The issue of open-source models in the cost-effectiveness and disease-level (collaborative) models has been brewing for many years. There has been a marked growth in open science, and funding bodies and publishers increasingly require that research data be made available. As mentioned in our previous Issue Panel, “cost-effectiveness models synthesise a wide range of evidence to facilitate extrapolation over time and from intermediate to final decision endpoints. These models are often statistically sophisticated and require assumptions that are not directly testable. This can lead to decision-makers “discounting” the results of cost-effectiveness analyses, particularly if the developer is seen as partial.” Open-source models, then, would encourage greater transparency in pharmacoeconomic modeling and the reuse and updating of the best/most useful models; they are essential if cost-effectiveness analyses are to be widely accepted to reduce bias, increase transparency, improve model access, and allow for faster access to critical knowledge. The ISPOR-SMDM guidelines and the EUnetHTA joint action projects, are supportive of these views on collaboration, transparency, confidentiality, processes and consistency offered by the availability of open-source models to improve decision-making around health care and reimbursement. With openness and sharing, however, come issues of copyright and access and a need to define how model sharing can be achieved in a fair and equitable manner. There is, therefore, a need to develop an ongoing dialog on openness, especially where the research may be considered precompetitive and not worthy of IP investment. The pros and cons of open source models and the proposed mission of the Open Source Model SIG to curate an ongoing dialog regarding issues around creating, disseminating, sharing, evaluating, and updating open source cost-effectiveness and comparative effectiveness models will be debated amongst SIG members.
Author(s) and affiliation(s): Nancy Risebrough, Senior Principal, ICON plc, Toronto, Canada Jeroen P Jansen; Innovation & Value Initiative; Precision Medicine Group; and Stanford University Lotte Steuten, Vice President & Head of Consulting, Office of Health Economics, UK Renée JG Arnold, PharmD, RPh, ICON plc, New York, NY and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
Event: ISPOR 2019 Annual Meeting
Date: 20/05/2019
Slides about the REF (Research Excellence Framework) presented by Chris Forst at the Association for AJE (Association for Journalism Education) January conference.
R&D Evaluation Methodology and Funding Principles / Summary ReportMEYS, MŠMT in Czech
This report synthesises the work done in the study developing a new R&D evaluation methodology and funding principles for the Czech Republic (CR), which was undertaken in 2014-15. Summary report is based on three final and ten background reports which are published on the IPN Metodika project website as well.
The issue of open-source models in the cost-effectiveness and disease-level (collaborative) models has been brewing for many years. There has been a marked growth in open science, and funding bodies and publishers increasingly require that research data be made available. As mentioned in our previous Issue Panel, “cost-effectiveness models synthesise a wide range of evidence to facilitate extrapolation over time and from intermediate to final decision endpoints. These models are often statistically sophisticated and require assumptions that are not directly testable. This can lead to decision-makers “discounting” the results of cost-effectiveness analyses, particularly if the developer is seen as partial.” Open-source models, then, would encourage greater transparency in pharmacoeconomic modeling and the reuse and updating of the best/most useful models; they are essential if cost-effectiveness analyses are to be widely accepted to reduce bias, increase transparency, improve model access, and allow for faster access to critical knowledge. The ISPOR-SMDM guidelines and the EUnetHTA joint action projects, are supportive of these views on collaboration, transparency, confidentiality, processes and consistency offered by the availability of open-source models to improve decision-making around health care and reimbursement. With openness and sharing, however, come issues of copyright and access and a need to define how model sharing can be achieved in a fair and equitable manner. There is, therefore, a need to develop an ongoing dialog on openness, especially where the research may be considered precompetitive and not worthy of IP investment. The pros and cons of open source models and the proposed mission of the Open Source Model SIG to curate an ongoing dialog regarding issues around creating, disseminating, sharing, evaluating, and updating open source cost-effectiveness and comparative effectiveness models will be debated amongst SIG members.
Author(s) and affiliation(s): Nancy Risebrough, Senior Principal, ICON plc, Toronto, Canada Jeroen P Jansen; Innovation & Value Initiative; Precision Medicine Group; and Stanford University Lotte Steuten, Vice President & Head of Consulting, Office of Health Economics, UK Renée JG Arnold, PharmD, RPh, ICON plc, New York, NY and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
Event: ISPOR 2019 Annual Meeting
Date: 20/05/2019
Slides about the REF (Research Excellence Framework) presented by Chris Forst at the Association for AJE (Association for Journalism Education) January conference.
