Criteria for Developing the Center for Pancreatic and Renal Regenerative Medicine – Grant W Peters

As a remote freelance writer, I aim to contribute to large and small content marketing projects successfully.  My goal is to create content that has longterm value in the digital world, intending to satisfy organizational branding needs. Applying a broad range of biotechnical and science knowledge, I look to supply writing that thrives on timeliness, specificity, relevance, measurability, and, most of all, agility. Whether in collaboration, or solo, I enjoy making creatives that are adaptable re-purposeful SEO rich content that owns the best ROI.

A life defined by decades of kidney dialysis, proactive education, and experiences in academic research, offers me a unique vantage point. This knowledge converges on but is not limited to biotechnology and its inherent disciplines. My journey into understanding the technologies of laboratory investigative studies began in earnest in 2004 as a transplant patient.

From learned observations, I offer singularly objective expertise into the micro-challenges inherent in research. In achieving successful clinical outcomes, a researcher must desert any notion of closed investigative doors. They are merely opportunities in exploring additional or new and exciting outcomes. Most importantly, nascent biotechnology research will produce significant breakthroughs in avenues of treatment while enhancing the life quality of end-users.

A strong understanding of the interrelationships necessary to communication is essential in conducting processes and achieving research team success.

Being an integral part of the McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine team, at the University of Pittsburgh, offered me a unique opportunity. The experience was unusual in that it allowed me to contribute to different facets of this critical research. In my opinion, published clinical applications often leave many unanswered questions. For example, when sifting through approximately 800,000+ research articles published yearly. What are the methods used to determine which publications are laudable for further interest?

Perhaps the definition of successful biotechnology researchers would be individuals with the ability to capture that hidden gem, buried within the enormity of data that is worthy of further investigation. To achieve this, the researcher must understand how to eliminate invisible barriers that are necessary for successful outcomes.

Academic research focuses on the novel or intriguing questions but little concerning what is the individual focus.

The development of three-dimensional cell culture systems is time-consuming, expensive, and repetitive. As an example, a clinical-scale bio-artificial organ or a laboratory-scale three-dimensional perfusion bioreactor would undergo numerous iterations. Long before acceptance into animal trials or laboratory use. This axiom also holds for pre-clinical trials of pharmaceuticals.

Subsequent results will not see publication. It does not heighten the prestige of the investigator and is not fundable through normal endowment channels. Nevertheless, it is essential to the collaborative efforts between academia, engineers, cell biologists, and practicing physicians, involved with research and development within the field of biotechnology. Also, these efforts afford little to heighten the prestige of the investigator and are not fundable through normal endowment channels. Nevertheless, it is essential to the collaborative efforts of all who contribute to biotechnology research and development.

With this mandate in mind, my goal is to achieve a scholarship to help in continuing my journey in cellular research and regenerative medicine. I believe that this will provide me with how to identify new successful treatment outcomes while improving the efficacy of pharmaceutical protocols.