Rationale: One major hurdle faculty face in preparing grant proposals is in the drafting of the non-scientific components—that is, the Resource & Facilities, Resource Sharing Plan, biosketch personal statements, letters of support, and other regulatory sections (e.g., human subjects and vertebrate animals); this is especially true in the preparation of complex, multi-investigator and multi-institutional, Center-type grant proposals. Faculty may look at these sections as bothersome time-sinks, hardly worth time or effort, or as insurmountable challenges that prevent them from applying to a grant. In either case, the ability to procure the necessary funding to conduct of their research can be seriously affected by sub-par non-scientific components in their proposals.

The Research Development Office (RDO) supports the development of multi-component grant proposals and, since its inception in July 2012, has already amassed a collection of template/example language for the non-scientific components of large Center grant applications (e.g., P01, P30, P50, U19, and U54 mechanisms). Of particular importance, we have descriptions of many UCSF resources (general environment, schools, departments, core facilities, etc.); we also have collected Resource Sharing Plans, regulatory sections, letters of support, and biosketches. So far, we have deposited these documents on our office server and kept inventory on an Excel spreadsheet. This is not a viable, scalable, or sustainable way for us to accomplish our goal of creating, managing, and curating a database of template/example language and making it available to any UCSF faculty or staff member (Principal Investigators, Key Personnel, grant and research administrators, Research Management Services staff, Contracts & Grants staff, staff writers, etc.). This library will not replace any of our current functionality in the proposal development process—RDO personnel will continue to help draft personalized sections—but will instead allow us to expand our level of service and free up bandwidth. In particular, the templates/examples will be relevant for a large breadth of documents in addition to large Center grants, including R01s, training grants, and contracts. Sources for template/example language will include the internal RDO library, as well as RMS personnel, UCSF departments, and individual investigators willing to share their samples.  The creation of such a library has been enthusiastically supported by many faculty members, RMS and C&G staff, and administrators, and we look forward to working with them to continually adapt the library to best serve the needs of the UCSF community.

Plan

1. Consult with a system administrator or web developer to identify an appropriate solution based on the following criteria:
   1. Ease-of-use: possible for any RDO staff member to be a site administrator in order to upload documents and update/manage content, overseen by Dr. Erin Bank, Research Development Specialist
   2. Searchability: keyword optimized for intuitive and easy searching by section title, keyword, and type of document
   3. Accessibility: open to UCSF faculty and staff via the UCSF network at any UCSF workstation or through a UCSF VPN account
   4. Connectability: able to link from the OSR/RDO website, currently under development to be hosted by the UCSF Office of Research using Drupal
   5. Adaptability: able to adapt to different types of documents and files as need dictates
   6. Trackability: count number of visits and downloads
   7. Capacity: room for hundreds of small-format .doc, .pdf, and .xcl files
2. Work with a system administrator or web developer to implement the system
3. Train Dr. Bank to be the primary manager of the database once it is up and running. Dr. Bank will also curate templates/examples contributed from outside the RDO

Criteria and metrics for success: We will track the visitors to the site and the number of times each document is downloaded, in addition to the number of text sections offered and the number of edits made to the stored text sections in order to keep them accurate.

Approximate cost and very brief justification: We request a budget of $20,000 to cover consulting fees; site building, authentication, and implementation; software installation; CMS costs (licensing fees, add-ons, hosting); training; and the UCSF server recharge.

Collaborators: A system administrator/web developer with experience working with UCSF; RMS, other staff, and faculty members will be both partners in contributing to the content of the database and users of the database after it is established.

Application Management System

Rationale: There are several programs on campus that manage the dissemination, submission, review, and selection of applications for student positions, grant awardees, or other candidate selectees. The Research Allocation Program (RAP) is one such program where this process is perhaps the most complex due to the number of intramural funding mechanisms, the number of review committees, and the nature of the selection process. Currently, RAP applications are submitted online but the review and decision processes are done manually, thus limiting continued efficiency improvement and lowering the ease of program reporting. To remedy this situation for RAP and other related program processes on campus, we would like to develop a single electronic solution that will accommodate the processes for dissemination, submission, review, selection, and reporting. The solution may leverage parts of existing software such as NUCATS Assist (Northwestern University) or CTSI-ART, or be built completely customized with Drupal interfaces.

Plan: The overall goal is to develop a centralized application management system that would coordinate opportunity dissemination, application submission, application review, application selection, and follow-up processes for multiple programs across multiple agencies. Configurable application components and flexible workflows would accommodate changing business requirements and support process improvements. Such a process solution would result in significant longer terms savings for all collaborating programs.

Criteria and metrics for success: An automated application management system can decrease the amount of time and resources administrative staff spends on application processes and follow-ups, as well as on compiling and summarizing application information for program reporting. Designated administrators would have direct access into the system to customize forms and run reports. Communication with reviewers and applicants can improve through automated deadline reminders and standardized decision notices. Broader and deeper analysis of application and review processes would be possible through reporting measures that have not been available before. The system will be a central repository for applications and progress reports and will offer greater ability to measure programs and funding opportunity impact.

Advantages for all users

Applicants can find funding information, apply via a website that is open to the public, and can upload a single proposal PDF. The application can be saved until submission allowing to be built in stages. Potentially applicants could also use the system to enter and submit progress reports online.

Reviewers can find all materials in one place (proposals, review forms, previous reviews). They can receive automated notifications and reminders to complete tasks before deadlines. They can write their reviews in stages and assign initial scores. During the review meeting, they can score proposals “live” as they are discussed.

Administrators can replace uploaded PDF files, delete applications, and submit on applicant’s behalf. They will take advantage of automated messages/notifications/reminders to communicate with applicants and awardees. They will benefit from a system that tracks many variables, including applicant attributes (e.g., name, department, gender, award status, etc.), and reviewers’ attendance and productivity. Summarized financial award information will be available in the system. Administrators can use the system to manage progress reports starting with automated requests for project/progress report updates sent through the system at intervals designated by each funding agency.

Potential Collaborators Development team - Depending upon whether a system is developed from scratch or leverages an existing one, the system development responsibility will lay with Edwin Martin and ISU or our colleagues at CTSI Virtual Home or the SF Coordinating Center or potentially an outside contractor. Requirement owner - RDO [Emy Volpe (RAP), Gail Fisher (LSP)], Suya Colorado-Caldwell (EVC&P Committees), and many other campus programs that utilize application review and selection processes.

