scholarly journals U.S. senators advance biomedical innovation bills, but key NIH funding issue unresolved

Science ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Servick
Somatechnics ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Svenja J. Kratz

Abstract: Presented from an ArtScience practitioner's perspective, this paper provides an overview of Svenja Kratz's experience working as an artist within the area of cell and tissue culture at QUT's Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (IHBI). Using The Absence of Alice, a multi-medium exhibition based on the experience of culturing cells, as a case study, the paper gives insight into the artist's approach to working across art and science and how ideas, processes, and languages from each discipline can intermesh and extend the possibilities of each system. The paper also provides an overview of her most recent artwork, The Human Skin Equivalent/Experience Project, which involves the creation of personal jewellery items incorporating human skin equivalent models grown from the artist's skin and participant cells. Referencing this project, and other contemporary bioart works, the value of ArtScience is discussed, focusing in particular on the way in which cross-art-science projects enable an alternative voice to enter into scientific dialogues and have the potential to yield outcomes valuable to both disciplines.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Russell R. Lonser ◽  
Luke G. F. Smith ◽  
Michael Tennekoon ◽  
Kavon P. Rezai-Zadeh ◽  
Jeffrey G. Ojemann ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVETo increase the number of independent National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funded neurosurgeons and to enhance neurosurgery research, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) developed two national comprehensive programs (R25 [established 2009] for residents/fellows and K12 [2013] for early-career neurosurgical faculty) in consultation with neurosurgical leaders and academic departments to support in-training and early-career neurosurgeons. The authors assessed the effectiveness of these NINDS-initiated programs to increase the number of independent NIH-funded neurosurgeon-scientists and grow NIH neurosurgery research funding.METHODSNIH funding data for faculty and clinical department funding were derived from the NIH, academic departments, and Blue Ridge Institute of Medical Research databases from 2006 to 2019.RESULTSBetween 2009 and 2019, the NINDS R25 funded 87 neurosurgical residents. Fifty-three (61%) have completed the award and training, and 39 (74%) are in academic practice. Compared to neurosurgeons who did not receive R25 funding, R25 awardees were twice as successful (64% vs 31%) in obtaining K-series awards and received the K-series award in a significantly shorter period of time after training (25.2 ± 10.1 months vs 53.9 ± 23.0 months; p < 0.004). Between 2013 and 2019, the NINDS K12 has supported 19 neurosurgeons. Thirteen (68%) have finished their K12 support and all (100%) have applied for federal funding. Eleven (85%) have obtained major individual NIH grant support. Since the establishment of these two programs, the number of unique neurosurgeons supported by either individual (R01 or DP-series) or collaborative (U- or P-series) NIH grants increased from 36 to 82 (a 2.3-fold increase). Overall, NIH funding to clinical neurological surgery departments between 2006 and 2019 increased from $66.9 million to $157.3 million (a 2.2-fold increase).CONCLUSIONSTargeted research education and career development programs initiated by the NINDS led to a rapid and dramatic increase in the number of NIH-funded neurosurgeon-scientists and total NIH neurosurgery department funding.


Circulation ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Louis ◽  
Scott Ballin
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Kathryn C. Ibata-Arens

What explains the rapid and sustained economic rise of Asian countries in high-technology industries, including biomedicals? The biomedical industry, comprised mainly of biopharmaceuticals and medical devices, is among the fastest growing globally and has been an economic-development target of national governments around the world. The book presents a conceptual framework to assess national government management of innovation and entrepreneurship in the fast-growing biomedical industry in Asia, which at current growth rates is on track to become the center of the world economy. Four Asian countries—China, India, Japan, and Singapore—are compared in terms of innovation capacities, government policy, and firm-level strategies underlying competitive advantages in high technology. The book argues that countries that pursue networked technonationalism have been effective in upgrading innovation capacity and also encouraging entrepreneurial activity in targeted industries. The study begins with a global-level analysis of biomedical innovation and entrepreneurship, identifying emerging concentrations of scientific citation, patenting, and firm creation—paying close attention to trends in Asian economies and future prospects. Findings indicate a gradual shift to Asian economies of many biomedical-innovation and new-business-creation activities. The book concludes with implications for innovation policy and entrepreneurship strategy in Asia and elsewhere.


Author(s):  
Karim ReFaey ◽  
William D. Freeman ◽  
Shashwat Tripathi ◽  
Hugo Guerrero-Cazares ◽  
Tiffany A. Eatz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-60
Author(s):  
Kristine M. Kulage ◽  
Joshua R. Massei ◽  
Elaine L. Larson

Ordinal rankings of schools of nursing by research funding in total dollars awarded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a common metric for demonstrating research productivity; however, these data are not based on the number of doctorally prepared faculty eligible to apply for funding. Therefore, we examined an alternative method for measuring research productivity which accounts for size differences in schools: NIH funding ranked “per capita.” We extracted data on total average funding and compared them with average funding secured per faculty member across top-ranked schools of nursing in the United States from 2013 to 2017. When examining data by number of doctorally prepared faculty, 4 of 12 (33%) schools that ranked lower in total average funding ranked higher in average funding per faculty member. School size is an important but neglected factor in current funding rankings; therefore, we encourage schools to use multiple approaches to track their research productivity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document