As a researcher of this contemporary, the request for grants is a forefront challenge due to its scarcity. This is partly because grants are essential to run an experiment yet they are a limited source. Understandably, the competitiveness is eminent to maximise the use of the fund so the money is awarded and prioritised to researchers with the most promising projects. Since the establishment of these government funding bodies, the process is highly regulated to ensure a fair assessment of the worth of a scientific proposal. However, two years ago Australian Research Council’s financial support for biomedical research came to an end. Now with only one primary public sector to distribute the grant, competition and fail rate soared amid the rise …show more content…
Experiments are a high-cost practice, which scientists must cover the expenses that are required to run experiments and as a result, biomedical researchers heavily invest their time to receive an endowment from external sources and many invariably aim for governmental funding schemes such as the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The fund covers the payments for equipment, consumables, and maintenance. Biomedical researchers are often restricted to find alternative ways to reduce their expenditure and thus, are subject to aligning to the grant scheme. Although they could reduce the cost by developing their own cells or antibodies, the biological variations prevent such practice as it interferes with the reproducibility. Even publication companies now ask scientists to be accountable by making their research reproducible so their application form consists of listing already registered antibodies. With the cost of a batch of antibodies as high as a million dollars, scientists struggle to buy them with their own salaries. Furthermore, research does not generate money quickly or adequately to allow self-funding. This means that only external sources can invest to conduct high-cost …show more content…
Private institutions such as Google and Johnston & Johnston do financially support research, yet the prestige and preference remained with governmental grants. It is because the public funding institutions do not expect shares from the profit made from its funded research. The funding bodies also do not manipulate or purposefully direct politics behind scientific findings (“National Principles of Intellectual Property”, 2015). They merely encourage receivers to publish papers of research that are reproducible and peer-reviewed as their end goal of utilising the grant. Researchers receive many benefits from this arrangement as they can ascend their profession with their contribution to science through publications. However, the same arrangement does not necessarily apply to private sector research funds. Upholding different interest to that of the researchers, industries may urge scientists to align with the focus of the company, share profits made from commercialisation, have their works regulated. A statistician, William Sealy Gosset, had to have his work published under the pseudonym of ‘Student’ because the company he worked for had different values to his experiment and its findings. Guinness brewery where Gosset was employed prohibited any publication from its workers to avoid associations with the company. It will be
Furthermore, to think that science is immune to the power establishment, one must assume that it is in no way affected by government or companies with money to spend. This, like the assumption that science is neutral, is also incorrect. In order for a scientist to be funded in his research, he must submit proposals to those power establishments that have money. These powerful companies and governments will only fund those projects they deem important to their interests and goals. In this way, science is extremely political in its effort to obtain money and support because it must please those power establishments who are, by nature, political.
Creating a budget in clinical research is very detailed, organized and specific towards each individual clinical research trial. When coming up with a budget you need to know what your limit is and stick to it. Negotiating a budget can be difficult, both sides need to collaborate and discuss the necessary and reasonable funds for the trial. There are limits to a budget which include no construction, travel is limited, and overall cost can’t exceed a set limit. (1, 3)
Webb, S. (2009). Stem cell research is suffering due to the lack of federal funding. In A.
At the turn of the new century, activists begun to protest the morality of animal experimentation: “… such methodology is far too cruel on beast, it cannot better mankind, but its lead to it demise…” Despite the rising concern for animal safety in laboratory research, federal legislations approved the practice. According to the federal bureaucrats, it is an essential tool to improve our current medical knowledge. Hence, most of the tested animals have a relatively shorter life span than human. Thus, it allows to test long-term disease in a smaller timeframe. Nonetheless, animal enthusiast request the banishment of animal experimentation in laboratory. Ergo, with our current technology, researchers are capable to reproduce the same result
In this argumentative essay written by Dr. Ron Kline a pediatrician who wrote his essay titled “A Scientist: I am the enemy”. The article gives an insight on how animal research has helped many people and shine a light on the benefits of animal research. Ron Kline is the director of bone marrow transplants at the University of Louisville. Furthermore, the essay explains his thoughts and his own reasons for his love of medical research. In addition, the essay include the opposing side of the argument which has a lot feedback from activist groups that think that animal research is horrible.
