Search

Community engagement has been named a research priority by the National Institutes of Health, and scholars are calling for community engagement as an approach to address racism and equity in science. Robust community-engaged research can improve research quality, increase inclusion of traditionally marginalized populations, broaden the impact of findings on real-life situations, and is particularly valuable for underexplored research topics. The goal of this paper is to describe lessons learned and best practices that emerged from community engagement in a multi-institution population health research consortium. We describe how a foundation was laid to enable community-engaged research activities in the consortium, using a staged and stepped process to build and embed multi-level community-engaged research approaches.. We staged our development to facilitate (a) awareness of community engagement among consortium members, (b) the building of solidarity and alliances, and (c) the initiation of long-term engagement to allow for meaningful research translation. Our stepped process involved strategic planning; building momentum; institutionalizing engagement into the consortium infrastructure; and developing, implementing, and evaluating a plan. We moved from informal, one-time community interactions to systematic, formalized, capacity-building reciprocal engagement. We share our speed bumps and troubleshooting that inform our recommendations for other large research consortia-including investing the time it takes to build up community engagement capacity, acknowledging and drawing on strengths of the communities of interest, assuring a strong infrastructure of accountability for community engagement, and grounding the work in anti-racist principles.

Background Large research consortia can generate tremendous amounts of biological information, including high-resolution soil, vegetation, and climate data. While this knowledge stock holds invaluable potential for answering evolutionary and ecological questions, making these data exploitable for modelling remains a daunting task due to the many processing steps required for synthesis. This might result in many researchers to fall back to a handful of ready-to-use data sets, potentially at the expense of statistical power and scientific rigour. In a push for a more stringent approach, we introduce BEpipeR, an R pipeline that allows for the streamlined synthesis of plot-based Biodiversity Exploratories data. Methods BEpipeR was designed with flexibility and ease of use in mind. For instance, users simply choose between aggregating forest or grassland data, or a combination thereof, effectively allowing them to process any experimental plot data of this research consortium. Additionally, instead of coding, they parse most processing information in a user-friendly way through parameter sheets. Processing includes, among others, the creation of a spatially explicit plot-ID template, data wrangling, quality control, plot-wise aggregations, the calculation of derived metrics, data joining to a large composite data set, and metadata compilation. Results With BEpipeR, we provide a feature-rich pipeline that allows users to process Biodiversity Exploratories data in a flexible and reproducible way. This pipeline might serve as a starting point for aggregating the numerous data sets of this and potentially similar research consortia. In this way, it might be a primer for the construction of consortia-wide composite data sets that take full advantage of the consortia’s rich information stocks, ultimately boosting the visibility and participation of individual research projects. Conclusions The BEpipeR pipeline permits the user-friendly processing and plot-wise aggregation of Biodiversity Exploratories data. With modifications, this framework may be easily adopted by other research consortia.

As the projected incidence and mortality of cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) rises to epidemic proportions, it is imperative that more is done to identify the genomic differences and commonalities between patients of African and European ancestry to fulfil the promise of precision oncology. Here, we summarize the utility of precision oncology approaches, with a focus on comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and consolidate examples of national and international consortia that are driving the field forward. We describe the importance of genomic diversity and its relevance in cancer, and propose recommendations, success factors and desired outcomes for precision oncology consortia to adopt in SSA. Through this, we hope to catalyze the initiation of such projects and to contribute to improving cancer patient outcomes in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the projected incidence and mortality of cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) rises to epidemic proportions, it is imperative that more is done to identify the genomic differences and commonalities between patients of African and European ancestry to fulfil the promise of precision oncology. Here, we summarize the utility of precision oncology approaches, with a focus on comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and consolidate examples of national and international consortia that are driving the field forward. We describe the importance of genomic diversity and its relevance in cancer, and propose recommendations, success factors and desired outcomes for precision oncology consortia to adopt in SSA. Through this, we hope to catalyze the initiation of such projects and to contribute to improving cancer patient outcomes in the region.