R&D Evaluation Methodology and Funding Principles / Summary ReportMEYS, MŠMT in Czech
This report synthesises the work done in the study developing a new R&D evaluation methodology and funding principles for the Czech Republic (CR), which was undertaken in 2014-15. Summary report is based on three final and ten background reports which are published on the IPN Metodika project website as well.
Research Week 2014: SSHRC Part One: Opportunities, Timelines, and Writing Str...Wilfrid Laurier University
Delivered as part of research week 2014, this workshop walks researchers through SSHRC's opportunities, timelines and offers very useful writing tips and strategies
IFLA ARL Satellite conference 2023: Inclusiveness through Openness
Presentation: "From Impact Factors to Responsible Research Assessment and Open Metrics: which suggestions are currently on the table? "
Satellite conference held at Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 18 - 19 August 2023.
Ll from over 200 projects presentation fileKMIRC PolyU
The talk summarises the lessons learnt from nearly 200 cases of Knowledge Management journeys by Hong Kong and Asian enterprises. Much of the data is gained through the extensive number of student, consultancy and research projects carried out or supervised by KMIRC staff at private companies, non-profit social services organizations and government departments.
David Fleming held a seminar on monitoring and evaluation in conflict-affected environments at the Post-war Reconstruction and Development Unit (PRDU), University of York.
Coventry University 385ACC (Part-time) Advanced Study fo.docxmelvinjrobinson2199
Coventry University
385ACC (Part-time)
Advanced Study for Accounting and Finance
ASSIGNMENT 2019
Coursework Submission
Coursework should be submitted on given dateline in electronic format, via Turnitin and a hard
copy submitted to the Lecturer for second-marking.
Coursework Assignment
This is an Individual written assignment. Prepare a report for about 7,000 words (+/- 10%)
Learning Outcomes Assessed
The intended learning outcomes are that on completion of this project the student should be able
to:
1) Work independently, but with tutor guidance, on a project of their choice.
2) Synthesise a wide range of academic literature in order to evaluate critically current
research and contemporary issues in accounting or finance.
3) Utilise and apply relevant accounting and finance models, theories and concepts in order
to produce a properly researched written report.
4) Gather and organise evidence and draw appropriate conclusions based on a sound
understanding of the models, concepts and theories utilised.
5) Produce clear and coherent written work, supported by appropriate references to the
sources used (using the Coventry Harvard method of referencing).
Other Information:
• Assignments should not exceed 7,000 words. Please include a word count at very end of the
assignment.
• Title page, TOC, bibliography and further appropriate and relevant appendices do not count
towards the word limit. A 10% deduction (pro-rata) will be made from your mark for every
1,000 words over this limit (i.e. 1% if 100 words over limit etc).
• Coursework assignments should not be copied in part or in whole from any other source,
except for any clearly marked up quotations. Students found copying from internet or other
sources will get zero marks and may be excluded from the university.
• You can refer to the attached marking scheme to understand the criteria for the marking of
your courework.
385ACC - Assessment Criteria
Guidelines for what would be expected from a project at each particular level.
Note that not every criterion phrase need apply. Your mark will be a matter of balance.
1ST
70 - 100
The project is well structured and communicated. It is coherent and shows an
excellent level of synthesis and/or evaluation with clear signs of originality and
insight. Has read beyond the immediately relevant reading.
2:1
60 – 69
The project has worthwhile aims and objectives clearly expressed and an
appropriate methodology. Clear evidence of independent inquiry and critical
judgement in selecting, ordering, analysing and synthesising. Has read the
immediately relevant literature and, to a limited extent, beyond.
2:2
50 – 59
Aims and objectives clearly expressed. Some appropriate theory plus an attempt at
analysis but with only basic linkages made between theory and analysis. Has read
enough of the immediately relevant literature to be credible.
3RD
40 – 49
Makes on.
