The State of Federal Research Funding in Genetics as Reflected by Members of the Genetics Society of America.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rine J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4574251 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The State of Federal Research Funding in Genetics as Reflected by Members of the Genetics Society of America.
Genetics 20150715 4
Scientific progress runs on the intellect, curiosity, and passion of its practitioners fueled by the research dollars of its sponsors. The concern over research funding in biology in general and genetics in particular led us to survey the membership of the Genetics Society of America for information about the federal support of genetics at the level of individual principal investigators. The results paint a mosaic of circumstances-some good, others not so good-that describes some of our present ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The extent to which federal investment in research crowds out or decreases incentives for investment from other funding sources remains an open question. Scholarship on research funding has focused on the relationship between federal and industry or, more comprehensively, non-federal funding without disentangling the other sources of research support that include nonprofit organizations and state and local governments. This paper extends our understanding of academic research support by considering the relationships between federal and non-federal funding sources provided by the National Science Foundation Higher Education Research and Development Survey. We examine whether federal research investment serves as a complement or substitute for state and local government, nonprofit, and industry research investment using the population of research-active academic science fields at U.S. doctoral granting institutions. We use a system of two equations that instruments with prior levels of both federal and non-federal funding sources and accounts for time-invariant academic institution-field effects through first differencing. We estimate that a 1% increase in federal research funding is associated with a 0.411% increase in nonprofit research funding, a 0.217% increase in state and local research funding, and a 0.468% increase in industry research funding, respectively. Results indicate that federal funding plays a fundamental role in inducing complementary investments from other funding sources, with impacts varying across academic division, research capacity, and institutional control.
| S-EPMC4915724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Firearm injuries are the second-leading cause of death for US children and adolescents (ages 1-18). This analysis quantified the federal dollars granted to research for the leading US causes of death for this age group in 2008-17. Several federal data sources were queried. On average, in the study period, $88 million per year was granted to research motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death in this age group. Cancer, the third-leading cause of mortality, received $335 million per year. In contrast, $12 million-only thirty-two grants, averaging $597 in research dollars per death-went to firearm injury prevention research among children and adolescents. According to a regression analysis, funding for pediatric firearm injury prevention was only 3.3 percent of what would be predicted by mortality burden, and that level of funding resulted in fewer scientific articles than predicted. A thirtyfold increase in firearm injury research funding focused on this age group, or at least $37 million per year, is needed for research funding to be commensurate with the mortality burden.
| S-EPMC7039655 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Researchers in areas as diverse as computer science and political science must increasingly navigate the possible risks of their research to society. However, the history of medical experiments on vulnerable individuals influenced many research ethics reviews to focus exclusively on risks to human subjects rather than risks to human society. We describe an Ethics and Society Review board (ESR), which fills this moral gap by facilitating ethical and societal reflection as a requirement to access grant funding: Researchers cannot receive grant funding from participating programs until the researchers complete the ESR process for their proposal. Researchers author an initial statement describing their proposed research's risks to society, subgroups within society, and globally and commit to mitigation strategies for these risks. An interdisciplinary faculty panel iterates with the researchers to refine these risks and mitigation strategies. We describe a mixed-method evaluation of the ESR over 1 y, in partnership with a large artificial intelligence grant program at our university. Surveys and interviews of researchers who interacted with the ESR found 100% (95% CI: 87 to 100%) were willing to continue submitting future projects to the ESR, and 58% (95% CI: 37 to 77%) felt that it had influenced the design of their research project. The ESR panel most commonly identified issues of harms to minority groups, inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the research plan, dual use, and representation in datasets. These principles, paired with possible mitigation strategies, offer scaffolding for future research designs.
