[Medical philanthropy in the United States]. / La philanthropie médicale aux États-Unis.

Philanthropic foundations played a crucial role in rationalizating and organizing American society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The promotion of science was applied to medical reform, leading to the advent of genuine medical research within the framework of brand-new university hospital faculties. With the two world wars, the state became heavily involved in the field of healthcare. After 1945, it became the main source of funding for biomedical research. Philanthropy did not disappear from the institutional landscape; it continued to work in tandem with public authorities. Its role in medical research is now minor in terms of funding volume, but a strategic one in the development of projects aimed at advancing basic science and knowledge of various diseases.

Title: La philanthropie médicale aux États-Unis. Abstract: Les fondations philanthropiques ont pris une part décisive dans la rationalisation et l'organisation de la médecine dans la société américaine des débuts du xxe siècle, période pendant laquelle la promotion de la science a donné lieu à l'avènement d'une véritable recherche médicale spécialisée dans le cadre des nouvelles facultés hospitalo-universitaires. Avec les deux guerres mondiales, l'État fédéral s'est fortement engagé dans le champ de la santé. Au point qu'après 1945, il est devenu la principale source de financement de l'innovation biomédicale. La philanthropie ne disparaît pas pour autant du paysage institutionnel. Elle continue de fonctionner en tandem avec les pouvoirs publics. Son rôle est aujourd'hui minoritaire en termes de volume de financement, mais stratégique dans l'avènement de projets visant à faire avancer les connaissances sur des processus fondamentaux ainsi que sur de nombreuses maladies.

The Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF): A 30-Year Retrospective Analysis.

Federal government research grants provide limited funding to plastic surgeon-scientists, with reconstructive research taking precedence over aesthetic research. The Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF) is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization that seeks to support innovative, diverse research endeavors within aesthetic surgery. A total of 130 ASERF-funded studies and 32 non-funded applications from 1992 to 2022 were reviewed. Kruskal Wallis, Fisher's exact, and chi-squared tests were utilized to assess the potential relationship between self-identified gender, practice setting, geographical location, and study type with individual grant amounts and grant funding decision. Although significant differences were observed between male and female grant recipient h-indices (P < .05), there were no differences in the amount of funding they received (P > .05). Grant amounts were also consistent between study types as well as principal investigator practice settings and geographical locations (P > .05). The subanalysis revealed that the practice setting of the primary investigator (PI) was the only variable to exhibit a significant association with the decision to award funding (P < .05). Further, of the 61 applicants between 2017 and 2022, only 2 PIs self-identified as female. ASERF serves as an excellent funding source for global aesthetic surgery. To promote further research diversification, increased emphasis should be placed on recruiting applicants from outside academia and those who identify as female or gender nonbinary.

How large of a grant size is appropriate? Evidence from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Under the current universal trend towards larger grant sizes in research funding systems, we focus on how large of a grant size is appropriate. We study the directional returns to scale (RTS) to assess whether current grant sizes are the most productive. We take the General Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) as an example and select three samples of physics, geography and management for an empirical study. We find that the optimal input direction and the most productive grant size scale is different for the three disciplines; based on the current grant size, physics should not expand the grant size and team size input, geography should further increase the grant size to improve performance and management should further expand the team size rather than the grant size. In this paper, we demonstrate a new method to calculate the optimal direction, which is the lowest rate of congestion, according to the characteristics of the General Program. Based on these results, we also calculate the most productive scale size. This method has certain value for project management.

Current State and Future of Research in Nephrology.

The focus of this article is to review the available funding opportunities for the nephrology workforce at all career levels and review the current challenges involved in the career of a physician-scientist. While the scarcity of nephrology fellows for training programs is a continuing challenge, increased funding for the National Institutes of Health is encouraging particularly for early career investigators. In addition to National Institutes of Health funding, other funding sources are also discussed as they provide much needed bridge funding during key transition periods for young careers. Recent initiatives such as the Advancing American Kidney Health, KidneyX, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases' Kidney Precision Medicine Project offer new research opportunities for bringing much needed innovation to improve lives of people with kidney diseases. The time is now for us to seize the opportunity and ensure that a strong workforce will be able to take advantage of these potential game changers for nephrology.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Research Funded by the American Head and Neck Society Foundation.

