text:
Mêtêr Politikon - Part II
This is Part II of a two-part (read, breathtakingly pedantic) post. If you haven't already, you can catch up on Part I here.
I will prepare a Father's Day breakfast for Bad Husband while you catch up on your reading.
All caught up? Good. Now that you have been hypnotized by my proficiency in Greek and my food styling talents, I will reveal to you that this post is very, very long. If you're short on time or bored already, you may skip ahead to the conclusion: (Blog) Party Politics According to HBM.
So, as I was saying...
There has been much talk recently about how political the blogosphere can be, and so how like high school it can feel here. But in my humble opinion - and this is only opinion, so feel free to disagree - our corner of blogosphere is not political, where politics is understood to refer to the pursuit of power, influence or status. (Again, see yesterday's post for the background to this argument.)
And it is not like high school.
I don't know what your high school was like, but social life at all of the high schools I attended (we relocated frequently) was defined by tribal politics. The population at each school was divided according to tribal allegiance - usually determined according to such nebulous criteria as whether collars were worn up or down - and the boundaries of these allegiances were rarely if ever crossed. As a perpetual new girl, I was frequently in the position of total outsider: no understanding of the social history of the tribes in any given school, no understanding of the nuances that distinguished members of one tribe from another (jock from prep, art geek from book geek, stoner from rocker), no idea whether collars were supposed to be up or down. So I usually hung on the outside for quite a while, until an art geek or drama geek or book geek or goth chick noticed me cross-legged in front of my locker at lunchtime wearing a Sex Pistols t-shirt (Never Mind the Bollocks!) or The Cure's concert tee and reading The Bell Jar.
I was never admitted to a high-caste tribe until my last two years of high school, when my family moved from Vancouver to Ottawa and I enrolled in a high school that organized its student council according to grade averages. That is, the student government (with the exception of Head Boy and Head Girl) was appointed by the School Powers and the criteria for appointment was good grades (a confused effort, I think, to produce a high school version of the Just City described by Socrates in the Republic. Philosopher-Weenies Rule!) Suddenly, I was in.
And it was political. We all jostled for the plum positions on Council and griped and gossiped and undermined each other. We looked down our noses at students who weren't 'university-stream' and so outside the circle of influence. I was still an art/drama/book geek, but now I was one with power: I insisted that the kids in black get the same concessions for their activities as football players and cheerleaders got for theirs and I won my arguments by disparaging the latter. I thumbed my nose at cliques that I thought were not cool - um, football and cheerleading - and refused, with my friends, to consort with those lesser beings or go to their parties.
I was a cow. I was Tracy Flick in artfully arranged vintage clothing and a serious I'm-too-smart-and-hip-for-you attitude problem. The sort of monster that could only be created by an industrial accident resulting in the personality fusion of a female Duckie Dale and the Shannen Doherty character from Heathers. Which is to say, I became political in the worst way. I had been on the outside for so long that when I got in, I became a tyrant. (Some of my drama buddies called me DBH. Drama Bitch from Hell. I loved it.) I was secretly thrilled at being able to exclude people. And I felt completely morally justified in doing so, because I was excluding members of the tribes that had long excluded me and my kind.
(Having indulged my big pretentious self yesterday by citing Aristotle in transliterated Greek - tho' I did remove the Greek characters because that was just freaky and hard to look at - I will refrain from rambling into a digression on Nietzsche and ressentiment here. You're welcome.)
My point is this: I've been on both sides of the quote-unquote politics of high school. I have been subjected to such politics, and I have subjected others to such politics. I've seen how viewing everything through the lens of politics, how insisting that everything is political, begets - you guessed it - politics. And I've seen how it can get uglier and uglier. I've been part of keeping things ugly. I get it. I know it. I don't like it.
And the blogosphere - or at least, our corner of it - is not it. Not on my watch, anyway.
We might end up in all variety of social clusters here, but those cluster are not tribes. In my experience, no one excludes anyone else because they aren't wearing their collar properly or lacking the requisite scrunchy. I've never seen - and if you read Mrs. Chicky's recent post, you'll see that I'm not alone in this - a mama or dad blogger get nasty about another blogger, and I've never seen gossip or back-biting. (I'm excluding blogtards here.) I've seen some discussions get uncomfortably spirited, but I wouldn't - for the most part - characterize those controversies as political in a social sense. Even when those discussions get uncomfortable, I would still say that they are political in the classical sense (again, see my last post for the background here) of demonstrating the human need for discursive connection and exchange. And there is, always, in those cases, a host of voices calling for everybody to calm the fuck down and speak to each other nicely.
Yes, we cluster. But again, not tribally. Our clusters are fluid, dynamic. They're the clusters that form in really big, really good parties. Parties where there's a fascinating mix of people who are meeting for the first time but who know right away that pretty much everyone in the room is fascinating. This corner of the blogosphere, it's like a big ole salon-cum-symposium-cum-agora-cum-playgroup. Large clusters form around some people more than others, but people still keep moving. There's much conversation, and some dancing. Some people wander off in small groups to smoke illegal substances in the bathroom and giggle at urinals. But everybody ends up making the rounds in some way or another. Even the really popular folks. Everybody mills about, telling their stories, and listening to other stories.
Yes, we check out each others' dance cards (blogrolls). We're flattered and pleased when we get on dance cards. We look to see (check our sitemeter) who is listening when we tell our stories. We check the group that has gathered around us and notice whether or not the person whose story we were listening to and commenting upon the other day is among the listeners. We wonder if they'll turn up and say something (comment) about our story. We look at everybody gathered 'round and wait for a response. We hurt a little bit if nobody comes to listen, or if a small crowd gathers 'round but stares at us blankly.
Periodically someone starts a party game (meme) - a round of I Never, anyone? - to shake things up a little. We're secretly thrilled when someone asks us to join in. A lot of efforts are made to make everyone feel welcome. Some of us suggest topics for discussion and invite everyone in. Or we do rounds of introductions, of a sort. We applaud each other. A lot.
We form friendships. We develop crushes. We get excited when someone new walks in the room and tells a story that makes us laugh or cry or remember. We thrill when one of the more popular party-goers listens to and comments on one of our stories, or - be still our beating hearts! - mentions us in one of their stories. We get angry when some jealous tard crashes the party and throws plastic cups (snarks) at our friends. We cry when someone who we've come to know - or even, sometimes, someone that we hadn't noticed before, or someone who is protecting themselves behind a party mask - suffers. Or disappears into the night.
We offer support. Lots of it.
We ((((hug)))).
We get close.
The thing about this grown-up party: it's a party full of people that we like - a lot - or will like or could like or maybe would like if they stopped swearing so much (someone said this of me in a comment to one of the Mommy Blogger Love-In Posts.) We have the most important things in common. We love our children. We love to write. We are smart and funny. We love our children. And so a strange intimacy develops. We share more with each other than many do in their real life friendships. We make meaning together. For better or for worse, we're close.
And so we're able to hurt each other. Not in the sticks-and-stones way, or the high-school-politics way, but in the way that friends and would-be friends and intimate strangers do. Accidentally. By forgetting or overlooking or neglecting. It stings a little when someone you like stops coming 'round. It's uncomfortable to turn up at a party and not be noticed. It sucks to tell a story, start a conversation, and get no response.
That stuff feels bad. But it's not politics. It's the natural discomfort that comes from being in community, from interaction and discourse and friendship. Community is great, but it's not going to make us feel great all of the time. That's life.
And this is probably true to an even greater extent in this community - this life, it's the writer's life. We're all here because we're (yes) writers. We want to be heard. We want audience. If we didn't we'd just be keeping personal journals. So, for us, it stings a little more bitterly to not be heard. We entered this community of writer-parents to find community as parents and as writers. And although being in community is, as I said in Part I, all about discourse, this is nowhere so true as it is in a writing community. We are making our meanings here as writers and as parents and that, for us, requires speaking and listening and being heard.
