Geographic inequality in funding by National Institutes of Health negatively impacts almost one-half of the states in the United States.

Introduction: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary federal agency in the United States (US) that supports biomedical research, training, and clinical trials. NIH funding creates patents and jobs and thus helps the regional and national economy grow. Therefore, NIH funding would be expected to flow equitably to all 50 US states. However, there is a significant geographic disparity in the level of NIH funding received by various states. To that end, in 1993, authorized by Congress, NIH initiated a funding program called the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) to support states, called IDeA states, which received low levels of NIH funding. However, whether this approach has helped reduce the geographic disparity in NIH funding is unclear. Methods: In the current study, we analyzed data on various NIH funding mechanisms awarded to 23 IDeA states vs. 27 non-IDeA states, as identified by NIH. We compared these data to the population size, federal taxes paid, and the number of PhDs and Post-doctoral Fellows(PDFs) trained in IDeA vs. non-IDeA states. Results: The non-IDeA states received 93.6% of the total NIH funding, whereas IDeA states received only 6.4%. On average, one Institutional Training Grant was received for every 24 PhDs trained in non-IDeA states, while IDeA states received one such grant for every 46 PhDs trained. The non-IDeA states comprised 84.3% of the US population, whereas IDeA states comprised 15.7%. Thus, on a per capita basis, non-IDeA states received $120 from NIH, whereas IDeA states received $45 per person. For every million dollars contributed by the non-IDeA states toward federal taxes, they received $7,903 in NIH funding, while the IDeA States received only $4,617. For FY 2022, the NIH funding created an economic activity of $90.6 Billion in non-IDeA states and only $6.3 billion in IDeA states. When total NIH funding to the states was analyzed for the years 1992, 2002, 2012, and 2022, IDeA states received 4.7% of the total NIH funding in 1992, which increased to 7.2% in 2002 but dropped to 6.8% in 2012 and 6.5% in 2022. This demonstrated that IDeA states' share of NIH funding remained relatively unchanged for the past 20 years. Discussion: Eliminating the geographic disparity in NIH funding is crucial for achieving equitable health outcomes across the US, and for the IDeA states to successfully train future generations of physicians and scientists, as well as grow the regional economy. Although the NIH IDeA programs have helped enhance the research capacity in IDeA states, the funding currently constitutes less than 1% of the total NIH budget. Thus, it is critical to increase NIH funding to IDeA states to improve health outcomes for all Americans.

Status of Research Funding in Nepal: A Scoping Review.

With the rapid advancement of health delivery, there has been a renewed interest in conducting research among healthcare professionals in Nepal. However, concern is there regarding availability of funds and mechanisms of awarding.  The purpose of this scoping review is to map the available evidence regarding the evolution and current status of health research funding in Nepal and to highlight gaps and areas for future research. We searched three databases for empirical papers and several gray literature. Our search, conducted between March and April 2024 yielded 76 documents of which 30 that met the selection criteria were included in the scoping review. Almost all studies identified lack of funding as a deterrent to research. We found a paucity of research focusing on the role of researchers in funding decision-making. Our findings revealed that there are 12 national and four international organizations providing funds for research. University Grant Commission is the largest funder from Nepal whereas the Research Council of Norway is the biggest international funder. There were certain barriers and facilitators for obtaining funds identified by this scoping review.  Further efforts are needed to increase the amount and availability of funds in Nepal to enable high-quality research.

Seeking a Better Paper Trail of Federal Research Funding.

This work discusses initiatives designed to capture the value of public investment that will result in an accurate, comprehensive, and transparent paper trail of public funding.

NIH funding and journal selection: trends in dermatology publication models across tiers from 2021 to 2023.

This study examines the influence of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding on the publication choices of dermatologists, particularly in terms of journal tiers and pay-to-publish (P2P) versus free-to-publish (F2P) models. Utilizing k-means clustering for journal ranking based on SCImago Journal Rank, h-index, and Impact Factor, journals were categorized into three tiers and 54,530 dermatology publications from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Authors were classified as Top NIH Funded or Non-Top NIH Funded according to Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings. The study finds significant differences in publication patterns, with Top NIH Funded researchers in Tier I journals demonstrating a balanced use of P2P and F2P models, while they preferred F2P models in Tier II and III journals. Non-Top NIH Funded authors, however, opted for P2P models more frequently across all tiers. These data suggest NIH funding allows researchers greater flexibility to publish in higher-tier journals despite publication fees, while prioritizing F2P models in lower-tier journals. Such a pattern indicates that funding status plays a critical role in strategic publication decisions, potentially impacting research visibility and subsequent funding. The study's dermatology focus limits broader applicability, warranting further research to explore additional factors like geographic location, author gender, and research design.