In Episode 2 of Research to Action's 'Cup of tea with' webinar series Yaso Kunaratnam Policy & Research Officer at UKCDS spoke about competition, collaboration and impact from the perspective of donors and funders of development research. The webinar took a slightly different approach to the topic stakeholder engagement, looking at the under explored area of how funders can collaborate more. Yaso presented findings from UKCDS' latest report about how funders can better support research uptake and impact.
Grant writing for creative medical research time to reconsider – pubricaPubrica
Medical research facilities should have high-quality research, and an ethics committee made up of clinicians, doctors, nurses, health and allied sciences personnel, and statisticians with experience in research and publishing.
Continue Reading: https://bit.ly/3gcIwOz
For our services: https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/grant-writing/
Why Pubrica:
When you order our services, we promise you the following – Plagiarism free | always on Time | 24*7 customer support | Written to international Standard | Unlimited Revisions support | Medical writing Expert | Publication Support | Bio statistical experts | High-quality Subject Matter Experts.
Contact us:
Web: https://pubrica.com/
Blog: https://pubrica.com/academy/
Email: sales@pubrica.com
WhatsApp : +91 9884350006
United Kingdom: +44-1618186353
Grant writing for creative medical research time to reconsider – pubricaPubrica
Medical research facilities should have high-quality research, and an ethics committee made up of clinicians, doctors, nurses, health and allied sciences personnel, and statisticians with experience in research and publishing.
Continue Reading: https://bit.ly/3gcIwOz
For our services: https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/grant-writing/
Why Pubrica:
When you order our services, we promise you the following – Plagiarism free | always on Time | 24*7 customer support | Written to international Standard | Unlimited Revisions support | Medical writing Expert | Publication Support | Bio statistical experts | High-quality Subject Matter Experts.
Contact us:
Web: https://pubrica.com/
Blog: https://pubrica.com/academy/
Email: sales@pubrica.com
WhatsApp : +91 9884350006
United Kingdom: +44-1618186353
RoRI Research Funding Landscapes: The Challenge of Priority Setting. Ludo Waltman, Professor of Quantitative Science Studies & Deputy Director,
CWTS, Leiden University
Research Week 2014: SSHRC Part One: Opportunities, Timelines, and Writing Str...Wilfrid Laurier University
Delivered as part of research week 2014, this workshop walks researchers through SSHRC's opportunities, timelines and offers very useful writing tips and strategies
IFLA ARL Satellite conference 2023: Inclusiveness through Openness
Presentation: "From Impact Factors to Responsible Research Assessment and Open Metrics: which suggestions are currently on the table? "
Satellite conference held at Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 18 - 19 August 2023.
Ll from over 200 projects presentation fileKMIRC PolyU
The talk summarises the lessons learnt from nearly 200 cases of Knowledge Management journeys by Hong Kong and Asian enterprises. Much of the data is gained through the extensive number of student, consultancy and research projects carried out or supervised by KMIRC staff at private companies, non-profit social services organizations and government departments.
David Fleming held a seminar on monitoring and evaluation in conflict-affected environments at the Post-war Reconstruction and Development Unit (PRDU), University of York.
Coventry University 385ACC (Part-time) Advanced Study fo.docxmelvinjrobinson2199
Coventry University
385ACC (Part-time)
Advanced Study for Accounting and Finance
ASSIGNMENT 2019
Coursework Submission
Coursework should be submitted on given dateline in electronic format, via Turnitin and a hard
copy submitted to the Lecturer for second-marking.
Coursework Assignment
This is an Individual written assignment. Prepare a report for about 7,000 words (+/- 10%)
Learning Outcomes Assessed
The intended learning outcomes are that on completion of this project the student should be able
to:
1) Work independently, but with tutor guidance, on a project of their choice.
2) Synthesise a wide range of academic literature in order to evaluate critically current
research and contemporary issues in accounting or finance.
3) Utilise and apply relevant accounting and finance models, theories and concepts in order
to produce a properly researched written report.
4) Gather and organise evidence and draw appropriate conclusions based on a sound
understanding of the models, concepts and theories utilised.
5) Produce clear and coherent written work, supported by appropriate references to the
sources used (using the Coventry Harvard method of referencing).
Other Information:
• Assignments should not exceed 7,000 words. Please include a word count at very end of the
assignment.
