Subject(s)
COVID-19 , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Research Support as Topic , Child , Humans , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/economics , Financial Management , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , United States , Research Support as Topic/economics , Research Support as Topic/organization & administrationABSTRACT
Corporations across sectors engage in the conduct, sponsorship, and dissemination of scientific research. Industry sponsorship of research, however, is associated with research agendas, outcomes, and conclusions that are favourable to the sponsor. The legalization of cannabis in Canada provides a useful case study to understand the nature and extent of the nascent cannabis industry's involvement in the production of scientific evidence as well as broader impacts on equity-oriented research agendas. We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive, meta-research study to describe the characteristics of research that reports funding from, or author conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. From May to August 2021, we sampled licensed, prominent Canadian cannabis companies, identified their subsidiaries, and searched each company name in the PubMed conflict of interest statement search interface. Authors of included articles disclosed research support from, or conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. We included 156 articles: 82% included at least one author with a conflict of interest and 1/3 reported study support from a Canadian cannabis company. More than half of the sampled articles were not cannabis focused, however, a cannabis company was listed amongst other biomedical companies in the author disclosure statement. For articles with a cannabis focus, prevalent topics included cannabis as a treatment for a range of conditions (15/72, 21%), particularly chronic pain (6/72, 8%); as a tool in harm reduction related to other substance use (10/72, 14%); product safety (10/72, 14%); and preclinical animal studies (6/72, 8%). Demographics were underreported in empirical studies with human participants, but most included adults (76/84, 90%) and, where reported, predominantly white (32/39, 82%) and male (49/83, 59%) participants. The cannabis company-funded studies included people who used drugs (37%) and people prescribed medical cannabis (22%). Canadian cannabis companies may be analogous to peer industries such as pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco, and food in the following three ways: sponsoring research related to product development, expanding indications of use, and supporting key opinion leaders. Given the recent legalization of cannabis in Canada, there is ample opportunity to create a policy climate that can mitigate the harms of criminalization as well as impacts of the "funding effect" on research integrity, research agendas, and the evidence base available for decision-making, while promoting high-priority and equity-oriented independent research.
Subject(s)
Cannabis , Research Support as Topic , Humans , Male , Canada , Conflict of Interest , Cross-Sectional Studies , Food , IndustrySubject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Exercise Therapy , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome , Research Support as Topic , Humans , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organization & administration , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome/therapy , Research Support as Topic/methods , Research Support as Topic/organization & administration , United States , Exercise Therapy/adverse effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Many low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers have disadvantages when applying for research grants. Crowdfunding may help LMIC researchers to fund their research. Crowdfunding organises large groups of people to make small contributions to support a research study. This manuscript synthesises global qualitative evidence and describes a Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) crowdfunding pilot for LMIC researchers. METHODS: Our global systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis searched six databases for qualitative data. We used a thematic synthesis approach and assessed our findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. Building on the review findings, we organised a crowdfunding pilot to support LMIC researchers and use crowdfunding. The pilot provided an opportunity to assess the feasibility of crowdfunding for infectious diseases of poverty research in resource-constrained settings. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the qualitative evidence synthesis. We identified seven findings which we organised into three broad domains: public engagement strategies, correlates of crowdfunding success and risks and mitigation strategies. Our pilot data suggest that crowdfunding is feasible in diverse LMIC settings. Three researchers launched crowdfunding campaigns, met their goals and received substantial monetary (raising a total of US$26 546 across all three campaigns) and non-monetary contributions. Two researchers are still preparing for the campaign launch due to COVID-19-related difficulties. CONCLUSION: Public engagement provides a foundation for effective crowdfunding for health research. Our evidence synthesis and pilot data provide practical strategies for LMIC researchers to engage the public and use crowdfunding. A practical guide was created to facilitate these activities across multiple settings.
Subject(s)
Fund Raising , Fund Raising/methods , Humans , Pilot Projects , Research Support as TopicSubject(s)
Budgets , Research , Republic of Korea , Research/economics , Research/standards , Research/trends , Research Support as TopicSubject(s)
Investments/statistics & numerical data , Research Support as Topic/economics , Research/economics , Unemployment/statistics & numerical data , Universities/economics , Budgets , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Education, Distance/economics , Faculty/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Investments/economics , Investments/trends , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Students/statistics & numerical data , Unemployment/trendsSubject(s)
Biomedical Research/economics , Biomedical Research/legislation & jurisprudence , Budgets/legislation & jurisprudence , COVID-19 , International Cooperation/legislation & jurisprudence , Research Personnel , Research Support as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , COVID-19/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Clinical Trials as Topic/economics , Humans , Research Personnel/economics , Research Personnel/psychology , Uncertainty , United Kingdom , Universities/economicsABSTRACT
Thousands of UK doctoral students and early-career researchers shared the repercussions of lockdown on their work and wellbeing.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Research Personnel/psychology , Social Isolation , Workplace , Administrative Personnel/psychology , Burnout, Psychological , COVID-19 , Career Mobility , Efficiency , Emotions , Female , Humans , Loneliness/psychology , Male , Research Personnel/economics , Research Support as Topic , Social Media , Social Support , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Universities , Work Performance , Work-Life BalanceABSTRACT
In this Neuron Q&A, Xiang Yu talks about the stress and anxiety brought to the lab by the pandemic, the new opportunities for teaching and scientific conferences it created, the value of the individual, and the social responsibility of science for humanity and society to shape a brighter future.
Subject(s)
Neurosciences/trends , Beijing , COVID-19 , China , History, 21st Century , Pandemics , Research Support as TopicSubject(s)
COVID-19 , Diplomacy , Leadership , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/organization & administration , Racism/prevention & control , Biomedical Research/economics , Biomedical Research/legislation & jurisprudence , Biomedical Research/organization & administration , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , China , Female , Fetal Research/legislation & jurisprudence , Financing, Organized , Humans , International Cooperation , Male , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , Research Support as Topic , United States , Post-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeSubject(s)
Global Health/standards , International Agencies/organization & administration , International Health Regulations , Pandemics/prevention & control , Security Measures/legislation & jurisprudence , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Forecasting , Global Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Information Dissemination , International Cooperation , International Health Regulations/standards , Pandemics/legislation & jurisprudence , Research Support as Topic/organization & administration , Security Measures/standards , World Health Organization/organization & administrationABSTRACT
Contemporary science has become increasingly multi-disciplinary and team-based, resulting in unprecedented growth in biomedical innovation and technology over the last several decades. Collaborative research efforts have enabled investigators to respond to the demands of an increasingly complex 21st century landscape, including pressing scientific challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic. A major contributing factor to the success of team science is the mobilization of core facilities and shared research resources (SRRs), the scientific instrumentation and expertise that exist within research organizations that enable widespread access to advanced technologies for trainees, faculty, and staff. For over 40 years, SRRs have played a key role in accelerating biomedical research discoveries, yet a national strategy that addresses how to leverage these resources to enhance team science and achieve shared scientific goals is noticeably absent. We believe a national strategy for biomedical SRRs-led by the National Institutes of Health-is crucial to advance key national initiatives, enable long-term research efficiency, and provide a solid foundation for the next generation of scientists.