Impact of GDP,Spending on R&D,Number of Universities and Scientific Journals on Research Publications among Asian Countries

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the impact of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, spending on Research and Development (R&D), number of universities, and Indexed Scientific Journals on total number of research documents (papers), citations per document and Hirsch index (H-index) in various science and social science subjects among Asian countries.

Materials and Methods

In this study, 40 Asian countries were included. The information regarding Asian countries, their GDP per capita, spending on R&D, total number of universities and indexed scientific journals were collected. We recorded the bibliometric indicators, including total number of research documents, citations per document and H-index in various science and social sciences subjects during the period 1996–2011. The main sources for information were World Bank, SCI-mago/Scopus and Web of Science; Thomson Reuters.

Results

The mean per capita GDP for all the Asian countries is 14448.31±2854.40 US$, yearly per capita spending on R&D 0.64±0.16 US$, number of universities 72.37±18.32 and mean number of ISI indexed journal per country is 17.97±7.35. The mean of research documents published in various science and social science subjects among all the Asian countries during the period 1996–2011 is 158086.92±69204.09; citations per document 8.67±0.48; and H-index 122.8±19.21. Spending on R&D, number of universities and indexed journals have a positive correlation with number of published documents, citations per document and H-index in various science and social science subjects. However, there was no association between the per capita GDP and research outcomes.

Conclusion

The Asian countries who spend more on R&D have a large number of universities and scientific indexed journals produced more in research outcomes including total number of research publication, citations per documents and H-index in various science and social science subjects.     

Reviewing Dengue: Still a Neglected Tropical Disease?

Dengue is currently listed as a “neglected tropical disease” (NTD). But is dengue still an NTD or not? Classifying dengue as an NTD may carry advantages, but is it justified? This review considers the criteria for the definition of an NTD, the current diverse lists of NTDs by different stakeholders, and the commonalities and differences of dengue with other NTDs. We also review the current research gaps and research activities and the adequacy of funding for dengue research and development (R&D) (2003–2013). NTD definitions have been developed to a higher precision since the early 2000s, with the following main features: NTDs are characterised as a) poverty related, b) endemic to the tropics and subtropics, c) lacking public health attention, d) having poor research funding and shortcomings in R&D, e) usually associated with high morbidity but low mortality, and f) often having no specific treatment available. Dengue meets most of these criteria, but not all. Although dengue predominantly affects resource-limited countries, it does not necessarily only target the poor and marginalised in those countries. Dengue increasingly attracts public health attention, and in some affected countries it is now a high profile disease. Research funding for dengue has increased exponentially in the past two decades, in particular in the area of dengue vaccine development. However, despite advances in dengue research, dengue epidemics are increasing in frequency and magnitude, and dengue is expanding to new areas. Specific treatment and a highly effective vaccine remain elusive. Major research gaps exist in the area of integrated surveillance and vector control. Hence, although dengue differs from many of the NTDs, it still meets important criteria commonly used for NTDs. The current need for increased R&D spending, shared by dengue and other NTDs, is perhaps the key reason why dengue should continue to be considered an NTD.     

Reading the tea leaves of Congress. With a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives, scientific research in the USA might face budget cuts