So, yeah, it sucks when we're not getting as much of that as we might like. But that's life. That's the writer's life.
So? Suck it up. Turn it around. Do something about it.
Yeah. Suck it.
So, herewith: (Blog) Party Politics According to HBM (or, How We Rock It In Her Bad Hizzouse.) Feel free to adopt these principles as your own.
1) Everyone's invited. Except blogtards. If you're a meanie and you know it, stay away.
2) Introduce yourself. If this your first time to this blog, say so. Make sure that there's a link back to your blog so that I can come over and say hello.
3) Try to not be hurt or offended if I don't come over right away. This is a pretty busy party and there are a lot of discussions going on and stories being told and I have short attention span. And, I'm packing a baby. A squirmy baby. Approach me again, remind me that you're out there. (And, don't automatically assume that I've forgotten you. I read, like, ten thousand blogs. I can't always comment. And sometimes I forget where and when I've commented. I get disoriented easily at parties. Be patient.)
4) Be social. Let everyone know that you're here. Join in on party games and celebrations and support circles and the like. And don't be shy about proclaiming your stories. Let's banish the term 'link-whoring' right now. Or rather, let's embrace it and be unashamed blog hussies and hustlers. Got a story that you want me to hear? Let me know. E-mail me, leave a comment, say it loudly - COME READ THIS. Ask me to link to something that you've written and I'll do it, happily (aforementioned restrictions on meanness apply here).
5) Don't get too caught up in how many comments you're getting. We all love getting feedback - it's one of the things that keeps us writing in this forum. But whether you get 5 or 10 or 20 or 100 comments on your posts, appreciate the feedback that you do get. And remember that comment numbers aren't necessarily commensurate with writing talent or how loved you are. Girl's Gone Child only gets a fraction of the number of comments that Dooce gets, but she - Rebecca - is a phenomenal writer (one of the very best, on-line or off) and a brilliant humorist and is much, much loved.
6) Try to take blogrolls with a grain of salt. They're often not fully representative of a blogger's actual activity at the pary. I, for example, am disgracefully lazy about my blogroll and rarely update it. So my new policy is this: blogroll is going to go on a separate page. And, like Izzy and others, I'm making it a voluntary, self-inclusive blogroll. Wanna be on it? Let me know and I'll put you there.
7) Take a time-out if you need it; partying hearty can be draining. Step outside for some air. We'll still be here when you get back. But if you step outside for a long while, let us know when you're back.
8) Enjoy the party. And if you're not enjoying it, give some careful consideration to possible reasons why. If you realize that you want a quieter corner, make that happen. If you'd like to be more involved, attract more people to your stories, just do it. But if you're frustrated about not being the centre of attention, reconsider your reasons for being here. We'd all love for our writing to bring us attention, requests for ads, paying gigs, and the like (I'll be honest - I certainly would. Mothering doesn't pay well. But I curse like a sailor and am incapable of writing succinctly so it's probably a very long shot.) But if that's the primary reason that you're here, you'll probably end up frustrated and disappointed. Blog because you love blogging, because you love writing, because you love writing about your children, because you love community with other writers who love their children. Write about what you want to write about, tell the stories that you want to tell, and enjoy this great community while you do it.
Enjoy it. Through good times and bad. Embrace the crazy politics that is making meaning and becoming human through community.
And remember that high school is in the past.
Now bringing the party live! Any Toronto mamas out here who want to start getting together from time to time? Daytime, evening, weekend? Park with babbies? Bar without babbies? Both? Sunshine Scribe's recent post about how tardish some real-life moms can be got me thinking that it really is INSANE that we subject ourselves to boring playgroups or hostile competimommies when we know that there are lovely, literate, funny ladies lurking out there.
Leave a comment or send me an e-mail with your preferences and I'll organize something and announce it on the blog...


text:
Reusable Sandwich & Snack Wraps
Go Green by greening up your kitchen, lunch, and child's lunchbox and save an average of $40 per year by eliminating disposable plastics from your shopping list.
Our reusable snack wraps help you reduce your waste impact, are toxin-free, completely reusable and easy to clean. Sustainable, fun, and available in a variety of sizes, colors & designs.
The No Waste Lunch revolution is catching on. Get your reusable food options today!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Boston Marathon Bombers: One Suspect Captured; One Dead [UPDATED]
The second suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing has been captured. Dzokhar Tsarnaev was taken into police custody Friday night -- five days after the bombing that left three dead and left more than 100 injured, police said. The 19-year-old was apprehended after a manhunt that began Thursday night with the fatal shooting of an MIT officer and extended into the evening hours on Friday.
Police said Dzokhar's brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who had also been identified as a suspect in the bombing, was killed when gunfire was exchanged between the brothers and police in Watertown Thursday night.
Dzokhar had been evading officers, prompting a massive lockdown, since.
Cheering could be heard as Dzokhar was taken into custody on Friday and the Boston Police Department tweeted, "CAPTURED!!! The hunt is over. The search is done. The terror is over. And justice has won. Suspect in custody" at 7:58 p.m. EST.
Timeline of Live Updates:
9:33 p.m. (EST): At a press conference held in Watertown Massachusetts State Police spokesman Col. Timothy Alben said "We're so grateful to bring justice and closure to this case. We're exhausted, folks, but we have a victory here tonight."
In the same news conference, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said, "Its a night where I think we're all going to rest easy."
8:46 p.m. (EST): Boston police tweet that the second suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing has been taken into custody.
8:02 p.m. (EST): Police in nearby New Bedford, Mass., say three people have been taken into custody in connection with the case. Police searched Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's UMass Dartmouth dorm room and authorities swarmed to the Rockdale West apartment complex in New Bedford's West End. WBSM reports three people were arrested on scene, and are allegedly friends of the second suspect.
7:50 p.m. (EST): Police surround a home in Watertown. Multiple reports say law enforcement believes the suspect is hiding on a boat on the property.
6:20 p.m. (EST): The stay-indoors request to the citizens of Boston and the neighboring areas has been lifted. The T line train service is up and running again.
Unfortunately, the suspect, Dzokhar Tsarnaev, has still not been found, although Massachusetts State Police Superintendent Col. Timothy Alben said at a press conference, "I still believe he is in Massachusetts."
A bit more from the press conference:
One bit of interesting information Alben revealed was regarding how Tsarnaev managed to initially elude capture Wednesday night after he and his brother, who was killed, led police on a high-speed chase from Boston to Watertown, then into a 200-round firefight. Apparently, he simply exited the car and escaped on foot.
The manhunt continues.
5:30 p.m. (EST): The search of the 20-block area in Watertown where police thought they had trapped Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has not led to his discovery. The town, along with Boston, is effectively a ghost town at this point.
Some recent bits of news:
- The New York Times' Moscow bureau interviewed the suspects' father, Anzor Tsarnaev. Apparently Tamerlan had had a domestic violence situation with his wife not long ago, and that's why he could not become an American citizen. "He hit her lightly," Anzor said. "He was locked up for half an hour, there was jealousy there. He paid $250, that was it, he went home. Because of that—in America you can't touch a woman, they wouldn't give him citizen."
- The suspects' sister, Ailina Tsarnaev, lives in West New York, New Jersey. The FBI searched her home today and removed a computer.
3:45 p.m. (EST): Transit officer Richard Donohue, who was severely injured during last night's gun battle with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, had successful surgery and has been stabilized. He is still in critical condition, though.
The family of Sean Collier, the MIT campus officer who was killed last night, issued this statement about their son:
We are heartbroken by the loss of our wonderful and caring son and brother, Sean Collier. Our only solace is that Sean died bravely, doing what he committed his life to: serving and protecting others. We are thankful for the outpouring of support and condolences offered by so many people. We are grieving his loss.
