The enduring pursuit of public science at U.S. land-grant universities.

Since the 1990s, universities have faced a push toward output commercialization that has been seen as a potential threat to the public science model. Much less attention has been given to the enduring nature of internal organizational features in academia and how they shape the pursuit of traditional scholarly activities. This article exploits four waves of representative, random-sample survey evidence from agricultural and life science faculty at the 52 major U.S. land-grant universities, spanning 1989-2015, to examine faculty attitudes/preferences, tenure and promotion criteria, output, and funding sources. Our findings demonstrate that faculty attitudes toward scientific research have remained remarkably stable over twenty-five years in strongly favoring intrinsic and public science goals over commercial or extrinsic goals. We also demonstrate the faculty's positive attitudes toward science, an increased pressure to publish in top journals and secure increasingly competitive grants, as well as declining time for science. These trends suggest a reconsideration of university commercialization strategies and a recommitment of universities and their state and federal funders toward fostering public agricultural and life science research.

Attitudes and practices of public health academics towards research funding from for-profit organizations: cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: The growing trend of for-profit organization (FPO)-funded university research is concerning because resultant potential conflicts of interest might lead to biases in methods, results, and interpretation. For public health academic programmes, receiving funds from FPOs whose products have negative health implications may be particularly problematic. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey assessed attitudes and practices of public health academics towards accepting funding from FPOs. The sampling frame included universities in five world regions offering a graduate degree in public health; 166 academics responded. Descriptive, bivariate, and logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Over half of respondents were in favour of accepting funding from FPOs; attitudes differed by world region and gender but not by rank, contract status, % salary offset required, primary identity, or exposure to an ethics course. In the last 5 years, almost 20% of respondents had received funding from a FPO. Sixty per cent of respondents agreed that there was potential for bias in seven aspects of the research process, when funds were from FPOs. CONCLUSIONS: Globally, public health academics should increase dialogue around the potential harms of research and practice funded by FPOs.

NIH funding trends to US medical schools from 2009 to 2018.

Total NIH funding dollars have increased from 2009-2018. We questioned whether this growth has occurred proportionately around the country and throughout allopathic medical schools. Therefore, we compared the trend in NIH grant funding from 2009 to 2018 for United States allopathic medical schools among historically top-funded schools, private and public schools, and by region of the country. Changes in both unadjusted and real funding dollars over time revealed a significant difference. Region was the only significant factor for mean percent change in funding from 2009-2018, with the Western region showing a 33.79% increase in purchasing power. The Northeastern region showed a -6.64% decrease in purchasing power while the Central and Southern regions reported changes of 2.46% and -6.08%, respectively. The mean percent increases were more proportional and nonsignificant in the public vs. private institutions comparison, at -3.41% and 4.75%, respectively. Likewise, the top-funded institutions vs. other institutions comparisons demonstrated modest, nonsignificant differences. However, although the relative changes might be proportional, the absolute increases evidence a pattern of growing cumulative advantage that favor the highest-funded institutions and private institutions. The potential consequences of this disproportionate increase include health science education, biomedical research, and patient access disparities in large parts of the country. The NIH and the scientific community should explore potential solutions in its funding models.

NIH funding and the pursuit of edge science.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) plays a critical role in funding scientific endeavors in biomedicine. Funding innovative science is an essential element of the NIH's mission, but many have questioned the NIH's ability to fulfill this aim. Based on an analysis of a comprehensive corpus of published biomedical research articles, we measure whether the NIH succeeds in funding work with novel ideas, which we term edge science. We find that edge science is more often NIH funded than less novel science, but with a delay. Papers that build on very recent ideas are NIH funded less often than are papers that build on ideas that have had a chance to mature for at least 7 y. We have three further findings. First, the tendency to fund edge science is mostly limited to basic science. Papers that build on novel clinical ideas are not more often NIH funded than are papers that build on well-established clinical knowledge. Second, novel papers tend to be NIH funded more often because there are more NIH-funded papers in innovative areas of investigation, rather than because the NIH funds innovative papers within research areas. Third, the NIH's tendency to have funded papers that build on the most recent advances has declined over time. In this regard, NIH funding has become more conservative despite initiatives to increase funding for innovative projects. Given our focus on published papers, the results reflect both the funding preferences of the NIH and the composition of the applications it receives.

