lung Cancer in Women. She also serves on the Board of Directors of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. As an educator, Dr. Backhus is the Associate Program Director for the Thoracic Track Residency and is the Chair of the ACGME Residency Review Committee for Thoracic Surgery.  Phillip Goodney MD, MS (@DartmthSrgHSR) is a vascular surgeon, health services researcher, Vice-Chair of Research in the Department of Surgery, Director of the Center for the Evaluation of Surgical Care at Dartmouth (CESC), and Co-Director of the VA Outcomes Group at Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Junction, Vermont. His research interests include outcomes assessment using both quantitative and qualitative methods, clinical trials, patient preferences, and shared decision making. He received a Career Development Award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in 2010, the Lifeline Research Award from the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS), and research funding from VA HSR&D, PCORI, FDA, and others. He was elected to the American Surgical Association in 2016 and serves on multiple editorial boards of surgical, cardiovascular, and health services journals.  Background The U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee American Eugenics and Forced Sterilization The Story of Henrietta Lacks Johns Hopkins NP Colonoscopy Training Additional Resources:  Warren et al. (2020) “Trustworthiness before Trust — Covid-19 Vaccine Trials and the Black Community.” NEJM, 383(22) Blanchard et al.(2020)  “A Sense of Belonging.” NEJM, 383(15): 1409–1411 Armstrong et al. (2007) “Racial/Ethnic Differences in Physician Distrust in the United States.” AJPH. 97(7): 1283–1289. DeShazo, Richard D. (2020) The Racial Divide in American Medicine: Black Physicians and the Struggle for Justice in Health Care. University Press of Mississippi.  Jacobs et al. (2006) “Understanding African Americans' Views of the Trustworthiness of Physicians.” JGIM. 21(6): 642–647 Frakt, Austin. (2020) “Bad Medicine: The Harm That Comes From Racism.” The New York Times. Tweedy, Damon. (2016) Black Man in a White Coat: a Doctor's Reflections on Race and Medicine. Picador, Armstrong et al. (2013) “Prior Experiences of Racial Discrimination and Racial Differences in Health Care System Distrust.” Medical Care. 51(2): 144–150 Greenwood et al. (2018) “Patient–physician gender concordance and increased mortality among female heart attack patients” PNAS. 115(34): 8569-8574. SVS Foundation VISTA Program Host Introductions Imani McElroy, MD, MPH (@IEMcElroy) is a general surgery resident at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, MA. Reginald Nkansah, MD (@NkansahReginald) is a first-year vascular surgery resident at the University of Wahington in Seattle, WA. What other topics would you like to hear about? Let us know more about you and what you think of our podcast through our Listener Survey or email us at AudibleBleeding@vascularsociety.org. Follow us on Twitter @audiblebleeding Learn more about us at https://www.audiblebleeding.com/about-1/ and #jointheconversation.

The outcomes of prostate cancer can differ vastly. Some patients have slow-growing cancer that will never threaten their health, while others have aggressive cancer that progresses quickly. Urologists have a variety of new tools available to help them match the patient with the right course of treatment. Those tools range from cutting-edge tests to expose the molecular basis of the cancer to imaging techniques that can allow for the precise targeting of the cancer. A urologist who understands the use and limitations of those tools is critical for attaining the best outcomes.  We have a very special guest joining us today! We are happy to welcome Dr. Chris Barbieri, a urologist from Weill Cornell Medicine! The above opening statement was taken from his personal statement, and he remains committed to it. He also remains at the forefront of prostate cancer care in the 21st century.  Dr. Christopher Barbieri attended Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, where he obtained both his MD and Ph.D. degrees. He completed both his Urology Residency and Urologic Oncology Fellowship at Weill Cornell Medical College. Dr. Barbieri's research interests include using genomic data to define distinct molecular subclasses of urologic malignancy, with a specific focus on prostate cancer. His work has led to recognition as a Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator and a Urology Care Foundation Research Scholar; he is also the recipient of a Career Development Award from the National Cancer Institute to fund his work on prostate cancer.  In addition, Dr. Barbieri has also been recognized as a Rising Star in Urology Research by the American Urological Association, and with a Clinical Investigator Award from the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation. He is a prostate cancer surgeon and a highly active researcher in prostate cancer genomics in the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center at Weill Cornell. That has allowed him to stay at the forefront of prostate cancer in the 21st century and deliver the best possible care to his patients. Be sure to stay tuned for more! Disclaimer: The Prostate Health Podcast is for informational purposes only. Nothing in this podcast should be construed as medical advice. By listening to the podcast, no physician-patient relationship has been formed. For more information and counseling, you must contact your personal physician or urologist with questions about your unique situation. Show highlights: Dr. Barbieri explains why there is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to prostate cancer treatment. Some of the initial factors can be looked at to distinguish between men with low-risk prostate cancer and those with higher-risk disease. Dr. Barbieri explains how patients can be better guided in determining which cancers might be more aggressive versus those that might be less aggressive. The difference between genomic testing and genetic testing for prostate cancer. Dr. Barbieri discusses various scenarios related to genomic testing. Dr. Barbieri explains how genomic testing helps him counsel men in the grey area of cancers that can safely be observed after a biopsy versus more serious forms of prostate cancer. Dr. Barbieri does not advocate for any specific genomic test or company. They are all reliable with good performance characteristics. Dr. Barbieri talks about the role that genomic testing for prostate cancer plays for men who have already undergone a radical prostatectomy. There are many new and exciting developments happening in the field of prostate cancer. Dr. Barbieri urges men to keep themselves informed of those. Links: Follow Dr. Pohlman on Twitter and Instagram - @gpohlmanmd  Get your free What To Expect Guide (or find the link here, on our podcast website)   Join our Facebook group  Follow Dr. Pohlman on Twitter and Instagram  Go to the Prostate Health Academy to sign up for the wait-list for our bonus video content.  You can access Dr. Pohlman's free mini webinar, where he discusses his top three tips to promote men's prostate health, longevity, and quality of life here.

