Trends in financial payments from industry to US cancer centers, 2014-2021.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.

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.

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.

Mapping philanthropic support of science.

While philanthropic support for science has increased in the past decade, there is limited quantitative knowledge about the patterns that characterize it and the mechanisms that drive its distribution. Here, we map philanthropic funding to universities and research institutions based on IRS tax forms from 685,397 non-profit organizations. We identify nearly one million grants supporting institutions involved in science and higher education, finding that in volume and scope, philanthropy is a significant source of funds, reaching an amount that rivals some of the key federal agencies like the NSF and NIH. Our analysis also reveals that philanthropic funders tend to focus locally, indicating that criteria beyond research excellence play an important role in funding decisions, and that funding relationships are stable, i.e. once a grant-giving relationship begins, it tends to continue in time. Finally, we show that the bipartite funder-recipient network displays a highly overrepresented motif indicating that funders who share one recipient also share other recipients and we show that this motif contains predictive power for future funding relationships. We discuss the policy implications of our findings on inequality in science, scientific progress, and the role of quantitative approaches to philanthropy.

Factors Associated with Research Productivity and National Institutes of Health Funding in Academic Otology.

OBJECTIVES: Bibliometrics, such as the Hirsch index (h-index) and the more recently developed relative citation ratio (RCR), are utilized to evaluate research productivity. Our study evaluates demographics, research productivity, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in academic otology. METHODS: Academic otologists were identified, and their demographics were collected using institutional faculty profiles (N = 265). Funding data were obtained using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports Database. The h-index was calculated using Scopus and mean (m-RCR) and weighted RCR (w-RCR) were calculated using the NIH iCite tool. RESULTS: H-index (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97-2.31, p = 0.069) or w-RCR (aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.231), was associated with receiving NIH funding. Men had greater h-index (16 vs. 9, p < 0.001) and w-RCR (51.8 vs. 23.0, p < 0.001), but not m-RCR (1.3 vs. 1.3, p = 0.269) than women. Higher academic rank was associated with greater h-index and w-RCR (p < 0.001). Among assistant professors, men had greater h-index than women (9.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.025). At career duration 11-20 years, men had greater h-index (14.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.009) and w-RCR (52.7 vs. 25.8, p = 0.022) than women. CONCLUSION: The h-index has a strong relationship with NIH funding in academic otology. Similar h-index, m-RCR, and w-RCR between men and women across most academic ranks and career durations suggests production of similarly impactful research. The m-RCR may correct some deficiencies of time-dependent bibliometrics and its consideration in academic promotion and research funding allocation may promote representation of women in otology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 134:3786-3794, 2024.

Evaluation of non-research and research industry payments to pediatric hematologist/oncologists in the United States between 2013 and 2021.

Financial interactions between healthcare industry and pediatric hematologist/oncologists (PHOs) could be conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, little is known about financial relationships between healthcare industry and PHOs. This cross-sectional analysis of the Open Payments Database examined general and research payments to PHOs from healthcare industry in the United States between 2013 and 2021. Payments to the PHOs were analyzed descriptively. Trends in payments were assessed using generalized estimating equation models. Of 2784 PHOs, 2142 (76.9%) PHOs received payments totaling $187.3 million from the healthcare industry between 2013 and 2021. Approximately, $46.3 million (24.8%) were general payments and $137.7 million (73.5%) were funding for research where PHOs served as principal investigators (associated research funding). Both general payments and associated research funding considerably increased between 2014 and 2019. The number of PHOs receiving general payments and associated research funding annually increased by 2.2% (95% CI: 1.2-3.3%, p < .001) and 5.0% (95% CI: 3.3-6.8%, p < .001) between 2014 and 2019, respectively.