Robert Pool – författare

Ingen är begränsad till talang. Vi skapar själva gränsen för våra förmågor.

Vart vi än vänder oss från idrott och musik till naturvetenskap och näringsliv finns människor som uppvisar extraordinära förmågor. Människor som vi gärna kallar särskilt begåvade eller talangfulla.

Men Mozart föddes inte med absolut gehör och Zlatan har inte kunnat luta sig enbart mot talang. Det handlar i stället om träning och övning och framför allt rätt sorts övning vilket K Anders Ericsson visat i sin banbrytande forskning.

De principer för att utvecklas som beskrivs i Peak gäller för oss alla: oavsett vad vi vill bli bättre på eller om vi vill hjälpa andra att nå längre.

K Anders Ericsson är professor i psykologi. Det är hans forskning om exceptionella prestationer som ligger till grund för den omtalade 10 000-timmarsregeln.

"Peak känns inte som vare sig en självhjälpsbok eller managementlitteratur, utan en fascinerande berättelse om vad människan - kanske även du själv - är kapabel till." Svenska Dagbladet

Ingen är begränsad till talang.?Vi skapar själva gränsen för våra förmågor.

Vart vi än vänder oss – från idrott och musik till naturvetenskap och näringsliv – finns människor som uppvisar extraordinära förmågor. Människor som vi gärna kallar ”särskilt begåvade” eller ”talangfulla”.

Men Mozart föddes inte med absolut gehör och Zlatan har inte kunnat luta sig enbart mot talang. Det handlar i stället om träning och övning – och framför allt rätt sorts övning – vilket K Anders Ericsson visat i sin banbrytande forskning.

De principer för att utvecklas som beskrivs i Peak gäller för oss alla: oavsett vad vi vill bli bättre på eller om vi vill hjälpa andra att nå längre.

”Peak känns inte som vare sig en självhjälpsbok eller managementlitteratur, utan en fascinerande berättelse om vad människan – kanske även du själv – är kapabel till.”– Svenska Dagbladet

*

K Anders Ericsson är professor i psykologi. Det är hans forskning om exceptionella prestationer som ligger till grund för den omtalade ”10 000-timmarsregeln”.

Investment and innovation in drug research and development (R&D) for highly prevalent chronic diseases has stalled in recent decades, despite half of all Americans living with at least one chronic disease. As a result, prevalent chronic diseases are producing immense health care costs as well as preventable suffering and death. On February 22, March 2, and March 8, 2021, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, convened a workshop to discuss barriers to innovation in this space and examine strategies and incentives to support equitable, person-centered drug R&D for prevalent chronic diseases.

In recent years, the costs of new drug development have skyrocketed. The average cost of developing a new approved drug is now estimated to be $1.3 billion (DiMasi and Grabowski, 2007). At the same time, each year fewer new molecular entities (NMEs) are approved. DiMasi and Grabowski report that only 21.5 percent of the candidate drugs that enter phase I clinical testing actually make it to market. In 2007, just 17 novel drugs and 2 novel biologics were approved. In addition to the slowing rate of drug development and approval, recent years have seen a number of drugs withdrawn from the market for safety reasons. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 10 drugs were withdrawn because of safety concerns between 2000 and March 2006 (GAO, 2006). Finding ways to select successful drug candidates earlier in development could save millions or even billions of dollars, reduce the costs of drugs on the market, and increase the number of new drugs with improved safety profiles that are available to patients.

On September 22-23, 2009, the National Research Council held a workshop on the field evaluation of behavioral and cognitive sciences—based methods and tools for use in the areas of intelligence and counterintelligence. Broadly speaking, the purpose of the workshop was to discuss the best ways to take methods and tools from behavioral science and apply them to work in intelligence operations. More specifically, the workshop focused on the issue of field evaluation—the testing of these methods and tools in the context in which they will be used in order to determine if they are effective in real-world settings. This book is a summary and synthesis of the two days of presentations and discussions that took place during the workshop. The workshop participants included invited speakers and experts from a number of areas related to the behavioral sciences and the intelligence community. The discussions covered such ground as the obstacles to field evaluation of behavioral science tools and methods, the importance of field evaluation, and various lessons learned from experience with field evaluation in other areas.

