As a field, we look for causes and effects that initiate disease and disease progression, as well as the means to treat and cure malignant and non-malignant blood disorders. Progress in the field of hematology is a composite of work done by older, more established investigators and younger investigators who are beginning to make their mark. While the future is dependent on our newer young “blood,” this progress is intimately dependent on recognition and understanding of past work. It is this information base upon which future changes in direction and new discoveries will be made. Medical and scientific papers begin with an introduction in which background information is summarized as the initiator for the work to be reported. Data are presented and results discussed and interpreted based on past efforts. However, I wonder how many of our newer investigators truly know how work in their field began and evolved. Historical perspective requires what has been referred to in other settings as “corporate memory,” which is of importance so that fewer mistakes will be made in new directions that slow progress. I tried to make this point in a recent Forum I wrote on emerging fields of induced pluripotent stem cells and other potential cell sources for regenerative medicine.1
Current-day research is an intense endeavor. There is a real need to be timely in order to obtain external peer-reviewed funding, which may ultimately determine promotion and tenure decisions. There is also more concise manuscript writing required by publishers. Thus, it is not always clear that authors know or have had time or inclination to delve into more than the past few years for their “historical perspective.” This is a deficiency that may not allow the authors to best define the impact of their work and something reviewers may miss. When I first started laboratory efforts toward my PhD, I was required to write a substantial report on a cell biology area of interest. It was 1969, before the Internet allowed instantaneous access to an article. I spent many hours in a library thoroughly reading and enjoying the groundbreaking work in the early 1960s by Till and McCulloch and their colleagues in Canada that set the stage for hematopoietic stem cell biology; by Bradley, Metcalf, and their colleagues in Australia; and by Pluznik, Sachs, and colleagues in Israel that began the field of hematopoietic progenitor cells. Reading the original papers was eye-opening and provided me with a framework to read and understand future efforts in stem and progenitor cell biology, which guided me toward and through my chosen area of hematopoiesis and its regulation. At the Indiana University School of Medicine, we instituted a graduate course on hematopoiesis, followed more recently with courses on stem cell biology and gene therapy. These courses are respectively required for students on our two NIH T32 training grants on hematopoiesis (National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases) and gene therapy (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute), but they are open to other graduate and medical students. Students appreciate the historical insight we provide along with the actual current state of knowledge in the field. History can be a powerful motivating tool for teaching and learning, and we hope that it will help students better appreciate the field and spend their careers working in these areas.
While we acknowledge the importance of historical memory, at the same time we seek continuous improvement. Officers, committee members, and ASH staff strive to find ways to better meet the needs of our members. This entails enhancing the relevance and impact of the training of medical and graduate students, including underrepresented minority students. We are all busy. However, if you as members have thoughts and suggestions on these or other related ASH activities, I and the other Officers, committee members, and staff would be happy to hear them. This is your organization, and your input is desired. While we can’t guarantee that we will be able to move forward on all suggestions, they will be given serious consideration.
The ASH Web site is an outstanding way to get to know the workings of your Society. In this context, you may have noticed a recent exchange of correspondence between ASH and NHLBI regarding new payline schedules for first and revised grant applications. This information is of importance to those of us who compete for and depend on NIH grant support to conduct our research. Our letter to NHLBI was initiated as a result of information from a member who informed ASH staff of a new NHLBI policy with decreasing paylines for subsequent submissions from A0 to A1 to A2. We have already received some membership feedback on this letter exchange. We will have to see how this new policy plays out and whether it will be adapted for other Institutes at NIH. Being aware is the first step toward productive discussion and possible intervention. Making you aware of the issues that may influence your work or practice is an ongoing activity of ASH.
By the time you receive this issue of The Hematologist, ASH will have moved into its new headquarters at 2021 L Street, NW, in downtown Washington, DC, a short walk from the old headquarters. ASH Chief Operating Officer Matthew Gertzog, in this issue, details the reasons for this move and what it means to ASH and its membership. Congratulations to ASH on this move!