Dr. Hayes interviews Dr. Mayer on his training at NCI and running DFCI’s fellowship.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories-- The Art of Oncology, brought to you by the ASCO podcast network, a collection of nine programs covering a range of educational and scientific content and offering enriching insight into the role of cancer care. You can find all of these shows, including this one, at podcast.asco.org. Today, my guest on this podcast is Dr. Robert J. Mayer. Dr. Mayer is the Stephen B. Kay Family Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School where he is also the Faculty Associate Dean of Admissions, in addition, the faculty Vice President for Academic Affairs for Medical Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Dr. Mayer was raised in Jamaica, New York. And, Bob, I always thought you were raised in Brooklyn, but I looked it up on the map. And it looks like Jamaica is about two blocks in the middle of Brooklyn. So we'll say you're from Jamaica. Actually, I was a little bit to the east of there in Nassau County. That counted a lot then, Queens versus Nassau, but anyway. So it gets even more esoteric. Bob received his undergraduate degree in 1965 from Williams College, which is way out west in Massachusetts, and then went to Harvard where he got his MD in 1969. He did his residency in internal medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City and then was a clinical associate in the medicine branch of the National Cancer Institute from 1971 to 1974. He served a fellowship in medical oncology at what was then the Sidney Farber Cancer Institute. And then he joined the faculty in 1975. He has spent much of his career at leading clinical research in leukemia and GI malignancies. He was the chair of the CALGB, now called the Alliance TI Cancer Committee for years. But, perhaps more importantly, he was director of the fellowship program at, originally, the Sidney Farber and then the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute for 36 years. And then he was also head of the fellowship program at the Dana-Farber/Partners cancer program from 1995 until 2011. And, frankly, he was my fellowship director from 1982 to 1985. So I owe a great part of my career to Dr. Mayer. He's co-authored over 400 peer-reviewed papers and another 130 chapters and reviews. He serves as associate editor for both the Journal of Clinical Oncology and The New England Journal of Medicine. And, as have many guests on this program, he served as president of ASCO, in his case, in 1997, 1998. And he received the ASCO Distinguished Achievement Award in 2019 for his ongoing leadership in our society. Dr. Mayer, welcome to our program. Pleasure to be with you, Dan. So I have a lot of questions. And, again, I usually do this, you know, two guys in a cab. How did you do that in the first place? What got you interested in oncology coming out of Williams and at Harvard? And, at that time, there wasn't much in oncology. What made you want to take care of cancer patients? Well, I was a third-year medical student at Harvard sort of sleepwalking through the curriculum, undecided what my life was going to be, planning to go back to New York, and I came across an attending physician on a pediatrics rotation, a hematologist by the name of David Nathan. And we hit it off. And I became really interested in blood cells and how looking at smears and bone marrow morphology could tell you a lot about the status and health and nutrition of individual patients. Nathan took a shine to me. And, when I was a fourth-year student and was going to face probably a military service, and there were military actions going on in Southeast Asia, he called me to his home one night and shoved a whole pile of paper in front of me, said fill this out. I want it back tomorrow. And this was an application to be a clinical associate at the National Cancer Institute where he had spent several years I guess a decade before. So I did what I was told. And, when I was a intern, I guess my first day as an intern, I got an overhead page from the-- in the hospital, call from Bethesda informing me that I had been accepted. I had had 10 or 11 interviews. One of them turned out to be a person who would be important in my life as a friend and a mentor, George Canellos, who was first time I met him. And, in 1971, I found myself at the NIH. That's quite a story. And Dr. Nathan, of course, went on to start the Jimmy Fund, probably had already started the Jimmy Fund Clinic at the time, and became the CEO, I think, of Children's Hospital in Boston. He became the CEO of Dana-Farber actually. I do want to just recollect with you my first day or two in Bethesda because some of the people who found themselves there took it more seriously than others. And I was assigned to the medicine branch. And the medicine branch had a chief who was a breast cancer-oriented investigator by the name of Paul Carbone who went on from there to an illustrious career as the founding head of the Cancer Center at the University of Wisconsin and the leader of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. And Paul, at that point, the first day I met him, told us that, if we messed around, moonlighted, didn't show up, we'd be on a Coast Guard Cutter as fast as he could do the paperwork because, technically, we had a position in the Public Health Service. Under Carbone, there were two branches. One was leukemia, and that was headed by Ed Henderson. He was a lanky guy from California, a wonderful man, went on to a career with Cancer and Leukemia Group B and with the Roswell Park in Buffalo for many years. And he was my branch chief. And the other branch was solid tumors. They weren't solid tumors like we think of them today. They were lymphomas. And that was headed by Vince DeVita and had Bob Young, George Canellos, Bruce Chabner, and Phil Schein, all illustrious founders of so much that has