Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.467
Filtrar
2.
J Autism Dev Disord ; 49(11): 4400-4408, 2019 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31375971

RESUMO

Autism research funding across the world has disproportionately been invested in biological and genetic research, despite evidence that these topics are not prioritized by community members. We sought to determine whether a similar pattern was evident in Australia's autism research funding landscape between 2008 and 2017, by analysing the nation's portfolio of autism research investments. We also examined whether there was any change in this pattern of funding since the establishment in 2013 of the Cooperative Research Centre for Living with Autism (Autism CRC). Overall, Australian autism research funding during 2008-2017 followed a similar pattern to other countries, but shifted in the past 5 years. Further progress is required to bring research funding into line with community priorities.


Assuntos
Transtorno Autístico , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Austrália , Humanos
3.
Ann Surg Oncol ; 26(8): 2327-2335, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31037441

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: With reductions in public funding, alternate research funding is essential to surgical oncologists (SOs). We aimed to examine current trends in industry funding of SOs. METHODS: Society of Surgical Oncology surgeons were identified and matched with board certification and years in practice. Departmental and hospital data were evaluated, and industry payments from 2013 to 2017 were matched with the Open Payment Data. RESULTS: Of the 1670 SOs identified, 922 (55%) had academic positions: 588 (64%) males and 334 (36%) females. Between 2013 and 2017, research payments totaling $46,596,706 were made to 162 SOs (17.5%): $40,774,716 (87%) for research related to drugs and clinical trials, compared with $5,194,199 (11%) for surgical devices (p = 0.018). Funding correlated with academic leadership and years in practice (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0037). Massachusetts ($9,060,976), Texas ($7,656,228), and New York ($4,210,864) received the most funding, whereas Utah ($1,533,166/SO), Massachusetts ($1,294,425/SO), and Oregon ($1,241,702/SO) received the highest average payments per SO. The majority of funding was from Novartis ($16,045,608), Amgen ($6,810,832), and Merck ($3,758,299), for an oncolytic vaccine (talimogene laherparepvec, $5,939,007), a BRAF inhibitor (dabrafenib, $5,727,309), and a KIT inhibitor (imatinib, $4,323,586). Male SOs received funding more frequently than females (120/588 [20%] vs. 42/334 [12.6%]; p = 0.0027). Males also received more general payments (travel/lodging, food/beverage, consulting/speaker fees): $48,830 vs. $11,867 per male and female, respectively (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of industry research payments to SOs are related to novel pharmaceuticals, which highlights the expanding influence SOs play in systemic therapies. Industry payments are influenced by location, gender, and academic leadership.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Conflito de Interesses/economia , Indústrias/economia , Oncologistas/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Cirurgiões/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia
4.
Hum Exp Toxicol ; 38(6): 746-750, 2019 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30935228

RESUMO

The topic of hormesis research funding has been a focus of deliberation within the scientific community for several decades. A common assumption/belief is that most hormesis research is funded by the private sector. With this assumption may emerge questions revolving around potential bias of such research. To provide some clarification to this issue, all hormesis research articles were obtained through online databases for 5-year increments starting with 1995 and ending with 2015 and were subsequently categorized by their funding source. A total of 710 articles were found for those years and 383 of those reported information on funding sources. Reporting funding is not required by law and until more recently was not encouraged or required by funders, research institutions, and/or scientific publishers. The analysis revealed that the assumption that the majority of hormesis research has been privately funded was not supported, with the public sector (i.e. federal and state governmental agencies) exclusively contributing to 78% of the reported research funding. Going forward, funding transparency for scientific research as a whole is essential within the scientific community as it may affect how research may be perceived, accepted, and applied.


Assuntos
Hormese , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Governo Federal , Setor Público , Governo Estadual
7.
Int J Radiat Biol ; 95(7): 816-840, 2019 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30601684

RESUMO

For more than a century, ionizing radiation has been indispensable mainly in medicine and industry. Radiation research is a multidisciplinary field that investigates radiation effects. Radiation research was very active in the mid- to late 20th century, but has then faced challenges, during which time funding has fluctuated widely. Here we review historical changes in funding situations in the field of radiation research, particularly in Canada, European Union countries, Japan, South Korea, and the US. We also provide a brief overview of the current situations in education and training in this field. A better understanding of the biological consequences of radiation exposure is becoming more important with increasing public concerns on radiation risks and other radiation literacy. Continued funding for radiation research is needed, and education and training in this field are also important.


