COVID-19 gender policy changes support female scientists and improve research quality.

With more time being spent on caregiving responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, female scientists' productivity dropped. When female scientists conduct research, identity factors are better incorporated in research content. In order to mitigate damage to the research enterprise, funding agencies can play a role by putting in place gender equity policies that support all applicants and ensure research quality. A national health research funder implemented gender policy changes that included extending deadlines and factoring sex and gender into COVID-19 grant requirements. Following these changes, the funder received more applications from female scientists, awarded a greater proportion of grants to female compared to male scientists, and received and funded more grant applications that considered sex and gender in the content of COVID-19 research. Further work is urgently required to address inequities associated with identity characteristics beyond gender.

Cultivating DNA Sequencing Technology After the Human Genome Project.

When the Human Genome Project was completed in 2003, automated Sanger DNA sequencing with fluorescent dye labels was the dominant technology. Several nascent alternative methods based on older ideas that had not been fully developed were the focus of technical researchers and companies. Funding agencies recognized the dynamic nature of technology development and that, beyond the Human Genome Project, there were growing opportunities to deploy DNA sequencing in biological research. Consequently, the National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health created a program-widely known as the Advanced Sequencing Technology Program-that stimulated all stages of development of new DNA sequencing methods, from innovation to advanced manufacturing and production testing, with the goal of reducing the cost of sequencing a human genome first to $100,000 and then to $1,000. The events of this period provide a powerful example of how judicious funding of academic and commercial partners can rapidly advance core technology developments that lead to profound advances across the scientific landscape.

Failures to disagree are essential for environmental science to effectively influence policy development.

While environmental science, and ecology in particular, is working to provide better understanding to base sustainable decisions on, the way scientific understanding is developed can at times be detrimental to this cause. Locked-in debates are often unnecessarily polarised and can compromise any common goals of the opposing camps. The present paper is inspired by a resolved debate from an unrelated field of psychology where Nobel laureate David Kahneman and Garry Klein turned what seemed to be a locked-in debate into a constructive process for their fields. The present paper is also motivated by previous discourses regarding the role of thresholds in natural systems for management and governance, but its scope of analysis targets the scientific process within complex social-ecological systems in general. We identified four features of environmental science that appear to predispose for locked-in debates: (1) The strongly context-dependent behaviour of ecological systems. (2) The dominant role of single hypothesis testing. (3) The high prominence given to theory demonstration compared investigation. (4) The effect of urgent demands to inform and steer policy. This fertile ground is further cultivated by human psychological aspects as well as the structure of funding and publication systems.

A 10-year longitudinal evaluation of science policy interventions to promote sex and gender in health research.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has implemented multicomponent interventions to increase the uptake of sex and gender in grant applications. Interventions included mandatory reporting on applicant forms, development of resources for applicants and evaluators, and grant review requirements. Here, we aim to inform science policy implementation by describing the 10-year outcomes and lessons learned from these interventions. METHODS: This is a prospective longitudinal study. The population is all applicants across 15 investigator-initiated CIHR competitions from 2011 to 2019 and grant evaluators from 2018 to 2019. Quantitative data were derived from applicants' and grant evaluators' mandatory reporting of sex and gender integration in the grants management database. The application was the unit of analysis. Trends in sex and gender uptake in applications were plotted over time, stratified by research area. Univariate logistic regression was used to assess associations between the sex of the applicant and the uptake of sex and gender, and the latter with funding success. Qualitative review of the quality and appropriateness of evaluators' comments informed the development of discipline-specific training to peer review committee members. Feedback was compiled from a subset of evaluators on the perceived usefulness of the educational materials using a brief questionnaire. RESULTS: Since 2011, 39,390 applications were submitted. The proportion that reported integration of sex rose from 22 to 83%, and gender from 12 to 33%. Population health research applications paid the greatest attention to gender (82%). Across every competition, applications with female principal investigators were more likely to integrate sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.50-1.63) and gender (OR 2.40, 95% CI 2.29-2.51) than those who identified as male. Since 2018, applications that scored highly for the integration of sex (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.50-2.50) and gender (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.83-3.50) were more likely to be funded. Qualitative observations revealed persistent conflation of the terms sex and gender. Eighty-six percent of evaluators appreciated the tailored discipline-specific coaching. CONCLUSIONS: A number of policy interventions improved sex and gender uptake in grant applications, with higher success rates observed over time for applications that integrated sex and gender. Other funders' action plans around sex and gender integration may be informed from our experiences of the timing, type and targets of the different interventions, specifically those directed at evaluators.