become oncology. So that was the setting. And the last thing I'll mention was about this. I came there as a trained internist, but I was assigned to pediatric leukemia. And I learned very quickly that what separated the wheat from the chaff, in terms of families, parents thinking that you were a good doctor, was your ability to maintain the 25 gauge scalp vein as venous access in these children because there were no port-a-caths, no Hickman lines, and, obviously, access was something that was critically important. You know, I think everybody who is listening to this needs to understand that what you just described started out really with just Gordon Zubrod who then brought in Frei, Holland-- or Holland first and then Freireich. And then they brought in the next group, which I believe you would agree is Canellos, DeVita, Bob Young, and others. And then you were sort of in the third wave. And you could just see it began to expand the whole field of oncology really just from a few people going out. Do you agree with that? I do. I do. When I came to the NIH in 1971, there was no defined, certified subspecialty of medical oncology. The first time the medical oncology board examination was given was in 1973. It was given every other year. I was in the group that took it the second time in 1975, but this really wasn't a subspecialty. In 1973 also was the time that the first comprehensive multi-authored textbook on medical oncology was published by Jim Holland and Tom Frei, Cancer Medicine. And I remember devouring that as I prepared for the board examination, but there was no book like that. There was no reference, no UpToDate, no computer to surf the web and find information. And so this was all brand new. It was quite exciting to be there as part of the action. You sort of jumped ahead on what I wanted to ask you, but I'm interested in the establishment of medical oncology as a subspecialty. Can you maybe talk about Dr. BJ Kennedy and his role in that? I think he was pretty instrumental. Was he not? BJ was at the University of Minnesota. He was an extraordinarily decent man. And, somehow, the internal medicine establishment viewed him as a peer and a colleague, which I would have to say was not what they considered many of the pioneers, if you will, in medical oncology. I can remember, in my second or third year at the NIH, traveling around the country to look at fellowship programs. And I was always being met by senior established hematologists who arched their eyebrows and said now where's the pathophysiology. Where is the science here? They really thought that the animal models, the mouse models, the Southern Research Institute that Gordon Zubrod had been such a pioneer in fostering was pseudoscience. I can also remember, when I found myself back in Boston, the establishment of Harvard Medical School didn't initially take oncology very seriously, but there were patients. And there was optimism. And all of us in that generation really believed that we could make a difference, and we could learn a lot and do good for patients and for medicine. And I think we have. So, in my opinion, now, appropriately, our fellows have a very strict curriculum of what they're supposed to learn and how and when and why laid out, again, in a pretty rigorous formal manner. You told me before, at the NCI, it was just sort of learn it. It's up to you. Can you talk about that training? And then, when you went to the Sidney Farber, you then turned that into a training program. The medicine branch was fantastic training, but it was learning from taking care of patients and from your colleagues. The quality of my peers was extraordinary, but there was no formal curriculum. The faculty there each were doing research, the members of the faculty. And, for a month, they would come out of their cave, if you will, their laboratory, and they were very smart and were doing fascinating things, but they didn't have long-term patients. Or there was no real process. And the NCI was sort of like a Veterans Administration hospital in the sense that it opened around 7:30 or 8:00 in the morning, closed at 5:00 or 6:00 in the afternoon. One of us would be on call at night with a couple of nurses, but it was rather primitive in its support mechanisms. We were assigned a group of patients. And then, on rotation, those patient numbers would increase. And we were expected to do everything conceivable for that patient. And, at that time, the oncology care offered in Bethesda at the NIH or the NCI was free. It was paid for by the government. And much similar care was not available in other places. So I would have patients flying in from Omaha and New York or Norfolk or Tampa, Florida. And they would be housed in a motel that was on the edge of the NIH reservation, but, if one wants to talk about continuity of care, you knew everything about every one of those patients because you were the only person who knew them. So what were the circumstances then that you ended up in Boston? Well, that's an interesting story because it gets back to David Nathan. I was working after my clinical year in a basic laboratory as I could find. It was run by Robert Gallo, Bob Gallo, who was one of the co-discoverers years later of the HIV virus. But, one day, I got a phone call from Dr. Nathan's secretary saying that he was going to be in Washington a week from Tuesday or whatever. And he wanted to meet with me in the garden of the Mayflower Hotel. OK, fine. So I trotted over to the Mayflower Hotel, and there was Dr. Nathan. And he said, you know, Dr. Farber is getting old, but there's a new building. And there's going to be a cancer center. And he's just recruited Tom Frei to come from MD Anderson. And it's time for you to come back to Boston. Didn't say would you like to come back, would you think about coming. No, he, just applied to the NIH, shoved the papers. Here, it's time for you to come back to Boston. So, a