National Institutes of Health Research Plan on Rehabilitation: Analysis and Progress.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the progress toward the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Plan on Rehabilitation goals and the methods by which tracking occurred. DESIGN: Each grant award was manually coded by NIH staff for research plan goals, type of science categories (eg, basic, applied, infrastructure, etc), and if applicable, training, and then validated by NIH institute and center (IC) experts. Data for years 2015 through 2017 were used to develop a coding algorithm to automatically code grants in 2018 for validation by NIH IC experts. Additional data for all years (2015-2018) were also analyzed to track changes and progress. SETTING: The research utilized administrative data from NIH Reporter and internal NIH databases. PARTICIPANTS: The data sample included research grants and programs funded from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. The year 2015 was considered a baseline year as the research plan was published in 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were substantial growth in NIH funding and numbers of awards for rehabilitation research, across most research plan goals and types of science, as well as validation of an automatic algorithm for coding grants. RESULTS: Number of grants, funding dollars, funding mechanisms, patent data, scientific influence and translational science, research plan goals, and type of science categories were tracked across years (2015-2018). Algorithm validation is presented for 2018 data. CONCLUSIONS: NIH advanced the goals stated in the Research Plan on Rehabilitation, but gap areas remain. Though funding in this portfolio is growing, continued focus and participation by the field is needed to advance rehabilitation science.

Mapping the coevolution, leadership and financing of research on viral vectors, RNAi, CRISPR/Cas9 and other genomic editing technologies.

Genomic editing technologies are developing rapidly, promising significant developments for biomedicine, agriculture and other fields. In the present investigation, we analyzed and compared the process of innovation for six genomic technologies: viral vectors, RNAi, TALENs, meganucleases, ZFNs and CRISPR/Cas including the profile of the main research institutions and their funders, to understand how innovation evolved and what institutions influenced research trajectories. A Web of Science search of papers on viral vectors RNAi, CRISPR/Cas, TALENs, ZFNs and meganucleases was used to build a citation network of 16,746 papers. An analysis of network clustering combined with text mining was performed. For viral vectors, a long-term process of incremental innovation was identified, which was largely publicly funded in the United States and the European Union. The trajectory of RNAi research included clusters related to the study of RNAi as a biological phenomenon and its use in functional genomics, biomedicine and pest control. A British philanthropic organization and a US pharmaceutical company played a key role in the development of basic RNAi research and clinical application respectively, in addition to government and academic institutions. In the case of CRISPR/Cas research, basic science discoveries led to the technical improvements, and these two in turn provided the information required for the development of biomedical, agricultural, livestock and industrial applications. The trajectory of CRISPR/Cas research exhibits a geopolitical division of the investigation efforts between the US, as the main producer and funder of basic research and technical improvements, and Chinese research institutions increasingly leading applied research. Our results reflect a change in the model for financing science, with reduced public financing for basic science and applied research on publicly funded technological developments in the US, and the emergence of China as a scientific superpower, with implications for the development of applications of genomic technologies.

A decade of decline: Grant funding for researchers with disabilities 2008 to 2018.

Recent data highlights an imbalance in research grant success among groups underrepresented within the biomedical workforce, including racial/ethnic minorities and women. However, there is no data on grant success for researchers with disabilities. For these analyses, aggregate data on self-reported disability status for National Institute on Health (NIH) research grant applicants and awardees was obtained from 2008 to 2018, including disability category: mobility/orthopedic, hearing, visual disabilities, and other disabilities. The percentage of applications and awards, as well as grant success rates (% of applicants receiving awards), by Principal Investigators (PIs) disability status were calculated. Data was desegregated, and logistic models determined trend of applicants reporting disability over time. The percentage of NIH grant applicants with PIs reporting a disability significantly declined from 1.9% in 2008, to 1.2% in 2018 (p<0.001). Data on grant awardees was similar, 1.9% of awards in 2008, declining to 1.2% in 2018 (p<0.001) had PIs reporting a disability. Across all years, the percentage of applications and awards with PIs reporting visual disabilities was lower than the percentage reporting mobility/orthopedic, or hearing disabilities (16.5%, 34.2%, and 37.8% in 2008, respectively). Overall grant success rates differed by disability status (27.2% for those reporting disability vs 29.7% in those reporting no disability, p<0.001). The lowest overall grant success rate was among PIs reporting unknown disability status or who withheld this status (18.6%). These results underscore the underrepresentation of researchers with disabilities among grant applicants and awardees, and indicate lower grant success rates among PIs reporting disabilities.