Budget: This project can be developed modularly. With the $50,000, we could plan the development of all modules and develop several of the modules. Our intention would be that matching funds be identified that would enable to the full development of the modular plan. Leveraging another existing system may enable the full system build for $50,000.

Rationale:  US law requires researchers to register clinical trials within 21 days of enrolling the first participant (since 27Sep2007) and to report clinical trial results in the ClinicalTrials.Gov (CT.gov) online system within 12 months of the last participant visit.  Reporting results does not mean publishing in a peer reviewed journal, but rather entering information in CT.Gov’s standardized system.  Noncompliance can result in the following for institutions and individual PIs: fines of up to $10,000 per day, withholding future federal research funding, preventing study publication, and/or public notice of noncompliance.  Despite legal requirements and potential penalties, researchers still lag in mandatory reporting with only 22% compliance nationally (e.g. Prayle et al. BMJ 2012) and 73 UCSF trials campuswide currently overdue in reporting results.  In 2012, the US Office of Management and Budget increased their investigator burden estimate to 41 hours for results reporting in CT.Gov.  In short, compliance is hampered at least partly because CT.Gov is not an intuitive, user-friendly system.

Plan:  The UCSF Dental Data Coordinating Center (DDCC) has already partnered with the CTSI Regulatory Knowledge and Support (RKS) Program, UCSF Office of Ethics and Compliance (OEC) to develop a set of 5 SAS macros to summarize trial results data in a format suitable for CT.Gov Simple Results tables (http://hub.ucsf.edu/basic-results-sas-macros).  This funding would allow expanding those macros and developing other tools to meet the needs of UCSF investigators to comply with federal law.  The CT.Gov system is frequently updated and expanded, so this support would allow the tools to stay current with both required and optional reporting elements.  For example, one current macro allows 3 types of outcome measures: number (frequency), mean, or median; others such as geometric mean which CT.Gov allows will be added.  By developing and refining training materials and consultation, staff supported under this funding mechanism will provide technical assistance to UCSF investigators to help them use these free tools to meet compliance requirements.  Staff will also help troubleshoot the problems that UCSF CT.Gov Administrators identify.  The UCSF DDCC will set up a recharge for these technical assistance and training services.

Criteria and metrics for success:
•    Develop and disseminate additional training materials and tools to be posted on the ClinicalTrials.Gov webpage of the UCSF HUB website (http://hub.ucsf.edu/clinicaltrialsgov).
•    Reduce the noncompliant UCSF trials from 73 to 19 (i.e. slightly more than 1 per week over 52 weeks).
•    Establish a recharge mechanism to provide technical assistance and training to use results reporting tools.

Approximate cost and very brief justification ($50K max):
Most of the proposed budget of up to $50,000 (equivalent to just 5 days of possible federal fines) would be used to create a $48,000 fund from which the 73 current UCSF trials as well as future trials upon completion could draw to pay for technical assistance and advanced training in CT.Gov results reporting provided by the DDCC at rates similar to the CTSI biostatistics consultants.  (With an assistance fund this size, 54 UCSF trials could receive an average of 8 hours of technical assistance to attain compliance.  A smaller award would create a smaller assistance fund.) To make this project “shovel ready” prior to setting up a formal recharge mechanism, percent effort of staff will be allocated to the fund proportional to hours worked.  The remaining $2000 will be used to facilitate setting up the recharge mechanism.  Following this proposed CTSI grant, this service would remain as a sustainable service with a recharge mechanism and could serve other UC health science campuses (which are also struggling to comply with results reporting) and other institutions with CTSAs.

Collaborators:
This proposed work is a collaboration between personnel affiliated with the UCSF DDCC and the CTSI RKS Program, UCSF OEC.  Steven Gregorich, PhD statistician, is Director of the DDCC which coordinates 4 large prevention trials for three U54 cooperative agreements (UCSF, Boston University, and University of Colorado—Denver).  Stuart Gansky, DrPH biostatistician, formerly directed the DDCC and now directs the UCSF U54 Center to Address Disparities in Children’s Oral Health (known as CAN DO).  Marlene Berro, MS, RAC of the OEC, as the UCSF administrator for ClinicalTrials.Gov, maintains the list of records with problems.  Nancy Cheng with master’s degrees in computer science and biostatistics has written SAS macros to produce Simple Results tables for ClinicalTrials.Gov.  Elaine Cooperstein, MS, CCRP and Sarit Helman, MPH are clinical trials specialists with experience with SAS, OnCore and ClinicalTrials.Gov.  Terri Sonoda is the budget analyst for CAN DO and the DDCC.

Search Engine to Directly Access EHRs without Data Warehouses or Loss of Unstructured Data

Rationale
Research hospitals, including UCSF, spend millions of dollars a year moving data from EHRs (electronic health records) to alternate data warehouses for analytics. Consultants are hired to map data to and from warehouses. As a result of this time and labor-intensive process, a search query can take up to two months until completion. A query does not even produce a complete set of patients matching the search criteria because data stored in hospitals’ legacy systems, or entered as physician notes in EHRs, lack clinical context and/or code association. Consequently, cohort identification and statistical correlations are severely limited in the conduct of clinical and translational research. As the adoption of EHRs grows, healthcare organizations need analytic tools that can aggregate data from disparate sources so that they have a more complete and comprehensive view of individual patients and patient populations.
Plan
Massive Minable Medical Data (M3D) is being developed as a search engine for clinical researchers at UCSF to search and analyze information directly from EHRs, without the laborious, time-consuming, and expensive mapping of data to new data warehouses. It offers fast and accurate data retrieval from natural language queries posed by the researcher. Natural language processing allows M3D users to ask intelligent questions to discover correlations, e.g. "how many patients with heart disease were taking Vioxx?" Direct integration with EHRs will save UCSF data moving expenses, which can potentially reduce cost by an order of magnitude. The specific difficulty with large EHR vendors, such as Epic,  is handling a system of many thousand database tables. To address this, M3D’s has developed an algorithm that uses machine learning to identify which tables contain relevant data- even when the researcher doesn’t.
Metrics for Success
SUMMARY/MILESTONES
1. Identify high priority query types
2. Secure access to representative datasets for validation
3. Pilot study/ adoption by clinical researchers
4. Expansion of capacities for physicians
5. Pilot study/ adoption by physicians

Success is the widespread adoption of M3D for accessing the wealth of information contained in EHRs at UCSF. We are currently seeking feedback from the medical community, specifically clinical researchers, regarding the the highest priority types of data/queries. Validation of the search engine on these query types are prerequisites to a pilot study with active researchers. Access to representative datasets for development and validation of the search engine is a prerequisite to a pilot study with active researchers. Once the design can be refined to satisfaction of clinical researchers, the process will be repeated with a broader set of physicians at UCSF.
Cost
Initial costs will be focused on securing the proper legal standing to work with patient data on Epic systems through either professional legal counsel or Epic certification. Important, but technically simplistic aspects of the search engine, such as the user interface, will be contracted out as needed.
Collaboration
MEMBERS
Michael Sachs- UCSF BMS graduate student

Jingwei Zhang- UCSF/UCB BioEng graduate student

Sabrina Atienza- UCB CompSci

2013 George Ramonov- UCB CompSci 2013

ADVISOR
Anil Sethi- Founded Sequoia Software, current CEO Gliimpse, 20+ years experience in Healthcare IT.

Rationale

Over the past five years, Dr. Shane Burch, a UCSF spine surgeon, has developed a relational Filemaker Pro database solution (SID) for tracking all patients treated at the UCSF Spine Center.  The system tracks patient reported outcomes at clinical visits for both surgical and non-surgical patients over time, using hundreds of variables to enable both prospective and retrospective research projects. In 2011 over 25,000 patient reported outcome surveys were collected and SID is currently being used in an ongoing double blind prospective randomized FDA trial being run at the spine center. To our knowledge this represents one of the best data collection tools with the highest collection rates on campus. The database solution also offers integration of administrative data (cost) to be linked to patient reported outcomes allowing for economic analyses to be performed like cost minimization. This tool has greatly reduced our outcomes error rate and has helped us increase our outcomes collection rate to ~98% of eligible patients.

While the database is already proving to be very useful, there is still a significant amount of development work required to make the database integrate efficiently into a clinic setting with minimal research support.  We propose to hire a FileMakerPro specialist to help us complete the development of this database which will allow for additional functionality and the expansion of the spine database to other UC campuses. 

While the structure we've developed is specifically for the collection of spine surgery outcomes, this model could easily be adapted to other disciplines.  The true value of this model is in the ability to tie together diagnoses, procedures, and outcomes and produce very simple queries that are easily understandable to lay personnel.   

Plan

Identify and hire a FileMakerPro consultant/developer to complete the following functions:

1. Develop and improve screen layouts for the use of SID on both stationary and mobile devices to expand the collection of patient reported outcomes.
2. Develop an import function to merge outcome data collected via REDCap.
3. Develop additional reporting and export functions to meet departmental needs such as cost analysis reporting, quality assurance reporting and accurate readmission rate reporting.
4. Integration of data from a less versatile database such that the data from as far back as 2002 can be utilized through SID.
5. Functional improvement of tracking patients for prospective studies through expansion of the “prospective study” feature:
   1. Patient preferences for completing outcomes (e.g., email, iPad, paper)
   2. Notifications to research staff triggering patient follow-up (collecting outcomes on patients who don’t return to clinic) to reduce the ‘lost to follow up’ error rate 
   3. Improve the reporting of complications to meet FDA or other societal requirements
6. Roll out to other UC spine groups.
7. Roll out to other UC non-spine groups.

Criteria and Metrics for Success

1. Completion of all plans by 12/31/13 to include a single database containing all surgical and outcomes data from prior databases.
2. Effortless “push of a button” function to import data from REDCap and queries to produce data reports for: outcomes by diagnoses, outcomes by procedure, cost, complication and follow up reporting.
3. Distribution of SID as a turnkey solution for other spine clinics throughout the UC system.

Approximate Cost and Very Brief Justification

Total Budget: $49,500

We estimate that this project can be finished by a developer in 300 hours at a rate of $165/hour.

Collaborators

Dr. Shane Burch – Assistant Professor in Residence, UCSF Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, is an orthopedic surgeon who specializes in the treatment of spinal deformity, degenerative spine conditions and cancer involving the spine.

Linda Racine – Staff Research Associate II, UCSF Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, oversees the collection of outcomes and the management of multiple departmental databases.

Rationale. Successful recruitment and retention of ethnically diverse research participants in clinical studies depends heavily on the comprehension, needs, and preferences of potential participants.  A critical influence on these outcomes is health literacy, the degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions.[i]  Since 30% of US adults have only basic health literacy,[ii] and Hispanic and African Americans are disproportionately concentrated among those of low health literacy,[iii] representation of these populations on clinical studies depends in part on the extent to which clinic and research staff can recognize patients of low or moderate literacy and communicate complex concepts to them in accessible and relevant terms. Tools that measure health literacy (commonly written questions that assess reading ability) have been criticized when used in clinical settings as alienating and stigmatizing to low literacy patients.[iv]  A recent review of health literacy research by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality concluded that development of measures for spoken health literacy is a high priority.[v]

The proposed pilot study builds on a recently completed NCI RO1, Increasing Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials (2007-2012), that was a collaboration between the Kaiser Permanente (KP) Division of Research (DOR, C. Somkin, PI) and UCSF (R. Pasick, Co-I).  From in-depth analyses of 38 recorded nurse-patient clinical trial conversations, we elucidated 6 dimensions of patient utterances that we call “clinical trial health literacy” (CTHL), conversational indicators of a patient’s ability to understand basic concepts of trial participation: grammar, use of medical terms, knowledge of diagnosis and treatment, logic, initial clinical trial understanding, information seeking.  Our data show that these are closely inter-related and together serve as a strong indicator of health literacy.  Our long-term research plan includes development of a protocol for real-time assessment of these dimensions by Clinical Research Coordinators (CRC) and for corresponding messages tailored to high, medium, and low CTHL. This will be followed by a large-scale KP- and UCSF-based mixed methods study of protocol impact for participants (comprehension, satisfaction, needs fulfillment, decisional conflict), for CRCs (satisfaction, perceived efficacy), and on rate of clinical research study participation.