First systematic plant proteomics workshop in Botany Department, University of Delhi: transferring proteomics knowledge to next-generation researchers and students.

International Plant Proteomics Organization (INPPO) outlined ten initiatives to promote plant proteomics in each and every country. With greater emphasis in developing countries, one of those was to "organize workshops at national and international levels to train manpower and exchange information". This third INPPO highlights covers the workshop organized for the very first time in a developing country, India, at the Department of Botany in University of Delhi on December 26-30, 2013 titled - "1(st) Plant Proteomics Workshop / Training Program" under the umbrella of INPPO India-Nepal chapter. Selected 20 participants received on-hand training mainly on gel-based proteomics approach along with manual booklet and parallel lectures on this and associated topics. In house, as well as invited experts drawn from other Universities and Institutes (national and international), delivered talks on different aspects of gel-based and gel-free proteomics. Importance of gel-free proteomics approach, translational proteomics, and INPPO roles were presented and interactively discussed by a group of three invited speakers Drs. Ganesh Kumar Agrawal (Nepal), Randeep Rakwal (Japan), and Antonio Masi (Italy). Given the output of this systematic workshop, it was proposed and thereafter decided to be organized every alternate year; the next workshop will be held in 2015. Furthermore, possibilities on providing advanced training to those students / researchers / teachers with basic knowledge in proteomics theory and experiments at national and international levels were discussed. INPPO is committed to generating next-generation trained manpower in proteomics, and it would only happen by the firm determination of scientists to come forward and do it.

How an international research funder's forum developed guiding principles to ensure value and reduce waste in research.

Background: When health-related research funding agencies choose to fund research, they balance a number of competing issues: costs, stakeholder views and potential benefits. The REWARD Alliance, and the related Lancet-REWARD Campaign, question whether those decisions are yielding all the value they could. Methods: A group of health-related research funding agencies, organisations that represent health-related research funding agencies and those that inform and set health-related-research funding policy from around the world have come together since 2016 to share, learn, collaborate and influence emerging practice. This group meets under the name of the Ensuring Value in Research Funders' Forum (EViR Funders' Forum). The EViR Funders' Forum worked together to develop a set of ten Guiding Principles, that if funders adhered to would reduce research waste and ensure value in research. Results: The EViR Funders' Forum has previously agreed and published a Consensus Statement. The Forum has agreed on a set of ten Guiding Principles to help health-research funders to maximise the value of research by ensuring that: research priorities are justifiable; the design, conduct and analysis of research minimise bias; regulation and management are proportionate to risks; methods and findings are accessible in full; and findings are appropriately and effectively disseminated and used. Conclusions: When setting research funding policy, we must balance multiple stakeholders' needs and expectations. When funders do this well, they maximise the probability of benefits to society from the research they support - when funders do this badly, they passively allow or actively contribute to research waste. These challenges must be resolved by funders either working together or in conjunction with other actors in the research ecosystem.

Research for the Future: An Overview of the FASEB Shared Research Resources Task Force's Finding and Recommendations.

The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) is composed of 28 member societies, representing over 115,000 individual scientists, including the Association of Biomedical Research Facilities and its members. As part of FASEB's mission to advance awareness and support of biological and biomedical research, the Federation remains committed to sustaining support for the resources that investigators use to conduct rigorous research. This includes shared resources and the core facility staff that enable researchers to have widespread access to state-of-the art technologies and expertise. Recognizing the fundamental role of shared resources in driving biomedical research progress, FASEB established the Shared Research Resources Task Force in June 2020 to discuss ongoing policy challenges related to shared resources and core facilities and identify ways to enhance their recognition and sustainability within the research enterprise. In addition to publishing a report outlining its final recommendations, the Task Force hosted a Virtual Roundtable with external stakeholders to exchange ideas and best practices about strengthening shared resources and elevating team science to its full potential. Taken together, these efforts demonstrate a key initial step toward addressing long-standing challenges and advancing shared priorities.

