APHL honors public health leaders at 2019 annual meeting

Award winners

The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) is pleased to announce the winners of its annual awards for outstanding achievements in laboratory science, creative approaches to solving today’s public health challenges and exemplary support of laboratories serving the public’s health. Awardees were honored during a ceremony at the 2019 APHL Annual Meeting in St. Louis, Missouri. Congratulations to all award winners!

The following awards were presented:

Healthiest Laboratory Award – This award is given to an APHL member laboratory that is committed to safety, environmental process, environmental policy and employee health and wellness.

Thomas E. Maxson Education, Training and Workforce Development Award – This award was established in August of 1998 in memory of Dr. Maxson, and honors an APHL member who is a public health or clinical laboratory practitioner, trainer or educator who has made significant contributions to public health laboratory practice by creating, delivering or developing continuing education opportunities, programs, policies or practices for the laboratory community. For the first time, the Maxson award was presented at the Public Health Laboratory Training Conference in April.

On the Front Line Award – This award honors an individual or organization outside of the association’s membership who makes significant contributions to APHL, its membership and mission.

Emerging Leader Award – This award honors an individual whose leadership has been instrumental in one or more advances in laboratory science, practice, management, policy or education within his or her first five to ten years in the profession.

Leadership in Biosafety and Biosecurity Award – This award honors a laboratory scientist with over 10 years of related service in the field of biosafety and biosecurity in a state and/or local public health laboratory.

Silver Award – This award honors a laboratory scientist with 10 to 15 years of service in a governmental public health laboratory that is recognized as a leader both within their home laboratory as well as external to their laboratory. This year we have two recipients of the Silver Award.

Gold Standard Award – This award recognizes an individual who makes or has made significant contributions to the technical advancement of public health laboratory science and/or practice.

Champion of the Public Health Laboratory Award – This award honors federal, state and local elected officials and executive branch employees who have recognized the importance of state and local governmental laboratories that perform testing of public health significance either through support of legislation or federal agency decisions.

Presidential Award – This award recipient is selected by APHL’s president and given to individuals who have made significant contributions to the Association’s work to promote policies that strengthen public health laboratories. This year there are two award winners.

Lifetime Achievement Award – This award recognizes an individual who has established a history of distinguished service to APHL, made significant contributions to the advancement of public health laboratory science or practice, exhibited leadership in the field of public health, and/or positively influenced public health policy on a national or global level.

The post APHL honors public health leaders at 2019 annual meeting appeared first on APHL Lab Blog.

Congratulations to 2019 APHL newborn screening award winners

Congratulations to 2019 APHL newborn screening award winners | www.APHLblog.org

At the 2019 Newborn Screening and Genetic Testing Symposium in early April, APHL presented awards to leaders in the field of newborn screening. We commend the exceptional and innovative work of all those who were nominated.

The following awards were given:

George Cunningham Visionary Award in Newborn Screening – This year’s recipient was Ming Chan, PhD, retired director of the Florida Bureau of Public Health Laboratories (BPHL).

Dr. Chan has been influencing newborn screening and laboratory science in the state of Florida since 1972. In that time, under various capacities at the Florida BPHL, Dr. Chan has implemented and overseen numerous advances in environmental chemistry, clinical chemistry, newborn screening and genetic testing, and bacteriology, serology, and virology. Some of his accomplishments include:

  • adopting automation and a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) for the chemistry section that tracked specimen testing and interfaced analytical equipment for the electronic transfer of results;
  • development and implementation of newborn screening test procedures for the state’s Infant Screening Program in 1979; and
  • early adoption of SCID testing after its addition to the recommended uniform screening panel.

In 2008, he retired as the director of Florida’s BPHL but returned to newborn screening as a consultant to continue ensuring healthy outcomes for infants through early disease detection.

Harry Hannon Laboratory Improvement Award in Newborn Screening – This year’s recipient was Victor Skrinska, PhD, DABCC. Dr. Skrinska is the Head of Section for the metabolic laboratory and the National Newborn Screening Laboratory in Doha, Qatar since 2009.

Dr. Skrinska’s research and method development of homocystinuria screening by way of measuring total homocysteine in dried blood spots using LC-MS/MS increased the accuracy of screening, resulting in timely identification and reporting of cases. He has also spearheaded the expansion of conditions screened in Qatar to include alpha and beta thalassemias, as well as expansion to other newborn screening conditions through the use of second tier screening methods. He has championed quality improvement in the laboratory and has been able to make these achievements independent of any political crises and embargos on his country.

Judi Tuerck Follow Up and Education Award – APHL honored the efforts of two individuals this year: Barbara Ferreira, BSN, Area Service Center Director at Harbor-UCLA in California and Amy Gaviglio, MS, CGC, short-term follow-up supervisor for the Minnesota newborn screening program.

Ms. Ferreira has overseen the screening of more than 20 million babies during her 40 year tenure with the state of California. She has improved and influenced the quality of newborn screening follow-up both nationally and within her state. Her experience has advanced the quality of newborn screening at the national level through her active participation on the Education and Training workgroup of the Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (ACHDNC) and the document development committee of the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Through participation in APHL’s Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network and NewSTEPs 360 projects, she implemented measures to improve the timeliness of newborn screening in California.

Amy Gaviglio has been working in newborn screening follow-up in Minnesota for the past 12 years and has been the short-term follow-up supervisor for 10 of those years. She has been intimately involved in Minnesota’s implementation of new disorders, both for screening and for improving the communication of newborn screening results. Ms. Gaviglio has also been a leader in facilitating the initiation and maintenance of screening efforts for critical congenital heart disease in MN, and used this experience to facilitate screening in other states seeking to do the same. She has been instrumental in promoting training for implementation of DNA-based techniques in screening and her expertise has been widely acknowledged through her professional activities at the national level, which include her Vice Chair position for the CLSI Expert Panel on Newborn Screening, membership on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics ACT sheet workgroup, and membership on ACHDNC’s Education and Training workgroup, as well as numerous APHL committees and workgroups.

Everyday Life Saver Award – For the inaugural presentation of this award, APHL recognized the work and accomplishments of Krystal Baumert, follow-up coordinator for the Nebraska newborn screening program. Ms. Baumert has been working in newborn screening follow-up for over 25 years. Ms. Baumert was involved in the development of one of the first electronic match systems in the country to be able to accurately account for every newborn’s results, and she continues to work with PerkinElmer (Nebraska’s contracted newborn screening laboratory) to develop clear, effective daily reports for monitoring, tracking and follow-up so that none of the babies in Nebraska are lost to follow-up.

Congratulations to all award winners.

This program was supported by Cooperative Agreement # 5NU60OE000103 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC or the Department of Health and Human Services.

The post Congratulations to 2019 APHL newborn screening award winners appeared first on APHL Lab Blog.

The Unitary Fund: a no-strings attached grant program for Open Source quantum computing

The Unitary Fund: a no-strings attached grant program for Open Source quantum computing   Posted August 20, 2018 by post-info This is a Guest Post written by Will Zeng. Editorial Note: As part of our

The Physics & Astronomy Category Recipient of the PLOS ONE Early Career Travel Award in the Physical Sciences Is…

  The Physics & Astronomy Category Recipient of the PLOS ONE Early Career Travel Award in the Physical Sciences Is…   post-info Thank you to all community members who submitted applications! We are delighted to

PLOS Announces Prize to Celebrate the First Year of Channels

  One year ago, PLOS launched its Channels program, providing central hubs for specific research communities. Channels are resources for scientists, making it easy to keep up to date with developments in a particular area

The PLOS ONE Early Career Researcher Travel Awards in the Physical Sciences

By PLOS ONE Editors post-info Early career researchers (ECRs) are very much at the heart of what we do at PLOS. Last year alone, PLOS ONE published more than 20,000 research papers, undoubtedly with tens

Retrospection and Direction: A Q&A with Peter Walter

0000-0002-8715-28960000-0001-7318-5892 “In our panel it is the stated and adhered to policy that we will not consider where a paper is published. Rather, in our evaluations we assess its real impact in a field. Change

Former NCBI Director Dr. David J. Lipman & NCBI GenBank team nominated for Service to America Medals People’s Choice Award

Former NCBI Director Dr. David J. Lipman and the NCBI GenBank Team have been nominated for the Sammies People’s Choice Award. In addition to the People’s Choice Award, Dr. Lipman and the GenBank team, as well as the other nominees, are up for awards in … Continue reading

Open Data Projects Win Wellcome Trust, NIH and HHMI Open Science Prize

0000-0002-8715-28960000-0001-7318-5892 “Scientists can do much more with their own data if things are shared publicly and shared publicly quickly in order to have potential for real world impact.” -Trevor Bedford, lead of the Open Science

Fall 2016 DEB Panels status: “When will I have a decision?” edition

DEB’s full proposal panels finished in early November (for those full proposals submitted back in July and August). So, when will you receive review results?

Some of you may have already heard from us. Others will be hearing “soon” (as detailed below).

Right now, all of our programs have synthesized the recommendations of their panels, considered their portfolios, and come up with their planned award and decline recommendations. These are then documented, sent through administrative review, and finally signed off, “concurred,” by the head or deputy for the Division.

DEB’s first priority is processing the decline notices. We’re trying to get your reviews back to you to provide as much time as possible to consider your options for January pre-proposal submissions.

For potential awards, it’s a bit more complicated. We expect award recommendation dates to be later this year than typical. At present, NSF is operating under a temporary budget measure, called a Continuing Resolution (or CR). The current CR runs through December 9, 2016. We won’t have significant funds available to cover new grants until a longer-term funding measure is enacted.

So, while we have a prioritized list of award recommendations, we don’t yet have the funds needed to take action on those recommendations. Moreover, we don’t know how much funding we’ll actually have available so uncertainty is part of the plan. Thus, between “definite award recommendation” and “definite decline recommendation” we have a recommendation gray zone.

How are we handling this?

If your proposal fell into the definite decline group, then you’ll be getting an official notice from DEB. Once the formal decline recommendation is approved, the system updates the proposal status in FastLane and queues up a notification email. We are planning to have all declines approved by December 20, 2016. Note: our IT system sends the notification emails in batches at the end of the day[i]. Thus, if you are frequently refreshing FastLane you will likely see the news there before you get a letter from us.

If your proposal fell into the definite award group or the gray zone, you will first be getting a call or email from your Program Officer. They will be letting you know what the plan is for your particular proposal and how you can get things ready (e.g., submitting budget revisions or abstract language) for an eventual award. Formal action, including the release of reviews, cannot happen until we have funding available. However, folks in this group should also hear from their Program Officers by December 20.

After December 20, if you have not received any communication from us, first check your spam folder and then look up your proposal number and give us a call. But please remember, the lead PI for a proposal or collaborative group is the designated point of contact; if you’re a co-PI you need to get in touch with the lead PI and have them inquire.

[i] We’re not totally sure why this is, but suspect it has to do with email traffic volume and security features: discriminating an intentional batch of emails from an account taken over by a bot.