The Experts below are selected from a list of 215049 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Rifat Atun - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
g538 global public and philanthropic investment in childhood cancer Research systematic analysis of Research Funding over nine years 2008 2016
Archives of Disease in Childhood, 2019Co-Authors: Eva Loucaides, Eja Fitchett, Richard Sullivan, Rifat AtunAbstract:Aim Childhood cancers have long been missing from the global health agenda despite being a leading cause of childhood mortality, accounting for an estimated 75 000 deaths in children under 15 years old in 2018. Understanding the current Research landscape is essential to ascertain how Research resources are allocated to address clinical and operational knowledge gaps in childhood cancer epidemiology, clinical care and the effectiveness of interventions. We analyse trends in global public and philanthropic Research Funding for childhood cancers, a useful proxy for global Research activity. Methods We systematically searched for and analysed the inflation-adjusted amounts (in US Dollars) awarded by, and topics of, 3414 grants from 115 funders across 35 countries between 2008–16; using data from the Dimensions database. Research Funding was mapped according to Funding source, recipient, tumour type, Research focus and pipeline categories; describing trends over time. Results In 2008–16, total global Funding for paediatric oncology Research was $2 billion; with a mean of only $227 million per year. Despite a small increase in Research infrastructure grants in 2013–14, direct Funding for paediatric oncology Research has declined since 2011. Most Funding supported general childhood cancer Research including infrastructure grants ($772 million; 37.9%), followed by Research into leukaemia ($449 million; 22·0%), central nervous system tumours ($330 million;16·2%), and neuroblastoma ($181 million;8·9%). The majority of Funding was awarded from, and to, United States based institutions ($1.6 billion; 77·7%); with pre-clinical Research receiving $1·2 billion (59·3%) and only $116 million (5·7%) and $113 million (5·5%) directly supporting clinical trials and healthcare delivery Research, respectively. Only $18 million (0·9%) was awarded for prevention Research. Conclusion Funding for paediatric oncology Research is indaequate for a leading cause of child mortality and suffering. There is a bottleneck in Funding between pre-clinical biology/aetiology Research and clinical trials; with an urgent need for developing new models of care through health systems and healthcare delivery Research. New momentum towards achieving universal health coverage for children must be met with major new public and philanthropic commitments to support future Research to better understand the distribution, burden and causes of paediatric malignancies, and to develop innovative prevention and treatment strategies.
-
a systematic analysis of uk cancer Research Funding by gender of primary investigator
BMJ Open, 2018Co-Authors: Charlie D Zhou, Michael G Head, Rifat Atun, Dominic C Marshall, Barnabas J Gilbert, Majd A Elharasis, Rosalind Raine, Henrietta Oconnor, Mahiben MaruthappuAbstract:Objectives To categorically describe cancer Research Funding in the UK by gender of primary investigator (PIs). Design Systematic analysis of all open-access data. Methods Data about public and philanthropic cancer Research Funding awarded to UK institutions between 2000 and 2013 were obtained from several sources. Fold differences were used to compare total investment, award number, mean and median award value between male and female PIs. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine statistically significant associations between PI gender and median grant value. Results Of the studies included in our analysis, 2890 (69%) grants with a total value of £1.82 billion (78%) were awarded to male PIs compared with 1296 (31%) grants with a total value of £512 million (22%) awarded to female PIs. Male PIs received 1.3 times the median award value of their female counterparts (P Conclusions We demonstrate substantial differences in cancer Research investment awarded by gender. Female PIs clearly and consistently receive less Funding than their male counterparts in terms of total investment, the number of funded awards, mean Funding awarded and median Funding awarded.
