Prioritising research efforts for effective species conservation: a review of 145 years of koala research

相似文献   

Initial Results from the Survey of Organizational Research Climates (SOuRCe) in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Healthcare System

Background

In service to its core mission of improving the health and well-being of veterans, Veterans Affairs (VA) leadership is committed to supporting research best practices in the VA. Recognizing that the behavior of researchers is influenced by the organizational climates in which they work, efforts to assess the integrity of research climates and share such information with research leadership in VA may be one way to support research best practices. The Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SOuRCe) is the first validated survey instrument specifically designed to assess the organizational climate of research integrity in academic research organizations. The current study reports on an initiative to use the SOuRCe in VA facilities to characterize the organizational research climates and pilot test the effectiveness of using SOuRCe data as a reporting and feedback intervention tool.

Methods

We administered the SOuRCe using a cross-sectional, online survey, with mailed follow-up to non-responders, of research-engaged employees in the research services of a random selection of 42 VA facilities (e.g., Hospitals/Stations) believed to employ 20 or more research staff. We attained a 51% participation rate, yielding more than 5,200 usable surveys.

Results

We found a general consistency in organizational research climates across a variety of sub-groups in this random sample of research services in the VA. We also observed similar SOuRCe scale score means, relative rankings of these scales and their internal reliability, in this VA-based sample as we have previously documented in more traditional academic research settings. Results also showed more substantial variability in research climate scores within than between facilities in the VA research service as reflected in meaningful subgroup differences. These findings suggest that the SOuRCe is suitable as an instrument for assessing the research integrity climates in VA and that the tool has similar patterns of results that have been observed in more traditional academic research settings.

Conclusions

The local and specific nature of organizational climates in VA research services, as reflected in variability across sub-groups within individual facilities, has important policy implications. Global, “one-size-fits-all” type initiatives are not likely to yield as much benefit as efforts targeted to specific organizational units or sub-groups and tailored to the specific strengths and weaknesses documented in those locations.     

Health research funding: Members' of Parliament knowledge of and attitudes toward health research and funding

Background

Establishment of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in 2000 resulted in increased funding for health research in Canada. Since 2001, the number of proposals submitted to CIHR that, following peer review, are judged to be of scientific merit to warrant funding, has grown by 77%. But many of these proposals do not receive funding because of budget constraints. Given the role of Members of Parliament in setting government funding priorities, we surveyed Members of Parliament about their knowledge of and attitudes toward health research, health research funding and CIHR.

Methods

All Members of Parliament were invited to participate, or to designate a senior aide to participate, in a 15-minute survey of knowledge of and attitudes toward health research, health research funding and CIHR. Interviews were conducted between July 15, 2006, and Dec. 20, 2006. Responses were analyzed by party affiliation, region and years of service as a Member of Parliament.

Results

A total of 101 of 308 Members of Parliament or their designated senior aides participated in the survey. Almost one-third of respondents were senior aides. Most of the respondents (84%) were aware of CIHR, but 32% knew nothing about its role. Participants believed that health research is a critical component of a strong health care system and that it is underfunded. Overall, 78% felt that the percentage of total government spending directed to health research funding was too low; 85% felt the same way about the percentage of government health care spending directed to health research. Fifty-four percent believed that the federal government should provide both funding and guidelines for health research, and 66% believed that the business sector should be the primary source of health research funding. Participants (57%) most frequently defined health research as study into cures or treatments of disease, and 22% of participants were aware that CIHR is the main federal government funding organization for health research. Participants perceived health research to be a low priority for Canadian voters (mean ranking 3.8/10, with 1 being unimportant and 10 being extremely important [SD 1.85]).

