The Medical Science Research and Development Supported by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation

This study examined ways of promoting research in the medical sciences by evaluating trends in research funding, and the present status of research funding by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF). This study analyzed statistics from KOSEF from 1978 to 2003 to examine support for research. In medical science field, group-based programs receive more funding than do individual-based programs. The proportion of research funds allocated to the medical sciences has increased markedly each year. Researchers in the medical sciences have submitted more articles to Science Citation Index (SCI) journals than to non-SCI journals, relative to other fields. Researchers supported by the Mission-Oriented Basic Grants program have published the majority of these papers, followed by those supported by the Programs for Leading Scientists, Regional Scientists, Leading Women Scientists, Young Scientists, and Promising Women Scientists, in that order. Funding by KOSEF reflects many decades of government support for research and development, the development and maintenance of necessary infrastructure, and the education and training of medical scientists

Factors associated with the donation and non-donation of embryos for research: a systematic review

Background: Systematic knowledge on the factors that influence the decisions of IVF users regarding embryo donation for research is a core need for patient-centred policies and ethics in clinical practice. However, no systematic review has been provided on the motivations of patients who must decide embryo disposition. This paper fills this gap, presenting a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies, which synthesizes the current body of knowledge on the factors and reasons associated with IVF patients’ decisions to donate or not to donate embryos for research. Methods: A systematic search of studies indexed in PubMed, ISIWoK and PsycINFO, published before November 2013, was conducted. Only empirical, peer-reviewed, full-length, original studies reporting data on factors and reasons associated with the decision concerning donation or non-donation of embryos for research were included. Eligibility and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers and disagreements were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer, if required. The main quantitative findings were extracted and synthesized and qualitative data were assessed by thematic content analysis. Results: A total of 39 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. More than half of the studies (n ¼ 21) used a quantitative methodology, and the remaining were qualitative (n ¼ 15) or mixed-methods (n ¼ 3) studies. The studies were derived mainly from European countries (n ¼ 18) and the USA(n ¼ 11). The proportion of IVF users who donated embryos for research varied from 7% in a study in France to 73% in a Swiss study. Those who donate embryos for research reported feelings of reciprocity towards science and medicine, positive views of research and high levels of trust in the medical system. They described their decision as better than the destruction of embryos and as an opportunity to help others or to improve health and IVF treatments. The perception of risks, the lack of information concerning research projects and the medical system and the conceptualization of embryos in terms of personhood were the most relevant motives for not donating embryos for research. Results relating to the influence of sociodemographic characteristics and reproductive and gynaecological history were mostly inconclusive. Conclusions: Three iterative and dynamic dimensions of the IVF patients’ decision to donate or not to donate embryos for research emerged from this review: the hierarquization of the possible options regarding embryo disposition, according to the moral, social and instrumental status attributed to embryos; patients’ understanding of expectations and risks of the research on human embryos; and patients’ experiences of information exchange and levels of trust in the medical-scientific institutions.This study was partly co-financed through FEDER funding from the Operational Programme Factors of Competitiveness, COMPETE, and through national funding from the FCT, Foundation for Science and Technology (Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science) within the project ‘Health, governance and accountability in embryo research: couples’ decisions about the fates of embryos’ (FCOMP-01-0124- FEDER-014453) and the PhD fellowship SFRH/BD/75807/2011 (to C.S.)

The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research

Copyright @ 2008 Wiley Periodicals Inc. This is the accepted version of the following article: Donovan, C. (2008), The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008: 47–60, which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ev.260/abstract.The author regards development of Australia's ill-fated Research Quality Framework (RQF) as a “live experiment” in determining the most appropriate approach to evaluating the extra-academic returns, or “impact,” of a nation's publicly funded research. The RQF was at the forefront of an international movement toward richer qualitative, contextual approaches that aimed to gauge the wider economic, social, environmental, and cultural benefits of research. Its construction and implementation sent mixed messages and created confusion about what impact is, and how it is best measured, to the extent that this bold live experiment did not come to fruition

Patients’ quest for recognition and continuity in health care: time for a new research agenda?