Cancer research funding in South Asia.

BACKGROUND: The rising burden of cancer significantly influences the global economy and healthcare systems. While local and contextual cancer research is crucial, it is often limited by the availability of funds. In South Asia, with 1.7 million new cancer cases and 1.1 million deaths due to cancer in 2020, understanding cancer research funding trends is pivotal. METHODS: We reviewed funded cancer studies conducted between January 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2022, using ClinicalTrials.gov, International Cancer Research Partnership (ICRP) Database, NIH World RePORT, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We included funded studies related to all cancer types, conducted in South Asian countries, namely Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. RESULTS: We identified 6561 funded cancer studies from South Asia between 2003 and 2022, increasing from 400 studies in 2003-2007 to 3909 studies in 2018-2022. India had the highest number of funded cancer studies, while Afghanistan, Bhutan, and the Maldives had minimal or no funded cancer research output. Interventional studies (67.3%) were the most common study type funded. The most common cancer sites funded were breast (17.8%), lung (9.9%), oropharyngeal (6.2%), and cervical (5.0%) cancers. On the WHO ICTRP, international funding agencies contributed to a majority of studies (57.5%), except in India where local funding agencies (58.2%) funded more studies. CONCLUSION: This study identified gaps in research funding distribution across cancer types and geographic areas in South Asia. This data can be used to optimize the distribution of cancer research funding in South Asia, fostering equitable advancement in cancer research.

Trends in financial payments from industry to US cancer centers, 2014-2021.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.

Researcher, research thyself? Mapping the landscape of canine health and welfare research funding provided by UK not-for-profit organisations from 2012-2022.

BACKGROUND: Research into canine health and welfare is supported by Government, charitable and private UK funding organisations. However, there is no current overall visibility or coordination of these funding activities, potentially compromising optimal distribution of limited resources. This study aimed to survey UK canine health and welfare funding by not-for-profit funders between 2012 and 2022, providing a novel baseline analysis to inform future sector stakeholder priorities. RESULTS: Funding data were collected from 10 wide-scope funders (UK Government funding councils and medical charities), 18 animal-directed funders (organisations specifically concerned with animal health and welfare) and 81 breed community groups. These 109 UK funders together provided traceable canine-relevant funding of £57.8 million during the surveyed period, comprising 684 individual grant awards supporting over 500 separate research projects. Wide-scope funders contributed £41.2 million (71.2% of total funding); animal-directed organisations, £16.3 million (28.1% of total funding); and breed-specific groups, £370K (0.6% of total funding). Individual grants ranged from £2.3 million to £300. Funding patterns varied between sectors. Animal-directed funders provided £14.7 million of canine-relevant research funding that foregrounded the dog, 73% of all such funding; wide-scope funders provided £17.5 million of canine-relevant One Health research funding, 97% of all such funding. Customised metrics developed for this study assessed the 'benefit to the dog' and 'pathway to impact' of individual research projects. Overall, studies supported by animal-directed funders achieved significantly higher 'benefit to the dog' scores (Mann-Whitney U = 45235, p<0.001) and 'pathway to impact' scores (Mann-Whitney U = 43506.5, p<0.001) than those supported by wide-scope funders. CONCLUSION: The landscape of UK not-for-profit funding of canine health and welfare research is complex, with considerable variation between providers. Although wide-scope funders provide the majority of overall canine-relevant research funding, animal-directed funders provide the majority of canine-focused funding and support research with greater direct impact on canine welfare. Visibility of past funding patterns will enable stakeholders in this sector to make more informed decisions about future research. DEFINITIONS: To increase clarity, certain words and phrases are used in specific ways within the context of this paper. Animal-directed funders-Charities and other funding organisations whose remit primarily concerns animals or veterinary work Canine-focused research-Investigations where the primary purpose is to advance understandings of canine health and/or welfare Canine-relevant research-All research that is framed as advancing understandings of canine health and/or welfare as a primary or subsidiary purpose Institution-Refers to universities and other centres where research is carried out Organisation-Refers to funding bodies, including research councils, charities and other groups Research grant-A single funding event originating from one or more funders Research project-A cohesive piece of research concerning a particular topic; may involve multiple researchers and/or multiple research grants, in series or in parallel Wide-scope funders-Large organisations whose remit does not primarily concern animals, i.e. (in this dataset) UKRI councils and the Wellcome Trust.

Trends in Industry-Sponsored Research Payments to Physician Principal Investigators.

This cohort study investigates trends in total and per-physician industry-sponsored research payments to physician principal investigators from 2015 to 2022.