The increasing influence of the Tea Party in Congress and politics has potential repercussions for public funding of scientific research in the USAIn 2009, Barack Obama became the 44th President of the USA, amid hopes that he would fix the problems created or left unresolved by his predecessor. However, despite his positive mantra, “Yes we can,” the situation was going to get worse: the country was spiralling towards an economic recession, a collapsing residential real-estate market and the loss of millions of jobs. Now, the deficit lingers around US$14 trillion (US Department of the Treasury, 2011). In response to these hardships and the presence of a perceived ‘socialist'' president in office, a new political movement started brewing that would challenge both the Democrats and the Republicans—the two parties that have dominated US politics for generations. Known as the Tea Party, this movement has been gaining national momentum in its denouncement of the status quo of the government, especially in relation to federal spending, including the support of scientific research.The name is a play on the Boston Tea Party, at which more than 100 American colonists dumped 45 tonnes of tea into Boston Harbour (Massachusetts, USA) in 1773 to protest against the British taxation of imported tea. Whereas the 18th century Boston Tea Party formed to protest against a specific tax, the Tea Party of the 21st century protests against taxes and ‘big'' government in general.Many view Tea Party followers as modern muckrakers, but supporters claim their movement is fundamentally about upholding the US Constitution. Tea Party Patriots, a non-partisan organization, considers itself to be the official home of the Tea Party movement. Fuelled by the values of fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets, Tea Party Patriots believe, these three principles are granted by the Constitution, although not necessarily upheld by the administration.“If you read the Constitution, the limits of government involvement in society [are] pretty well-defined and our government has gone farther and farther beyond the specific limits of the Constitution,” said Mark Meckler, one of the co-founders of Tea Party Patriots. “Our Constitution is not designed as an empowering document, but as a limiting document… [and] was intended to be used as a weapon by the people against the government to keep it in the box.” Tea Partiers tend to be especially critical when it comes to spending tax dollars on bank bailouts and health care, but anything goes when it comes to cutting back on public spending—even science. “We believe everything needs to be on the table since the government is virtually bankrupt,” Meckler said. “We need to cut the waste, cut the abuse [and] get rid of the departments that shouldn''t exist.”Tea Partiers tend to be especially critical when it comes to spending tax dollars on bank bailouts and health care, but anything goes when […]cutting […] public spending—even scienceOn 19 February 2011, the US House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by the Republicans, passed a federal-spending bill for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year budget. Among other cuts, the bill called for billions of dollars to be slashed from the budgets of federal science agencies. If the bill is signed into law, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will have $1.6 billion cut from its budget—a 5.2% decrease—and the Department of Energy (DOE) will experience an 18% cut in funding for its Office of Science. Other agencies targeted include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Science Foundation (NSF; Anon, 2011; Cho, 2011). Although the US Senate, which has a Democratic majority, must consider the bill before any definite amendments to the budget are made, it is likely that there will be some cuts to science funding.Although the House is in favour of science-related cuts, President Obama supports spending more on science education, basic research and clean-energy research. He has also proposed an 11.8% increase in the budget of the DOE, as well as an 8% increase in the NSF budget (Office of Management and Budget, 2011).The House is in favour of science-related cuts, but President Obama is in favour of spending more on science education, basic science and clean-energy researchJoann Roskoski, acting assistant director of the Biology Directorate at the NSF, said her institute is strongly in favour of President Obama''s budget proposal. “President Obama is a very strong supporter of fundamental research and STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] education because he perceives it as investing in the future of the country,” she said. “These are just difficult budgetary times and we''ll just have to wait and see what happens. As they say, the president proposes and Congress disposes.”Karl Scheidt, a professor of chemistry at Northwestern University (Evanston, Illinois, USA), has four grants from federal agencies. “A couple of my grants expire this year, which is happening at the worst, worst possible time,” explained Scheidt, whose grants are funded by the NIH and the NSF. He added that although many politicians either do not understand or believe in the fundamentals of science, they still preach to the masses about what they ‘think'' they know. “I think it''s an absolute travesty that many people don''t understand science and that many of the Republicans who don''t fully understand science perpetuate incorrect assumptions and scientific falsehoods when speaking in public,” he said. “It makes the US less competitive and puts us collectively at a disadvantage relative to other nations if we don''t succeed in scientific education and innovative research in the future.”Although the Tea Party is not technically associated with the Republican Party, all Tea-Party representatives and senators ran as Republican candidates in the last election. While only one-third of seats in the Senate are on the ballot every two years for a six-year term, all House seats are for a two-year term. In the most recent Senatorial election, 50% of Tea Party-backed candidates won; 10 in total. 140 candidates for seats in the House of Representatives were backed by the Tea Party—all of whom were Republicans—but only 40 won. Nevertheless, with around 100 new Republicans in office, a House controlled by a Republican majority and most Congress-based Republicans in agreement with Tea Party ideals, the Tea Party actually has a lot of sway on the voting floor.Of course, as a fundamentally grass-roots movement, their influence is not limited to the halls of power. Since just before the November election last year, Tea Party-backed politicians have received more scrutiny and media exposure, meaning more people have listened to their arguments against spending on science. In fact, Republican politicians associated with the Tea Party have made critical and sometimes erroneous comments about science. Representative Michelle Bachman, for example, claimed that because carbon dioxide is a natural gas, it is not harmful to our atmosphere (Johnson, 2009). Representative Jack Kingston denounced the theory of evolution and stated that he did not come from a monkey (The Huffington Post, 2011). When asked how old he believes the Earth to be, Senator Rand Paul refused to answer (Binckes, 2010). He also introduced a bill to cut the NSF budget by 62%, and targeted the budget of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.Scheidt believes part of the challenge is that many scientists do not properly articulate the importance of their work to the public, and there is limited representation on behalf of science in Washington. “It''s difficult sometimes to advocate for and explain the critical importance of basic research and for the most part, Congress may not always appreciate the basic fundamental mission of organizations like the NIH,” Scheidt said. “Arlen Specter was one of the few people who could form coalitions with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle and communicate why scientific research is critical. Why discovering new ways to perform transplants and creating new medicines are so important to everyone.”…part of the challenge is that many scientists do not properly articulate the importance of their work to the public, and there is limited representation on behalf of science in WashingtonSpecter, a former senator, was Republican until 2009 when he decided to switch political parties. During the last Democratic primary, he lost the Pennsylvania Senate nomination after serving in Congress for more than four decades. The Democratic nominee, Joe Sestak, eventually lost the coveted seat to Pat Toomey, a Tea Party Republican who sponsored an amendment denying NIH funding for some grants while he was a House member. Toomey is also against funding climate science and clean-energy research with federal dollars.Specter was considered a strong supporter of biomedical research, especially cancer research. He was the catalyst that pushed through a great deal of pro-science legislation, such as adding approximately $10 billion to NIH funding as part of the stimulus package in 2009, and doubling NIH funding in the 1990s. As scientific research was so important to him, he served on the US Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies and on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Specter was a popular political champion of science not only because of all he had accomplished, but also because so few scientists are elected to office.Among those Democrats who lost their seats to Tea Party Republicans was Congressman Bill Foster. Foster, who once worked for the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab)—which is funded by the DOE—represented Batavia, Ilinois, which is also where Fermilab has its headquarters. “The new representative in the district where Fermilab resides is Randy Hultgren, a Republican, who has been very supportive of the laboratory since he''s been elected,” said Cindy Conger, Chief Financial Officer at Fermilab. “He''s very interested in us and very interested […] in us having adequate funding.”However, Fermilab is suffering financially. “We will […] have some level of layoffs,” Conger said. “Inadequate federal funding could result in more layoffs or not being able to run our machines for part of the year. These are the things we are contemplating doing in the event of a significant budget cut. Nothing is off the table [but] we will do everything we can to run the [Tevatron] accelerator.”But Fermilab''s desperate appeal for $35 million per year for the next three fiscal years was denied by the Obama administration and not included in the 2012 White House budget request. As a result, the most powerful proton–antiproton accelerator in the USA, the Tevatron, is shutting down indefinitely near the end of this year.Another pro-science Republican is former Congressman John Porter, who studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He encouraged the federal funding of science while serving as chair of the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, as well as on the House Committee on Appropriations and Related Agencies. Like Scheidt, Porter said a problem is that not many members of Congress really understand science or what goes into scientific research.“Many members of Congress don''t realize that the money appropriated for the funding of scientific research through NIH, NSF […] is sent out to research institutes in their districts and states where the research is conducted,” said Porter, who retired from Congress in 2001 after serving for more than 20 years. “They simply haven''t been exposed to it and that''s the fault of the science community, which has a great responsibility to educate about the mechanisms on how we fund scientific research.”Today, Porter is vice-chair of the Foundation for the NIH and also chairs Research!America, a non-profit organization which aims to further medical, health and scientific research as higher national priorities. He also noted that industry would not fund scientific research in the way the government does because there would essentially be no profits. Therefore, federal funding remains essential.“Let''s take away the phones, iPads and everything else [those against the federal funding of science] depend on and see what''s left,” Porter said. “The US is the world leader in science, technology and research and the way we got there and the way we have created the technology that makes life easier […] is a result of making investments in that area.”For now, Scheidt said the best approach is to educate as many people as possible to understand that scientific research is a necessity, not a luxury. “We unfortunately have a very uneducated population in regard to science and it''s not 100% their fault,” he said. “However, if people took a real interest in science and paid as much attention to stem-cell or drug-discovery research as they did to the Grammy Awards or People magazine I think they would appreciate what''s going on in the science world.”…the best approach is to educate as many people as possible to understand that scientific research is a necessity, not a luxuryInstead, the USA is lagging behind its competitors when it comes to STEM education. According to the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the USA is ranked 17th on science and 25th on maths out of 34 countries (US Department of Education, 2010). “We''re in a cluster now, we''re no longer the leading country,” said D. Martin Watterson, a molecular biologist who sits on NIH peer-review committees to evaluate grant proposals. The reason, according to Watterson, is that the first things to be cut after a budget decrease are training grants for continuing education efforts. Moreover, the USA already lacks highly trained workers in the field of science. “In some disciplines, employers now look to other places in Europe and Asia to find those trained personnel,” Watterson said.Ultimately, most people at least want a final budget to be passed so that there is sufficient time to plan ahead. However, Georgetown University political science professor Clyde Wilcox thinks that a compromise is not so simple. “The problem is that it''s a three-way poker game. People are going to sit down and they''re going to be bargaining, negotiating and bluffing each other,” he said. “The House Republicans just want to cut the programs that they don''t like, so they''re not cutting any Republican programs for the most part.”As a result, institutions such as the EPA find themselves being targeted by the Republicans. Although there is not a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats in the Senate, they still are a majority and will try to preserve science funding. Wilcox said that it is not necessarily a good thing to continue negotiating if nothing gets done and the country is dependent on continuing resolutions.Although there is not a filibuster-proof majority of Democrats in the Senate, they still are a majority and will try to preserve science funding“What the real problem is, when push comes to shove, someone has to blink,” he said. “I don''t think there will be deep cuts in science for a number of reasons, one is science is consistent with the Democratic ideology of education and the Republican ideology of investment. And then, we don''t really spend that much on science anyway so you couldn''t come remotely close to balancing the budget even if you eliminated everything.”Although during his time in Congress representatives of both parties were not as polarized as they are today, Porter believes the reason they are now is because of the political climate. “The president has made [science] a very important issue on his agenda and unfortunately, there are many Republicans today that say if he''s for it, I''m against it,” Porter said. In fact, several government officials ignored repeated requests or declined to comment for this article.“It''s time for everybody from both parties to stand up for the country, put the party aside and find solutions to our problems,” Porter commented. “The American people didn''t just elect us to yell at each other, they elected us to do a job. You have to choose priorities and to me the most important priority is to have our children lead better lives, to have all human beings live longer, healthier, happier lives and to have our economy grow and prosper and our standard of living maintained—the only way to do that is to invest where we lead the world and that''s in science.”     

The Scientific Impact of Developing Nations

This paper analyzes science productivity for nine developing countries. Results show that these nations are reducing their science gap, with R&D investments and scientific impact growing at more than double the rate of the developed world. But this “catching up” hides a very uneven picture among these nations, especially on what they are able to generate in terms of impact and output relative to their levels of investment and available resources. Moreover, unlike what one might expect, it is clear that the size of the nations and the relative scale of their R&D investments are not the key drivers of efficiency.     

Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results (results that fail to support the tested hypothesis). Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments. This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of positive results in a large random sample of papers with a corresponding author based in the US. Across all disciplines, papers were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced more academic papers per capita. The size of this effect increased when controlling for state''s per capita R&D expenditure and for study characteristics that previous research showed to correlate with the frequency of positive results, including discipline and methodology. Although the confounding effect of institutions'' prestige could not be excluded (researchers in the more productive universities could be the most clever and successful in their experiments), these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists'' productivity but also their bias. The same phenomenon might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high.     

