Yes! Just wonderful to see the outstanding presentations from the “next generation” of scientists: energetic, enthusiastic, intelligent, committed. Our future is in very safe hands. Well done! Keep driving us forward!

What a fantastic initiative! Congratulations to Stephen and the Doherty - a wonderful opportunity for a brilliant young scientist!

Wonderful recognition for both the importance of the work AND for the importance of the TEAM! Too often we focus on an iconic individual and forget that drug development is really about the team. Congratulations to all involved!

blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/w…

It’s always, all about perverse incentives. We need some real consequences for bad scientific behaviour.

My firm view: scientists should be treated as professionals & registered (like accountants, lawyers, doctors, taxi drivers etc). Bad behaviour=de-register=no grants,students,papers,prizes,talks..and institution pays back research $. Things would change!

Thanks. There’s no single sol’n. Institutions: appoint/promote on quality & regularly review the PIs. Funders: stop focus on number of papers (max 2-3pa) & quality instead-“Robin-Hood” funding-there’d be plenty of money for the good guys&gals

Sadly true. One problem is that many of our leaders have benefited from the very system that needs to change - overcoming that “cognitive dissonance “ demands real integrity ...but incentives must change if we are to see the system-wide change we need

Rehabilitation always possible, but must get serious - retraining & rpt-registration (phaps under supervision) OK, but now too much tolerance, too many 2nd chances, & as you rptdly point out many cover-ups. Need consequences to help balance the equation.

Misconduct/Fraud only tip of the iceberg - sloppy science is SYSTEMATIC (cherry picking,p-hacking,HARKING etc) & we know that scale: 75-90% of published work. NHMRC to their credit, taking this seriously. Institutions must play key role holding PIs to account

Sadly their reputation for rigor is not enough. Funders hold the key - grants!! Institutions should be req’d to demonstrate Good Institutional Practice to receive tax-payer money for their research

For intramural NIH program (which is a special case) it has to be “keeping up with the Joneses”. If all NIH extramural programs are focused on quality over quantity, & every institution has Office of Research Integrity, intramural NIH will have to follow

Thank you Vaishnavi. Like you I have been privileged to have wonderful, critical, supportive, challenging mentors & role models. My hope now is to be able to do the same for others: how fantastic to leave a legacy as they all did! That’d be wonderful...

Thanks Melissa. It was a delight to see you yesterday...where have all the years gone?!? I was especially pleased to hear the valuable impact you have had driving these key issues in your Dept: a great example of what real leadership looks like! Well done!

Yes! Our opportunity is to harness that research. And if we expect to have real impact & value, expect that our programs will end up overseas. Dilution & investment, is a sign of success! We need more people who have done this many times before...

Very sad, but reveals a common problem in many attempts at "drug repurposing".

Congratulations to the whole team, and of course Craig Rayner - great to see his name in lights in Time Square! This is a fantastic accomplishment and shows what can be accomplished with a focus on achieving real impact!!