-
ebola Research Funding a systematic analysis 1997 2015
Journal of Global Health, 2016Co-Authors: Joseph R Fitchett, Amos Lichtman, Damilola T Soyode, Jimena Villar De Onis, Michael G Head, Rifat AtunAbstract:Background: The latest outbreak of Ebola in West Africa overwhelmed the affected countries, with the impact on health extending far beyond Ebola–related deaths that have exceeded 11?000. The need to promptly mobilise resources to control emerging infections is widely recognized. Yet, data on Research Funding for emerging infections remains inadequately documented. Methods: We defined Research investment as all Funding flows for Ebola and/or Marburg virus from 1997 to April 2015 whose primary purpose was to advance knowledge and new technologies to prevent or cure disease. We sourced data directly from Funding organizations and estimated the investment in 2015 US dollars (US$). Results: Funding for Ebola and Marburg virus Research in 1997 to 2015 amounted to US$ 1.035 billion, including US$ 435.4 million (42.0%) awarded in 2014 and 2015. Public sources of Funding invested US$ 758.8 million (73.1%), philanthropic sources US$ 65.1 million (6.3%), and joint public/private/philanthropic ventures accounted for US$ 213.8 million (20.6%). Prior to the Ebola outbreak in 2014, pre–clinical Research dominated Research with US$ 443.6 million (73.9%) investment. After the outbreak, however, investment for new product development increased 942.7–fold and that for clinical trials rose 23.5–fold. Investment in new tools to control Ebola and Marburg virus amounted to US$ 399.1 million, with 61.3% awarded for vaccine Research, 29.2% for novel therapeutics Research such as antivirals and convalescent blood products, and 9.5% for diagnostics Research. Research Funding and bibliometric output were moderately associated (Spearman's ??=?0.5232, P?=?0.0259), however number of Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and Research Funding (??=?0.1706, P?=?0.4985) and Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and Research output (??=?0.3020, P?=?0.0616) were poorly correlated. Conclusion: Significant public and philanthropic funds have been invested in Ebola and Marburg virus Research in 2014 and 2015, following the outbreak in West Africa. Long term, strategic vision and leadership are needed to invest in infections with pandemic potential early, including innovative financing measures and open access investment data to promote the development of new therapies and technologies.
-
Research investments in global health a systematic analysis of uk infectious disease Research Funding and global health metrics 1997 2013
EBioMedicine, 2016Co-Authors: Joseph R Fitchett, Michael G Head, Vaitehi Nageshwaran, Nina Kumari, Andrew Hayward, Rifat AtunAbstract:Abstract Background Infectious diseases account for a significant global burden of disease and substantial investment in Research and development. This paper presents a systematic assessment of Research investments awarded to UK institutions and global health metrics assessing disease burden. Methods We systematically sourced Research Funding data awarded from public and philanthropic organisations between 1997 and 2013. We screened awards for relevance to infection and categorised data by type of science, disease area and specific pathogen. Investments were compared with mortality, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years lived with disability (YLD) across three time points. Findings Between 1997–2013, there were 7398 awards with a total investment of £3.7 billion. An increase in Research Funding across 2011–2013 was observed for most disease areas, with notable exceptions being sexually transmitted infections and sepsis Research where Funding decreased. Most Funding remains for pre-clinical Research (£2.2 billion, 59.4%). Relative to global mortality, DALYs and YLDs, acute hepatitis C, leishmaniasis and African trypanosomiasis received comparatively high levels of Funding. Pneumonia, shigellosis, pertussis, cholera and syphilis were poorly funded across all health metrics. Tuberculosis (TB) consistently attracts relatively less Funding than HIV and malaria. Interpretation Most infections have received increases in Research investment, alongside decreases in global burden of disease in 2013. The UK demonstrates Research strengths in some neglected tropical diseases such as African trypanosomiasis and leishmaniasis, but syphilis, cholera, shigellosis and pneumonia remain poorly funded relative to their global burden. Acute hepatitis C appears well funded but the figures do not adequately take into account projected future chronic burdens for this condition. These findings can help to inform global policymakers on resource allocation for Research investment.