• Title page, TOC, bibliography and further appropriate and relevant appendices do not count
towards the word limit. A 10% deduction (pro-rata) will be made from your mark for every
1,000 words over this limit (i.e. 1% if 100 words over limit etc).
• Coursework assignments should not be copied in part or in whole from any other source,
except for any clearly marked up quotations. Students found copying from internet or other
sources will get zero marks and may be excluded from the university.
• You can refer to the attached marking scheme to understand the criteria for the marking of
your courework.
385ACC - Assessment Criteria
Guidelines for what would be expected from a project at each particular level.
Note that not every criterion phrase need apply. Your mark will be a matter of balance.
1ST
70 - 100
The project is well structured and communicated. It is coherent and shows an
excellent level of synthesis and/or evaluation with clear signs of originality and
insight. Has read beyond the immediately relevant reading.
2:1
60 – 69
The project has worthwhile aims and objectives clearly expressed and an
appropriate methodology. Clear evidence of independent inquiry and critical
judgement in selecting, ordering, analysing and synthesising. Has read the
immediately relevant literature and, to a limited extent, beyond.
2:2
50 – 59
Aims and objectives clearly expressed. Some appropriate theory plus an attempt at
analysis but with only basic linkages made between theory and analysis. Has read
enough of the immediately relevant literature to be credible.
3RD
40 – 49
Makes on.
In Episode 2 of Research to Action's 'Cup of tea with' webinar series Yaso Kunaratnam Policy & Research Officer at UKCDS spoke about competition, collaboration and impact from the perspective of donors and funders of development research. The webinar took a slightly different approach to the topic stakeholder engagement, looking at the under explored area of how funders can collaborate more. Yaso presented findings from UKCDS' latest report about how funders can better support research uptake and impact.
Grant writing for creative medical research time to reconsider – pubricaPubrica
Medical research facilities should have high-quality research, and an ethics committee made up of clinicians, doctors, nurses, health and allied sciences personnel, and statisticians with experience in research and publishing.
Continue Reading: https://bit.ly/3gcIwOz
For our services: https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/grant-writing/
Why Pubrica:
When you order our services, we promise you the following – Plagiarism free | always on Time | 24*7 customer support | Written to international Standard | Unlimited Revisions support | Medical writing Expert | Publication Support | Bio statistical experts | High-quality Subject Matter Experts.
Contact us:
Web: https://pubrica.com/
Blog: https://pubrica.com/academy/
Email: sales@pubrica.com
WhatsApp : +91 9884350006
United Kingdom: +44-1618186353
Grant writing for creative medical research time to reconsider – pubricaPubrica
Medical research facilities should have high-quality research, and an ethics committee made up of clinicians, doctors, nurses, health and allied sciences personnel, and statisticians with experience in research and publishing.
Continue Reading: https://bit.ly/3gcIwOz
For our services: https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/grant-writing/
Why Pubrica:
When you order our services, we promise you the following – Plagiarism free | always on Time | 24*7 customer support | Written to international Standard | Unlimited Revisions support | Medical writing Expert | Publication Support | Bio statistical experts | High-quality Subject Matter Experts.
Contact us:
Web: https://pubrica.com/
Blog: https://pubrica.com/academy/
Email: sales@pubrica.com
WhatsApp : +91 9884350006
United Kingdom: +44-1618186353
RoRI Research Funding Landscapes: The Challenge of Priority Setting. Ludo Waltman, Professor of Quantitative Science Studies & Deputy Director,
CWTS, Leiden University
How research on research can help to inform and accelerate positive changes in research cultures. Stephen Curry, Assistant Provost for Equality, Diversity & Inclusion, Imperial
College & Chair, San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)
Causes and Consequences of International Mobility among STEM PhDs. Megan MacGarvie, Associate Professor, Markets, Public Policy and Law, Questrom School of Business, Boston University
Incentives and pathways for next-generation research. Insights from research in the United Kingdom. Sally Hancock, Lecturer in Education, University of York
RoRILaunch 1 FRONTIERS: Why research on research mattersRoRInstitute
Session 1: FRONTIERS: why research on research matters
Where do we see the greatest progress and possibilities of RoR?
