Economic returns to medical research funding.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Grant J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6144334 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Economic returns to medical research funding.
Grant Jonathan J Buxton Martin J MJ
BMJ open 20180910 9
Following the publication of the final paper in a planned series of four studies estimating the economic returns from biomedical and health research, we reflect on what we have learnt from these types of assessment. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Recent scientific advances suggest that slowing the aging process (senescence) is now a realistic goal. Yet most medical research remains focused on combating individual diseases. Using the Future Elderly Model--a microsimulation of the future health and spending of older Americans--we compared optimistic "disease specific" scenarios with a hypothetical "delayed aging" scenario in terms of the scenarios' impact on longevity, disability, and major entitlement program costs. Delayed aging could increase life expectancy by an additional 2.2 years, most of which would be spent in good health. The economic value of delayed aging is estimated to be $7.1 trillion over fifty years. In contrast, addressing heart disease and cancer separately would yield diminishing improvements in health and longevity by 2060--mainly due to competing risks. Delayed aging would greatly increase entitlement outlays, especially for Social Security. However, these changes could be offset by increasing the Medicare eligibility age and the normal retirement age for Social Security. Overall, greater investment in research to delay aging appears to be a highly efficient way to forestall disease, extend healthy life, and improve public health.
| S-EPMC3938188 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAustralian health and medical research funders support substantial research efforts, and incentives within grant funding schemes influence researcher behaviour. We aimed to determine to what extent Australian health and medical funders incentivise responsible research practices.MethodsWe conducted an audit of instructions from research grant and fellowship schemes. Eight national research grants and fellowships were purposively sampled to select schemes that awarded the largest amount of funds. The funding scheme instructions were assessed against 9 criteria to determine to what extent they incentivised these responsible research and reporting practices: (1) publicly register study protocols before starting data collection, (2) register analysis protocols before starting data analysis, (3) make study data openly available, (4) make analysis code openly available, (5) make research materials openly available, (6) discourage use of publication metrics, (7) conduct quality research (e.g. adhere to reporting guidelines), (8) collaborate with a statistician, and (9) adhere to other responsible research practices. Each criterion was answered using one of the following responses: "Instructed", "Encouraged", or "No mention".ResultsAcross the 8 schemes from 5 funders, applicants were instructed or encouraged to address a median of 4 (range 0 to 5) of the 9 criteria. Three criteria received no mention in any scheme (register analysis protocols, make analysis code open, collaborate with a statistician). Importantly, most incentives did not seem strong as applicants were only instructed to register study protocols, discourage use of publication metrics and conduct quality research. Other criteria were encouraged but were not required.ConclusionsFunders could strengthen the incentives for responsible research practices by requiring grant and fellowship applicants to implement these practices in their proposals. Administering institutions could be required to implement these practices to be eligible for funding. Strongly rewarding researchers for implementing robust research practices could lead to sustained improvements in the quality of health and medical research.
| S-EPMC8328133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe rise of the internet and social media has boosted online crowdfunding as a novel strategy to raise funds for kick-starting projects, but it is rarely used in science.ObjectiveWe report on an online crowdfunding campaign launched in the context of the neuroscience project HORAO. The aim of HORAO was to develop a noninvasive real-time method to visualize neuronal fiber tracts during brain surgery in order to better delineate tumors and to identify crucial cerebral landmarks. The revenue from the crowdfunding campaign was to be used to sponsor a crowdsourcing campaign for the HORAO project.MethodsWe ran a 7-week reward-based crowdfunding campaign on a national crowdfunding platform, offering optional material and experiential rewards in return for a contribution toward raising our target of Swiss francs (CHF) 50,000 in financial support (roughly equivalent to US $50,000 at the time of the campaign). We used various owned media (websites and social media), as well as earned media (press releases and news articles) to raise awareness about our project.ResultsThe production of an explanatory video took 60 hours, and 31 posts were published on social media (Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter). The campaign raised a total of CHF 69,109. Approximately half of all donations came from donors who forwent a reward (CHF 28,786, 48.74%); the other half came from donors who chose experiential and material rewards in similar proportions (CHF 14,958, 25.33% and CHF 15,315.69, 25.93%, respectively). Of those with an identifiable relationship to the crowdfunding team, patients and their relatives contributed the largest sum (CHF 17,820, 30.17%), followed by friends and family (CHF 9288, 15.73%) and work colleagues (CHF 6028, 10.21%), while 43.89% of funds came from donors who were either anonymous or had an unknown relationship to the crowdfunding team. Patients and their relatives made the largest donations, with a median value of CHF 200 (IQR 90).ConclusionsCrowdfunding proved to be a successful strategy to fund a neuroscience project and to raise awareness of a specific clinical problem. Focusing on potential donors with a personal interest in the issue, such as patients and their relatives in our project, is likely to increase funding success. Compared with traditional grant applications, new skills are needed to explain medical challenges to the crowd through video messages and social media.