Funding in the firing line

With large charities such as the Wellcome Trust or the Gates Foundation committed to funding research, is there a risk that politicians could cut public funding for science?Towards the end of 2010, with the British economy reeling from the combined effects of the global recession, the burst bubble of property speculation and a banking crisis, the country came close to cutting its national science and research budget by up to 25%. UK Business Secretary Vince Cable argued, “there is no justification for taxpayers'' money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding” (BBC, 2010). The outcry from UK scientists was both passionate and reasoned until, in the end, the British budget slashers blinked and the UK government backed down. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced in October that the government would freeze science and research funding at £4.6 billion per annum for four years, although even this represents about a 10% cut in real terms, because of inflation.“there is no justification for taxpayers'' money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding”There has been a collective sigh of relief. Sir John Savill, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council (UK), said: “The worst projections for cuts to the science budget have not been realised. It''s clear that the government has listened to and acted on the evidence showing investment in science is vital to securing a healthy, sustainable and prosperous future.”Yet Britain is unusual compared with its counterparts elsewhere in the European Union (EU) and the USA, because private charities, such as the Wellcome Trust (London, UK) and Cancer Research UK (London, UK), already have budgets that rival those of their government counterparts. It was this fact, coupled with UK Prime Minister David Cameron''s idea of the ‘big society''—a vision of smaller government, increased government–private partnerships and a bigger role for non-profit organizations, such as single-disease-focused charities—that led the British government to contemplate reducing its contribution to research, relying on the private sector to pick up the slack.Jonathan Grant, president of RAND Europe (London, UK)—a not-for-profit research institute that advises on policy and decision-making—commented: “There was a strong backlash and [the UK Government] pulled back from that position [to cut funding]. But that''s the first time I''ve really ever seen it floated as a political idea; that government doesn''t need to fund cancer research because we''ve got all these not-for-profits funding it.”“…that''s the first time I''ve really ever seen it floated as a political idea; that government doesn''t need to fund cancer research because we''ve got all these not-for-profits funding it”But the UK was not alone in mooting the idea that research budgets might have to suffer under the financial crisis. Some had worried that declining government funding of research would spread across the developed world, although the worst of these fears have not been realized.Peter Gruss, President of the Max Planck Society (Munich, Germany), explained that his organization receives 85% of its more-than €1.5 billion budget from the public purses of the German federal government, German state ministries and the EU, and that not all governments have backed away from their commitment to research. In fact, during the crisis, the German and US governments boosted their funding of research with the goal of helping the economic recovery. In 2009, German Chancellor Angela Merkel''s government, through negotiation with the German state science ministries, approved a windfall of €18 billion in new science funding, to be spread over the next decade. Similarly, US President Barack Obama''s administration boosted spending on research with a temporary stimulus package for science, through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.Even so, Harry Greenberg, Senior Associate Dean for Research at Stanford University (California, USA) pointed out that until the US government injected stimulus funding, the budget at the National Institutes of Health (NIH; Bethesda, Maryland, USA) had essentially “been flat as a pancake for five or six years, and that means that it''s actually gone down and it''s having an effect on people being able to sustain their research mission.”Similarly, Gruss said that the research community should remain vigilant. “I think one could phrase it as there is a danger. If you look at Great Britain, there is the Wellcome Trust, a very strong funding organization for life sciences and medical-oriented, health-oriented research. I think it''s in the back of the minds of the politicians that there is a gigantic foundation that supports that [kind of research]. I don''t think one can deny that. There is an atmosphere that people like the Gates family [Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation] invests in health-related issues, particularly in the poorer countries [and that] maybe that is something that suffices.”The money available for research from private foundations and charities is growing in both size and scope. According to Iain Mattaj, Director General of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL; Heidelberg, Germany), this growth might not be a bad thing. As he pointed out, private funding often complements government funding, with charities such as the Wellcome Trust going out of their way to leverage government spending without reducing government contributions. “My feeling is that the reason that the UK government is freezing research funding has all to do with economics and nothing to do with the fact that there are potentially private funders,” he said. “Several very large charities in particular are putting a lot of money into health research. The Gates Foundation is the biggest that has just come on the scene, but the Howard Hughes Medical Institute [HHMI; Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA] and the Wellcome Trust are very big, essentially private charities which have their own agendas.”…charities such as the Wellcome Trust [go] out of their way to leverage government spending without reducing government contributions​contributionsOpen in a separate window© CorbisBut, as he explained, these charities actually contribute to the overall health research budget, rather than substituting funds from one area to another. In fact, they often team up to tackle difficult research questions in partnership with each other and with government. Two-thirds of the €140 million annual budget of EMBL comes from the European states that agree to fund it, with additional contributions from private sources such as the Wellcome Trust and public sources such as the NIH.Yet over the years, as priorities have changed, the focus of those partnerships and the willingness to spend money on certain research themes or approaches has shifted, both within governments and in the private sector. Belief in the success of US President Richard Nixon''s famous ‘war on cancer'', for example, has waned over the years, although the fight and the funding continues. “I don''t want to use the word political, because of course the decisions are sometimes political, but actually it was a social priority to fight cancer. It was a social priority to fight AIDS,” Mattaj commented. “For the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, which are fighting tropical diseases, they see that as a social necessity, rather than a personal interest if you like.”Nevertheless, Mattaj is not surprised that there is an inclination to reduce research spending in the UK and many smaller countries battered by the economic downturn. “Most countries have to reduce public spending, and research is public spending. It may be less badly hit than other aspects of public spending. [As such] it''s much better off than many other aspects of public spending.”A shift away from government funding to private funding, especially from disease-focused charities, worries some that less funding will be available for basic, curiosity-driven research—a move from pure research to ‘cure'' research. Moreover, charities are often just as vulnerable to economic downturns, so relying on them is not a guarantee of funding in harsh economic times. Indeed, greater reliance on private funding would be a return to the era of ‘gentlemen scientists'' and their benefactors (Sidebar A).

Sidebar A | Gentlemen scientists

Greater reliance on private funding would return science to a bygone age of gentlemen scientists relying on the largesse of their wealthy sponsors. In 1831, for example, naturalist Charles Darwin''s (1809–1882) passage on the HMS Beagle was paid for by his father, albeit reluctantly. According to Laura Snyder, an expert on Victorian science and culture at St John''s University (New York, USA), by the time Darwin returned to England in 1836, the funding game had changed and government and private scientific societies had begun to have a bigger role. When Sir John Frederick William Herschel (1791–1871), an English mathematician, astronomer, chemist, experimental photographer and inventor, journeyed to Cape Colony in 1833, the British government offered to give him a free ride aboard an Admiralty ship. “Herschel turned them down because he wanted to be free to do whatever he wanted once he got to South Africa, and he didn''t want to feel beholden to government to do what they wanted him to do,” Snyder explained, drawing from her new book The Philosophical Breakfast Club, which covers the creation of the modern concept of science.Charles Babbage (1791–1871), the mathematician, philosopher, inventor and mechanical engineer who originated the concept of a programmable computer, was a member of the same circle as Herschel and William Whewell (1794–1866), a polymath, geologist, astronomer and theologian, who coined the word ''scientist''. Although he was wealthy, having inherited £100,000 in 1827—valued at about £13.3 million in 2008—Babbage felt that government should help pay for his research that served the public interest.“Babbage was asking the government constantly for money to build his difference engine,” Snyder said. Babbage griped about feeling like a tradesman begging to be paid. “It annoyed him. He felt that the government should just have said, ''We will support the engine, whatever it is that you need, just tell us and we''ll write you a check''. But that''s not what the government was about to do.”Instead, the British government expected Babbage to report on his progress before it loosened its purse strings. Snyder explained, “What the government was doing was a little bit more like grants today, in the sense that you have to justify getting more money and you have to account for spending the money. Babbage just wanted an open pocketbook at his disposal.”In the end the government donated £17,000, and Babbage never completed the machine.Janet Rowley, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, is worried that the change in funding will make it more difficult to obtain money for the kind of research that led to her discovery in the 1970s of the first chromosomal translocations that cause cancer. She calls such work ‘fishing expeditions''. She said that the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (White Plains, New York, USA), for example—a non-profit funder of research—has modified its emphasis: “They have now said that they are going to put most of their resources into translational work and trying to take ideas that are close to clinical application, but need what are called incubator funds to ramp up from a laboratory to small-scale industrial production to increase the amount of compound or whatever is required to do studies on more patients.”This echoes Vince Cable''s view that taxpayers should not have to spend money on research that is not of direct economic, technological or health benefit to them. But if neither charities nor governments are willing to fund basic research, then who will pay the bill?…if neither charities nor governments are willing to fund basic research, then who will pay the bill?Iain Mattaj believes that the line between pure research and cure research is actually too blurred to make these kinds of funding distinctions. “In my view, it''s very much a continuum. I think many people who do basic research are actually very interested in the applications of their research. That''s just not their expertise,” he said. “I think many people who are at the basic end of research are more than happy to see things that they find out contributing towards things that are useful for society.”Jack Dixon, Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer at HHMI, also thinks that the line is blurry: “This divide between basic research and translational research is somewhat arbitrary, somewhat artificial in nature. I think every scientist I know who makes important, basic discoveries likes to [...] see their efforts translate into things that help humankind. Our focus at the Hughes has always been on basic things, but we love to see them translated into interesting products.” Even so, HHMI spends less than US $1 billion annually on research, which is overshadowed by the $30 billion spent by the NIH and the relatively huge budgets of the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK. “We''re a small player in terms of the total research funding in the US, so I just don''t see the NIH pulling back on supporting research,” Dixon said.By way of example, Brian Druker, Professor of Medicine at the Oregon Health & Science University (Portland, Oregon, USA) and a HHMI scientist, picked up on Rowley''s work with cancer-causing chromosomal translocations and developed the blockbuster anti-cancer drug, imatinib, marketed by Novartis. “Brian Druker is one of our poster boys in terms of the work he''s done and how that is translated into helping people live longer lives that have this disease,” Dixon commented.There is a similar view at Stanford. The distinction between basic and applied is “in the eye of the beholder,” Greenberg said. “Basic discovery is the grist for the mill that leads to translational research and new breakthroughs. It''s always been a little difficult to convey, but at least here at Stanford, that''s number one. Number two, many of our very basic researchers enjoy thinking about the translational or clinical implications of their basic findings and some of them want to be part of doing it. They want some benefit for mankind other than pure knowledge.”“Basic discovery is the grist for the mill that leads to translational research and new breakthroughs”If it had not backed down from the massive cuts to the research budget that were proposed, the intention of the UK Government to cut funding for basic, rather than applied, research might have proven difficult to implement. Identifying which research will be of no value to society is like trying to decide which child will grow up to be Prime Minister. Nevertheless, most would agree that governments have a duty to get value-for-money for the taxpayer, but defining the value of research in purely economic or translational terms is both short-sighted and near impossible. Even so, science is feeling the economic downturn and budgets are tighter than they have been for a long time. As Greenberg concluded, “It''s human nature when everybody is feeling the pinch that you think [yours] is bigger than the next guy''s, but I would be hard pressed to say who is getting pinched, at least in the biomedical agenda, more than who else.”     

Facing the credit crunch. Politics sends mixed messages for science in the wake of the global financial crisis

The global response to the credit crunch has varied from belt tightening to spending sprees. Philip Hunter investigates how various countries react to the financial crisis in terms of supporting scientific research.The overall state of biomedical research in the wake of the global financial crisis remains unclear amid growing concern that competition for science funding is compromising the pursuit of research. Such concerns pre-date the credit crunch, but there is a feeling that an increasing amount of time and energy is being wasted in the ongoing scramble for grants, in the face of mounting pressure from funding agencies demanding value for money. Another problem is balancing funding between different fields; while the biomedical sciences have generally fared well, they are increasingly dependent on basic research in physics and chemistry that are in greater jeopardy. This has led to calls for rebalancing funding, in order to ensure the long-term viability of all fields in an increasingly multidisciplinary and collaborative research world.For countries that are cutting funding—such as Spain, Italy and the UK—the immediate priority is to preserve the fundamental research base and avoid a significant drain of expertise, either to rival countries or away from science altogether. This has highlighted the plight of postdoctoral researchers who have traditionally been the first to suffer from funding cuts, partly because they have little immediate impact on on a country''s scientific competitiveness. Postdocs have been the first to go whenever budgets have been cut, according to Richard Frankel, a physicist at California Polytechnic State University in Saint Luis Obispo, who investigates magnetotaxis in bacteria. “In the short term there will be little effect but the long-term effects can be devastating,” he said.…there is a feeling that an increasing amount of time and energy is being wasted in the ongoing scramble for grants, in the face of mounting pressure from funding agencies…According to Peter Stadler, head of a bioinformatics group at the University of Leipzig in Germany, such cuts tend to cause the long-term erosion of a country''s science skills base. “Short-term cuts in science funding translate totally into a brain drain, since they predominantly affect young researchers who are paid from the soft money that is drying up first,” said Stadler. “They either leave science, an irreversible step, or move abroad but do not come back later, because the medium-term effect of cuts is a reduction in career opportunities and fiercer competition giving those already in the system a big advantage.”Even when young researchers are not directly affected, the prevailing culture of short-term funding—which requires ongoing grant applications—can be disruptive, according to Xavier Salvatella, principal investigator in the Laboratory of Molecular Biophysics at the Institute for Research in Biomedicine in Barcelona, Spain. “I do not think the situation is dramatic but too much time is indeed spent writing proposals,” he commented. “Because success rates are decreasing, the time devoted to raise funds to run the lab necessarily needs to increase.”At the University of Adelaide in Australia, Andrew Somogyi, professor of pharmacology, thinks that the situation is serious: “[M]y postdocs would spend about half their time applying for grants.” Somogyi pointed out that the success rate has been declining in Australia, as it has in some other countries. “For ARC [Australian Research Council] the success rate is now close to 20%, which means many excellent projects don''t get funding because the assessment is now so fine cut,” he said.Similar developments have taken place in the USA at both the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—which provides US$16 billion funding per year and the American Cancer Society (ACS), the country''s largest private non-profit funder of cancer research, with a much smaller pot of US$120 million per year. The NIH funded 21% of research proposals submitted to it in 2009, compared with 32% a decade earlier, while the ACS approves only 15% of grant applications, down several percentage points over the past few years.While the NIH is prevented by federal law from allowing observers in to its grant review meetings, the ACS did allow a reporter from Nature to attend one of its sessions on the condition that the names of referees and the applications themselves were not revealed (Powell, 2010). The general finding was that while the review process works well when around 30% of proposals are successful, it tends to break down as the success rate drops, as more arbitrary decisions are made and the risk of strong pitches being rejected increases. This can also discourage the best people from being reviewers because the process becomes more tiring and time-consuming.Even when young researchers are not directly affected, the prevailing culture of short-term funding—which requires ongoing grant applications—can be disruptive…In some countries, funding shortfalls are also leading to the loss of permanent jobs, for example in the UK where finance minister George Osborne announced on October 20 that the science budget would be frozen at £4.6 billion, rather than cut as had been expected. Even so, combined with the cut in funding for universities that was announced on the same day, this raises the prospect of reductions in academic staff numbers, which could affect research projects. This follows several years of increasing funding for UK science. Such uncertainty is damaging, according to Cornelius Gross, deputy head of the mouse biology unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Monterotondo, Italy. “Large fluctuations in funding have been shown to cause damage beyond their direct magnitude as can be seen in the US where the Clinton boom was inevitably followed by a slowdown that led to rapid and extreme tightening of budgets,” he said.Some countries are aware of these dangers and have acted to protect budgets and, in some cases, even increase spending. A report by the OECD argued that countries and companies that boosted research and development spending during the ‘creative destruction'' of an economic downturn tended to gain ground on their competitors and emerge from the crisis in a relatively stronger position (OECD, 2009). This was part of the rationale of the US stimulus package, which was intended to provide an immediate lift to the economy and has been followed by a slight increase in funding. The NIH''s budget is set to increase by $1 billion, or 3% from 2010 to 2011, reaching just over $32 billion. This looks like a real-term increase, since inflation in the USA is now between 1 and 2%. However, there are fears that budgets will soon be cut; even now the small increase at the Federal level is being offset by cuts in state support, according to Mike Seibert, research fellow at the US Department of Energy''s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “The stimulus funds are disappearing in the US, and the overall budget for science may be facing a correction at the national level as economic, budget, and national debt issues are addressed,” he said. “The states in most cases are suffering their own budget crises and will be cutting back on anything that is not nailed down.”…countries and companies that boosted research and development spending during the ‘creative destruction'' of an economic downturn tended to gain ground on their competitors…In Germany, the overall funding situation is also confused by a split between the Federal and 16 state governments, each of which has its own budget for science. In contrast to many other countries though, both federal and state governments have responded boldly to the credit crisis by increasing the total budget for the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft)—Germany''s largest research funding agency—to €2.3 billion in 2011. Moreover, total funding for research and education from the BMBF (Federal Ministry for Education and Research) is expected to increase by another 7% from €10.9 billion in 2010 to €11.64 billion, although the overall federal budget is set to shrink by 3.8% under Germany''s austerity measures (Anon, 2010). There have also been increases in funding from non-government sources, such as the Fraunhofer Society, Europe''s largest application-oriented research organization, which has an annual budget of €1.6 billion.The German line has been strongly applauded by the European Union, which since 2007 has channelled its funding for cutting-edge research through the European Research Council (ERC). The ERC''s current budget of €7.5 billion, which runs until 2013, was set in 2007 and negotiations for the next period have not yet begun, but the ERC''s executive agency director Jack Metthey has indicated that it will be increased: “The Commission will firmly sustain in the negotiations the view that research and innovation, central to the Europe 2020 Strategy agreed by the Member States, should be a top budgetary priority.” Metthey also implied that governments cutting funding, as the UK had been planning to do, were making a false economy that would gain only in the short term. “Situations vary at the national level but the European Commission believes that governments should maintain and even increase research and innovation investments during difficult times, because these are pro-growth, anti-crisis investments,” he said.Many other countries have to cope with flat or declining science budgets; some are therefore exploring ways in which to do more with less. In Japan, for instance, money has been concentrated on larger projects and fewer scientists, with the effect of intensifying the grant application process. Since 2002, the total Japanese government budget for science and technology has remained flat at around ¥3,500 billion—or €27 billion at current exchange rates—with a 1% annual decline in university support but increased funding for projects considered to be of high value to the economy. This culminated in March 2010 with the launch of the ¥100 billion (€880 million) programme for World Leading Innovative Research and Development on Science and Technology.But such attempts to make funding more competitive or focus it on specific areas could have unintended side effects on innovation and risk taking. One side effect can be favouring scientists who may be less creative but good at attracting grants, according to Roger Butlin, evolutionary biologist at the University of Sheffield in the UK. “Some productive staff are being targeted because they do not bring in grants, so money is taking precedence over output,” said Butlin. “This is very dangerous if it results in loss of good theoreticians or data specialists, especially as the latter will be a critical group in the coming years.”“Scientists are usually very energetic when they can pursue their own ideas and less so when the research target is too narrowly prescribed”There have been attempts to provide funding for young scientists based entirely on merit, such as the ERC ‘Starting Grant'' for top young researchers, whose budget was increased by 25% to €661 million for 2011. Although they are welcome, such schemes could also backfire unless they are supported by measures to continue supporting the scientists after these early career grants expire, according to Gross. “There are moves to introduce significant funding for young investigators to encourage independence, so called anti-brain-drain grants,” he said. “These are dangerous if provided without later independent positions for these people and a national merit-based funding agency to support their future work.”Such schemes might work better if they are incorporated into longer-term funding programmes that provide some security as well as freedom to expand a project and explore promising side avenues. Butlin cited the Canadian ‘Discovery Grant'' scheme as an example worth adopting elsewhere; it supports ongoing programmes with long-term goals, giving researchers freedom to pursue new lines of investigation, provided that they fit within the overall objective of the project.To some extent the system of ‘open calls''—supported by some European funding agencies—has the same objective, although it might not provide long-term funding. The idea is to allow scientists to manoeuvre within a broad objective, rather than confining them to specific lines of research or ‘thematic calls'', which tend to be highly focused. “The majority of funding should be distributed through open calls, rather than thematic calls,” said Thomas Höfer from the Modeling Research Group at the German Cancer Research Center & BioQuant Center in Heidelberg. “Scientists are usually very energetic when they can pursue their own ideas and less so when the research target is too narrowly prescribed. In my experience as a reviewer at both the national and EU level, open calls are also better at funding high-quality research whereas too narrow thematic calls often result in less coherent proposals.”“Cutting science, and education, is the national equivalent of a farmer eating his ‘seed corn'', and will lead to developing nation status within a generation”Common threads seems to be emerging from the different themes and opinions about funding: budgets should be consistent over time and spread fairly among all disciplines, rather than focused on targeted objectives. They should also be spread across the working lifetime of a scientist rather than being shot in a scatter-gun approach at young researchers. Finally, policies should put a greater emphasis on long-term support for the best scientists and projects, chosen for their merit. Above all, funding policy should reflect the fundamental importance of science to economies, as Seibert concluded: “Cutting science, and education, is the national equivalent of a farmer eating his ‘seed corn'', and will lead to developing nation status within a generation.”     

