Search

Objectives: Non-publication and publication bias are topics of considerable importance to the scientific community. These issues may limit progress toward the 3R principle for animal research, promote waste of public resources, and generate biased interpretations of clinical outcomes. To investigate current publishing practices and to gain some understanding of the extent to which research results are reported, we examined publication rates of research projects that were approved within an internal funding program of the Faculty of Medicine at a university medical center in Germany, which is exemplary for comparable research funding programs for the promotion of young researchers in Germany and Europe., Methods: We analyzed the complete set (n = 363) of research projects that were supported by an internal funding program between 2004 and 2013. We divided the projects into four different proposal types that included those that required an ethics vote, those that included an animal proposal, those that included both requirements, and those that included neither requirement., Results: We found that 65% of the internally funded research projects resulted in at least one peer-reviewed publication; this increased to 73% if other research contributions were considered, including abstracts, book and congress contributions, scientific posters, and presentations. There were no significant differences with respect to publication rates based on (a) the clinic/institute of the applicant, (b) project duration, (c) scope of funding or (d) proposal type., Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore publication rates associated with early-career medical research funding. As >70% of the projects ultimately generated some form of publication, the program was overall effective toward this goal; however, non-publication of research results is still prevalent. Further research will explore the reasons underlying non-publication. We hope to use these findings to develop strategies that encourage publication of research results., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: In Germany, a great amount of money is spent annually on health research (HR). However, detailed quantitative data concerning funders and receivers of the financing is lacking., Objective: The goal of this paper is to depict the scope to which funders finance HR and the amount of money research institutions receive for their research activities., Materials and Methods: First, openly accessible sources were searched to identify the relevant data for 2013. Missing data was requested from the specific institutions. Where relevant data could not be identified, approximate results were determined or marked as missing., Results: In 2013, approximately 10.14 billion EUR were spent on HR. The most important funders were business (58%) and public agencies (36%). Business mainly funded privately financed research institutions, while public agencies mainly funded universities and non-university research institutions. Overall, privately financed research institutions received 55% of the research money, universities 34%, non-university research institutions 9%, and 2% of the money went to federal institutions., Conclusion: In Germany, the biggest share of health research money is spent and consumed by the private sector. The pattern of financing health research in Germany is comparable to other countries where data are available.

Addictive behaviour is as prevalent in Germany as in other western countries, but in contrast to some European countries and the United States, very little money was given to this research field. Change came in the early 1990s, when the German government started to launch specific grants for addiction research. The first chair in addiction research was created in 1999 (Karl Mann) at the Central Institute of Mental Health Mannheim (CIMH; University of Heidelberg). The recruitment of a pre-clinical alcohol researcher as head of the department of psychopharmacology followed (Rainer Spanagel). This 'addiction research cluster' collaborates with several research groups at the CIMH (such as genetics). We inaugurated a clinical trial network which now comprises up to 20 treatment centres throughout Germany. Like most authors, we found effect sizes of different treatment modalities more in the low to moderate range, perhaps because of the heterogeneity of large patient samples. Therefore, we concentrated upon the biological basis of addiction in order to define more homogeneous 'subtypes' of patients for a better match with existing treatments. Results concerning genetics and neuroimaging (both animal and human) are promising, and could move our field towards a more personalized treatment approach. Our funding has been extended over the years, including involvement in several large European grants. We are studying substance-related problems as well as so-called 'behavioural addictions'. As a natural consequence of this development, we are deeply involved both in informing the general public on addiction issues as well as in counselling policy makers in Germany., (© 2010 The Author, Addiction © 2010 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

During the Third Reich, the biological institutes of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (KWG, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft) underwent a substantial reorganization and modernization. This paper discusses the development of projects in the fields of biochemical genetics, virus research, radiation genetics, and plant genetics that were initiated in those years. These cases exemplify, on the one hand, the political conditions for biological research in the Nazi state. They highlight how leading scientists advanced their projects by building close ties with politicians and science-funding organizations and companies. On the other hand, the study examines how the contents of research were shaped by, and how they contributed to, the aims and needs of the political economy of the Nazi system. This paper therefore aims not only to highlight basic aspects of scientific development under Nazism, but also to provide general insights into the structure of the Third Reich and the dynamics of its war economy.

University medicine in Germany requires significantly higher funding and investment because its tasks not only include health care but also research and teaching. However, over recent decades less and less funding compared to the development of the turnover has been available. This trend is due to decreasing public funding. The diminishing funding has caused a major backlog of investment at German university hospitals. The first part of the article summarizes the investments policies at university hospitals and other hospitals. The second part describes the investment needs in university medicine and exposes risk factors for research, education and health care due to the process of investment planning and realization. Goal-oriented solutions are shown to facilitate investments. The third part discusses several risks caused by insufficient investments in university medicine. There are special risks for research, teaching, and the capacity for innovation in university medicine besides economical and medical risks. Some policies and financial strategies to overcome the backlog in investments are presented. After a summary, the article concludes with some practical examples of further measures to ensure sustainable funding.