Recruitment patterns in multicentre randomised trials fit more closely to Price's Law than the Pareto Principle: A review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme.

OBJECTIVE: This review investigates whether the distribution of recruitment to multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) fits the "Pareto Principle", i.e. 80% of participants are recruited by 20% of sites, or Price's Law, i.e. 50% of participants are recruited by the square root of the total number of sites. METHODS: A review of HTA reports published between 2017 and 2019. RESULTS: 40 RCTs conducted face-to-face recruitment, five recruited via mail-outs and one used both methods. For face-to-face recruitment (n = 41 studies), 80% of participants were recruited by the top recruiting 42.6% of sites; for mail-out methods (n = 6 studies) this was 52.0%. From the square root of sites, 51.3% and 31.8% of participants were recruited for the two recruitment approaches, respectively. Specifically, 3 (7.3%, 95% CI 2.5% to 19.4%) and 20 (48.8%, 95% CI 34.3% to 63.5%) RCTs that recruited face-to-face followed Pareto Principle and Price's Law, respectively. One mail-out recruitment study followed one of these principles, Price's Law. Chief Investigator (CI) sites (n = 24) in face-to-face recruitment studies recruited 18.1% of participants. CONCLUSION: Face-to-face recruitment to HTA-funded RCTs fits more closely to Price's Law than the Pareto Principle, with the CI's site recruiting nearly a fifth of participants. Since we focussed on HTA-funded RCTs with ≥9 recruiting sites and for which the recruitment method and number recruited by site were known, our findings are limited in their generalisability. However, this trend could be used as a guide to aid in estimating how many sites RCTs need. More accurate estimation may prevent the need for recruitment extensions.

Using the transformative paradigm to conduct a mixed methods needs assessment of a marginalized community: Methodological lessons and implications.

We explore opportunities as well as challenges associated with conducting a mixed methods needs assessment using a transformative paradigm. The transformative paradigm is a research framework that centers the experiences of marginalized communities, includes analysis of power differentials that have led to marginalization, and links research findings to actions intended to mitigate disparities. We argue that a community needs assessment is a natural fit for the use of a transformative framework, serving as an entry-point for the development of responsive programmatic and funding decisions. Based on a case study of efforts initiated by a local community health foundation to document disparities in their city, we show how an evaluation team used principles aligned with the transformative framework to guide the design and implementation of a community needs assessment. The needs assessment provided a better understanding of the power of community relationships, demonstrated how lack of trust can continue to constrain community voices, and revealed why agencies must actively support a social justice framework beyond the end of an assessment to ensure transformative change.

Confined to a tokenistic status: Social scientists in leadership roles in a national health research funding agency.

The idea of interdisciplinarity has been taken up by academic and governmental organisations around the world and enacted through science policies, funding programs and higher education institutions. In Canada, interdisciplinarity led to a major transformation in health research funding. In 2000, the federal government closed the Medical Research Council (MRC) and created the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). From the outset, CIHR's vision and goals were innovative, as it sought to include the social sciences within its purview alongside more traditional health research sectors. The extent to which it has been successful in this endeavour, however, remains unknown. The aim of our study was to examine how CIHR's intentions to foster inclusiveness and cooperation across disciplines were implemented in the agency's own organisational structure. We focused on social scientists' representation on committees and among decision-makers between 2000 and 2015, one of the key mandates of CIHR being to include the social sciences within its remit and support research in this area. We examined the composition of the Governing Council, the Institute Scientific Directors, the Chairs of the College of Reviewers, and two International Review Panels invited by CIHR. We targeted these committees and decision-makers since they hold the power to influence the field of Canadian health research through the decisions they make. Our findings show that, while CIHR was created with the mandate to support the entire spectrum of health-related research-including the social sciences-this call for inclusiveness has not yet been materialized in the agency's organisational structure. Social scientists, as well as researchers from neighbouring disciplines such as social epidemiology, health promotion and the humanities, are still confined to low levels of representation within CIHR's highest echelons. This imbalance limits social scientists' input into health research in Canada and undermines CIHR's interdisciplinary ambition.