Translational Biomedicine

  • ISSN: 2172-0479
  • Journal h-index: 12
  • Journal CiteScore: 8.06
  • Journal Impact Factor: 1.0
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
20+ Million Readerbase
Indexed In
  • Open J Gate
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • JournalTOCs
  • ResearchBible
  • The Global Impact Factor (GIF)
  • China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)
  • CiteFactor
  • Scimago
  • Electronic Journals Library
  • Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • Proquest Summons
  • Publons
  • MIAR
  • University Grants Commission
  • Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  • Google Scholar
  • Secret Search Engine Labs
  • ResearchGate
Share This Page

Mini Review - (2022) Volume 13, Issue 6

Next Generation of Translational Neuroscientists by Found in Translation

Frances E. Jensen*
Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, USA
*Correspondence: Frances E. Jensen, Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, USA, Email:

Received: 02-Jun-2022, Manuscript No. Iptb-22-12970; Editor assigned: 08-Jun-2022, Pre QC No. PQ - 12970; Reviewed: 22-Jun-2022, QC No. Q-22- 12970; Revised: 27-Jun-2022, Manuscript No. Iptb-22-12970 (R); Published: 01-Jul-2022, DOI: 10.21767/ 2172-0479.100240


The field of neuroscience and its workforce are expanding quickly. According to the WHO, neuropsychiatric diseases are the leading cause of health care spending in the country, accounting for almost of disability-adjusted life years. There is a high demand for the quick translation of basic science discoveries into clinical application for the development of pharmacologic therapies, diagnostics, biologics, and devices due to the ageing population and the increased survival rate as a result of therapeutic successes in many areas of medicine. To maintain and expand our pool of young scientists and doctors, we must overcome a number of obstacles including supporting them during their formative years of training; giving them stable career options, securing funding for their research, and enabling their discoveries to more effectively advance clinical care.


