Tag Archives: 夜上海论坛RM


first_imgThe mission of the Department Biochemistry & Molecular Biologyfalls into two important categories: teaching and research. Weaddress important research problems and provide high qualityopportunities for pre-and postdoctoral trainees. Biochemistry andmolecular biology are the underpinnings of modern biomedicalscience and our Department provides this background for alltrainees at VCU, regardless of the direction the future may takethem in.In research, fundamental discoveries are enabled by outstandingfaculty, state of the art instrumentation, and great resources thatexist within the Department, School of Medicine, the Massey CancerCenter, and the institution at large. A unique collaborative spiritreinforced through graduate student and postdoctoral fellowshiptraining and through engagement of our faculty in scientificinteractions is at the core of our mission. The Department hasresearch efforts of international stature in severalmulti-disciplinary research areas in cellular and molecularbiology, bioactive lipids, metabolism, cancer, cardiovascular andneuroscience. The Department is committed to enhancing diversityamong its faculty, staff, and students. Finally, the Departmentfaculty have a responsibility to provide service to theirprofession and to the university community.In education, our teaching methods help to reinforce difficultconcepts and provide individualized attention that fosters trainingof the highest quality. A program of instruction in teaching forour junior faculty, postdoctoral fellows and students ensures thatfuture teachers have the necessary tools to communicate clearly andeffectively. Supplemental QuestionsRequired fields are indicated with an asterisk (*).Applicant DocumentsRequired DocumentsCurriculum Vitae (CV)Optional DocumentsCover Letter/Letter of ApplicationReference Letter – 1Reference Letter – 2Reference Letter – 3 • Ph.D. in Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, or a closely relateddiscipline.• Track record of publications in high-impact journals in the areasof bioactive lipids, metabolism, cancer, neuroscience, orcardiovascular.• Have a well-developed scholarly/research portfolio with evidenceof multi-disciplinary applications and external funding appropriateto complement and expand existing expertise in thedepartment.• Demonstrated experience working in and fostering a diversefaculty, staff, and student environment or commitment to do so as afaculty member at VCU . Is this employee on a H1B Visa? If you have specific questions please contact the BiochemistryAdministrative Office at 804-828-9762. School/UnitSchool of Medicine Working TitleAssistant Professor Application Deadline Date Chief purpose of this position in support of above mission orgoal Position NumberF65940 Number of Months12 RankAssistant Professor Position Responsibilities Preferred Qualifications Posted Salary Posting DetailsEmployees hired into Administrative and Professional positionsposted on or after July 1, 2017, will be governed by and, ifemployed on July 1, 2018 will move into the new University HumanResources System. For additional information, go tohttp://greatplace.vcu.edu. Required Qualifications Mission or Goal of Unit Position TypeTeaching and Research Faculty Quick Linkhttps://www.vcujobs.com/postings/97785 Date Posted03/02/2020 Diversity Statement Information Grant funded position?No ResearchEstablish a laboratory to successfully contribute to the departmentresearch mission concerning grant submissions, publications, andtraining of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows.TeachingThe faculty member will have teaching responsibilities in the areasrelevant to their expertise. Possible course assignments mayinclude but are not limited to: MI Medical Biochemistry;BIOC503/BIOC504; BIOC602; BIOC604. In addition, faculty will mentorresearch projects of graduate students who are registered forBIOC697. Type of SearchNational Application Process/Additional Information Tenure StatusTenure Eligible Open Until FilledYes Proposed Hire Date06/01/2020 The Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology in theSchool of Medicine is seeking to fill a tenure-track facultyposition in line with our research and teaching mission. DepartmentBiochemistrylast_img read more