-
differences in Research Funding for women scientists a systematic comparison of uk investments in global infectious disease Research during 1997 2010
BMJ Open, 2013Co-Authors: Michael G Head, Joseph R Fitchett, Rifat Atun, Mary Cooke, Fatima B WurieAbstract:Objectives There has not previously been a systematic comparison of awards for Research Funding in infectious diseases by sex. We investigated Funding awards to UK institutions for all infectious disease Research from 1997 to 2010, across disease categories and along the Research and development continuum. Design Systematic comparison. Methods Data were obtained from several sources for awards from the period 1997 to 2010 and each study assigned to—disease categories; type of science (preclinical, phases I–III trials, product development, implementation Research); categories of Funding organisation. Fold differences and statistical analysis were used to compare total investment, study numbers, mean grant and median grant between men and women. Results 6052 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 4357 grants (72%) awarded to men and 1695 grants (28%) awarded to women, totalling £2.274 billion. Of this, men received £1.786 billion (78.5%) and women £488 million (21.5%). The median value of award was greater for men (£179 389; IQR £59 146–£371 977) than women (£125 556; IQR £30 982–£261 834). Awards were greater for male principal investigators (PIs) across all infectious disease systems, excepting neurological infections and sexually transmitted infections. The proportion of total Funding awarded to women ranged from 14.3% in 1998 to 26.8% in 2009 (mean 21.4%), and was lowest for preclinical Research at 18.2% (£285.5 million of £1.573 billion) and highest for operational Research at 30.9% (£151.4 million of £489.7 million). Conclusions There are consistent differences in Funding received by men and women PIs: women have fewer funded studies and receive less Funding in absolute and in relative terms; the median Funding awarded to women is lower across most infectious disease areas, by funder, and type of science. These differences remain broadly unchanged over the 14-year study period.
Michael G Head - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a systematic analysis of uk cancer Research Funding by gender of primary investigator
BMJ Open, 2018Co-Authors: Charlie D Zhou, Michael G Head, Rifat Atun, Dominic C Marshall, Barnabas J Gilbert, Majd A Elharasis, Rosalind Raine, Henrietta Oconnor, Mahiben MaruthappuAbstract:Objectives To categorically describe cancer Research Funding in the UK by gender of primary investigator (PIs). Design Systematic analysis of all open-access data. Methods Data about public and philanthropic cancer Research Funding awarded to UK institutions between 2000 and 2013 were obtained from several sources. Fold differences were used to compare total investment, award number, mean and median award value between male and female PIs. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine statistically significant associations between PI gender and median grant value. Results Of the studies included in our analysis, 2890 (69%) grants with a total value of £1.82 billion (78%) were awarded to male PIs compared with 1296 (31%) grants with a total value of £512 million (22%) awarded to female PIs. Male PIs received 1.3 times the median award value of their female counterparts (P Conclusions We demonstrate substantial differences in cancer Research investment awarded by gender. Female PIs clearly and consistently receive less Funding than their male counterparts in terms of total investment, the number of funded awards, mean Funding awarded and median Funding awarded.
-
ebola Research Funding a systematic analysis 1997 2015
Journal of Global Health, 2016Co-Authors: Joseph R Fitchett, Amos Lichtman, Damilola T Soyode, Jimena Villar De Onis, Michael G Head, Rifat AtunAbstract:Background: The latest outbreak of Ebola in West Africa overwhelmed the affected countries, with the impact on health extending far beyond Ebola–related deaths that have exceeded 11?000. The need to promptly mobilise resources to control emerging infections is widely recognized. Yet, data on Research Funding for emerging infections remains inadequately documented. Methods: We defined Research investment as all Funding flows for Ebola and/or Marburg virus from 1997 to April 2015 whose primary purpose was to advance knowledge and new technologies to prevent or cure disease. We sourced data directly from Funding organizations and estimated the investment in 2015 US dollars (US$). Results: Funding for Ebola and Marburg virus Research in 1997 to 2015 amounted to US$ 1.035 billion, including US$ 435.4 million (42.0%) awarded in 2014 and 2015. Public sources of Funding invested US$ 758.8 million (73.1%), philanthropic sources US$ 65.1 million (6.3%), and joint public/private/philanthropic ventures accounted for US$ 213.8 million (20.6%). Prior to the Ebola outbreak in 2014, pre–clinical Research dominated Research with US$ 443.6 million (73.9%) investment. After the outbreak, however, investment for new product development increased 942.7–fold and that for clinical trials rose 23.5–fold. Investment in new tools to control Ebola and Marburg virus amounted to US$ 399.1 million, with 61.3% awarded for vaccine Research, 29.2% for novel therapeutics Research such as antivirals and convalescent blood products, and 9.5% for diagnostics Research. Research Funding and bibliometric output were moderately associated (Spearman's ??=?0.5232, P?=?0.0259), however number of Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and Research Funding (??=?0.1706, P?=?0.4985) and Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and Research output (??=?0.3020, P?=?0.0616) were poorly correlated. Conclusion: Significant public and philanthropic funds have been invested in Ebola and Marburg virus Research in 2014 and 2015, following the outbreak in West Africa. Long term, strategic vision and leadership are needed to invest in infections with pandemic potential early, including innovative financing measures and open access investment data to promote the development of new therapies and technologies.
