Study of Policy Formulation in Drafting Regional Regulation Number 3 of 2017 concerning Riau Malay Customary Institutions, Dumai City

This research focuses on the Formulation of Regional Regulation Policy Number 3 of 2017 concerning the Riau Malay Customary Institution, Dumai City. This study aims to examine the process of formulating a Perda policy by the Dumai City DPRD and related institutions. This study used a descriptive qualitative approach, in which the informants were determined by purposive sampling from various related agencies. The results of the study found that the process of determining Perda policies follows the direction of the prevailing laws, but the compilation process has not been carried out in a holistic manner, it is lacking in depth, especially in the phase of setting the policy agenda. In this context, it was found that the identification of the problem was not very deep related to the problems and peculiarities of the local cultural, customary and historical conditions. Apart from the Perda, there is also no clear framework for protecting, defending and fighting for the fate of indigenous peoples and local communities. Furthermore, in the drafting phase, it has not yet mobilized public participation, including providing public space and public discussions. In fact, this shows the openness in the formulation phase of the Perda. The interesting thing here is that the concept of the Perda in broad terms refers too much to the Perda of the Riau Provincial Malay Customary Institution. So it is advisable to clarify the concept and frame work "so that it is affective in achieving the mission and goals of the Riau Malay Customary Institution. This study concludes that the Perda is more oriented towards micro interests, namely internal organizations, besides the need to have a legal basis, it can also be used as a basis for obtaining grant allocation from the Dumai City APBD.

Co-development, co-production and co-dissemination of scientific research: a case study to demonstrate mutual benefits

Inadequate and inequitable distribution of research capacity and resources limits both the opportunity for leadership and participation in science. It also results in biases of effort, poor and misinterpretation of global patterns and the availability of limited usable knowledge for current challenges. Increased participation in ocean research and decision-making is needed to account for many stressors and challenges. The current intergovernmental attention on the ocean (e.g. UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development) and the development of technologies that permit exploration and accelerate exploitation suggest that it is timely to focus on the ocean and its stewardship. Employing the principles of co-development, co-production and co-dissemination, this paper uses a case study of a deep reef project in Seychelles to illustrate some activities that can be employed to magnify research outcomes and legacy. We provide examples that range from ministerial briefings and planning meetings to joint fieldwork, grant allocation and co-authoring outputs. These activities helped us to align priorities, promote authentic interactions and focus on equitable science. Finally, reflecting on our experiences, we acknowledge the benefits brought by respectful and long-term partnerships, the variety of activities needed to develop these and challenges of maintaining them. In the future, we also want to include more opportunities for regional peer-to-peer learning and technology transfer.

Gender disparities in international COVID-19 clinical trial leadership

Emerging data suggest that despite an increased number of peer-reviewed articles submitted to journals during the pandemic, women have published fewer papers than men thus far this year. In this study, we provide timely analysis to compare the gender distribution of clinical trial leadership in COVID-19 clinical trials. We demonstrate that less than one-third of COVID-19-related clinical trials are led by principal investigators who were predicted to be women, half the proportion observed in non-COVID-19 (breast cancer and T2DM) trials over the same period. These gender disparities during the pandemic may indicate not only a lack of women's leadership in international clinical trials and involvement in new projects but also may reveal imbalances in women's access to research activities and funding during health emergencies. The COVID-19 pandemic offers numerous opportunities for research and leadership that could equalize opportunity in a new field, but our results suggest the opposite. Our demonstration of gender differences in trial leadership and grant allocation argue for revised policies and strategies that encourage the participation of women in pandemic research. Not only can these women drive discovery and innovation, but they can act to address health disparities and provide role models for the next generation of women scientists.

Fair allocation of healthcare research funds by the European Union?

This study aimed to investigate the distribution of European Union (EU) healthcare research grants across EU countries, and to study the effect of the potential influencing factors on grant allocation. We analysed publicly available data on healthcare research grants from the 7th Framework Programme and the Horizon 2020 Programme allocated to beneficiaries between 2007 and 2016. Grant allocation was analysed at the beneficiary-, country-, and country group-level (EU-15 versus newer Member States, defined as EU-13). The investigated country-level explanatory variables included GDP per capita, population size, overall disease burden, and healthcare research excellence. Grant amounts per 100,000 inhabitants was used as an outcome variable in the regression analyses.Research funds were disproportionally allocated to EU-15 versus the EU-13, as 96.9% of total healthcare grants were assigned to EU-15 countries. At the beneficiary level, EU funding was positively influenced by participating in previous grants. The average grant amount per beneficiary was higher for EU-15 organizations. In univariate regression analyses at the country level, higher GDP per capita (p<0.001) and better medical research excellence (p<0.001) were associated with more EU funding, and a higher disease burden was associated with less EU funding (p=0.003). In the multiple regression analysis GDP per capita (p=0.002) and research excellence (p<0.001) had a significant positive association with EU funding. Population size had an inverted U-shaped relationship with EU funding for healthcare research, having the largest per capita funding in second and the third quartiles (p=0.03 and p=0.02).The uneven allocation of healthcare research funds across EU countries was influenced by GDP per capita, medical research excellence and population size. Wealthier countries with an average population size and strong research excellence in healthcare had more EU funding for healthcare research. Higher disease burden apparently was not associated with more EU research funding.