Neuroscience; Pharmacologic therapies; Metabolomic tests


Although replicability is a problem in both domains, we lack standardised procedures for matching experimental animal results with those in humans [1]. The next generation of translational workers must also contend with funding reductions and extensive training, which could steer them toward alternative career paths even while the need for their services is expanding [2]. Last but not least, translational research may involve handoffs and team science, which unintentionally reduces prospects for first or last authorship and frequently lengthens time to publication, raising worries about postponing career advancement and promotion processes. Greater synchronisation of study design between experimental models and human clinical trials is urgently required [3]. Translation of a therapy should ideally and metabolomic tests now enable concurrent research using both animal and human biospecimens [4]. Recent studies on the cellular and molecular signals involved in disease aetiology have revealed new opportunities for disease model customization [6]. Additionally, clinical imaging methods are now accessible for both small and large animals, and they follow comparable procedures to those used in humans [7]. Despite the convergence of methods and tools, training for clinical research and basic science requires several years of experience and frequently provides limited chance for cross-training [8]. There is still a significant lack of appreciation for things like experimental design methodology, pharmacokinetics pharmacodynamics, and statistical approaches that could improve translation in the training procedures. The clinical neurosciences are developing. [9] There is much to share from bed to bench side, including assays that were previously solely available to experimentalists [10]. The absence of coordinated communication from the quickly changing field of clinical discoveries back to the bench side researchers is another relative drawback. Existing preclinical research may be based on "out-of-date" knowledge of the clinical condition, so it is imperative to make every effort to keep the information flow up to date. Other incidents have shown how crucial it is for scientists to receive thorough training in study design as a foundation for advancing translational research. Concerns about the repeatability of preclinical research, which serve as the foundation for drug discovery and development, have grown over the past few years, particularly with regard to studies using animal models [11]. Have prompted a need for more transparency and verification of the methods used to acquire the data for this research [12]. Pharmaceutical and biotech corporations have grown increasingly reticent to rely plans for drug discovery on data published in the scientific literature, a topic that is covered in greater detail in a Perspective in this issue [13]. Studies in papers and funding applications fail to include adequate reporting that includes randomization, blinding, sample size, and information on data analysis, which results in a lack of information needed to push work into clinical applications and trials [14]. This issue is the result of a number of factors coming together, including inadequate data handling and statistical analysis, a lack of incentives for publishing unfavourable findings, and a lack of journal space for data and methods. But training plays a long-term role as well [15]. In the advice for enhancing the procedure. Training with a focus on meticulous experimental design, openness, suitable statistical analysis, and attentive mentoring has the potential to increase Elsevier Inc. Numerous facets of data handling and study design in biological research are covered in Neuron 84 on November 5, 2014. Professional societies have a responsibility to educate their members on the significance of these concerns, uphold standards for data reporting in their journals, and offer training opportunities that focus on these topics. Many people are starting to question whether the traditional academic path is the sole way to define success in light of the difficulties faced by recent PhD graduates and postdoctoral associates. Even in a field as dynamic as neuroscience, with its amazing developments and the impetus spurred by the new Brain Initiative, Only a small percentage of individuals who graduate with a doctorate will land jobs in academia that allow them to acquire enough steady grant funding to run their own independent research lab. Reduced funding has had profound results postdoctoral training duration has increased, trainees are choosing occupations outside of research, and those who become independent investigators do so considerably later often not until they are in their early 40s. Concerns regarding the sustainability of a system based on on-going expansion have also been raised due to the drop in the number of proposals that were funded, the rise in competition, and the emphasis on grant writing rather than experiments. In this challenging context, numerous young researchers have started to consider various choices and have a broader perspective on have already started to provide their students with customised training plans and a variety of tracks that prepare them not only for academic research professions, but also for careers in teaching, biotech and pharma, clinical trials, and scientific policy. In order to better prepare graduate students and postdoctoral fellows for careers in the biomedical research workforce outside of traditional academic research, the NIH Common Fund's Broadening Experience in Scientific Training award was created. Such programmes continue to create graduates with a solid foundation in their field, as well as critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, but they also give them more exposure to and practical experience related to one or more of these professional choices. Additionally, translational science is advantageous. The complexity of the brain may be explored, and fundamental features of how we interact with the environment can be revealed, thanks to new technologies and methods of thinking.


These innovations, which might be based on research on worms on culture plates or bacteria in deep sea vents, have the potential to not only increase our understanding of how we perceive, think, and behave but also provide the groundwork for enhancing health and treating brain disorders. Support for discovery-driven science will need to be balanced with more focused, disease translational research in the future. Although it is simple to understand why focused, disease-driven research is crucial, both types of research ultimately have the ability to advance providing potentially lifesaving treatments and a deeper comprehension of disease causes the balance between basic and applied research is not always easy to determine when resources are scarce. The need to encourage exploratory, curiosity-driven research as a platform for discovery remains essential to the scientific endeavour because few of us can foretell where the next significant breakthrough or innovative approach will occur. The case for translational science, which builds on basic research in a more deliberate, goal-directed manner, is, however, also strong. Translational science, when done correctly in a well-validated, considerate, multidisciplinary method, advances the application of new discoveries and has the potential to provide us a new understanding of human disease and potential treatments. Not well done clinical studies and inefficient work. For these reasons, it makes sense to train a group of scientists and physician scientists who will be able to connect basic and clinical research using rigorous methodologies and the appropriate set of abilities. New opportunities in translational science serve to diversify and broaden career opportunities in the continuum of training options now available to students, scientists, and doctors, as well as to ensure that a workforce is well-trained to move from fundamental discoveries to the creation of novel therapeutic approaches for human disease. Clinical studies into the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mental disease using molecular cellular systems and behavioural methods. At the Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Frances E. Jensen is a professor and the department's chair. She actively runs a translational research lab and has developed institutional and interinstitutional career development programmes as well as translational neuroscience programmes. The NIMH NIH HHS or the US government do not necessarily share the opinions expressed in this paper. There are no financial conflicts of interest that the authors need to report.


