The Aging of Biomedical Research in the United States

In the past 30 years, the average age of biomedical researchers has steadily increased. The average age of an investigator at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) rose from 39 to 51 between 1980 and 2008. The aging of the biomedical workforce was even more apparent when looking at first-time NIH grantees. The average age of a new investigator was 42 in 2008, compared to 36 in 1980. To determine if the rising barriers at NIH for entry in biomedical research might impact innovative ideas and research, we analyzed the research and publications of Nobel Prize winners from 1980 to 2010 to assess the age at which their pioneering research occurred. We established that in the 30-year period, 96 scientists won the Nobel Prize in medicine or chemistry for work related to biomedicine, and that their groundbreaking research was conducted at an average age of 41—one year younger than the average age of a new investigator at NIH. Furthermore, 78% of the Nobel Prize winners conducted their research before the age of 51, the average age of an NIH principal investigator. This suggested that limited access to NIH might inhibit research potential and novel projects, and could impact biomedicine and the next generation scientists in the United States

Introduction: Science and Religion Around the World

From a scholarly perspective, we reasoned that our research examining the beliefs of scientists would provide insight into the major theoretical issues related to religious change and the impact of science on religion-and religion on science-in different national contexts. Our goal was to understand how science is related to ideas about secularization, or the decline of religion\u27s vitality and influence, among scientists and societies. For policy makers and the general public, our research would reveal how national ideologies and policies related to religion affect scientists\u27 work, and how this in tum might affect the way science is presented and implemented in their nations. We also wanted our research to increase understanding of how the personal religious views of scientists can shape their practice, dissemination, and interpretation of science, as well as how their scientific work can shape their religious views. Ultimately, where there is conflict between science and religion, we wanted our research to illuminate the root of this conflict. Does science destroy religious belief and authority? Does increased commitment to science really lead to decreased commitment to religion? How do views on religion affect how scientists approach research, teaching, and interactions with their colleagues, students, and the public? How many scientists see conflict between science and faith? Are there ways that scientists and religious communities can work together for the common good

International Stem Cell Collaboration: How Disparate Policies between the United States and the United Kingdom Impact Research

As the scientific community globalizes, it is increasingly important to understand the effects of international collaboration on the quality and quantity of research produced. While it is generally assumed that international collaboration enhances the quality of research, this phenomenon is not well examined. Stem cell research is unique in that it is both politically charged and a research area that often generates international collaborations, making it an ideal case through which to examine international collaborations. Furthermore, with promising medical applications, the research area is dynamic and responsive to a globalizing science environment. Thus, studying international collaborations in stem cell research elucidates the role of existing international networks in promoting quality research, as well as the effects that disparate national policies might have on research. This study examined the impact of collaboration on publication significance in the United States and the United Kingdom, world leaders in stem cell research with disparate policies. We reviewed publications by US and UK authors from 2008, along with their citation rates and the political factors that may have contributed to the number of international collaborations. The data demonstrated that international collaborations significantly increased an article's impact for UK and US investigators. While this applied to UK authors whether they were corresponding or secondary, this effect was most significant for US authors who were corresponding authors. While the UK exhibited a higher proportion of international publications than the US, this difference was consistent with overall trends in international scientific collaboration. The findings suggested that national stem cell policy differences and regulatory mechanisms driving international stem cell research in the US and UK did not affect the frequency of international collaborations, or even the countries with which the US and UK most often collaborated. Geographical and traditional collaborative relationships were the predominate considerations in establishing international collaborations

NTD policy priorities: Science, values, and agenda setting.

The authors explore the different scientific values and priorities that should be considered in setting the policy agenda for effectively combating neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) and argue that researchers and physicians should participate in this process

Percentage of the total number of publications and of international publications for 2000 and 2010 by country.^*^†

*<p>Only countries with a strong history of biomedical research or are relatively new entrants were selected for the table.</p>†<p>Regional percentages (1) only take into account the countries represented in the table, and (2) sum to over 100%, as publications often have multiple authors. For example, a publication with authors in US, China and UK would be represented in all three countries.</p

Top Collaborative Partnerships Based on Absolute Publication Counts.

<p>The top 15 collaborative partnerships were determined for each two-country pair in 2000 (dark blue) and 2010 (light blue). Ten partnerships rated high in both years: Canada-USA, France-Germany, France-UK, France-USA, Germany-UK, Germany-USA, Italy-USA, Japan-USA, Spain-USA, UK-USA. Overall, the number of publication increased for all top pairs with the exceptions of Sweden-Switzerland.</p

Summary of publications analyzed for 2000 and 2010.

*<p>International publications were defined as those with authors from at least two different countries.</p>**<p>International partnerships refer to country partnerships e.g. UK and US, not specific partnerships between lab A and lab B.</p

Top 20 collaborations by publication for 2000 and 2010.

*<p>country with corresponding author.</p

Stem cell publications keyword analysis.

*<p>The areas of research and their corresponding keywords are as follows: “Adult Stem Cells” (Bone marrow; Marrow; Hematopoietic; Endothelial cell(s); Liver; Umbilical; Cardiomyocyte; Cardiac; Central-nervous-system; Epithelial-cell(s); Erythropoeisis; Hematopoiesis; Hematopoietic-stem; Hematopoietic stem-cell; Neuron; Progenitor),”Embryonic Stem Cells” (Embryo(s); Embryonic; Embryonic stem-cell; Embryonic-development; Embryogenesis; ES-cell(s); Human embryonic stem), “Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells” (IPS Cell(s)), and “Cancer Stem Cells” (Myeloid-Leukemia; Leukemia; Cancer; Chemotherapy: Tumor; Breast cancer; BCR-ABL; Myelogenous; Carcinoma; Chronic-myeloid leukemia; CML).</p>**<p>Percentages are low due to the large number of keywords (15,526 for 2010 and 9,271 for 2000) analyzed, many of which do not specifically refer to a type of stem cell. The general stem cells category serves as a control, indicating that the percentage of keywords explicitly referring to stem cells is low and remains a relatively constant proportion of total keywords.</p><p>15,526 and 9,271 keywords were associated with articles analyzed in 2010 and 2000, respectively. Categories of stem cell research and corresponding keywords were used to analyze any potential shifts in research areas from 2000 to 2010. Specific keywords were chosen such that they only correspond to one type of stem cell.*</p