RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers believe that funding should be allocated solely using peer review, and peer review is used almost ubiquitously by funding agencies around the world. Given the rarity of alternative funding schemes, there is interest in hearing from the first cohort of researchers to ever experience a lottery. Additionally, the Health Research Council of New Zealand wanted to hear from applicants about the acceptability of the randomisation process and anonymity of applicants. METHODS: This paper presents the results of a survey of Health Research Council applicants from 2013 to 2019. The survey asked about the acceptability of using a lottery and if the lottery meant researchers took a different approach to their application. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 39% (126 of 325 invites), with 30% (76 of 251) from applicants in the years 2013 to 2018, and 68% (50 of 74) for those in the year 2019 who were not aware of the funding result. There was agreement that randomisation is an acceptable method for allocating Explorer Grant funds with 63% (n = 79) in favour and 25% (n = 32) against. There was less support for allocating funds randomly for other grant types with only 40% (n = 50) in favour and 37% (n = 46) against. Support for a lottery was higher amongst those that had won funding. Multiple respondents stated that they supported a lottery when ineligible applications had been excluded and outstanding applications funded, so that the remaining applications were truly equal. Most applicants reported that the lottery did not change the time they spent preparing their application. CONCLUSIONS: The Health Research Council's experience through the Explorer Grant scheme supports further uptake of a modified lottery.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To assess the potency, breadth of action, and mechanism of action of the polyclonal goat anti-HIV antibody, PEHRG214. DESIGN: Typical human antibody responses to HIV-1 infection are unable to neutralize virus efficiently, clear the infection, or prevent disease progression. However, more potent neutralizing antibodies may be capable of playing a pivotal role in controlling HIV replication in vivo. PEHRG214 is a polyclonal caprine antibody raised against purified HIV-associated proteins, such that epitopes that are immunologically silent in humans may potentially be recognized in another species. It has been administered safely to HIV-infected individuals in Phase I clinical trials. METHODS: The anti-HIV activity of PEHRG214 was assessed using neutralization and virion lysis assays. The target proteins for PEHRG214 activity were investigated using flow cytometry and by adsorption of anti-cell antibodies from the antibody cocktail. RESULTS: PEHRG214 strongly neutralized a diverse range of primary HIV-1 isolates, encompassing subtypes A to E and both CCR5 and CXCR4 phenotypes. Neutralization was enhanced by the presence of complement. PEHRG214 also induced complement-mediated lysis of all HIV-1 isolates tested, and recognized or cross-reacted with a number of host cell proteins. Lysis was abrogated by adsorption with T and/or B cells expressing GPI-linked proteins, but not by GPI-deficient B cells or red blood cells. CONCLUSIONS: PEHRG214 was found to potently neutralize and lyse HIV-1 particles. By targeting host cell proteins present in the viral envelope, which are conserved among all strains tested, PEHRG214 potentially opens up a highly novel means of eliminating circulating virus in infected individuals.