| S-EPMC7688388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence shows that territorial borders continue to have an impact on research collaboration in Europe. Knowledge of national research structural contexts is therefore crucial to the promotion of Europe-wide policies for research funding. Nevertheless, studies assessing and comparing research systems remain scarce. This paper aims to further the knowledge on national research landscapes in Europe, focusing on non-communicable disease (NCD) research in Italy and Germany.MethodsTo capture the architecture of country-specific research funding systems, a three-fold strategy was adopted. First, a literature review was conducted to determine a list of key public, voluntary/private non-profit and commercial research funding organisations (RFOs). Second, an electronic survey was administered qualifying RFOs. Finally, survey results were integrated with semi-structured interviews with key opinion leaders in NCD research. Three major dimensions of interest were investigated - funding mechanisms, funding patterns and expectations regarding outputs.ResultsThe number of RFOs in Italy is four times larger than that in Germany and the Italian research system has more project funding instruments than the German system. Regarding the funding patterns towards NCD areas, in both countries, respiratory disease research resulted as the lowest funded, whereas cancer research was the target of most funding streams. The most reported expected outputs of funded research activity were scholarly publication of articles and reports.ConclusionsThis cross-country comparison on the Italian and German research funding structures revealed substantial differences between the two systems. The current system is prone to duplicated research efforts, popular funding for some diseases and intransparency of research results. Future research will require addressing the need for better coordination of research funding efforts, even more so if European research efforts are to play a greater role.
| S-EPMC5625614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDebate is intensifying about how to assess the full range of impacts from medical research. Complexity increases when assessing the diverse funding streams of funders such as Asthma UK, a charitable patient organisation supporting medical research to benefit people with asthma. This paper aims to describe the various impacts identified from a range of Asthma UK research, and explore how Asthma UK utilised the characteristics of successful funding approaches to inform future research strategies.MethodsWe adapted the Payback Framework, using it both in a survey and to help structure interviews, documentary analysis, and case studies. We sent surveys to 153 lead researchers of projects, plus 10 past research fellows, and also conducted 14 detailed case studies. These covered nine projects and two fellowships, in addition to the innovative case studies on the professorial chairs (funded since 1988) and the MRC-Asthma UK Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma (the 'Centre') which together facilitated a comprehensive analysis of the whole funding portfolio. We organised each case study to capture whatever academic and wider societal impacts (or payback) might have arisen given the diverse timescales, size of funding involved, and extent to which Asthma UK funding contributed to the impacts.ResultsProjects recorded an average of four peer-reviewed journal articles. Together the chairs reported over 500 papers. All streams of funding attracted follow-on funding. Each of the various categories of societal impacts arose from only a minority of individual projects and fellowships. Some of the research portfolio is influencing asthma-related clinical guidelines, and some contributing to product development. The latter includes potentially major breakthroughs in asthma therapies (in immunotherapy, and new inhaled drugs) trialled by university spin-out companies. Such research-informed guidelines and medicines can, in turn, contribute to health improvements. The role of the chairs and the pioneering collaborative Centre is shown as being particularly important.ConclusionsWe systematically demonstrate that all types of Asthma UK's research funding assessed are making impacts at different levels, but the main societal impacts from projects and fellowships come from a minority of those funded. Asthma UK used the study's findings, especially in relation to the Centre, to inform research funding strategies to promote the achievement of impact.