Interpretation

Our results highlight significant knowledge gaps among Members of Parliament regarding health research. Many of these knowledge gaps will need to be addressed if health research is to become a priority.Over the past 8 years, health research has been an important but declining priority for the federal government. The development of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canada Research Chairs, Genome Canada, the Networks of Centres of Excellence, the Canadian Health Services Foundation and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)¹ reflects this initial interest. Although most of these programs receive multi-year funding, CIHR receives annual funding from the federal government. However, its annual increases have not risen proportionately with the number of requests for funding it receives each year.CIHR is the federal funding body for health research and consists of 13 institutes. It supports 4 pillars of research: biomedical research, clinical research, social and cultural aspects of health and population health research, and health services and systems research. With the formation of CIHR,² federal funding for health research increased from $289 million in 2000 to $553 million in 2002, with subsequent 5%–6% annual increases until 2006. That year, the increase was 2.4%.³ The initial increases in funding stimulated a sharp rise in the number of grants submitted and funded annually. In the 2006 competition, the increase in funding was lower than expected and the success rate in the open competition fell to 16% from the mean rate of 31.7% in previous years. As a result, 60% of peer-reviewed grants rated as very good or excellent were not funded, as compared with 38% in 2001 (CIHR: unpublished data,2007).Because Members of Parliament vote annually to determine CIHR''s budget for funding health research, we surveyed Members of Parliament and their senior aides about their knowledge of and attitudes toward health research, health research funding and CIHR.     

Characteristics of Medical Research News Reported on Front Pages of Newspapers

Background

The placement of medical research news on a newspaper''s front page is intended to gain the public''s attention, so it is important to understand the source of the news in terms of research maturity and evidence level.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We searched LexisNexis to identify medical research reported on front pages of major newspapers published from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002. We used MEDLINE and Google Scholar to find journal articles corresponding to the research, and determined their evidence level.Of 734 front-page medical research stories identified, 417 (57%) referred to mature research published in peer-reviewed journals. The remaining 317 stories referred to preliminary findings presented at scientific or press meetings; 144 (45%) of those stories mentioned studies that later matured (i.e. were published in journals within 3 years after news coverage). The evidence-level distribution of the 515 journal articles quoted in news stories reporting on mature research (3% level I, 21% level II, 42% level III, 4% level IV, and 31% level V) differed from that of the 170 reports of preliminary research that later matured (1%, 19%, 35%, 12%, and 33%, respectively; chi-square test, P = .0009). No news stories indicated evidence level. Fewer than 1 in 5 news stories reporting preliminary findings acknowledged the preliminary nature of their content.

Conclusions/Significance

Only 57% of front-page stories reporting on medical research are based on mature research, which tends to have a higher evidence level than research with preliminary findings. Medical research news should be clearly referenced and state the evidence level and limitations to inform the public of the maturity and quality of the source.     

Knowledge graphs of ethical concerns of cerebral organoids

ObjectivesThe rapid development of cerebral organoid technology and the gradual maturity of cerebral organoids highlight the necessity of foresighted research on relevant ethical concerns. We employed knowledge graphs and conducted statistical analysis with CiteSpace for a comprehensive analysis of the status quo of the research on the ethical concerns of cerebral organoids from a bibliometric perspective.Materials and MethodsWe performed a statistical analysis of published papers on cerebral organoid ethics, keyword co‐occurrence graph, literature co‐citation and knowledge clustering graph to examine the status of the ethics research, internal relationship between technological development and ethical research, and ethical concerns of the academia. Finally, we used a keyword time zone graph and related statistics to analyze and predict the trends and popular topics of future cerebral organoids ethics research.ResultsWe demonstrated that although the ethical concerns of cerebral organoids have long been discussed, it was not until 2017 that the ethical issues began to receive more attention, when cerebral organoids were gradually mimicking the human brain more closely and increasingly being combined with chimera research. The recent key ethical concerns are primarily divided into three categories: concerns that are common in life sciences, specific to cerebral organoids, and present in cross‐fields. These increasing ethical concerns are inherently related to the continual development of technology. The analysis pointed out that future research should focus on the ethical concerns of consciousness that are unique to cerebral organoids, ethical concerns of cross‐fields, and construction and improvement of legislative and regulatory systems.ConclusionsAlthough research on cerebral organoids can benefit the biomedicine field, the relevant ethical concerns are significant and have received increasing attention, which are inherently related to the continual development of technology. Future studies in ethics regarding cerebral organoid research should focus on the ethical concerns of consciousness, and cross‐fields, as well as the improvement of regulatory systems.

We performed a statistical analysis of published papers on cerebral organoid ethics, keyword co‐occurrence graph, literature co‐citation and knowledge clustering graph to examine the status of the ethics research. We also used a keyword time zone graph and related statistics to analyse and predict the trends and popular topics of future cerebral organoids ethics research.     

