Inducement in research

Opposition to inducement payments for research subjects is an international orthodoxy amongst writers of ethics committee guidelines. We offer an argument in favour of these payments. We also critically evaluate the best arguments we can find or devise against such payments, and except in one very limited range of circumstances, we find these unconvincing.     

The complementarity of single-species and ecosystem-oriented research in conservation research

There has been much debate about the relative merits of single-species vs ecosystem-oriented research for conservation. This debate has become increasingly important in recent times as resource managers and policy makers in some jurisdictions focus on ecosystem-level problems. We highlight the potential strengths and limitations of both kinds of research, discuss their complementarity and highlight problems that may arise where competition occurs between the two kinds of research.
While a combination of approaches is ideal, a scarcity of funding, time, and expertise means it is impossible to study and manage each species, ecological process, or ecological pattern separately. Making decisions about priorities for the kinds of research, priorities for the kinds of conservation management, and associated allocation of scarce funds is a non-trivial task. We argue for an approach whereby limited resources for conservation research are targeted at projects most likely to close important knowledge gaps, while also promoting ongoing synergies between single-species and ecosystem-oriented research.     

Funding source and research report quality in nutrition practice-related research

Background

The source of funding is one of many possible causes of bias in scientific research. One method of detecting potential for bias is to evaluate the quality of research reports. Research exploring the relationship between funding source and nutrition-related research report quality is limited and in other disciplines the findings are mixed.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to determine whether types of funding sources of nutrition research are associated with differences in research report quality.

Design

A retrospective study of research reporting quality, research design and funding source was conducted on 2539 peer reviewed research articles from the American Dietetic Association''s Evidence Analysis Library® database.

Results

Quality rating frequency distributions indicate 43.3% of research reports were rated as positive, 50.1% neutral, and 6.6% as negative. Multinomial logistic regression results showed that while both funding source and type of research design are significant predictors of quality ratings (χ2 = 118.99, p<0.001), the model''s usefulness in predicting overall research report quality is little better than chance. Compared to research reports with government funding, those not acknowledging any funding sources, followed by studies with University/hospital funding were more likely to receive neutral vs positive quality ratings, OR = 1.85, P <0.001 and OR = 1.54, P<0.001, respectively and those that did not report funding were more likely to receive negative quality ratings (OR = 4.97, P<0.001). After controlling for research design, industry funded research reports were no more likely to receive a neutral or negative quality rating than those funded by government sources.

Conclusion

Research report quality cannot be accurately predicted from the funding source after controlling for research design. Continued vigilance to evaluate the quality of all research regardless of the funding source and to further understand other factors that affect quality ratings are warranted.     

Swine in cardiovascular research

Swine are being chosen with increasing frequency as subjects for cardiovascular research. Similarities to humans in their cardiovascular physiology, size, anatomy, and the perfusion distribution of blood flows make them better subjects than most species. In addition, swine can be less expensive than dogs and primates and they generally are not associated with the same high concern as other species about humane issues.     

生态学研究中的尺度问题

尺度是生态学中的核心问题,时间和空间尺度包含于任何生态过程中,尺度在生态学研究中越来越显现出其重要性,原因是解决地球环境问题要求在大尺度上理解格局和过程,而以前生态学调查的数据主要是基于小尺度的,并且有许多研究表明,一个生态问题的结论在很大程度上取决于研究所采纳的尺度。但目前尺度研究还存在很多的问题;一些相关概念易与尺度混淆;缺乏成熟的尺度识别方法和系统完备的尺度转换方法等。针对这些问题,本文首先阐明了尺度的确切含义,并对尺度研究的发展历史,重要性作了问题的阐述：分析探讨了尺度与等级理论,格局的关系,及尺度识别,尺度转换的方法和发展趋势。     

科学研究五十年的点滴体会

邹承鲁教授是中国科学院院士。本文是作者在 50多年科学研究工作中的经验、心得和体会 ,是难得的一篇好文章。我们推荐给读者 ,相信会得到读者的好评。