Community engagement has been named a research priority by the National Institutes of Health, and scholars are calling for community engagement as an approach to address racism and equity in science. Robust community-engaged research can improve research quality, increase inclusion of traditionally marginalized populations, broaden the impact of findings on real-life situations, and is particularly valuable for underexplored research topics. The goal of this paper is to describe lessons learned and best practices that emerged from community engagement in a multi-institution population health research consortium. We describe how a foundation was laid to enable community-engaged research activities in the consortium, using a staged and stepped process to build and embed multi-level community-engaged research approaches. We staged our development to facilitate (a) awareness of community engagement among consortium members, (b) the building of solidarity and alliances, and (c) the initiation of long-term engagement to allow for meaningful research translation. Our stepped process involved strategic planning; building momentum; institutionalizing engagement into the consortium infrastructure; and developing, implementing, and evaluating a plan. We moved from informal, one-time community interactions to systematic, formalized, capacity-building reciprocal engagement. We share our speed bumps and troubleshooting that inform our recommendations for other large research consortia—including investing the time it takes to build up community engagement capacity, acknowledging and drawing on strengths of the communities of interest, assuring a strong infrastructure of accountability for community engagement, and grounding the work in anti-racist principles.

Copyright of Sintaxis. Revista Científica del Centro de Investigación para la Comunicación Aplicada is the property of Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores, AC and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The results of the PErioperAtive CHildhood ObesitY (PEACHY) study showed an alarmingly high incidence of obesity amongst children presenting for surgical procedures under general anaesthesia in the UK. The study was performed by the Paediatric Anaesthesia Trainee Research Network (PATRN), a network of trainee anaesthetists seeking to quantify important clinical problems. Networks and consortia that facilitate collaboration amongst clinicians and academics working in a wide range of types of hospitals are particularly important in the current era, as they have the potential to gather data rapidly on important clinical problems, and by their size improve the power to identify factors associated with rare complications. Collaboration amongst clinicians within networks instead of competition between clinicians can have wide-ranging benefits that extend beyond research, and can include improvements in training, rapid dissemination of protocols, and knowledge concerning new problems, ultimately improving general standards of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evaluating applications for multi-national, multi-disciplinary, dual-purpose research consortia is highly complex. There has been little research on the peer review process for evaluating grant applications and almost none on how applications for multi-national consortia are reviewed. Overseas development investments are increasingly being channelled into international science consortia to generate high-quality research while simultaneously strengthening multi-disciplinary research capacity. We need a better understanding of how such decisions are made and their effectiveness. Methods: An award-making institution planned to fund 10 UK-Africa research consortia. Over two annual rounds, 34 out of 78 eligible applications were shortlisted and reviewed by at least five external reviewers before final selections were made by a face-to-face panel. We used an innovative approach involving structured, overt observations of award-making panel meetings and semi-structured interviews with panel members to explore how assessment criteria concerning research quality and capacity strengthening were applied during the peer review process. Data were coded and analysed using pre-designed matrices which incorporated categories relating to the assessment criteria. Results: In general the process was rigorous and well-managed. However, lack of clarity about differential weighting of criteria and variations in the panel’s understanding of research capacity strengthening resulted in some inconsistencies in use of the assessment criteria. Using the same panel for both rounds had advantages, in that during the second round consensus was achieved more quickly and the panel had increased focus on development aspects. Conclusion: Grant assessment panels for such complex research applications need to have topic- and context-specific expertise. They must also understand research capacity issues and have a flexible but equitable and transparent approach. This study has developed and tested an approach for evaluating the operation of such panels and has generated lessons that can promote coherence and transparency among grant-makers and ultimately make the award-making process more effective.