few Saturdays after, I flew up to Boston. And, in that interim, Dr. Farber passed away. He had a heart attack, an MI. And there was Tom Frei who I met for the first time, made rounds with him. We hit it off. And he told me that he would like me to spend one year as a fellow and then join the faculty and become an assistant professor. Well, I didn't need a plane to fly back to Washington. I thought this was tremendous because I was looking at hematology scholarships around the country. And there was no career path. And this seemed to be a career path in a field that I was really interested in. And he talked to me really about coming back to do leukemia because that's what I had been doing at the NIH. And, a year later, I found myself, July 1, 1974, being part of the second fellowship class at what's now Dana-Farber. There were six of us. There were six the year before. We were piecing it together step by step. There, again, was nothing chiseled in marble. There was no tradition. This was try to make it work and learn from what works. And, what doesn't work, we'll change. You must have had a lot of insecurity coming into a program that really had just started. There had to be chaos involved in that. Well, there was a little chaos, but, to be honest, I was really engaged in it because it was exciting. I thought that oncology, as I still do, is this marvelous specialty or subspecialty that unites science and humanism. And, because other people weren't interested or maybe weren't capable of providing what we thought was the right level of care, to be able to sort of write the playbook was a terrific opportunity. We sort of-- and it extended into the year that you were a fellow as well-- followed the medicine branch mantra in the sense that we assigned fellows patients. And they took care of those patients and were expected to do everything that was necessary for them. There weren't rotations at that time that you would spend a month on the breast cancer service and then a month doing lymphoma. You would see new patients or follow-up patients. We didn't really have enough patients or enough faculty at that point to be smart enough to think about that being a better way or an alternative way to structure a trainee's time. I remember, at the end of my first year, when I finished that year as what I think Tom Frei called a special fellow, I was the attending on the next day, which was July 1. And I remember that a fellow, a first-year fellow who was just starting, Bob Comis who became also the chairman of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group years later, a marvelous lung cancer investigator, was the trainee. And, on that day, we went ahead and did a bone marrow on a patient with small cell lung cancer and being a fellowship director just started because there was no one doing it. And Frei said please move ahead. I have to say, when I started in 1982, I just assumed this was the way everybody in the country was training fellows in oncology. It really didn't occur to me that that was only a few years old and the way you had set it up. A few years ago, the Dana-Farber had a banquet to celebrate the 48-year career of a guy named Robert J. Mayer. And I was asked to speak. And I got up. There were over 300 people in the audience, all of whom had been trained there. And, as I looked around, I sort of put my prepared words aside and said look at the people sitting next to you. They are either former or to be presidents of ASCO, ACR. They're cancer center directors, department chairs, division chiefs, and a bunch of really terrifically trained oncologists all due to one guy, and you're the one. So you started with Bob Comis-- I've never heard you tell that story-- to really training some of the greatest oncologists in the world in my opinion, myself excluded in that regard, but, nonetheless, you must be quite proud of that. Well, yes, but I want to flip it around the other way because, for me, this became a career highlight, the opportunity to shape the patterns, to make the people who trained here leaders, and to have them-- right now, the director of the NCI is a Dana-Farber alumnus. To have people who are of that quality-- and you certainly represent that, as an ASCO president and one of the hallmark leaders of the breast cancer community-- this is what a place like Dana-Farber and Harvard Medical School, hopefully, not too much arrogance, is supposed to be doing. And to have that opportunity, to be able to fill a vacancy that nobody even appreciated was a vacancy, and then to develop it over enough time that one could really see what worked and see what didn't work is an opportunity that most people don't have. And I'm so grateful for it. Now, Bob, I want to just, in the last few minutes here, you've obviously been a major player in ASCO. Can you kind of reflect over the last 25 years since you were ASCO president, the changes you've seen, and what you think of your legacy? I know you don't like to brag too much, but I think there's a reason you got the Distinguished Service Award. And can you just reminisce a bit about what's happened and then where you think we're going as a field? Well, ASCO has been my professional organization. The first meeting I went to was in a hotel ballroom in Houston, the Rice Hotel, which doesn't exist anymore. And it was a joint meeting of ACR and ASCO in 1974. There were 250 people. And everybody was congratulating each other at the large number of attendees. I had the opportunity, in large part because of Tom Frei and George Canellos and other people, to become involved in picking abstracts for leukemia presentations, being part of the training committee, and then chairing the training committee. I actually had the opportunity to be one of the four people who started the awards program, which now has the Young Investigator Award and Career Development Award and things of that sort. These are just