Importance: For decades, the American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) has been providing funding for meritorious research to investigators for studies on head and neck cancer. Recently, the AHNS Foundation sought to evaluate the impact of its funds for investigators and research. Objective: To examine the mechanisms and outcomes of research funding by the AHNS. Design, Setting, and Participants: An online survey was sent to all AHNS grant-funded principal investigators who had received funds from 1998 to 2018. Over this time, approximately $1.5 million in grant funding was awarded for research. Grants were separated into 2 groups: pilot and resident grants (PRs), approximately $10 000 each type of grant for 1 year, and career development grants (CDAs), approximately $20 000 to $80 000 over 1 to 2 years. Results: Of 82 awardees, 49 individuals (60%) responded to the survey (36 men [73%]), including 28 recipients (57%) of PR grants and 21 recipients (43%) of CDA grants. Twenty-six studies (53%) were reported as translational, 20 studies (41%) were basic science, 2 studies (4%) were clinical, and 1 study (2%) was outcomes research. At the time of the award, 19 recipients (39%) were faculty/attending physicians, 11 recipients (22%) were fellows, and 19 recipients (39%) were residents/students. Twenty of 21 CDA grants (95%) were given to fellows or faculty. Thirty-seven grants (75%) resulted in publications, with a total of 84 publications reported. Nineteen CDA grants (90%) and 18 PR grants (64%) resulted in publication. Thirty-one (63%) investigators were awarded another grant after their AHNS grant: 19 CDA (90%), 8 pilot (44%), and 4 (40%) resident awardees reported having a future grant. Fourteen respondents (29%) reported a future K, R, or other major foundation grant. Of all awardees, 46 recipients (93%) were still conducting research and 40 recipients (82%) reported serving as academic faculty. Respondents also noted associations between grants and mentorship, investigator development, institutional support, and academic promotion. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, over the past 20 years, the AHNS funding mechanism has resulted in 80% of awards generating publications and 63% resulting in future funding. The additional benefits of AHNS grant awards on the culture of research is also substantial. Continued analysis of these data may help guide future AHNS funding and award decisions.

Jeffrey's insights: Jeffrey Modell Foundation's global genetic sequencing pilot program to identify specific primary immunodeficiency defects to optimize disease management and treatment.

Primary immunodeficiencies (PI) are genetic defects of the immune system that result in chronic and often life-threatening infections and/or life-threatening autoimmunity if not diagnosed and treated. Patients with a suspected PI, but without a genetic diagnosis, commonly undergo a diagnostic odyssey that is costly, time-consuming, and arduous. This delay in diagnosis prevents appropriate disease management and treatment, contributing to prolonged suffering and decreased quality of life. Although next generation sequencing (NGS) can provide these patients with relief from such a diagnostic odyssey, it is often unavailable, mainly due to cost and inaccessibility. In January 2019, the Jeffrey Modell Foundation (JMF) launched a free genetic sequencing pilot program for Jeffrey Modell Centers Network (JMCN) patients clinically diagnosed with an underlying PI. A total of 21 sites within the JMCN were invited to participate. JMF collaborated with Invitae, and testing was comprised of Invitae's Primary Immunodeficiency Panel, which currently includes 207 genes. A questionnaire was disseminated to each participating physician to evaluate barriers to access to genetic sequencing and changes in disease management and treatment after testing. One hundred fifty-eight patients and 29 family members were tested in this pilot study. Twenty-one percent of patients with a suspected monogenic disorder received a molecular diagnosis, and others received potentially useful diagnostic leads. Based on the results of genetic sequencing, clinical diagnosis was altered in 45% of patients, disease management was altered in 40%, treatment was altered in 36%, and genetic counseling was altered in 62%. The results of this pilot program demonstrate the utility, cost-efficiency, and critical importance of NGS for PI and make the case for broad scale sequence-based diagnostics for PI patients when requested by expert immunologists.

[Analysis of projects funded by NSFC in field of pharmacology of traditional Chinese medicine in 2019].

The projects which supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China(NSFC) including General Program, Young Scientist Fund, and Fund for Less Developed Regions, in field of pharmacology of traditional Chinese medicine in 2019 were reviewed. Based on these research items, the main contents and characteristics, as well as the main problems from academic and non-academic point of view, were summarized for reference.

Gerontological nursing: Growth, adaptation and change after John A. Hartford Foundation investments.

This article chronicles the John A. Hartford Foundation (JAHF) funded gerontological nursing initiatives 1996-present. These initiatives, in particular BAGNC, were designed to impact the health of older adults through building gerontological nursing capacity by preparing new and retooling current faculty with expert gerontological nursing competencies, preparing new researchers, developing a knowledgeable nurse workforce with competency in gerontological nursing and prepare leaders in academics and health care systems. A description of major programs funded by the Foundation is presented and the impact, adaptation, and change in gerontological nursing resulting from over $86 million in funding awarded to these efforts is examined and intended to inform our way forward. NHCGNE, Legacy Affiliates and partners named in this article continue to innovate and transform healthcare systems as a way forward.