Background: Evaluating applications for multi-national, multi-disciplinary, dual-purpose research consortia is highly complex. There has been little research on the peer review process for evaluating grant applications and almost none on how applications for multi-national consortia are reviewed. Overseas development investments are increasingly being channelled into international science consortia to generate high-quality research while simultaneously strengthening multi-disciplinary research capacity. We need a better understanding of how such decisions are made and their effectiveness. Methods: An award-making institution planned to fund 10 UK-Africa research consortia. Over two annual rounds, 34 out of 78 eligible applications were shortlisted and reviewed by at least five external reviewers before final selections were made by a face-to-face panel. We used an innovative approach involving structured, overt observations of award-making panel meetings and semi-structured interviews with panel members to explore how assessment criteria concerning research quality and capacity strengthening were applied during the peer review process. Data were coded and analysed using pre-designed matrices which incorporated categories relating to the assessment criteria. Results: In general the process was rigorous and well-managed. However, lack of clarity about differential weighting of criteria and variations in the panel’s understanding of research capacity strengthening resulted in some inconsistencies in use of the assessment criteria. Using the same panel for both rounds had advantages, in that during the second round consensus was achieved more quickly and the panel had increased focus on development aspects. Conclusion: Grant assessment panels for such complex research applications need to have topic- and context-specific expertise. They must also understand research capacity issues and have a flexible but equitable and transparent approach. This study has developed and tested an approach for evaluating the operation of such panels and has generated lessons that can promote coherence and transparency among grant-makers and ultimately make the award-making process more effective.

Background: Evaluating applications for multi-national, multi-disciplinary, dual-purpose research consortia is highly complex. There has been little research on the peer review process for evaluating grant applications and almost none on how applications for multi-national consortia are reviewed. Overseas development investments are increasingly being channelled into international science consortia to generate high-quality research while simultaneously strengthening multi-disciplinary research capacity. We need a better understanding of how such decisions are made and their effectiveness. Methods: An award-making institution planned to fund 10 UK-Africa research consortia. Over two annual rounds, 34 out of 78 eligible applications were shortlisted and reviewed by at least five external reviewers before final selections were made by a face-to-face panel. We used an innovative approach involving structured, overt observations of award-making panel meetings and semi-structured interviews with panel members to explore how assessment criteria concerning research quality and capacity strengthening were applied during the peer review process. Data were coded and analysed using pre-designed matrices which incorporated categories relating to the assessment criteria. Results: In general the process was rigorous and well-managed. However, lack of clarity about differential weighting of criteria and variations in the panel’s understanding of research capacity strengthening resulted in some inconsistencies in use of the assessment criteria. Using the same panel for both rounds had advantages, in that during the second round consensus was achieved more quickly and the panel had increased focus on development aspects. Conclusion: Grant assessment panels for such complex research applications need to have topic- and context-specific expertise. They must also understand research capacity issues and have a flexible but equitable and transparent approach. This study has developed and tested an approach for evaluating the operation of such panels and has generated lessons that can promote coherence and transparency among grant-makers and ultimately make the award-making process more effective.

Public and private funding bodies make massive investments in research to address the grand challenges of the world. These require collective research efforts of a large number of partners to generate knowledge and ultimately create technologies to meet today's grand challenges. Surprisingly, little research is conducted on how to design the research consortia appropriately that actually result in the development of new technologies. This article argues that when organisational knowledge integrators are involved in large-scale projects, they ensure that the research findings of earlier technology development efforts in a project are pulled towards innovation outcomes through their own position in the innovation value chain. This article uses a data-set with 376 collaborative R&D projects within energy technologies. Most importantly, this article confirms the existence of organisational knowledge integrators and the positive effects on project outcomes. These results are discussed with implications drawn for both applicants and funding bodies for future projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research into the multimodal dimensions of human communication faces a set of distinctive methodological challenges. Collecting the datasets is resource-intensive, analysis often lacks peer validation, and the absence of shared datasets makes it difficult to develop standards. External validity is hampered by small datasets, yet large datasets are intractable. Red Hen Lab spearheads an international infrastructure for data-driven multimodal communication research, facilitating an integrated cross-disciplinary workflow. Linguists, communication