opportunities because they weren't there before. And, if you're willing, and you put in the time, I guess people come back to you and give you the chance to do these things. I became then involved in the JCO, the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I became involved in the debate about physician-assisted suicide and palliative care that led to some very educational debates and probably spawned the field, to some degree, of palliative care. I had the opportunity to be at the forefront of starting the Leadership Development Program that was really Allen Lichter's idea, but I was able to devote the time to make that happen. And, most recently, I've been on the Conquer Cancer Foundation now for almost two decades. And watching that grow has been a joy. ASCO, when I came, was a very small trade organization, if you will, didn't quite know the questions to ask, had a hired office, a management office, that was based in Chicago, came to Alexandria in about 1994 or somewhere in that range with its own office and its own staff, and now is the world organization for oncology. And I think that that growth, that expansion, that international, multidisciplinary pattern, if you will, is a reflection of the growth of oncology in medicine. I have to say, if you take a look at the popularity poll of what the best and the brightest young physicians choose in their careers, when I was in training and, Dan, when you were in training, most went into cardiology. Maybe some went into GI. Now there are more people going into oncology than any other medical subspecialty. Maybe that'll change after COVID, but that's the way it's been. And our hospitals now are filled with cancer patients, and those hospitals are very dependent on the care that we provide cancer patients. I guess the other thing I would say is, looking from a guy with some hair left, although gray, but looking at it from afar, all of those high-dose chemotherapy programs, the notion of dose, of cell poisons, alkylating agents, the solid tumor autologous marrow programs that were so fashionable in the 1980s, have been, in large part, replaced by such elegant, targeted therapy, now immunotherapy, circulating DNA. Who would have thunk any of that when I was taking care of those children with leukemia 45 years ago? So I think this is such an exciting field. I'm so-- continue to be so pleased and proud of the quality of the trainees. Last night, we had a virtual graduation session for the people completing their fellowship here. And I hate to say it. They're as good as ever. And, if we thought and, Dan, if you thought your colleagues that you all and we all were the best, they're all phenomenal. And it's really a reflection on how the pioneers in this field had a vision, how the need for science to understand cancer was so important, and how medicine has changed and how oncology now is a respected and acknowledged discipline of scholarly work. Well, you had two things that I'm fond of commenting on. One of those is I frequently say publicly I wish I was 30 years younger for a lot of reasons, but because of the scientific excitement that's going into oncology and, also, so that I could run the way I used to, but I can't. That's one. The second is I don't think I would choose me to be a fellow. I'm really intimidated when I do interviews with our residents and say, you know, I wasn't nearly in that kind of category of the people we're interviewing now, which is great. I think our field is in good hands, going to move forward, and things are going. Bob, we've talked about a lot of your contributions to training and education, but you've also had a major influence on the way patients with leukemia are treated. Can you talk more about where the 7 and 3 regimen came from? The 7 and 3 or 3 and 7 regimen-- 3 days of an anthracycline, 7 days of continuous infusional cytosine arabinoside, was developed in the early 1970s. And it was developed by Jim Holland, more than anyone else, when he was at Roswell Park. And it emerged from a series of randomized, phase III trials conducted by what was then called the Acute Leukemia Group B, what became CALGB and then the Alliance. In the early 1980s, the late Clara Bloomfield, who I considered a giant in the world of leukemia, invited me to write a review of the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia for seminars in oncology that she was editing. And, in preparing that, I started reading a series of manuscripts published in the early 1970s, which meticulously, step by step, examined the value of two versus three days of anthracycline subq versus IV push versus infusional cytosine arabinoside, 3 days, 5 days, 7 days, 10 days of infusional cytosine arabinoside. And this was all really work of Jim Holland. He was a magnificent scholar, a humanist, and a tremendous booster too and giant in the start of this field. Thank you. I agree. Bob, we've run out of time, but I want to just thank you for taking time today to speak to me and our listeners, but also thank you for what I consider the many contributions you've made, both scientifically-- we didn't really even get into that, your work on leukemia and GI-- but I think, more importantly, establishing a training program that's been the model for, probably worldwide, how to train people in oncology and the contributions you've made to ASCO. So, for all that, I and everybody else are very appreciative. Thanks a lot. My pleasure. It's a pleasure to be here with you. Until next time, thank you for listening to this JCO's Cancer Stories-- The Art of Oncology podcast. If you enjoyed what you heard today, don't forget to give us a rating or review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. While you're there, be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. JCO's Cancer Stories-- The Art of Oncology podcast is just one of ASCO's many podcasts. You can find all the shows at podcast.asco.org.