基于CiteSpace的金花茶研究知识图谱分析

对金花茶研究领域的文献信息进行知识图谱可视化分析,可以为研究者准确把握该领域的研究进展提供理论参考。该文利用引文分析软件CiteSpace对1979年—2018年金花茶的相关研究成果进行了计量学和可视化分析,绘制知识图谱,揭示金花茶研究的发展和知识结构。结果表明:(1)金花茶的研究逐渐被重视,年均研究文献逐渐增多;载文期刊的所在地主要为广西。(2)虽已形成核心作者群,但核心作者团队之间合作并不紧密;研究机构集中在广西,已形成"研究机构-高校-企业"的合作方式。(3)研究主要经历了三个阶段,即起步探索期(1979年—1985年)、平稳发展期(1986年—2006年)和快速增长期(2007年—2018年)。(4)金花茶化学成分、繁殖技术以及产品研发的研究正在发展为新前沿。金花茶研究中存在一些问题亟需解决,建议加强对金花茶研究的重视,围绕现实需求深入开展金花茶研究,以实现生态与经济协调发展。     

Gender,diversity, and the responsible assessment of researchers

In response to the Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers, this Formal Comment argues that it is time to take gender and diversity considerations seriously in the pursuit of fostering research integrity; this requires acknowledging and reshaping the influence of research assessment criteria on researcher representation.

The Hong Kong Principles (HKP) for assessing researchers [1], a product of the 2019 World Conference on Research Integrity, were published in PLOS Biology this past July. The principles concern research institutions’ assessment of researchers according to responsible research criteria. The HKP value issues ranging from complete reporting and open science to a diversity of other essential research tasks (e.g., peer reviewing).We applaud this initiative and believe it is an important step forward because it directly addresses a root cause of many issues that erode research integrity: the unfair reward structures and perverse incentives that researchers encounter [2]. Reforming research assessment practice to reward responsible research, rather than privileging publication volume, is crucial for incentivizing research integrity.We were surprised that HKP explicitly refrain from considering gender and other issues related to diversity and inclusiveness in researcher assessment. They rather state that, “[t]hese themes require an assessment of a group of researchers (e.g., research institution) when making decisions about funding allocations or human resources policies. Furthermore, these issues concern the social justice and societal relevance of research rather than research integrity.” (p. 9) [1]. We disagree on a number of counts.First, we challenge the assertion that gender and diversity issues concern social justice and societal relevance of research rather than research integrity. Such a strong distinction between societal relevance and research integrity is difficult to justify; although the field of research integrity was traditionally narrowly defined as pertaining to misconduct issues, it is increasingly acknowledged as addressing general issues of research quality, relevance, and reliability [3]. Furthermore, diversity in research teams is not only important for issues related to social justice and societal relevance, but also crucial for maintaining scientific objectivity and trust in science [4]. Researchers’ backgrounds influence the way that research is funded, conducted, and applied; to prevent science from becoming biased toward certain assumptions and avoid gaps in knowledge, diverse research teams are needed [4]. A lack of diversity in the research community can be detrimental because, through shutting out important perspectives from the research process, it can create undesirable scientific and social effects. For instance, current health research methods commonly entail gender bias, possibly due to the underrepresentation of women in leading research and publishing positions, which not only distorts the public health knowledge base but can also lead to health disparities [4]. Similarly, a lack of early attention and research on the differential impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on people of different ethnic groups has posed a challenge in curbing mortality and poor health outcomes among Black, Asian, and other ethnic minority groups in several countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America [5]. When the research knowledge base is biased in terms of gender or other types of diversity, as is the case with these examples, the trustworthiness of the research itself and its benefit for society are undermined, as it becomes questionable whether the research has employed the right questions and methods to elicit relevant findings for society. Therefore, inclusion of diverse perspectives should not just focus on improving participation of patients and other citizens in research—good practices highlighted in the HKP’s article—but also by improving representation in research teams themselves.Second, in our view, current researcher assessment practices are funding allocation schemes or human resource policies of research institutions, which affect individual researchers and systematically disadvantage entire groups of researchers, including women and those from a minority background [6]. For instance, the focus on number of publications in researcher assessment disadvantages researchers (mostly female) who need to temporarily take leave to have children [7]. To improve representation in relation to gender and diversity within research teams and departments, it is essential to pay attention to their influence beyond individual assessment performance. The HKP article [1] describes how recognizing other tasks, such as peer review and mentoring, leads to an increase in the number of women promoted (p. 8). Other research suggests that using altmetrics to assess research impact might help narrow the gap between men and women [8]. Hence, the individual assessment of researchers is intimately related to group performance. It is disappointing that the HKP fail to recognize this or to call for attention to the impact of their recommended assessment criteria on diversity issues.Our plea to the research integrity community is to take gender and diversity considerations seriously, especially in the pursuit of fostering research integrity. This means researcher assessment approaches which acknowledge that systemic disadvantages can be introduced or exacerbated with individual assessment criteria and which contribute toward improving representation within research teams and across seniority levels.     

