The Experts below are selected from a list of 164817 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Deepak Hegde - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
can private money buy public science disease group lobbying and federal funding for Biomedical Research
Management Science, 2015Co-Authors: Deepak Hegde, Bhaven N SampatAbstract:Private interest groups lobby politicians to influence public policy. However, little is known about how lobbying influences the policy decisions made by federal agencies. We study this through examining lobbying by advocacy groups associated with rare diseases for funding by the National Institutes of Health NIH, the world's largest funder of Biomedical Research. Disease group lobbying for NIH funding has been controversial, with critics alleging that it distorts public funding toward Research on diseases backed by powerful groups. Our data reveal that lobbying is associated with higher political support, in the form of congressional "soft earmarks" for the diseases. Lobbying increases with disease burden and is more likely to be associated with changes in NIH funding for diseases with higher scientific opportunity, suggesting that it may have a useful informational role. Only special grant mechanisms that steer funding toward particular diseases, which comprise less than a third of the NIH's grants, are related to earmarks. Thus, our results suggest that lobbying by private groups influences federal funding for Biomedical Research. However, the channels of political influence are subtle, affect a small portion of funding, and may not necessarily have a distortive effect on public science. This paper was accepted by Bruno Cassiman, business strategy.
-
can private money buy public science disease group lobbying and federal funding for Biomedical Research
Social Science Research Network, 2014Co-Authors: Deepak Hegde, Bhaven N SampatAbstract:Lobbying is an important non-market strategy pursued by private interest groups to influence public policy. However, little is known about how lobbying influences policy decisions made by federal agencies. We study this through examining lobbying by advocacy groups associated with rare diseases for funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest funder of Biomedical Research. Disease group lobbying for NIH funding has been controversial, with critics alleging that it distorts public science funding towards diseases with powerful groups. Our data reveal that lobbying is associated with higher political support, in the form of Congressional “soft earmarks” for the diseases. Lobbying increases with disease burden and is more likely to be associated with changes in NIH funding for diseases with higher scientific opportunity, suggesting it may have a useful informational role. Only special grant mechanisms that steer funding towards particular diseases, which comprise less than a third of NIH’s grants, are related to earmarks. Thus, our results suggest that lobbying by private groups influences federal funding for Biomedical Research. However, the channels of political influence are subtle, affect a small portion of funding, and may not necessarily have a distortive effect on public science.
-
political influence behind the veil of peer review an analysis of public Biomedical Research funding in the united states
The Journal of Law and Economics, 2009Co-Authors: Deepak HegdeAbstract:Abstract The U.S. public Biomedical Research system is renowned for its peer review process that awards federal funds to meritorious Research performers. Although congressional appropriators do not earmark federal funds for Biomedical Research performers, I argue that they support allocations for those Research fields that are most likely to benefit performers in their constituencies. Such disguised transfers mitigate the reputational penalties to appropriators of interfering with a merit‐driven system. I use data on all peer‐reviewed grants by the National Institutes of Health during the years 1984–2003 and find that performers in the states of certain House Appropriations Committee members receive 5.9–10.3 percent more Research funds than those at unrepresented institutions. The returns to representation are concentrated in state universities and small businesses. Members support funding for the projects of represented performers in fields in which they are relatively weak and counteract the distributiv...
Bhaven N Sampat - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
can private money buy public science disease group lobbying and federal funding for Biomedical Research
Management Science, 2015Co-Authors: Deepak Hegde, Bhaven N SampatAbstract:Private interest groups lobby politicians to influence public policy. However, little is known about how lobbying influences the policy decisions made by federal agencies. We study this through examining lobbying by advocacy groups associated with rare diseases for funding by the National Institutes of Health NIH, the world's largest funder of Biomedical Research. Disease group lobbying for NIH funding has been controversial, with critics alleging that it distorts public funding toward Research on diseases backed by powerful groups. Our data reveal that lobbying is associated with higher political support, in the form of congressional "soft earmarks" for the diseases. Lobbying increases with disease burden and is more likely to be associated with changes in NIH funding for diseases with higher scientific opportunity, suggesting that it may have a useful informational role. Only special grant mechanisms that steer funding toward particular diseases, which comprise less than a third of the NIH's grants, are related to earmarks. Thus, our results suggest that lobbying by private groups influences federal funding for Biomedical Research. However, the channels of political influence are subtle, affect a small portion of funding, and may not necessarily have a distortive effect on public science. This paper was accepted by Bruno Cassiman, business strategy.
-
can private money buy public science disease group lobbying and federal funding for Biomedical Research
Social Science Research Network, 2014Co-Authors: Deepak Hegde, Bhaven N SampatAbstract:Lobbying is an important non-market strategy pursued by private interest groups to influence public policy. However, little is known about how lobbying influences policy decisions made by federal agencies. We study this through examining lobbying by advocacy groups associated with rare diseases for funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest funder of Biomedical Research. Disease group lobbying for NIH funding has been controversial, with critics alleging that it distorts public science funding towards diseases with powerful groups. Our data reveal that lobbying is associated with higher political support, in the form of Congressional “soft earmarks” for the diseases. Lobbying increases with disease burden and is more likely to be associated with changes in NIH funding for diseases with higher scientific opportunity, suggesting it may have a useful informational role. Only special grant mechanisms that steer funding towards particular diseases, which comprise less than a third of NIH’s grants, are related to earmarks. Thus, our results suggest that lobbying by private groups influences federal funding for Biomedical Research. However, the channels of political influence are subtle, affect a small portion of funding, and may not necessarily have a distortive effect on public science.