Dr. Michael L. Barnett is Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and a primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Barnett received his MD from Harvard Medical School and completed a residency and fellowship in primary care and general internal medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Barnett’s research focuses on understanding and improving the health care delivery system with specific interests in the role of physicians in the opioid epidemic as prescribers and providers of treatment for opioid use disorder as well as studying innovative models for health care payment and care delivery. His research has been published in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, British Medical Journal and Annals of Internal Medicine and has received best research of the year awards from the Society of General Internal Medicine and AcademyHealth. His research has also been featured or cited in the New York Times, Washington Post, National Public Radio, CNN and The Economist. He is the recipient of a Career Development Award from the National Institute on Aging.

ASCO: You’re listening to a podcast from Cancer.Net. This cancer information website is produced by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, known as ASCO, the world’s leading professional organization for doctors who care for people with cancer. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Cancer research discussed in this podcast is ongoing, so the data described here may change as research progresses. The 2019 World Conference on Lung Cancer was held September 7 to 10 in Barcelona, Spain. In this podcast, Dr. Vamsidhar Velcheti will discuss a study presented at this meeting that looked at the effects of a new drug targeting a specific genetic change, or mutation, in some people with non-small cell lung cancer. Dr. Velcheti is Associate Professor and Director of Thoracic Medical Oncology at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center. He is a member of the Cancer.Net Editorial Board and is also the recipient of a 2012 Young Investigator Award and a 2015 Career Development Award from Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation. Dr. Velcheti has no relationships to disclose related to this drug. ASCO would like to thank Dr. Velcheti for discussing this topic. Dr. Velcheti: Hi. This is Vamsi Velcheti. I'm the director for the Thoracic Medical Oncology Program at NYU Langone Hospital. And it's my pleasure to discuss an abstract presented at the World Lung Cancer Conference in 2019 in Barcelona. And the abstract I'd like to discuss is treatment with Amgen 510, Amgen five, one, zero, which is a highly selective potent KRAS G12C inhibitor. This was the data presented by Dr.  Ramaswamy Govindan at the World Lung Cancer Conference in Barcelona in 2019. So KRAS G12C appear as mutations in lung cancer are the most common driver oncogenic mutations. And, in fact, KRAS G12C was one of the first driver oncogenic mutations that was identified in non-small cell lung cancer. However, despite our several efforts to target KRAS G12C with multiple different drugs, we have failed to develop an effective targeted therapy option for patients with KRAS mutations. And this is very much unlike other mutations like EGFR, ELK, ROS, RET. So these mutations have a lot of treatment options for patients with targeted therapy. But unfortunately, that's not the case for KRAS mutation positive lung cancer patients. And KRAS G12C inhibitors like for Amgen 510 have showed us a way forward in terms of developing more effective targeted therapy treatments. So this abstract presented by Dr. Ramaswamy Govindan at World Lung Cancer Conference is a fierce one, the trial of AMG 510. And in this study, they enrolled all types of solid tumors and predominantly colorectal cancer and lung cancer patients with a specific subtype of KRAS mutations called KRAS G12C. That is a KRAS mutation in the code on G12C. And in this study, they have seen very promising activity, anti-tumor activity in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, especially harboring KRAS G12C mutations. So out of the 76 patients that are enrolled in the study, 34 patients were patients with non-small cell lung cancer harboring KRAS G12C mutations. And out of these 34 patients, there were patients treated in the dose escalation part of the phase I study, meaning they were evaluating the safety of the drug at low doses, and they were escalating the dose in the patient. And there were 15 patients in the study that were treated at the maximum dose that was planned. For the study, which was the 960 milligram dose. So out of our 34 patients that were enrolled in the study, 34 patients with non-small cell lung cancer, most of the patients were heavily pretreated with at least 2 lines of prior treatments. And they were refractory to prior treatments. So after 34 patients treated with AMG 510, nearly half of the patients had a partial response to treatment. And this is a significant advancement in terms of targeted therapy for KRAS mutant lung cancers. In previous studies with other agents, we have not seen such dramatic responses. And a majority of these responses have been confirmed responses. And the study is very early, and the data presented so far was only from the phase I trial. And there are more patients being enrolled in the ongoing phase II trial with the Amgen 510 in patients with KRAS G12C mutations. And most importantly, this drug seems to be fairly well tolerated and with relatively few treatment-related adverse events. And most of the adverse events were like a grade 1 and 1, with the most common adverse events being diarrhea, nausea, and 1 case of anemia, but has a substantially better safety profile than most other chemotherapy options for patients. So this is a very encouraging study. And we are all looking forward to more of these drugs targeting KRAS G12C and certainly excited to see these early results. And hopefully we'll see more further validation of these exciting early findings in subsequent phase II trials. Thank you very much. ASCO: Thank you, Dr. Velcheti. Learn more about lung cancer at www.cancer.net/lung. And if this podcast was useful, please take a minute to subscribe, rate, and review the show on Apple Podcasts or Google Play. This Cancer.Net podcast is part of the ASCO Podcast Network, a collection of 9 programs covering a range of educational and scientific content offering insight into the world of cancer care. We’re interested in your opinions about your preferred podcast format and content offerings, so we hope you’ll take a few minutes to take our listener survey. Visit podcast.asco.org to find a link to the survey and help shape the future of the ASCO Podcast Network. Cancer.Net is supported by Conquer Cancer, the ASCO Foundation, which funds breakthrough research for every type of cancer, helping patients everywhere. To help fund Cancer.Net and programs like it, donate at conquer.org/support.