Panorama: Chonnettia Jones, Director of Insight and Analysis, Wellcome
Snapshots: James Wilsdon, Professor of Research Policy, University of Sheffield
Sarah de Rijcke, Director, CWTS, Leiden University
Daniel Hook, CEO, Digital Science
Earliest Galaxies in the JADES Origins Field: Luminosity Function and Cosmic ...Sérgio Sacani
We characterize the earliest galaxy population in the JADES Origins Field (JOF), the deepest
imaging field observed with JWST. We make use of the ancillary Hubble optical images (5 filters
spanning 0.4−0.9µm) and novel JWST images with 14 filters spanning 0.8−5µm, including 7 mediumband filters, and reaching total exposure times of up to 46 hours per filter. We combine all our data
at > 2.3µm to construct an ultradeep image, reaching as deep as ≈ 31.4 AB mag in the stack and
30.3-31.0 AB mag (5σ, r = 0.1” circular aperture) in individual filters. We measure photometric
redshifts and use robust selection criteria to identify a sample of eight galaxy candidates at redshifts
z = 11.5 − 15. These objects show compact half-light radii of R1/2 ∼ 50 − 200pc, stellar masses of
M⋆ ∼ 107−108M⊙, and star-formation rates of SFR ∼ 0.1−1 M⊙ yr−1
. Our search finds no candidates
at 15 < z < 20, placing upper limits at these redshifts. We develop a forward modeling approach to
infer the properties of the evolving luminosity function without binning in redshift or luminosity that
marginalizes over the photometric redshift uncertainty of our candidate galaxies and incorporates the
impact of non-detections. We find a z = 12 luminosity function in good agreement with prior results,
and that the luminosity function normalization and UV luminosity density decline by a factor of ∼ 2.5
from z = 12 to z = 14. We discuss the possible implications of our results in the context of theoretical
models for evolution of the dark matter halo mass function.
THE IMPORTANCE OF MARTIAN ATMOSPHERE SAMPLE RETURN.Sérgio Sacani
The return of a sample of near-surface atmosphere from Mars would facilitate answers to several first-order science questions surrounding the formation and evolution of the planet. One of the important aspects of terrestrial planet formation in general is the role that primary atmospheres played in influencing the chemistry and structure of the planets and their antecedents. Studies of the martian atmosphere can be used to investigate the role of a primary atmosphere in its history. Atmosphere samples would also inform our understanding of the near-surface chemistry of the planet, and ultimately the prospects for life. High-precision isotopic analyses of constituent gases are needed to address these questions, requiring that the analyses are made on returned samples rather than in situ.
The increased availability of biomedical data, particularly in the public domain, offers the opportunity to better understand human health and to develop effective therapeutics for a wide range of unmet medical needs. However, data scientists remain stymied by the fact that data remain hard to find and to productively reuse because data and their metadata i) are wholly inaccessible, ii) are in non-standard or incompatible representations, iii) do not conform to community standards, and iv) have unclear or highly restricted terms and conditions that preclude legitimate reuse. These limitations require a rethink on data can be made machine and AI-ready - the key motivation behind the FAIR Guiding Principles. Concurrently, while recent efforts have explored the use of deep learning to fuse disparate data into predictive models for a wide range of biomedical applications, these models often fail even when the correct answer is already known, and fail to explain individual predictions in terms that data scientists can appreciate. These limitations suggest that new methods to produce practical artificial intelligence are still needed.
In this talk, I will discuss our work in (1) building an integrative knowledge infrastructure to prepare FAIR and "AI-ready" data and services along with (2) neurosymbolic AI methods to improve the quality of predictions and to generate plausible explanations. Attention is given to standards, platforms, and methods to wrangle knowledge into simple, but effective semantic and latent representations, and to make these available into standards-compliant and discoverable interfaces that can be used in model building, validation, and explanation. Our work, and those of others in the field, creates a baseline for building trustworthy and easy to deploy AI models in biomedicine.
Bio
Dr. Michel Dumontier is the Distinguished Professor of Data Science at Maastricht University, founder and executive director of the Institute of Data Science, and co-founder of the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) data principles. His research explores socio-technological approaches for responsible discovery science, which includes collaborative multi-modal knowledge graphs, privacy-preserving distributed data mining, and AI methods for drug discovery and personalized medicine. His work is supported through the Dutch National Research Agenda, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, Horizon Europe, the European Open Science Cloud, the US National Institutes of Health, and a Marie-Curie Innovative Training Network. He is the editor-in-chief for the journal Data Science and is internationally recognized for his contributions in bioinformatics, biomedical informatics, and semantic technologies including ontologies and linked data.