scholars, statisticians, and computer scientists work together to develop research questions, annotate training sets, and develop pattern discovery and machine learning tools that handle vast collections of multimodal data, beyond the dreams of previous researchers. This infrastructure makes it possible for researchers at multiple sites to work in real-time in transdisciplinary teams. We review the vision, progress, and prospects of this research consortium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global health research partnerships are increasingly taking the form of consortia that conduct programs of research in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). An ethical framework has been developed that describes how the governance of consortia comprised of institutions from high-income countries and LMICs should be structured to promote health equity. It encompasses initial guidance for sharing sovereignty in consortia decision-making and sharing consortia resources. This paper describes a first effort to examine whether and how consortia can uphold that guidance. Case study research was undertaken with the Future Health Systems consortium, performs research to improve health service delivery for the poor in Bangladesh, China, India, and Uganda. Data were thematically analysed and revealed that proposed ethical requirements for sharing sovereignty and sharing resources are largely upheld by Future Health Systems. Facilitating factors included having a decentralised governance model, LMIC partners with good research capacity, and firm budgets. Higher labour costs in the US and UK and the funder's policy of allocating funds to consortia on a reimbursement basis prevented full alignment with guidance on sharing resources. The lessons described in this paper can assist other consortia to more systematically link their governance policy and practice to the promotion of health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health systems research is widely identified as an indispensable means to achieve the goal of health equity between and within countries. Numerous health systems research consortia comprised of institutions from high-income countries and low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are currently undertaking programs of research in LMICs. These partnerships differ from collaborations that carry out single projects in the multiplicity of their goals, scope of their activities, and nature of their management. Recent conceptual work has explored what features might be necessary for health systems research consortia and their research programs to promote health equity. Identified features include selecting research priorities that focus on improving access to high-quality health services and/or financial protection for disadvantaged populations in LMICs and conducting research capacity strengthening that promotes the independent conduct of health systems research in LMICs. Yet, there has been no attempt to investigate whether existing consortia have such characteristics. This paper describes the results of a survey undertaken with health systems research consortia leaders worldwide to assess how consistent current practice is with the proposed ethical guidance. The findings suggest that consortia may be fairly well organised to promote health equity, but have scope for improvement, particularly in terms of achieving inclusive priority-setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global health research partnerships are increasingly taking the form of consortia of institutions from high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries that undertake programs of research. These partnerships differ from collaborations that carry out single projects in the multiplicity of their goals, scope of their activities, and nature of their management. Although such consortia typically aim to reduce health disparities between and within countries, what is required for them to do so has not been clearly defined. This article takes a conceptual approach to explore how the governance of transnational global health research consortia should be structured to advance health equity. To do so, it applies an account called shared health governance to derive procedural and substantive guidance. A checklist based on this guidance is proposed to assist research consortia determine where their governance practices strongly promote equity and where they may fall short. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The UNAM Institute of Biotechnology offers an institutional culture that allows for the presence of prestigious researchers and the creation and consolidation of referential groups of scientists in the field of biotechnology. This is why the article attempts to disseminate some of the traits of this scientific community and its work; despite the country's socioeconomic and political limitations and conditions, it has managed to distinguish itself in the international scientific community and its work should somehow be disseminated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper makes the case for implementing an internal governance framework for sharing materials and data in stem cell research consortia. A governance framework can facilitate a transparent and accountable system while building trust among partner institutions. However, avoiding excessive bureaucracy is essential. The development and implementation of a governance framework for materials and data access in the Stem cells for Biological Assays of Novel drugs and prediCtive toxiCology (StemBANCC) consortium is presented as a practical example. The StemBANCC project is a multi-partner European research consortium, which aims to build a resource of 1,500 well characterised induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) lines for in vitro disease modelling and toxicology studies. The project governance framework was developed in two stages. A small working group identified key components of a framework and translated the project legal agreements into a draft policy