8. Flecknell, Paul. “Replacement, Reduction, Refinement.” Comparative Biology Centre, Medical School, University of Newcastle. 2 March 2012. Presentation at a symposium "Use of animals in research: a science-society controversy?" Doerenkamp-Zbinden-Foundation.
...vate sponsor as a partner in order to receive equal funds from government. This has set a trend of ‘public-private partnerships’ which put objectivity and research integrity at risk (Whistleblowers: Defending Academic Freedom, 2013). The duty of universities, to seek truth, is entirely different from duty of pharmaceutical companies; which is to make money for their shareholders (Lewis et al., 2001, pg. 783). The dynamic pursuit of self- interest by private economic entities has become one of the greatest causes of moral problems in the public sphere (Willbern, 1984, pg.104). Research institutions being reliant on private funds feel hopeless while tailoring the research results according to corporate wishes (Whistleblowers: Defending Academic Freedom, 2013).
...f ivermectin in the first place. Furthermore, we wouldn’t want to risk Merck going out of business, as it seems they had the capability to produce many useful medications. They’d already proved to make six useful, safe, and powerful drugs—the medical world wouldn’t want to lose such able creators. The best choice, therefore, would have Merck contributing to the research, but include other pharmaceutical companies and private donors to help with the financial and personnel costs. This funding would allow Merck and the other companies to sell at low costs, or even give, the medication to those who desperately need it. In order to implement such this type of plan, Merck would have to take the lead. They would have to actively seek out organizations, companies and private donors and explain the wonderful consequences for huge populations with the success of ivermectin.
Devlin, Hannah. "Don't Let The Forces Of Unreason Stop Research; Scientists Should Be Braver In Defending Animal Experiments And Open Up Their Labs Series: Editorial; Opinion, Columns." Times of London 7, 07 2013,: n. pag. eLibrary. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
Our advancements in science have enabled us to create other things that we can test on, instead of harming innocent animals. Since experiments are cruel and expensive, “the world’s most forward-thinking scientists have moved on to develop and use methods for studying
“It is a simple fact that many, if not most, of today’s modern medical miracles would not exist if experimental animals had not been available to medical scientists. It is equally a fact that, should we as a society decide the use of animal subjects is ethically unacceptable and therefore must be stopped, medical progress will slow to a snail’s pace. Such retardation will in itself have a huge ethical ‘price tag’ in terms of continued human and animal suffering from problems such as diabetes, cancer, degenerative cardiovascular diseases, and so forth.”
The history of medical research in the twentieth century provides abundant evidence which shows how easy it is to exploit individuals, especially the sick, the weak, and the vulnerable, when the only moral guide for science is a naive utilitarian dedication to the greatest good for the greatest number. Locally administered internal review boards were thought to be a solution to the need for ethical safeguards to protect the human guinea pig. However, with problems surrounding informed consent, the differentiation between experimentation and treatment, and the new advances within medicine, internal review boards were found to be inadequate for the job. This led to the establishment of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission by President Bill Clinton in the hopes of setting clear ethical standards for human research.
On one hand compensating donors puts a monetary value on body parts, but on the other researchers will have a difficult time finding donors if there is no compensation for the risk and discomfort of donation. Stem cell research as a whole will largely suffer without compensation. I find validity in both of these arguments, and I submit that it does not necessarily have to be an all or nothing decision. The procedure of egg procurement is too extensive and invasive to not offer donors a small level of monetary compensation for the risks they take. However, this sum cannot be large enough that it is causing undue inducement.
Taylor, Frederick Winslow (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York, NY, US and London, UK: Harper & Brothers. Print. 8 Feb. 2014.
Allaoui, S & Beaudry, C 2012, 'Impact of public and private research funding on scientific production: the case of nanotechnology ', Research Policy, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 1589-1606.