When Quality Beats Quantity: Decision Theory,Drug Discovery,and the Reproducibility Crisis

A striking contrast runs through the last 60 years of biopharmaceutical discovery, research, and development. Huge scientific and technological gains should have increased the quality of academic science and raised industrial R&D efficiency. However, academia faces a "reproducibility crisis"; inflation-adjusted industrial R&D costs per novel drug increased nearly 100 fold between 1950 and 2010; and drugs are more likely to fail in clinical development today than in the 1970s. The contrast is explicable only if powerful headwinds reversed the gains and/or if many "gains" have proved illusory. However, discussions of reproducibility and R&D productivity rarely address this point explicitly. The main objectives of the primary research in this paper are: (a) to provide quantitatively and historically plausible explanations of the contrast; and (b) identify factors to which R&D efficiency is sensitive. We present a quantitative decision-theoretic model of the R&D process. The model represents therapeutic candidates (e.g., putative drug targets, molecules in a screening library, etc.) within a “measurement space", with candidates'' positions determined by their performance on a variety of assays (e.g., binding affinity, toxicity, in vivo efficacy, etc.) whose results correlate to a greater or lesser degree. We apply decision rules to segment the space, and assess the probability of correct R&D decisions. We find that when searching for rare positives (e.g., candidates that will successfully complete clinical development), changes in the predictive validity of screening and disease models that many people working in drug discovery would regard as small and/or unknowable (i.e., an 0.1 absolute change in correlation coefficient between model output and clinical outcomes in man) can offset large (e.g., 10 fold, even 100 fold) changes in models’ brute-force efficiency. We also show how validity and reproducibility correlate across a population of simulated screening and disease models. We hypothesize that screening and disease models with high predictive validity are more likely to yield good answers and good treatments, so tend to render themselves and their diseases academically and commercially redundant. Perhaps there has also been too much enthusiasm for reductionist molecular models which have insufficient predictive validity. Thus we hypothesize that the average predictive validity of the stock of academically and industrially "interesting" screening and disease models has declined over time, with even small falls able to offset large gains in scientific knowledge and brute-force efficiency. The rate of creation of valid screening and disease models may be the major constraint on R&D productivity.     

The Impact of National Institutes of Health Funding on U.S. Cardiovascular Disease Research

Background

Intense interest surrounds the recent expansion of US National Institutes of Health (NIH) budgets as part of economic stimulus legislation. However, the relationship between NIH funding and cardiovascular disease research is poorly understood, making the likely impact of this policy change unclear.

Methods

The National Library of Medicine''s PubMed database was searched for articles published from 1996 to 2006, originating from U.S. institutions, and containing the phrases “cardiolog,” “cardiovascular,” or “cardiac,” in the first author''s department. Research methodology, journal of publication, journal impact factor, and receipt of NIH funding were recorded. Differences in means and trends were tested with t-tests and linear regression, respectively, with P≤0.05 for significance.

Results

Of 117,643 world cardiovascular articles, 36,684 (31.2%) originated from the U.S., of which 10,293 (28.1%) received NIH funding. The NIH funded 40.1% of U.S. basic science articles, 20.3% of overall clinical trials, 18.1% of randomized-controlled, and 12.2% of multicenter clinical trials. NIH-funded and total articles grew significantly (65 articles/year, P<0.001 and 218 articles/year, P<0.001, respectively). The proportion of articles receiving NIH funding was stable, but grew significantly for basic science and clinical trials (0.87%/year, P<0.001 and 0.67%/year, P = 0.029, respectively). NIH-funded articles had greater journal impact factors than non NIH-funded articles (5.76 vs. 3.71, P<0.001).

Conclusions

NIH influence on U.S. cardiovascular research expanded in the past decade, during the period of NIH budget doubling. A substantial fraction of research is now directly funded and thus likely sensitive to budget fluctuations, particularly in basic science research. NIH funding predicts greater journal impact.     

Helping Science and Drug Development to Succeed through Pharma-Academia Partnerships: Yale Healthcare Conference 2013

The theme of the 2013 Yale Healthcare Conference was “Partnerships in Healthcare: Cultivating Collaborative Solutions.” The April conference brought together leaders across several sectors of health care, including academic research, pharmaceuticals, information technology, policy, and life sciences investing. In particular, the breakout session titled “Taking R&D Back to School: The Rise of Pharma-Academia Alliances” centered on the partnerships between academic institutions and pharmaceutical companies. Attendees of the session included members of the pharmaceutical industry, academic researchers, and physicians, as well as graduate and professional students. The discussion was led by Dr. Thomas Lynch of Yale University. Several topics emerged from the discussion, including resources for scientific discovery and the management of competing interests in collaborations between academia and the pharmaceutical industry.     

The need for sustainable leadership in academia: A survey of German researchers reveals a widespread lack of training for leadership skills

A survey of academics in Germany shows a lack of and a great demand for training in leadership skills. Subject Categories: Careers, Science Policy & Publishing

Success and productivity in science is measured largely by the number of publications in scientific journals and the acquisition of third‐party funding to finance further research (Detsky, 2011). Consequently, as young researchers advance in their careers, they become highly trained in directly related skills, such as scientific writing, so as to increase their chances in securing publications and grants. Acquiring leadership skills, however, is often neglected as these do not contribute to the evaluation of scientific success (Detsky, 2011). Therefore, an early‐career researcher may become leader of a research group based on publication record and solicitation of third‐party funding, but without any training of leadership or team management skills (Lashuel, 2020). Leadership, in the context of academic research, requires a unique list of competencies, knowledge and skills in addition to “traditional” leadership skills (Anthony & Antony, 2017), such as managing change, adaptability, empathy, motivating individuals, and setting direction and vision among others. Academic leadership also requires promoting the research group’s reputation, networking, protecting staff autonomy, promoting academic credibility, and managing complexity (Anthony & Antony, 2017).     

Stem-cell battles. Stem-cell research in the USA is facing new legal and political challenges