-
Research investments in global health a systematic analysis of uk infectious disease Research Funding and global health metrics 1997 2013
EBioMedicine, 2016Co-Authors: Joseph R Fitchett, Michael G Head, Vaitehi Nageshwaran, Nina Kumari, Andrew Hayward, Rifat AtunAbstract:Abstract Background Infectious diseases account for a significant global burden of disease and substantial investment in Research and development. This paper presents a systematic assessment of Research investments awarded to UK institutions and global health metrics assessing disease burden. Methods We systematically sourced Research Funding data awarded from public and philanthropic organisations between 1997 and 2013. We screened awards for relevance to infection and categorised data by type of science, disease area and specific pathogen. Investments were compared with mortality, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years lived with disability (YLD) across three time points. Findings Between 1997–2013, there were 7398 awards with a total investment of £3.7 billion. An increase in Research Funding across 2011–2013 was observed for most disease areas, with notable exceptions being sexually transmitted infections and sepsis Research where Funding decreased. Most Funding remains for pre-clinical Research (£2.2 billion, 59.4%). Relative to global mortality, DALYs and YLDs, acute hepatitis C, leishmaniasis and African trypanosomiasis received comparatively high levels of Funding. Pneumonia, shigellosis, pertussis, cholera and syphilis were poorly funded across all health metrics. Tuberculosis (TB) consistently attracts relatively less Funding than HIV and malaria. Interpretation Most infections have received increases in Research investment, alongside decreases in global burden of disease in 2013. The UK demonstrates Research strengths in some neglected tropical diseases such as African trypanosomiasis and leishmaniasis, but syphilis, cholera, shigellosis and pneumonia remain poorly funded relative to their global burden. Acute hepatitis C appears well funded but the figures do not adequately take into account projected future chronic burdens for this condition. These findings can help to inform global policymakers on resource allocation for Research investment.
-
differences in Research Funding for women scientists a systematic comparison of uk investments in global infectious disease Research during 1997 2010
BMJ Open, 2013Co-Authors: Michael G Head, Joseph R Fitchett, Rifat Atun, Mary Cooke, Fatima B WurieAbstract:Objectives There has not previously been a systematic comparison of awards for Research Funding in infectious diseases by sex. We investigated Funding awards to UK institutions for all infectious disease Research from 1997 to 2010, across disease categories and along the Research and development continuum. Design Systematic comparison. Methods Data were obtained from several sources for awards from the period 1997 to 2010 and each study assigned to—disease categories; type of science (preclinical, phases I–III trials, product development, implementation Research); categories of Funding organisation. Fold differences and statistical analysis were used to compare total investment, study numbers, mean grant and median grant between men and women. Results 6052 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 4357 grants (72%) awarded to men and 1695 grants (28%) awarded to women, totalling £2.274 billion. Of this, men received £1.786 billion (78.5%) and women £488 million (21.5%). The median value of award was greater for men (£179 389; IQR £59 146–£371 977) than women (£125 556; IQR £30 982–£261 834). Awards were greater for male principal investigators (PIs) across all infectious disease systems, excepting neurological infections and sexually transmitted infections. The proportion of total Funding awarded to women ranged from 14.3% in 1998 to 26.8% in 2009 (mean 21.4%), and was lowest for preclinical Research at 18.2% (£285.5 million of £1.573 billion) and highest for operational Research at 30.9% (£151.4 million of £489.7 million). Conclusions There are consistent differences in Funding received by men and women PIs: women have fewer funded studies and receive less Funding in absolute and in relative terms; the median Funding awarded to women is lower across most infectious disease areas, by funder, and type of science. These differences remain broadly unchanged over the 14-year study period.