Individual determinants of research utilization by nurses: a systematic review update

Background

Interventions that have a better than random chance of increasing nurses' use of research are important to the delivery of quality patient care. However, few reports exist of successful research utilization in nursing interventions. Systematic identification and evaluation of individual characteristics associated with and predicting research utilization may inform the development of research utilization interventions.

Objective

To update the evidence published in a previous systematic review on individual characteristics influencing research utilization by nurses.

Methods

As part of a larger systematic review on research utilization instruments, 12 online bibliographic databases were searched. Hand searching of specialized journals and an ancestry search was also conducted. Randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and observational study designs examining the association between individual characteristics and nurses' use of research were eligible for inclusion. Studies were limited to those published in the English, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian languages. A vote counting approach to data synthesis was taken.

Results

A total of 42,770 titles were identified, of which 501 were retrieved. Of these 501 articles, 45 satisfied our inclusion criteria. Articles assessed research utilization in general (n = 39) or kinds of research utilization (n = 6) using self-report survey measures. Individual nurse characteristics were classified according to six categories: beliefs and attitudes, involvement in research activities, information seeking, education, professional characteristics, and socio-demographic/socio-economic characteristics. A seventh category, critical thinking, emerged in studies examining kinds of research utilization. Positive relationships, at statistically significant levels, for general research utilization were found in four categories: beliefs and attitudes, information seeking, education, and professional characteristics. The only characteristic assessed in a sufficient number of studies and with consistent findings for the kinds of research utilization was attitude towards research; this characteristic had a positive association with instrumental and overall research utilization.

Conclusions

This review reinforced conclusions in the previous review with respect to positive relationships between general research utilization and: beliefs and attitudes, and current role. Furthermore, attending conferences/in-services, having a graduate degree in nursing, working in a specialty area, and job satisfaction were also identified as individual characteristics important to research utilization. While these findings hold promise as potential targets of future research utilization interventions, there were methodological problems inherent in many of the studies that necessitate their findings be replicated in further research using more robust study designs and multivariate assessment methods.     

Citation Analysis May Severely Underestimate the Impact of Clinical Research as Compared to Basic Research

Background

Citation analysis has become an important tool for research performance assessment in the medical sciences. However, different areas of medical research may have considerably different citation practices, even within the same medical field. Because of this, it is unclear to what extent citation-based bibliometric indicators allow for valid comparisons between research units active in different areas of medical research.

Methodology

A visualization methodology is introduced that reveals differences in citation practices between medical research areas. The methodology extracts terms from the titles and abstracts of a large collection of publications and uses these terms to visualize the structure of a medical field and to indicate how research areas within this field differ from each other in their average citation impact.

Results

Visualizations are provided for 32 medical fields, defined based on journal subject categories in the Web of Science database. The analysis focuses on three fields: Cardiac & cardiovascular systems, Clinical neurology, and Surgery. In each of these fields, there turn out to be large differences in citation practices between research areas. Low-impact research areas tend to focus on clinical intervention research, while high-impact research areas are often more oriented on basic and diagnostic research.

