[Comment] COVID­19 vaccine safety.

In response to the SARS­CoV­2 outbreak, and the resulting COVID­19 pandemic, a global competition to develop an anti­COVID­19 vaccine has ensued. The targeted time frame for initial vaccine deployment is late 2020. The present article examines whether short­term, mid­term, and long­term vaccine safety can be achieved under such an accelerated schedule, given the myriad vaccine­induced mechanisms that have demonstrated adverse effects based on previous clinical trials and laboratory research. It presents scientific evidence of potential pitfalls associated with eliminating critical phase II and III clinical trials, and concludes that there is no substitute currently available for long­term human clinical trials to ensure long­term human safety.

A measure of knowledge flow between specific fields: Implications of interdisciplinarity for impact and funding.

Encouraging knowledge flow between mutually relevant disciplines is a worthy aim of research policy makers. Yet, it is less clear what types of research promote cross-disciplinary knowledge flow and whether such research generates particularly influential knowledge. Empirical questions remain as to how to identify knowledge-flow mediating research and how to provide support for this research. This study contributes to addressing these gaps by proposing a new way to identify knowledge-flow mediating research at the individual research article level, instead of at more aggregated levels. We identify journal articles that link two mutually relevant disciplines in three ways-aggregating, bridging, and diffusing. We then examine the likelihood that these papers receive subsequent citations or have funding acknowledgments. Our case study of cognitive science and educational research knowledge flow suggests that articles that aggregate knowledge from multiple disciplines are cited significantly more often than are those whose references are drawn primarily from a single discipline. Interestingly, the articles that meet the criteria for being considered knowledge-flow mediators are less likely to reflect funding, based on reported acknowledgements, than were those that did not meet these criteria. Based on these findings, we draw implications for research policymakers.

How Does National Scientific Funding Support Emerging Interdisciplinary Research: A Comparison Study of Big Data Research in the US and China.

How do funding agencies ramp-up their capabilities to support research in a rapidly emerging area? This paper addresses this question through a comparison of research proposals awarded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) in the field of Big Data. Big data is characterized by its size and difficulties in capturing, curating, managing and processing it in reasonable periods of time. Although Big Data has its legacy in longstanding information technology research, the field grew very rapidly over a short period. We find that the extent of interdisciplinarity is a key aspect in how these funding agencies address the rise of Big Data. Our results show that both agencies have been able to marshal funding to support Big Data research in multiple areas, but the NSF relies to a greater extent on multi-program funding from different fields. We discuss how these interdisciplinary approaches reflect the research hot-spots and innovation pathways in these two countries.

A societal outcomes map for health research and policy.

The linkages between decisions about health research and policy and actual health outcomes may be extraordinarily difficult to specify. We performed a pilot application of a "road mapping" and technology assessment technique to perinatal health to illustrate how this technique can clarify the relations between available options and improved health outcomes. We used a combination of data-mining techniques and qualitative analyses to set up the underlying structure of a societal health outcomes road map. Societal health outcomes road mapping may be a useful tool for enhancing the ability of the public health community, policymakers, and other stakeholders, such as research administrators, to understand health research and policy options.