3:30 p.m. (EST): Tonight's Red Sox-Royals baseball game and Bruins-Penguins hockey game have been postponed.
2:20 p.m. (EST): During a search of one of the suspects' homes, police discovered explosive material. Shortly, the bomb squad will conduct a controlled detonation of that material.
Meanwhile, police continue to search the 20-block area in Watertown where they still think the fugitive suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is hiding. For a tense first-person account of what it's like to be living in a house inside that zone, go here. Excerpt:
This morning, many of [the officers] were armed to the teeth, ready for war. A SWAT team assembled along Fairfield and then moved down it, searching. They then repeated that procedure with my part of Dexter Ave.—shining flashlights into yards, moving in between homes. I never saw them go into any houses—with one exception...
12:10 p.m. (EST): At the moment, the standoff in Watertown continues. Law enforcement will be holding a press briefing shortly, at which point we'll know more about exactly what is happening there, where a large area of the town has been blocked off. Heavily armored personnel, including FBI and military, have converged on a small section of the town and are keeping civilians and media at a distance.
The Washington Post has put together an infographic describing the events and locations of the past few days here.
Here are the two suspects:
11:30 a.m. (EST): The suspects' uncle, Ruslan Tsarni, just spoke with reporters outside his home in Montgomery Village, Maryland, and did not have kind words for his nephews. "He put a shame on this family," he said. "He put a shame on the entire Chechen ethnicity."
When asked what advice he would offer to the remaining at-large suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Tsarni said, "I say, Dzhokhar, if you're alive, turn yourself in. And ask for forgiveness from the victims, from the injured, from those who left. Ask forgiveness from these people."
Tsarni (below) explained that he hadn't seen them in years, that they had immigrated to America from Dagestan in 2003 and received asylum.
10:50 a.m. (EST): Police have now surrounded an intersection in Watertown. They have drawn their guns. It is not clear if they are confronting the suspect, though. Media is being kept at a safe distance for now.
The car mentioned in the tweet below has been found unoccupied and is being processed for evidence.
10:25 a.m. (EST): The Boston Police Department says that the fugitive may be in a gray 1999 Honda CRV with the Massachusetts license plate 316-ES9.
Here's a rundown of what we know right now about the hunt for the two suspects accused of setting off the explosions at Monday's Boston Marathon:
- One suspect is dead; the other is currently at large, believed to still be in the Boston area, probably in the suburb of Watertown, Massachusetts.
- Watertown is completely shut down, as is Boston in general.
- No trains (either the T or Amtrak), buses or taxis are in service. Streets are closed off.
- Law enforcement is going door-to-door in search of the remaining suspect, whom they believe is armed and dangerous.
- Police have asked all residents to stay in their homes, lock the doors, and only open them for police who present ID.
The two suspects are brothers. One, 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was shot and wounded during a battle with police in Cambridge late Thursday night. He was taken to the hospital and pronounced dead at 1:35 a.m. (EST).
Currently more than 9,000 law enforcement officers of various levels—local police, FBI, counterterrorism agents, Homeland Security—are searching house by house for the remaining suspect, 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of Cambridge.
On Wednesday night, the brothers were on the campus of MIT, where they shot and killed a campus security officer named Sean Collier, 26, of Somerville. Then, at about 10:30 p.m., they carjacked a Mercedes SUV, taking the driver hostage. They later released him, unharmed, and drove to Watertown, where police engaged them.
It was during this fight that the older brother was shot and mortally wounded. The younger brother then escaped somewhere in Watertown, which is where the manhunt is currently focused.
The suspects' uncle, Ruslan Tsarni, spoke with reporters. He said the boys came to America about 10 years ago. The A.P. had reported earlier that they brothers were from Chechnya.
They both went to high school in Cambridge, where by all accounts so far, they were normal teenagers. Tamerlan, the older brother, was a fairly successful boxer. Dzhokhar was a wrestler, and he had even earned a scholarship from the city of Cambridge.
Dzhokhar attended the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, which has closed its campus.
[CBS, Boston Globe, TPM, CBS-Boston, WBSM, NJ 101.5]


text:
Please visit our Open House at 23 16361 23A AVE in Surrey.
Open House on Sunday, October 29, 2017 12:00PM - 5:00PM
WELCOME TO SWITCH, a boutique community of brand new townhomes located in Grandview Heights in South Surrey. This spacious 4 bedroom home with 3 and a half baths has an elegant brick clad exterior and modern interior including a premium stainless appliance package, quartz counters, maple soft close cabinets in 2 designer color schemes and custom built closet organizers throughout. Convenient powder on the main and full size washer dryer on upper floor. All homes include a 5 component NEST home automation system to make living a breeze. Located a stone's throw from Morgan Crossing and Grandview shopping and dining. Move in this year!


text:
Explore events and exhibitions at Lakeside
Take a look around our shop
See what tasty treats await you
This site uses Cookies. Cookies are very small text files that are stored on your computer when you visit some websites. We use cookies to maximise your experience and make our website easier for you to use. Learn more…


text:
If you missed some of Tuesday's action at the Republican National Convention, we were live blogging here and you can always read through it to see how the day and evening went.
But if you'd like to save some time, here are five things that struck us:
-- The Delegates Really, Really Love Ann Romney: Presidential nominee Mitt Romney's wife, Ann, used her address to talk about love — love for her husband, love for others who need help and love for America.
It was clear from delegates' reactions that there was lots of love for her in the crowd. From the occasional shouts of "We love you, Ann!" to the huge cheers for her applause lines, it was obvious the crowd was with her. And when she ended by saying "you can trust Mitt," she might have delivered one of the most helpful lines her husband's campaign could ever have crafted.
-- 'We Did It' And 'Their Ideas Failed': Sure, "we did build that" or "we built it" were said a lot. But New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie summed upone of the night's most pointed messages when he quickly went from saying "we did it" — to punctuate the accomplishments he's touting from his time in office — to then say, "I know this simple truth, and I'm not afraid to say it: Our ideas are right for America, and their ideas have failed America." Those folks with the other ideas, of course, are President Obama and his fellow Democrats.
-- Stand Up To Unions And You're A Star: As much as the delegates loved Ann Romney and Gov. Christie, their enthusiasm was just about as high for Govs. Scott Walker (Wisconsin) and John Kasich (Ohio). Walker, of course, is famous for delivering on his promise to curtail public unions' collective bargaining rights. And Kasich is loved by Republicans for turning around Ohio's budget woes.
-- Republican Party Leaders Do Not Put Up With Floor Fights: Ron Paul's supporters were loud and angry in the first few hours of the convention as party leaders pushed through some changes to the rules and left some of the Texas congressman's delegates from Maine out in the cold. But even though their "NO!" votes seemed louder than the "YAYs," the objections were overruled. Sure, officials knew that Romney delegates far outnumbered Paul delegates and that if roll calls were taken the Paul supporters would come up short. But the image of folks being steamrolled will linger with many. "This is going to turn some people off," said Maine Republican National Committee member and delegate Rick Bennett.
-- The Night Was And Wasn't About Mitt Romney: The former Massachusetts governor has been trying to become his party's presidential nominee for more than six years, and officially getting the nomination was certainly a big moment for him. But many of the prime-time speakers spent more time talking about their own accomplishments and lives (see: Christie, governor of New Jersey) than they did about the presidential nominee. Since the Romney campaign was involved in all the planning and certainly saw all the speeches, it was part of a strategy. Tonight was about telling the nation who Romney is, but it was also about telling the nation why Republicans are better than Democrats — and especially why their ideas are better than President Obama's.
Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
Soft Luxury Leather Snap On Case Cover R02 for Huawei P30 Black
Full Protection, High Quality, Shockproof and Drop
Exclusive Offer:Additional 10% OFF (any 2 pieces or more), The discount will be applied if you add objects to your cart.
