卫生研究投资出了什么问题?大流行后的教训和变革的必要性

R. Bouzidi
{"title":"卫生研究投资出了什么问题?大流行后的教训和变革的必要性","authors":"R. Bouzidi","doi":"10.47108/jidhealth.vol3.issspecial2.86","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The emergence of a new dimension of consciousness after the COVID-19 pandemic might provide an opportunity to highlight gaps and inequalities in health research investment and to mobilize scientific and public opinion to change the way things are done. This analysis considers some lessons learned from the pandemic crisis concerning the priority of global health research, research in prevention and well-being, and international research cooperation. The question raised by these issues concerns the unfairness of health research funding, mainly dominated by the pharmaceutical and device industries. However, evidence shows that these companies shifted funding to late-phase clinical trials and away from innovation activity and global health priorities. On the other hand, public institutions continue to invest in basic science, with the majority of funds still focused on basic research and innovation. This direct relationship between industry and biomedical research disrupts the reliability of findings and biases the evidence. Several initiatives and efforts are shaping pathways towards health research independence from industry funding. We can propose the idea of industry funding without a direct relationship with researchers through a common pot managed by an independent international agency. Nevertheless, to promote publicly funded research, the scientific community must strengthen its position compared to industry-funded research through transparency and the scientific value of publications. ","PeriodicalId":365684,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ideas in Health","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is going wrong in health research investment? post-pandemic lessons and the need for change\",\"authors\":\"R. Bouzidi\",\"doi\":\"10.47108/jidhealth.vol3.issspecial2.86\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The emergence of a new dimension of consciousness after the COVID-19 pandemic might provide an opportunity to highlight gaps and inequalities in health research investment and to mobilize scientific and public opinion to change the way things are done. This analysis considers some lessons learned from the pandemic crisis concerning the priority of global health research, research in prevention and well-being, and international research cooperation. The question raised by these issues concerns the unfairness of health research funding, mainly dominated by the pharmaceutical and device industries. However, evidence shows that these companies shifted funding to late-phase clinical trials and away from innovation activity and global health priorities. On the other hand, public institutions continue to invest in basic science, with the majority of funds still focused on basic research and innovation. This direct relationship between industry and biomedical research disrupts the reliability of findings and biases the evidence. Several initiatives and efforts are shaping pathways towards health research independence from industry funding. We can propose the idea of industry funding without a direct relationship with researchers through a common pot managed by an independent international agency. Nevertheless, to promote publicly funded research, the scientific community must strengthen its position compared to industry-funded research through transparency and the scientific value of publications. \",\"PeriodicalId\":365684,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ideas in Health\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ideas in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47108/jidhealth.vol3.issspecial2.86\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ideas in Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47108/jidhealth.vol3.issspecial2.86","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在2019冠状病毒病大流行之后,出现了新的意识层面,这可能为强调卫生研究投资方面的差距和不平等,并动员科学和公众舆论来改变做事方式提供了机会。这一分析考虑了从大流行病危机中吸取的一些教训,涉及全球卫生研究的优先事项、预防和福祉研究以及国际研究合作。这些问题引起的问题涉及卫生研究经费的不公平,主要是由制药和设备行业主导的。然而,有证据表明,这些公司将资金转移到后期临床试验,远离创新活动和全球卫生优先事项。另一方面,公共机构继续对基础科学进行投资,大部分资金仍然集中在基础研究和创新上。工业和生物医学研究之间的这种直接关系破坏了研究结果的可靠性,并使证据产生偏差。若干举措和努力正在形成卫生研究独立于工业资助的途径。我们可以通过一个由独立的国际机构管理的共同基金,在不与研究人员建立直接关系的情况下提出行业资助的想法。然而,为了促进公共资助的研究,科学界必须通过透明度和出版物的科学价值来加强其相对于工业界资助的研究的地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What is going wrong in health research investment? post-pandemic lessons and the need for change
The emergence of a new dimension of consciousness after the COVID-19 pandemic might provide an opportunity to highlight gaps and inequalities in health research investment and to mobilize scientific and public opinion to change the way things are done. This analysis considers some lessons learned from the pandemic crisis concerning the priority of global health research, research in prevention and well-being, and international research cooperation. The question raised by these issues concerns the unfairness of health research funding, mainly dominated by the pharmaceutical and device industries. However, evidence shows that these companies shifted funding to late-phase clinical trials and away from innovation activity and global health priorities. On the other hand, public institutions continue to invest in basic science, with the majority of funds still focused on basic research and innovation. This direct relationship between industry and biomedical research disrupts the reliability of findings and biases the evidence. Several initiatives and efforts are shaping pathways towards health research independence from industry funding. We can propose the idea of industry funding without a direct relationship with researchers through a common pot managed by an independent international agency. Nevertheless, to promote publicly funded research, the scientific community must strengthen its position compared to industry-funded research through transparency and the scientific value of publications. 
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信