Gender disparities in academic vascular surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have identified significant gender discrepancies in grant funding, leadership positions, and publication impact in surgical subspecialties. We investigated whether these discrepancies were also present in academic vascular surgery. METHODS: Academic websites from institutions with vascular surgery training programs were queried to identify academic faculty, and leadership positions were noted. H-index, number of citations, and total number of publications were obtained from Scopus and PubMed. Grant funding amounts and awards data were obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Industry funding amount was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Nonsurgical physicians and support staff were excluded from this analysis. RESULTS: We identified 177 female faculty (18.6%) and 774 male faculty (81.4%). A total of 41 (23.2%) female surgeons held leadership positions within their institutions compared with 254 (32.9%) male surgeons (P = .009). Female surgeons held the rank of assistant professor 50.3% of the time in contrast to 33.9% of men (P < .001). The rank of associate professor was held at similar rates, 25.4% vs 20.7% (P = .187), respectively. Fewer women than men held the full professor rank, 10.7% compared with 26.2% (P < .001). Similarly, women held leadership positions less often than men, including division chief (6.8% vs 13.7%; P < .012) and vice chair of surgery (0% vs 2.2%; P < .047), but held more positions as vice dean of surgery (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037) and chief executive officer (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037). Scientific contributions based on the number of each surgeon's publications were found to be statistically different between men and women. Women had an average of 42.3 publications compared with 64.8 for men (P < .001). Female vascular surgeons were cited an average of 655.2 times, less than half the average citations of their male counterparts with 1387 citations (P < .001). The average H-index was 9.5 for female vascular surgeons compared with 13.7 for male vascular surgeons (P < .001). Correcting for years since initial board certification, women had a higher H-index per year in practice (1.32 vs 1.02; P = .005). Female vascular surgeons were more likely to have received NIH grants than their male colleagues (9.6% vs 4.0%; P = .017). Although substantial, the average value of NIH grants awarded was not statistically significant between men and women, with men on average receiving $915,590.74 ($199,119.00-$2,910,600.00) and women receiving $707,205.35 ($61,612.00-$4,857,220.00; P = .416). There was no difference in the distribution of Society for Vascular Surgery seed grants to women and men since 2007. Industry payments made publicly available according to the Sunshine Act for the year 2018 were also compared, and female vascular surgeons received an average of $2155.28 compared with their male counterparts, who received almost four times as much at $8452.43 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is certainly improved representation of women in vascular surgery compared with several decades ago, a discrepancy still persists. Women tend to have more grants than men and receive less in industry payments, but they hold fewer leadership positions, do not publish as frequently, and are cited less than their male counterparts. Further investigation should be aimed at identifying the causes of gender disparity and systemic barriers to gender equity in academic vascular surgery.

Distributing Local Resources for Public Health Preparedness Grants: A Data-Driven Approach.

OBJECTIVES: To simulate allocations of Public Health Emergency Preparedness funds to counties using alternative metrics of need, minimum allocation amounts, and the proportion earmarked for discretionary considerations. DESIGN: We developed a county-level community resilience index of 57 New York State counties using publicly available indicators, which we incorporated into an interactive spreadsheet of 8 hypothetical allocation formulas with different combinations of population size, the index and its 5 domains, and population density. Simulations were compared with the 2013-2014 fiscal year grant allocation. RESULTS: New York allocated $6.27 million to counties outside New York City, with a median allocation of $78 038, ranging from $50 825 to $556 789. These allocations would vary under different strategies, with the largest changes among sparsely populated counties that currently receive a minimum allocation of $50 825. Allocations were sensitive to changes in minimum allocation, amount earmarked for discretionary allocation, and need indicator. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based approaches are commonly used but ignore important dimensions of need. It is feasible to include robust local community resilience measures in formulas, and interactive spreadsheet models can help stakeholders evaluate the consequences of alternative funding strategies.

Multidisciplinary Team Reviews of Drug Overdose Deaths and the Use of Minigrants to Advance Recommendations: A Statewide Pilot in Rhode Island.

CONTEXT: Rhode Island has been significantly impacted by the opioid epidemic, ranking 11th in unintentional drug overdose rates in the United States in 2017. Illicit fentanyl was involved in the majority of these deaths. PROGRAM: To enhance surveillance of this epidemic, the RI Department of Health piloted in-depth, multidisciplinary, and multiagency team reviews of drug overdose deaths. The goals were to identify gaps in policies and programming and develop recommendations to prevent future deaths. Time-sensitive minigrants were offered to nonprofit organizations as a novel way to further the recommendations put forth from these reviews. IMPLEMENTATION: Legal agreements between select state agencies and institutions enabled broad team representation and the sharing of information during each meeting. Reviews, revolving around a common theme, were conducted for up to 10 deaths each quarter. Recommendations for prevention were generated by the team and summarized in a report to the Governor's Overdose Prevention and Intervention Task Force and the public within 1 month of each meeting. Announcements of minigrant opportunities and funding to advance the community-specific recommendations were paired with each meeting. EVALUATION: From November 2016 through May 2018, the pilot team convened 7 times, generated 78 recommendations, and distributed 31 minigrants. Early process evaluations of these grants have shown positive impact within local environments. Following the pilot phase, state legislation for these reviews was passed in June 2018. DISCUSSION: The RI Department of Health was able to successfully pilot a multidisciplinary review process for overdose deaths and has recently institutionalized this process through legislation. The successful implementation of many of the team's community-oriented recommendations, supported through a minigrant process, highlights the impact that small financial investments can have to address the opioid epidemic and may be a model for other jurisdictions seeking to advance recommendations from these types of reviews.

