Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-2jdt9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-23T18:11:38.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic policy options to improve quality and productivity of biomedical research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2024

E. Andrew Balas ,
Gianluca De Leo  and
Kelly B. Shaw
E. Andrew Balas*
Affiliation:
Biomedical Research Innovation Laboratory, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA
Gianluca De Leo
Affiliation:
Biomedical Research Innovation Laboratory, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA Department of Health Management, Economics and Policy, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA
Kelly B. Shaw
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
*
Corresponding author: E. Andrew Balas; Email: andrew.balas@augusta.edu
Get access

Abstract

Emerging societal expectations from biomedical research and intensifying international scientific competition are becoming existential matters. Based on a review of pertinent evidence, this article analyzes challenges and formulates public policy recommendations for improving productivity and impact of life sciences. Critical risks include widespread quality defects of research, particularly non-reproducible results, and narrow access to scientifically sound information giving advantage to health misinformation. In funding life sciences, the simultaneous shift to nondemocratic societies is an added challenge. Simply spending more on research will not be enough in the global competition. Considering the pacesetter role of the federal government, five national policy recommendations are put forward: (i) funding projects with comprehensive expectations of reproducibility; (ii) public–private partnerships for contemporaneous quality support in laboratories; (iii) making research institutions accountable for quality control; (iv) supporting new quality filtering standards for scientific journals and repositories, and (v) establishing a new network of centers for scientific health communications.

Keywords

international scientific competitionquality and reproducibilityhealth misinformationhealth communicationpublic policybiomedical research

Information

Type
Perspective Essay
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , Spring 2025 , pp. 108 - 119
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Association for Politics and the Life Sciences

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Altman, D. G., & Simera, I. (2016). A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 109(2), 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J. S., Li, D., & Sampat, B. N. (2019). Public R&D investments and private-sector patenting: evidence from NIH funding rules. The Review of Economic Studies, 86(1), 117–152.Google ScholarPubMed
Balas, E. A., Bussi, S., Asem, N., Amour, C., Mwanziva, C., Vazquez, J., Labib, N. A., Price, M., Mahande, M. J., Baskar, R., Dhantu, S., Townsend, T. G., & Clément Aubert, C. (2024). FAIR reporting of clinical trials for public health practice. Proceedings of the European Academy of Sciences & Arts, 3, 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balas, E. A., & Elkin, P. L. (2013). Technology transfer from biomedical research to clinical practice: measuring innovation performance. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 36(4), 505–517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483(7391), 531–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernard Becker Medical Library (2014). Becker Medical Library model for assessment of research impact. https://becker.wustl.edu/impact-assessment (accessed 3 January 2024).Google Scholar
Bruce, R., Chauvin, A., Trinquart, L., Ravaud, P., & Boutron, I. (2016). Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, 14, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, A., Okrent, A., Hale, K., & Gough, N. (2022). The State of US Science & Engineering 2022. National Science Board Science & Engineering Indicators. NSB-2022-1. National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Chou, W. S., Oh, A., & Klein, W. M.P. (2018). Addressing health-related misinformation on social media. JAMA 320(23):2417–2418CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleveland Clinic (2024). Health Library. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health.Google Scholar
CMS (2024). CMS Organizational Chart. https://www.cms.gov/about-cms/who-we-are/organizational-chart (Accessed 2 June 2024).Google Scholar
FDA (2024). Facts About the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP). https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/pharmaceutical-quality-resources (Accessed 1 June 2024).Google Scholar
Finkelstein, J. A., Brickman, A. L., Capron, A., Ford, D. E., Gombosev, A., Greene, S. M., … Sugarman, J. (2015). Oversight on the borderline: Quality improvement and pragmatic research. Clinical Trials, 12(5), 457–466.Google ScholarPubMed
FitzGibbon, H., King, K., Piano, C., Wilk, C., & Gaskarth, M. (2020). Where are biomedical research plain‐language summaries? Health Science Reports, 3(3), e175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freedman, L. P., Cockburn, I. M., & Simcoe, T. S. (2015). The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biology, 13(6), e1002165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guidry, J. P., Carlyle, K., Messner, M., & Jin, Y. (2015). On pins and needles: How vaccines are portrayed on Pinterest. Vaccine, 33(39), 5051–5056.Google ScholarPubMed
Husen, S., de Wilde, Z., de Waard, A., & Cousijn, H. (2017). Recommended versus certified repositories: Mind the gap. Data Science Journal, 16(42), 1–10 Available at SSRN 3020994.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, N., Moyer, H., Zarin, D. A., & Kimmelman, J. (2022). The proportion of randomized controlled trials that inform clinical practice. Elife, 11, e79491.Google ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, J. P., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M. A., Khoury, M. J., Macleod, M. R., Moher, D., … Tibshirani, R. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet, 383(9912), 166–175.Google ScholarPubMed
Janicke, H., & Brown, A. L. (2022). Redefining the ‘arsenal of democracy’. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(6), 756–756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, R. (2022). How China is reshaping the global economy: Development impacts in Africa and Latin America. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Disclosure and licensing of University inventions:‘The best we can do with the s** t we get to work with’. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1271–1300.Google Scholar
Jones, C. W., Handler, L., & Crowell, K. E. (2013). Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: Cross sectional analysis. BMJ, 347, f6104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilkenny, C., Parsons, N., Kadyszewski, E., Festing, M. F. W., Cuthill, I. C., Fry, D., Hutton, J., Altman, D. G. (2009). Survey of the quality of experimental design, statistical analysis and reporting of research using animals. PLoS One, 4, e7824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyubarova, R., Itagaki, B. K., & Itagaki, M. W. (2009). The impact of National Institutes of Health funding on US cardiovascular disease research. PLoS One, 4(7), e6425.Google ScholarPubMed
Macilwain, C. (2010). What science is really worth: Spending on science is one of the best ways to generate jobs and economic growth, say research advocates. But as Colin Macilwain reports, the evidence behind such claims is patchy. Nature, 465(7299), 682–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansour, N. M., Balas, E. A., Yang, F. M., & Vernon, M. M. (2020). Prevalence and prevention of reproducibility deficiencies in life sciences research: Large-scale meta-analyses. Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research, 26, e922016–e922011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayo Clinic (2024). Diseases & Conditions. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions.Google Scholar
Mobley, A., Linder, S. K., Braeuer, R., Ellis, L. M., & Zwelling, L. (2013). A survey on data reproducibility in cancer research provides insights into our limited ability to translate findings from the laboratory to the clinic. PloS One, 8(5), e63221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, D., Glasziou, P., Chalmers, I., Nasser, M., Bossuyt, P. M., Korevaar, D. A., … Boutron, I. (2016). Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: Who’s listening? The Lancet, 387(10027), 1573–1586.Google ScholarPubMed
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NIH (2024). Public Access Policy. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/html5/section_8/8.2.2_nih_public_access_policy.htm#:~:text=Under%20the%20policy%20NIH-funded,the%20official%20date%20of%20publication (Accessed 1 March 2024).Google Scholar
Nobel Prize Organization. (2023). https://www.nobelprize.org/ (Accessed 16 February 2023).Google Scholar
Office of the Surgeon General. (2021). Confronting Health Misinformation: The US Surgeon General’s Advisory on Building a Healthy Information Environment [Internet].Google Scholar
Pacheco, L. D., Clifton, R. G., Saade, G. R., Weiner, S. J., Parry, S., Thorp, J. M., … Macones, G. A. (2023). Tranexamic acid to prevent obstetrical hemorrhage after cesarean delivery. New England Journal of Medicine, 388(15), 1365–1375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pain, E. (2023). How academia is exploring new approaches for evaluating researchers. Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/how-academia-is-exploringnew-approaches-for-evaluating-researchers (last accessed 25 July 2024)Google Scholar
Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug discovery, 10(9), 712–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PubMed Database (2023). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (Accessed 12 January 2023).Google Scholar
Rees, C. A., Pica, N., Monuteaux, M. C., & Bourgeois, F. T. (2019). Noncompletion and nonpublication of trials studying rare diseases: A cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Medicine, 16(11), e1002966.Google ScholarPubMed
Robishaw, J. D., DeMets, D. L., Wood, S. K., Boiselle, P. M., & Hennekens, C. H. (2020). Establishing and maintaining research integrity at academic institutions: Challenges and opportunities. The American Journal of Medicine, 133(3), e87–e90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, A., Baróniková, S., Feighery, L., Gattrell, W., Olsen, R. E., Watson, A., … Winchester, C. (2021). Open Pharma recommendations for plain language summaries of peer-reviewed medical journal publications. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 37(11), 2015–2016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sommariva, S., Vamos, C., Mantzarlis, A., Đào, L. U. L., & Martinez Tyson, D. (2018). Spreading the (fake) news: Exploring health messages on social media and the implications for health professionals using a case study. American Journal of Health Education, 49(4), 246–255.Google Scholar
Stroth, N. (2016). The central importance of laboratories for reducing waste in biomedical research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 1707–1716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suarez-Lledo, V., & Alvarez-Galvez, J. (2021). Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(1), e17187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Noorden, R. (2023). Medicine is plagued by untrustworthy clinical trials. How many studies are faked or flawed? Nature, 619(7970), 454–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vernon, M. M., Balas, E. A., & Momani, S. (2018). Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review. PloS One, 13(3), e0193762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359, 1146–1151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walter, N., Brooks, J. J., Saucier, C. J., & Suresh, S. (2021). Evaluating the impact of attempts to correct health misinformation on social media: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 36(13), 1776–1784.Google ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019). Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Social Science & Medicine, 240, 112552.Google ScholarPubMed
Yordanov, Y., Dechartres, A., Porcher, R., Boutron, I., Altman, D. G., & Ravaud, P. (2015). Avoidable waste of research related to inadequate methods in clinical trials. BMJ, 350, h809. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h809CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhou, Y., & Dahal, S. (2024). Has R&D contributed to productivity growth in China? The role of basic, applied and experimental R&D. China Economic Review, 102281.Google Scholar