Simulating corporate income tax reform proposals with a dynamic CGE model

Opinion leaders and policy makers in the United States have turned their focus to the corporate income tax, which now has the highest statutory rate in the developed world. Using a dynamic computable general equilibrium model (the “NCPA-DCGE Model”), we simulate alternative policies for reducing the U.S. corporate income tax. We find that reductions in the corporate income tax rate result in significant positive impacts on output, investment, capital formation, employment, and household well-being (for almost all deciles). All of the hypothesized reforms also result in a more-streamlined public sector. These results are plausible insofar as the DCGE model from which they are obtained is parameterized by plausible elasticity assumptions, and incorporates the adjustments in prices, output, employment and investment that result from changes in tax policy

Systematic analysis of funding awarded for norovirus research to institutions in the United Kingdom, 1997-2010

Objectives:Norovirus infections pose great economic and disease burden to health systems around the world. This study quantifies the investments in norovirus research awarded to UK institutions over a 14-year time period.Design:A systematic analysis of public and philanthropic infectious disease research investments awarded to UK institutions between 1997 and 2010.Participants:NoneSetting:UK institutions carrying out infectious disease research.Main outcome measures:Total funding for infectious disease research, total funding for norovirus research, position of norovirus research along the R&amp;D value chain.Results:The total dataset consisted of 6165 studies with sum funding of £2.6 billion. Twelve norovirus studies were identified with a total funding of £5.1 million, 0.2% of the total dataset. Of these, eight were categorized as pre-clinical, three as intervention studies and one as implementation research. Median funding was £200,620.Conclusions:Research funding for norovirus infections in the UK appears to be unacceptably low, given the burden of disease and disability produced by these infections. There is a clear need for new research initiatives along the R&amp;D value chain: from pre-clinical through to implementation research, including trials to assess cost-effectiveness of infection control policies as well as clinical, public health and environmental interventions in hospitals, congregate settings and in the community.</p

Systematic analysis of funding awarded for mycology research to institutions in the UK, 1997–2010

Objectives: Fungal infections cause significant global morbidity and mortality. We have previously described the UK investments in global infectious disease research, and here our objective is to describe the investments awarded to UK institutions for mycology research and outline potential funding gaps in the UK portfolio. Design: Systematic analysis. Setting: UK institutions carrying out infectious disease research. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcome is the amount of funding and number of studies related to mycology research. Secondary outcomes are describing the investments made to specific fungal pathogens and diseases, and also the type of science along the R&D value chain. Methods: We systematically searched databases and websites for information on research studies from public and philanthropic funding institutions awarded between 1997 and 2010, and highlighted the mycology-related projects. Results: Of 6165 funded studies, we identified 171 studies related to mycology (total investment £48.4 million, 1.9% of all infection research, with mean annual funding £3.5 million). Studies related to global health represented 5.1% of this funding (£2.4 million, compared with 35.6% of all infectious diseases). Leading funders were the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (£14.8 million, 30.5%) and Wellcome Trust (£12.0 million, 24.7%). Preclinical studies received £42.2 million (87.3%), with clinical trials, intervention studies and implementation research in total receiving £6.2 million (12.7%). By institution, University of Aberdeen received most funding (£16.9 million, 35%). Studies investigating antifungal resistance received £1.5 million (3.2%). Conclusions: There is little translation of preclinical research into clinical trials or implementation research in spite of substantial disease burden globally, and there are few UK institutions that carry out significant quantities of mycology research of any type. In the context of global health and the burden of disease in low-income countries, more investment is required for mycology research

Tax plan debates in the US presidential election : a dynamic CGE analysis of growth and redistribution trade-offs

The two major candidates in the 2016 presidential election made sharply different proposals for reforming the Federal tax code. Donald Trump proposed cutting taxes to provide “tax relief for middle-class Americans”, and lowering corporation taxes to boost economic growth, while Hillary Clinton proposed modest increases in taxes on high-income Americans, with a view to increasing the “fairness” of the tax code. We have simulated the effects of these two proposals, using a two-tier modeling design, with a large dynamic computable general equilibrium model to address the macroeconomic magnitudes, linked to a micro-simulation tax calculator model to measure the distributional effects. The Trump proposals would boost economic growth, but sharpening the incentives to work and to save/invest would be regressive, with 70% of the benefits accruing to those in the top income decile. The budget deficit could only be maintained if spending were to be cut sharply; and if spending were reduced more modestly, the deficit would rise greatly. The Clinton proposals would have little net effect on 90% of households, which is at odds with her promise of tax relief for working people, but would reduce net income in the top decile by almost 2%. They would slow economic growth slightly. Although he was elected president, Donald Trump’s proposals are likely to be altered, mainly so that the budgetary effects are much smaller, before being presented to Congress. But the rationale, shape, and tone of the proposals will likely remain the same

Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010

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

Comparing research investment to United Kingdom institutions and published outputs for tuberculosis, HIV and malaria: A systematic analysis across 1997-2013

Background: The "Unfinished Agenda" of infectious diseases is of great importance to policymakers and research funding agencies that require ongoing research evidence on their effective management. Journal publications help effectively share and disseminate research results to inform policy and practice. We assess research investments to United Kingdom institutions in HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, and analyse these by numbers of publications and citations and by disease and type of science. Methods: Information on infection-related research investments awarded to United Kingdom institutions across 1997-2010 were sourced from funding agencies and individually categorised by disease and type of science. Publications were sourced from the Scopus database via keyword searches and filtered to include only publications relating to human disease and containing a United Kingdom-based first and/or last author. Data were matched by disease and type of science categories. Investment (United Kingdom pounds) and publications were compared to generate an 'investment per publication' metric; similarly, an 'investment per citation' metric was also developed as a measure of the usefulness of research. Results: Total research investment for all three diseases was £1.4 billion, and was greatest for HIV (£651.4 million), followed by malaria (£518.7 million) and tuberculosis (£239.1 million). There were 17,271 included publications, with 9,322 for HIV, 4,451 for malaria, and 3,498 for tuberculosis. HIV publications received the most citations (254,949), followed by malaria (148,559) and tuberculosis (100,244). According to UK pound per publication, tuberculosis (£50,691) appeared the most productive for investment, compared to HIV (£61,971) and malaria (£94,483). By type of science, public health research was most productive for HIV (£27,296) and tuberculosis (£22,273), while phase I-III trials were most productive for malaria (£60,491). According to UK pound per citation, tuberculosis (£1,797) was the most productive area for investment, compared to HIV (£2,265) and malaria (£2,834). Public health research was the most productive type of science for HIV (£2,265) and tuberculosis (£1,797), whereas phase I-III trials were most productive for malaria (£1,713). Conclusions: When comparing total publications and citations with research investment to United Kingdom institutions, tuberculosis research appears to perform best in terms of efficiency. There were more public health-related publications and citations for HIV and tuberculosis than other types of science. These findings demonstrate the diversity of research funding and outputs, and provide new evidence to inform research investment strategies for policymakers, funders, academic institutions, and healthcare organizations.Infectious Disease Research Networ

The Centrality of the Center: Best Practices for Engaging Students on Campus

Communication centers exist primarily as a complementary student service (Strawser, Apostel, Carpenter, Cuny, Dvorak, & Head, 2019). As an integral campus student services, centers must place an overarching emphasis on student engagement. Student engagement, according to NSSE, is the time and effort students put into their educational activities and the institutional deployment of educational resources. Communication centers, to continue to prove their value to institutions, must continue to build programming and initiatives that are worthy of students’ time and get students to participate. To address engagement concerns, the authors of this essay offer ten best practices for building and sustaining student engagement in the communication center. The best practices are universal and transferable, meaning, any center, no matter the vision or the resources, could theoretically implement the ideas

Mapping pneumonia research: a systematic analysis of UK investments and published outputs 1997–2013