Seminar of U.V. Spectroscopy by SAMIR PANDASAMIR PANDA
Spectroscopy is a branch of science dealing the study of interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter.
Ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy refers to absorption spectroscopy or reflect spectroscopy in the UV-VIS spectral region.
Ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy is an analytical method that can measure the amount of light received by the analyte.
(May 29th, 2024) Advancements in Intravital Microscopy- Insights for Preclini...Scintica Instrumentation
Intravital microscopy (IVM) is a powerful tool utilized to study cellular behavior over time and space in vivo. Much of our understanding of cell biology has been accomplished using various in vitro and ex vivo methods; however, these studies do not necessarily reflect the natural dynamics of biological processes. Unlike traditional cell culture or fixed tissue imaging, IVM allows for the ultra-fast high-resolution imaging of cellular processes over time and space and were studied in its natural environment. Real-time visualization of biological processes in the context of an intact organism helps maintain physiological relevance and provide insights into the progression of disease, response to treatments or developmental processes.
In this webinar we give an overview of advanced applications of the IVM system in preclinical research. IVIM technology is a provider of all-in-one intravital microscopy systems and solutions optimized for in vivo imaging of live animal models at sub-micron resolution. The system’s unique features and user-friendly software enables researchers to probe fast dynamic biological processes such as immune cell tracking, cell-cell interaction as well as vascularization and tumor metastasis with exceptional detail. This webinar will also give an overview of IVM being utilized in drug development, offering a view into the intricate interaction between drugs/nanoparticles and tissues in vivo and allows for the evaluation of therapeutic intervention in a variety of tissues and organs. This interdisciplinary collaboration continues to drive the advancements of novel therapeutic strategies.
Cancer cell metabolism: special Reference to Lactate PathwayAADYARAJPANDEY1
Normal Cell Metabolism:
Cellular respiration describes the series of steps that cells use to break down sugar and other chemicals to get the energy we need to function.
Energy is stored in the bonds of glucose and when glucose is broken down, much of that energy is released.
Cell utilize energy in the form of ATP.
The first step of respiration is called glycolysis. In a series of steps, glycolysis breaks glucose into two smaller molecules - a chemical called pyruvate. A small amount of ATP is formed during this process.
Most healthy cells continue the breakdown in a second process, called the Kreb's cycle. The Kreb's cycle allows cells to “burn” the pyruvates made in glycolysis to get more ATP.
The last step in the breakdown of glucose is called oxidative phosphorylation (Ox-Phos).
It takes place in specialized cell structures called mitochondria. This process produces a large amount of ATP. Importantly, cells need oxygen to complete oxidative phosphorylation.
If a cell completes only glycolysis, only 2 molecules of ATP are made per glucose. However, if the cell completes the entire respiration process (glycolysis - Kreb's - oxidative phosphorylation), about 36 molecules of ATP are created, giving it much more energy to use.
IN CANCER CELL:
Unlike healthy cells that "burn" the entire molecule of sugar to capture a large amount of energy as ATP, cancer cells are wasteful.
Cancer cells only partially break down sugar molecules. They overuse the first step of respiration, glycolysis. They frequently do not complete the second step, oxidative phosphorylation.
This results in only 2 molecules of ATP per each glucose molecule instead of the 36 or so ATPs healthy cells gain. As a result, cancer cells need to use a lot more sugar molecules to get enough energy to survive.
Unlike healthy cells that "burn" the entire molecule of sugar to capture a large amount of energy as ATP, cancer cells are wasteful.
Cancer cells only partially break down sugar molecules. They overuse the first step of respiration, glycolysis. They frequently do not complete the second step, oxidative phosphorylation.
This results in only 2 molecules of ATP per each glucose molecule instead of the 36 or so ATPs healthy cells gain. As a result, cancer cells need to use a lot more sugar molecules to get enough energy to survive.
introduction to WARBERG PHENOMENA:
WARBURG EFFECT Usually, cancer cells are highly glycolytic (glucose addiction) and take up more glucose than do normal cells from outside.