Plan. The purpose of this RAP grant is to conduct a feasibility test of CRC assessment of CTHL dimensions in the course of clinical research study recruitment conversations, and to further refine the dimensions for subsequent validation analyses.  Our specific aims are to: 1. establish a partnership between UCSF- CTSI Community Engagement Program faculty (Pasick), DOR (Somkin), and the UCSF CTSI Participant Recruitment Services (PRS, Nasser); 2. refine and pilot-test a CTHL screening tool for (a) ease of use by Clinical Research Coordinators and (b) reliability in recruitment attempts with 25 UCSF patients; 3. develop and pre-test a training protocol on CTHL assessment as one component of a new CRS curriculum on health literacy with 10-15 CRCs enrolled in the CTSI-initiated campus-wide CRC training program. Two focus groups will be conducted with CRCs at the outset to inform design of the feasibility test.  CRCs conducting the health literacy assessments will be interviewed following each encounter and patients will be queried briefly afterward as well.  

Criteria & Metrics for Success.  Long-term measures of success will include sustained collaboration among the above partners leading to incorporation of pilot study products in ongoing UCSF and KP CRC training, acquisition of NIH funding, and increased rates of participation in studies among those of low to moderate CTHL.  Intermediate measures are demonstration of the feasibility of CRC assessments as indicated by completion of 25 audio-recorded patient encounters that produce high ratings of satisfaction and comprehension by patients and of satisfaction by CRCs; a high degree of inter-rater reliability on encounter recordings rated by multiple CRCs; and training protocol pre-test results indicating that CRCs find the information and strategies useful, new for them, and easy to adopt.  

Approximate Cost/Brief Justification.  The project will be led by Dr. Pasick (5%) and Ms. Nasser (contributed, 5%) with project coordination by Ms. Allen (recipient of NCI Diversity Supplement to conduct the above NCI-funded Kaiser-based research, now a UCSF Research Analyst, 30%).  Dr. Somkin will represent KP needs and interests as a consultant ($5,000).  Patient incentives for study participation will be provided at $35 each ($875). PRS staff will devote 340 hours ($13,600) for focus groups, interviews, audio tape ratings, and training. Total cost: $46,336.  

Collaborators.  This study is a collaboration among Dr. Rena Pasick (Professor, Faculty of CTSI Community Engagement Program, with 25 years of NIH-funded research on cancer disparities and communication across cultures, including studies that involved training of service staff on health literacy); Ms. Nasser (Senior Director, CTSI Clinical Research Services Director); and Dr. Somkin (DOR, Research Scientist).

Rationale:Taking findings from basic research to practical applications that enhance human health and well-being is the signification of translational research. Improvement in human health and well-being, however, does not necessarily involve the cure of a disease. Sometimes mere information transfer might help patients substantially in dealing with their medical condition. This is particularly true for patients with family history of yet unknown or contradictory diagnoses – in other words for patients with rare hereditary diseases. This point was emphasized very recently by Erika C. Hayden in Nature [1]. Providing information is the foundation of molecular genetic diagnostics and genetic counseling, which should readily be available for any inherited disease, even if no cure will be available in the foreseeable future. The provided information can answer basic questions of the patient, such as What do I have? Why my family? Is there a risk for my children? Is there anything I can do about it? And this will assist the patient in understanding their medical condition.

COL4A1 (OMIM: *120130) and COL4A2 (OMIM: *12090) encode for extra cellular matrix proteins that constitute basement membranes. Mutations in COL4A1 and COL4A2 cause multi–system disorders including porencephaly, cerebral small vessel disease with hemorrhage, Axenfeld-Rieger anomaly with glaucoma, and variable muscular dystrophy including muscle-eye-brain disease. To date, more than 50 different pathogenic sequence variances have been described in highly penetrant multi-system disorders. For ICH – the only disease so far that has been systematically screened for COL4A1 and COL4A2 sequence variants – we estimate that mutations in COL4A1 and COL4A2 may cause up to 10% of all cases of spontaneous ICH. The Gould lab identified the first COL4A1 mutations in mice and humans and recently published a comprehensive review on the topic. For these and other reasons, the Gould lab receives inquiries from researchers, clinicians and patients throughout the world interested in collaborations, clinical advice or participation in research. We recognize that many other labs at UCSF and around the world face these same types of requests. We propose that developing a centralized information management system (IMS) to promote and streamline interactions and communication between these three stakeholders will be an efficient and effective paradigm to enhance translational research.

Plan:

Based up on the platform developed by the Leiden Open Variation Database (LOVD) we will generate a centralized information management system (IMS) that streamlines interchange of information between patients, clinicians, and researchers. The IMS will be tripartite in order to provide the relevant information to the appropriate target audience. We will develop the platform using COL4A1 and COL4A2 as a scalable model for any number of other groups.

1. Patients will find a comprehensive overview on the different disorders associated with COL4A1 and COL4A2, as well as a platform to connect to medical doctors, researchers, and genetic counselors especially trained on these medical conditions.
2. Medical doctors and genetic counselors will find a locus-specific database that collects all sequence variations in COL4A1 and COL4A2 with links to the according reference of their initial description, the latest literature on COL4A1 and COL4A2, as well as information on ongoing patient studies.
3. Researchers will maintain the IMS and thereby find a useful research dataset for molecular diagnosis, large-scale mutation statistics, and the determination of genotype-phenotype correlations. Research will also benefit from a collaborations platform, which promotes discussion in the field. They will also identify patients willing to donate biological material for further investigations on multi-system disorders.

Criteria and Metrics for Success:

Immediate goals:

1. Set-up a locus-specific database for COL4A1 and COL4A2 based on the format used for the Leiden Open Variation Database (June 1, 2013).
2. Set-up a literature database on COL4A1 and COL4A2 based on the Mendeley open source reference manager (June 1, 2013).
3. Write a comprehensive overview on the different disorders associated withCOL4A1 and COL4A2 and update all according NCBI datasets (July 1, 2013).
4. Collect information on MDs and genetic counselors that are especially trained on medical conditions associated with COL4A1 and COL4A2 based on information provided by experts and databases, such as GeneTests(July 1, 2013).
5. Create an interactive web-interface that links all the different resources by July 1, 2013.
6. Go live by August 1, 2013.

Mid-term goals:

1. This IMS will increase clinicians’ awareness of COL4A1 and COL4A2 as one possible cause for multi-system disorders and they will find necessary resources and information to help make decisions for their patients.
2. Interested patients with multi-system disorders can arrange to donate biological samples, such as DNA or skin biopsies, to researchers listed on the IMS in order to promote research on multi-system disorders.
3. The IMS can be a model for other inherited diseases and may lay the seed for an extended IMS that comprises also other genes and diseases.

