Search

Despite the surging interest in introducing lottery mechanisms into decision-making procedures for science funding bodies, the discourse on funding-by-lottery remains underdeveloped and, at times, misleading. Funding-by-lottery is sometimes presented as if it were a single mechanism when, in reality, there are many funding-by-lottery mechanisms with important distinguishing features. Moreover, funding-by-lottery is sometimes portrayed as an alternative to traditional methods of peer review when peer review is still used within funding-by-lottery approaches. This obscures a proper analysis of the (hypothetical and actual) variants of funding-by-lottery and important differences amongst them. The goal of this article is to provide a preliminary taxonomy of funding-by-lottery variants and evaluate how the existing evidence on peer review might lend differentiated support for variants of funding-by-lottery. Moreover, I point to gaps in the literature on peer review that must be addressed in future research. I conclude by building off of the work of Avin in moving toward a more holistic evaluation of funding-by-lottery. Specifically, I consider implications funding-by-lottery variants may have regarding trust and social responsibility.

There has been a resurgence between two closely related discussions concerning modern science funding policy. The first revolves around the coherence and usefulness of the distinction between basic and applied science and the second concerns whether science should be free to pursue research according to its own internal standards or pursue socially responsible research agendas that are held accountable to moral or political standards. In this paper, I argue that the distinction between basic and applied science, and the concomitant debate about freedom and social responsibility, require revision. I contend that the distinction can only be maintained in cases of urgent science. I go on to elucidate the notion of urgent science using a case study from research of the climate refugee crisis., Author(s): Jamie Shaw [sup.1] Author Affiliations: (1) Institute for History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellow, , Toronto, Canada Preamble Whether scientists should be free to set [...]