Otto Heinrich Warburg (; 8 October 1883 – 1 August 1970) In 1931 was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology for his "discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme.
WARNBURG EFFECT : cancer cells under aerobic (well-oxygenated) conditions to metabolize glucose to lactate (aerobic glycolysis) is known as the Warburg effect. Warburg made the observation that tumor slices consume glucose and secrete lactate at a higher rate than normal tissues.
2. I. Rethinking Peer Review
„The peer review process is deeply influenced by who gets
asked to serve as a panelist and what viewpoints and
intellectual habitus those individuals bring to the table. Biases
are unavoidable.”
M. Lamont, How Professors Think, 2009, p. 242f.
2
3. a) Structural Problems and Conflicting Interests
Expectation of applicants:
Timely decisions, transparent
processes
Comprehensive feedback,
acceptable funding rate
Support for unconventional
ideas
Strategy of the Foundation:
Funding of interdisciplinary, risky
projects
Funding beyond mainstream
Driving force, also concerning
structures and procedures
Current developments at the
Foundation:
Increasing number of applications
Changing role and
responsibilities of programme
managers, e.g. internal
preselection
Peer Review System:
Increasing overload with
declining response rates (4:1),
Pronounced adaptive behaviour
of reviewers to standardized
procedures, risk of bias
3
4. b) Subjective Influences: Cognitive Bias
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2015/unconscious-bias/
4
5. c) Group or Social Dynamics
Biases such as group
and/or social dynamics
within review panels.
Potential lack of
fairness and reliability
of peer review.
“Platzhirsch-Effekt”
(Top-Dog Effect)
Source: Liviatour through Wikimedia commons
5
6. 6
d) Latent Risk Aversion
Tendency towards
established and already
proven ideas and
methodologies.
Potential originality-
inhibiting tendency
of peer review.
7. e) A Cultural Problem: Dealing with Failures
In our current academic landscape, only positive results are valued and
failure is stigmatized. However:
7
“Science progresses not
because of simple and
charming serendipity, but
because of bruising accidents
and crashing failures and a lot
of tough repair work.”
Stuart Firestein, Failure: Why
Science is so Successful, 46.
Consequence: Applicants (predominantly early career researchers) are
discouraged to take original and risky approaches, and they are often advised
to rather stick to conventional approaches.
9. 9
Overburdening of leading researchers
through multiple requests.
Involvement of second choice
experts in reviews processes.
Potential decrease of quality of
assessments and reviews.
Overburdening of female reviewers due
to quota of women for the constitution of
panels.
g) Overburdening of Leading (and Female) Researchers
11. Experiments and Experiences with Alternative
Assessment Methods – Four Examples
a) Selecting Highly Original and Innovative Projects
11
Application and Selection
Procedure
3 pages project outline.
Anonymous application (no
information about applicant and
institution is being forwarded to
the review panel), application
limited to 1.000 +/- 100 words,
incl. optional references, no self
citation.
1-page self assessment.
13. Each panel member has one “Joker” (i. e.
wildcard) to vote for an application against
the majority vote.
So far, on avarage, two “Jokers” per
meeting were used, each panel consisted of
seven to nine panel members.
13
The Funding Joker (“Wildcard”)
15. Motivation for Randomization
Ensures diversity (only a limited range of subjects/expertise can be represented
in the jury).
Avoids implicit bias – the lot is “blind”.
Alternative to “difficult decisions” which cannot be made solely on the basis of
scholarly arguments.
Face-saving for applicants who will not receive funding.
Moreover – in general:
Decisions about scientifically similarly ranked applications against the backdrop
of budget constraints.
Increases chances for minority topics vs. overfunding of established fields and
disciplines.
15
17. The “Freigeist-Kollegium”
About 40 international researchers from various disciplines, serving for 3
rounds of applications.
Each member comparatively reviews 3 to 7 applications according to a
“Quick Assessment” sheet.
Usually, the “Kollegium” assorts a shortlist of 35 to 40 applications from a
total of 90 to 100.
17
18. 18
Motivation for the Constitution of a Review College
Needs less reviewers than a process based on individual written
assessments.
