The Rhetorical Nature of Academic Research Funding

1994 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Brad Mehlenbacher
JAMA ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 278 (11) ◽  
pp. 886 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Marwick

Author(s):  
Clare Newton ◽  
Sarah Backhouse

Architectural competitions are powerful strategies for generating visual ideas for new futures. Academic research generates new knowledge based on rigorous investigations of informed propositions. This paper describes an unusual merging of a research process with a competition process using crowdsourcing to leverage knowledge. The Australian Research Council (ARC) is the pre-eminent funding body of academic research for universities across Australia. In 2010 a multidisciplinary academic team, with twelve industry partners including six education departments, successfully sought ARC research funding.  The application proposed an unprecedented strategy to include an open Ideas Competition in the middle year of a three-year research program as a form of crowdsourcing to leverage knowledge between academia and industry. The research project, entitled Future Proofing Schools, was focused on Australia’s relocatable school buildings.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3584-3584
Author(s):  
Jaleh Fallah ◽  
Adam J Olszewski

Introduction: Splenectomy has been a historically important diagnostic and therapeutic modality for splenic lymphomas, but with the advent of sensitive diagnostic tools and efficacious immunochemotherapy, its role has diminished. Our objective was to describe trends in the use of splenectomy for management of splenic lymphomas, and to determine the association of practice setting with choice of surgical treatment. Methods: Using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), a nationwide registry capturing >80% of lymphomas in the United States, we selected non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases diagnosed in 2004-2013, with spleen recorded as the primary site. We identified the use of splenectomy and chemotherapy as part of the initial treatment. Splenectomy was assumed to be diagnostic when it was coincident with lymphoma diagnosis (0 days from diagnosis to surgery). Treatment facilities were designated by the NCDB as community, comprehensive community, academic/research, or integrated network cancer programs, depending on case volume and available services. We studied factors associated with the use of splenectomy in a multilevel mixed-effects logistic model (with random intercepts for each geographic region and each facility within it), reporting odds ratios (OR) and intraclass correlation (ICC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Linearized trends from log-binomial regression were expressed as average annual percent change (APC) in the proportion of patients (pts) undergoing splenectomy. Results: Among 6,504 of pts with splenic lymphomas, 48% were classified as splenic marginal zone (SMZL), 28% as diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL), 4% as mantle cell (MCL), 5% as follicular (FL), 4% as T-cell lymphoma (TCL, 52% being hepatosplenic γd-TCL), and 11% were other or unspecified histologies. Overall, 58% of pts underwent any splenectomy, and 33% a diagnostic splenectomy, but these proportions significantly varied by histology (χ2P<.0001, Table). After a diagnostic splenectomy, 31% of DLBCL and 47% of MCL pts did not receive chemotherapy. Between 2004 and 2013, the proportion undergoing splenectomy significantly decreased for most histologies (Figure). This trend was most pronounced in SMZL (APC, -7.7%; Table), and MCL (APC, -8.4%), and it was paralleled by a significant increase in the use of chemotherapy for management of SMZL and TCL. Mortality at 30 days after splenectomy was 4% overall, varying from <2% in SMZL/MCL/FL, 6% in DLBCL, to 10% in TCL (χ2P<.0001). The proportion of pts undergoing splenectomy differed significantly according to type of treating hospital only in SMZL, where it was 39% for pts treated in "community", 52% in "comprehensive community", 50% in "academic/research", and 44% in "integrated network" centers (χ2P=.0004). In contrast, facility type was not associated with splenectomy use in DLBCL (P=.47), MCL (P=.55), FL (P=.75), or TCL (P=.15). The proportion of splenectomies performed for diagnosis was significantly lower in academic (51%) than in community (62%), comprehensive community (59%), or integrated network centers (60%, χ2P<.0001) In a multivariable model in treated SMZL pts, those who had advanced-stage lymphoma or B symptoms, and those who were older, male, without comorbidities, with Medicaid, or with no insurance were significantly less likely to undergo splenectomy. There was evidence of significant clustering of treatment selection in each hospital (ICC, 24%; CI, 17-32%), but not in geographical regions (ICC, 2%; CI, 0.2-9.5%). Compared with academic/research centers, splenectomy was performed less frequently in smaller community centers (adjusted OR, 0.59; CI, 0.38-0.93, P=.022), but not in larger comprehensive community centers (OR, 0.97; CI, 0.72-1.32, P=.86). Conclusions: Although the use of splenectomy for management of splenic lymphomas has declined, nearly half of pts with splenic DLBCL, FL, or TCL still undergo surgery for diagnosis, highlighting the ongoing need for reliable, non-invasive diagnostic modalities. A substantial proportion of pts with DLBCL and MCL do not receive chemotherapy after surgery. Further research should elucidate the reasons for it, and associated outcomes in those groups. In SMZL, the use of splenectomy is facility-dependent after adjusting for patient- and lymphoma-related characteristics, with lower rate of splenectomy in smaller community centers, possibly reflecting availability of surgical expertise. Disclosures Olszewski: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy.


Ledger ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 65-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Lehner ◽  
Dylan Hunzeker ◽  
John R. Ziegler

Scientific funding within the academy is an often complicated affair involving disparate and competing interests. Private universities, for instance, are vastly outpacing public institutions in garnering large, prestigious, science-related grants and external research investment. Inequities also extend to the types of research funded, with government, corporate, and even military interests privileging certain types of inquiry. This article proposes an innovative type of science research fund using cryptocurrencies, a fast-growing asset class. Although not a total funding solution, staking coins, specifically, can be strategically invested in to yield compound interest. These coins use masternode technologies to collateralize the network and speed transaction pace and may pay dividends to masternode holders, allowing institutions that purchase these types of central hubs to potentially engage in a lucrative form of dividend reinvestment. Using cryptocurrencies as a new funding stream may garner large amounts of capital and creation of nonprofit institutes to support the future of funding scientific research within educational institutions.


Author(s):  
Xi Yang ◽  
Huan Li ◽  
Bing Chen

One of the most important goals for universities in China today is to enhance research competence. Focusing on the role of research funding from government and non-government sectors, this chapter aims to examine research productivity under different governance systems. Based on a sample of faculty members from 30 public universities in China, it describes how various university governance systems influence scientific research in different ways. A bureaucratic governance system increases the amount of government funding, which contributes to academic publications and patents. Whereas, a collegial governance model has a lesser effect on non-government funding, which could promote patenting and technology transfer. The findings indicate several policy implications regarding the reform of research management and university governance in China.


10.1038/70892 ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 1337-1337
Author(s):  
Victor D. Chase

Science ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 368 (6497) ◽  
pp. 1298-1298
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Mervis

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-343
Author(s):  
Matthias Fink ◽  
Isabella Hatak ◽  
Markus Scholz ◽  
Simon Down

Abstract Third-party funding of academic research has grown rapidly in its scope and impact. However, several forces demand greater attention to potential opportunities, challenges and threats of third-party research funding. Adopting a historical approach rooted in Anglo-Saxon academia, we discuss what third-party research funding means for European business researchers, which opportunities and tensions arise, and how to best manage them in the interest of the diverse stakeholders of our field. Finally, we introduce the six papers in this special issue and how they move the conversation on third-party research funding forward. The evidence base provided here is composed of a rich blend of empirical data, reflections on personal experience and conclusions drawn from formal mathematical models. As a result, the collection of papers offers a kaleidoscope of the state-of-the-art of research on third-party funding of academic business research in Europe. The insights emerging from these six papers collapse into a clear overall picture with each paper contributing a distinct jigsaw piece, a picture we present and discuss in this paper.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document