document. The second phase allowed input from all consortium partners to shape the iterative development of a final policy document that could be agreed by all parties. Careful time management strategies were needed to manage the duration of this component. This part of the process also served as an exploratory space where different options could be proposed, potential gaps in planning identified, and project co-ordination activities specified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Specify Software Project (www.specifysoftware.org) has been funded by the University of Kansas and with grants from the U.S. National Science Foundation for 20 years. In 2018, the effort is pivoting from a grant-funded project to a community-supported effort through the establishment of a consortium of biological collection institutions. Specify Collection Consortium software products will remain open source and free to download and use. Consortium membership benefits will include access to technical support services and seats on the Board of Directors and advisory committees, groups that will determine priorities for future products, platform capabilities, and technical support services. In 2017 and 2018, we have been engaged in organizational planning and development-modeling the Specify Collections Consortium on examples of viable open source and open access consortia in other research communities. Founding members of the Consortium in the U.S. include the University of Michigan, University of Florida, and University of Kansas. The Consortium's mission will be to support collections institutions in mobilizing data from their holdings to broader biological and computational initiatives to advance collections-based research, while facilitating efficient data curation and collection management. We will provide an update on our progress with the Consortium's development and highlight new capabilities and integration features of the Specify 6 & 7 software platforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Strategic research consortia as policy instruments for research coordination have been on the rise for more than a decade. Despite their rising popularity as coordination structures, there has been little comparative analysis of the actual coordination approaches such consortia develop. In order to enhance our understanding of consortia as coordination structures, this paper makes a systematic and in-depth comparison of the coordination approaches of two Dutch consortia. The analysis shows that research consortia coordinate their activities in very different ways. A consortium’s coordination approach turns out to be strongly influenced by its internal characteristics. The observed influence of internal consortium characteristics implies that the eventual coordination approach of consortia will not always match the rationale behind a policy measure to support these consortia. We recommend policy-makers to foster strategic research consortia with a heterogeneous composition that have organised sufficient flexibility for reacting to unforeseen developments. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Over the past several decades, the private sector has assumed a larger role in developing improved technology for food and agriculture. Private companies fund nearly all food processing research and development (R&D) and perform a growing share of production-oriented R&D for agriculture. In addition, institutional partnerships for public–private research collaboration are growing in the United States and other countries. This article outlines the major forces driving these changes and offers an interpretive framework to explore some of the implications for the volume and nature of research performed by the public and private sectors. One of the critical issues is whether public agricultural research complements and thereby stimulates additional private agricultural R&D investments. Another important issue concerns the role and contribution of alternative public–private partnership arrangements. To date, changes in the institutional structure of public and private agricultural research have outpaced systematic investigation, and new theoretical and empirical research is needed to help guide policy and address key societal challenges, such as climate change, clean energy, water scarcity, food safety, and health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review discusses high impact research in sustainable urban and land management. The focus is on large European projects that have a holistic and multi-disciplinary assessment approach towards the total environment. This paper clearly indicates that many projects propose decision-making tools partly supported by numerical models. Successful projects were identified as applying the following criteria: a communicative and holistic approach involving economic, environmental and social sciences throughout the project; sufficient geographic coverage; engagement of stakeholders from a wide variety of sectors; and plans for dissemination of project outcomes and active knowledge sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper provides a quantitative assessment of the scientific and technological productivity of FP6 projects by exploiting a new database on articles and patents resulting from EU funded projects. Starting from the FP6, the design of the European technology policy has undergone significant changes with the introduction of new funding instruments aimed at achieving a 'critical mass' of resources. Our empirical results provide support to the concerns, expressed by several observers, regarding the fact that the new funding instruments may have resulted in artificially 'too large' research consortia. The available empirical evidence shows that scientific productivity increases with the number of participants following a U-inverted shape, thereby indicating the existence of decreasing marginal returns to an increase in the size of research consortia. A second key result of the paper is related to the existence of significant differences of performance among funding instruments. In particular, after accounting for the larger amount of resources allocated to them, Integrated Projects perform less well in terms of scientific output than both STRePs and Networks of Excellence and they do not exhibit a superior performance than STRePs in terms of patent applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To articulate the need for a new approach to primary ovarian insufficiency. The condition, also known as premature menopause or premature ovarian failure, is defined by the presence of menopausal-level serum gonadotropins in association with irregular menses in adolescent girls or women younger than 40 years. It can be iatrogenic as related to cancer therapy or may arise spontaneously, either alone or as part of a host of ultrarare syndromes. In a large percentage of spontaneous cases no pathogenic mechanism can be identified. Design: Literature review and consensus building at a multidisciplinary scientific workshop. Conclusion(s): There are major gaps in knowledge regarding the etiologic mechanisms, psychosocial effects, natural history, and medical and psychosocial management of primary ovarian insufficiency. An international research consortium and disease registry formed under the guidance of an umbrella organization would provide a pathway to comprehensively increase basic and clinical knowledge about the condition. Such a consortium and patient registry also would provide clinical samples and clinical data with a goal toward defining the specific pathogenic mechanisms. An international collaborative approach that combines the structure of a patient registry with the principles of integrative care and community-based participatory research is needed to advance the field of primary ovarian insufficiency. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: To enhance understanding of the long-term maintenance of behavior change, as well as effective strategies for achieving sustainable health promotion and disease prevention through the Health Maintenance Consortium (HMC). Methods: This introductory research synthesis prepared by the resource center gives context to this theme issue by providing an overview of the HMC and the articles in this journal. Results: It explores the contributions to our conceptualization of behavior change processes and intervention strategies, the trajectory of effectiveness of behavioral and social interventions, and factors influencing the long-term maintenance of behavioral and social interventions. Conclusions: Future directions for furthering the science of maintaining behavior change and reducing the gaps between research and practice are recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: One pressing challenge in the fields of international health and tropical medicine is how to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. Changes in how research is conducted are, however, contributing to progress in reaching these targets. Increasingly researchers from different institutions, countries and even continents are working together through research consortia. These consortia can be focused around research questions such as developing new TB vaccines, designed to deliver capacity building, promote advocacy, or to maintain efforts directed at threatened research areas such as leprosy research. Researchers connected through consortia can provide robust answers to research questions, removing duplication of effort, within a stimulating environment for discussion and development of research ideas. Another advantage is that south–south research links may be strengthened, which is of increasing relevance as the balance of power and money is moving south, providing new opportunities for the African continent. However, there are disadvantages as well as advantages to consortia. Having too many connections can immobilise researchers in a web of meetings, teleconferences, and reports, reducing the time for original innovative ideas. Learned societies, such as the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene provide their own networks and connections and allow the bigger issues of international health and development to be discussed in a multidisciplinary environment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Psychiatric genomics is made in practice. Developments in psychiatric genomics are the result of an open, contingent process in which different stakeholders – scientists, policymakers, professionals and patients – are involved. This article examines the practices and perspectives of scientists in two long-term, large-scale Dutch psychiatric research consortia that are mapping the origin and development of psychosis, anxiety and depression. The article also explores the perspectives of the funding agency and patients and patient organizations that are in contact with the research consortium on psychoses. What are the issues and concerns of scientists involved in psychiatric genomics, what do they expect genomics will mean for psychiatry, what kind of research are they conducting? What are the issues, concerns and expectations of the main funding agency? How do patients and patient organizations regard developments in psychiatric genomics, and how do they relate to the ongoing research? The conclusion is that different psychiatric futures – not necessarily resulting in geneticized disorders – may emerge from multiple developments in the field. Developments in this case study appear to be contingent on international developments in scientific research; on scientists’ different perspectives of what psychiatric disorders are; on national and European traditions in psychiatry, and on the input of patients and patient organizations into research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of the benefits and challenges when undertaking research across several countries comprising diverse ethnic, lingual and historically different communities. Methods: Literature review and experiences of the researchers who participated in the Students' Health Inquiry, as