Preserve a Voucher Specimen! The Critical Need for Integrating Natural History Collections in Infectious Disease Studies.

Despite being nearly 10 months into the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, the definitive animal host for SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), the causal agent of COVID-19, remains unknown. Unfortunately, similar problems exist for other betacoronaviruses, and no vouchered specimens exist to corroborate host species identification for most of these pathogens. This most basic information is critical to the full understanding and mitigation of emerging zoonotic diseases. To overcome this hurdle, we recommend that host-pathogen researchers adopt vouchering practices and collaborate with natural history collections to permanently archive microbiological samples and host specimens. Vouchered specimens and associated samples provide both repeatability and extension to host-pathogen studies, and using them mobilizes a large workforce (i.e., biodiversity scientists) to assist in pandemic preparedness. We review several well-known examples that successfully integrate host-pathogen research with natural history collections (e.g., yellow fever, hantaviruses, helminths). However, vouchering remains an underutilized practice in such studies. Using an online survey, we assessed vouchering practices used by microbiologists (e.g., bacteriologists, parasitologists, virologists) in host-pathogen research. A much greater number of respondents permanently archive microbiological samples than archive host specimens, and less than half of respondents voucher host specimens from which microbiological samples were lethally collected. To foster collaborations between microbiologists and natural history collections, we provide recommendations for integrating vouchering techniques and archiving of microbiological samples into host-pathogen studies. This integrative approach exemplifies the premise underlying One Health initiatives, providing critical infrastructure for addressing related issues ranging from public health to global climate change and the biodiversity crisis.

Contradictions in the promotion of publishing academic and scientific journal articles, and the inability to cope with the new coronavirus (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: Translating research into practice is a central priority within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap. The underlying aim of the NIH Roadmap is to accelerate the movement of scientific findings into practical health care provisions through translational research. MAIN TEXT: Despite the advances in health sciences, emerging infectious diseases have become more frequent in recent decades. Furthermore, emerging and reemerging pathogens have led to several global public health challenges. A question, and to an extent a concern, arises from this: Why our health care system is experiencing several challenges in encountering the coronavirus outbreak, despite the ever-growing advances in sciences, and the exponential rise in the number of published articles in the first quartile journals and even the ones among the top 1%? CONCLUSION: Two responses could be potentially provided to the above question: First, there seems to be a significant gap between our theoretical knowledge and practice. And second that many scholars and scientists publish papers only to have a longer list of publications, and therefore publishing is viewed as a personal objective, rather than for improving communities' public health.

Clinical Science Editorial 2020 - a year gone by and the year ahead.

As this extraordinary year, blemished by COVID-19, comes to an end, I look back as Editor-in-Chief to the many great successes and new initiatives of Clinical Science. Despite the challenges we all faced during 2020, our journal has remained strong and vibrant. While we have all adapted to new working conditions, with life very different to what it was pre-COVID-19, the one thing that remains intact and secure is the communication of scientific discoveries through peer-reviewed journals. I am delighted to share with you some of the many achievements of our journal over the past year and to highlight some exciting new activities planned for 2021.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Research.

The COVID-19 pandemic is profoundly changing cancer researchers and cancer research. Leaders from different fields and at different career stages share their perspectives.

Breath research in times of a global pandemic and beyond: the game changer.

In contrast to blood and urine samples, breath is invisible and ubiquitous in the environment. Different precautions are now necessary beyond the usual 'Universal Precautions'. In the era of COVID-19, breath (especially the aerosol fraction) can no longer be considered as harmless in the clinic or laboratory. As Journal of Breath Research is a primary resource for breath-related research, we (the editors) are presently developing safety guidance applicable to all breath research , not just for those projects that involve known COVID-19 infected subjects. We are starting this process by implementing requirements on reporting safety precautions in research papers and notes. This editorial announces that authors of all new submissions to JBR henceforth must state clearly the procedures undertaken for assuring laboratory and clinical safety, much like the existing requirements for disclosing Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board protocols for studies on human subjects. In the following, we additionally make some recommendations based on best practices drawn from our experience and input from the JBR Editorial Board.

Biomedical Research in Times of Emergency: Lessons From History.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has sickened millions, killed hundreds of thousands, and utterly disrupted the daily lives of billions of people around the world. In an effort to ameliorate this devastation, the biomedical research complex has allocated billions of dollars and scientists have initiated hundreds of clinical trials in an expedited effort to understand, prevent, and treat this disease. National emergencies can stimulate significant investment of financial, physical, and intellectual resources that catalyze impressive scientific accomplishments, as evident with the Manhattan Project, penicillin, and the polio vaccines in the 20th century. However, pressurized research has also led to false promises, disastrous consequences, and breaches in ethics. Antiserum in the 1918 flu epidemic, contaminated yellow fever vaccines in World War II, and unethical human experimentation with mustard gas offer just a few cautionary exemplars. It is critical to continue biomedical research efforts to address this pandemic, and it is appropriate that they receive priority in both attention and funding. But history also demonstrates the importance of treating early results-such as those associated with hydroxychloroquine-with caution as we only begin to understand the biology, epidemiology, and potential target points of COVID-19.

Rethinking Gain-of-Function Experiments in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Proponents of the use of gain-of-function (GOF) experiments with pathogens with pandemic potential (PPP) have argued that such experiments are necessary because they reveal important facets of pathogenesis and can be performed safely. Opponents of GOF experiments with PPP have argued that the risks outweigh the knowledge gained. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the vulnerability of human societies to a new PPP, while also validating some arguments of both camps, questioning others, and suggesting the need to rethink how we approach this class of experiments.