Discusses the many government agencies in the US that perform scientific and technological research.

In the twentieth century, settler states have operated through science. At the same time, the field of American bioethics has safeguarded the moral authority of science. It has done so by upholding the settler logics of the sciences that it claimed to hold to account. This chapter explores how the imperial logic of American bioethics works – through its concepts, practices, and imperceptions. To do so, the chapter follows Carolyn Matthews, an everyday American with a rich “vernacular archive” and apt work experiences, across three medical sites and over three postwar decades. It tells Carolyn’s story in two registers – setting Carolyn’s work experience prior to 1974, when the US Congress passed laws for the treatment of human subjects, alongside Carolyn’s moral recounting of those work experiences in the late 1970s. Carolyn’s case offers insight into how the vocabulary and framework of modern American bioethics embeds a moral ontology organized around civic individualism and its safeguarding, as opposed to anticolonialism and its dismantling. The aim of this critique of bioethics through the Americas is to strengthen existing alliances for justice-based science and to inform anticolonial practices – in science, history, and transformative bioethics.

One of the most important and daunting roles of the early academic is the pursuit of NIH grant funding. Although NIH funding allows for great autonomy and comes with validation and prestige, the process can feel overwhelming even for the most seasoned investigators. Therefore, being armed with information is crucial. Aiming to provide a guide to NIH grants with the early stage investigator in mind, this chapter outlines many of the key issues you will tackle throughout the process. These include: a) Developing Your Idea; b) Finding the Right Mechanism for You and Your Idea; c) Preparing Your Application; d) Submission and Receipt of Your Application; e) The Review Process; and f) Post-Review Strategies. These issues are addressed in light of the recent changes in the NIH grant submission and review process to provide an objective source, complimented by our favorite tips for your consideration.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug development is a complex process that proceeds from identification of a biological target; to testing of candidate therapies in in vitro assays; assessment of efficacy in animal models and assessment of safety in several animal species; clinical testing in humans in Phase1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 clinical trials; regulatory review by agencies in all countries in which the drug might be marketed; and eventual commercialization. This process requires more than a decade to accomplish. The process involves substantial infrastructure resources; multiple stakeholders; and funding from a variety sources along the developmental pathway. This is the complex ecosystem that supports AD drug development.

The chapter “Should Psychiatry Be Precise?” challenges the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) and the Research Domains Criteria (RDoC) initiative that have been advanced by the National Institute of Health. The chapter includes valuable points about the challenges of applying reduction across levels of analysis, the value of nosological revision, and the potential pitfalls of using big data. But the overall argument constructed in the chapter is a straw man that does not reflect well the intentions of those who designed these initiatives nor the understanding and aims of scientists now engaged in research under the aegis of these initiatives. A more constructive approach might focus on specification of tractable questions about causality in mental health research, and aspects of subjective experience that are currently under-represented in biological psychiatry.