¿Cómo puede ayudar la neurociencia a mejorar la educación? ¿Y si pudiésemos entender el cerebro para saber cómo funciona la atención o la memoria? El físico y neurocientífico argentino Mariano Sigman, especializado en Ciencias Cognitivas y fundador del Laboratorio de Neurociencia Integrativa de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, explica las claves para descifrar los misterios del cerebro y el aprendizaje. “¿Qué es educación? ¿Qué significa aprender? La mayoría de la gente te diría que aprender es adquirir conocimiento. Pero el proceso vital de aprendizaje está más relacionado con el uso que damos a ese conocimiento, discernir qué es importante y saber transmitirlo. Los niños no han estudiado pedagogía, pero tienen la pulsión por compartir lo que saben, es decir, son grandes maestros en potencia”, explica el investigador. Mariano Sigman es autor de los libros ‘La vida secreta de la mente’ y ‘La pizarra de Babel’, y ha publicado más de 150 investigaciones en revistas científicas, con grandes avances en las estrategias educativas. Su trabajo se ha especializado en el área de la neuroeducación, con iniciativas como el programa ‘One Laptop per Child’ y la ‘School of Education, Cognitive and Neural Sciences’. Ha sido galardonado con premios académicos internacionales como el Premio al Joven Investigador 2006, el Career Development Award otorgado por Human Frontiers Science Program, el Premio Enrique Gaviola 2011 de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, que entrega la Academia Nacional de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Argentina y el Scholar Award otorgado por James S. McDonnell Foundation Scholar. Encuentra todos los podcast de "Aprendemos Juntos" aquí.

With over 5 million cases diagnosed in the United States each year, skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States. Since May is Skin Cancer Awareness Month, we teamed up with NY-based dermatologic surgeon, Dr. Mary Stevenson, to talk all about prevention, detection and some key tips around safe sun practices. In this episode Dr. Stevenson shares important details about types of skin cancer and the process of Mohs micrographic surgery. She also discusses what to expect during a dermatologic skin examination and why there is no such thing as a “healthy tan.” Join us as we raise awareness through education of the dangers of unprotected UV exposure and encourage sun-safe habits everywhere. What to do next: Schedule your skin scan with a dermatologist See your professional skin therapist Select a broad spectrum SPF Not sure what SPF right for you? Start here About Dr. Mary Stevenson Dr. Stevenson, is a dermatologic surgeon who specializes in Mohs Micrographic Surgery a treatment for skin cancer, as well as laser and cosmetic procedures. She is currently at the Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology NYU Langone Medical Center and is a Stewart J. Rahr Young Investigator. Her clinical research focuses on high risk skin cancers including squamous cell carcinoma. She was also awarded a Career Development Award in Dermatologic Surgery by the Dermatology Foundation for work on the “Identification of novel risk factors and biomarkers for poor outcomes in squamous cell carcinoma.”

Today we will be talking about the use of naltrexone for the treatment of opioid use disorder therapy. Naltrexone is an opioid blocker, or antagonist, that has limited prevalence of use compared with buprenorphine, a partial agonist, and methadone, a long-acting agonist. Joining us for this conversation is Dr. Adam Bisaga, an academic psychiatrist, educator and clinician.  He is a Professor of Psychiatry at the Columbia University Medical Center, and a Research Scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. He was a recipient of a Career Development Award and a Principal Investigator on grants funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. His research interests include development of human laboratory and clinical trial models for testing medications to treat substance use disorders, including trials to improve effectiveness of antagonist-based treatment of opioid use disorder. Dr. Bisaga publishes and lectures in the area of addiction research and he is a member of the editorial board of the journal Addiction.