As they will occasionally be needed over the course of a career, early exposure to new partners like industry FDA regulatory advisers medicinal chemists, legal, and technology transfer during training is crucial. The appropriate patient advocacy groups can help trainees have a greater understanding of the diverse spectrum of experts who assist the pipeline to translation, which is another factor of which they should be aware. The complexity of the brain may be explored, and fundamental features of how we interact with the environment can be revealed, thanks to new technologies and methods of thinking. These innovations, which might be based on research on worms on culture plates or bacteria in deep sea vents, have the potential to not only increase our understanding of how we perceive, think, and behave but also provide the groundwork for enhancing health and treating brain disorders.



Conflict of Interest



  1. Lucanic M, Plummer WT, Chen Eet (2017) Impact of genetic background and experimental reproducibility on identifying chemical compounds with robust longevity effects. Nat Commun 8: 14256.
  2. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  3. Lowenstein SR, Fernandez G, Crane LA (2007) Medical school faculty discontent: Prevalence and predictors of intent to leave academic careers. BMC Med Educ 7: 37.
  4. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  5. Gonzalez CD, Lee MS, Marchetti P, Pietropaolo M, Towns R, et al. (2010) The emerging role of autophagy in the pathophysiology of diabetes mellitus. Autophagy 7: 2-11.
  6. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  7. Holmes E, Tsang TM, Huang JT, Leweke FM, Koethe D,et al. (2006) Metabolic profiling of CSF: evidence that early intervention may impact on disease progression and outcome in schizophrenia. PLoS Med 3: 327.
  8. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  9. Zhang X, Smith DL, Meriin AB, Engemann S, Russel DE,et al. (2005) A potent small molecule inhibits polyglutamine aggregation in Huntington's disease neurons and suppresses neurodegeneration in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 892-897.
  10. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  11. Alexandrakis G, Rannou FR, Chatziioannou AF (2006) Effect of optical property estimation accuracy on tomographic bioluminescence imaging: simulation of a combined optical-PET (OPET) system. Phys Med Biol 51: 2045-2053.
  12. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  13. McLaughlin JE, Roth M, Glatt DM (2014) The flipped classroom: a course redesign to foster learning and engagement in health professions school. Acad Med 89: 1-8.
  14. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  15. Evans S, Simpson D, Kitch D, King A, Clifford D, et al (2007) A Randomized Trial Evaluating Prosaptideâ?¢ for HIV-Associated Sensory Neuropathies: Use of an Electronic Diary to Record Neuropathic Pain. PLoS ONE 2: 551.
  16. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  17. Granda JM, Donina L, Dragone V, Long DL (2018) Cronin L Controlling an Organic Synthesis Robot with Machine Learning to Search for New Reactivity. Nature 559: 377-381.
  18. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  19. Kimmelman J, Mogil JS, Dirnagl U (2014) Distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory preclinical research will improve translation. PLoS Biol 12: 1001863.
  20. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  21. Nestler EJ, Hyman SE (2010) Animal models of neuropsychiatric disorders. Nat Neurosci 13: 1161-1169.
  22. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  23. Tenenbaum JD, Sansone SA, Haendel M (2014) A sea of standards for omics data: sink or swim? J Am Med Inform Assoc 21: 200-203.
  24. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  25. Mortamais M, Ash JA, Harrison J, Kaye J, Kramer J, et al. (2016) etecting cognitive changes in preclinical Alzheimer's disease: a review of its feasibility. Alzheimers Dement 13: 468-492.
  26. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  27. Zafar SY, Peppercorn JM, Schrag D, Taylor DH, Goetzinger AM, et al. (2013) The financial toxicity of cancer treatment. A pilot study assessing out-of-pocket expenses and the insured cancer patient's experience. Oncology 18: 381-390.
  28. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  29. Scharfstein DO, Hogan J, Herman A (2012) On the prevention and analysis of missing data in randomized clinical trials: the state of the art. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94: 80-84.
  30. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

Citation: Frances E. Jensen (2022) Next Generation of Translational Neuroscientists by Found in Translation Transl Biomed Vol. 13 No. Issue 06:240