Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2005 97(18):1324-1325; doi:10.1093/jnci/dji325
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hede, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hede, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2005 Oxford University Press

NEWS

$104 Million Proteomics Initiative Gets Green Light

Karyn Hede

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The National Cancer Institute's Board of Scientific Advisors (BSA) in June approved a 5-year, $104 million Clinical Proteomic Technologies Initiative just 3 months after turning down an earlier version of the measure that some board members said lacked proof of concept. What's more, the board approved the measure despite the fact that its price tag increased by $15 million from its initial $89 million estimated cost.

"I can tell you that particularly in tight money times it didn't make anyone particularly happy that the price tag went up," said Robert Young, M.D., BSA chairman and president of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia.


Figure Removed (Available Only in the Full Text)
View larger version (129K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Robert Young

 
Approval for the initiative followed presentations by NCI staff who tried to address issues that came up at its initial presentation at the board's March meeting, during which members voiced concerns about reproducibility and comparability of proteomic analyses, a lack of common reagents and . . . [Full Text of this Article]

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?