On September 22-23, 2009, the National Research Council held a workshop on the field evaluation of behavioral and cognitive sciences—based methods and tools for use in the areas of intelligence and counterintelligence. Broadly speaking, the purpose of the workshop was to discuss the best ways to take methods and tools from behavioral science and apply them to work in intelligence operations. More specifically, the workshop focused on the issue of field evaluation—the testing of these methods and tools in the context in which they will be used in order to determine if they are effective in real-world settings. This book is a summary and synthesis of the two days of presentations and discussions that took place during the workshop. The workshop participants included invited speakers and experts from a number of areas related to the behavioral sciences and the intelligence community. The discussions covered such ground as the obstacles to field evaluation of behavioral science tools and methods, the importance of field evaluation, and various lessons learned from experience with field evaluation in other areas.

Recent years have seen a growing tendency for social scientists to collect biological specimens such as blood, urine, and saliva as part of large-scale household surveys. By combining biological and social data, scientists are opening up new fields of inquiry and are able for the first time to address many new questions and connections. But including biospecimens in social surveys also adds a great deal of complexity and cost to the investigator''s task. Along with the usual concerns about informed consent, privacy issues, and the best ways to collect, store, and share data, researchers now face a variety of issues that are much less familiar or that appear in a new light. In particular, collecting and storing human biological materials for use in social science research raises additional legal, ethical, and social issues, as well as practical issues related to the storage, retrieval, and sharing of data. For example, acquiring biological data and linking them to social science databases requires a more complex informed consent process, the development of a biorepository, the establishment of data sharing policies, and the creation of a process for deciding how the data are going to be shared and used for secondary analysis—all of which add cost to a survey and require additional time and attention from the investigators. These issues also are likely to be unfamiliar to social scientists who have not worked with biological specimens in the past. Adding to the attraction of collecting biospecimens but also to the complexity of sharing and protecting the data is the fact that this is an era of incredibly rapid gains in our understanding of complex biological and physiological phenomena. Thus the tradeoffs between the risks and opportunities of expanding access to research data are constantly changing. Conducting Biosocial Surveys offers findings and recommendations concerning the best approaches to the collection, storage, use, and sharing of biospecimens gathered in social science surveys and the digital representations of biological data derived therefrom. It is aimed at researchers interested in carrying out such surveys, their institutions, and their funding agencies.

Recent years have seen a growing tendency for social scientists to collect biological specimens such as blood, urine, and saliva as part of large-scale household surveys. By combining biological and social data, scientists are opening up new fields of inquiry and are able for the first time to address many new questions and connections. But including biospecimens in social surveys also adds a great deal of complexity and cost to the investigator''s task. Along with the usual concerns about informed consent, privacy issues, and the best ways to collect, store, and share data, researchers now face a variety of issues that are much less familiar or that appear in a new light. In particular, collecting and storing human biological materials for use in social science research raises additional legal, ethical, and social issues, as well as practical issues related to the storage, retrieval, and sharing of data. For example, acquiring biological data and linking them to social science databases requires a more complex informed consent process, the development of a biorepository, the establishment of data sharing policies, and the creation of a process for deciding how the data are going to be shared and used for secondary analysis—all of which add cost to a survey and require additional time and attention from the investigators. These issues also are likely to be unfamiliar to social scientists who have not worked with biological specimens in the past. Adding to the attraction of collecting biospecimens but also to the complexity of sharing and protecting the data is the fact that this is an era of incredibly rapid gains in our understanding of complex biological and physiological phenomena. Thus the tradeoffs between the risks and opportunities of expanding access to research data are constantly changing. Conducting Biosocial Surveys offers findings and recommendations concerning the best approaches to the collection, storage, use, and sharing of biospecimens gathered in social science surveys and the digital representations of biological data derived therefrom. It is aimed at researchers interested in carrying out such surveys, their institutions, and their funding agencies.

Recognizing the important contributions that genomic analysis can make to agriculture, production and companion animal science, evolutionary biology, and human health with respect to the creation of models for genetic disorders, the National Academies convened a group of individuals to plan a public workshop that would: (1) assess these contributions; (2) identify potential research directions for existing genomics programs; and (3) highlight the opportunities of a coordinated, multi-species genomics effort for the science and policymaking communities. Their efforts culminated in a workshop sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health. The workshop was convened on February 19, 2002. The goal of the workshop was to focus on domestic animal genomics and its integration with other genomics and functional genomics projects.