Processing time: Shipped Within 24 Hours.
Free Shipping to
via Standard Mail Register with Tracking
Customer Guarantee: 30-Days Buyer Protection, 30-days refund or replacement, Learn more >>
Secure Payment:
Enlarge the image


text:
This is the board for discussions of Duke basketball and Duke athletics in general. Renamed by Boswell in memory of Julio's mom, Elizabeth King, an extraordinarily talented woman, mother, and Duke basketball fan.
Use this control to limit the display of threads to those newer than the specified time frame.
Allows you to choose the data by which the thread list will be sorted.
Order threads in...
Note: when sorting by date, 'descending order' will show the newest results first.
Forum Rules


text: Calculate the heat loss of the area to be heated. This heater is recommended that one of the following methods be used: ASHRAE Guide and Data Book (The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Engineers); The NEMA Handbook (The National Electrical Manufacturer's Association); or the ACCA Manual J (The Air Conditioning Contractors of America). The layout of the space to be heated must be taken into consideration to determine the selection of the best size heater and air displacement. Most applications benefit from a combination of vertically and horizontally discharged air delivery. In buildings with large doors that are frequently opened, use a high velocity heater with horizontal air flow across the opening, or use an infrared heater. In smaller areas where comfort is a prime consideration, more heaters of smaller capacity are recommended. Smaller KW heaters are also recommended for low mounting heights to avoid discomfort and increased noise levels. Additionally, there is better air distribution by using a greater number of lower KW heaters. This heater can go up to 240V, 5000V.


text:
Repair One Can Meet All Your Dodge Repair and Maintenance Needs
Our staff here at Repair One, which is located in The Woodlands, TX, is friendly and knowledgeable about your Dodge vehicle. They are waiting to answer your questions and get you scheduled for any necessary repairs or maintenance. Our technicians can diagnose and fix a wide array of problems that can arise in Dodge vehicles over time, because we know what the Dodge brand stands for.
Dodge is the sporting brand in the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles stable of offerings. The cars are sharply designed, sporty and refined—so much so, they are desirable amongst those looking for thrills as well as those looking for reliable and affordable transportation.
Repair One at The Woodlands, TX has expert technicians eager to help keep your Dodge in prime operating condition.
Dodge cars have similar problems to those that affect its corporate stablemates, as powertrains are often shared amongst Chrysler and Dodge products. Engine and transmission issues can arise, but the well-trained Dodge service technicians at Repair One can handle almost any problem.
Affordable Repairs for Your Dodge Vehicle at Repair One
Our eager and friendly staff is waiting patiently here at Repair One to meet all your Dodge repair needs. We understand the hassle one can face without their car, so we promise to work quickly and efficiently to get your Dodge back on the road and you back on your way. All you have to do is to schedule an appointment. Or you can stop by our service center and meet our staff in person.


text:
Participating Organization(s) |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
National Cancer Institute (NCI) |
Funding Opportunity Title |
Research Answers to NCI's Provocative Questions - Group C (R01) |
Activity Code |
R01 Research Project Grant |
Announcement Type |
New |
Related Notices |
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number |
Companion Funding Opportunity |
RFA-CA-13-016, R01 Research Project Grant |
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s) |
93.393, 93.394, 93.395, 93.396, 93.399 |
Funding Opportunity Purpose |
The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to support innovative research projects designed to solve specific problems and paradoxes in cancer research identified by the NCI Provocative Questions initiative. These problems and paradoxes phrased as questions are not intended to represent the full range of NCI's priorities in cancer research. Rather, they are meant to challenge cancer researchers to think about and elucidate specific problems in key areas of cancer research that are deemed important but have not received sufficient attention. Some of these "Provocative Questions" (PQs) stem from intriguing but older, neglected observations that have never been adequately explored. Other PQs are built on more recent findings that are perplexing or paradoxical, revealing important gaps in current knowledge. Finally, some PQs reflect problems that traditionally have been thought to be intractable but that now may be open to investigations using new strategies and recent technical advances. In the second issuance in 2012, there were eight PQs FOAs, each covering a subset of identified PQs and utilizing the R01 and R21 funding mechanisms. The current reissuance of the PQ Initiative involves an updated set of 20 PQs. In order to facilitate the peer review process, the new/updated PQs have been divided into five groups related by themes resulting in five R01 FOAs and five R21 FOAs. PQs in each Group are thematically related. However, the order of the groups and numbering of questions within a group are essentially arbitrary and should not be construed to indicate any order of priority. This FOA (RFA-CA-13-020), using the R01 funding mechanism, solicits applications for PQs in Group C. The companion FOA for PQs in Group C, using the R21 exploratory/developmental funding mechanism, is RFA-CA-13-021. PQs in this group challenge investigators to seek answers to specific unsolved problems generally related to the development or refinement of methods to detect or diagnose tumors and highlight our still nascent knowledge of the stages of tumor development as they relate to determining which tumors are most likely to lead to more aggressive states. Each research project proposed in response to this FOA must be focused on solving one particular research problem defined by one specific PQ selected from the list in Group C. Projects proposed to address specific PQs may use strategies that incorporate ideas and approaches from multiple disciplines, as appropriate. Transdisciplinary projects are encouraged as long as they serve the scientific focus of the specific PQ chosen. The other four groups of PQs (and their respective FOAs) are:
Posted Date |
September 30, 2013 |
Open Date (Earliest Submission Date) |
December 15, 2013 |
Letter of Intent Due Date(s) |
30 days before due date |
Application Due Date(s) |
January 15, 2014 and June 20, 2014, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date. |
AIDS Application Due Date(s) |
Not Applicable |
Scientific Merit Review |
April-May 2014 and October-November 2014 |
Advisory Council Review |
August 2014 and January 2015 |
Earliest Start Date |
September 2014 and March 2015 |
Expiration Date |
June 21, 2014 |
Due Dates for E.O. 12372 |
Not Applicable |
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to support new research projects designed to use sound and innovative strategies to solve specific problems and paradoxes in cancer research identified by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) as the NCI's Provocative Questions (PQs).
This program covers five R01 FOAs and five parallel R21 FOAs. All FOAs for each mechanism are of identical format and general requirements, differing only in specific PQs covered. This FOA solicits applications for well-developed research projects in response to PQs in Group C using the NIH R01 funding mechanism. The companion FOA, RFA-CA-13-021, is a parallel announcement for Exploratory/Developmental projects in response to PQs in Group C using the NIH R21 mechanism.
To be responsive to this FOA, each application must specifically address a particular scientific problem identified as one of the PQs in Group C listed in this FOA.
The objective of the Provocative Questions Initiative is to stimulate specific areas of cancer research that are understudied, neglected, paradoxical, or have been difficult to address in the past. Both of the previous issuances of PQs FOAs in 2011 and 2012 had been preceded by several NCI-sponsored workshops to identify, articulate, and prioritize particularly compelling but understudied problems in cancer research to create a list of PQs. Following the two FOAs in 2011, eight FOAs were issued in 2012, utilizing the R01 and R21 funding mechanisms.
For the current issuance of the PQ Initiative, the second list of PQs is now updated to a set of 20 PQs. Some of these 20 PQs are new whereas others are refocused relative to the prior lists. In order to facilitate the peer review process, the new/updated PQs have been divided into five groups (related by PQ themes), resulting in five R01 FOAs and five R21 FOAs.
Like the second set, these updated PQs also represent diverse fields relevant to cancer research, but all are framed to inspire interested scientists to conceive new approaches and/or feasible solutions. These PQs are not intended to represent the full range of NCI's priorities in cancer research. Rather, they are meant to challenge cancer researchers to think about and elucidate specific problems in key areas of cancer research that are deemed important but have not received sufficient attention.
