How funder pressures can torpedo the credibility of research: the cautionary tale of Google and New America

With policy recommendations subject to ever greater scrutiny – not only of their viability but also the credibility of their sources of expertise – many think tanks and research institutions invest considerable time and effort into building and nurturing a reputation for research quality and intellectual independence. However, this most valuable asset remains extremely precarious. Till Bruckner recounts the recent case of Google and New America, an example of how a single perceived vulnerability can undermine the credibility of an organisation’s entire research output. There are no easy solutions, but the importance of transparency and a willingness to publicly address one’s difficulties is clear

Think tanks, evidence and policy: democratic players or clandestine lobbyists?

Depending on your perspective, think tanks either enrich the democratic space by conducting policy research and facilitating public dialogue and debate, or undermine democracy by pushing policies favoured by powerful corporate interests. Till Bruckner explains how Transparify are contributing to debate about think tanks’ role in evidence-based policymaking by assessing their levels of financial transparency. The Transparify report, released today, enables citizens, researchers, journalists, and decision-makers to distinguish between legitimate policy voices and questionable sources of ‘expertise’

Research funders can tackle research waste – lessons from COVID-19 research

Whilst the COVID-19 pandemic promoted faster and more open research practices, it also revealed ongoing issues of research waste, and the widespread duplication of research efforts. Till Bruckner provides evidence for how research waste continues to impact medicine and other fields and highlights the positive steps several funders have taken to promote the responsible publication and collaborative use of negative findings

Clinical trial reporting performance of thirty UK universities on ClinicalTrials.gov-evaluation of a new tracking tool for the US clinical trial registry.

Clinical trial transparency forms the foundation of evidence-based medicine, and trial sponsors, especially publicly funded institutions such as universities, have an ethical and scientific responsibility to make the results of clinical trials publicly available in a timely fashion. We assessed whether the thirty UK universities receiving the most Medical Research Council funding in 2017-2018 complied with World Health Organization best practices for clinical trial reporting on the US Clinical Trial Registry ( ClinicalTrials.gov ). Firstly, we developed and evaluated a novel automated tracking tool ( clinical-trials-tracker.com ) for clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov . This tracker identifies the number of due trials (whose completion lies more than 395 days in the past) that have not reported results on the registry and can now be used for all sponsors. Secondly, we used the tracker to determine the number of due clinical trials sponsored by the selected UK universities in October 2020. Thirdly, using the FDAAA Trials Tracker, we identified trials sponsored by these universities that are not complying with reporting requirements under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 2007. Finally, we quantified the average and median number of days between primary completion date and results posting. In October 2020, the universities included in our study were sponsoring 1634 due trials, only 1.6% (n = 26) of which had reported results within a year of completion. 89.8% (n = 1468) of trials remained unreported, and 8.6% (n = 140) of trials reported results late. We also identified 687 trials that contained inconsistent data, suggesting that UK universities often fail to update their data adequately on ClinicalTrials.gov . The mean reporting delay after primary completion for trials that posted results was 981 days, the median 728 days. Only four trials by UK universities violated the FDAAA 2007. We suggest a number of reasons for the poor reporting performance of UK universities on ClinicalTrials.gov : (i) efforts to improve clinical trial reporting in the UK have to date focused on the European clinical trial registry (EU CTR), (ii) the absence of a tracking tool for timely reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov has limited the visibility of institutions' reporting performance on the US registry and (iii) there is currently a lack of repercussions for UK sponsors who fail to report results on ClinicalTrials.gov which should be addressed in the future

Are European clinical trial funders policies on clinical trial registration and reporting improving? A cross-sectional study

Abstract Objectives: Assess the extent to which the clinical trial registration and reporting policies of 25 of the world’s largest public and philanthropic medical research funders meet best practice benchmarks as stipulated by the 2017 WHO Joint Statement, and document changes in the policies and monitoring systems of 19 European funders over the past year. Design, Setting, Participants: Cross-sectional study, based on assessments of each funder’s publicly available documentation plus validation of results by funders. Our cohort includes 25 of the largest medical research funders in Europe, Oceania, South Asia, and Canada. Interventions: Scoring all 25 funders using an 11-item assessment tool based on WHO best practice benchmarks, grouped into three primary categories: trial registries, academic publication, and monitoring, plus validation of results by funders. Main outcome measures: How many of the 11 WHO best practice items each of the 25 funders has put into place, and changes in the performance of 19 previously assessed funders over the preceding year. Results: The 25 funders we assessed had put into place an average of 5/11 (49%) WHO best practices. Only 6/25 funders (24%) took the PI’s past reporting record into account during grant application reviews. Funders’ performance varied widely from 0/11 to 11/11 WHO best practices adopted. Of the 19 funders for which 2021(2) baseline data was available, 10/19 (53%) had strengthened their policies over the preceding year. Conclusions: Most medical research funders need to do more to curb research waste and publication bias by strengthening their clinical trial policies

Visual cavity analysis in molecular simulations

Molecular surfaces provide a useful mean for analyzing interactions between biomolecules; such as identification and characterization of ligand binding sites to a host macromolecule. We present a novel technique, which extracts potential binding sites, represented by cavities, and characterize them by 3D graphs and by amino acids. The binding sites are extracted using an implicit function sampling and graph algorithms. We propose an advanced cavity exploration technique based on the graph parameters and associated amino acids. Additionally, we interactively visualize the graphs in the context of the molecular surface. We apply our method to the analysis of MD simulations of Proteinase 3, where we verify the previously described cavities and suggest a new potential cavity to be studied

Accountability in international aid : the case of Georgia

This thesis explores accountability in international aid to the Republic of Georgia in 2008-2009. Conceptualizing accountability as the obligation to manage the expectations of multiple stakeholders with often divergent interests, it challenges the common assumption that making aid more accountable per se will automatically lead to better aid. Instead, it argues that accountability relationships reflect power relationships; power influences which stakeholders' expectations are met, to what degree they are met, and what kinds of accountability demands by which stakeholders are viewed as legitimate and therefore entail an organizational obligation to respond. After discussing the links between power and accountability in international aid, with particular reference to donors, NGOs and the Georgian government, the thesis proceeds to explore how power and accountability relationships have influenced the allocation, management and implementation of international aid in Georgia, focusing on the aftermath of the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia. Based on extensive fieldwork in Georgia during 2008-2009, the thesis examines the influence of power and accountability relationships on emergency relief operations, the composition of an international aid package worth USD 4.5 billion, donor involvement in formulating state policy on internally displaced persons and the subsequent donor-financed provision of housing to the displaced, and the provision of bulk food aid to conflict-affected Georgians. This thesis concludes that accountability relationships in international aid reflect power relationships. As aid recipients wield little or no power over donors and NGOs, these aid providers often can (and do) ignore the expectations generated by this stakeholder group, instead giving priority to managing the competing expectations of more powerful stakeholders. Therefore, the widely observed lack of effectiveness of international aid is not due to an overall lack of accountability within international aid, as is commonly believed. Rather, aid is often ineffective at relieving human suffering and generating pro-poor development because aid providers are primarily accountable to powerful stakeholders with little interest in making aid more effective.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Unreported clinical trials by German UMCs

Datasets covering 736 "unreported" German clinical trials, via TranspariME

EMBARC Phase II – Extent, Predictors, and Management of Publication Bias in Animal Research

During EMBARC Phase II, 15+ experts will be interviewed to gain a better understanding of whether and how the concept of complete publication of research results can be applied to animal research. This project builds on EMBARC Phase I, a quantitative study that examined publication rates in animal research