U.S. blocks funding for pandemic research group.

EcoHealth Alliance mishandled grant that helped fund virus studies in China, officials say.

Researcher, research thyself? Mapping the landscape of canine health and welfare research funding provided by UK not-for-profit organisations from 2012-2022.

BACKGROUND: Research into canine health and welfare is supported by Government, charitable and private UK funding organisations. However, there is no current overall visibility or coordination of these funding activities, potentially compromising optimal distribution of limited resources. This study aimed to survey UK canine health and welfare funding by not-for-profit funders between 2012 and 2022, providing a novel baseline analysis to inform future sector stakeholder priorities. RESULTS: Funding data were collected from 10 wide-scope funders (UK Government funding councils and medical charities), 18 animal-directed funders (organisations specifically concerned with animal health and welfare) and 81 breed community groups. These 109 UK funders together provided traceable canine-relevant funding of £57.8 million during the surveyed period, comprising 684 individual grant awards supporting over 500 separate research projects. Wide-scope funders contributed £41.2 million (71.2% of total funding); animal-directed organisations, £16.3 million (28.1% of total funding); and breed-specific groups, £370K (0.6% of total funding). Individual grants ranged from £2.3 million to £300. Funding patterns varied between sectors. Animal-directed funders provided £14.7 million of canine-relevant research funding that foregrounded the dog, 73% of all such funding; wide-scope funders provided £17.5 million of canine-relevant One Health research funding, 97% of all such funding. Customised metrics developed for this study assessed the 'benefit to the dog' and 'pathway to impact' of individual research projects. Overall, studies supported by animal-directed funders achieved significantly higher 'benefit to the dog' scores (Mann-Whitney U = 45235, p<0.001) and 'pathway to impact' scores (Mann-Whitney U = 43506.5, p<0.001) than those supported by wide-scope funders. CONCLUSION: The landscape of UK not-for-profit funding of canine health and welfare research is complex, with considerable variation between providers. Although wide-scope funders provide the majority of overall canine-relevant research funding, animal-directed funders provide the majority of canine-focused funding and support research with greater direct impact on canine welfare. Visibility of past funding patterns will enable stakeholders in this sector to make more informed decisions about future research. DEFINITIONS: To increase clarity, certain words and phrases are used in specific ways within the context of this paper. Animal-directed funders-Charities and other funding organisations whose remit primarily concerns animals or veterinary work Canine-focused research-Investigations where the primary purpose is to advance understandings of canine health and/or welfare Canine-relevant research-All research that is framed as advancing understandings of canine health and/or welfare as a primary or subsidiary purpose Institution-Refers to universities and other centres where research is carried out Organisation-Refers to funding bodies, including research councils, charities and other groups Research grant-A single funding event originating from one or more funders Research project-A cohesive piece of research concerning a particular topic; may involve multiple researchers and/or multiple research grants, in series or in parallel Wide-scope funders-Large organisations whose remit does not primarily concern animals, i.e. (in this dataset) UKRI councils and the Wellcome Trust.

The whistleblowersThe Occasional Human Sacrifice: Medical Experimentation and the Price of Saying No Carl Elliott Norton, 2024. 368 pp.

A bioethicist probes the costs of exposing wrongdoing in medical research.

Trends in Industry-Sponsored Research Payments to Physician Principal Investigators.

This cohort study investigates trends in total and per-physician industry-sponsored research payments to physician principal investigators from 2015 to 2022.

Cross-disease spillover from research funding: Evidence from four diseases.

There is widespread appreciation for the role of research in addressing health problems. However, there is limited evidence on the extent to which research can be targeted to specific diseases. Analyses highlighting a concentration of research funding towards certain diseases have prompted growing scrutiny over the allocation of research funding. In this paper, we show that research funding targeted to a disease often results in publications relating to other diseases. Using data from the world's largest biomedical research funders, we estimated the frequency and direction of this cross-disease spillover by examining 337,573 grant-publication pairs for four diseases. We found the majority of our grant-publication pairs were cross-disease spillovers. We also found some variation between "rich" and "poor" diseases, in terms of the frequency and direction of cross-disease spillover. These differences are likely to be related to characteristics of the diseases themselves, as well as features of the research environment. One implication of frequent cross-disease spillover is that although more investment in areas of research such as neglected diseases is necessary, it may not be sufficient to improve the alignment between research funding and health needs.

Research prioritization in paediatric orthopaedics and the impact on funding.

In 2017, the British Society for Children's Orthopaedic Surgery engaged the profession and all relevant stakeholders in two formal research prioritization processes. In this editorial, we describe the impact of this prioritization on funding, and how research in children's orthopaedics, which was until very recently a largely unfunded and under-investigated area, is now flourishing. Establishing research priorities was a crucial step in this process.

Evolution of public funding since primary care research was considered as a priority research domain in france.

PURPOSE: Annually, the French Ministry of Health funds clinical research projects based on a national call for projects. Since 2013, the Ministry has prioritized funding of primary care. Projects selected for funding are made public without distinguishing the specific area of research. The objective of this study was to identify and describe the evolution of the primary care research projects funded by the Ministry of Health between 2013 and 2019. METHOD: We reviewed all of the 1796 medical research projects funded between 2013 and 2019 and categorized projects as primary care projects by using a list of specific keywords. This list was established through two approaches: (1) selected by an expert committee, the RECaP primary care working group, and (2) using an automated textual analysis of published articles in the field. The keywords were used to screen the titles of the medical research projects funded. The abstracts (at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ) or details (from project leaders) were then analyzed by two independent reviewers to determine true primary care projects. RESULTS: Finally, 49 primary care projects were identified, representing 2.7% of all medical research projects funded, without any significant change over the period. These projects were predominantly interventional (69%), with a median number of patients expected per project of 902. CONCLUSION: Despite the prioritization of primary care research in 2013 by the French ministry of health, the number and proportion of projects funded remains low, with no significant change over the years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

The Intersection of Cardiovascular Health and Maternal Health: Portfolio Analysis of Federal Grant Funding 2016-2021.

Background: The United States has high and increasing rates of maternal morbidity and mortality, large proportions of which are related to cardiovascular health (CVH). Methods: We searched for National Institutes of Health (NIH) supported research as well as that of two other Agencies in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for fiscal years (FY) 2016-2021. Grants included maternal health conditions or exposures across all pregnancy stages, but excluded grants that focused entirely on birth, neonatal, infant/childhood outcomes. Results were manually curated by reviewing the abstract and specific aims. Grants deemed to be relevant were grouped by category. Results: Between FY 2016-2021, overall Maternal Health grants remained unchanged at an average of 1.4% of total DHHS grant funding. Maternal CVH-specific (MCVH) funding amounted to $278,926,105 for 755 grants, $191,344,649 was for 534 Type-1 grants, representing a twofold increase. Non-NIH DHHS agencies most commonly funded general Maternal Health related to CVH; NIH focused funding classified as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, obesity, and diabetes. Non-NIH DHSS Agencies most commonly funded clinical applied research. In addition to clinical applied grants, NIH funded substantial proportions of grants classified as basic research, clinical trials, and/or translational. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) MCVH grants studied participants in the pre-partum period (78.5%), followed by the post-partum period (50.5%), with relatively few in pre-pregnancy and peri-partum periods (10.8% and 9.7%, respectively); at the NIH level, the peri-partum period had better representation at 20.3%, whereas the pre-pregnancy period remained low at 9.9%. Conclusions: Federal grant funding for maternal health including MCVH increased at the same rate as its funding for overall research, and represented only 1.4% of overall total funding. The pre-pregnancy period was understudied in overall NIH funding and represents a gap area whereby funding agencies could further foster research advances.

Underfunding for Research Training and Career Development: The Impact on Family Medicine Research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The National Institutes of Health and related federal awards for research training (RT) and research career development (RCD) are designed to prepare applicants for research careers. We compared funding rates for RT and RCD for anesthesiology, dermatology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, neurology, obstetrics-gynecology, pathology, pediatrics, and psychiatry. METHODS: We estimated the denominator using the number of residency graduates from different specialties from 2001 to 2010 from the Association of American Medical Colleges data. For the numerator, we used published data on federally funded awards by specialty from 2011 to 2020. We also examined the correlation between RCD funding and overall research funding. RESULTS: Family medicine had the lowest rate per graduating resident for RT (0.01%) and RCD (0.77%) awards among 10 specialties and was lower than the mean/median for the other nine specialties, ranging from 2.15%/1.19% and 9.83%/8.74%. We found a strong correlation between rates of RCD awards and mean federal funding per active physician, which was statistically significant (ρ=0.77, P=.0098). CONCLUSIONS: Comparatively low rates for family medicine awards for RT and RCD plausibly contribute to poor federal funding for family medicine research, underscoring the need to bolster the research career pathway in family medicine.

NIH's flat budget for 2024 will force 'very difficult decisions'.

Belated Senate and House compromise eliminates policy riders restricting certain studies.

Choosing Wisely: Applying Value-Based Economic Principles to Population Science Research Investment.

Scientific research requires a substantial investment of time, effort, and money by researchers and funders. The funding that would be needed for all meritorious proposals far exceeds available resources. Major funding organizations use a multistep process for allocating research dollars that follows and extends beyond scientific peer review with considerations including mission priority, budget, and potential duplication of past or ongoing research activities. At the level of programmatic review, the process tends to be less proscribed than scientific review, but considerations relate to and are akin to basic value-driven economic principles. We propose a framework that encompasses the elements of programmatic review and provide examples of how the economic principles of opportunity costs, diminishing marginal productivity, sunk costs, economic optimization, return on investment, and option value apply to both research planning and funding decisions. Examples use cancer control population science research, as the nature of observational and interventional research involves large population studies (large sample size, recruitment, and often long-duration follow-up costs) which demand a high level of resource utilization; the same principles can be applied throughout medical and population health research. Awareness of the aspects of programmatic review and context to focus discussion regarding funding decisions may help guide research planning, decision-making, and increase transparency of the overall review process.

Anticipating and strategizing to address potential bottlenecks during clinical research projects in sub-Saharan Africa: a case for adapting approaches and tools used in the entrepreneurial and development sectors.

Many research funders have invested billions of US dollars in building research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Despite these colossal investments, many well-intentioned and designed clinical research projects have either failed to kick off or ended abruptly. Although obstacles to clinical research in SSA are well known, there is limited information on frameworks and tools that can be used to anticipate and avert these systemic bottlenecks, particularly those related to socio-politics. In this paper, we leveraged lessons from entrepreneurs and development experts in harsh and uncertain business environments to develop a framework for anticipating and addressing potential bottlenecks to clinical research in SSA. More so, to illustrate and build a case for this framework, we shared our experience in supporting clinicians and regulators to adopt a point-of-use care tool, the "chemoPAD," to screen for the quality of anticancer medications rapidly and systematically in Cameroon despite resistance from some stakeholders. The critical steps in this framework involve identifying stakeholders, categorizing them based on their potential reactions to the study (adversary, supporters, and indifferents), and developing critical strategies to engage or deal with each stakeholder's reactions, starting with adversaries. This approach may be useful in complex research projects, especially clinical trials, which often involve many stakeholders with different interests and perceptions.

Wisconsin bill would restrict pathogen studies.

Efforts to ban "gain-of-function" research on viruses and bacteria worry scientists.

Once reluctant, new NIH chief Monica Bertagnolli embraces role.

Improving patient care is top priority for head of world's largest biomedical research funder.

The Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF): A 30-Year Retrospective Analysis.

Federal government research grants provide limited funding to plastic surgeon-scientists, with reconstructive research taking precedence over aesthetic research. The Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF) is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization that seeks to support innovative, diverse research endeavors within aesthetic surgery. A total of 130 ASERF-funded studies and 32 non-funded applications from 1992 to 2022 were reviewed. Kruskal Wallis, Fisher's exact, and chi-squared tests were utilized to assess the potential relationship between self-identified gender, practice setting, geographical location, and study type with individual grant amounts and grant funding decision. Although significant differences were observed between male and female grant recipient h-indices (P < .05), there were no differences in the amount of funding they received (P > .05). Grant amounts were also consistent between study types as well as principal investigator practice settings and geographical locations (P > .05). The subanalysis revealed that the practice setting of the primary investigator (PI) was the only variable to exhibit a significant association with the decision to award funding (P < .05). Further, of the 61 applicants between 2017 and 2022, only 2 PIs self-identified as female. ASERF serves as an excellent funding source for global aesthetic surgery. To promote further research diversification, increased emphasis should be placed on recruiting applicants from outside academia and those who identify as female or gender nonbinary.

Understanding Financial Relationships Between Orthopedic Surgeons and Industry for Research.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to understand trends in industry payments for research awarded to orthopedic surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database was queried for the years 2016 to 2021 for industry payments for research. Financial analyses were performed to understand temporal trends and differences by orthopedic subspecialty and principal investigator characteristics such as sex. The threshold for statistical significance was set at .05. RESULTS: A total of 2014 orthopedic surgeons were identified, among whom 542 adult reconstruction (27%) and 460 sports medicine (23%) surgeons were major beneficiaries. Seventy-one female orthopedic surgeons comprised the minority (4%). Total research payments awarded during the study period aggregated to $266,633,592, with adult reconstruction ($88,819,047; 33%) and sports medicine ($57,949,822; 22%) receiving the highest amounts. Total research payments awarded trended upward yearly except for a decline in 2020 that subsequently rebounded (P<.001). Median annual research payment per orthopedic surgeon was $13,375. Median total industry payments per orthopedic surgeon differed between specialties (P <.001), with the highest amounts for adult reconstruction ($44,063) and sports medicine ($34,567) and the lowest amounts for hand ($12,052) and foot and ankle ($19,233). Median total payments did not differ significantly when stratified by sex (P=.276) and region (P=.906). Specialties in which the respective top three companies offered the majority of the research funding were musculoskeletal oncology (90%), pediatric orthopedics (66%), and shoulder and elbow (64%). CONCLUSION: These results can be used as a primer for orthopedic surgeons seeking to leverage industry relationships to fund translational research. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):172-178.].