Assuntos
Exposição à Radiação , Radiobiologia/economia , Radiobiologia/tendências , Radioterapia/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/história , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Animais , Canadá , União Europeia , História do Século XIX , História do Século XX , História do Século XXI , Humanos , Japão , Lesões por Radiação , Proteção Radiológica/métodos , Radiação Ionizante , Liberação Nociva de Radioativos , Radiobiologia/educação , Radioterapia/efeitos adversos , Radioterapia/tendências , República da Coreia , Pesquisa , Estados Unidos
8.
PLoS Biol ; 17(1): e3000065, 2019 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30601806

RESUMO

Scientific research funding is allocated largely through a system of soliciting and ranking competitive grant proposals. In these competitions, the proposals themselves are not the deliverables that the funder seeks, but instead are used by the funder to screen for the most promising research ideas. Consequently, some of the funding program's impact on science is squandered because applying researchers must spend time writing proposals instead of doing science. To what extent does the community's aggregate investment in proposal preparation negate the scientific impact of the funding program? Are there alternative mechanisms for awarding funds that advance science more efficiently? We use the economic theory of contests to analyze how efficiently grant proposal competitions advance science, and compare them with recently proposed, partially randomized alternatives such as lotteries. We find that the effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the research that the funding supports, especially when only a few proposals can be funded. Moreover, when professional pressures motivate investigators to seek funding for reasons that extend beyond the value of the proposed science (e.g., promotion, prestige), the entire program can actually hamper scientific progress when the number of awards is small. We suggest that lost efficiency may be restored either by partial lotteries for funding or by funding researchers based on past scientific success instead of proposals for future work.


Assuntos
Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/métodos , Distinções e Prêmios , Eficiência , Humanos , Pesquisadores , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Redação
11.
J Vasc Interv Radiol ; 29(11): 1553-1557, 2018 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30293729

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To determine the representation of female interventional radiology (IR) investigators and elucidate possible gender-specific disparities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 4,884 original, peer-reviewed articles from 2006-2017 in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology and CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology. Data abstraction and statistical analysis were performed for first and senior author gender, citations, and grants. RESULTS: We found that 84% of first authors and 91.4% of senior authors were male (P < .01). No significant difference was observed versus expected in terms of author gender collaboration combinations (P = 1.00). Each year reflected a 0.3%-0.4% increase in articles published by women (first author: B-value: 0.3, P = .05; senior author: B-value: 0.4, P = .01). No difference was observed in citations or grants received between genders. Female authors received increasing citations and grants each year (citations: first author: B-value: 0.24, P = .05; senior author: B-value: 0.16, P = .15; grants: B-value: 0.88, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Women are equally as productive as men as determined by metrics such as number of publications, citations, and grants and are proportionally represented in the literature. No data indicating collaborative or citation/grant discrimination were observed, suggesting that the academic IR community is inclusive of its female constituents and equally respects their research contributions. Based on the statistically significant increases in female authorship observed in this 12-year study, this article reports encouraging trends for the future of women in interventional radiology.


Assuntos
Escolha da Profissão , Médicas/tendências , Radiografia Intervencionista/tendências , Radiologistas/tendências , Radiologia Intervencionista/tendências , Mulheres Trabalhadoras , Autoria , Bibliometria , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/tendências , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Fatores de Tempo
12.
Lancet Oncol ; 19(10): e521-e533, 2018 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30303126

RESUMO

The 2013 Breast Cancer Campaign gap analysis established breast cancer research priorities without a specific focus on surgical research or the role of surgeons on breast cancer research. This Review aims to identify opportunities and priorities for research in breast surgery to complement the 2013 gap analysis. To identify these goals, research-active breast surgeons met and identified areas for breast surgery research that mapped to the patient pathway. Areas included diagnosis, neoadjuvant treatment, surgery, adjuvant therapy, and attention to special groups (eg, those receiving risk-reducing surgery). Section leads were identified based on research interests, with invited input from experts in specific areas, supported by consultation with members of the Association of Breast Surgery and Independent Cancer Patients' Voice groups. The document was iteratively modified until participants were satisfied that key priorities for surgical research were clear. Key research gaps included issues surrounding overdiagnosis and treatment; optimising treatment options and their selection for neoadjuvant therapies and subsequent surgery; reducing rates of re-operations for breast-conserving surgery; generating evidence for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of breast reconstruction, and mechanisms for assessing novel interventions; establishing optimal axillary management, especially post-neoadjuvant treatment; and defining and standardising indications for risk-reducing surgery. We propose strategies for resolving these knowledge gaps. Surgeons are ideally placed for a central role in breast cancer research and should foster a culture of engagement and participation in research to benefit patients and health-care systems. Development of infrastructure and surgical research capacity, together with appropriate allocation of research funding, is needed to successfully address the key clinical and translational research gaps that are highlighted in this Review within the next two decades.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/cirurgia , Mastectomia/tendências , Oncologia/tendências , Pesquisa/tendências , Pesquisa Médica Translacional/tendências , Neoplasias da Mama/economia , Neoplasias da Mama/mortalidade , Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Difusão de Inovações , Feminino , Previsões , Humanos , Mastectomia/efeitos adversos , Mastectomia/economia , Mastectomia/mortalidade , Oncologia/economia , Terapia Neoadjuvante/tendências , Metástase Neoplásica , Papel do Médico , Pesquisa/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Cirurgiões/tendências , Pesquisa Médica Translacional/economia , Resultado do Tratamento
13.
Physiol Genomics ; 50(11): 982-987, 2018 11 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30265594

