Developing international open science collaborations: Funder reflections on the Open Science Prize.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kittrie E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5538631 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Genomic medicine applications have the potential to considerably improve health care in developing countries in the coming years. However, if developing countries do not improve their capacity for research and development (R&D) in the field, they might be left out of the genomics revolution. Large-scale and widely accessible databases for storing and analyzing genomic data are crucial tools for the advancement of genomic medicine. Building developing countries' capacity in genomics is accordingly closely linked to their involvement in international human genomics research initiatives. The purpose of this paper is to conduct a pilot study on the impact of international open science genomics projects on capacity building in R&D in developing countries. Using indicators we developed in previous work to measure the performance of international open science genomics projects, we analyse the policies and practices of four key projects in the field: the International HapMap Project, the Human Heredity and Health in Africa Initiative, the Malaria Genomic Epidemiology Network and the Structural Genomics Consortium. The results show that these projects play an important role in genomics capacity building in developing countries, but play a more limited role with regard to the potential redistribution of the benefits of research to the populations of these countries. We further suggest concrete initiatives that could facilitate the involvement of researchers from developing countries in the international genomics research community and accelerate capacity building in the developing world.
| S-EPMC6384230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAngiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been postulated to affect susceptibility to COVID-19. Observational studies so far have lacked rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalisability. We aimed to determine whether use of ACEIs or ARBs is associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension.MethodsIn this international, open science, cohort analysis, we used electronic health records from Spain (Information Systems for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]) and the USA (Columbia University Irving Medical Center data warehouse [CUIMC] and Department of Veterans Affairs Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership [VA-OMOP]) to identify patients aged 18 years or older with at least one prescription for ACEIs and ARBs (target cohort) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics (THZs; comparator cohort) between Nov 1, 2019, and Jan 31, 2020. Users were defined separately as receiving either monotherapy with these four drug classes, or monotherapy or combination therapy (combination use) with other antihypertensive medications. We assessed four outcomes: COVID-19 diagnosis; hospital admission with COVID-19; hospital admission with pneumonia; and hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis. We built large-scale propensity score methods derived through a data-driven approach and negative control experiments across ten pairwise comparisons, with results meta-analysed to generate 1280 study effects. For each study effect, we did negative control outcome experiments using a possible 123 controls identified through a data-rich algorithm. This process used a set of predefined baseline patient characteristics to provide the most accurate prediction of treatment and balance among patient cohorts across characteristics. The study is registered with the EU Post-Authorisation Studies register, EUPAS35296.FindingsAmong 1 355 349 antihypertensive users (363 785 ACEI or ARB monotherapy users, 248 915 CCB or THZ monotherapy users, 711 799 ACEI or ARB combination users, and 473 076 CCB or THZ combination users) included in analyses, no association was observed between COVID-19 diagnosis and exposure to ACEI or ARB monotherapy versus CCB or THZ monotherapy (calibrated hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·84-1·14) or combination use exposure (1·01, 0·90-1·15). ACEIs alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared with CCB or THZ monotherapy (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·68-1·21; with heterogeneity of >40%) or combination use (0·95, 0·83-1·07). Directly comparing ACEIs with ARBs demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACEIs, which was significant with combination use (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99) and non-significant for monotherapy (0·85, 0·69-1·05). We observed no significant difference between drug classes for risk of hospital admission with COVID-19, hospital admission with pneumonia, or hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis across all comparisons.InterpretationNo clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospital admission-related outcomes associated with ACEI or ARB use was observed, suggesting users should not discontinue or change their treatment to decrease their risk of COVID-19.FundingWellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare Republic, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and European Health Data and Evidence Network.
| S-EPMC7834915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Investigation of health effects of low doses of radiation as a field of study has been riddled with difficulties since its inception. In this document we will use 100 mGy as the cutoff upper limit for low-dose radiation, borrowing this definition from the U.S. Department of Energy, although other agencies and researchers sometimes include up to five-fold higher doses under the same title. Difficulties in this area of research are most often ascribed to the fact that effects of low doses of radiation are subtle and difficult to distinguish from the plethora of other low-grade stresses. Thus, for example, most epidemiological studies include hundreds of thousands of samples and generate risk estimates that are statistically meaningful only when they are considered on a scale of hundreds or thousands of people. A logical approach to remedy the situation for low-dose research was to conduct well-controlled animal studies with hundreds of animals; nevertheless, even after many such studies were completed, our understanding of the biological basis for risk from low-dose radiation exposure is still not conclusive. In this paper we argue that the problem lies in the fact that our approach to animal studies is not comprehensive but conceptually binary. While some researchers apply epidemiological models to animal data, others look into molecular and cellular biology only. Very few studies are conducted to bridge this gap and consider how a realistic model of DNA damage could be integrated into a realistic model of radiation carcinogenesis.