Proponents of agricultural biotechnology believe that genetically modified (GM) crops have the potential to provide great ecological benefits, such as reduced pesticide and land use, as well as agricultural benefits. However, given the rapid emergence of commercial GM crops and the likely increase in their use, many groups have raised concerns about the potential unintended, adverse ecological effects of these crops. Some ecological concerns are enhanced development of pest resistance, crosspollination with wild relatives, and reductions in beneficial insects or birds.

Ecological Monitoring of Genetically Modified Crops considers the latest in monitoring methods and technologies and to asks—What are the challenges associated with monitoring for ecological effects of GM crops? Is ongoing ecological monitoring of GM crops a useful and informative activity? If so, how should scientifically rigorous monitoring be carried out in the variety of ecological settings in which GM crops are grown?

The goal of this workshop was to bring together bioinformatics stake holders from government, academe, and industry for a day of presentations and dialogue. Fifteen experts identified and discussed some of the most important issues raised by the current flood of biologic data. Topics explored included the importance of database curation, database integration and interoperability, consistency and standards in terminology, error prevention and correction, data provenance, ontology, the importance of maintaining privacy, data mining, and the need for more computer scientists with specialty training in bioinformatics. Although formal conclusions and recommendations will not come from this particular workshop, many insights may be gleaned about the future of this field, from the context of the discussions and presentations described here.

In recent years, the costs of new drug development have skyrocketed. The average cost of developing a new approved drug is now estimated to be $1.3 billion (DiMasi and Grabowski, 2007). At the same time, each year fewer new molecular entities (NMEs) are approved. DiMasi and Grabowski report that only 21.5 percent of the candidate drugs that enter phase I clinical testing actually make it to market. In 2007, just 17 novel drugs and 2 novel biologics were approved. In addition to the slowing rate of drug development and approval, recent years have seen a number of drugs withdrawn from the market for safety reasons. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 10 drugs were withdrawn because of safety concerns between 2000 and March 2006 (GAO, 2006). Finding ways to select successful drug candidates earlier in development could save millions or even billions of dollars, reduce the costs of drugs on the market, and increase the number of new drugs with improved safety profiles that are available to patients.

NIOSH and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) share responsibility for overseeing respiratory protection in the workplace and have established regulations for this purpose. Specifically, NIOSH has issued regulations which define respirator testing and certification. OSHA has issued regulations which define conditions under which employers are required to maintain respiratory protection programs in general industry, shipyards, marine terminals, and construction. In 2005, NIOSH contracted with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to study the NIOSH-sponsored Anthrotech study along with its supporting information and reports, and to examine and report on the adequacy and relevance of the study protocol, the analyses conducted, the resulting anthropometric dataset, and the appropriateness of the respirator fit-test panels derived from the new dataset.Assessment of the NIOSH Head-and-Face Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Respirator Users focuses on the establishment of the scientific base required for certification standards of respirators, not their use in the workplace. This report describes and analyzes the anthropometric measurements performed by Anthrotech for its NIOSH-sponsored study. This report looks at the survey methods used by Anthrotech in the study, and examines how Anthrotech analyzed its data to derive fit-test panels and suggests some ways that analysis could be improved. This report discusses future directions, pointing toward further analyses of the data and offers suggestions for moving from research to practice.