Conclusions

Popular bibliometric indicators, such as the h-index and the impact factor, do not correct for differences in citation practices between medical fields. These indicators therefore cannot be used to make accurate between-field comparisons. More sophisticated bibliometric indicators do correct for field differences but still fail to take into account within-field heterogeneity in citation practices. As a consequence, the citation impact of clinical intervention research may be substantially underestimated in comparison with basic and diagnostic research.     

Perspectives on the formation of an interdisciplinary research team

As research funding becomes more competitive, it will be imperative for researchers to break the mentality of a single laboratory/single research focus and develop an interdisciplinary research team aimed at addressing real world challenges. Members of this team may be at the same institution, may be found regionally, or may be international. However, all must share the same passion for a topic that is bigger than any individual’s research focus. Moreover, special consideration should be given to the professional development issues of junior faculty participating in interdisciplinary research teams. While participation may be “humbling” at times, the sheer volume of research progress that may be achieved through interdisciplinary collaboration, even in light of a short supply of grant dollars, is remarkable.     

Levels of citation of nonhuman animal studies conducted at a Canadian research hospital

The publication of scientific articles that receive few or no citations raises questions of the appropriate use of resources as well as ethics. In the case of animal research, the ethics issue extends beyond human patients to nonhuman animals, as the research subjects them to pain and, typically, to death. This study is a citation analysis of animal research conducted at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children (HSC). Of the 594 publications (1990 to 1995) on animal research by affiliates of HSC, 29% received fewer than 10 citations in a 10-year period. We compare the research history of 13 “best ”and 13 “worst ”HSC scientists. Worst researchers continue to do infrequently cited research. Recommendations indicate how institutions and researchers can become more effective and accountable.     

Perspectives of clinician and biomedical scientists on interdisciplinary health research

Background

Interdisciplinary health research is a priority of many funding agencies. We surveyed clinician and biomedical scientists about their views on the value and funding of interdisciplinary health research.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews with 31 biomedical and 30 clinician scientists. The scientists were selected from the 2000–2006 membership lists of peer-review committees of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We investigated respondents’ perspectives on the assumption that collaboration across disciplines adds value to health research. We also investigated their perspectives on funding agencies’ growing support of interdisciplinary research.

Results

The 61 respondents expressed a wide variety of perspectives on the value of interdisciplinary health research, ranging from full agreement (22) to complete disagreement (11) that it adds value; many presented qualified viewpoints (28). More than one-quarter viewed funding agencies’ growing support of interdisciplinary research as appropriate. Most (44) felt that the level of support was unwarranted. Arguments included the belief that current support leads to the creation of artificial teams and that a top-down process of imposing interdisciplinary structures on teams constrains scientists’ freedom. On both issues we found contrasting trends between the clinician and the biomedical scientists.

Interpretation

Despite having some positive views about the value of interdisciplinary research, scientists, especially biomedical scientists, expressed reservations about the growing support of interdisciplinary research.Collaboration between health disciplines is a new priority of research institutions and funding agencies. Many of these agencies have undergone restructuring and have developed programs specifically to intensify interdisciplinary research. In 2007, the US National Institutes of Health created 9 interdisciplinary research consortia “as a means of integrating aspects of different disciplines to address health challenges that have been resistant to traditional research approaches.”¹ In 2000, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) was established with an express mandate “to forge a health research agenda across disciplines, sectors, and regions that embraces scientific opportunity and reflects the emerging health needs of Canadians, the evolution of the health care system and the information needs of health policy decision-makers.”²This change in priority has been attributed to 3 main factors: the need to answer complex health problems, the need to explore questions that are not confined to a single discipline and the need to provide effective solutions to societal problems.^3,4 Although the arguments advocating for interdisciplinary health research have evoked many kinds of promises, scientists undertaking collaborative research can also face many challenges. The past 10 years have seen a growing body of literature examining the impediments and facilitators to interdisciplinary collaboration.^3,5–14Despite this growing interest, little is known about scientists’ opinions on the prevalent assumption that working across disciplines adds value to health research. Moreover, little consideration has been given to how scientists perceive the growing support of interdisciplinary research by funding agencies. In a survey commissioned by the CIHR, 36% of funded researchers indicated that their collaboration across disciplines had increased as a result of the agency’s establishment.¹⁵ Whether this shift reflects researchers’ scientific interests or their attempts to secure funding by appealing to the agency’s policy of promoting interdisciplinary research is unknown.As part of a broad research program investigating the integration of social science in health research,¹⁶ we conducted this study to examine to what extent, and why, biomedical and clinician scientists are for or against the promotion of interdisciplinary research. We targeted these types of scientists because they were predominantly affected by the move toward interdisciplinary research that occurred after the creation of the CIHR.     