first_imgHowever, he reiterated that the Directive would not cover solvency rules. He said he wanted to be “very clear” on the point that the Directive would deal only with the governance and transparency of pension funds. “Along with trying to solve cross-border issues,” he added, “our aim is to create a framework in which pension funds can grow – especially in member states where they hardly exist today.”Barnier said EU member states that already had a developed pension fund sector with a high standard of transparency “should not be greatly impacted by this proposal”.Speaking with IPE, Wiedner confirmed rumours that the current draft had not passed the Impact Assessment Board (IAB), an advisory body to the Commission.He declined to provide details on which parts had been criticised, pointing out that the IAB only had an advisory role and no right to veto.“We will see which of the comments we are going to take into account – in the end, it is still a political decision,” he said.Wiedner said the European Commission was still discussing “the right scope” for the new Directive, which he said needed to be revised for a number of reasons, including the ongoing shift from defined benefit to defined contribution.Further, it “has not worked to facilitate cross-border pensions”, as “there are barriers linked to the current Directive”.As an example, Wiedner mentioned the requirement stipulating that schemes must be fully funded at all times when going cross border.Wiedner reassured industry representatives in the room that the Commission’s idea was “not to copy what we have in Solvency II – we know that IORPs are different”.He added: “We are looking at raising the standards we have in the current Directive, adjusting them to the current situation.”On another panel, Ralf Jacob, head of unit for Social Protection at the Commission, said his directorate general wanted the Portability Directive adopted before the elections to the European Parliament in May.“Afterwards,” he said, “there will be 3-4 years of transition.” Klaus Wiedner, head of the unit that oversees insurance and pensions at the European Commission’s Internal Market and Services division, has confirmed that the next draft on the revised IORP Directive might be postponed to January and will not be voted on by the current Parliament.Speaking on a panel at this year’s EIOPA conference in Frankfurt, he said: “There is still the plan that there will be an initiative published at the end of this year or the beginning of next year.”He said it was “basically impossible” to push through a revised Directive under the current legislature, and that the new Parliament would “deal with it” after the election.EU commissioner Michel Barnier, in his closing speech at the conference, made no mention of any timeframe for the revised IORP Directive.last_img read more


first_img“If they are endorsing a project as a good expenditure for federal money, they have an obligation to tell their constituents, `This is what I’m supporting. This is what I think we should be spending our tax dollars on,”‘ Ellis said. The stealth politicians include members of both parties. And some of them have blasted their opponents for failing to be transparent enough when it comes to earmarks. Just last week, Republican Reps. Elton Gallegly of Thousand Oaks, Howard “Buck” McKeon of Santa Clarita, Gary Miller of Brea and Jerry Lewis of Redlands signed a petition demanding Democrats do more to publicize the authors of earmarks in authorization and tax bills. While none of the lawmakers would speak about their decision to keep mum about their own earmarks, aides to Gallegly, Miller and Lewis noted the petition called for public disclosure of projects approved for funding, not those still under consideration. A McKeon spokeswoman said the congressman’s policy is to release information about projects after the House approves the funding. Similarly, a number of Democrats who banged the drum of public disclosure during the 2006 election refused to reveal now what projects they feel deserve federal dollars. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, for example, last year criticized a Republican measure that demands lawmakers put their names on pet projects, saying it didn’t go far enough. Now a member of the House Appropriations Committee, Schiff released a statement saying, “I strongly believe that all projects funded by Congress should be disclosed.” Asked to explain why he won’t reveal his own projects, a spokesman said the written statement “is all we have to say.” Similarly, a spokeswoman for Rep. Hilda Solis, D-El Monte, said the congresswoman has a policy to release earmarks only after they are funded. “We are confident that we are releasing all the information that needs to be released,” Solis spokeswoman Sonia Melendez said. Also refusing to disclose was Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Lakewood, who released a statement saying she is happy to discuss funded projects but did not explain her reasons for keeping requests secret. And Rep. Jane Harman, D-El Segundo, did not respond to several requests for an explanation. Privately, aides acknowledged that lawmakers typically don’t like to reveal requests because they don’t want to offend an organization or municipality that wasn’t on the list – or whose members think the lawmaker should be seeking more money for a given project. Moreover, they don’t want to be publicly criticized if they fail to obtain funding. But advocates of public disclosure criticized that reasoning. “They want to be able to preserve the right to talk out of both sides of their mouths,” Ellis said. “They want to be able to be everything to everybody, and withholding information makes that possible.” Those who did release their lists said they haven’t suffered any drawbacks. Rep. David Dreier, R-San Dimas, for example, issued a press release in June listing his requests, which include: $2.3 million for equipment at Arcadia Methodist Hospital; $7 million to construct sound walls along Interstate 210; and $5million for a Rancho Cuca- monga company developing a triage medical monitor. Dreier said he knows he won’t get all the money he is seeking, but said, “I’ve been proud of the requests that I’ve made.” Besides, he said, as the author of major lobbying and earmark reform when his party was in power, Dreier said, “I felt it was important to set an example.” Other lawmakers who disclosed their earmark requests were: Reps. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach/Long Beach; Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks; Howard Berman, D-Van Nuys; and Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles. Rep. Joe Baca, D-San Bernardino, released his list of requests, but not the dollar amounts. Rep. Laura Richardson, D-Long Beach, who won a special election for her seat in August, entered Congress after the period for taking funding requests had already closed. But watchdogs said that despite continued objections from a number of lawmakers, transparency has begun to spread through the halls of Congress. “There’s still a lot of work to be done, but there’s definitely more transparency in the 110th Congress than we ever have had before,” said Bill Allison, an investigator with the Sunlight Foundation in Washington, D.C. Has it lead to less spending in Washington? Said Allison, “Too soon to tell.” [email protected] (202) 662-8731 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! • Link: Earmark Requests Congress’ Golden State members are among the growing chorus calling for more transparency in the federal budget process – but some insist on keeping their own requests for pet projects shrouded in secrecy. Eight of Southern California’s 15 lawmakers refused a request last week to supply their list of earmark requests and explain how they hope to spend federal tax dollars in the coming year. “It shows at least some level of contempt for their constituents,” said Steve Ellis, spokesman for the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. last_img

first_imgThe High Court’s decision, in May 2015, agreeing with the BBC to cap pensionable salary is a comforting result for employers that intend to take similar action to curb defined benefit (DB) pension liabilities.The BBC took the decision to introduce a 1% cap on increases to pensionable pay to its three DB schemes to cut its pension liabilities. But the approach that it took to implement the change, requiring members to accept the cap or receive no pay rise, or alternatively to cease accrual of their final salary benefits, was significant.It led to an appeal that was lodged by scheme member and employee of the BBC Philharmonic Orchestra John Bradbury, who took his claim to the Pensions Ombudsman in 2011 on the grounds, that in good faith, his pensionable salary was his basic salary.However, the Ombudsman found that it was open to the multimedia organisation to determine that only part of Bradbury’s basic pay was pensionable and it dismissed the case, and the employee appealed to the High Court.In the High Court’s latest ruling on 15 May 2015, it rejected the claims by Bradbury’s appeal that the broadcaster breached its duty and pressured employees into accepting its pension changes, and therefore dismissed the appeal.High Court judge Mr Justice Warren said: “It would require a very strong case indeed for a number of disparate objections [even though they arise out of the same conduct] to give rise, when taken together, to a breach of the implied duties when none of the objections itself gives rise to such a breach.”The initial High Court ruling in 2012 had held that a binding agreement was formed if an active member of a scheme accepted a pay rise on the grounds that only part of it would be pensionable.It also found that the Ombudsman had not properly considered the relationship of trust and confidence between the BBC and the employee, with the case referred back to the Ombudsman in 2013.The Pensions Ombudsman again dismissed the claim that the BBC had breached its terms, trust and confidence.Bradbury’s overarching submission was that the Pensions Ombudsman had wrongly failed to engage with the argument that, “taken overall, the conduct of the BBC was in breach of the implied duties in particular because of the mechanism and methodology that it used to achieve what it did and its alleged failure to consult”.The latest dismissal of the appeal brings welcome news for employers that have capped pensionable salary within a final salary scheme, or are considering doing so. Alison Brown, global head of practice, employment, pensions and incentives at law firm Herbert Smith Freehills, said: “The decision will give comfort to employers that enter into contractual arrangements with employees to cap future liabilities to the pension scheme, particularly against the backdrop of increasing deficits in defined benefit schemes.“There is more to come, however, on the issue of the employer’s duty of good faith in IBM V Dalgleish. The court’s decision on whether to allow an appeal in that case, and on which issues, is expected soon.”last_img read more

Recent Comments