2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Behnke ◽  
Laura McConnell ◽  
Chris Ober

Within a changing research world, international collaboration has become even more important in achieving scientific success. Given the increased need and desire for multinational research, the actors are forced to identify appropriate funding sources. Whereas, science knows no international boundaries, support for scientific research, including in chemical sciences, is mostly provided by the national funding organizations. This is particularly true for the chemical sciences, where most research projects are relatively small in size and with respect to the number of involved PIs. Traditionally, national organizations are reluctant to provide funds to non-domestic researchers, and in practice, funding truly international research projects can be a real challenge for a variety of technical and bureaucratic reasons. In an effort to change this, an international Committee on Chemistry Research Funding (CCRF)—backed by several leading funding organizations—was established by IUPAC in December 2007 to promote increased international collaboration and networking in the global chemistry community. The following report gives a short overview on the history of IUPAC’s involvement in service for chemistry research funding and on the most recent developments.


2017 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianping Li ◽  
Yongjia Xie ◽  
Dengsheng Wu ◽  
Yuanping Chen

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Gross ◽  
Gavin T. Reed ◽  
Rachel Engelmann ◽  
John R. W. Kestle

Object Funding of hydrocephalus research is important to the advancement of the field. The goal of this paper is to describe the funding of hydrocephalus research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over a recent 10-year period. Methods The NIH online database RePORT (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools) was searched using the key word “hydrocephalus.” Studies were sorted by relevance to hydrocephalus. The authors analyzed funding by institute, grant type, and scientific approach over time. Results Over $54 million was awarded to 59 grantees for 66 unique hydrocephalus proposals from 48 institutions from 2002 to 2011. The largest sources of funding were the National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Of the total, $22 million went to clinical trials, $15 million to basic science, and $10 million to joint ventures with small business (Small Business Innovation Research or Small Business Technology Transfer). Annual funding varied from $2.3 to $8.1 million and steadily increased in the second half of the observation period. The number of new grants also went from 15 in the first 5 years to 27 in the second 5 years. A large portion of the funding has been for clinical trials. Funding for shunt-device development grew substantially. Support for training of hydrocephalus investigators has been low. Conclusions Hydrocephalus research funding is low compared with that for other conditions of similar health care burden. In addition to NIH applications, researchers should pursue other funding sources. Small business collaborations appear to present an opportunity for appropriate projects.


AORN Journal ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 462-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne C. Beyea ◽  
Leslie H. Nicoll

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Muhamadi Kaweesi

The production of knowledge that is diverse in nature has gained importance in research-led universities. However, the nature of scientific knowledge and researchers’ motives of producing such knowledge across disciplinary fields in research-led Sub-Saharan African universities are not yet known. This study set out to access the voices of lead researchers regarding the nature and motive of academic research in Uganda’s research-led flagship institution-Makerere University. Findings showed that despite the pervasiveness of theoretical/basic research across disciplinary fields, other research orientations are evident as well. Although emphasis is placed on publishing in top-ranked journals, there is production of commercially-biased, policy-relevant and community-oriented research. Due to research funding constraints, the donor-driven research orientation has also become popular. We therefore conclude that although majority of lead researchers engage in basic research, the nature of academic research is varied and lead researchers’ motives of engaging in research are diverse. Because of the dominance basic and donor-driven research, we recommend that there is need to rethink the University promotional assessment model, diversify research funding sources, and selectively collaborate with the donors.   Key words: Knowledge production, research-led university, research orientation      


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 33-45
Author(s):  
Gonzalo Araya

En el presente artículo se presentan algunas reflexiones sobre la investigación universitaria y los beneficios que puede aportar al quehacer académico. Se revisa el último Informe Anual sobre el Comportamiento de las Instituciones de Educación Superior Iberoamericanas en materia de investigación, la importancia de la publicación científica y su impacto en la comunidad científica, lo que se complementa con información sobre la inversión chilena en investigación y desarrollo. También se analiza someramente las fuentes de financiamiento para la investigación y la preponderancia de los fondos públicos concursables. Finalmente, se le da una mirada a la investigación educacional y su impacto en los procesos de enseñanza aprendizaje. This article presents some reflections on university research and the benefits it can bring to academic work. The latest annual report on the behavior of Ibero-American higher education institutions regarding research is reviewed, as well as the importance of scientific publication and its impact on the scientific community, which is complemented by information on Chilean investment in research and development. The research funding sources and the preponderance of public competitive funds are also analyzed briefly. Finally, a look at educational research and its impact on teaching-learning processes is given.


2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 746-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
MA Cottrell ◽  
WA Mills ◽  
EJ Calabrese

The topic of hormesis research funding has been a focus of deliberation within the scientific community for several decades. A common assumption/belief is that most hormesis research is funded by the private sector. With this assumption may emerge questions revolving around potential bias of such research. To provide some clarification to this issue, all hormesis research articles were obtained through online databases for 5-year increments starting with 1995 and ending with 2015 and were subsequently categorized by their funding source. A total of 710 articles were found for those years and 383 of those reported information on funding sources. Reporting funding is not required by law and until more recently was not encouraged or required by funders, research institutions, and/or scientific publishers. The analysis revealed that the assumption that the majority of hormesis research has been privately funded was not supported, with the public sector (i.e. federal and state governmental agencies) exclusively contributing to 78% of the reported research funding. Going forward, funding transparency for scientific research as a whole is essential within the scientific community as it may affect how research may be perceived, accepted, and applied.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document