Methods based on molecular biology and molecular medicine now have important practical applications in many areas of theoretical and clinical medicine, and it is no longer possible to imagine life without them. This means that in a largely surgical discipline, such as urology, completely new challenges are coming to the fore, which urology, as an academic and clinical discipline, now has to face up to, and to a much greater degree than hitherto. However, there is less and less freedom of action in any university department of urology, as a result not only of intensified legal outline conditions in the healthcare sector and tight public budgets, but also of faculty- and hospital-specific blocks to innovation. There is an urgent need for the creation of appropriate outline conditions and innovative structures that will allow efficient surgical care and also an efficient way of working scientifically.

This chapter surveys wartime science mobilization within National Socialist Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union to understand how each nation mobilized science resources for the war, how their approaches to mobilization differed, and how these approaches might be evaluated historically. Science mobilization in National Socialist Germany, in particular, has heretofore been characterized as a failure; however, such a view appears too simplistic and cannot account for the numerous advanced weapons and technological artifacts produced by the nation during the war. Both Germany and Japan operated under decentralized systems for science mobilization, whereas the Soviet Union imposed a highly-centralized authoritarian structure. These differed significantly from the organizational model of the United States, which has often been touted as the most "successful" of the belligerents. This essay attempts to evaluate the science mobilization efforts in these nations on their own terms, rather than comparing them directly with the American system.

In contrast to animal testing required by law to guarantee minimum safety standards for the licensing of drugs and chemicals, there are no regulations in basic research forcing scientists to perform animal tests. By (usually) free choice, questions are posed and hypotheses are examined which, in many cases, can only be answered by means of animal tests. Just as easily, different questions could be asked or different hypotheses could be examined which do not require animal tests. The only criterion for the choice of a topic is its relevance which cannot necessarily be judged in the short-term. Thus, it is up to the individual scientist to judge what is worth studying and therefore worth animal consumption. The educated mind will consider ethical aspects of this choice. However, on the other hand, this decision is largely influenced by questions of efficacy or (in a negative sense) by the obstacles posed to an animal consuming approach. Here, peer review and general attitude will strongly influence the methodology chosen. Availability and awareness of adequate in vitro techniques represent the prerequisites for the use of alternative methods. The least one can do in basic research is to avoid tests which cause severe suffering to animals, as is required in Switzerland and other European countries by binding ethical principles and guidelines. The increasing standard of approval and control procedures has improved the situation over the years. There are many examples of successful alternative methods in basic research. But, the application of such methods is in most cases limited to the laboratories in which they were developed, calling for technology transfer. Exceptions are procedures that are used worldwide, like the production of monoclonal antibodies, which instead of using the ascites mouse can also be performed in vitro with some good will. In these cases, commercialisation of the techniques has aided their spread within the scientific community. Sadly, many methods, even if published in the scientific literature, are little standardised and reproducible. The suggestion is put forward that publicly accessible databases should make available more detailed descriptions of methodologies. Due to limitations in space, many scientific journals cannot publish detailed methodological descriptions. However, nowadays a supplementary central deposit of methods could easily be linked to the respective article. In numerous cases though, there is simply a lack of will to change procedures to methods without animal tests or to pose questions differently in order to avoid the use of animals or to reduce their number or, at least, to reduce stress. In other cases, researchers are simply not aware of the limitations of the animal experiment as such. A thorough review of the validity of critical animal experiments should be carried out and made available publicly. For example, many animal experiments are dramatically "under-powered", i.e. carried out with groups that are too small to allow conclusions to be drawn from the outcome. This stands in marked contrast to in vitro experiments where replicate experiments usually represent no major problem. Since in vitro models are generally more prone to artefacts due to the numerous variables, e.g. of cell culture, the key requirement for their application is their validation and quality control. Guided by the experience from validation studies for alternative methods in toxicology, concepts of a Good Cell Culture Practice (GCCP) are currently being developed which aim to define minimum quality standards for in vitro techniques. This initiative aiming to increase quality must be complemented by a concept to systematically assess the relevance of the tests in order to finally achieve an evidence-based biomedical research. A change in this direction is only possible if those public funds, which were previously assigned predominantly to alternatives to the animal tests required by law, are now channelled increasingly into developing those for basic research. A financial incentive is necessary to change procedures in basic research to animal free procedures. Ethical considerations alone will bring little movement or change. It is unacceptable that, while numbers of animal tests decrease in development and notification of drugs and chemicals, they are increasing in basic research. Due to the central role of publishing scientific results, the key options for control are the respective rules of journals for the acceptance of articles. By demanding certain standards in the instructions for authors, e.g. of quality (GCCP), relevance and in case of animal experiments proof that no alternative is available, pressure could be dramatically increased. It is suggested to hold a consensus conference of journals in the life sciences on this topic.