Joseph R Fitchett - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ebola Research Funding a systematic analysis 1997 2015
Journal of Global Health, 2016Co-Authors: Joseph R Fitchett, Amos Lichtman, Damilola T Soyode, Jimena Villar De Onis, Michael G Head, Rifat AtunAbstract:Background: The latest outbreak of Ebola in West Africa overwhelmed the affected countries, with the impact on health extending far beyond Ebola–related deaths that have exceeded 11?000. The need to promptly mobilise resources to control emerging infections is widely recognized. Yet, data on Research Funding for emerging infections remains inadequately documented. Methods: We defined Research investment as all Funding flows for Ebola and/or Marburg virus from 1997 to April 2015 whose primary purpose was to advance knowledge and new technologies to prevent or cure disease. We sourced data directly from Funding organizations and estimated the investment in 2015 US dollars (US$). Results: Funding for Ebola and Marburg virus Research in 1997 to 2015 amounted to US$ 1.035 billion, including US$ 435.4 million (42.0%) awarded in 2014 and 2015. Public sources of Funding invested US$ 758.8 million (73.1%), philanthropic sources US$ 65.1 million (6.3%), and joint public/private/philanthropic ventures accounted for US$ 213.8 million (20.6%). Prior to the Ebola outbreak in 2014, pre–clinical Research dominated Research with US$ 443.6 million (73.9%) investment. After the outbreak, however, investment for new product development increased 942.7–fold and that for clinical trials rose 23.5–fold. Investment in new tools to control Ebola and Marburg virus amounted to US$ 399.1 million, with 61.3% awarded for vaccine Research, 29.2% for novel therapeutics Research such as antivirals and convalescent blood products, and 9.5% for diagnostics Research. Research Funding and bibliometric output were moderately associated (Spearman's ??=?0.5232, P?=?0.0259), however number of Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and Research Funding (??=?0.1706, P?=?0.4985) and Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and Research output (??=?0.3020, P?=?0.0616) were poorly correlated. Conclusion: Significant public and philanthropic funds have been invested in Ebola and Marburg virus Research in 2014 and 2015, following the outbreak in West Africa. Long term, strategic vision and leadership are needed to invest in infections with pandemic potential early, including innovative financing measures and open access investment data to promote the development of new therapies and technologies.
-
Research investments in global health a systematic analysis of uk infectious disease Research Funding and global health metrics 1997 2013
EBioMedicine, 2016Co-Authors: Joseph R Fitchett, Michael G Head, Vaitehi Nageshwaran, Nina Kumari, Andrew Hayward, Rifat AtunAbstract:Abstract Background Infectious diseases account for a significant global burden of disease and substantial investment in Research and development. This paper presents a systematic assessment of Research investments awarded to UK institutions and global health metrics assessing disease burden. Methods We systematically sourced Research Funding data awarded from public and philanthropic organisations between 1997 and 2013. We screened awards for relevance to infection and categorised data by type of science, disease area and specific pathogen. Investments were compared with mortality, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years lived with disability (YLD) across three time points. Findings Between 1997–2013, there were 7398 awards with a total investment of £3.7 billion. An increase in Research Funding across 2011–2013 was observed for most disease areas, with notable exceptions being sexually transmitted infections and sepsis Research where Funding decreased. Most Funding remains for pre-clinical Research (£2.2 billion, 59.4%). Relative to global mortality, DALYs and YLDs, acute hepatitis C, leishmaniasis and African trypanosomiasis received comparatively high levels of Funding. Pneumonia, shigellosis, pertussis, cholera and syphilis were poorly funded across all health metrics. Tuberculosis (TB) consistently attracts relatively less Funding than HIV and malaria. Interpretation Most infections have received increases in Research investment, alongside decreases in global burden of disease in 2013. The UK demonstrates Research strengths in some neglected tropical diseases such as African trypanosomiasis and leishmaniasis, but syphilis, cholera, shigellosis and pneumonia remain poorly funded relative to their global burden. Acute hepatitis C appears well funded but the figures do not adequately take into account projected future chronic burdens for this condition. These findings can help to inform global policymakers on resource allocation for Research investment.