Enpatoran is a novel, highly selective, and potent dual toll‐like receptor (TLR)7 and TLR8 inhibitor currently under development for the treatment of autoimmune disorders including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE), and myositis. The ongoing phase II study (WILLOW; NCT05162586) is evaluating enpatoran for 24 weeks in patients with active SLE or CLE and is currently recruiting. To support development of WILLOW as an Asia‐inclusive multiregional clinical trial (MRCT) according to International Conference on Harmonisation E5 and E17 principles, we have evaluated ethnic sensitivity to enpatoran based on clinical pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), and safety data from an ethno‐bridging study (NCT04880213), supplemented by relevant quantitative PK, PD, and disease trajectory modeling (DTM) results, and drug metabolism/disease knowledge. A single‐center, open‐label, sequential dose group study in White and Japanese subjects matched by body weight, height, and sex demonstrated comparable PK and PD properties for enpatoran in Asian vs. non‐Asian (White and other) subjects across single 100, 200, and 300 mg orally administered doses. DTM suggested no significant differences in SLE disease trajectory for Asian vs. non‐Asian individuals. Aldehyde oxidase (AOX) is considered to be a key contributor to enpatoran metabolism, and a literature review indicated no relevant ethnic differences in AOX function based on in vitro and clinical PK data from marketed drugs metabolized by AOX, supporting the conclusion of low ethnic sensitivity for enpatoran. Taken together, the inclusion of Asian patients in MRCTs including WILLOW was informed based on a Totality of Evidence approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent science funding policy scholars and practitioners have advocated for the use of lotteries, or elements of random chance, as supplementations of traditional peer review for evaluating grant applications. One of the primary motivations for lotteries is their purported openness to innovative research. The purpose of this article is to argue that current proponents of funding science by lottery overestimate the viability of peer review and thus unduly restrict the scope of lotteries in science funding practice. I further show how this analysis suggests a different way of introducing lotteries into science funding policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Enpatoran is a selective inhibitor of toll‐like receptors 7 and 8 (TLR7/8) that potentially targets pro‐inflammatory pathways induced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). A phase II study conducted in Brazil, the Philippines, and the USA during the early pandemic phase assessed the safety and efficacy of enpatoran in patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 pneumonia (NCT04448756). A total of 149 patients, who scored 4 on the World Health Organization's (WHO) 9‐point ordinal severity scale, were randomized 1:1:1 and received enpatoran 50 mg (n = 54) or 100 mg (n = 46), or placebo (n = 49) twice daily (b.i.d.) for 14 days plus standard of care. The primary objectives were safety and time to recovery (WHO 9‐point scale ≤3). Clinical deterioration (WHO 9‐point scale ≥ 5) was a key secondary objective. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable across groups (56.5%–63.0%). Treatment‐related TEAEs were numerically higher with enpatoran 50 mg (14.8%) than 100 mg (10.9%) or placebo (8.2%). Serious TEAEs were numerically lower with enpatoran (50 mg 9.3%, 100 mg 2.2%) than placebo (18.4%). The primary efficacy objective was not met; median time to recovery was 3.4–3.9 days across groups, with placebo‐treated patients recovering on average faster than anticipated. Clinical deterioration event‐free rates up to Day 7 were 90.6%, 95.6%, and 81.6% with enpatoran 50 mg, 100 mg, and placebo, respectively. Enpatoran was well tolerated by patients acutely ill and hospitalized with COVID‐19 pneumonia. Positive signals in some secondary end points suggested potential beneficial effects, supporting further evaluation of enpatoran in patients with hyperinflammation due to infection or autoimmunity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When a small, Midwestern business school launched a required, four-year career development curriculum, robust practicum courses, and a dynamic, co-curricular program, it proved itself to be in the vanguard of career development practices. Due to the extensive experiential learning this program provides, greater numbers of business and accounting majors are graduating with raised employment aspirations and the knowledge, skills, and confidence to begin their professional lives. Using quantitative measures, the results suggest the positive impact of these career development activities on students' certainty about career direction, assessment of the quality of their resumes and LinkedIn profiles, and confidence in interviewing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The new type of virus (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) from Coronaviridae family, discovered in 2019, caused a global pandemic with several massive lock-downs around the globe. Science and politicians became the center of world attention, receiving many questions without having clear answers. The hopes of many rested on vaccine development, which was done fast, facing novel challenges such as the massive production and distribution for several billions of people. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, the global reaction to the pandemic is reviewed along with some critical comments. METHOD: Different groups, including nations, took part in global lockdowns, while vaccine development was running in parallel without having enough capacity for some of the biggest medical demands in history. This review will bring together views from all interested groups in this pandemic crisis. RESULTS: The Western world waited too long (4 months), after the first case was confirmed in China, to introduce lock-down and safety measures. On the other side, vaccine development was done too fast to give clear long-term safety profiles of the medications developed. Due to the focus on development, it was overlooked that production and distribution of sterile products such as vaccines might have limitations globally. Usually when such limitations occur, power comes to the surface. Therefore, buyers who had power will get the vaccines they need first. However, we should recognize the economic impact that directly influenced healthcare funding. All of this will lead to post-crisis challenges, including depression, violence, suicide, migration, and many other social problems. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic is a test for all of us, which many governments, industries and non-state actors are failing. It is a perfect "general probe" to detect some of the weaknesses of the current structure of global health. If politics and science do not work together to make a global production plan for vaccines and learn from this pandemic, then all of the lives lost were for nothing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The pharmaceutical industry is believed to receive considerable support through research and development (R&D) tax credits. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this paper are (a) to show that many of the pharmaceutical industry's apparent R&D activities are entangled with marketing efforts, and (b) to argue that supporting these activities through tax credits does not serve public interests in health. METHODS: The bulk of this paper summarizes the author's extended qualitative mixed-methods approach to following connections between pharmaceutical research and marketing. RESULTS: The pharmaceutical industry's R&D should be understood as broadly entangled with marketing, and so generally should be understood as integrated research, development and marketing (RD&M). CONCLUSIONS: R&D tax credits to the pharmaceutical industry largely do not serve public interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has shocked society worldwide. Multiple efforts went immediately into developing treatments for managing and vaccines for preventing the disease. National and international initiatives emerged to deal with the deep economic and social inequalities in our world today. OBJECTIVE: To show that the global inequalities that have become salient during the COVID-19 pandemic and specially with the global vaccination campaign, are the result of a highly privatized system of research and development (R&D), which is first and foremost profit-driven, and where epistemic and social concerns are not prioritized. METHODS: Philosophical analysis. RESULTS: After exploring the current organization of scientific research, as well as its impact in the development of research at a global scale, the paper shows the way in which this highly privatized organization of research has permeated scientific research on COVID-19, identifying who is currently benefiting from pandemic science, and who on the contrary is suffering the consequences of this organization. Using the COVAX mechanism as an example, the paper argues that international efforts to counteract the power of commercially-driven science has not rendered the expected results. CONCLUSIONS: The current organization of science ought to be shaken and restructured if we aim to be better prepared to address the global challenges of the future with the relevant scientific and technological development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us that there are numerous research questions—empirical, political, and philosophical—that need addressing both prior to, during, and after a pandemic. The current organisation of medical research has hindered our ability to efficiently answer these questions. This in turn suggests that there ought to be changes to how the medical research agenda is set. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]