OK, I admit it. I'm a sports junkie. The first thing I do in the morning is read the sports section in the paper, and once or twice a day I glance at ESPN.com to check out the latest scores and rumors. I rarely miss a game of my favorite college basketball team. While working at home I have a game on the TV as background, and I'm a sucker for almost any sports movie. Worst of all, I constantly use sports clichés and metaphors (often mixed) to weigh in on almost everything.  

The thing is, many of the principles that guide me in science were learned in sports. Besides the obvious things like hard work, consistency, awareness, preparation, opportunism, persistence, etc, the one precept that really sticks out is the central role of teamwork. While this is a given in sports, it is not a central tenet of scientific discovery.

It should be. The results brought by teamwork are indisputable, as is the excitement and personal fulfillment. But how do you get scientists to work together? I have pondered this question often during my ten years in industry and sixteen years in academia as a leader and member of different kinds of scientific organizations. Deep discussions I've had with leaders in industry and academia, and not just in the life sciences, always come back to the same dilemma, the tension between the "I" and the "We", and the likelihood of tipping too far to one side or the other. I've concluded that creating a culture of innovative discovery depends critically on achieving the right balance, and developing a value system where this tension is minimized, so that the "I" exists in harmony with the "We".

Read the complete article.

Aaron is a career higher education development professional having worked at Penn State, the University of Florida and Northwestern University. He has raised money to support a Medical College, Music Theatre and Dance, Engineering and Business. His most recent appointment was at the Ross School of Business where he met with 175 alumni annually and raised more than $23M over his six-year tenure. This private support went towards the construction of the new facility, scholarships, program and faculty support as part of the Michigan Difference Campaign.
 
Aaron's thoughts on joining the LSI: "I am very excited to be here at the Life Sciences Institute where we are positioned to do great things. There are three essential ingredients to any great organization: the people, the place, and the program. All three boxes are checked here at LSI. Our collaborative values in breaking down traditional silos to produce great science gives us a platform to entice much needed private support. I look forward to working with each of you to understand your needs and to further the great mission of our shared endeavor."

Also new to the LSI:

Erin Baschal, Ginsburg Lab

Kristoff Homan, Tesmer Lab

Joyce Kih, Inoki Lab

Ginger Kubish, Stuckey Lab

Min Jie Lee, Morrison Lab

Kevin Nguyen, Weiss Lab

Andrea Son, Rudenko Lab

Megan Stewart, Ye Lab

Yuqing Sun, Gestwicki Lab

A new video released by the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) shows grant applicants and others how NIH assesses the more than 80,000 grant applications it receives each year. CSR has also released a companion video entitled "NIH Tips for Applicants," in which reviewers and NIH staff members provide tips to new grant applicants. Both videos incorporate many of the recent enhancements to the NIH peer review and grants systems process. 

Watch the videos.