The Nature of Scientific Problems Underlying PQs
Regardless of topical area, most scientific problems underlying the corresponding PQs fall into one of three broad types:
Each application must address one and only one specific PQ from Group C, exactly as defined in this FOA.
PQC1: (Rewritten for 2013) What properties of pre-cancerous lesions or their microenvironment predict the likelihood of progression to malignant disease?
PQC2: (Retained from 2012) What molecular or cellular events establish tumor dormancy after treatment and what leads to recurrence?
PQC3: (New for 2013) How do variations in tumor-associated immune responses among patients from distinct well-defined populations, such as various racial/ethnic or age groups, contribute to differences in cancer outcomes?
PQC4: (New for 2013) What in vivo imaging methods can be developed to portray the "cytotype" of a tumor defined as the identity, quantity, and location of each of the different cell types that make up a tumor and its microenvironment?
Specific Requirements
Scientific Scope. The collective scientific scope of this FOA is defined by the list of PQs in Group C. These PQs define research areas appropriate for this FOA. They should NOT be construed as examples of specific topics. The scientific scope of each individual application must clearly and distinctly correspond to one (and only one) of the PQs listed above. Within an area defined by a given PQ, applicants may propose and pursue any topic they deem relevant as a "research answer" to that PQ. It is important, however, that applicants visit the Provocative Questions web site (http://provocativequestions.nci.nih.gov/) for additional information for each PQ pertaining to context, background, feasibility, and expectations of needs to be accomplished for a successful solving of these problems.
Applicants who fail to choose a specific PQ from this list, address more than one PQ within a single application, and/or re-write the PQ will have their applications assessed as non-responsive. Non-responsive applications will not be reviewed.
Applicants wishing to address more than one of the PQs may still do so by submitting separate applications.
Individual Goals. Within the research area defined by a specific PQ chosen, the overarching goal of the proposed research project must be an attempt to provide definitive, comprehensive, and thorough research answers to the problem or portions of the problem presented by that question. The proposed research solutions are expected to be creative and highly original with a high potential for transformative impact on current concepts and paradigms in cancer research.
Within this general requirement, specific topics for the proposed investigations, strategies, priority directions, and other details of study design and execution are left to the discretion, originality, and creativity of the applicants. The creativity and originality (combined with scientific rigor) are particularly important, given that the areas identified by the individual PQs are, generally, understudied. Therefore, the applicants have the full freedom to identify the most promising direction(s) to address the selected PQ, formulate Specific Aims, choose optimal experimental approaches, and adapt appropriate specific benchmarks as measures of accomplishing the overarching goal of the project. It is important that these specific benchmarks will be in line with Implications of Success identified for each of the PQs on the Provocative Questions website (http://provocativequestions.nci.nih.gov/).
Original Rigorous Concepts versus Preliminary Data. In general, the R01 funding mechanism is used for research projects, for which research approaches, methodologies, and background information are well established and usually documented by extensive preliminary data from researchers laboratories. The requirement for well-developed projects extends to this FOA.
However, it is realized that for many of the PQs there could be gaps in background information and original preliminary data may be scarce or hard to get beforehand. Since the intention of this FOA is, by definition, to exploit understudied areas, the emphasis is on the novelty and significance of the concepts to be explored with a relaxed requirement for preliminary data. These concepts must be original but also rigorous in terms of integrating to the extent possible the available incomplete information for a given area from various sources. Reviewers will assess both aspects jointly; if the conceptual aspects of the proposed project are viewed as exceptionally strong, applicants will not be penalized for some gaps in the preliminary data. The focus of the FOA is definitely on the "power of the ideas" (but combined with rigorous plans to validate those ideas).
Note: Research projects originally conceived as conventional investigator-initiated projects and applications for continuation of such projects are not likely to be viewed favorably in light of the priorities of the PQ FOAs.
Required for Responsiveness
All applications submitted in response to this FOA are expected to pose an original high impact hypothesis (that may be risky) but also a solid research plan to validate the assumptions and test the hypothesis.
Therefore, all applications must contain a Challenge Statement (to be included under Research Strategy Section, see Section IV. Application and Submission Information of this FOA for details).
Applications without a Challenge Statement will be considered non-responsive. Non responsive applications will not be reviewed. The Challenge Statement must convincingly address the following aspects:
All application titles must begin with the PQ number on which the application is based (insert number in parenthesis at the beginning of the title).
Not Responsive
The following types of projects are not appropriate for this FOA and applications proposing such projects will not be reviewed:
Funding Instrument |
Grant: A support mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity. |
Application Types Allowed |
New The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. |
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards |
The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications. For the group of PQs covered by this FOA (Group C), the NCI intends to fund approximately four to six R01 awards per due date, corresponding to a total of up to $2-3 million, for the first submission round (2014) and a similar amount for the second (2015). Future year amounts will depend on annual appropriations. |
Award Budget |
Application budgets are not limited, but need to reflect the actual needs of the proposed project. |
Award Project Period |
The total project period may not exceed 4 years. |
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible to
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.
Applicant Organizations
Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.
Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))
All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account and should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate an existing account with the applicant organization's eRA Commons account. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources
necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal
Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to
develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial
and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always
encouraged to apply for NIH support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple
Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key
Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
NIH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed within the past thirty-seven months (as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement), except for submission:
Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application package associated with this funding opportunity using the Apply for Grant Electronically button in this FOA or following the directions provided at Grants.gov.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
Descriptive title of proposed research - include the PQ number being addressed at the beginning of the title (in parenthesis);
The letter of intent should be sent to:
Emily J. Greenspan, Ph.D.
Center for Strategic Scientific Initiatives
Office of the Director
National Cancer Institute
31 Center Drive, Room 10A33
Bethesda, MD 20892
Telephone: 301-496-1045
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
The forms package associated with this FOA includes all applicable components, required and optional. Please note that some components marked optional in the application package are required for submission of applications for this FOA. Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide to ensure you complete all appropriate optional components.
The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this FOA.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Descriptive Title of Applicant s Project: All application titles must begin with the PQ number on which the application is based (insert PQ number at the beginning of the title in parenthesis).
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Specific Aims: This section must address the expected overall impact of the project outcomes in terms of breadth and magnitude on cancer research.
Research Strategy: this section must contain (place at the beginning of the section and within the standard page limits) the following elements:
Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS)) as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following modification:
Appendix: Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
When conducting clinical research, follow all instructions for completing Planned Enrollment Reports as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
When conducting clinical research, follow all instructions for completing Cumulative Inclusion Enrollment Report as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Foreign (non-U.S.) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign institutions described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.
Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH's electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically.
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the
Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the
SF424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons
and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent
the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this FOA for information on
registration requirements.
The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the
application is the same number used in the organization's profile in the eRA
Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be
found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more
tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH and for responsiveness by the National Cancer Institute, NIH. Applications that are incomplete and/or non-responsive will not be reviewed.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-13-030.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
For this particular announcement, note the following:
Even though this FOA uses the R01 funding mechanism and standard review criteria, there are important differences with conventional R01 applications in emphasis on specific aspects. It is essential that research projects proposed in response to this FOA meet the expectations in terms of exceptional creativity and originality in addressing the selected PQ. To be viewed as having potential high impact, the proposed research projects, as designed, must be likely to yield far- or broad-reaching advances in the understanding of the research problem defined by the selected PQ. Thus, potential impact of the applications will be judged in large part on the power of the ideas behind the proposed research, whereas the completeness of preliminary data, required for conventional R01 applications, is de-emphasized for this FOA..