["Risk factors of childhood depression" research grant - past, present, future].

The authors summarize the last 10 years of an ongoing collaborative study between the Universities of Szeged and Pittsburgh on early onset major depression. First, the "Risk factors of childhood depression" grant is presented briefly as an initial research study in which the subjects of the current studies were recruited. This is a prominently large clinical sample in the field of child psychiatry even on an international level. In addition to the follow-up of the prognosis of the disorder, recent studies continue to explore the early onset depression in two directions. On the one hand, two studies investigate the role of biobehavioral inflexibility markers in the development of major depression ("Biobehavioral inflexibility and risk for juvenile-onset depression" and "Biobehavioral inflexibility and risk for juvenile-onset depression - renewal grant"). On the other hand, the authors would like to have a better understanding of the possible relationship between the major depression and cardiovascular diseases ("Pediatric depression and subsequent cardiac risk factors: a longitudinal study"). The most significant aims of the three studies will be demonstrated, as well as how the studies were prepared and organized along with the already existing experience concerning research management and involvement of new collaborating partners and experts.

Trends in Clinical Research Including Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Participants Funded by the US National Institutes of Health, 1992 to 2018.

Importance: Advancing the health equity agenda for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AA/NHPI) individuals has become an intersecting priority for federal agencies. However, the impact of federal investments and legislation to ensure systematic processes and resources to eliminate health disparities in AA/NHPI populations is unclear. Objective: To perform a portfolio review of clinical research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for AA/NHPI populations and determine the level of NIH investment in serving these populations. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study in which the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results system was queried for extramural AA/NHPI-focused clinical research projects conducted in the United States from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2018. Clinical research funded under research project grants, centers, cooperative awards, research career awards, training grants, and fellowships was included, with an advanced text search for AA/NHPI countries and cultures of origin. Project titles and terms were screened for inclusion and project abstracts were reviewed to verify eligibility. Descriptive analyses were completed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included NIH funding trends and characteristics of funded projects and organizations. The proportions of AA/NHPI-related funding trends were calculated using 2 denominators, total NIH expenditures and clinical research expenditures. Results: There were 5460 records identified, of which 891 studies were reviewed for eligibility. Of these, 529 clinical research studies focused on AA/NHPI participants composed 0.17% of the total NIH budget over 26 years. Projects studying AA/NHPI individuals in addition to other populations were funded across 17 NIH institutes and centers. The top 5 funders collectively contributed almost 60% of the total funding dollars for AA/NHPI projects and were the National Cancer Institute ($231 584 664), National Institute on Aging ($108 365 124), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ($67 232 910), National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities ($62 982 901), and National Institute on Mental Health ($60 072 779). Funding of these projects ($775 536 121) made up 0.17% of the overall NIH expenditures ($451 284 075 000) between 1992 and 2018, and 0.18% ($677 479 468) of the NIH research budget after 2000. Funding for AA/NHPI projects significantly increased over time, but the proportion of the total NIH budget has only increased from 0.12% before 2000 to 0.18% after 2000. Of total funding, 60.8% was awarded to research project grants compared with only 5.1% allocated to research career awards, training grants, and fellowships. Conclusions and Relevance: Increases in research dollars for AA/NHPI clinical research were not associated with increases in the overall NIH research budget, and underrepresentation of AA/NHPI subgroups still remains. Without overt direction from federal entities and dedicated funds for health disparities research, as well as parallel efforts to increase diversity in the biomedical workforce, investments may continue to languish for AA/NHPI populations.

The current state of funded NIH grants in implementation science in genomic medicine: a portfolio analysis.

PURPOSE: Implementation science offers methods to evaluate the translation of genomic medicine research into practice. The extent to which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) human genomics grant portfolio includes implementation science is unknown. This brief report's objective is to describe recently funded implementation science studies in genomic medicine in the NIH grant portfolio, and identify remaining gaps. METHODS: We identified investigator-initiated NIH research grants on implementation science in genomic medicine (funding initiated 2012-2016). A codebook was adapted from the literature, three authors coded grants, and descriptive statistics were calculated for each code. RESULTS: Forty-two grants fit the inclusion criteria (~1.75% of investigator-initiated genomics grants). The majority of included grants proposed qualitative and/or quantitative methods with cross-sectional study designs, and described clinical settings and primarily white, non-Hispanic study populations. Most grants were in oncology and examined genetic testing for risk assessment. Finally, grants lacked the use of implementation science frameworks, and most examined uptake of genomic medicine and/or assessed patient-centeredness. CONCLUSION: We identified large gaps in implementation science studies in genomic medicine in the funded NIH portfolio over the past 5 years. To move the genomics field forward, investigator-initiated research grants should employ rigorous implementation science methods within diverse settings and populations.