| S-EPMC6226262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While it is essential for life science students to be trained in modern techniques and approaches, rapidly developing, interdisciplinary fields such as bioinformatics present distinct challenges to undergraduate educators. In particular, many educators lack training in new fields, and high-quality teaching and learning materials may be sparse. To address this challenge with respect to bioinformatics, the Network for the Integration of Bioinformatics into Life Science Education (NIBLSE), in partnership with Quantitative Undergraduate Biology Education and Synthesis (QUBES), developed incubators, a novel collaborative process for the development of open educational resources (OER). Incubators are short-term, online communities that refine unpublished teaching lessons into more polished and widely usable learning resources. The resulting products are published and made freely available in the NIBLSE Resource Collection, providing recognition of scholarly work by incubator participants. In addition to producing accessible, high-quality resources, incubators also provide opportunities for faculty development. Because participants are intentionally chosen to represent a range of expertise in bioinformatics and pedagogy, incubators also build professional connections among educators with diverse backgrounds and perspectives and promote the discussion of practical issues involved in deploying a resource in the classroom. Here we describe the incubator process and provide examples of beneficial outcomes. Our experience indicates that incubators are a low cost, short-term, flexible method for the development of OERs and professional community that could be adapted to a variety of disciplinary and pedagogical contexts.
| S-EPMC7496352 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe open science movement is transforming scientific practice with the goal of enhancing the transparency, productivity, and reproducibility of research. Nevertheless, transparency is a complex concept, and efforts to promote some forms of transparency may do relatively little to advance other important forms of transparency.ObjectivesDrawing from the literature in history, philosophy, and sociology of science, we aim to distinguish between different forms of scientific transparency. Our goal is to identify strategies for achieving forms of transparency that are relevant not only to scientists but also to decision makers and members of the public.DiscussionWe draw a distinction between "scientifically relevant transparency" and "socially relevant transparency." Most of the prominent strategies associated with the open science movement (e.g., making data publicly available and registering studies) are designed primarily to promote scientifically relevant transparency. To achieve socially relevant transparency, which is particularly important in fields like environmental health, further steps are needed to provide scientific information in ways that are relevant to decision makers and members of the public.ConclusionsPromoting socially relevant transparency will require a range of activities by many different individuals and institutions. We propose an array of strategies that can be pursued by scientists and other scholars, journals, universities, funders, government agencies, and members of the public. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4808.
| S-EPMC6792383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma is an aggressive pediatric cancer for which no effective chemotherapeutic drugs exist. Analysis of the genomic landscape of this disease has led to the identification of the serine/threonine kinase ALK2 as a potential target for therapeutic intervention. In this work, we adopted an open science approach to develop a series of potent type I inhibitors of ALK2 which are orally bio-available and brain-penetrant. Initial efforts resulted in the discovery of M4K2009, an analogue of the previously reported ALK2 inhibitor LDN-214117. Although highly selective for ALK2 over the TGF-βR1 receptor ALK5, M4K2009 is also moderately active against the hERG potassium channel. Varying the substituents of the trimethoxyphenyl moiety gave rise to an equipotent benzamide analogue M4K2149 with reduced off-target affinity for the ion channel. Additional modifications yielded 2-fluoro-6-methoxybenzamide derivatives (26a-c), which possess high inhibitory activity against ALK2, excellent selectivity, and superior pharmacokinetic profiles.
| S-EPMC8213057 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3829611 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mounting evidence indicates that worldwide, innovation systems are increasing unsustainable. Equally, concerns about inequities in the science and innovation process, and in access to its benefits, continue. Against a backdrop of growing health, economic and scientific challenges global stakeholders are urgently seeking to spur innovation and maximize the just distribution of benefits for all. Open Science collaboration (OS) - comprising a variety of approaches to increase open, public, and rapid mobilization of scientific knowledge - is seen to be one of the most promising ways forward. Yet, many decision-makers hesitate to construct policy to support the adoption and implementation of OS without access to substantive, clear and reliable evidence. In October 2017, international thought-leaders gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC offices of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful Open Science looks like. Delegates from developed and developing nations, national governments, science agencies and funding bodies, philanthropy, researchers, patient organizations and the biotechnology, pharma and artificial intelligence (AI) industries discussed the outcomes that would rally them to invest in OS, as well as wider issues of policy and implementation. This first of two reports, summarizes delegates' views on what they believe OS will deliver in terms of research, innovation and social impact in the life sciences. Through open and collaborative process over the next months, we will translate these success outcomes into a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess when, where and how open science collaborations best advance research, innovation and social benefit. Ultimately, this work aims to develop and openly share tools to allow stakeholders to evaluate and re-invent their innovation ecosystems, to maximize value for the global public and patients, and address long-standing questions about the mechanics of innovation.
| S-EPMC5852639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Open access, open data, open source and other open scholarship practices are growing in popularity and necessity. However, widespread adoption of these practices has not yet been achieved. One reason is that researchers are uncertain about how sharing their work will affect their careers. We review literature demonstrating that open research is associated with increases in citations, media attention, potential collaborators, job opportunities and funding opportunities. These findings are evidence that open research practices bring significant benefits to researchers relative to more traditional closed practices.
| S-EPMC4973366 | biostudies-other
Project description:The way science and research is done is rapidly becoming more open and collaborative. The traditional way of publishing new findings in journals is becoming increasingly outdated and no longer serves the needs of much of science. Whilst preprints can bring significant benefits of removing delay and selection, they do not go far enough if simply implemented alongside the existing journal system. We propose that we need a new approach, an Open Science Platform, that takes the benefits of preprints but adds formal, invited, and transparent post-publication peer review. This bypasses the problems of the current journal system and, in doing so, moves the evaluation of research and researchers away from the journal-based Impact Factor and towards a fairer system of article-based qualitative and quantitative indicators. In the long term, it should be irrelevant where a researcher publishes their findings. What is important is that research is shared and made available without delay within a framework that encourages quality standards and requires all players in the research community to work as collaborators.
| S-EPMC4768651 | biostudies-other