| S-EPMC8719852 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article assesses US government funding in 5 domains critical to strengthening health security: biodefense programs, radiological and nuclear programs, chemical programs, pandemic influenza and emerging infectious disease programs, and multiple-hazard and preparedness programs. This year's article also highlights the emergency funding appropriated in FY2015 to enable the international and domestic response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
| S-EPMC4486714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEstablishment of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in 2000 resulted in increased funding for health research in Canada. Since 2001, the number of proposals submitted to CIHR that, following peer review, are judged to be of scientific merit to warrant funding, has grown by 77%. But many of these proposals do not receive funding because of budget constraints. Given the role of Members of Parliament in setting government funding priorities, we surveyed Members of Parliament about their knowledge of and attitudes toward health research, health research funding and CIHR.MethodsAll Members of Parliament were invited to participate, or to designate a senior aide to participate, in a 15-minute survey of knowledge of and attitudes toward health research, health research funding and CIHR. Interviews were conducted between July 15, 2006, and Dec. 20, 2006. Responses were analyzed by party affiliation, region and years of service as a Member of Parliament.ResultsA total of 101 of 308 Members of Parliament or their designated senior aides participated in the survey. Almost one-third of respondents were senior aides. Most of the respondents (84%) were aware of CIHR, but 32% knew nothing about its role. Participants believed that health research is a critical component of a strong health care system and that it is underfunded. Overall, 78% felt that the percentage of total government spending directed to health research funding was too low; 85% felt the same way about the percentage of government health care spending directed to health research. Fifty-four percent believed that the federal government should provide both funding and guidelines for health research, and 66% believed that the business sector should be the primary source of health research funding. Participants (57%) most frequently defined health research as study into cures or treatments of disease, and 22% of participants were aware that CIHR is the main federal government funding organization for health research. Participants perceived health research to be a low priority for Canadian voters (mean ranking 3.8/10, with 1 being unimportant and 10 being extremely important [SD 1.85]).InterpretationOur results highlight significant knowledge gaps among Members of Parliament regarding health research. Many of these knowledge gaps will need to be addressed if health research is to become a priority.
| S-EPMC2025626 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionEmergency physicians face multiple challenges to obtaining federal funding. The objective of this investigation was to describe the demographics of federally-funded emergency physicians and identify key challenges in obtaining funding.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective database search of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (NIH RePORTER) to collect data regarding the distribution and characteristics of federally-funded grants awarded to emergency medicine (EM) principal investigators between 2010-2017. An electronic survey was then administered to the identified investigators to obtain additional demographic data, and information regarding their career paths, research environment, and perceived barriers to obtaining federal funding.ResultsWe identified 219, corresponding to 51 unique, mentored career development awardees and 105 independent investigators. Sixty-two percent of investigators responded to the electronic survey. Awardees were predominantly White males, although a larger portion of the mentored awardee group was female. Greater than half of respondents reported their mentor to be outside of the field of EM. The most common awarding institution was the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Respondents identified barriers in finding adequate mentorship, time to gather preliminary data, and the quality of administrative support.ConclusionThe last five years have showed a trend toward increasing grants awarded to EM investigators; however, we identified several barriers to funding. Initiatives geared toward support and mentorship of junior faculty, particularly to females, minorities, and those in less heavily funded areas of the country are warranted.
| S-EPMC7081857 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: The historical development, frequency, and impact of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are less clear in Latin America than in high-income countries. Although there is a growing number of dementia studies in Latin America, little is known collectively about FTD prevalence studies by country, clinical heterogeneity, risk factors, and genetics in Latin American countries. Methods: A systematic review was completed, aimed at identifying the frequency, clinical heterogeneity, and genetics studies of FTD in Latin American populations. The search strategies used a combination of standardized terms for FTD and related disorders. In addition, at least one author per Latin American country summarized the available literature. Collaborative or regional studies were reviewed during consensus meetings. Results: The first FTD reports published in Latin America were mostly case reports. The last two decades marked a substantial increase in the number of FTD research in Latin American countries. Brazil (165), Argentina (84), Colombia (26), and Chile (23) are the countries with the larger numbers of FTD published studies. Most of the research has focused on clinical and neuropsychological features (n = 247), including the local adaptation of neuropsychological and behavioral assessment batteries. However, there are little to no large studies on prevalence (n = 4), biomarkers (n = 9), or neuropathology (n = 3) of FTD. Conclusions: Future FTD studies will be required in Latin America, albeit with a greater emphasis on clinical diagnosis, genetics, biomarkers, and neuropathological studies. Regional and country-level efforts should seek better estimations of the prevalence, incidence, and economic impact of FTD syndromes.
| S-EPMC8450529 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPromotion of biomedical research along with the development of evidence-based prevention policies have been suggested as an effective way to reduce environmental risks for children's health in Latin America. However, there is little information on the current state of childhood environmental health research, which might help identify its strengths and limitations, as well as to design a strategy to improve the future of child environmental health research in the region.ObjectiveTo describe the current state of environmental health research on children exposed to environmental pollutants in Latin America.MethodologyWe performed a comprehensive search of published peer-reviewed environmental health articles (1994-2014), dealing with the exposure of Latin American children to chemical compounds. We described the type of studies and their research topics, and identified networks of co-authors. We also analyzed the relationship between research funding sources and the impact factor (IF) of the journal where research was published.ResultsThe average number of publications was about 20 per year. Mexico and Brazil produced almost 70% of the 409 identified papers. The most studied contaminant was lead, but research on this element has declined since 2005. Retrospective studies were the most frequent, and also showed a decreasing trend. Most studies did not assess health effects. Four groups of leading investigators and two collaboration models for scientific production were identified. Except for Mexico, there was very little collaboration with North American and European countries. Compared to articles that did not report financial support, those that received international funding had on average an IF around 7, and those with national funding reached a mean IF near 3.ConclusionThere is a limited number of publications and insufficient collaboration between Latin-American scientists. It is necessary to identify strategies to stimulate South-South-North alliances and strengthen the scarce research on the environmental health of children in the region.
| S-EPMC6748241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized by Medicaid enrollees and the uninsured. Multiple national and state policies were enacted from 2010 to 2014 to increase access to Medicaid and to promote CRC screening among Medicaid enrollees. We aimed to determine the impact of these policies on screening initiation among newly enrolled Oregon Medicaid beneficiaries age-eligible for CRC screening. METHODS:We identified national and state policies affecting Medicaid coverage and preventive services in Oregon during 2010-2014. We used Oregon Medicaid claims data from 2010 to 2015 to conduct a cohort analysis of enrollees who turned 50 and became age-eligible for CRC screening (a prevention milestone, and an age at which guideline-concordant screening can be assessed within a single year) during each year from 2010 to 2014. We calculated risk ratios to assess whether first year of Medicaid enrollment and/or year turned 50 was associated with CRC screening initiation. RESULTS:We identified 14,576 Oregon Medicaid enrollees who turned 50 during 2010-2014; 2429 (17%) completed CRC screening within 12 months after turning 50. Individuals newly enrolled in Medicaid in 2013 or 2014 were 1.58 and 1.31 times more likely, respectively, to initiate CRC screening than those enrolled by 2010. A primary care visit in the calendar year, having one or more chronic conditions, and being Hispanic was also associated with CRC screening initiation. DISCUSSION:The increased uptake of CRC screening in 2013 and 2014 is associated with the timing of policies such as Medicaid expansion, enhanced federal matching for preventive services offered to Medicaid enrollees without cost sharing, and formation of Medicaid accountable care organizations, which included CRC screening as an incentivized quality metric.
| S-EPMC6509857 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo quantify randomness and cost when choosing health and medical research projects for funding.DesignRetrospective analysis.SettingGrant review panels of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.ParticipantsPanel members' scores for grant proposals submitted in 2009.Main outcome measuresThe proportion of grant proposals that were always, sometimes, and never funded after accounting for random variability arising from differences in panel members' scores, and the cost effectiveness of different size assessment panels.Results59% of 620 funded grants were sometimes not funded when random variability was taken into account. Only 9% (n = 255) of grant proposals were always funded, 61% (n = 1662) never funded, and 29% (n=788) sometimes funded. The extra cost per grant effectively funded from the most effective system was $A18,541 (£11,848; €13,482; $19,343).ConclusionsAllocating funding for scientific research in health and medicine is costly and somewhat random. There are many useful research questions to be addressed that could improve current processes.
| S-EPMC3181233 | biostudies-literature