The US still leads the world in stem-cell research, yet US scientists are facing yet another political and legal battle for federal funding to support research using human embryonic stem cells.Disputes over stem-cell research have been standard operating procedure since James Thompson and John Gearhart created the first human embryonic cell (hESC) lines. Their work triggered an intense and ongoing debate about the morality, legality and politics of using hESCs for biomedical research. “Stem-cell policy has caused craziness all over the world. It is a never-ending, irresolvable battle about the moral status [of embryos],” commented Timothy Caulfield, research director of the Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. “We''re getting to an interesting time in history where science is playing a bigger and bigger part in our lives, and it''s becoming more controversial because it''s becoming more powerful. We need to make some interesting choices about how we decide what kind of scientific inquiry can go forward and what can''t go forward.”“Stem-cell policy has caused craziness all over the world…[i]t is a never-ending, irresolvable battle about the moral status [of embryos]”The most contested battleground for stem-cell research has been the USA, since President George W. Bush banned federal funding for research that uses hESCs. His successor, Barack Obama, eventually reversed the ban, but a pending lawsuit and the November congressional elections have once again thrown the field into jeopardy.Three days after the election, the deans of US medical schools, chiefs of US hospitals and heads of leading scientific organizations sent letters to both the House of Representatives and the Senate urging them to pass the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act when they come back into session. The implication was to pass legislation now, while the Democrats were still the majority. Republicans, boosted in the election by the emerging fiscally conservative Tea Party movement, will be the majority in the House from January, changing the political climate. The Republicans also cut into the Democratic majority in the Senate.Policies and laws to regulate stem-cell research vary between countries. Italy, for example, does not allow the destruction of an embryo to generate stem-cell lines, but it does allow research on such cells if they are imported. Nevertheless, the Italian government deliberately excluded funding for projects using hESCs from its 2009 call for proposals for stem-cell research. In the face of legislative vacuums, this October, Science Foundation Ireland and the Health Research Board in Ireland decided to not consider grant applications for projects involving hESC lines. The UK is at the other end of the scale; it has legalized both research with and the generation of stem-cell lines, albeit under the strict regulation by the independent Human Fertility and Embryology Authority. As Caulfield commented, the UK is “ironically viewed as one of the most permissive [on stem-cell policy], but is perceived as one of the most bureaucratic.”Somewhere in the middle is Germany, where scientists are allowed to use several approved cell lines, but any research that leads to the destruction of an embryo is illegal. Josephine Johnston, director of research operations at the Hastings Center in Garrison, NY, USA—a bioethics centre—said: “In Germany you can do research on embryonic stem-cells, but you can''t take the cells out of the embryo. So, they import their cells from outside of Germany and to me, that''s basically outsourcing the bit that you find difficult as a nation. It doesn''t make a lot of sense ethically.”Despite the public debates and lack of federal support, Johnson noted that the USA continues to lead the world in the field. “[Opposition] hasn''t killed stem-cell research in the United States, but it definitely is a headache,” she said. In October, physicians at the Shepherd Center, a spinal cord and brain injury rehabilitation hospital and clinical research centre in Atlanta, GA, USA, began to treat the first patient with hESCs. This is part of a clinical trial to test a stem-cell-based therapy for spinal cord injury, which was developed by the US biotechnology company Geron from surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization.Nevertheless, the debate in the USA, where various branches of government—executive, legislative and legal—weigh in on the legal system, is becoming confusing. “We''re never going to have consensus [on the moral status of fetuses] and any time that stem-cell research becomes tied to that debate, there''s going to be policy uncertainty,” Caulfield said. “That''s what''s happened again in the United States.”Johnson commented that what makes the USA different is the rules about federally funded and non-federally funded research. “It isn''t much discussed within the United States, but it''s a really dramatic difference to an outsider,” she said. She pointed out that, by contrast, in other countries the rules for stem-cell research apply across the board.The election of Barack Obama as US President triggered the latest bout of uncertainty. The science community welcomed him with open arms; after all, he supports doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over the next ten years and dismantled the policies of his predecessor that barred it from funding projects beyond the 60 extant hESC lines—only 21 of which were viable. Obama also called on Congress to provide legal backing and funding for the research.The executive order had unforeseen consequences for researchers working with embryonic or adult stem cells. Sean Morrison, Director of the University of Michigan''s Centre for Stem Cell Biology (Ann Arbor, MI, USA), said he thought that Obama''s executive order had swung open the door on federal support forever. “Everybody had that impression,” he said.Leonard I. Zon, Director of the Stem Cell Program at Children''s Hospital Boston (MA, USA), was so confident in Obama''s political will that his laboratory stopped its practice of labelling liquid nitrogen containers as P (Presidential) and NP (non-Presidential) to avoid legal hassles. His lab also stopped purchasing and storing separate pipettes and culture dishes funded by the NIH and private sources such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI; Chevy Chase, MD, USA).But some researchers who focused on adult cells felt that the NIH was now biased in favour of embryonic cells. Backed by pro-life and religious groups, two scientists—James Sherley of the Boston Biomedical Research Institute and Theresa Deisher of AVM Biotechnology (Seattle, WA)—questioned the legality of the new NIH rules and filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius. Deisher had founded her company to “[w]ork to provide safe, effective and affordable alternative vaccines and stem-cell therapies that are not tainted by embryonic or electively aborted fetal materials” (www.avmbiotech.com).…the debate in the USA, where various branches of government—executive, legislative and legal—weigh in on the legal system, is becoming confusingSherley argued in an Australian newspaper in October 2006 that the science behind embryonic stem-cell research is flawed and rejected arguments that the research will make available new cures for terrible diseases (Sherley, 2006). In court, the researchers also argued that they were irreparably disadvantaged in competing for government grants by their work on adult stem cells.Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the District Court of the District of Columbia initially ruled that the plaintiffs had no grounds on which to sue. However, the US District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned his decision and found that “[b]ecause the Guidelines have intensified the competition for a share in a fixed amount” of NIH funding. With the case back in his court, Lamberth reversed his decision on August 23 this year, granting a preliminary injunction to block the new NIH guidelines on embryonic stem-cell work. This injunction is detailed in the 1995 Dickey-Wicker Amendment, an appropriation bill rider, which prohibits the HHS from funding “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.” By allowing the destruction of embryos, Lamberth argued, the NIH rules violate the law.This triggered another wave of uncertainty as dozens of labs faced a freeze of federal funding. Morrison commented that an abrupt end to funding does not normally occur in biomedical research in the USA. “We normally have years of warning when grants are going to end so we can make a plan about how we can have smooth transitions from one funding source to another,” he said. Morrison—whose team has been researching Hirschsprung disease, a congenital enlargement of the colon—said his lab potentially faced a loss of US$ 250,000 overnight. “I e-mailed the people in my lab and said, ‘We may have just lost this funding and if so, then the project is over''”.Morrison explained that the positions of two people in his lab were affected by the cut, along with a third person whose job was partly funded by the grant. “Even though it''s only somewhere between 10–15% of the funding in my lab, it''s still a lot of money,” he said. “It''s not like we have hundreds of thousands of dollars of discretionary funds lying around in case a problem like that comes up.” Zon noted that his lab, which experienced an increase in the pace of discovery since Obama had signed his order, reverted to its Bush-era practices.On September 27 this year, a federal appeals court for the District of Columbia extended Lamberth''s stay to enable the government to pursue its appeal. The NIH was allowed to distribute US$78 million earmarked for 44 scientists during the appeal. The court said the matter should be expedited, but it could, over the years ahead, make its way to the US Supreme Court.The White House welcomed the decision of the appeals court in favour of the NIH. “President Obama made expansion of stem-cell research and the pursuit of groundbreaking treatments and cures a top priority when he took office. We''re heartened that the court will allow [the] NIH and their grantees to continue moving forward while the appeal is resolved,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. The White House might have been glad of some good news, while it wrestles with the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and the rise of the Tea Party movement.Even without a formal position on the matter, the Tea Party has had an impact on stem-cell research through its electoral victoriesTimothy Kamp, whose lab at the University of Wisconsin (Madison, WI, USA) researches embryonic stem-cell-derived cardiomyocytes, said that he finds the Tea Party movement confusing. “It''s hard for me to know what a uniform platform is for the Tea Party. I''ve heard a few comments from folks in the Tea Party who have opposed stem-cell research,” he said.However, the position of the Tea Party on the topic of stem-cell research could prove to be of vital importance. The Tea Party took its name from the Boston Tea Party—a famous protest in 1773 in which American colonists protested against the passing of the British Tea Act, for its attempt to extract yet more taxes from the new colony. Protesters dressed up as Native Americans and threw tea into the Boston harbour. Contemporary Tea Party members tend to have a longer list of complaints, but generally want to reduce the size of government and cut taxes. Their increasing popularity in the USA and the success of many Tea Party-backed Republican candidates for the upcoming congressional election could jeopardize Obama''s plans to pass new laws to regulate federal funding for stem-cell research.Even without a formal position on the matter, the Tea Party has had an impact on stem-cell research through its electoral victories. Perhaps their most high-profile candidate was the telegenic Christine O''Donnell, a Republican Senatorial candidate from Delaware. The Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life women''s group, has described O''Donnell as one of “the brightest new stars” opposing abortion (www.lifenews.com/state5255.html). Although O''Donnell was eventually defeated in the 2 November congressional election, by winning the Republican primary in August, she knocked out nine-term Congressman and former Delaware governor Mike Castle, a moderate Republican known for his willingness to work with Democrats to pass legislation to protect stem-cell research.In the past, Castle and Diane DeGette, a Democratic representative from Colorado, co-sponsored the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. They aimed to support Obama''s executive order and “ensure a lasting ethical framework overseeing stem cell research at the National Institutes of Health”.Morrison described Castle as “one of the great public servants in this country—no matter what political affiliation you have. For him to lose to somebody with such a chequered background and such shaky positions on things like evolution and other issues is a tragedy for the country.” Another stem-cell research advocate, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican-turned-Democrat, was also defeated in the primary. He had introduced legislation in September to codify Obama''s order. Specter, a cancer survivor, said his legislation is aimed at removing the “great uncertainty in the research community”.According to Sarah Binder, a political scientist at George Washington University in Washington, DC, the chances of passing legislation to codify the Obama executive order are decreasing: “As the Republican Party becomes more conservative and as moderates can''t get nominated in that party, it does lead you to wonder whether it''s possible to make anything happen [with the new Congress] in January.”There are a variety of opinions about how the outcome of the November elections will influence stem-cell policies. Binder said that a number of prominent Republicans have strongly promoted stem-cell research, including the Reagan family. “This hasn''t been a purely Democratic initiative,” she said. “The question is whether the Republican party has moved sufficiently to the right to preclude action on stem cells.” Historically there was “massive” Republican support for funding bills in 2006 and 2007 that were ultimately vetoed by Bush, she noted.…the debate about public funding for stem-cell research is only part of the picture, given the role of private business and states“Rightward shifts in the House and Senate do not bode well for legislative efforts to entrench federal support for stem-cell research,” Binder said. “First, if a large number of Republicans continue to oppose such funding, a conservative House majority is unlikely to pursue the issue. Second, Republican campaign commitments to reduce federal spending could hit the NIH and its support for stem-cell research hard.”Binder added that “a lingering unknown” is how the topic will be framed: “If it gets framed as a pro-choice versus pro-life initiative, that''s quite difficult for Congress to overcome in a bipartisan way. If it is framed as a question of medical research and medical breakthroughs and scientific advancement, it won''t fall purely on partisan lines. If members of Congress talk about their personal experiences, such as having a parent affected by Parkinson''s, then you could see even pro-life members voting in favour of a more expansive interpretation of stem-cell funding.”Johnson said that Congress could alter the wording of the Dickey-Wicker Amendment when passing the NIH budget for 2011 to remove the conflict. “You don''t have to get rid of the amendment completely, but you could rephrase it,” she said. She also commented that the public essentially supports embryonic stem-cell research. “The polls and surveys show the American public is morally behind there being some limited form of embryonic stem-cell research funded by federal money. They don''t favour cloning. There is not a huge amount of support for creating embryos from scratch for research. But there seems to be pretty wide support among the general public for the kind of embryonic stem-cell research that the NIH is currently funding.”In the end, however, the debate about public funding for stem-cell research is only part of the picture, given the role of private business and states. Glenn McGee, a professor at the Center for Practical Bioethics in Kansas City, MO, USA, and editor of the American Journal of Bioethics, commented that perhaps too much emphasis is being put on federal funding. He said that funding from states such as California and from industry—which are not restricted—has become a more important force than NIH funding. “We''re a little bit delusional if we think that this is a moment where the country is making a big decision about what''s going to happen with stem cells,” he said. “I think that ship has sailed.”     