中国微生物资源研究现状及未来发展态势分析

[目的]微生物资源由于其对于生命科学基础研究和生物经济的重要价值,一直是全球生物技术竞争的战略重点。中国目前已经成为在生命科学研究领域最有影响力的国家之一,每年发表的论文数量居全球第二位。通过微生物资源的保藏和利用的分析能够一定程度反映我国微生物研究的整体状况和进展,并进一步反映生命科学研究和生物产业的发展趋势。[方法]本文通过分析我国微生物资源保藏、文献、专利等数据,阐述了我国微生物资源的保藏和利用现状,并同相关国家进行了比较,基于此分析,为我国微生物资源挖掘与利用提供战略方向和建议。[结论]近年来,我国建立了微生物资源国家平台,每年发表论文数量居全球第二位,申请和授权专利数量居全球第一位,充分反映了我国微生物资源研究及其在生物产业的应用现状。我国正在形成一个微生物资源保藏、研究和应用的完整体系,为我国乃至全球的生物经济的发展提供支撑。     

Species,Habitats, Society: An Evaluation of Research Supporting EU's Natura 2000 Network

The Natura 2000 network is regarded as one of the conservation success stories in the global effort to protect biodiversity. However, significant challenges remain in Natura 2000 implementation, owing to its rapid expansion, and lack of a coherent vision for its future. Scientific research is critical for identifying conservation priorities, setting management goals, and reconciling biodiversity protection and society in the complex political European landscape. Thus, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive evaluation of published Natura 2000 research to highlight prevalent research themes, disciplinary approaches, and spatial entities. We conducted a systematic review of 572 scientific articles and conference proceedings focused on Natura 2000 research, published between 1996 and 2014. We grouped these articles into ‘ecological’ and ‘social and policy’ categories. Using a novel application of network analysis of article keywords, we found that Natura 2000 research forms a cohesive small-world network, owing to the emphasis on ecological research (79% of studies, with a strong focus on spatial conservation planning), and the underrepresentation of studies addressing ‘social and policy’ issues (typically focused on environmental impact assessment, multi-level governance, agri-environment policy, and ecosystem services valuation). ‘Ecological’ and ‘social and policy’ research shared only general concepts (e.g., Natura 2000, Habitats Directive) suggesting a disconnection between these disciplines. The UK and the Mediterranean basin countries dominated Natura 2000 research, and there was a weak correlation between number of studies and proportion of national territory protected. Approximately 40% of ‘social and policy’ research and 26% of ‘ecological’ studies highlighted negative implications of Natura 2000, while 21% of studies found positive social and biodiversity effects. We emphasize the need for designing inter- and transdisciplinary research in order to promote a social-ecological understanding of Natura 2000, and advance EU conservation policies.     

医学生科研创新能力培养“3+X”模式的探索与实践

针对长期以来培养医学生的科研创新能力主要依靠零散的课外科研活动、受众面窄、没有系统性课程教学及其相关制度保障、致使对医学生科研创新能力培养明显乏力低效这一共性瓶颈教学问题,自2002年起,汕头大学医学院生物化学与分子生物学教学团队,在“科教相辅相佐”、“以学生为中心”、“以问题为导向”等先进教育理念指导下,倚重汕头大学医学院“医者之心”系列课程与书院育人文化之特色,发挥汕头大学的生物学、基础医学和临床医学一级学科均拥有本/硕/博/博后完整人才培养体系之优势,联合其他相关专业教学团队,在建立充分体现医学生科研创新能力培养内涵,覆盖医学本科5年全过程的核心课程体系的基础之上,历经20载的不懈努力,补充修善,成功构建了“3+X”模式,着力培养医学生的科研创新能力。所谓“3”意指对医学生的“全人培养”、“全程培养”和“全方位培养”。所谓“X”意指针对“3+X”模式运行效能的若干个验证性维度,主要包括组织医学生参加各种形式的全国大学生创新实验研究大赛、国际大学生学术研讨会,由医学本科生作为第一作者撰写发表学术论文等。培养医学生科研创新能力的成效十分显著,为有效解决上述共性瓶颈教学问题提供了一个有重要借鉴价值的范例。     

An at‐home laboratory in plant biology designed to engage students in the process of science

The COVID‐19 pandemic prompted a transition to remote delivery of courses that lack immersive hands‐on research experiences for undergraduate science students, resulting in a scientific research skills gap. In this report, we present an option for an inclusive and authentic, hands‐on research experience that all students can perform off‐campus. Biology students in a semester‐long (13 weeks) sophomore plant physiology course participated in an at‐home laboratory designed to study the impacts of nitrogen addition on growth rates and root nodulation by wild nitrogen‐fixing Rhizobia in Pisum sativum (Pea) plants. This undergraduate research experience, piloted in the fall semester of 2020 in a class with 90 students, was created to help participants learn and practice scientific research skills during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Specifically, the learning outcomes associated with this at‐home research experience were: (1) generate a testable hypothesis, (2) design an experiment to test the hypothesis, (3) explain the importance of biological replication, (4) perform meaningful statistical analyses using R, and (5) compose a research paper to effectively communicate findings to a general biology audience. Students were provided with an at‐home laboratory kit containing the required materials and reagents, which were chosen to be accessible and affordable in case students were unable to access our laboratory kit. Students were guided through all aspects of research, including hypothesis generation, data collection, and data analysis, with video tutorials and live virtual sessions. This at‐home laboratory provided students an opportunity to practice hands‐on research with the flexibility to collect and analyze their own data in a remote setting during the COVID‐19 pandemic. This, or similar laboratories, could also be used as part of distance learning biology courses.     

Construction of an Affordable and Easy-to-Build Zebrafish Facility

In vivo biomedical research is pivotal to translate in vitro findings into clinical advances. Small academic institutions with limited resources find it virtually impossible to build and maintain typical rodent facilities for research. Zebrafish research has been demonstrated to be a valuable alternative for in vivo research in pharmacology, physiology, development and genetic studies. This article demonstrates that a functional zebrafish facility can be built in an easy and affordable manner. We demonstrate that such a facility could be built in about one working day with minimal tools and expertise. The cost of the 27 1.8 L fish tank zebrafish facility constructed in this study was approximately $1,500. We estimate that the maintenance of an initial working 150 fish colony for 3 months is $1,000. This project involved students, who were introduced to aquaculturing of zebrafish for research proposes.     

Research Trends in Evidence-Based Medicine: A Joinpoint Regression Analysis of More than 50 Years of Publication Data

Background

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has developed as the dominant paradigm of assessment of evidence that is used in clinical practice. Since its development, EBM has been applied to integrate the best available research into diagnosis and treatment with the purpose of improving patient care. In the EBM era, a hierarchy of evidence has been proposed, including various types of research methods, such as meta-analysis (MA), systematic review (SRV), randomized controlled trial (RCT), case report (CR), practice guideline (PGL), and so on. Although there are numerous studies examining the impact and importance of specific cases of EBM in clinical practice, there is a lack of research quantitatively measuring publication trends in the growth and development of EBM. Therefore, a bibliometric analysis was constructed to determine the scientific productivity of EBM research over decades.

Methods

NCBI PubMed database was used to search, retrieve and classify publications according to research method and year of publication. Joinpoint regression analysis was undertaken to analyze trends in research productivity and the prevalence of individual research methods.

Findings

Analysis indicates that MA and SRV, which are classified as the highest ranking of evidence in the EBM, accounted for a relatively small but auspicious number of publications. For most research methods, the annual percent change (APC) indicates a consistent increase in publication frequency. MA, SRV and RCT show the highest rate of publication growth in the past twenty years. Only controlled clinical trials (CCT) shows a non-significant reduction in publications over the past ten years.

Conclusions

Higher quality research methods, such as MA, SRV and RCT, are showing continuous publication growth, which suggests an acknowledgement of the value of these methods. This study provides the first quantitative assessment of research method publication trends in EBM.