John E. Hall
74th President of APS
As originally printed in The
Physiologist,
April 2001, Volume 44, Number 2
Page 65
|
The Postgenomic Era—A Golden Era for Physiologists?
Thank you, members of APS, for the privilege and challenge of serving as the 74th President of the APS. It is the highest honor for me because the APS has been my professional home for almost 30 years, even before I became a regular member. APS has nurtured my career, as well as the careers of many others, through its meetings, publications, and education programs. Serving as APS President is a great challenge because of the complexity of the Society and its many programs and the rapid changes that will occur in the discipline of physiology in this “postgenomic era,” which I believe can be a golden era for physiologists.
It is the privilege of each incoming APS President to write a “President’s Message” to the membership. It would be my preference to write this article
after serving my term as President. Although incoming presidents usually have considerable experience, serving APS in multiple capacities, most of us probably do not fully understand the responsibilities and possibilities of the job until the end of our one-year terms. To paraphrase Mark Twain (a quote also recently used by Paul Johnson, after receiving the Distinguished Service Award from the Association of Chairs of Departments of Physiology): “There are things about lifting a cat by the tail that you can only learn by lifting a cat by the tail.” I imagine that this is also true for the job of APS President—I am not completely sure that anyone knows exactly what to expect!
It is customary to write about the “State of APS” and offer sage advice about the challenges of the future. My predecessors have provided illuminating commentary on the current state of the Society (1, 3-6). Two of them (1, 5) began their messages with a quote from Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities … “It was the best of times, ….it was the worst of times….” Who can argue with this view of APS and the discipline of Physiology? We are currently experiencing an unparalleled growth of NIH funding for research, amazing advances in technology, and great financial prosperity in APS (although the recent downturn in the stock market may have diminished our assets somewhat). APS has a dedicated and highly skilled administrative staff led by Executive Director Marty Frank, Melinda Lowy, Margaret Reich (Publications), Marsha Matyas (Education), Robert Price (Business), Linda Allen (Membership), Alice Ra’anan (Public Affairs), and many others. Together, the 65-70 people who staff APS headquarters keep the society running smoothly in spite of the problems caused by APS Presidents!!
At the same time that we have prosperity, many of us are concerned about the discipline of physiology and APS, especially its ability to attract the brightest new investigators to the field of physiology, to attend our meetings, and to publish in our journals. There is concern that physiologists may be rapidly becoming indistinguishable from other basic scientists and that this will lead to further merging of physiology departments with other basic science departments. There is also uncertainty about the future of academic medical centers.
The strengths and weaknesses of APS have been summarized by most of our previous presidents, and I will not try to do this again. Instead, I will discuss a few key goals that I have for APS: 1) to enhance the vitality and excellence of the APS meetings and publications; 2) to further strengthen the APS sections; 3) to develop a “translational research” initiative; and 4) to increase the visibility of physiology in the eyes of the public, academic institutions, and funding agencies. Many of these goals are intertwined and will be important in helping APS to achieve one of its most important goals—to attract the best new investigators and teachers to join APS.
Developing a “Meeting Within a Meeting” Concept for Experimental Biology
A strength of APS is that it represents integrative biology at all levels of organization, from molecule through human. This unique strength, however, has also been considered by some to be a weakness, especially when we consider our primary annual meeting, Experimental Biology.
The tremendous growth of knowledge that occurred in molecular biology and genomics has led many of us to become very reductionist in our research and to favor specialized society meetings where we discuss our work with like-minded researchers. Birds of a feather like to flock together, and this has led to the proliferation of small specialty meetings where in-depth discussions on very narrow topics can occur. This is undoubtedly the reason that highly focused, interactive meetings such as the Gordon Conferences and FASEB Summer Conferences have become so popular. Some feel that the large “generalist” meetings, such as Experimental Biology, do not offer a critical mass of the best investigators in their field.
This general problem has been discussed by previous APS Presidents, and some have provided recommendations for solutions. Allen Cowley led the APS in embracing physiological genomics in our meetings and publications. I believe that this initiative has improved our meetings and undoubtedly attracted new investigators who did not previously consider themselves to be physiologists.
Even after these initiatives were implemented, however, only about 17% of the APS membership attended Experimental Biology in 2000, compared to 22% of our members who attended the FASEB meeting in 1992. Why are we able to attract only a small percentage of our members to attend the Experimental Biology meeting? One possibility is that our members want a meeting that more effectively bridges physiology with pathophysiology and translational research. Although physiologists are attracted to specialty meetings and a reductionist approach to research, many of us also value large interdisciplinary meetings where we can hear the latest research advances outside our specialty, particularly if the best science is presented and if the meeting offers a good opportunity for interactions among basic and clinical scientists. For example, some of the most successful meetings in the United States, such as the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the annual American Society of
Nephrology meeting, and the Neurosciences meeting, can hardly be considered “specialty” meetings. These meetings all have grown very large and are apparently very appealing to physiologists as well as to clinicians. I believe that they are successful, in large part, because of the depth and breadth of science they offer, as well as the opportunity to merge basic and clinical sciences (i.e., they highlight “translational” research). It is interesting that the Experimental Biology meeting has been more attractive to our members when we meet with organizations such as ASPET. Not only has the total attendance of the meeting been higher when APS meets with ASPET, but the percentage of our members who attend is also greater. Many of our members apparently enjoy interdisciplinary meetings that offer translational research.
The Experimental Biology meeting provides a great opportunity 1) to develop “specialty” meetings in key areas that are attractive to physiologists, as well as those who do not traditionally call themselves physiologists, and 2) to develop a high-quality interdisciplinary meeting that allows physiologists to learn about the latest advances outside their specialty. As I will discuss later, the second goal may be even more important in the future as interdisciplinary approaches become essential in conducting “translational research” and solving some of the major research problems in physiology and medicine.
How can we satisfy the person who wishes to attend a “generalist” meeting as well as the person who seeks to attend a “specialist” meeting? Various approaches have been tried, including a “top-down” approach in which the APS leadership and a central program committee decide which areas of cutting-edge science should be presented at Experimental Biology. I believe that a “grass roots” approach is a better way to achieve our goals because the best ideas come from the scientists who are working in these specific fields. No single person is knowledgeable in all of the major sub-specialty fields that are necessary to cover the breadth and depth of modern physiology, and even selecting a small group of outstanding physiologists often fails to provide the necessary depth of knowledge for developing a large program.
The “grass roots” approach that I favor is to further strengthen our traditional APS sections, as well as other groups, in emerging areas, such as physiological genomics, so that they can effectively develop their own meetings within the structure of
Experimental Biology. If we do not do this, these groups will look elsewhere. The more people involved in programming, the more likely we will be able to satisfy the diverse interests of our APS constituents and to attract the best scientists to the meeting. However, just increasing the number of people involved in programming will not suffice. We must also provide adequate resources to the APS sections and to emerging interest groups and give them the responsibility of developing the highest quality meeting in their fields.
The fact that greater numbers of our members attend the Experimental Biology Meeting when we meet with ASPET and other FASEB societies also implies that we cannot overlook the importance of working closely with these groups. Also, I don’t think we can ignore the success of meetings that bridge basic and clinical research. Currently, Experimental Biology offers very little for our clinical colleagues or for those interested in translational research. There is no reason that Experimental Biology cannot be a leading forum for presenting highly specialized, cutting-edge physiology as well as pathophysiology and applications to clinical medicine.
Strengthening the Sections
Some progress has been made in increasing the participation of APS sections and its members in the Experi-mental Biology program. In 1997, Allen Cowley convened a Blue Ribbon Panel to advise Council on how to proceed with modernization and streamlining of scientific programming for APS. I was privileged to serve on this Blue Ribbon Committee. At that time, many members of the Committee felt that programming activities of the APS sections were not very effective, and there was considerable sentiment for removing some of this responsibility from the sections. There was (and perhaps still is) considerable imbalance in the size of the 12 sections and the effectiveness of the leadership. In addition, some of the scientific interests of the APS do not seem to fit well in the existing sections.
At that time, I served as Chair of the Section Advisory Committee (SAC) and had to reluctantly agree that some of the APS sections were not taking their programming activities seriously. In fact, the sections’ contributions to the program were usually developed by one or two of the leaders of each section. In talking with section leaders, it also became clear that they often did not put much effort into the program because they were not sure if their efforts would be fruitful (i.e., their suggestions might not be accepted by the Program Advisory Committee) and they were not given a clear responsibility. Finally, some of the best young scientists in our fields did not seem to readily identify with any of the sections or, for that matter, with the APS.
One solution to the problem was obvious—the sections should be strengthened, especially those that were not doing a very good job, and more people should be given clear responsibility for the program. Therefore, joint meetings between SAC and Council were convened to discuss these and other strategic issues on a regular basis. In 1997, the Fall APS Council retreat was also attended by SAC members, and the main topic of discussion was how to improve the Experimental Biology meeting. After considerable debate and discussion, most of us felt that the best approach toward improving Experimental Biology was to strengthen the various sections and, if necessary, to create new sections or additional mechanisms for developing programs in special areas that were not adequately covered by the sections. Thus, the Section Programming Committees (SPCs) were created with the clear responsibility of planning approximately two-thirds of the Experimental Biology meeting with one-third being planned by the Joint Programming Committee (JPC), which also has sectional representation, as well as members appointed by the APS President and Council. Each of the SPCs is comprised of several members of the section who are assigned the task of developing programs for their individual sections. Mechanisms were also identified to take care of overlaps and to identify new cross-cutting areas that would be of interest to multiple sections. The net effect of this plan was to engage at least four to five times more physiologists in developing the Experimental Biology meeting than were previously involved. This seems to have worked well, although there is still room for improvement. In addition, arrangements were made for increased emphasis on emerging areas of physiology (e.g., physiological genomics). For example, Physiology InFocus sessions at Experimental Biology have been used for several years to promote these new areas of research, and special APS conferences are being planned in physiological genomics and translational research.
Why have I spent so much space discussing what has already been done? I want to be certain that we do not regress to a “top down” approach to programming and that we make further efforts to strengthen the sections by providing additional resources for invited speakers and increased travel support for new investigators to attend the meeting. We have spent considerable APS resources on new initiatives in recent years, but none of these is more important than our main annual meeting.
Because the sections are the scientific backbone of APS, providing additional resources to strengthen them would also benefit many other activities of the society. Specifically, the sections should play a major role in strategic planning for the APS. Also, we should have continuous rather than sporadic strategic planning. A retreat every eight years (the last ones were in 1992 and 2000) is not adequate. Science is changing too rapidly, and I strongly believe (to paraphase a quote by the great UCLA basketball coach John Wooden) that “failure to plan is planning to fail.” We should effectively and continuously use our meetings of the SAC and Council to focus on strategic issues rather than as a conduit for information exchange. The sections provide our best connection with the diverse research approaches used by physiologists working at all levels of the organization, and we should take full advantage of this resource.
APS Initiative in Translational Research
The term “translational research” has been used by many of us without really fully understanding what it means. At a recent Council meeting in which we were discussing new initiatives that might stimulate translational research in APS, Doug Eaton requested that we define translational research. As I thought about his question, I realized that this term can mean different things to different people, depending on one’s perspective. For me translational research refers to the transfer of knowledge gained from basic research to new and improved methods of treating or preventing disease, as well as the transfer of clinical insights to hypotheses that can be tested and validated in the basic science laboratory.
Translational research is not unidirectional (not just from the bench to the bedside) because observations made in clinical studies often stimulate new ideas and new research approaches in basic sciences. This has been particularly true in my own recent research program, which has recently been aimed at understanding the basic physiological mechanism by which obesity causes renal injury and hypertension. My interest in this area was stimulated from discussions with the former chief of our Hypertension Division, Herbert Langford, a well-known clinician. Langford pointed out to me that most of his patients with hypertension were overweight and had physiological characteristics that were often very different from those observed in many of our experimental models of hypertension. It quickly became apparent to me that we knew very little about the basic physiological mechanisms by which weight gain alters cardiovascular and renal function or the impact of gene-environment interactions on obesity. This realization focused my attention on the need to develop animal models that more closely mimic the physiological changes observed in obese humans, as well as on the need to learn much more about areas of physiology in which I previously had little exposure. I also became aware of the need to utilize interdisciplinary approaches, drawing on expertise in several different areas of physiology and medicine. This experience solidified my opinion that close collaboration with clinicians can be very helpful to the physiologists, as well to clinicians.
The importance of translational research has recently been recognized by many organizations, including the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the American Heart Association. It is clear that new approaches are needed not only in the way we conduct our research, but also the way we train basic scientists for the postgenomic era. For the discoveries that are being made in basic sciences to contribute to our understanding of human physiology and pathophysiology, we basic scientists must be able to effectively interact with clinicians, engineers, and other basic scientists.
As the Human Genome Project reached completion in the year 2000, an almost complete map of the human genetic code was generated. Initiatives are also underway to map the complete genetic codes of other species. The next challenge will be to identify the functions of the genes that have been mapped, the proteins for which they code, the functions of those proteins in the body, and finally the application of this knowledge to the treatment of human disease. All of this will necessitate interdisciplinary translational research and it will require physiologists who are broadly trained.
Advances in genomics that have increased our understanding of human disease have already occurred, particularly in diseases that depend on single gene mutations. In the field of blood pressure regulation, for example, researchers have discovered at least five gene mutations (all involving abnormalities of renal tubular sodium transport) that cause hypertension in humans, and at least eight mutations (again, all involving altered renal tubular transport) that decrease blood pressure. Unfortunately, these mutations account for only a very small percentage of human hypertension. Few, if any, of the mutations or single nucleotide polymorphisms found in animal models of hypertension have proven to be important in causing human hypertension. Does this mean that genetic studies of hypertension in animals have been fruitless? Absolutely not! New knowledge has been generated that adds to the growing body of information available to physiologists. On the other hand, understanding human physiology and pathophysiology will require us to ultimately test our hypotheses in humans.
Also, we should not forget that environmental factors play a major role in human disease. The rapid rise in the past 10-15 years of obesity and associated cardiovascular and renal diseases, for example, cannot be attributed to gene mutations, even though genetic studies have been very important in helping us to better understand possible targets for therapy. It is important that we not be too single-minded in pursuing physiological genomics at the expense of ignoring other areas of physiology that are equally important.
Traditionally trained PhD physiologists usually do not engage in human research. However, translational research no longer requires that the principal investigator be a clinician. For example, important clinical research is now being conducted on the pathogenesis of human disease by working at the DNA level in stored samples. Physiologists can play a key role in translational research and serve as leaders of this effort, if they are willing to collaborate. The immense amount of information generated by the Human Genome Project will undoubtedly require collaborations between physiologists, biochemists, bioinformatics experts, computer scientist, engineers, and mathematicians.
In the postgenomic era of research, inter-disciplinary research will be necessary if we are to make rapid progress. Some of the most interesting physiological research will take place at the boundaries of our discipline and will result from combing knowledge of various fields. The physiologist who is well trained in multiple areas of science and who is comfortable in interacting with clinicians, biochemists, engineers, and computer scientists will be uniquely positioned to facilitate these advances. I do not mean to imply that there is less need for specialists than for integrative physiologists. In some cases, concentrated work on a single mechanism (or even a single protein) is the best way to advance knowledge in a field. However, integrative physiologists working together with scientists from other disciplines, ranging from molecular genetics to clinical medicine, can advance fundamental knowledge in ways that cannot be attained without this collaboration.
I believe that the APS should commit resources to facilitating translational research and its dissemination in our meetings and publications and to the training of physiologists who can take advantage of the new opportunities that will occur in the postgenomic era. Planning for this initiative is already underway, and a preliminary report of the Translational Research Task Force has been published (2). The main goals of this initiative are to 1) to ensure that physiology reasserts itself as the discipline that links basic sciences and clinical medicine, and 2) to promote interdisciplinary research that rapidly translates advances in basic science to clinical research. Closely related objectives are to enhance the prestige of physiology departments in medical schools and to promote translational research as a viable career for physiologists. Many of the recommended actions will, by highlighting translational research, also improve APS meetings and publications. The recommendations of the task force are far reaching, but they are still preliminary and some prioritization is needed.
Some initiatives to promote translational research in APS are already underway. For example, the editors of APS journals have been asked by the Publications Committee, chaired by Dale Benos, to solicit manuscripts in the fields of translational physiology. The Publications Committee also plans to renew the “Physiology in Medicine” series that was once published in the New England Journal of Medicine. These initiatives are meant to insure that there is a two-way transfer of knowledge from basic physiology to medicine, as well as from medicine back to the bench. Efforts are also underway to develop APS conferences and workshops at Experimental Biology that bridge physiology with clinical medicine and help to overcome barriers to interdisciplinary research. This is a very ambitious initiative for APS, and further planning will be necessary before these goals can be met. The APS is in a unique position to provide leadership in promoting translational research, and physiologists are ideally suited to lead interdisciplinary research teams that focus on the physiology and pathophysiology of human diseases. However, we must act boldly, committing resources as well as our energy to have a major impact. I invite you, as members or non-members of APS, to give us your thoughts and help in achieving the goals of this initiative.
Increasing the Visibility of Physiology and APS
One of my goals for the next year is to develop initiatives that increase the visibility of physiology in the eyes of the general public, funding agencies, and academic institutions, as well as to develop effective liaisons with other scientific societies. Although the APS now has over 10,000 members and is perhaps the most prestigious physiological society in the world, few people outside the field know what physiologists really do. In some of our most outstanding academic institutions, physiology departments have been merged with other basic science departments, and the influence and prestige of physiology has declined.
Why do we have such a low visibility? One reason may be the tendency in recent years for physiologists to have a much narrower research focus and to withdraw from translational research. As we become more and more reductionist in our research, it becomes even more difficult to explain to the general public what we are doing or why it is significant. In fact, I am not sure that we always stop to consider what impact our research will have on our understanding of body function or human disease. Several years ago when I became Editor of the American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, I suggested that the scientific impact of the journal could be enhanced by including a “Perspectives” section in the discussion of each manuscript. The purpose of “Perspectives” was to indicate the broad implications of the study and to even allow speculations on the importance of the work. I was surprised to learn that many authors resisted this opportunity and felt uncomfortable in “speculating” or even trying to explain the broad implications of the study. It seems that the narrower our research becomes the more likely we are to have difficulty explaining it to each other or to the public.
This difficulty is not inevitable, however, if we provide mechanisms to effectively bridge basic molecular research with integrative physiology and clinical medicine in our publications, meetings, and training programs for physiologists. We should also develop initiatives to increase the visibility of physiology with the general public. For example, one new initiative that came out of discussions in SAC was to develop a “Top Ten Advances in Physiology” that could be released to the news media and other public interest groups. An initiative that evolved from the 2000 Strategic Planning Retreat is to develop an effective public relations program to promote APS, as well as the discipline of physiology. There are many advances made each year in multiple areas of physiology, but often these are not recognized as “physiology” research. In some cases, the advances are claimed by organizations that focus on specific diseases (e.g., cardiovascular disease) even though the discovery was made by a physiologist! Therefore, we need to make a greater effort to educate the public about the central role of physiology in understanding how the body functions in health and disease, and about important research advances that have been made by APS members.
We should also work to increase the visibility of physiology in academic institutions, especially in medical schools. With the rapid advances in molecular biology and genetics that have been embraced by physiologists in the past two decades, the role of physiologists as teachers and as valuable collaborators for clinical departments, in many instances, has gradually shrunk. In some medical schools, physiologists are not even teaching many parts of the medical physiology course. Instructors from clinical departments sometimes do most of the teaching because physiologists may not be trained well enough in organ physiology or in pathophysiology to teach the required subject material. In addition, basic physiologists often have little interaction with students beyond the first year of medical school or with clinical fellows and residents. I believe that the visibility of physiology in medical schools could be greatly enhanced if we simply made ourselves more valuable by teaching not only first-year medical students but also by helping to teach pathophysiology and working with residents and clinical fellows.
The APS could facilitate this effort by helping to develop high-quality, computer-assisted educational programs that can be used to improve the teaching of physiology and pathophysiology. The last time I looked at the “Archives of Teaching Resources” on the APS website, there were only a few “Case Histories” in renal physiology with none in other areas such as cardiovascular, endocrine, neurophysiology, or gastrointestinal physiology. Likewise, there were only a few PowerPoint slides in the area of body fluids and acid base balance. The APS “Archives” obviously has room for great improvement, and we should move quickly to further develop this resource.
APS can also work to enhance the visibility of physiology on the review committees of various funding agencies. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, continually seeks experts to serve on study sections and often write to previous members of the study section for suggestions. Once you get in the system, your advice is sought. Therefore, those of us who have served on study sections should take the time to respond to this request seriously with suggestions to ensure that physiologists are well-represented on these committees. APS can also do this more systematically by requesting suggestions from the APS sections. If we want to be well- represented on review committees of funding agencies, such as NIH, NSF, and the American Heart Association, we must be much more proactive and provide suggestions for expert reviewers who represent the discipline of physiology.
Increasing APS visibility to the general public, to medical school administrators, and to funding agencies should be one of our top priorities. This should be coordinated through a Communi-cations/Media Relations Office at APS, and we must work in concert with other organizations such as the ACDP. This will obviously require effort and resources, but I believe that the benefits warrant the effort.
There are many other areas that I have not discussed in detail. One of the most important of these is the education of future generations of physiologists, and especially the need to train more integrative physiologists, a topic that was beautifully articulated by Jim Schafer in his President’s message (6). Several new initiatives in this area, as well as other important areas, have been considered in the APS 2000 strategic planning document (1a). I strongly believe that we must be ready to undergo rapid change whenever necessary and to take full advantage of emerging opportunities. The next few years will provide unparalleled opportunities for physiologists to lead the charge in translating the genome and in understanding human disease. I pledge to work hard with the membership, the sections, and Council to meet the challenges, and I invite you to send me your thoughts and suggestions. I am grateful for the opportunity to serve APS and look forward to working with you.
Acknowledgements
I want to thank Arthur Guyton, the ultimate integrative physiologist, who has been a mentor and role model to me for the past 27 years. I also thank the many colleagues in physiology and medicine who have worked with me at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and have shaped my views on the importance of having good collaborators.
References
1. Boron, W.F. “72nd President of APS.” The Physiologist 42: 65, 74-79, 1999.
1a. Boron, W.F. “The APS Strategic Plan-A Vision for the New Millennium.” The Physiologist 43:71-74, 2000.
2. “Council Meets in Scottsdale - Task Force Reports.” The Physiologist 44: 6, 2001.
3. Cowley, A.W. Jr. “70th president of APS.” The Physiologist 40: 49, 58-64, 1997.
4. DiBona, G.F. “73rd President of APS.“ The Physiologist 43: 57, 66-70, 2000
5. Duling, B.R. “67th President of APS.” The Physiologist 37: 49, 51-55, 1994.
6. Schafer, J.A. “69th President of APS.” The Physiologist 39: 41, 45-55, 1996.
John Hall is the Guyton Professor and Chairman of Physiology and Biophysics and Director of the Center of Excellence in Cardiovascular-Renal Research at the University of Mississippi Medical Center. Hall received his doctorate in physiology with James Schwinghamer at Michigan State University in 1974 and did postdoctoral training at the University of Mississippi Medical Center with Arthur Guyton before joining the faculty in 1976. He was promoted to full professor in 1982 and appointed as department Chair in 1989.
Hall’s major research interests include cardiovascular and renal physiology, mechanisms of hypertension, the renin-angiotensin system, obesity and insulin resistance, and modeling and computer simulation of the cardiovascular-renal systems. His early work demonstrated the importance of the direct intrarenal actions of angiotensin II (ANG II) in regulating renal tubular sodium reabsorption, renal-pressure natriuresis, and long-term blood pressure. His studies also found that ANG II, through its vasoconstrictor effects on efferent arterioles, plays an important role in feedback control of glomerular filtration. These studies provided the physiological basis for understanding why renin-angiotensin system blockade may cause severe decreases in glomerular filtration rate in patients with underperfused kidneys (e.g., in renal artery stenosis), whereas renin-angiotensin system blockade may be beneficial in lowering glomerular pressure and limiting glomerular injury in patients with overperfused kidneys (e.g., in diabetes). His laboratory also was the first to demonstrate that renal-pressure natriuresis plays a crucial role in maintaining sodium balance in several experimental models of hypertension and that increased arterial pressure occurs as an essential compensation for impaired kidney function and an inability to maintain sodium balance at normal arterial pressure. In recent years, his research has helped to unravel the renal and neurohumoral mechanisms that link obesity with hypertension and kidney disease. His research has been continuously funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) since 1975, and he has been the principal investigator of a Program Project Grant from NHLBI since 1988.
Hall has authored or co-authored over 390 publications and has written or edited 11 books, including the Textbook of Medical Physiology, which he co-authors with Arthur Guyton. He is Chief Editor of The American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative
Physiology and serves on the editorial boards of several international journals. He is past Chairman of the Council for High Blood Pressure Research, American Heart Association (AHA); Chair of the Committee of Scientific Councils, AHA; and President-Elect of the Inter-American Society of Hypertension. He also serves on the executive committee of The American Society of Hypertension and the Board of Directors of the AHA.
Hall has been an active member of APS since 1978. He is a member of the Water and Electrolyte Homeostasis Section, the Renal Section, and a Fellow of the Cardiovascular Section. He served as Chair, Treasurer, and Councillor of the Water and Electrolyte Homeostasis Section, as a member of APS Council in 1991, as Chair of SAC from 1997-2000, on the APS Strategic Planning Committees in 1992 and 2000, on the Long-Range Planning Committee, on the Task Force for Translational Research, on the Blue Ribbon Panel on APS Programming, and on several other committees of APS. Hall’s awards include the Richard Bright Award of the American Society of Hypertension, the Harry Goldblatt Award of the American Heart Association, the Merck, Sharp and Dohme International Research Award from the International Society of Hypertension, the Lewis Dahl Award of the American Heart Association, the Marion Young Scholar Award of the American Society of Hypertension, the Ernest Starling Lectureship of the APS, The Burroughs Wellcome Fund Visiting Professor in Basic Medical Sciences, the Special Research Achievement Award of the AHA-Mississippi, an NIH Career Development Award, and the A.P. Barnard and Billy S. Guyton Distinguished Professorships of The University of Mississippi.
[Table of Contents] [APS News] [Membership] [Public Affairs] [Positions Available] [Books Received] [People & Places] [News From Senior Physiologists] [Scientific Meetings and Congresses] [APS Membership Application]