The Grand Convergence: Closing the Divide between Public Health Funding and Global Health Needs

The Global Health 2035 report notes that the “grand convergence”—closure of the infectious, maternal, and child mortality gap between rich and poor countries—is dependent on research and development (R&D) of new drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and other health tools. However, this convergence (and the R&D underpinning it) will first require an even more fundamental convergence of the different worlds of public health and innovation, where a largely historical gap between global health experts and innovation experts is hindering achievement of the grand convergence in health.The Global Health 2035 report notes that the “grand convergence”—closure of the infectious, maternal, and child mortality gap between rich and poor countries—is dependent on research and development (R&D) of new drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, and other health tools. New tools alone are estimated to deliver a 2% decline each year in the under-5 mortality rate, maternal mortality ratio, and deaths from HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis (TB) [1].However, this convergence (and the R&D underpinning it) is unlikely unless we first have an even more fundamental convergence of the parallel worlds of public health and innovation. At the moment, these worlds are often disconnected, with major gaps to be bridged at both the intellectual and practical levels before we can truly reach a grand convergence in health.     

The breakthrough paradox: How focusing on one form of innovation jeopardizes the advancement of science

Research needs a balance of risk‐taking in “breakthrough projects” and gradual progress. For building a sustainable knowledge base, it is indispensable to provide support for both. Subject Categories: Careers, Economics, Law & Politics, Science Policy & Publishing

Science is about venturing into the unknown to find unexpected insights and establish new knowledge. Increasingly, academic institutions and funding agencies such as the European Research Council (ERC) explicitly encourage and support scientists to foster risky and hopefully ground‐breaking research. Such incentives are important and have been greatly appreciated by the scientific community. However, the success of the ERC has had its downsides, as other actors in the funding ecosystem have adopted the ERC’s focus on “breakthrough science” and respective notions of scientific excellence. We argue that these tendencies are concerning since disruptive breakthrough innovation is not the only form of innovation in research. While continuous, gradual innovation is often taken for granted, it could become endangered in a research and funding ecosystem that places ever higher value on breakthrough science. This is problematic since, paradoxically, breakthrough potential in science builds on gradual innovation. If the value of gradual innovation is not better recognized, the potential for breakthrough innovation may well be stifled.

While continuous, gradual innovation is often taken for granted, it could become endangered in a research and funding ecosystem that places ever higher value on breakthrough science.

Concerns that the hypercompetitive dynamics of the current scientific system may impede rather than spur innovative research have been voiced for many years (Alberts et al, 2014). As performance indicators continue to play a central role for promotions and grants, researchers are under pressure to publish extensively, quickly, and preferably in high‐ranking journals (Burrows, 2012). These dynamics increase the risk of mental health issues among scientists (Jaremka et al, 2020), dis‐incentivise relevant and important work (Benedictus et al, 2016), decrease the quality of scientific papers (Sarewitz, 2016) and induce conservative and short‐term thinking rather than risk‐taking and original thinking required for scientific innovation (Alberts et al, 2014; Fochler et al, 2016). Against this background, strong incentives for fostering innovative and daring research are indispensable.     

Academic labour shortages. A lack of trained scientists could slow down research in Europe