Long-term goals:

1. Once the platform is established we will use it as the model and continue to build this resource for other inherited diseases of the extracellular matrix.
2. Establish this platform as a template for other UCSF researchers and clinicians to interface with each other and with patients to promote information transfer and patient recruitment.
3. In summary, this proposal will improve the conduct of research on a devastating disease here at UCSF and worldwide.

Total Budget: $22,000

Cost estimations:

Summer student: $4000/mo for 3 months = $12,000

Web Developer: $50/hr for 1 month = $8,000

Postdoctoral Fellow to oversee project 15% effort for 3 months = $2,000

References:

1.            Hayden EC: Data barriers limit genetic diagnosis. Nature 2013, 494(7436):156-157.

Rationale – Background and training in bioinformatics tools is required for the research community at UCSF to remain at the forefront of biomedical research and successfully compete for funding.  Bioinformatics tools help translate our collective molecular understanding of disease into actionable insights and life-improving patient care innovations.  Application of bioinformatics knowledge can minimize persistent barriers to progress in the translational research workflow by providing a bridge between the domain expertise of the experimentalist and the world of computationally driven, information-based research methods (see Appendix Fig 1). 

Currently at UCSF, training on bioinformatics tools is decentralized.  Services, databases, and courses are hosted by Core Labs, the UCSF Library, and other departments.  Centers of data generation are not always integrated with the tools needed to gain insight from the data or place data in a disease-context. Navigating lists of bioinformatics tools can be a daunting task for researchers with no background in bioinformatics (see Appendix for current lists). 

This arrangement carries numerous risks:

• Insufficient information about the best tools and platforms to address a particular research question.
• Inability to accurately gauge the true investment needed in both time and money to gain full value from an experiment.
• Poor return on investment from expensive experiments, and missed opportunities due to lack of awareness about tools available to translate raw data into findings and testable hypotheses. 

In keeping with the UCSF Library’s commitment to support the continuing educational needs of information resource users, and extend services to a wider audience of researchers, we propose a pilot project to evaluate web-based methods for bioinformatics training.  The UCSF Library will provide access to a centralized, web-based resource for training on well-adopted, authoritative bioinformatics resources by hosting the OpenHelix collection of bioinformatics tutorials on its website.  This new service would cross-reference with related services (Core Labs, Cores Search, MyCORES etc.) to provide centralized and coordinated access to bioinformatics tools training at UCSF. 

We are aware that there are a number of different groups at UCSF with expertise and interest in bioinformatics training and our aim with this proposal is to work with these groups to identify needs and develop solutions for translational medicine researchers.

Successful implementation of this new bioinformatics training service can:

• Provide researchers with the skills needed to locate, learn about, and apply the information housed in bioinformatics databases.
• Enable them to identify the right tool for their particular research question.
• Improve collaborations between experimentalists and bioinformatics experts at UCSF.
• Reduce time between data generation and insight by making bioinformatics training and tools available to those who generate data at the time it is generated.
• Reduce the current burden on Core Labs that may not have time for basic bioinformatics training requests from researchers.
• Establish an engaged user base through which the UCSF Library and Research Resource Program can continually evaluate services, identify unmet needs for training and resources, and design new services.

Plan

• Collaborate with the UCSF Institute for Computational Health Sciences, leveraging their expertise in bioinformatics to identify researchers' training needs and develop solutions to meet those needs.
• Form a Bioinformatics Tools User Group (user base for this pilot)
• Survey user group to identify bioinformatics tools and training needs
• Evaluate OpenHelix as an inexpensive, out of the box solution for bioinformatics training
• Make Go/No Go decision on value of OpenHelix
• Design and implement library-based home for resources such as OpenHelix:  Bioinformatics @UCSF Library
• Collaborate with CTSI to create Marketing and Outreach plan for successful adoption of new service
• Ongoing evaluation of web-based bioinformatics training service and development of a business model for continued support of the service.

 Criteria and Metrics for Success: 

• Pilot user base includes bioinformatics subject matter experts as well as end users.
• Good response rates on User-Needs and OpenHelix evaluation surveys
• Steady increase in hits to library-based bioinformatics website 6 months after launch
• Steady increase in utilization of OpenHelix tutorials 6 months after launch
• Good response rate on User Satisfaction survey 1 year after launch of new service.  Metrics identifying most/least utilized bioinformatics tools.
• Increase in User Satisfaction rating 2 years after launch of new service

Collaborators:

Julie Auger, Executive Director of UCSF Research Resource Program (RRP)

Budget includes funding for:

• 2-year license to OpenHelix
• Programming resources to integrate with existing web infrastructure (UCSF Library, Core Labs and Cores Search)
• Minimal in-kind CTSI support for survey development, marketing and outreach plan
• External trainers for on-site training on most highly valued bioinformatics tools.

APPENDIX 

1. Hyperlinks to current lists of bioinformatics tools

http://gettinggeneticsdone.blogspot.com/2011/06/resources-for-pathway-analysis.html

http://grouthbio.com/Genome_Software_Service.php

http://www.oxfordjournals.org/nar/database/a/

http://www.hsls.pitt.edu/obrc/         

2. Examples of Medical Libraries that host or are evaluating OpenHelix as part of their library-based bioinformatics services

• Mt. Sinai School of Medicine Levy Library –successful implementation with 5-year renewal and fully booked on-site training classes
• Becker Medical Library – Wash U
• University of Illinois
• Emory – Woodruff Health Sciences
• University of Pittsburg
• Weill Cornell Medical Library

3. Figure 1.  Awareness and training in bioinformatics tools can eliminate persistent roadblocks in the translational research workflow. 

RATIONALE: Realizing that the benefits of the current revolution in biology and oncology would be enhanced by vigorous public support, for the past twenty years, the UCSF Breast Oncology Program (BOP) has implemented comprehensive strategies focused on leveraging advocacy engagements. To help transform the conduct of clinical and translational research, advocates support a wide range of NCI sponsored Specialized Programs on Research Excellence, (SPORE) and Physical Sciences and Oncology Center (PS-OC) Cancer Center projects, as well as multi-site grants sponsored by Department of Defense (DOD), Komen, California Breast Cancer Research Programs (CBCRP), Stand Up to Cancer (SU2C), and Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium (TBCRC). Applying core principles that forge synergy with NCI Advocacy Research Working Group Recommendations: strategic innovation, collaborative execution, evidence based decision-making, and ethical codes of conduct, researchers and advocates interact across a broad spectrum of partnership modes at various levels of intensity. Participating in four areas: 1) research and programmatic support, 2) education and outreach, 3) policy and strategy, and 4) representation and advisory, UCSF breast cancer advocates are at the forefront of efforts to revamp translational research processes. For example, advocates involved in grants meet on an ad hoc basis with the study investigator and team. Infusing the patient lay perspective into discussions, trained research advocates vet hypothesis, define strategic priorities, address research challenges, and incorporate innovative science and study design into research projects/clinical trials. Importantly, promoting cross-sector and trans-network collaboration, advocates catalyze change in research practices by identifying systematic barriers to research efficacy, effectiveness, and expediency.

CHALLENGE: As champions of precision medicine, evidence based practices, Bayesian statistics, adaptive trial design, biospecimen standardization, biomarker validation, improved test result reproducibility, and informed consent reform, advocates are driving change in research practices as well as in FDA initiatives leading to new regulatory and interpretative mechanisms. Moreover, forging credibility, advocates now have a dramatic presence as authors in scientific papers, presenters at scientific conferences, voting members in scientific advisories, cooperative groups, data safety monitoring boards, planning committees, protocol/peer review committees, and informed consent working groups. Yet, despite the growing momentum of advocacy in the support and reform of clinical and translational research, collateral challenges remain. Because advocacy efforts often aim for outcomes that are hard to measure, capture, and operationalize, unique quantitative and qualitative approaches are needed to systematically assess the impact of advocacy messages and activities. Lessons learned from successes and failures will allow us to continuously optimize efforts and promote best practices to other UCSF advocacy groups.

PLAN & METRICS FOR SUCCESS: Three innovative methods are being developed specifically to respond to advocacy’s unique measurement challenges:

1.  A static table will be used to create an interactive model for measuring progress in real time.

2.  Stakeholder surveys that gather advocacy stakeholder perspectives and feedback will be used to assess the extent to which researchers support advocacy involvements and whether the support is changing over time.

3.  Logic models and systems mapping approaches will be developed by a committee of researchers and advocates to monitor performance, address challenges, and identify “best practices” and key entities to guide infrastructure improvements.

Arming stakeholders with the tools to make advocacy activities more transparent, recommendations more targeted, and outcomes more impactful, participants will formally assess the extent to which advocacy processes are improving the conduct of clinical and translational research.

JUSTIFICATION: Collaborative team science provides a starting point for comprehensive change and advocacy activities are being looked at as a shining example of how research advocacy will help spur medical innovation, democratize science, and expedite the incredible potential of future investments in bioscience. To sharpen and shape the vision for capacity building and bi-directional mentoring and transnetworking opportunities, advocates and other stakeholders will participate in two workshops specializing in evaluation and strategy development for advocacy and policy change efforts.

COST: A total budget of 50K is requested: Project coordinator 24K; Advocacy Training ProjectLEAD 5K; Workshops: 2 UCSF Workshops on Advocacy Impact Metrics 12K; Infrastructure:  Training Materials and Modules for UCSF Outreach 9K.

COLLABORATORS:  Susan Samson, Linda Vincent, Susie Brain, BOP science advocates, Hope Rugo (clinical lead PS-OC), Sarah Goins (coordinaor BOP), Laura van ’t Veer (Leader BOP), Susanne Hildebrand-Zanki (Associate Vice Chancellor Research), Elizabeth Boyd (Associate Vice Chancellor Ethics and Compliance)

Rationale.  Consent forms for clinical trials have expanded and now often range from 25 – 30 pages, in spite of the fact that studies have documented the inability of most research participants to retain this amount of information.  In addition, many consent forms include technical, medical, and legal language that is difficult for a lay person to understand.  When these consent forms are reviewed by the Committee on Human Research (CHR), concerns about their length, readability and complexity are often raised.  Investigators may consequently spend a great deal of time editing consent forms to satisfy CHR requests.  However, much of this language is mandated by study sponsors, so investigators may struggle between meeting sponsor requirements and revisions requested by the CHR to improve readability.  Although investigators or study staff review study procedures and consent forms with patients, these long, complex forms are unlikely to be conducive to true informed consent, particularly among patients from vulnerable populations.

Plan.  We propose to test the feasibility, acceptability, and usefulness of a simple 2-page summary sheet, written in plain language, to improve the consent process, enhance subject understanding of the research study and its risks, and the CHR review process. 

This project has the following primary goals:

• Develop a template and guide for investigators to use to create the research summary, and evaluate the ease of preparing the summary among a sample of investigators and their research staff.
• Evaluate the readability and literacy level of summaries prepared by investigators and/or their staff.
• Evaluate differences in subjects' understanding of the research protocol through use of the summary, using a short knowledge test after the standard consent procedure and then after reviewing the summary.
• Assess research subjects’ evaluation of the summary in terms of comprehension of the research protocol and the study risks, and their satisfaction with the consent process.
• Assess both investigators’ and CHR members’ satisfaction with the review process when the summary sheet is included.

An unintended effect of this process may be to heighten investigator awareness of using plain language in consent forms.

Criteria and metrics for success

• A template for creation of a research summary is developed.
• Using the template, creation of the research summary is judged by investigators to require little time.
• Readability of research summaries is found to be at 8^th grade level of lower.
• Research participants report that the summaries improve their understanding of the research study and its risk and benefits.
• Investigators and study staff report that the summaries improve the consent process and perceive that patients have a better understanding of the study.
• Investigators report fewer difficulties with consent form review process.
• Investigators report that sponsors did not object to the 2-page summary or delay the study as a result.
• Investigators report that they would continue to use the summaries.
• CHR members report that the summaries improve their understanding of research protocols and lessen their concerns about complex consent forms.

Approximate cost and justification

Total Budget: $48,854. Salary support for UCSF faculty and research assistant involved in developing and evaluating the materials.   Incentives for investigator, research staff, and research subject participation.

Collaborators.  Patricia Katz is Prof of Medicine, has been a member of the Laurel Heights CHR Committee for 10 years, and is currently Vice-Chair of that committee. John Heldens is the Director of UCSF’s Human Research Protection Program. Jennifer Barton is Asst Prof of Medicine whose primary research focus is health literacy.  We especially seek clinical trial investigators willing to test the new materials as collaborators.

Rationale

The overall long term goal of The Brain Initiative is to create a large internet-based registry of subjects interested in participating in neuroscience research. At launch, we will be recruiting individuals 55 years and older living in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Registry will serve as a base for future recruitment of subjects for studies on prevention of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other Neurodegenerative diseases. This project has been designed in order to address a major challenge in the conduct of clinical research, the limitations on getting enough subjects for large prevention trials of neurodegenerative diseases. By utilizing online tools, including the registry, the website and a large outreach effort we expect to create a large pool of subjects in the San Francisco Bay Area that will be willing to participate in Prevention Trials. The Registry is innovative because it will include a consent form, a set of questionnaires, several on-line neuropsychological tests, and will be designed for longitudinal followup of registered subjects. We have already obtained funds for the creation of the registry. However, in order to enroll and longitudinally follow a large number of participants the project will require very substantial marketing, advertising and community outreach efforts. This application is to request funds for the marketing, advertising and outreach efforts.

The generalizability of The Brain Initiative applies in several areas:  First, this project is generalizable to all areas of neuroscience translational research, since the project will recruit subjects interested in participating in studies on all areas of brain research. Second, we will be working with CTSI to market and advertise The Brain Initiative to underserved minorities including African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians, as well to the LGBT community. Third, this project will serve as a template to other registries and recruitment outreach programs in cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other disorders. The scalability of The Brain Initiative will be achieved through the capacity of internet based registries to scale to large populations. Initially we will focus on recruitment in the Northern California area. However, we have already been in discussion with investigators in Los Angeles, New York, North Carolina and other areas who might be interested in using The Brain Initiative website/registry for recruitment of subjects in their regions. In addition, we are in discussions with Bruno Vellas (Toulouse, France), Simon Lovestone (London England), Merce Boada ( Barcelona, Spain) and Nikklas Mattsen (Gothenberg, Sweden) concerning the extension of The Brain Initiative to their countries, and more broadly internationally. 

Plan

We plan to complete The Brain Initiative’s website and registry by May 31st 2013.  Once all technical elements are finalized and thoroughly tested, the advertising and outreach efforts will commence. The plan is to perform the following activities: 1) Digital outreach: a. Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites. b. Online banners, Google adwords and other online advertising. c. Print advertising including mass mailings. d. Press releases to various newspapers, radio and TV stations throughout the Bay Area. 2)Community Outreach. a. Large Community event (1). b. Small community event (1)

Criteria and metrics for success

With the effort and budget that we propose we anticipate that we will be able to register the first 2,000 participants into The Brain Initiative. Here are the milestones for the period of 6/1/13 – 5/31/14: Milestone 1: By 6/30/13, 100 subjects recruited in The Brain Initiative. Milestone 1: By 12/31/13, 750 subjects recruited in The Brain Initiative. Milestone 1: By 5/31/14, 2,000 subjects recruited in The Brain Initiative.

Cost and justification

We estimate that the overall costs will be $50,000 for both the Digital outreach and the Community outreach. The costs are as follows: 1)Outreach Coordination: $11,732 in personnel costs 2) Digital Outreach Costs: a. Personnel Costs: $8,978 for posting and engaging participants b. Vendor Costs: $13,000 for online advertising. 3) Community Outreach: a. Personnel Cost: $4,290 for coordination of events. b. Large Community Event: $10,000 in overall costs. C. Small Community Event: 2,000 in overall costs

Collaborators

Dr. Michael Weiner, Dr. Scott Mackin

Rationale:

The UCSF Social Media Boot Camp for Scientists (official name to be considered based on comment received) is designed to help researchers explore social media as a tool to achieve various goals, including wider exposure for their research, connecting with potential funding opportunities, cultivating collaborations, and increasing the impact of research, to name a few.

A NatureJobs blog post, Social Media Tips for Scientists, puts it well:

“For many scientists, the thought of spending time on social media sites is distinctly unappealing. To some it’s just a question of time: why add to that to-do list which is already long enough? For others it’s more to do with social media itself, finding the idea of sharing thoughts and ideas with the whole world pointless or self-indulgent.

“If that sounds like you, it might be time to reconsider your options – social media includes much more than the usual suspects like Facebook and Twitter, and there are even sites dedicated to academics. Indeed, a vast number of scientists are using social media for tremendous gains – whether that be forming new contacts and collaborations, sharing ideas, communicating science, inspiring others or just entertaining them. Why not join them?”

A series on Science Marketing featured in Nature Materials notes:

“Today, researchers have to make their publications stand out from the stack of nearly 800,000 science and engineering manuscripts that are published each year, recent PhD graduates and postdocs face historically low employment prospects in academia, and principal investigators compete over shrinking government funding.”

Beyond that, researchers are noting that the unique aspects of social media are changing the way science is talked about, and scientists have even noted that social media tools help to clarify thinking, demystify the scientific process, and spark new ideas.

Goals:

The UCSF Social Media Boot Camp for Scientists will:

1. Offer useful information about social media specifically targeted at scientific researchers and the academic community;
2. Address the challenges, myths and potential misconceptions about social media within the scientific community;
3. Support researchers in developing individual goals for social media, identifying tools that meet their needs, and establishing a social media presence;
4. Support community building among those within the UCSF campus community who are actively engaged in social media;
5. Create a “starter kit” and related resources for other academic institutions interested in a similar effort;
6. Develop a publicly available online resource featuring all UCSF Social Media Boot Camp for Scientists sessions;
7. Launch a social media consultation service as part of CTSI’s Consultation Services program, which already offers expert advice for researchers in 18 subject areas.

Plan:

The CTSI Communications team (Communications Director John Daigre, and Communications Manager Nooshin Latour) will lead the effort to establish a Planning & Implementation Team that includes UCSF communicators, researchers already active on social media, other universities, external Bay Area companies involved in social media, and others. UCSF University Relations has agreed to be a primary partner in this effort. Additionally, an important component of the project will be to enlist UCSF researchers to share their personal experiences, challenges, and successes involving social media.

All related events will be free and open to all at UCSF (ideally events will be available via webinars or similar for a broader audience).

The format of the Social Media Boot Camp for Scientists will be finalized with input from the Planning & Implementation Team. Events may be organized into one primary event (i.e. a one-day boot camp), or spread out over several months depending on feedback from organizers and partners.

Will consider piloting with other groups, such as K Scholars, as suggested in comments.

Examples of potential types of presentations and panel discussions:

1. Marketing for Scientists: Thinking Beyond Self Promotion
2. Understanding the Social Media Landscape
3. Demystifying Social Media
4. Social Media 101: Getting Started
5. Twitter: It May Be More Than You Think
6. Social Media Rules of Engagement: Risks and Rewards
7. Social Media Advice for Physicians
8. Making the Most of Videos and Podcasts (UCTV, iTunes, etc)
9. Your Online Profile: LinkedIn, ResearchGate, UCSF Profiles and more
10. Social Media Networking: What Tools Are Right for You?
11. Academic Blogging
12. Speaking with One Voice: Integrating Your Social Media Efforts
13. The Future of Crowdfunding Science
14. Altmetrics and Non-Traditional Research Impact Measures
15. Using Social Media for Clinical Research Studies (suggested via commenting)
16. Connecting with Other Researchers vs. The Public (suggested via commenting)
17. Smart Social Media: Tools for Better, Faster Communication (suggested via commenting)

Impact/Value:

The UCSF Social Media Bootcamp for Scientists will:

1. Support researchers’ efforts to achieve their individual goals (including career development, as noted in comments);
2. Support community building on campus;
3. Provide ongoing support (i.e. videos, consultation service) available to researchers interested in social media;
4. Support amplification of UCSF’s brand as a preeminent health sciences innovator;
5. Provide tools for other institutions to use in the development of similar events;
6. Strengthen UCSF ties with external partners (i.e. Bay Area companies).

Metrics for Success: (TBD based on finalized event format)

1. Participation of faculty/staff (~250+)
2. Collaboration with UCSF faculty active in social media (~10+)
3. Collaboration with campus groups (~10+)
4. Collaboration with other universities (~1+)
5. Collaboration with Bay Area companies (~3+)
6. Satisfaction survey (75%+ satisfied)
7. Other metrics TBD

Proposed Budget:

A proposed budget of $19,500 includes costs for coordination, meeting space, recording events, printing, promotion, incentives, guest speakers, etc.

Potential Collaborators:

- UCSF University Relations (confirmed via comments)

- UCSF Library (confirmed via comments)

- UCSF School of Medicine

- UCSF researchers active on social media (Bradley Voytek confirmed via comments)

- CTSI Online Learning (as suggested in comments)

- Other campus groups via UCSF Communicators Network

- Bay Area companies working with Social Media

- Other academic institutions

Abstract. Develop an open source edition of the UCSF Open Proposals software suitable for deployment at external institutions. This will make UCSF's version easier to host and manage, enable other CTSAs to benefit from UCSF's work, and help establish UCSF's thought leadership in the field.

Rationale. In July 2012, CTSI launched UCSF Open Proposals, a web application enabling an open and collaborative community-based proposal submission process. The tool uses a crowdsourcing model to help researchers get valuable input on their proposal before submitting it to the review committee. It helps projects find collaborators, contributors, and advisers, and makes it easy for those with relevant expertise to offer feedback. Finally, it provides a stable platform for ideas even after the opportunity is closed, making it possible for the research community to link to, discuss, and build on previous ideas.

We see four fundamental technical limitations with the current Open Proposals system:

1. The current version of the Open Proposals application was built in a way that’s very tightly integrated with accelerate.ucsf.edu, CTSI’s services portal. While this allowed us to launch faster, it prevents a standalone deployment, and makes upgrades more difficult.
2. The design of the system requires the services of a professional web developer to create and configure even the most simple open proposals. This prevents CTSI from making open proposal deployment a turnkey process. At the same time, the system is mature enough at this point that it allows to customize each open proposal forum to fit the initiative-specific needs, at a relatively low cost (but it does require professional resources).
3. The system is designed in a way where UCSF-specific authentication and identity data access mechanisms are baked directly in, instead of via an open pluggable process. This means that even if the software were to be shared with an outside partner, they would not be able to deploy it at their institution without removing and rewriting UCSF-specific code.
4. The software is not open source. This prevents UCSF from sharing its work with outside partners, and makes it more difficult to discuss it in venues like the CTSA Toolshop. (At least one major CTSA partner has approached UCSF, wanting to know about the Open Proposals process and software.)

We propose developing a fully standalone open source version of the software, with a flexible authentication and identity backend which can integrate with solutions already in use at UCSF and other institutions. This will allow us to improve usability, maximize national impact, and pay off technical debt.

The solution would fully address limitations 1,2 and 4 and will be a stepping stone on the way to a turnkey solution described in #3.

Plan
In order to convert UCSF Open Proposals to a portable open-source product we need to make the following changes to the application:

1. Allow system to stand alone by removing dependencies on accelerate.ucsf.edu
2. Repackage the application to a distributable set of Drupal modules
3. Implement support for any common network identity provider to support single sign on to the customer’s organization network
4. Obtain approval from the Office of Technology Management to offer the product under a suitable open source license
5. Enable external code contributions by hosting the code on an open source version management platform like Github or Bitbucket
6. Ensure discoverability by listing the product and supporting user documentation on relevant repositories, such as Drupal.org Projects

In parallel, we will be working with several research institutions to find at least one external partner interested in pioneering Open Proposals at their organization, and help initiate a pilot Open proposal opportunity at their institution.

Criteria and metrics for success
This project will be a success if:

1. An easy to deploy, standalone open source application is made available for the public via the established open source distribution portals
2. UCSF is able to use the open source application to host its own Open Proposals instance
3. The application is easy to manage. Application administrator can configure and activate a standard open proposal forum with reasonably low amount of professional assistance from web developer.
4. An interested partner is found who is willing to pilot an open proposals opportunity at their organization
5. The partner has installed Open Proposals product and successfully configured a test forum
6. We receive satisfactory feedback on product’s usability and performance from the partner’s implementation team

Approximate cost and very brief justification
Estimated cost of development: $18,000. This includes anticipated development effort and about 10% contingency.  There may be additional cost of managing communications with the partner (TBD).

Collaborators
Cynthia Piontkowski – Web Producer, User Experience Designer, front end developer for UCSF Open Proposals
Brad Bulger – Drupal and Web Development Expert, Solution Architect, back end developer for UCSF Open Proposals
Anirvan Chatterjee – Solution Architect, Open Source Technology Expert

John Daigre - Communications Director
Oksana Gologorskaya – Product/Project manager, User Experience Designer