RESUMO

Chronic hypertension and preeclampsia are the most common complications of pregnancy. To clarify the contributions of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) to the field and identify potential research gaps, we performed portfolio analysis of awards related to preeclampsia and pregnancy-associated hypertension. A list of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded awards between fiscal years 2008-present was obtained through an NIH RePORTER search using the following terms: "preeclampsia" and "pregnancy-associated hypertension." More in-depth analyses were performed on currently active awards supported by the NHLBI. The NHLBI is the lead institute at the NIH in funding research related to pregnancy-associated hypertension and second leading in funding research related to preeclampsia. The NHLBI currently supports 38 awards related to preeclampsia and six awards related to pregnancy-associated hypertension, with a combined total dollar investment of $21 million. Of the currently active, NHLBI-supported awards on preeclampsia and pregnancy-associated hypertension combined, 47% are related to basic science research, 30% to clinical, 14% to clinical trials, and 9% to early translational research. The focus of NHLBI-funded awards is primarily on vascular mechanisms and short and long-term cardiovascular complications of preeclampsia and pregnancy-associated hypertension. Despite steady funding for research on preeclampsia and pregnancy-associated hypertension, several gaps in knowledge exist. NHLBI held a workshop entitled Predicting, Preventing and Treating Preeclampsia to address some of these gaps and inform future research directions for the institute.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Hipertensão Induzida pela Gravidez/etiologia , National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U.S.)/economia , Pré-Eclâmpsia/etiologia , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Orçamentos , Feminino , Humanos , National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U.S.)/tendências , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Gravidez , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Estados Unidos
17.
Eur J Cancer ; 100: 75-84, 2018 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30014883

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cancer research is among the most active biomedical research domains for the European Union (EU). However, little quantitative empirical evidence is available to guide the decisions on the choice of disease site to study, specific research domain focus or allocation of research resources. To inform national/supranational cancer research policy, high-resolution intelligence is needed. METHODS: We performed a bibliometric analysis of European cancer research papers in the Web of Science from 2002 to 2013 to quantify research activity in each of the 28 EU Member States, along with Iceland, Norway and Switzerland (EUR31), which cancer sites/research domains they addressed, and their sources of financial support (2009-2013). FINDINGS: Cancer research papers from EUR31 correlated well with national Gross Domestic Products (r2 = 0.94). However, certain cancer sites (lung, oesophagus and pancreas) were under-researched relative to their disease burden, whereas central nervous system and blood cancers were more generously supported than their burden would warrant. An analysis of research domains indicated a paucity of research on radiotherapy (5%), palliative care (1.2%) and quality of life (0.5%). European cancer research funding in 2012-2013 amounted to ∼€7.6 billion and came from diverse sources, especially in western Europe/Scandinavia, where in nine countries the charitable sector outspent the government but not in Eastern Europe where charitable research funding barely exists. INTERPRETATION: Several countries need to increase their cancer research outputs substantially, and/or alter their research portfolios to better match their growing (and changing) cancer burden. More co-ordination among funding agencies is required, so that resources can be attuned to align activities to research gaps and perceived clinical needs. In Eastern Europe, the charitable funding sector needs to be developed, so that both public and patient advocacy can have an active role in research.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Oncologia/economia , Neoplasias/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Bibliometria , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Orçamentos , Instituições de Caridade/economia , Europa (Continente)/epidemiologia , Financiamento Governamental/economia , Produto Interno Bruto , Humanos , Oncologia/tendências , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Neoplasias/terapia , Parcerias Público-Privadas/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Fatores de Tempo
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA