Public Research Funding Research Articles

Industry-sponsored research funding to urologists in the United States between 2014 and 2022.

Urologists face challenges in obtaining public research funding, leading to increasing reliance on the industry for research support. This study aimed to examine the extent and trends in industry-sponsored research payments to urologists from 2014 to 2022 in the United States. We identified all US urologists using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) database and extracted their industry-sponsored research payments data from the CMS Open Payments Database. We performed descriptive analyses of the payments data. Among 13,902 US urologists, 1330 (9.6%) received at least one industry-sponsored research payment. Urologists received $605.1 million between 2014 and 2022. Of all research payments, 98.7% ($597.4 million) were associated research payments for research where urologists served as principal investigators. The top 10% of urologists in research payments received 79.3% ($480.0 million) of total research payments. Only 0.4% ($2.3 million) of research payments were for preclinical research, while registered clinical trials totaled $159.0 million (26.3% of all research payments). The annual value of research payments increased from $35.2 million in 2014 to $101.7 million in 2022. The average percentage change in total payments showed a significant annual increase of 13.9% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 11.6% to 16.3%, p<0.001) in value. There was no significant trend in the number of urologists receiving research payments. Industry-sponsored research payments to urologists are substantial and have increased in both payment amount and number over time.

Asserting the public interest in health data: On the ethics of data governance for biobanks and insurers

Recent reporting has revealed that the UK Biobank (UKB)—a large, publicly-funded research database containing highly-sensitive health records of over half a million participants—has shared its data with private insurance companies seeking to develop actuarial AI systems for analyzing risk and predicting health. While news reports have characterized this as a significant breach of public trust, the UKB contends that insurance research is “in the public interest,” and that all research participants are adequately protected from the possibility of insurance discrimination via data de-identification. Here, we contest both of these claims. Insurers use population data to identify novel categories of risk, which become fodder in the production of black-boxed actuarial algorithms. The deployment of these algorithms, as we argue, has the potential to increase inequality in health and decrease access to insurance. Importantly, these types of harms are not limited just to UKB participants: instead, they are likely to proliferate unevenly across various populations within global insurance markets via practices of profiling and sorting based on the synthesis of multiple data sources, alongside advances in data analysis capabilities, over space/time. This necessitates a significantly expanded understanding of the publics who must be involved in biobank governance and data-sharing decisions involving insurers.

The Composition of Ian Stevenson’s Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation

Ian Stevenson was trained as a physician and, later, as a psychiatrist. He made significant contributions to biochemistry, psychosomatic medicine, and other areas before turning to parapsychology in mid-career. From the start of his involvement in parapsychology, Stevenson was interested in claims to remember previous lives. As his research with such claims progressed, he became convinced of reincarnation’s potential to shed light on unresolved problems in medicine. This paper describes the background and traces the development of Stevenson’s classic collection of case reports, Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation, whose first edition appeared in 1966. Stevenson expected his monograph to be recognized as making the important contribution he believed it did and thought that it would lead to public funding for further research on reincarnation. Sixty years on that has yet to happen, perhaps due to Stevenson’s emphasis on the proof-oriented aspects of the cases he reported, to the neglect of other issues that might have connected more easily with mainstream interests, and more directly countered criticisms of his research methodology.

Moving Towards Ethical-Practical Recommendations for Alzheimer's Disease Prediction: Addressing Interindividual, Interprofessional, and Societal Aspects.

Biomarkers for predicting Alzheimer's disease (AD) are advancing and their implementation in various healthcare systems is imminent. There is a need for ethical standards addressing information needs, socio-ethical concerns, and expectations of healthy and at-risk persons. We present an ethical approach that integrates different existing ethical frameworks and discussion of our empirical, cross-cultural findings in a multi-layered perspective by addressing three levels. The micro-level focuses on the communication between counseling professionals, persons at risk or in an early stage of dementia, and family members. The meso-level addresses interprofessional cooperation and exchange as a key element for best person-centered care. The macro-level considers public health promotion, the media, and public-funded research. This approach allows to address key ethical concepts including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, informational self-determination, empowerment, and justice. Our contribution specifically examines the ethical challenges associated with AD prediction by means of biomarkers, based on insights from a German-Israeli comparison, and promotes a transdisciplinary discussion across different healthcare contexts. We propose a reflection on three levels to go beyond the clinical counseling context and to consider the rapidly evolving field of biomarkers in the coming years. Our ethical-practical recommendations should not be considered final, but rather procedural and will require continuous adaptation regarding culturally varying practices, new algorithms, meta-analyses, and re-evaluation of established recommendations.

Everything, everywhere, and all at once: A blueprint for supra‐organization of core facilities

AbstractCore facilities are crucial for cutting‐edge scientific research in academic institutions, yet they place a significant financial burden on budgets. The viability of these facilities can be improved through cross‐institutional collaborations, although initiating and sustaining such partnerships poses challenges. Insights from Israel's recent nationwide organization of core facilities could offer valuable lessons for fostering similar cooperation elsewhere. Despite the chronic shortfall in public research funding, Israeli research institutions were slow to fully embrace infrastructure sharing. This gap led to the creation of the Israel Research Core Facilities (IRCF) in 2022, which linked core facilities across the country through a bottom‐up approach. IRCF facilitated the formation of numerous specialized nation‐wide networks for intellectual exchange, and supported training workshops and meetings aimed at core technology providers. These initiatives serve dual purposes: they ensure the ongoing advancement of technological capabilities across facilities, regardless of their size or location, and they strengthen the commitment to the IRCF mission by motivating the maintenance of the IRCF database. As a result, a model of “capacity sharing” emerged, connecting all of Israel's core facility centers. This model enhances infrastructure use, supports strategic planning, and fosters growth. With over 450 core experts offering over 1100 scientific services consolidated into a publicly accessible database, IRCF supports research in universities, hospitals, government, and industry. This strategy could act as a model for creating regional core facility organizations to elevate research quality and ensure efficient infrastructure development.

Business Research and Development: Is there a Substitution Effect of Public Support?

The importance of research and development is reflected in the fact that one of the main priorities of the EU's development policies is increasing spending on research and development in EU member states (EC, 2010). Enterprises do not always have enough internal financial resources to launch their own innovation projects, and therefore they turn to external resource providers (Wang et al., 2016). The paper is aimed at examining the impact of corporate expenditures on R&amp;D from the point of view of their funding sources and analysing the occurrence of the substitution effect of public support for R&amp;D in EU 27 countries. These countries also have the highest level of public financing of research and development, that is, they use the public support of business innovations to the highest extent. The analysis showed that in the EU 27, the substitution effect of public support for research and development is not significant, or rather the complementarity of both types of expenditure prevails at the national level, as public funding of corporate research and development seems to have a positive effect on private research and development and investments. Our analysis is based on available secondary data for 27 EU member states. for a twenty-year observation period (2000-2020). The results have been achieved by using a methodology that includes cluster analysis, panel regression and correlation analysis. We bring new empirical evidence on the relationships between public support and business research and development expenditures. The research results showed the main sources of funding for corporate research and development. It concerns the business enterprises, government and abroad. The cluster analysis determined three clusters, divided according to the structure of the financing of R&amp;D enterprises in EU countries. The results of the cluster analysis were partially in line with the current results of the European Innovation Review. Our findings provide policy implications for the public support policy.

Expanding opportunities in health data: Enhancing research by facilitating linkage of Ontario’s population-level health administrative data with data from patient support programs (PSPs)

ObjectivesPatient Support Programs (PSPs) provide real-world evidence on short-term outcomes and drug adherence for specialty care. These data are collected directly from patients by pharmaceutical companies. Data linkage is facilitated by a publicly-funded health research institute which houses population-based, individual-level health administrative data for 14 million Ontario residents in Canada since 1992. Linkage provides a more comprehensive and transparent view of patients’ pathways and care. ApproachIndustry-funded research conducted through the data &amp; analytic service must align with the institute’s mission, vision and values, and demonstrate a clear public benefit. For transparency, and to support broader public benefit and research access, final deliverables and analytic plans are posted on the institute’s website. Privacy impact assessments are conducted to ensure ethics approvals, consent and data sharing agreements are established, prior to data importation. To safeguard privacy, designated data covenantors encrypt and link the PSP data with in-house data holdings. Analyses are performed by senior analytic staff, providing researchers with summary-level reports. ResultsSince 2016, the institute has worked with organizations to link data for research, including PSP data on thousands of patients, enabling crucial insight into treatment patterns, drug adherence, costs and long-term outcomes. ConclusionLinkage of privately-owned PSP data with administrative health data at the institute, provides opportunities to identify gaps in care and improve quality of research. Data challenges around bias, transparency, completeness, and comprehensiveness are minimized. ImplicationsResults provide decision-makers and healthcare professionals with a trusted and comprehensive understanding of patient care pathways to improve health outcomes.

Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies

Sharing research data has great potential to benefit science and society. However, data sharing is still not common practice. Since public research funding agencies have a particular impact on research and researchers, the question arises: Are public funding agencies morally obligated to promote data sharing? We argue from a research ethics perspective that public funding agencies have several pro tanto obligations requiring them to promote data sharing. However, there are also pro tanto obligations that speak against promoting data sharing in general as well as with regard to particular instruments of such promotion. We examine and weigh these obligations and conclude that all things considered funders ought to promote the sharing of data. Even the instrument of mandatory data sharing policies can be justified under certain conditions.

Retrospective Synthesis and Future Directions of Public Research Funding’ Impact on Big Data Output

Retrospective Synthesis and Future Directions of Public Research Funding’ Impact on Big Data Output

R&amp;D Subsidies in Spain: are they Really Useful?

AbstractThis article is aimed at estimating the impact of R&amp;D subsidies on the demand for researchers, using information provided by a panel of Spanish firms belonging to the industrial and services sectors followed up during the 2004–2016 period. Estimates include corrections for the endogeneity bias generated by wages and by a set of variables measuring R&amp;D public financing, as well as for the sample selection bias coming from the fact that the only wage data available are those from firms that are internal R&amp;D performers and hire researchers. Estimate results show that public R&amp;D financing has a positive and relevant impact on the demand for researchers. This result allows supporting the implementation of policies to promote public research funding in Spain, regardless of the origin of the funds received.

O-288 Pro

Abstract Currently and globally, the majority of ART treatments are performed either fully in the private medical sector or are partially subsidized in the public sector but with common treatments spill-over to the private sector; countries where there is sufficient public coverage of ART are in fact rare. While private clinics and hospital have been the norm in ART for decades, in recent years the field has undergone significant consolidation, and this has resulted in an influx of large financial players such as private equity (PE) firms. The results are a series of mergers and acquisitions that are shaping the geography of ART provision. In this debate, I will take on the “pro” side and I will highlight the scholarship around the changes in care brought about by PE ownership of medical practices, bringing examples from branches of medicine such as dermatology, dentistry, long term care or Ob&amp;Gyn that have experienced market consolidation in the last decades. I will show that available evidence indicate that the change in ownership to PE of private medical practices is associated with an increase in the number of patients treated and a net increase in payments to clinicians. Moreover, PE ownership has been repeatedly associated with a perception of higher quality care by patients, while clinical KPIs have not gotten worse and, if anything, have improved. This is usually due to greater intentional focus on standardization and quality control, streamline and protocolization of treatments, and centralization of certain administrative areas. I will further argue that, in large PE owned networks, best practices tend to be enhanced by peer to peer sharing and central medical boards, while centralization and digitalization of patient data collection favors research and development in a field that sorely lacks public funding for reproductive research.

Abstract PO3-10-09: The allocation of US $2.6 billion in global funding for breast cancer research between 2016 – 2020: are we investing wisely for breast cancer patients?

Abstract Background: Breast cancer is a global health challenge and the highest incident cancer globally, with over 2 million new cases and 685,000 deaths in 2020, making it the highest incident cancer globally. Furthermore, it is the most prevalent cancer, resulting in the loss of more disability-adjusted life years than any other malignancy. Research is thus crucial to improving outcomes and reducing suffering for breast cancer patients worldwide. This study aimed to analyse global patterns of funding for breast cancer research. Methods: We have previously created a comprehensive database of awards for human cancer research in this period using publicly available data on research funding awards. From this database we extracted all awards relating to breast cancer research, and categorised these by cancer type, cross-cutting research theme and phase of research. Findings: We identified 7051 awards with a total investment of $2.6 billion in 2016-2020, representing 11.2% of all global public and philanthropic cancer research funding during this period. Breast cancer research funding fell year on year, from $773.4 million in 2016 to $243.8 million in 2020. The majority of the investment was in pre-clinical research ($1.9 billion, 73.9%), with clinical trials ($276 million, 10.7%) and public health ($269.2 million, 10.5%) receiving roughly equivalent amounts of funding. The USA accounted for 66.9% of all global breast cancer research investment, with China ($110.4 million, 4.3%) and the UK ($96.6 million, 3.8%) the next largest funders. By research theme, cancer biology research received most funding ($926.2 million, 37.5% of investment), with drug treatment the next best funded research area ($600.5 million, 23.4%), and diagnosis, screening and monitoring third ($396 million, 15.4%). Surgery ($65.2 million, 2.5%) and radiotherapy ($35.3 million, 1.4%) accounted for only a small proportion of research investment. There was minimal investment into breast cancer as a global health issue ($8.1 million, 0.3%). Research into metastatic disease received a greater proportion of investment in breast cancer than in the overall cancer portfolio (23.2% in breast cancer, $597.4 million, compared with 11.7% across all cancers). Conclusions: Breast cancer public and philanthropic research funding is largely invested in pre-clinical research in high-income countries, with the main areas of investment being cancer biology research and drug treatment. The direct benefit to patients from such research is likely to be low and only apparent after a substantial time lag (if at all). Despite their pivotal role in the treatment of the majority of breast cancer patients, surgery and radiotherapy research received a tiny proportion of the overall research investment. Furthermore, relatively little investment is directed towards cancer prevention and early detection, despite their acknowledged key role in cancer control globally. Finally, more equitable research funding is required to align with the global burden of breast cancer, with increased funding for low- and middle-income countries, which account for an increasing proportion of this burden. These data should be considered by funders and policymakers in the allocation of finite resources, which must be invested wisely. Citation Format: Stuart McIntosh, Ellen Copson, Ramsey Cutress, Michael Head. The allocation of US $2.6 billion in global funding for breast cancer research between 2016 – 2020: are we investing wisely for breast cancer patients? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO3-10-09.

The policy is dead, long live the policy—Revealing science, technology, and innovation policy priorities and government transitions via network analysis

Abstract Each government has priorities for science, technology, and innovation policies (STIP). How can we identify the changing or reinforced STIP research priorities induced by government transitions? This study aims to unveil the STIP changing structure in the public funding research call contents in Colombia from 2007 to 2022, applying a co-word and network analysis approach to 389 funding research calls. We showed each government’s changing distribution of the betweenness centrality of 334 fields from Health, Life, Physical, and Social Sciences. We found that STIP priorities are getting denser and more diverse in terms of research fields. Despite this complexity, just 14 fields of Life, Physical, and Social Sciences, such as drug discovery, general business, management &amp; accounting, and nature and landscape conservation, maintained their higher strategic relevance despite the government in office. This study maps the short and long-term focus of STIP regardless of the changing political tide inherent in democratic countries.

The impact of public funding for research and development on business performance in Mexico Delia Margarita Vergara Reyes, Alex J. Guerrero, Guillermo Arenas Díaz and Joost Heijs

The impact of public funding for research and development on business performance in Mexico Delia Margarita Vergara Reyes, Alex J. Guerrero, Guillermo Arenas Díaz and Joost Heijs

Public research funding and science-based innovation: An analysis of ERC research grants, publications and patents

Abstract This study aims to advance the discussion around the linkages between public funding for scientific research and new technology development. We develop and test a methodology that matches patents to scientific publications, the latter of which stemming from publicly funded research. We specifically focus on projects that were funded by the European Research Council (ERC) in the Life Sciences and Physical Science and Engineering sectors during the FP7 Programme. We also compare this method’s results with the patents directly reported by the PIs of ERC-funded projects at the end of their grants, finding that the two methods are complementary. In addition to documenting important technological diffusion effects generated by ERC-funded research, our results highlight some factors that shape the relationships between patents, publications, and grants, such as project type, age, duration, scientific domain and number and quality of associated publications. Therefore, our findings present significant policy implications for funding agencies, universities, TTOs, and policymakers who want to monitor the technological outcomes of public research investments.

Building consensus on priority areas for Sub-Saharan Africa's ageing population research: An e-Delphi study protocol.

Improvement in medico-social services has increased life expectancy and population ageing in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). It was estimated that about 163 million people aged 65 and older will be resident in SSA by 2050. There is inadequate ageing research capacity in SSA which necessitates this study to (a) identify a decade-long ageing research opportunities, challenges, and solutions, and (b) prioritize critical ageing research areas and methodologies relevant to the SSA. We designed an e-Delphi protocol following the Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research with Stakeholder. The stakeholders will be researchers, practitioners, older adults, and caregivers purposively selected through snowballing quota sampling to complete three rounds of e-Delphi surveys. Round 1 will involve open-ended questions derived from the study objectives. Responses from round 1 will be prepared as a checklist for stakeholders to rate during rounds 2 & 3, using a 9-point scale: low priority (1-3), moderate priority (4-6), and high priority (7-9). The criterion for reaching a consensus will be ≥ 70% of stakeholders rating an item "high priority" and ≤ 15% as "low priority." Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test will be used to assess the stability of stakeholders' responses, and qualitative comments will be analysed using content analysis. Setting aging research/practice priorities will help maximize the benefits of research investment and provide valuable direction for allocating public and private research funds to areas of strategic importance.

An In-Depth Analysis of Public and Private Research Funding in Orthopaedic Surgery from 2015 to 2021.

Understanding the trends and patterns of research funding can aid in enhancing growth and innovation in orthopaedic research. We sought to analyze financial trends in public orthopaedic surgery funding and characterize trends in private funding distribution among orthopaedic surgeons and hospitals to explore potential disparities across orthopaedic subspecialties. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of private and public orthopaedic research funding from 2015 to 2021 using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER through the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, respectively. Institutions receiving funds from both the NIH and the private sector were classified separately as publicly funded and privately funded. Research payment characteristics were categorized according to their respective orthopaedic fellowship subspecialties. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and Mann-Kendall tests were employed. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Over the study period, $348,428,969 in private and $701,078,031 in public research payments were reported. There were 2,229 unique surgeons receiving funding at 906 different institutions. The data showed that a total of 2,154 male orthopaedic surgeons received $342,939,782 and 75 female orthopaedic surgeons received $5,489,187 from 198 different private entities. The difference in the median payment size between male and female orthopaedic surgeons was not significant. The top 1% of all practicing orthopaedic surgeons received 99% of all private funding in 2021. The top 20 publicly and top 20 privately funded institutions received 77% of the public and 37% of the private funding, respectively. Private funding was greatest (31.5%) for projects exploring adult reconstruction. While the amount of public research funding was more than double the amount of private research funding, the distribution of public research funding was concentrated in fewer institutions when compared with private research funding. This suggests the formation of orthopaedic centers of excellence (CoEs), which are programs that have high concentrations of talent and resources. Furthermore, the similar median payment by gender is indicative of equitable payment size. In the future, orthopaedic funding should follow a distribution model that aligns with the existing approach, giving priority to a nondiscriminatory stance regarding gender, and allocate funds toward CoEs. Securing research funding is vital for driving innovation in orthopaedic surgery, which is crucial for enhancing clinical interventions. Thus, understanding the patterns and distribution of research funding can help orthopaedic surgeons tailor their future projects to better align with current funding trends, thereby increasing the likelihood of securing support for their work.

727 Trends Between Males and Females in Public and Private Neurosurgical Research Funding From 2015 to 2021

INTRODUCTION: Open Payments Database (OPD) is a public database established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under the 2010 Physician Payments Sunshine Act. It is a national program that reports all financial relationships between physicians and healthcare manufacturers, including pharmaceutical and medical device companies. OPD aims to promote transparency and help patients make informed decisions about their healthcare providers. METHODS: All the Principal Investigators from 2015 to 2021 who received research payments as neurosurgeons or payments tagged with the keyword "neurosurgery" in the OPD and NIH RePORTER, respectively, were subclassified according to the neurosurgical subspecialty of their research and their identified gender; Python and R were used to compute descriptive statistics for the public and private research payments. RESULTS: The total difference between males and females in public and private neurosurgical research funding from 2015 to 2021 was $674,715,146.00 and $148,361,648.45, respectively. The difference in funding has a growth rate of 54.63% and 32.33% from 2015–2021 in private and public funding, respectively. The Permutation Test showed a significant difference in total private funding between males and females in 2018 (p = 0.03). Besides this, there were no significant differences between gender payments in the public and private sectors. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a significant difference in total funding for neurosurgery, with males receiving significantly more public and private funding than females. The difference in funding has also grown over time, particularly in private funding. However, the difference in funding per researcher between the two groups is similar; the discrepancy between funding is largely due to gender disparity in the number of neurosurgical researchers.

Wie steht es um die Innovationsfähigkeit Deutschlands?

Abstract Innovation is crucial to economic development. Innovation expenditures in Germany’s business sector as well as public funding for science and research have been increasing in the past decade. However, the share of businesses with innovations – especially among the small- and medium-sized ones – decreased from 70% in the 2010s to 50% in 2022. Likewise the share of sales from new products and collaborations between science and industry have been declining in recent years. This might be explained by certain barriers to innovation. Increasingly important hampering factors are the lack of qualified employees and the burden of regulation and bureaucracy. Policy measures to support Germany’s innovation capacity should tackle the reduction of such constraints that currently reduce the return to investment into R&amp;D and innovation.

What impact has the Centre of Research Excellence in Digestive Health made in the field of gastrointestinal health in Australia and internationally? Study protocol for impact evaluation using the FAIT framework

IntroductionThe need for public research funding to be more accountable and demonstrate impact beyond typical academic outputs is increasing. This is particularly challenging and the science behind this form of...