User involvement is important in democratization of health care and is assumed to contribute to better and more relevant research. Despite increased requirements for user involvement in research, more studies are still needed. This study aimed at exploring what research agenda people with varied health problems consider as important, based on their own experience. The study had a phenomenological approach with a qualitative design. The sample consisted of 23 informants; nine had been critically ill and 14 were suffering from chronic muscle pain. Data were collected in five focus group interviews and one individual interview. A phenomenological approach was used in analyzing the data. Written consent was obtained from all the participants, and ethical considerations were taken throughout the entire research process. Despite various experiences among the participants, a quest to be taken seriously over time by healthcare professionals emerged as a strong meaning structure in both groups. Based on these experiences, continuity across lifetime changes turned out to be an important research topic for future research. User involvement should be appreciated in all parts of the research process. A crucial prerequisite is that the users get the opportunity to bring their own experiences into the process.acceptedVersio

Mapping the hinterland: Data issues in open science

© The Author(s) 2014. Open science is a practice in which the scientific process is shared completely and in real time. It offers the potential to support information flow, collaboration and dialogue among professional and non-professional participants. Using semi-structured interviews and case studies, this research investigated the relationship between open science and public engagement. This article concentrates on three particular areas of concern that emerged: first, how to effectively contextualise and narrate information to render it accessible, as opposed to simply available; second, concerns about data quantity and quality; and third, concerns about the skills required for effective contextualisation, mapping and interpretation of information

Does the world need a scientific society for research on how to improve healthcare?

In this editorial, we reflect on the arguments for starting a scientific society focused on research on how to improve healthcare. This society would take an inclusive approach to what constitutes healthcare. For instance, it should include mental health healthcare, treatment for substance abuse, the work of allied health professions, and preventive healthcare. The society would be open to researchers from all traditions. Thus, we take an inclusive approach to what constitutes scientific research, as long as it uses rigorous methods, is focused on improving healthcare, and aims at knowledge that can be transferred across settings. The society would primarily target scientific researchers but would invite others with an interest in this area of research, regardless of their discipline, position, field of application, or group affiliation (e.g., improvement science, behavioral medicine, knowledge translation). A society would need fruitful collaboration with related societies and organizations, which may include having combined meetings. Special links may be developed with one or more journals. A website to provide information on relevant resources, events, and training opportunities is another key activity. It would also provide a voice for the field at funding agencies, political arenas, and similar institutions. An organizational structure and financial resources are required to develop and run these activities. Our aim is to start an international debate, to discover if we can establish a shared vision across academics and stakeholders engaged with creating scientific knowledge on how to improve healthcare. We invite readers to express their views in the online questionnaire accessed by following the URL link provided at the end of the editorial

Public health research systems in the European union

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Strengthening health research is an important objective for international health organisations, but there has been less attention to support for health research in Europe. We describe the public-health (population and organisational level) research systems in the 27 European Union countries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We developed a typology for describing health research structures based on funding streams and strategies. We drew data from internet sources and asked country informants to review these for consistency and completeness. The structures were described as organograms and narratives in country profiles for each of the 27 EU member states. National public-health research structures included public and independent funding organisations, 'mixed' institutions (which receive funds, and both use and allocate them) and provider institutions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most health research is funded through ministries of science or science councils (and sometimes foundations), while parliaments and regions may also contribute. National institutes of public health are usually funded by ministries of health. Many national research organisations both determine research programmes and undertake health research, but there is a move towards public-health sciences within the universities, and a transition from internal grants to competitive funding. Of 27 national research strategies, 17 referred to health and 11 to public health themes. Although all countries had strategies for public health itself, we found little coherence in public-health research programmes. The European Commission has country contact points for both EU research and health programmes, but they do not coordinate with national health-research programmes.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Public-health research is broadly distributed across programmes in EU countries. Better understanding of research structures, programmes and results would improve recognition for public health in Europe, and contribute to practice. EU ministries of health should give greater attention to national public-health research strategies and programmes, and the European Union and the World Health Organisation can provide coordination and support.</p