BackgroundThe burden of pneumonia continues to be substantial, particularly among the poorest in global society. We describe here the trends for UK pneumonia R&amp;D investment and published outputs, and correlate with 2013 global mortality.MethodsData related to awards to UK institutions for pneumonia research from 1997 to 2013 were systematically sourced and categorised by disease area and type of science. Investment was compared to mortality figures in 2010 and 2013 for pneumonia, tuberculosis and influenza. Investment was also compared to publication data.ResultsOf all infectious disease research between 2011 and 2013 (£917.0 million), £28.8 million (3.1%) was for pneumonia. This was an absolute and proportionate increase from previous time periods. Translational pneumonia research (33.3%) received increased funding compared with 1997–2010 where funding was almost entirely preclinical (87.5%, here 30.9%), but high-burden areas such as paediatrics, elderly care and antimicrobial resistance received little investment. Annual investment remains volatile; publication temporal trends show a consistent increase. When comparing investment to global burden with a novel ‘investment by mortality observed’ metric, tuberculosis (£48.36) and influenza (£484.21) receive relatively more funding than pneumonia (£43.08), despite investment for pneumonia greatly increasing in 2013 compared to 2010 (£7.39). Limitations include a lack of private sector data and the need for careful interpretation of the comparisons with burden, plus categorisation is subjective.ConclusionsThere has been a welcome increase for pneumonia funding awarded to UK institutions in 2011–2013 compared with 1997–2010, along with increases for more translational research. Published outputs relating to pneumonia rose steadily from 1997 to 2013. Investment relative to mortality for pneumonia has increased, but it remains low compared to other respiratory infections and clear inequities remain. Analyses that measure investments in pneumonia can provide an insight into funding trends and research gaps.Research in contextPneumonia continues to be a high-burden illness around the globe. This paper shows that although research funding is increasing in the UK (between 1997 and 2013), it remains poorly funded compared to other important respiratory infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and influenza. Publications about pneumonia have been steadily increasing over time, indicating continuing academic and clinical interest in the topic. Though global mortality of pneumonia is declining, it should still be an area of high priority for funders, policymakers and researchers

Application of Atomic Dielectric Resonance Spectroscopy for the screening of blood samples from patients with clinical variant and sporadic CJD

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sub-clinical variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) infection and reports of vCJD transmission through blood transfusion emphasise the need for blood screening assays to ensure the safety of blood and transplanted tissues. Most assays aim to detect abnormal prion protein (PrP^Sc), although achieving required sensitivity is a challenge.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We have used innovative Atomic Dielectric Resonance Spectroscopy (ADRS), which determines dielectric properties of materials which are established by reflectivity and penetration of radio/micro waves, to analyse blood samples from patients and controls to identify characteristic ADR signatures unique to blood from vCJD and to sCJD patients. Initial sets of blood samples from vCJD, sCJD, non-CJD neurological diseases and normal healthy adults (blood donors) were screened as training samples to determine group-specific ADR characteristics, and provided a basis for classification of blinded sets of samples.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Blood sample groups from vCJD, sCJD, non-CJD neurological diseases and normal healthy adults (blood donors) screened by ADRS were classified with 100% specificity and sensitivity, discriminating these by a co-variance expert analysis system.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>ADRS appears capable of recognising and discriminating serum samples from vCJD, sCJD, non-CJD neurological diseases, and normal healthy adults, and might be developed to provide a system for primary screening or confirmatory assay complementary to other screening systems.</p

Investments in respiratory infectious disease research 1997–2010: a systematic analysis of UK funding

Objectives: Respiratory infections are responsible for a large global burden of disease. We assessed the public and philanthropic investments awarded to UK institutions for respiratory infectious disease research to identify areas of underinvestment. We aimed to identify projects and categorise them by pathogen, disease and position along the research and development value chain. Setting: The UK. Participants: Institutions that host and carry out infectious disease research. Primary and secondary outcome measures The total amount spent and number of studies with a focus on several different respiratory pathogens or diseases, and to correlate these against the global burden of disease; also the total amount spent and number of studies relating to the type of science, the predominant funder in each category and the mean and median award size. Results: We identified 6165 infectious disease studies with a total investment of £2·6 billion. Respiratory research received £419 million (16.1%) across 1192 (19.3%) studies. The Wellcome Trust provided greatest investment (£135.2 million; 32.3%). Tuberculosis received £155 million (37.1%), influenza £80 million (19.1%) and pneumonia £27.8 million (6.6%). Despite high burden, there was relatively little investment in vaccine-preventable diseases including diphtheria (£0.1 million, 0.03%), measles (£5.0 million, 1.2%) and drug-resistant tuberculosis. There were 802 preclinical studies (67.3%) receiving £273 million (65.2%), while implementation research received £81 million (19.3%) across 274 studies (23%). There were comparatively few phase I–IV trials or product development studies. Global health research received £68.3 million (16.3%). Relative investment was strongly correlated with 2010 disease burden. Conclusions: The UK predominantly funds preclinical science. Tuberculosis is the most studied respiratory disease. The high global burden of pneumonia-related disease warrants greater investment than it has historically received. Other priority areas include antimicrobial resistance (particularly within tuberculosis), economics and proactive investments for emerging infectious threats