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Specific to this FOA: How convincing and strong are arguments (including those summarized in the Challenge Statement) that the proposed research project will have profoundly more significant outcomes than incremental expansion of the current knowledge? To what extent is this research project, as designed, likely to yield far- or broad-reaching advances in our understanding for the selected PQ?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Specific to this FOA: Does the proposed project address the selected PQ in a new and fresh way? Does it provide opportunity for novel findings that would be informative as answers for the selected PQ? For high risk projects, is the potential for benefit justifiably high? In cases where the proposed project is an extension of ongoing work, does it address truly original concepts and/or research directions not covered by the ongoing work and/or use preliminary data in a creative, innovative way rather than simply taking the next logical step?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses
well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?
Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success
presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy
establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of
human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members
of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms
of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Specific to this FOA: Is the experimental design optimal to ensure generation of important information for the selected PQ? If negative results are obtained, how likely is it that these results will be informative for our understanding of the selected PQ? Do the applicants propose a conceptually original and rigorous strategy to solve the problem defined by the selected PQ? If supporting preliminary data are limited or incomplete, how well are such gaps compensated by exceptional strength of conceptual aspects?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
Specific to this FOA: Are there any extraordinary aspects and/or resources that provide novel or enhanced opportunities to investigate the selected PQ in a way that would not be possible elsewhere even in generally excellent scientific environments? For example, are there any unique, newly developed/acquired technical capabilities (without which the project could not be proposed) that are not available anywhere else?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does not
involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part
46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to
subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the
subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data
and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or
more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46,
the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human
subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For
additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to
the Guidelines
for the Review of Human Subjects.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.
Vertebrate Animals
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan; 2) Sharing Model Organisms; and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS).
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the NCI, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this FOA.
Applications will be assigned to the NCI. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Cancer Advisory Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH
will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as
described in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided
to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by
the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via
email to the grantee's business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection
of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any
costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These
costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to the DUNS, SAM
Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award
Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
Not Applicable
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the annual Non-Competing Progress Report (PHS 2590 or RPPR) and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity
and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
eRA Commons Help Desk (Questions regarding eRA Commons
registration, submitting and tracking an application, documenting system
problems that threaten submission by the due date, post submission issues)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
Web ticketing system: https://public.era.nih.gov/commonshelp
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions
regarding Grants.gov registration and submission, downloading forms and
application packages)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Web ticketing system: https://grants-portal.psc.gov/ContactUs.aspx
Email: email@example.com
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
Telephone 301-710-0267
Email: email@example.com
Emily J. Greenspan, Ph.D.
Office of the Director
National Cancer Institute
Telephone: 301-496-1045
Email: email@example.com
Referral Officer
Division of Extramural Activities
National Cancer Institute
Telephone: 240-276-6390
Email: email@example.com
Crystal Wolfrey
Office of Grants Administration
National Cancer Institute
Telephone: 240-276-6277
Email: email@example.com
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
| ||||||
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files. |


text:
UFC Store
"I represent the truth and I'm coming. All y'all can run and
hide, but I've got the 155-pound division shook up. They're worried."
When compared to fighters like Wanderlei Silva and Chuck Liddell, you wouldn't be out of place if you called Antonio McKee a pacifist. Oddly enough, he might agree with you, as he gives you little reason to suspect otherwise, both in his words and actions.
A married father of three, McKee – who makes his UFC debut this Saturday night against Jacob "Christmas" Volkmann – boasts 18 decision wins on his 25-3-2 record, and it's a statistic he doesn't shy away from. For him, mixed martial arts isn't about hurting his opponents; it's about winning, and if he can do so without inflicting harm on his foes, all the better.
"You know what – it's not exciting to watch," he says, referring to his fighting style. "You know why? Because I dominate. It's like GSP (Georges St-Pierre) – he dominates. There's just no way to be exciting when you win the same way over and over. People complained about Mike Tyson knocking people out. I guess if you're in business you have to deal with the people, the mass media, and how they see things. But as far as me, man, I'm just out here trying to do it, have some fun and keep everybody happy. I'm a smart fighter. You put me in a street fight and I'll street fight. But if I can outwrestle you and outslick you and out technique you, you'd best believe that's what I'm gonna use."
It's worked for him over the last 11 years, and when you win 25 of 30 pro bouts, you must be doing something right. So why has it taken so long to see the Dayton, Ohio native gracing the Octagon?
"They had to soften me up a little bit," he chuckles. "I was too hard in the beginning. I'm like a glass of wine; I get better with age. And I think it's quite apparent - the things that I've been saying and how outspoken I've been - it's realistic, it's what's really going on. If you say you're the best, and you have the best fighters in the world, then you need McKee there because McKee is the best 155 pounder in the world. And a lot of people want to see it - they want me to shut up and get out of there or they want me to get what's due and the titles to come."
But in an ironic twist, it was the other side of Antonio McKee that finally got him his call to the big show. Since August of 2003, the only blemish on McKee's record was a draw against Akbarh Arreola in a 2004 bout in Mexico, and through 2009, he had won nine in a row, including victories over Ronald Jhun, Mike Dolce, Derrick Noble, and Carlo Prater. As 2010 dawned, he knew the only think keeping him from the UFC was a display of his finishing skills. In March he submitted Rodrigo Ruiz via kimura. Then came a September bout against Luciano Azevedo. The pre-fight buildup became heated on both sides, with McKee declaring that he would retire if he didn't finish his foe.
He lived up to his vow to finish, halting Azevedo with a brutal ground and pound attack in the first round. The pacifist had left the building.
"We had a personal beef," explains McKee. "He called me old, senile, senior citizen, and when you piss me off, now you're dealing with a different element. I don't care what man is on this planet, if I can touch him, he will have a problem if we are going at it like that. I'm very quiet, I'm very passionate about what I do, I don't go around boasting and bragging about what I do, and I'm really a pretty mellow guy to those who know me. Now if you cross my path and want to bring me some problems, you'd better be ready to deal with it. I ain't trying to be Billy Badass, but I've been through wars, man. I've been shot at, I've been stabbed, I've seen it already, so what are you gonna bring to me? I hope you're ready for what I'm gonna bring back, and that's what Azevedo did – he brought a war. That man said some mean s**t about me, and for him to be a fighter, I thought he had no respect so I had to teach him a lesson – I had to punish him, and that's what I did. And I'd do it a thousand times again if I had to, just to show him discipline."
This paradox makes McKee one of the most fascinating figures in the fight game today, and whether you care for his style or not, his personality will compel you to watch him and listen to him. And it's easy to respect where he's coming from, because he comes from a background where violence surrounded him every day. Now, as a settled and well-adjusted adult, he's not looking to return to that environment or mindset.
"I used to collect money for bad people," he explains. "But I didn't realize they were bad people because I was caught up in the mix of that bad. I was raised in that. No excuse now, but it was an excuse back then because I didn't have the mentor that I am to these other kids that are out there who are exposed to that now. The UFC should be pushing for me to be the champion. Why? Because Antonio McKee is truly a champion. Not just in the ring, but outside. Do you hear any stories about me spitting on somebody or running somebody off the road or using steroids or drugs? No, what you hear about McKee is that he's talking smack. That's it. But what do you see McKee doing? McKee is out here in the streets, he's really putting down some stuff for these at-risk kids. He feeds the community, he goes to the neighborhoods and has a non-profit program – this is what you want as a champion in America, you would think. I may be wrong, but I'm the people's champion."
The 40-year old isn't afraid to put his money where his mouth is either. In addition to his fighting career and the gym he owns (Bodyshop Fitness), he's the founder of a non-profit organization named Fight for Kids, a varsity wrestling coach at Long Beach Polytechnic High School, and the Warriors Challenge Tournament Director. He's hands on in all aspects of his life, and has made a complete 180 degree turn from where he was growing up.
"I lacked discipline, I lacked home training, I lacked stability, and as I got older and realized what I was lacking, I was able to make those adjustments," he said. "And once I made those adjustments, everything fell into place."