Provides enough feedback to base decisions on scholarly
arguments.
Enables an interdisciplinary and multi-perspectival review process.
Ensures that reviewers are familiar with the specific conditions and
the rationale/strategy of the respective funding initiative.
Can provide a basis for positive group dynamics among the
members of the college.
19. Freigeist-Fellowships – Quick Assessments
Feedback for rejected applicants.
Basis for structuring the panel
meeting.
19
20. c) Two-Step Selection Processes
Wherever possible the Volkswagen Foundation employs two-step
selection processes to …
… concentrate the review process on the most promising
candidates,
… enable a presentation of the candidate(s) and/or principal
investigator(s) in person as well as a thorough discussion of the
project with the reviewers,
… speed up the decision-making process for those with no prospect
of success (Secretary General has a mandate to reject applications
which were not selected for the second phase of the process),
… avoid overburdening of reviewers.
20
21. d) Differentiating Criteria: Projects vs. Funding of People
scholarly solidity, state-of-the-art
significant contribution to the field
and beyond
originality
high risk-high gain, readiness to
take risks
self-reflectivity, perspectival
suppleness
practical relevance
meeting the thematic agendaadequate budget & time
equality of partners
academic environment
personal qualities
project design
conceptualization and concise
presentation
Project Funding Funding of People
21
22. II. Rethinking Allocation
The Volkswagen Foundation’s Approach to Research Funding
Curious, creative, courageous, concerned, and connected.
Attentive even to weak signals to anticipate change.
Convinced that small steps can lead to systemic change.
Encourage risk-taking and experimenting in unknown territories.
Act responsibly vis-à-vis our partners, in particular early career
researchers.
Establish a high trust culture of creativity.
Set ambitious goals and evaluate externally how we have done
against the objectives.
22
23. Validation Processes for New Funding Initiatives:
General Criteria (I)
Funding of international cooperations
Readiness to take risks
Investment in future potentials
Initiation of innovative of processes, structures, or
methods beyond mainstream.
23
24. Validation Processes for New Funding Initiatives:
General Criteria (II)
Complementary and anti-cyclical funding in relation to
public funding
medium-scale projects vs. clusters
long-term perspectives vs. short-term project based
funding
focus on creative minds and personalities
beyond direct application needs/relevance aspects.
24
25. Validation of New Funding Initiatives:
Specific Criteria (I)
Opportunities and relevance:
Originality and innovativeness, increase of knowledge,
impact on field of research, inter- and transdisciplinarity,
impact on society.
Potential grant recipients and focus groups:
Size of research community, career perspectives for
young researchers, structural impact on institutions
and/or processes.
25
26. Validation of New Funding Initiatives:
Specific Criteria (II)
Research funding landscape:
Activities of other national or international research
funders, complementarity and/or potential for
cooperations.
Strategy and funding portfolio:
Goal achievement, unique selling point, relation to other
initiatives, financial implications.
26
27. III. Rethinking Evaluation
Fundamental Issues of Research Policy Making
Enormous shift from core funding to project based funding:
Overburdending of the peer review system.
Short term and project-based thinking.
Lack of time and space for creativity and fundamentally new ideas.
Less breakthroughs (Öquist/Benner 2012, max. 40 % project-based
funding).
Multiscale and mulitlevel system of evaluations:
Overburdening of experts.
Conflicting or even wrong incentives.
Time and resource consuming processes.
Lack of mutual trust and creativity.
27
28. Evaluations in Research Funding Organisations
Evaluations are an instrument of critical self-reflection as well as an
indicator of good governance.
Research funding organisations in particular should establish
processes of critical (self-)reflection and exchange with their
respective communities.
External experts and perspectives are essential.
Evaluation results must not be the sole basis for decision-making
on funding strategies.
Philanthropic institutions should be subjected to evaluation on a
medium-term basis (8 to 10 years, ‟effective philanthropy”).
28
31. Thank you very much
for your attention!
Dr. Wilhelm Krull
Secretary General
Volkswagen Foundation
Phone: +49 (0)511 8381 215
Fax: +49 (0)511 8381 235
E-Mail: krull@volkswagenstiftung.de
Internet: www.volkswagenstiftung.de