-
differences in Research Funding for women scientists a systematic comparison of uk investments in global infectious disease Research during 1997 2010
BMJ Open, 2013Co-Authors: Michael G Head, Joseph R Fitchett, Rifat Atun, Mary Cooke, Fatima B WurieAbstract:Objectives There has not previously been a systematic comparison of awards for Research Funding in infectious diseases by sex. We investigated Funding awards to UK institutions for all infectious disease Research from 1997 to 2010, across disease categories and along the Research and development continuum. Design Systematic comparison. Methods Data were obtained from several sources for awards from the period 1997 to 2010 and each study assigned to—disease categories; type of science (preclinical, phases I–III trials, product development, implementation Research); categories of Funding organisation. Fold differences and statistical analysis were used to compare total investment, study numbers, mean grant and median grant between men and women. Results 6052 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 4357 grants (72%) awarded to men and 1695 grants (28%) awarded to women, totalling £2.274 billion. Of this, men received £1.786 billion (78.5%) and women £488 million (21.5%). The median value of award was greater for men (£179 389; IQR £59 146–£371 977) than women (£125 556; IQR £30 982–£261 834). Awards were greater for male principal investigators (PIs) across all infectious disease systems, excepting neurological infections and sexually transmitted infections. The proportion of total Funding awarded to women ranged from 14.3% in 1998 to 26.8% in 2009 (mean 21.4%), and was lowest for preclinical Research at 18.2% (£285.5 million of £1.573 billion) and highest for operational Research at 30.9% (£151.4 million of £489.7 million). Conclusions There are consistent differences in Funding received by men and women PIs: women have fewer funded studies and receive less Funding in absolute and in relative terms; the median Funding awarded to women is lower across most infectious disease areas, by funder, and type of science. These differences remain broadly unchanged over the 14-year study period.
David Stuckler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
coca cola a model of transparency in Research partnerships a network analysis of coca cola s Research Funding 2008 2016
Public Health Nutrition, 2018Co-Authors: Paulo Serodio, Martin Mckee, David StucklerAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To (i) evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola's 'Transparency Lists' of 218 Researchers that it funds are comprehensive; (ii) map all scientific Research acknowledging Funding from Coca-Cola; (iii) identify those institutions, authors and Research topics funded by Coca-Cola; and (iv) use Coca-Cola's disclosure to gauge whether its funded Researchers acknowledge the source of Funding. DESIGN: Using Web of Science Core Collection database, we retrieved all studies declaring receipt of direct Funding from the Coca-Cola brand, published between 2008 and 2016. Using conservative eligibility criteria, we iteratively removed studies and recreated Coca-Cola's transparency lists using our data. We used network analysis and structural topic modelling to assess the structure, organization and thematic focus of Coca-Cola's Research enterprise, and string matching to evaluate the completeness of Coca-Cola's transparency lists. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-nine articles, published in 169 different journals, and authored by 907 Researchers, cite Funding from The Coca-Cola Company. Of these, Coca-Cola acknowledges Funding forty-two authors (<5 %). We observed that the funded Research focuses mostly on nutrition and emphasizes the importance of physical activity and the concept of 'energy balance'. CONCLUSIONS: The Coca-Cola Company appears to have failed to declare a comprehensive list of its Research activities. Further, several funded authors appear to have failed to declare receipt of Funding. Most of Coca-Cola's Research support is directed towards physical activity and disregards the role of diet in obesity. Despite initiatives for greater transparency of Research Funding, the full scale of Coca-Cola's involvement is still not known.
Diana Hicks - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
performance based university Research Funding systems
Research Policy, 2012Co-Authors: Diana HicksAbstract:The university Research environment has been undergoing profound change in recent decades and performance-based Research Funding systems (PRFSs) are one of the many novelties introduced. This paper seeks to find general lessons in the accumulated experience with PRFSs that can serve to enrich our understanding of how Research policy and innovation systems are evolving. The paper also links the PRFS experience with the public management literature, particularly new public management, and understanding of public sector performance evaluation systems. PRFSs were found to be complex, dynamic systems, balancing peer review and metrics, accommodating differences between fields, and involving lengthy consultation with the academic community and transparency in data and results. Although the importance of PRFSs seems based on their distribution of universities’ Research Funding, this is something of an illusion, and the literature agrees that it is the competition for prestige created by a PRSF that creates powerful incentives within university systems. The literature suggests that under the right circumstances a PRFS will enhance control by professional elites. PRFSs since they aim for excellence, may compromise other important values such as equity or diversity. They will not serve the goal of enhancing the economic relevance of Research.