V Kiparoglou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
gender parity in scientific authorship in a national institute for health Research Biomedical Research centre a bibliometric analysis
BMJ Open, 2021Co-Authors: Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, Rinita Dam, Maria Julia Milano, Laurel Edmunds, L R Henderson, Owen Coxall, Pavel V Ovseiko, Alastair M Buchan, Catherine R Hartley, V KiparoglouAbstract:Objective Scientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in Research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in Biomedical Research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of Biomedical Research. Design Descriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study. Setting NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). Data Data comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols). Main outcome measures Gender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors. Results Publications comprised 39% clinical Research (n=939), 27% basic Research (n=643) and 34% other types of Research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p Conclusions Although the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.
-
a retrospective analysis of gender parity in scientific authorship in a Biomedical Research centre
bioRxiv, 2020Co-Authors: Rinita Dam, Shah Sgs, Maria Julia Milano, Laurel Edmunds, L R Henderson, Caroline Hartley, Owen Coxall, Pavel V Ovseiko, Alastair M Buchan, V KiparoglouAbstract:Objective: Scientific authorship is a vital marker of success in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in Research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in Biomedical Research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of Biomedical Research. Design: A retrospective descriptive study. Setting: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Data: 2409 publications accepted or published from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2017. Main outcome measures: Gender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors. Results: Publications comprised clinical Research (39%, n=939), basic Research (27%, n=643), and other types of Research (34%, n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories. Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169), and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant smaller proportions i.e. 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared to male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author(s) with gender of the first author(s) (χ2 33.742, P < 0.001), corresponding author(s) (χ2 540.774, P < 0.001) and joint last author(s) (χ2 91.291, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Although there are increasing trends of female authors as first authors (41%) and last authors (23%), female authors are underrepresented compared to male authors in all six categories of scientific authorship in Biomedical Research. Further Research is needed to encourage gender parity in different categories of scientific authorship.
Ryan N Gutenkunst - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the impact of genome wide association studies on Biomedical Research publications
Human Genomics, 2018Co-Authors: Travis J Struck, Brian K Mannakee, Ryan N GutenkunstAbstract:The past decade has seen major investment in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Among the many goals of GWAS, a major one is to identify and motivate Research on novel genes involved in complex human disease. To assess whether this goal is being met, we quantified the effect of GWAS on the overall distribution of Biomedical Research publications and on the subsequent publication history of genes newly associated with complex disease. We found that the historical skew of publications toward genes involved in Mendelian disease has not changed since the advent of GWAS. Genes newly implicated by GWAS in complex disease do experience additional publications compared to control genes, and they are more likely to become exceptionally studied. But the magnitude of both effects has declined over the past decade. Our results suggest that reforms to encourage follow-up studies may be needed for GWAS to most successfully guide Biomedical Research toward the molecular mechanisms underlying complex human disease.
-
the impact of genome wide association studies on Biomedical Research publications
bioRxiv, 2018Co-Authors: Travis J Struck, Brian K Mannakee, Ryan N GutenkunstAbstract:The past decade has seen major investment in genome-wide association studies (GWAS), with the goal of identifying and motivating Research on novel genes involved in complex human disease. To assess whether this goal is being met, we quantified the effect of GWAS on the overall distribution of Biomedical Research publications and on the subsequent publication history of genes newly associated with complex disease. We found that the historical skew of publications toward genes involved in Mendelian disease has not changed since the advent of GWAS. Genes newly implicated by GWAS in complex disease do experience additional publications compared to control genes, and they are more likely to become exceptionally studied. But the magnitude of both effects has declined dramatically over the past decade. Our results suggest that reforms to encourage follow-up studies may be needed for GWAS to most successfully guide Biomedical Research toward the molecular mechanisms underlying complex human disease.
Laura Liscum - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
peer review practices for evaluating Biomedical Research grants a scientific statement from the american heart association
Circulation Research, 2017Co-Authors: Lucy Liaw, Nehal N Mehta, Lance B Becker, Jane E Freedman, Laura LiscumAbstract:The Biomedical Research enterprise depends on the fair and objective peer review of Research grants, leading to the distribution of resources through efficient and robust competitive methods. In the United States, federal funding agencies and foundations collectively distribute billions of dollars annually to support Biomedical Research. For the American Heart Association, a Peer Review Subcommittee is charged with establishing the highest standards for peer review. This scientific statement reviews the current literature on peer review practices, describes the current American Heart Association peer review process and those of other agencies, analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of American Heart Association peer review practices, and recommends best practices for the future.