It is widely understood that stem cell treatments have the potential to revolutionize medicine. Because of this potential, in 2004 California voters approved Proposition 71 to set up a 10-year, $3 billion program to fund research on stem cells. Under the direction of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, this program will pay to build facilities for stem cell research and will fund doctors and scientists to carry out research with the ultimate goal of helping to develop therapies based on stem cells.For this research to move forward, however, will require a steady supply of stem cells, particularly human embryonic stem cells. Those stem cells are collected from developing human embryos created from eggs—or oocytes—harvested from the ovaries of female donors. Thus much of the promise of stem cells depends on women choosing to donate oocytes to the research effort. The oocyte donation process is not without risk, however. Donors are given doses of hormones to trigger the production of more eggs than would normally be produced, and this hormone treatment can have various side effects. Once the eggs have matured in the ovary, they must be retrieved via a surgical procedure that is typically performed under anesthesia, and both the surgery and the anesthesia carry their own risks. Furthermore, given the very personal nature of egg donation, the experience may carry psychological risks for some women as well. With this in mind, in 2006 the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine contracted with the National Academies to organize a workshop that would bring together experts from various areas to speak about the potential risks of oocyte donation and to summarize what is known and what needs to be known about this topic. The Committee on Assessing the Medical Risks of Human Oocyte Donation for Stem Cell Research was formed to plan the workshop, which was held in San Francisco on September 28, 2006. This report is a summary and synthesis of that workshop.

The integration of biology, genomics, and health has opened the possibility of applying genomics technology to nutrition. In 2001, scientists associated with the Human Genome Project announced the successful mapping of the reference sequence of the human genome. Since then, a body of information has emerged. Genomics and related areas of research have contributed greatly to efforts to understand the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying diet-disease relationships. Integration and application of genetic and genomics technology into nutrition research is, therefore, needed to develop nutrition research programs that are aimed at the prevention and control of chronic disease through genomics-based nutritional interventions. Of interest is the integration of relevant computational methods into nutritional genomics research; the enhancement of tools applicable to systems biology; and the effective dissemination of genomics-derived information to scientists, policy makers, and the interested public. To address these issues, a workshop was held on June 1 and 2, 2006. The workshop included presentations that were structured around three focus sessions: human genetic variation, epigenetics, and systems biology. A fourth session presented discussions on the implications of nutrigenomics for the future of nutrition science research. Numerous themes emerged from the workshop presentations. First, nutrigenomics is a complex field because it addresses issues related to multigenetic traits that can be modified by a number of nutritional and other environmental factors. Such complexity presents a challenge to the field; and the ensuing research opportunities will require cooperative work among scientific disciplines and across government, academic, and industrial centers, as well as adequate funding, to be realized. Additionally, the ability to stretch the limits of conventional research methodologies afforded by new genetic and genomic applications at the level of the individual opens the door to a wealth of potential benefits to areas such as disease prevention and wellness, bearing in mind the necessity of ethical safeguards. This potential, however, must be wisely exploited to avoid the pitfalls of overpromising research results and prematurely setting unrealistic expectations for beneficial outcomes. Finally, careful and rigorous research must be employed to optimize outcomes and assure acceptance by the scientific community. In summary, nutrition science is uniquely poised to serve as the crossroads for many disciplines and, using genomics tools, can bring this knowledge together to better understand and address diet-related chronic diseases and molecular responses to dietary factors.

Sociocultural Data to Accomplish Department of Defense Missions: Toward a Unified Social Framework summarizes presentations and discussions that took place on August 16-17, 2010, at a National Research Council public workshop sponsored by the Office of Naval Research. The workshop addressed the variables and complex interaction of social and cultural factors that influence human behavior, focusing on potential applications to the full spectrum of military operations.

The workshop''s keynote address by Major General Michael T. Flynn, U.S. Army, provided critical context about the cultural situation and needs of the military operating in Afghanistan. Additional presentations were divided into four panels to address the diverse missions encountered by the U.S. military worldwide. The workshop concluded with a final panel to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different methods of acquiring and using relevant data and knowledge to accomplish these missions. The panel topics and presenters are listed below:

Sociocultural Data to Accomplish Department of Defense Missions: Toward a Unified Social Framework summarizes presentations and discussions that took place on August 16-17, 2010, at a National Research Council public workshop sponsored by the Office of Naval Research. The workshop addressed the variables and complex interaction of social and cultural factors that influence human behavior, focusing on potential applications to the full spectrum of military operations.

The workshop''s keynote address by Major General Michael T. Flynn, U.S. Army, provided critical context about the cultural situation and needs of the military operating in Afghanistan. Additional presentations were divided into four panels to address the diverse missions encountered by the U.S. military worldwide. The workshop concluded with a final panel to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different methods of acquiring and using relevant data and knowledge to accomplish these missions. The panel topics and presenters are listed below: