EDITORIALS the ATS journals’ standing in the field. As a final comment, each of the Red journal editors, over the course of the years, has seen the Journal evolve to its current status, and each feels a sense of pride and accomplishment when opening the latest issue (on their computers). Finally, what about science itself? How has that evolved, and where is it going? As detailed by the founding editors, the advent of the molecular biology era provided unique opportunities for scientists to understand the molecular basis of cell function using techniques and language not common to clinicians and clinical researchers. Hence, the original conception of the Red journal allowed lung biologists to communicate with each other and compete in the molecular era, and lung biologists did indeed take a prominent role in advancing biomedical science. Over time, we have gone from bench to bedside and back again. With the advent of big data, analytics, and genomics, we now have the opportunity to have the “bench AT bedside,” combining phenotype and genotype data to provide understanding about the precise molecular pathways causing disease and to offer the best therapy. This will lead to a confluence of interests among Red journal and Blue journal authors and readers. Yet, as the disciplines in part merge and as we are able to do more for our patients, we still have
major gaps in our understanding of the cell. Big data and big science will serve up many hypotheses, however, that will allow bench scientists to fill in these gaps. Hence, the need for a distinct Red journal will only increase. n Author disclosures are available with the text of this article at www.atsjournals.org. Kenneth B. Adler, Ph.D. (editor 2008–present) North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina Steven D. Shapiro, M.D. (editor 2003–2008) University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Michael J. Holtzman, M.D. (editor 1998–2003) Washington University St. Louis, Missouri John A. McDonald, Ph.D. (editor 1993–1998) University of Nevada Reno, Nevada
Copyright © 2014 by the American Thoracic Society
The Red Journal at 25 A Perspective from the Founding Editors Ken Adler, editor of the Red journal, has kindly invited us—the troika of editors that founded the Red journal in 1987 and held the reins into 1993—to submit some thoughts on the occasion of the Red journal’s silver anniversary. We appreciate this opportunity. What do we remember about the Red journal after 25 years? Our memories fall into two areas. First, we remember the American Thoracic Society’s (ATS) leadership going through a period of soul searching about sponsoring a basic science journal; second, we remember our personal challenges in launching a journal from scratch. Around 1986, discussions began at the ATS Publications Policy Committee about adding a second journal focused on lung biology to complement the ATS’s venerable clinically oriented American Review of Respiratory Disease (ARRD). Advocates argued that the ATS should get in step with the surge in cell biology occurring throughout the medical world and that the ARRD was not the right forum. Those against a second journal did not dispute that lung cell science was burgeoning but raised concerns that a second journal would be divisive between clinicians, physiologists, and cell biologists and that it would detract from the ARRD. There were also financial questions. Could the ATS afford a second journal? Would a basic science journal be interpreted by the clinical pulmonary community and pharmaceutical companies as ATS moving away from its core of clinical focus? Clearly, advocates for a new basic science journal prevailed, and this fit with ATS’s establishing an Assembly of Cell Biology in 1988. In the ATS publication “I Remember.Reflections on the American Thoracic Society’s First Century,” Dr. Gerard M. Turino described how the Red journal finally happened. “The time is 1987.. There were many arguments against the idea of a second journal.. Nonetheless, Gordon Snider, whom I had just succeeded
840
as President of the ATS, and I had to get Jim Swomley, then CEO of the ALA, to see the wisdom of establishing a second journal because he exercised control of the budget and programs of the national office. Rather than formal settings for discussion we (Gordon and I) chose the forum of small dinners in New York at Patsy’s restaurant. These became wonderful occasions to discuss ALA/ATS affairs and our proposal for a second journal. We made certain that the prelude to our dinners involved an interval of relaxed conversation which often required the consumption of several glasses of wine. Jim soon came around to our way of thinking” (1). In the kerfuffle about starting a basic science journal, many issues surfaced. One was about what the basic science emphasis was going to be: physiology or cell biology, or both. To many, including the leadership at the National Institutes of Health, this dilemma was a no-brainer. Cell biology should be the focus. Second was what to call the new journal. Interestingly and unexpectedly, the discussions about journal names not only led to coming up with a name for the new journal but also yielded a new name for the ARRD so that the two journals would have similar name formats. Dropping the name ARRD was a big deal to many in ATS who had grown attached to this moniker that had been in place since July 1959, although it was generally agreed that ‘”Review” was a confusing misnomer for a journal focused on primary research. For us, the founding editors, getting the Red journal afloat presented many challenges. One that was especially taxing—because it seemed so much out of our control—was how to get good manuscripts. An obvious solution was to call and write friends who were productive researchers. In those days before e-mail and even before fax, letter writing meant working with letterhead stationery and
American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology Volume 50 Number 5 | May 2014
EDITORIALS the U.S. Postal Service, barriers that would seem intolerable today. We used other approaches, such as writing to the authors of interesting abstracts from the ATS Annual Meeting and buttonholing people with whom we served on study sections and site visits. Also, we were not alone. We had an exceptional group of associate editors who helped give the fledgling journal visibility and prestige. On the other side of the ledger, however, we had distinguished competition for manuscripts from the American Physiological Society that was launching its own lung cell biology journal at the same time. During the first few years of the Red journal, having enough material for almost every issue was a major concern. We thought eight articles of original laboratory data was a minimum for an issue. Combined with a goal of keeping the acceptance rate below 50% meant that we needed at least 16 new papers to review each month. Fortunately, we never missed having an issue, but for some months we just barely reached our threshold of submissions. Delinquent reviewers added to the anxiety. The current expectation of a turnaround within a few weeks from submission to a decision from the editorial office would have been unheard of in 1988 because every step in the review process was so much slower than it is now. So, how has the Red journal changed in 25 years? Looking at a current issue compared with Volume 1 Number 1 from July 1989, the physical similarity is striking. There are subtle differences in the layout, but not much is different. That first issue was thin, a total of 74 pages, consisting of three editorials, an update on the fibronectin gene, a perspective on fetal lung fibroblasts, and eight papers that mostly concerned fibroblasts or alveolar macrophages. Current issues have many more papers per issue and, of course, have a much wider-ranging subject matter. The papers in 1989 did not include mouse models of genetic manipulation, epigenetics, or intracellular pathways, techniques and topics that populate the current issues of the Red journal. Clearly, the Red journal has kept pace with the language, technology, and research topics of 2014. Reminiscing is pleasant; looking forward is more exciting. Yogi Berra was correct that “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future,” but some trends in research are evident. In the years ahead lung cell biology research will be increasingly multidisciplinary and composed of teams that encompass expertise in industry and government with academia and will stretch across geographic boundaries. Also obvious is that there will be an explosion of data
from the “omics” (genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, etc.), requiring new techniques to process and interpret. Given the landscape of biomedical research and medical science and the status of training in 2014, we think one might write an editorial “Why Still a Second Journal?” now in response to the “Why a Second Journal?” editorial of 1988 (2). The rise in translational medicine over the past decade is rapidly closing the gap between basic science and clinical science felt in 1988. Recently trained pulmonary physicians are now conversant with the concepts and techniques of cell and molecular biology so that they can comprehend whatever science they confront. Accordingly, we wonder: Is the time coming to begin a process that will lead to merging the Red journal and the Blue journal into one journal that embraces both sophisticated basic science and clinical medicine? We look at Nature Medicine and The Journal of Clinical Investigation as journals that successfully exemplify this blend. We feel fortunate indeed to still be around to see the Red journal reach this milestone, and we wish the Red journal continued smooth sailing as it goes forward in this age of startling biomedical discovery and its application to medical practice. n Author disclosures are available with the text of this article at www.atsjournals.org. Robert M. Senior, M.D. Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, Missouri Jerome S. Brody, M.D. Mary C. Williams, Ph.D. Boston University School of Medicine Boston, Massachusetts
References 1. Turino GM. The founding of the Red Journal. In: Schraufnagel DE, editor. I remember.reflections on the American Thoracic Society’s first century. New York: American Thoracic Society; 2005. p. 227. 2. Turino GM, Brody JS. Why a second journal? Am Rev Respir Dis 1988; 137:995.
Copyright © 2014 by the American Thoracic Society
Primary Prevention of Chronic Lung Disease: A Role for Basic Science Biomedical research has led to improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic lung diseases, but the burden of these diseases to the U.S. population remains high. Advances in understanding the mechanisms of lung disease have led to the development of clinical management strategies and therapies to control symptoms and reduce progression of disease. However, there has been less emphasis on advancing our understanding of the mechanisms that underlie protective responses to injury or the aberrant host responses that precede disease. Improving our understanding of the preclinical state could lead to identification of modifiable targets for the primary prevention of incident disease.
It is not always clear where basic science fits when describing an agenda for primary prevention research. Important concepts for the primary prevention of chronic lung disease include understanding what exposures and host responses contribute to disease pathogenesis, and why many individuals with the same exposures are resilient and never develop disease; for example, are there protective host factors that explain why only about 20% of life-long smokers develop clinically recognizable symptoms of chronic obstructive lung disease? Disease susceptibility and/or initiation likely begin before clinically apparent symptoms and signs. Disease definitions in clinical research and medical care are based on
Links to the articles in the NHLBI Workshop on the Primary Prevention of Chronic Lung Diseases will be available at www.atsjournals.org/page/NHLBIWorkshop.
Editorials
841
major gaps in our understanding of the cell. Big data and big science will serve up many hypotheses, however, that will allow bench scientists to fill in these gaps. Hence, the need for a distinct Red journal will only increase. n Author disclosures are available with the text of this article at www.atsjournals.org. Kenneth B. Adler, Ph.D. (editor 2008–present) North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina Steven D. Shapiro, M.D. (editor 2003–2008) University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Michael J. Holtzman, M.D. (editor 1998–2003) Washington University St. Louis, Missouri John A. McDonald, Ph.D. (editor 1993–1998) University of Nevada Reno, Nevada
Copyright © 2014 by the American Thoracic Society
The Red Journal at 25 A Perspective from the Founding Editors Ken Adler, editor of the Red journal, has kindly invited us—the troika of editors that founded the Red journal in 1987 and held the reins into 1993—to submit some thoughts on the occasion of the Red journal’s silver anniversary. We appreciate this opportunity. What do we remember about the Red journal after 25 years? Our memories fall into two areas. First, we remember the American Thoracic Society’s (ATS) leadership going through a period of soul searching about sponsoring a basic science journal; second, we remember our personal challenges in launching a journal from scratch. Around 1986, discussions began at the ATS Publications Policy Committee about adding a second journal focused on lung biology to complement the ATS’s venerable clinically oriented American Review of Respiratory Disease (ARRD). Advocates argued that the ATS should get in step with the surge in cell biology occurring throughout the medical world and that the ARRD was not the right forum. Those against a second journal did not dispute that lung cell science was burgeoning but raised concerns that a second journal would be divisive between clinicians, physiologists, and cell biologists and that it would detract from the ARRD. There were also financial questions. Could the ATS afford a second journal? Would a basic science journal be interpreted by the clinical pulmonary community and pharmaceutical companies as ATS moving away from its core of clinical focus? Clearly, advocates for a new basic science journal prevailed, and this fit with ATS’s establishing an Assembly of Cell Biology in 1988. In the ATS publication “I Remember.Reflections on the American Thoracic Society’s First Century,” Dr. Gerard M. Turino described how the Red journal finally happened. “The time is 1987.. There were many arguments against the idea of a second journal.. Nonetheless, Gordon Snider, whom I had just succeeded
840
as President of the ATS, and I had to get Jim Swomley, then CEO of the ALA, to see the wisdom of establishing a second journal because he exercised control of the budget and programs of the national office. Rather than formal settings for discussion we (Gordon and I) chose the forum of small dinners in New York at Patsy’s restaurant. These became wonderful occasions to discuss ALA/ATS affairs and our proposal for a second journal. We made certain that the prelude to our dinners involved an interval of relaxed conversation which often required the consumption of several glasses of wine. Jim soon came around to our way of thinking” (1). In the kerfuffle about starting a basic science journal, many issues surfaced. One was about what the basic science emphasis was going to be: physiology or cell biology, or both. To many, including the leadership at the National Institutes of Health, this dilemma was a no-brainer. Cell biology should be the focus. Second was what to call the new journal. Interestingly and unexpectedly, the discussions about journal names not only led to coming up with a name for the new journal but also yielded a new name for the ARRD so that the two journals would have similar name formats. Dropping the name ARRD was a big deal to many in ATS who had grown attached to this moniker that had been in place since July 1959, although it was generally agreed that ‘”Review” was a confusing misnomer for a journal focused on primary research. For us, the founding editors, getting the Red journal afloat presented many challenges. One that was especially taxing—because it seemed so much out of our control—was how to get good manuscripts. An obvious solution was to call and write friends who were productive researchers. In those days before e-mail and even before fax, letter writing meant working with letterhead stationery and
American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology Volume 50 Number 5 | May 2014