| S-EPMC3660238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research funding is an important factor for public science. Funding may affect which research topics get addressed, and what research outputs are produced. However, funding has often been studied simplistically, using top-down or system-led perspectives. Such approaches often restrict analysis to confined national funding landscapes or single funding organizations and instruments in isolation. This overlooks interlinkages, broader funding researchers might access, and trends of growing funding complexity. This paper instead frames a 'bottom-up' approach that analytically distinguishes between increasing levels of aggregation of funding instrument co-use. Funding of research outputs is selected as one way to test this approach, with levels traced via funding acknowledgements (FAs) in papers published 2009-18 by researchers affiliated to Denmark, the Netherlands or Norway, in two test research fields (Food Science, Renewable Energy Research). Three funding aggregation levels are delineated: at the bottom, 'funding configurations' of funding instruments co-used by individual researchers (from single-authored papers with two or more FAs); a middle, 'funding amalgamations' level, of instruments co-used by collaborating researchers (from multi-authored papers with two or more FAs); and a 'co-funding network' of instruments co-used across all researchers active in a research field (all papers with two or more FAs). All three levels are found to include heterogenous funding co-use from inside and outside the test countries. There is also co-funding variety in terms of instrument 'type' (public, private, university or non-profit) and 'origin' (domestic, foreign or supranational). Limitations of the approach are noted, as well as its applicability for future analyses not using paper FAs to address finer details of research funding dynamics.
| S-EPMC8115833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Medical knowledge is accumulated in scientific research papers along time. In order to exploit this knowledge by automated systems, there is a growing interest in developing text mining methodologies to extract, structure, and analyze in the shortest time possible the knowledge encoded in the large volume of medical literature. In this paper, we use the Latent Dirichlet Allocation approach to analyze the correlation between funding efforts and actually published research results in order to provide the policy makers with a systematic and rigorous tool to assess the efficiency of funding programs in the medical area. Results We have tested our methodology in the Revista Médica de Chile, years 2012-2015. 50 relevant semantic topics were identified within 643 medical scientific research papers. Relationships between the identified semantic topics were uncovered using visualization methods. We have also been able to analyze the funding patterns of scientific research underlying these publications. We found that only 29% of the publications declare funding sources, and we identified five topic clusters that concentrate 86% of the declared funds. Conclusions Our methodology allows analyzing and interpreting the current state of medical research at a national level. The funding source analysis may be useful at the policy making level in order to assess the impact of actual funding policies, and to design new policies.
| S-EPMC7523397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDue to a pattern known as Marginalization-related Diminished Returns (MDRs), historically oppressed non-Hispanic Black Americans show weaker effects of economic status on health and development, when compared to socially privileged non-Hispanic White Americans. Such MDRs are also documented for the effects of economic status on the school performance of non-Hispanic Black children. However, the existing knowledge is minimal on similar diminished returns on children's intelligence.AimTo compare racial and ethnic groups for the effect of subjective economic status on children's cognitive performance, we compared non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black children for the effects of subjective economic status on children's matrix reasoning.MethodsThis cross-sectional study included 7898 children from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. The predictor variable was subjective economic status, which was treated as a continuous measure. The primary outcome was children's matrix reasoning, a domain of cognitive performance, measured by the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children-IV (WISC-V) matrix reasoning total score.ResultsOverall, high subjective economic status was associated with higher matrix reasoning score. Race showed a statistically significant interaction with subjective economic status on children's matrix reasoning score. This interaction suggested that high subjective economic status has a smaller boosting effect on increasing matrix reasoning score for non-Hispanic Black children relative to non-Hispanic White children.ConclusionThe degree by which subjective economic status correlates with matrix reasoning score, an important domain of cognitive performance, depends on race and racialization. Non-Hispanic Black children may show weaker gains in matrix reasoning from their subjective economic status than their non-Hispanic White counterparts. To minimize the racial gap in cognitive performance, we need to address diminished returns that occur as a result of the racialization of racial and ethnic minority children. Not only should we equalize economic status, but also increase the marginal returns of economic status for racial minorities, particularly non-Hispanic Black families. Such efforts require public policies that go beyond access and also consider how we can empower non-Hispanic Black communities and families so they can more effectively leverage and utilize their economic resources to secure measurable and tangible outcomes. Structural and societal barriers such as residential and school segregation may hinder non-Hispanic Black children from receiving the full effects of their family-level economic status on a variety of outcomes, including their cognitive performance.
| S-EPMC7720911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent studies uncover cascading ecological effects resulting from removing and reintroducing predators into a landscape, but little is known about effects on human lives and property. We quantify the effects of restoring wolf populations by evaluating their influence on deer-vehicle collisions (DVCs) in Wisconsin. We show that, for the average county, wolf entry reduced DVCs by 24%, yielding an economic benefit that is 63 times greater than the costs of verified wolf predation on livestock. Most of the reduction is due to a behavioral response of deer to wolves rather than through a deer population decline from wolf predation. This finding supports ecological research emphasizing the role of predators in creating a "landscape of fear." It suggests wolves control economic damages from overabundant deer in ways that human deer hunters cannot.
| S-EPMC8179214 | biostudies-literature
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