Funding priorities and health outcomes in Danish medical research

External research funding is an essential component of the infrastructure of modern, academic research. Priorities in funding decisions drive what knowledge is generated, and how scientists' careers are shaped. For health research, it can ultimately have implications for health outcomes. The aim of this paper is to illustrate how funding information can be used to track priorities in health research, linking them to disease burdens and research outputs. Furthermore, funding concentrations are analysed from both researcher and disease perspectives, to estimate the influence of personal Matthew-effects on the distribution of health research funding. Denmark is used as the case, including funding information from all major public and private research foundations in the period 2004-2016. Grant information is linked to research outputs and disability-adjusted life-years (DALY rates), for 34,160 publications linked to 2630 grants, receiving DKK 4.8 billion in funding. Data show poor correlation between funding priorities, research activity and disease burdens, with several diseases receiving disproportionate amounts of funding. A research opportunity index is calculated to identify diseases with the highest potential for future investments from a burden-centred point of view. Funding is highly concentrated, both on people and on specific diseases. High funding concentrations on researchers can be a driving factor behind the observed funding-to-burden imbalances, and may risk knowledge stagnation through monopolisation of the market place of ideas. Results indicate that funders of clinical and translational research, as well as some types of biomedical research, need to supplement traditional considerations of scientific excellence with measures of societal challenges and relevance.

Getting ahead in the social sciences: How parenthood and publishing contribute to gender gaps in academic career advancement

How do parenthood and publishing contribute to gender gaps in academic career advancement? While extensive research examines the causes of gender disparities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers, we know much less about the factors that constrain women's advancement in the social sciences. Combining detailed career- and administrative register data on 976 Danish social scientists in Business and Management, Economics, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology (5703 person-years) that obtained a PhD degree between 2000 and 2015, we estimate gender differences in attainment of senior research positions and parse out how publication outputs, parenthood and parental leave contribute to these differences. Our approach is advantageous over previous longitudinal studies in that we track the careers and publication outputs of graduates from the outset of their PhD education and match this data with time-sensitive information on each individual's publication activities and family situation. In discrete time-event history models, we observe a ∼24 per cent female disadvantage in advancement likelihoods within the first 7 years after PhD graduation, with gender differences increasing over the observation period. A decomposition indicates that variations in publishing, parenthood and parental leave account for ∼ 40 per cent of the gender gap in career advancement, suggesting that other factors, including recruitment disparities, asymmetries in social capital and experiences of unequal treatment at work, may also constrain women's careers.

Overview of health research in Greenland from 2001 to 2020

AIMS

Health research in Greenlanders is challenged by a small population, few dedicated researchers and limited funding. Some research areas have proven impactful but gaps in knowledge are unknown. We aimed to quantify health research in Greenland, providing insights for researchers, policymakers and funding agencies to guide future research.

METHODS

We identified all peer-reviewed health research publications with the term 'Greenland***' in title or abstract from 2001 to 2020 through the platform entitled The Lens. Our bibliometric analysis included number of publications, publication rate, research types, research topics, citations and author affiliations, as well as funding.

RESULTS

From 2001 to 2020, a total of 640 health research publications concerning Greenland or Greenlanders were identified, with an average annual publication growth rate of 2.9%. The major health research topics studied in Greenland were infectious diseases, environmental health and general health. Several research fields, including rheumatology, nephrology and dermatology among others proved understudied at best. Three Danish universities contributed with 33% of all publications, with the International Journal of Circumpolar Health (N=176, 28%) being the top journal destination. The most productive author had 119 article authorships during the period.

CONCLUSION

During the past 20 years, Greenland's annual publication rate has been steadily increasing, with an average of 32 articles about health research published each year, which is a higher publication rate than world average. The health research in Greenland is primarily epidemiologic with infectious disease being the most studied research area. Most publications were anchored in Denmark and centred around a few highly productive authors.

Five questions on improving diversity, equity and inclusion in UK bioscience research or "How can UK bioscience be changed so that those from marginalised groups can thrive?"

Diversity, equity, and inclusion play pivotal roles in advancing science and innovation by fostering a rich and supportive environment that benefits both individuals and society. UK bioscience research units are still on a journey towards being inclusive, and existing research on effecting changes in diversity, equity, and inclusion has yet to make an impact at the scale needed to transform the sector, leaving many to wonder How can UK bioscience be changed so that those from marginalised groups can thrive? This paper considers some of the questions that arise in addressing this, discusses what we already know and what we do not, and in doing so outlines a research agenda that aims to find out what works to effect diversity, equity and inclusion in UK bioscience.