EDITORIALS the U.S. Postal Service, barriers that would seem intolerable today. We used other approaches, such as writing to the authors of interesting abstracts from the ATS Annual Meeting and buttonholing people with whom we served on study sections and site visits. Also, we were not alone. We had an exceptional group of associate editors who helped give the fledgling journal visibility and prestige. On the other side of the ledger, however, we had distinguished competition for manuscripts from the American Physiological Society that was launching its own lung cell biology journal at the same time. During the first few years of the Red journal, having enough material for almost every issue was a major concern. We thought eight articles of original laboratory data was a minimum for an issue. Combined with a goal of keeping the acceptance rate below 50% meant that we needed at least 16 new papers to review each month. Fortunately, we never missed having an issue, but for some months we just barely reached our threshold of submissions. Delinquent reviewers added to the anxiety. The current expectation of a turnaround within a few weeks from submission to a decision from the editorial office would have been unheard of in 1988 because every step in the review process was so much slower than it is now. So, how has the Red journal changed in 25 years? Looking at a current issue compared with Volume 1 Number 1 from July 1989, the physical similarity is striking. There are subtle differences in the layout, but not much is different. That first issue was thin, a total of 74 pages, consisting of three editorials, an update on the fibronectin gene, a perspective on fetal lung fibroblasts, and eight papers that mostly concerned fibroblasts or alveolar macrophages. Current issues have many more papers per issue and, of course, have a much wider-ranging subject matter. The papers in 1989 did not include mouse models of genetic manipulation, epigenetics, or intracellular pathways, techniques and topics that populate the current issues of the Red journal. Clearly, the Red journal has kept pace with the language, technology, and research topics of 2014. Reminiscing is pleasant; looking forward is more exciting. Yogi Berra was correct that “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future,” but some trends in research are evident. In the years ahead lung cell biology research will be increasingly multidisciplinary and composed of teams that encompass expertise in industry and government with academia and will stretch across geographic boundaries. Also obvious is that there will be an explosion of data
from the “omics” (genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, etc.), requiring new techniques to process and interpret. Given the landscape of biomedical research and medical science and the status of training in 2014, we think one might write an editorial “Why Still a Second Journal?” now in response to the “Why a Second Journal?” editorial of 1988 (2). The rise in translational medicine over the past decade is rapidly closing the gap between basic science and clinical science felt in 1988. Recently trained pulmonary physicians are now conversant with the concepts and techniques of cell and molecular biology so that they can comprehend whatever science they confront. Accordingly, we wonder: Is the time coming to begin a process that will lead to merging the Red journal and the Blue journal into one journal that embraces both sophisticated basic science and clinical medicine? We look at Nature Medicine and The Journal of Clinical Investigation as journals that successfully exemplify this blend. We feel fortunate indeed to still be around to see the Red journal reach this milestone, and we wish the Red journal continued smooth sailing as it goes forward in this age of startling biomedical discovery and its application to medical practice. n Author disclosures are available with the text of this article at www.atsjournals.org. Robert M. Senior, M.D. Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, Missouri Jerome S. Brody, M.D. Mary C. Williams, Ph.D. Boston University School of Medicine Boston, Massachusetts
References 1. Turino GM. The founding of the Red Journal. In: Schraufnagel DE, editor. I remember.reflections on the American Thoracic Society’s first century. New York: American Thoracic Society; 2005. p. 227. 2. Turino GM, Brody JS. Why a second journal? Am Rev Respir Dis 1988; 137:995.
Copyright © 2014 by the American Thoracic Society
Primary Prevention of Chronic Lung Disease: A Role for Basic Science Biomedical research has led to improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic lung diseases, but the burden of these diseases to the U.S. population remains high. Advances in understanding the mechanisms of lung disease have led to the development of clinical management strategies and therapies to control symptoms and reduce progression of disease. However, there has been less emphasis on advancing our understanding of the mechanisms that underlie protective responses to injury or the aberrant host responses that precede disease. Improving our understanding of the preclinical state could lead to identification of modifiable targets for the primary prevention of incident disease.
It is not always clear where basic science fits when describing an agenda for primary prevention research. Important concepts for the primary prevention of chronic lung disease include understanding what exposures and host responses contribute to disease pathogenesis, and why many individuals with the same exposures are resilient and never develop disease; for example, are there protective host factors that explain why only about 20% of life-long smokers develop clinically recognizable symptoms of chronic obstructive lung disease? Disease susceptibility and/or initiation likely begin before clinically apparent symptoms and signs. Disease definitions in clinical research and medical care are based on
Links to the articles in the NHLBI Workshop on the Primary Prevention of Chronic Lung Diseases will be available at www.atsjournals.org/page/NHLBIWorkshop.
Editorials
841