regards the benefits and the challenges that can emerge when conducting collaborative research. The Delphi technique was employed to reach consensus on and prioritise the emerging challenges and suggested solutions. Results: Challenges of research consortia include the preparatory work before the study, the ownership of the data and dissemination of results, as well as methodological, financial, operational, and structural challenges. These are described, each challenge is further broken down in its subcomponents, examples are given, and potential solutions are suggested. Conclusions: If challenges can be prevented or solved, the benefits of research consortia include greater generalisability of findings, and more comprehensive understanding of the issues than would be possible with a single-site study. There is also an increased probability to bring about policy changes and programmatic adjustments. Cross-national research consortia can contribute to reduction in the inequality of resources and research opportunities in the collaborating countries. Research consortia deserve the attention of funding agencies. They are capable of bringing about synergies that result from working collaboratively together of large multi-disciplinary team of investigators who share their strengths, disciplines and expertise in order to bear on the same research issue in multiple countries and diverse populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research consortia have played an important role in the economic success of several East Asian countries. This paper looks at the ways these consortia - which are created for strategic rather than cost-saving purposes - have evolved over time. Three models for institutional learning are suggested, and three case studies are presented of research consortia in each model. The cases demonstrate the centrality of learning in facilitating the development then transition from innovation diffusion capabilities to innovation generation capabilities in East Asian firms. Cases are provided of the Samsung Electronics in Korea, the clusters of firms that are associated with ITRI in Taiwan, and the technological development of Ericsson China. Reference is made to the use of institutional innovations in the East Asian context such as patent pools that supplement more conventional forms of R&D collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We assess the impact on demand and producers’ costs of a new technology implemented in the US auto industry, the 2 mm program. This is a fascinating case partially because of the unique collaboration among public agencies and a consortium of manufacturers and universities. Using a type of hedonic price model for demand, we show that the new technology was responsible for a short-lived increase in demand for vehicles produced by US automakers at increased producers’ costs. Firms that refused to participate in the consortium attained smaller net gains implementing the technology independently. Overall, our approach differs from that of previous analysts in that we (1) separate demand from supply, (2) employ a comprehensive vehicle database, spanning 1981–1998 data, including data on virtually all vehicle models sold in the USA, as well as data on plants’ and producers’ technology characteristics, and (3) rely on sales and production data rather than plant data. Also, we quantify the cost of not participating in the consortium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research consortia can help to repair deficiencies in knowledge about the influence of inherited genetic diversity on disease. The New York Genome Center (NYGC) recently established Polyethnic-1000 (P-1000), a multi-institutional collaboration to study hereditary factors affecting several types of cancer. Here, we describe its rationale, organization, development, current activities, and prospects., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests No interests are declared., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Undoubtedly, pharmacogenomics (PGx) aims in optimizing drug treatment responses whilst also improving the patients' quality of life, either via a reduction of adverse drug reactions and/or an enhancement of drug treatment efficacy. To achieve this, PGx guidance is provided by the two major regulatory bodies in a worldwide level, specifically the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA), and occasionally some research consortia, such as the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) or the Dutch Pharmacogenomics Working Group (DPWG). However, so far, there is a limited number of studies focusing on the delineation of the similarities and more importantly, the discrepancies in the PGx guidance by the different regulatory bodies and consortia. Herein, we use real-life clinical PGx data to highlight such discrepancies and similarities for genome-guided interventions in psychiatric disorders, thus demonstrating the need for harmonization of the guidelines and recommendations. More precisely, we used the PharmCAT genome-informed drug treatment reports from 304 Greek individuals with psychiatric disorders in order to emphasize on the discrepancies in the PGx guidance/guidelines between FDA vs EMA and CPIC vs DPWG, respectively. For example, CYP2D6 -pimozide pair is characterized as 'Testing Required' according to FDA and is accompanied by a DPWG PGx guideline, whilst no EMA or CPIC PGx guidance is found for this drug-gene pair. Moreover, discrepancies are observed regarding the type of PGx guidance for CYP2C19 -doxepin pair, with 89 individuals from our study cohort requiring a dose prescribing change based on FDA, whilst only 5 individuals have to receive genome-guided treatment adjustment according to CPIC. To our knowledge, this is the first study, in which discrepancies regarding the type of PGx guidance and the number of actionable drug-gene pairs amongst FDA and EMA, as well as CPIC and DPWG, are brought to light with an emphasis on psychiatric disorders. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]