On this episode, Katie is joined by two guests: Dr. Candice Foley, who serves as the STEM Coordinator for all Suffolk County Community College NSF STEM Scholars on three campuses and the Principal Investigator for SCCC’s two consecutive National Science Foundation STEM scholarship grants, the National Institute of Health Institutional Research and Career Development Award grant, and the Long Island Community Foundation Removing Barriers and Strengthening STEM capacity at Suffolk County Community Colleges grants. Dr. Foley has also served on national grant projects involving curricular reform for chemistry education. Her experiences at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, Suffolk County Community College, and Brookhaven National Laboratory has enabled her to focus upon the adaptation and implementation of innovations in classroom learning and undergraduate research through curricular innovation and technology based software for the community college application. Candice has over 25 years of experience in both the research and teaching communities on Long Island and endeavors to bring her perspectives of each of these realms to her STEM students at Suffolk County Community College. Nina Leonhardt is the Associate Dean for Continuing Education at Suffolk County Community College. Nina oversees a compendium of STEM-oriented programs for pre-college and college students. Most of these programs are funded by NEW York State Education, Labor and Health departments. Nina has over 35 years of experience in higher education and STEM. She earned an M.S. In Electrical Sciences from Stony Brook University. Segment 1: Teaching Research Methods [00:00-10:38] In this first segment, Candice and Nina share their philosophies for teaching research methods. Segment 2: Teaching Research Methods in a Community College Setting [10:39-19:32] In segment two, Nina and Candice discuss teaching research methods to community college students. Segment 3: Teaching Research Methods Online [19:33-31:58] In segment three, Candice and Nina share about the online research methods course they developed for off-site students. Bonus Clip #1 [00:00-02:57]: Resources for Teaching Research Methods Bonus Clip #2 [00:00-04:47]: Grant Funded Community College Programs for Training in Research Methods To share feedback about this podcast episode, ask questions that could be featured in a future episode, or to share research-related resources, contact the “Research in Action” podcast: Twitter: @RIA_podcast or #RIA_podcast Email: riapodcast@oregonstate.edu Voicemail: 541-737-1111 If you listen to the podcast via iTunes, please consider leaving us a review.

Opioid use disorder is commonly known to be dangerous. The media has effectively spread the message of the danger and fatal consequences of overdose from misused prescription opioids and illicit drugs such as heroin. What many people, including medical professionals, do not commonly know is that opioid use disorder is the psychiatric condition with the highest mortality. Each year opioid use disorder kills roughly 1% of the people with this condition. Expressed another way, the risk of death from this condition at ten years is 10%. And when you factor in the estimates that more than two million Americans have opioid use disorder, then it makes sense that this condition has attained the status of public health crisis. Every day, more than one-hundred people die from opioid overdose. The vast majority of overdose deaths are from prescription opioids rather than "street drugs" such as heroin. Dr. Adam Bisaga will discuss opioid use disorder with us today. Learn about the clinical criteria for determining opioid use and how it is treated. Dr. Bisaga is an academic psychiatrist, educator and clinician.  He is a Professor of Psychiatry at the Columbia University Medical Center, and a Research Scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. He was a recipient of a Career Development Award and a Principal Investigator on grants funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. His research interests include development of human laboratory and clinical trial models for testing medications to treat substance use disorders, including trials to improve effectiveness of antagonist-based treatment of opioid use disorder. Dr. Bisaga publishes and lectures in the area of addiction research and he is a member of the editorial board of the journal Addiction.

George Bartzokis received an M.D. degree from Yale University in 1983. He completed an internship at the UCLA/West Los Angeles V.A. Medical Center, and a residency in psychiatry at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute. In 1987, Dr. Bartzokis joined the UCLA Department of Psychiatry as an Assistant Clinical Professor while also completing a schizophrenia research fellowship in the UCLA Department of Psychology, and serving as a Staff Psychiatrist at the West Los Angeles V.A. Medical Center. In 1989, he was the recipient of a Career Development Award from the Department of Veterans Affairs Research Service at the West Los Angeles V.A. Medical Center, and for two years served as an Associate Investigator. In 1998, Dr. Bartzokis moved to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock as an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Director of the Office of Psychopharmaceutical Trials. During this time, he was also the Associate Chief of Staff for mental health at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. Dr. Bartzokis returned to UCLA in 2001, joining the Department of Neurology where he is currently Director of the UCLA Memory Disorders and Alzheimer’s Disease Clinic, Director of the Clinical Core at the UCLA Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Professor of Neurology, and faculty in the Laboratory of Neuroimaging, Division of Brain Mapping. Dr. Bartzokis also hold a concurrent appointment as professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles. The SMARTER Team Training Audio Interview Series has been developed to share insights from some of the best in the industry. Stay tuned for more insights, tips, drills, and techniques to come from STT. Be sure to share the STT Audio Interview Series with coaches, trainers, parents, and athletes too. Visit STT at http://www.SMARTERTeamTraining.com . Listen to STT on iTunes at http://tinyurl.com/sttonitunes . Join STT on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/SMARTERTeamTraining . Subscribe to STT on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/SMARTERTeamTraining . And follow us on twitter at http://www.twitter.com/SMARTERTeam . SMARTER Team Training has been developed to focus on athlete and team development, performance, and education. By incorporating the SMARTER Team Training programs into your year round athletic development program, you will decrease your injury potential, increase individual athleticism, and maximize your team training time.