A shortage of skilled science labour in Europe could hold back research progress. The EU will increase science funding to address the problem, but real long-term measures need to start in schools, not universities.Scientists have always warned about the doom of research that could result from a shortage of students and skilled labour in the biomedical sciences. In the past, this apocalyptic vision of empty laboratories and unclaimed research grants has seemed improbable, but some national research councils and the European Union (EU) itself now seem to think that we may be on the brink of a genuine science labour crisis in Europe. This possibility, and its potential effects on economic growth, has proven sufficiently convincing for the European Commission (EC) to propose a 45% increase to its seven-year research and development budget of 45%—from €55 billion, provided under the Framework Programme (FP7), to €80 billion—for a new strategic programme for research and innovation called Horizon 2020 that will start in 2014.This bold proposal to drastically increase research funding, which comes at a time when many other budgets are being frozen or cut, was rigorously defended in May 2012 by the EU ministers responsible for science and innovation, against critics who argued that such a massive increase could not be justified given the deepening economic crisis across the EU. So far, the EU seems to be holding to the line that it has to invest more into research if Europe is to compete globally through technological innovation underpinned by scientific research.Europe is caught in a pincer movement between its principle competitors—the USA and Japan, which are both increasing their research budgets way ahead of inflation—and the emerging economies of China, India, Brazil and Russia, which are quickly closing from behind. The main argument for the Horizon 2020 funding boost came from a study commissioned by the EU [1], which led the EC to claim that Europe faces an “innovation emergency” because its businesses are falling behind US and Japanese rivals in terms of investment and new patents. As Martin Lange, Policy Officer for Marie Curie Actions—an EU fellowship programme for scientists—pointed out, “China, India and Brazil have started to rapidly catch up with the EU by improving their performance seven per cent, three per cent and one per cent faster than the EU year on year over the last five years.”According to Lange, Europe''s innovation gap equates to a shortage of around 1 million researchers across the EU, including a large number in chemistry and the life sciences. This raises fundamental issues of science recruitment and retention that a budget increase alone cannot address. The situation has also been confused by the economic crisis, which has led to the position where many graduates are unemployed, and yet there is still an acute shortage of specialist skills in areas vital to research.This is a particularly serious issue in the UK, where around 2,000 researcher jobs were lost following the closure of pharmaceutical company Pfizer''s R&D facility in Kent, announced in February 2011. “The travails of Pfizer have affected the UK recruitment market,” explained Charlie Ball, graduate labour market specialist at the UK''s Higher Education Careers Services Unit. The closure has contributed to high unemployment among graduates, particularly chemists, who tend to be employed in pharmaceutical research in the UK. “Even among people with chemistry doctorates, the unemployment rate is higher than the average,” he said.The issue for chemists, at least in the UK, is not a skills shortage, but a skills mismatch. Ball identified analytical chemistry as one area without enough skilled people, despite the availability of chemists with other specialties. He attributes part of the problem to the pharmaceutical industry''s inability to communicate its requirements to universities and graduates, although he concedes that doing so can be challenging. “One issue is that industry is changing so quickly that it is genuinely difficult to say that in three or four years time we will need people with specific skills,” Ball explained.So far, the EU seems to be holding to the line that it has to invest more into research […] to compete globally through technological innovation underpinned by scientific researchAlongside this shortage of analytical skills, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) has identified a lack of people with practical research knowledge, and in particular of experience working with animals, as a major factor holding back fundamental and pre-clinical biomedical research in the country. It has responded by encouraging applications from non-UK and even non-EU candidates for doctoral studentships that it funds, in cases where there is a scarcity of suitable UK applicants.But, the underlying problem common to the whole of Europe is more fundamental, at least according to Bengt Norden, Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. The issue is not a shortage of intellectual capital, Norden argues, but a growing lack of investment into training chemists, which in turn undermines life sciences research. Similarly to many other physical chemists, Norden has worked mainly in biology, where he has applied his expertise in molecular recognition and function to DNA recombination and membrane translocation mechanisms. He therefore views a particularly acute recruitment and retention crisis in chemistry as being a drag on both fundamental and applied research across the life sciences. “The recruitment crisis is severe,” Norden said. “While a small rill of genuinely devoted‘young amateur scientists‘ still may sustain the recruitment chain, there is a general drain of interest in science in general and chemistry in particular.” He attributes this in part to sort of a ‘chemophobia'', resulting from the association of chemistry with environmental pollution or foul odours, but he also blames ignorant politicians and other public figures for their negative attitude towards chemistry. “A former Swedish Prime Minister, Goran Persson, claimed that ‘his political goal was to make Sweden completely free from chemicals'',” Norden explained by way of example.Scientists themselves also need to do a better job of countering the negative perceptions of chemistry and science, perhaps by highlighting the contribution that chemistry is already making to clearing up pollution. Chemistry has been crucial to the development of microorganisms that can be used to break down organic pollutants in industrial waste, or clear up accidental spillage during transport. In fact, chemistry has specifically addressed the two major challenges involved: the risk that genetically engineered microorganisms could threaten the wider environment if they escape, and the problem that the microorganisms themselves can be poisoned if the concentration of pollutants is too high.A team at the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina has solved both problems by developing a material comprising an alginate bead surrounded by a silica gel [2]. This container houses a fungus that produces enzymes that break up a variety of organic pollutants. The pores of the hydrogel can limit the intake of toxic compounds from the polluted surroundings, thus controlling the level of toxicity experienced by the fungus, whilst the fungus itself is encapsulated inside the unit and cannot escape. Norden and others believe that if such examples were given more publicity, they would both improve the reputation of chemistry and science in general, and help to enthuse school students at a formative age.…Europe''s innovation gap equates to a shortage of around 1 million researchers across the EU, including a large number in chemistry and the life sciencesUnfortunately, this is not happening in schools, according to Norden, where the curriculum is failing both to enthuse pupils through practical work, and to inform them of the value of chemistry across society: “school chemistry neither stimulates curiosity nor does it promote understanding of what is most important to everybody,” he said. “It should be realized that well-taught chemistry is a necessary tool for dealing with everyday problems, at home or at work, and in the environment, relating to function of medicines, as well as what is poisonous and what is less noxious. As it is, all chemicals are presented simply as poisons.”Norden believes that a broader cultural element also tends to explain the particular shortage of analytical skills in chemistry. He believes that young people are more inclined than ever before to weigh up the probable rewards of a chosen profession in relation to the effort involved. “There seems to be a ‘cost–benefit'' aspect that young people apply when choosing an academic career: science, including maths, is too hard in relation to the jobs that eventually are available in research,” he explained. This ‘cost–benefit'' factor might not deter people from studying subjects up to university level, but can divert them into careers that pay a lot more. Ball believes that there is also an issue of esteem, in that people tend to gravitate towards careers where they feel valued. “Our most able graduates don''t see parity in esteem between research and other professions being represented by the salary they are paid,” he explained. “That is an issue that needs to be resolved, and it is not just about money, but working hard to convince these graduates that there is a worthwhile career in research.”Our most able graduates don''t see parity in esteem between research and other professions being represented by the salary they are paid,Lange suggests that it would be much easier to persuade the best graduates to stay in science if they were able to pursue their ideas free from bureaucracy or other constraints. This was a main reason to start the Marie Curie Actions programme of which Lange is a part, and which will be continued under Horizon 2020 with a new name, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, and an increased budget. “The Marie Curie Actions have been applying a bottom-up principle, allowing researchers to freely choose their topic of research,” Lange explained. “The principle of ‘individual-driven mobility'' that is used in the Individual Fellowships empowers researchers to make their own choices about the scientific topic of their work, as well as their host institutions. […] It is a clear win–win situation for both sides: researchers are more satisfied because they are given the opportunity to take their careers in their own hands, while universities and research organizations value top-class scientists coming from abroad to work at their institutes.”Lange also noted that although Marie Curie Fellows choose their own research subjects, they tend to pursue topics that are relevant to societal needs because they want to find work afterwards. “More than 50% of the FP7 Marie Curie budget has been dedicated to research that can be directly related to the current societal challenges, such as an ageing population, climate change, energy shortage, food and water supply and health,” he said. “This demonstrates that researchers are acting in a responsible way. Even though they have the freedom to choose their own research topics, they still address problems that concern society in general.” In addition, Marie Curie Actions also encourages engagement with the public, feeding back into the wider campaign to draw more people into science careers. “Communicating science to the general public will be of importance as well, if we want to attract more young people to science,” Lange said. “Recently, the Marie Curie Actions started encouraging their Fellows to engage in outreach activities. In addition, we have just launched a call for the Marie Curie Prize, where one of the three Prize categories will be ‘Communicating Science''.”Another important element of the EU''s strategy to stimulate innovative cutting edge research is the European Research Council (ERC). It was the first pan-European funding body for front-line research across the sciences, with a budget of €7.5 billion for the FP7 period of 2007–2013, and has been widely heralded as a success. As a result, the ERC is set to receive an even bigger percentage increase than other departments within Horizon 2020 for the period 2014–2020, with a provisional budget of €13.2 billion.Leading scientists, such as Nobel laureate Jean-Marie Lehn, from Strasbourg University in France, believe that the ERC has made a substantial contribution to innovative research and, as a result, has boosted the reputation of European science. “The ERC has done a fantastic job which is quite independent of pressures from the outside,” he said. “It is good to hear that taking risks is regarded as important.” Lehn also highlighted the importance of making it clear that there are plenty of opportunities in research beyond those funded, and therefore dictated, by the big pharmaceutical companies. “There is chemistry outside big pharma, and life beyond return on investment,” he said. Lehn agreed that there must be a blend between blue sky and goal-oriented research, even if there is an argument over what the blend and goals should be.…the ERC has made a substantial contribution to innovative research and, as a result, has boosted the reputation of European scienceThere is growing optimism that Europe''s main funding bodies, including the national research councils of individual countries, have not only recognized the recruitment problem, but are taking significant steps to address it. Even so, there is still work to be done to improve the image of science and to engage students through more stimulating teaching. Chemistry in particular would benefit from broader measures to attract young people to science. Ultimately, the success of such initiatives will have much broader effects in the life sciences and drug development.     

Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding

Agencies that fund scientific research must choose: is it more effective to give large grants to a few elite researchers, or small grants to many researchers? Large grants would be more effective only if scientific impact increases as an accelerating function of grant size. Here, we examine the scientific impact of individual university-based researchers in three disciplines funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We considered four indices of scientific impact: numbers of articles published, numbers of citations to those articles, the most cited article, and the number of highly cited articles, each measured over a four-year period. We related these to the amount of NSERC funding received. Impact is positively, but only weakly, related to funding. Researchers who received additional funds from a second federal granting council, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, were not more productive than those who received only NSERC funding. Impact was generally a decelerating function of funding. Impact per dollar was therefore lower for large grant-holders. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that larger grants lead to larger discoveries. Further, the impact of researchers who received increases in funding did not predictably increase. We conclude that scientific impact (as reflected by publications) is only weakly limited by funding. We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more productive.     

To Crowdfund Research,Scientists Must Build an Audience for Their Work

As rates of traditional sources of scientific funding decline, scientists have become increasingly interested in crowdfunding as a means of bringing in new money for research. In fields where crowdfunding has become a major venue for fundraising such as the arts and technology, building an audience for one''s work is key for successful crowdfunding. For science, to what extent does audience building, via engagement and outreach, increase a scientist''s abilities to bring in money via crowdfunding? Here we report on an analysis of the #SciFund Challenge, a crowdfunding experiment in which 159 scientists attempted to crowdfund their research. Using data gathered from a survey of participants, internet metrics, and logs of project donations, we find that public engagement is the key to crowdfunding success. Building an audience or “fanbase” and actively engaging with that audience as well as seeking to broaden the reach of one''s audience indirectly increases levels of funding. Audience size and effort interact to bring in more people to view a scientist''s project proposal, leading to funding. We discuss how projects capable of raising levels of funds commensurate with traditional funding agencies will need to incorporate direct involvement of the public with science. We suggest that if scientists and research institutions wish to tap this new source of funds, they will need to encourage and reward activities that allow scientists to engage with the public.     

The Effects of Research & Development Funding on Scientific Productivity: Academic Chemistry, 1990-2009

This article examines the relationship between Research & Development (R&D) funding and the production of knowledge by academic chemists. Using articles published, either raw counts or adjusted for quality, we find a strong, positive causal effect of funding on knowledge production. This effect is similar across subsets of universities, suggesting a relatively efficient allocation of R&D funds. Finally, we document a rapid acceleration in the rate at which chemical knowledge was produced in the late 1990s and early 2000s relative to the financial and human resources devoted to its production.