He chuckles.
"20 years ago, you might want to lock your doors if you just heard I was in the neighborhood. That guy doesn't exist anymore."
The turning point was a simple, yet profound one.
"When that baby came out and said 'daddy,'" said McKee, referring to the birth of his son AJ. "And I didn't have that myself to understand it, but I said 'wait a minute, this feels so good. This little man is saying 'daddy.' Are you serious? I'm a father.' It stuck to me. McKee turned in his street credits and decided that he was gonna do the right thing."
He hasn't turned back, and with the help of wrestling (he was a two-time California Community College state wrestling champion), mixed martial arts, family, and his work in the community, he's made it to this point in his life. But back to Azevedo and the fight that unleashed the beast in McKee. What was the aftermath like for someone who had to reconcile his feelings about hurting his opponents with the bloody finish of his last fight?
"I went back there, I embraced him (Azevedo), I went to church, I prayed, I prayed for him to heal and that his career prospers," he said. "There's a certain level of respect that I'm gonna demand, I don't care who you are. I always respect those who respect me and I will have nothing but respect for them. But when you come in here talking a big talk, you better be ready to walk that talk, because I'm gonna bring it."
Which brings us to Saturday night and McKee's first UFC bout against former Division I wrestler Volkmann. It's an interesting clash that will open up UFC 125 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas.
"I don't talk smack about 'Christmas,'" said McKee. "I think he's an awesome guy, I think he's a great fighter, but damn, you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's the way I see this."
So which Antonio McKee is showing up this weekend?
"I pray and I ask God to give me some more submissions because I'm tired of laying in people's faces," he said. "That's just not what I want out of this sport. But if that don't get me paid and take care of my family before I've got to hit the streets again, you'd best believe people's faces are gonna get busted up. And I'm gonna hold their hands after the fight, apologize, and I'm gonna offer them to go to church with me."
"I use this phrase," he continues, explaining his philosophy on fighting. "So you love the fight, right? How would you love it if it was your son out there getting beat up or knocked out? How would you feel if it was your cousin or someone you could relate to? All of a sudden, you don't like the sport because it's someone you love. I love people so I don't like it when I see people getting hurt like that. I have a very passionate view on the sport and on the guys that are fighting. I've worked with a lot of the guys who are in the UFC, I've helped these guys, and now it's my time. I sacrificed a lot to get where I'm at, I'm there now, and let's see how this plays out. I'm real curious to see how it plays out and if these guys are really good enough to beat me or if I'm as good as I think I am. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain."
It is still a hurt business though. So why do it?
"I do it because I'm good at it," said McKee. "I don't get knocked out, I don't get hit, I don't get beat up. And that's why I do it. And the day I'm getting knocked out five or six times, I'm done. There's no need for me to do this anymore."
In 30 professional fights, McKee has been knocked out once, submitted once, and decisioned once. Take away two draws, and he has won every other fight he has engaged in. At 40, he's in better shape than most people ten years younger, and with an 11 fight winning streak under his belt, he may be in the midst of a Randy Couture-esque prime.
Now it's time to show the UFC what Antonio McKee is all about.
"I represent the truth and I'm coming," he said. "All y'all can run and hide, but I've got the 155-pound division shook up. They're worried. Frankie Edgar, Gray Maynard, all these guys, they know who I am. As much as I love Volkmann, this is the year that I won't be celebrating "Christmas." I think I'm gonna be the Grinch that beat up "Christmas". I've studied him, he's a great guy, but I've got to show the UFC who Antonio McKee is and what I'm about. This is business."
Power Slap


text:
Version Date: Nov 23, 2015 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Office of Applied Studies
Version V5
The National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) is designed to collect information from all facilities in the United States, both public and private, that provide substance abuse treatment. N-SSATS provides the mechanism for quantifying the dynamic character and composition of the United States substance abuse treatment delivery system. The objectives of N-SSATS are to collect multipurpose data that can be used to assist the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and state and local governments in assessing the nature and extent of services provided and in forecasting treatment resource requirements, to update SAMHSA's Inventory of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (I-SATS), to analyze general treatment services trends, and to generate the National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs and its online equivalent, the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility Locator.
Data are collected on topics including facility operation, services offered (assessment and pre-treatment, substance abuse therapy and counseling, pharmacotherapies, testing, transitional, ancillary), primary focus (substance abuse, mental health, both, general health, and other), hotline operation, Opioid Treatment Programs and medication dispensed/prescribed, languages in which treatment is provided, type of treatment provided, number of clients (total and under age 18), number of beds, types of payment accepted, sliding fee scale, special programs offered, facility accreditation and licensure/certification, and managed care agreements.
Export Citation:
Users are reminded by the United States Department of Health and Human Services that these data are to be used solely for statistical analysis and reporting of aggregated information and not for the investigation of specific individuals or treatment facilities.
Data were collected by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, NJ, and prepared for release by Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc., Arlington, VA.
N-SSATS is a point-prevalence survey. It provides information on the substance abuse treatment system and its clients on the reference date (March 31, 2006). Client counts do not represent annual totals. Rather, N-SSATS provides a "snapshot" of substance abuse treatment facilities and clients on an average day.
N-SSATS collects data about facilities, not individual clients. Data on clients represent an aggregate of clients in treatment for each reporting facility.
N-SSATS attempts to obtain responses from all known treatment and prevention facilities, but it is a voluntary survey. There is no adjustment for the approximately 5 percent facility nonresponse.
To protect the privacy of respondents, financial data originally collected have been removed from the public use file. These modifications should not affect most analytic uses of the public use file.
For users who wish to calculate client counts and admissions, instructions are available on the N-SSATS Series page and at How to calculate N-SSATS client counts and admissions using SDA.
The Inventory of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (I-SATS) provides the sampling frame for N-SSATS. Two categories of treatment facilities in I-SATS may be distinguished. The largest group of facilities includes those that are licensed, certified, or otherwise approved by the state substance abuse agency to provide substance abuse treatment. The second group represents the SAMHSA effort in recent years to make I-SATS as comprehensive as possible by including treatment facilities that state substance abuse agencies, for a variety of reasons, do not license or certify. Many of these facilities are private, for-profit, small group practices, or hospital-based programs.
N-SSATS questionnaires were mailed to a total of 17,143 facilities believed to offer substance abuse treatment services. Of these facilities, 11.9 percent were found to be ineligible for the survey because they had closed or were not providing substance abuse treatment on March 31, 2006. Of the remaining 15,109 facilities, 96.6 percent (14,577) completed the survey. However, 401 of these facilities were deemed to be out of scope, and an additional 405 facilities reported client counts included in or "rolled into" other facilities's counts and whose facility characteristics were not reported separately. Therefore, the final sample size was 13,771 (91.1 percent). The percentage of respondents who completed the mail survey was 40.7, while 22.7 percent completed the survey via telephone, and 36.6 percent completed the survey using a Web-based questionnaire.
2015-11-23 Covers for the PDF documentation were revised.
2014-07-17 Changed the Stata system data file from version 13 to version 12 for compatibility on a wider range of systems.
2014-04-25 This study update was done in order to remove the geographic variables of County, MSA, and CBSA.
2013-11-27 Updated ddi file to include variable-level groupings.
2012-02-14 Updated the queston text to fix minor typographical errors previously present. Also, updated the variable order so that it coincides with the questionnaire order and is consistent with other years in the N-SSATS series.
2007-12-20 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.


text:
GEORGETOWN, ONTARIO (Jan. 11, 2:30 p.m. ET) — The London-based investment firm holding a controlling interest in hot-runner manufacturer Mold-Masters Ltd. will not confirm a report that 3i Group plc plans to sell the Georgetown, Ontario, firm.
"We don't confirm speculation on potential transactions," said 3i investor relations director Silvia Santoro in a telephone interview.
"We only publish press releases on actual deals," Santoro said from London.
The Financial Times of London reported Jan. 10 that 3i has started the process of selling four companies, including Mold-Masters. The report said 3i wants to divest assets, cut staff and close offices, following Europe's financial crisis.
The Financial Times said 3i has hired Morgan Stanley to advise on the sale of Mold-Masters. The newspaper cited undisclosed sources who pegged the possible sale price at C$700 million (US$711.2 million). U.S. buyers could be attracted to the investment opportunity, the newspaper's sources speculated.
3i bought its stake in Mold-Masters in 2007. Since then the hot-runner supplier has expanded aggressively, most recently in China, where in late 2011 it opened an expansion of its Kunshan hot-runner plant. At the time, Mold-Masters President and CEO Bill Barker said Asia is the company's fastest-growing market.
More recently, Mold-Masters reported strong growth during an interview at the Fakuma trade show in Friedrichshafen, Germany, in October. Patrick Bennett, president of the company's European operations, said pent-up demand after the recession let to high growth in 2010 and 2011. Results in 2012 were not as exciting but still healthy, he told Plastics News.
Bennett said automotive, packaging and consumer products were strong growth areas.
At Fakuma, Mold-Masters unveiled new technologies for injection molders using hot runners, including a linear side-gating system, sequential valve-gate controllers and a dual-zone addition to its line of temperature controllers.
Mold-Masters officials were unavailable on Jan. 11 to comment on the Financial Times report of a possible sale.
As reported by Plastics News early last year, 3i acquired a majority interest in cosmetics parts major Geka GmbH of Bechhofen, Germany. Geka injection molds mascara brushes and packaging. At that time, its customer list included Procter & Gamble Co. and Avon Products Inc.
The Financial Times reported that 3i recently sold its remaining stake in Norma, a Germany-based producer of engineered joining products that had been for sale since April 2011. Also on the sale block is Civica, a U.K.-based software maker, and Scandlines, a ferry operator in Denmark and Germany, according to report.
3i is reportedly England's oldest private equity investor, dating back to 1945 when it was established to finance companies hurt by World War II.


text:
Cumulative update packages for Microsoft SharePoint Enterprise Server 2013 contain hotfixes for the issues that were fixed since the release of SharePoint Enterprise Server 2013. This update has a prerequisite.
Note This is build 15.0.5041.1000 of the cumulative update package.
We recommend that you test those hotfixes before you deploy them in a production environment. Because the builds are cumulative, each new release contains all the hotfixes and security updates that were included with the previous SharePoint Server 2013 update package releases.
Important notes about the cumulative update package
The Microsoft Office 2013 hotfixes are now multilingual. This cumulative update package contains updates for all languages.
This cumulative update package includes all the server component packages. Additionally, this cumulative update package updates only those components that are installed on the system.
Improvements and issues that this cumulative update fixes
This cumulative update package includes cloud hybrid search capability to SharePoint Server 2013. Learn about cloud hybrid search for SharePoint.
This update also fixes the issues that are described in the following Microsoft Knowledge Base (KB) articles:
Description of the security update for SharePoint Foundation 2013: June 12, 2018 (KB4022190)
June 12, 2018, update for SharePoint Enterprise Server 2013 (KB4022180)
Description of the security update for SharePoint Server 2013: June 12, 2018 (KB4022179)
Description of the security update for SharePoint Server 2013: June 12, 2018 (KB4018391)
How to get the cumulative update package
This update is available only for manual download and installation from the Microsoft Download Center.
Download cumulative update KB4022187 for SharePoint Enterprise Server 2013
Microsoft scanned this file for viruses by using the most current virus-detection software that was available on the date that the file was posted. The file is stored on security-enhanced servers that help prevent any unauthorized changes to it.
Cumulative update package information
Hotfixes that are included in this cumulative update package
This cumulative update package contains all the .msp files that we released as hotfixes or as public updates that target SharePoint Server 2013. This update package also targets SharePoint Foundation 2013. Therefore, you don't have to install those packages separately.
To apply this cumulative update, you must have Microsoft SharePoint Server 2013 Service Pack 1 installed.
Restart requirement
You may have to restart the computer after you apply this cumulative update.
Learn about the standard terminology that Microsoft uses to describe software updates.
The Office System TechCenter contains the latest administrative updates and strategic deployment resources for all versions of Office.
File information
For the list of files that cumulative update 4022187 contains, download the file information.


text:
The Food and Drug Administration is trying to decide whether to approve a powerful new prescription painkiller that's designed to relieve severe pain quickly, and with fewer side effects than other opioids.
While some pain experts say the medicine could provide a valuable alternative for some patients in intense pain, the drug (called Moxduo) is also prompting concern that it could exacerbate the epidemic of abuse of prescription painkillers and overdoses.
An FDA advisory committee is holding a daylong hearing Tuesday to decide whether to recommend that the agency approve the drug.
Moxduo for the first time combines morphine and oxycodone in one capsule. It's designed to provide quick relief to patients suffering severe pain from accidents or surgeries, such as knee replacements, back surgeries or cancer operations, says Ed Rudnic, COO of QRxPharma, the company that makes Moxduo.
The drug allows patients to take lower doses of the two narcotics than they'd need if they took either of the medicines alone, Rudnic says.
"We believe that we've achieved some benefit in reducing the risk of some of the respiratory complications of these strong opioids," he says.
Suppressed breathing and other respiratory complications are the most serious risks of these drugs — the main reason people die from taking too much.
Some pain experts think the idea behind Moxduo is a good one. A lot of patients can't take enough morphine or oxycodone to ease their discomfort because of the risk to breathing and other side effects, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and severe itchiness.
Patients who could theoretically benefit from such a pill are "normal people like you and me," says Dr. Joseph Audetteof Harvard Medical School. "And then suddenly we get in a terrible accident or have surgery and ... we need something. And the typical agents are used, and suddenly all these terrible side effects come up."
But Audette is not convinced the company has yet proved that Moxduo has fewer side effects.
"They haven't really done the hard work of absolutely showing ... in humans with real pain problems that synergy is making a big difference," Audette says, "compared to just using the agents that we [already] have available."
And some experts worry that Moxduo will come with its own problems.
"I have serious concerns about this product," says Andrew Kolodny, an addiction specialist at Phoenix House. He also leads the Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing, which is fighting for tighter control of prescription painkillers.
Millions of people are addicted to these legal narcotics already, Kolodny says, with thousands dying from overdoses each year. Moxduo, he worries, would only make that worse.
"This is pure morphine and pure oxycodone," he says. "This is a product that is very easy to misuse, very easy to crush and snort or crush and inject. So it's significantly more dangerous than the products that it would be competing with," Kolodny. He cites Vicodin and Percocet as competing drugs that contain multiple other ingredients (in addition to a narcotic) that make them more difficult to abuse in those ways.
Patients in severe pain already have plenty of options, he says, and a marketing push to prescribe Moxduo could spell trouble.
"If they get this product put on the market and are able to have a sales force going in and out of doctors' offices encouraging prescribing with the marketing claim that this is somehow a safer product ... I believe that's likely to exacerbate an already severe public health crisis," Kolodny tells Shots.
For his part, Rudnic argues that the manufacturer already has good evidence that Moxduo is a safer painkiller with fewer side effects. And he disputes the claims that Moxduo is easier to abuse.
"I understand abuse and I understand the anguish that some of these people have that have lost a loved one to a drug overdose," says Rudnic. "I lost a brother to a drug overdose in 2002 and it was really tough."
Rudnic promises his company will set up a system to quickly spot any signs that Moxduo is being misused. QRxPharma is also developing a version of the drug, Rudnic says, that would make it harder to abuse.
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.