Funders could do more to reduce research waste, team says

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A study published in The Lancet suggests agencies that distribute public funds for research could do more to reduce waste.

Investigators evaluated 11 agencies from various countries and found the agencies aren’t always transparent about what they are doing to prevent waste in research.

The investigators also found evidence to suggest that some agencies are not taking certain steps that could reduce waste, and the governments responsible for the public money these agencies distribute are not holding them to account.

“Our investigation has shown that, on the whole, information about the policies and processes used by national funding agencies across the funding landscape are not transparent or readily available,” said Mona Nasser, DDS, of Plymouth University in the UK.

“It would appear that governments around the world often do not hold these agencies accountable for adding value to research and reducing research waste. This is not a call for governments to reduce spending on medical research, but, rather, as public funds become increasingly squeezed, there is no better time for funding agencies and governments to work together to ensure that we will all get the best ‘bang for the buck.’”

For this study, Dr Nasser and her colleagues investigated how research funders monitor and take steps to reduce waste in the research they support. The team also examined how funders support methodology research and the development of research infrastructures to reduce waste.

The investigators looked through the websites of 11 national research funders that distribute public funds in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, France, The Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway.

The team looked for information on how the agencies decide what to fund and how they ensure what they fund is not wasteful. The investigators also contacted these agencies to verify their findings.

The team found that approaches vary among the funders, but there are weaknesses that are applicable across all funding bodies.

One weakness is that grant committees tend to be dominated by academics and clinicians, which is a problem because patients’ interests may be overlooked.

The funders with the “most extensive” involvement of the general public are the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in the UK and ZonMW in The Netherlands.

Another weakness is the fact that practice and policy decisions are often made without the systematic assessment of existing research evidence.

The only funder to require reference to relevant systematic reviews in all funding applications is NIHR.

Yet another weakness is that only 6 of the 11 funding agencies require the publication of full reports of the research they have funded. And none of the funders have a comprehensive strategy to make data from all research projects freely available.

Based on these results, Dr Nasser and her colleagues concluded that more should be done to ensure transparency and accountability.

“In simple terms, there is a 2-pronged requirement for medical research funding bodies which distribute public funds,” Dr Nasser said. “The first is that they need to be fully responsible for how and why those funds are distributed because they are ultimately answerable to every tax payer in their home countries.”

“The second is that they need to ensure that public funds are not only invested wisely in research projects which represent both good value and waste-limited practice, but also to ensure that the results of these studies are made available in a usable format to the people who need them.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A study published in The Lancet suggests agencies that distribute public funds for research could do more to reduce waste.

Investigators evaluated 11 agencies from various countries and found the agencies aren’t always transparent about what they are doing to prevent waste in research.

The investigators also found evidence to suggest that some agencies are not taking certain steps that could reduce waste, and the governments responsible for the public money these agencies distribute are not holding them to account.

“Our investigation has shown that, on the whole, information about the policies and processes used by national funding agencies across the funding landscape are not transparent or readily available,” said Mona Nasser, DDS, of Plymouth University in the UK.

“It would appear that governments around the world often do not hold these agencies accountable for adding value to research and reducing research waste. This is not a call for governments to reduce spending on medical research, but, rather, as public funds become increasingly squeezed, there is no better time for funding agencies and governments to work together to ensure that we will all get the best ‘bang for the buck.’”

For this study, Dr Nasser and her colleagues investigated how research funders monitor and take steps to reduce waste in the research they support. The team also examined how funders support methodology research and the development of research infrastructures to reduce waste.

The investigators looked through the websites of 11 national research funders that distribute public funds in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, France, The Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway.

The team looked for information on how the agencies decide what to fund and how they ensure what they fund is not wasteful. The investigators also contacted these agencies to verify their findings.

The team found that approaches vary among the funders, but there are weaknesses that are applicable across all funding bodies.

One weakness is that grant committees tend to be dominated by academics and clinicians, which is a problem because patients’ interests may be overlooked.

The funders with the “most extensive” involvement of the general public are the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in the UK and ZonMW in The Netherlands.

Another weakness is the fact that practice and policy decisions are often made without the systematic assessment of existing research evidence.

The only funder to require reference to relevant systematic reviews in all funding applications is NIHR.

Yet another weakness is that only 6 of the 11 funding agencies require the publication of full reports of the research they have funded. And none of the funders have a comprehensive strategy to make data from all research projects freely available.

Based on these results, Dr Nasser and her colleagues concluded that more should be done to ensure transparency and accountability.

“In simple terms, there is a 2-pronged requirement for medical research funding bodies which distribute public funds,” Dr Nasser said. “The first is that they need to be fully responsible for how and why those funds are distributed because they are ultimately answerable to every tax payer in their home countries.”

“The second is that they need to ensure that public funds are not only invested wisely in research projects which represent both good value and waste-limited practice, but also to ensure that the results of these studies are made available in a usable format to the people who need them.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A study published in The Lancet suggests agencies that distribute public funds for research could do more to reduce waste.

Investigators evaluated 11 agencies from various countries and found the agencies aren’t always transparent about what they are doing to prevent waste in research.

The investigators also found evidence to suggest that some agencies are not taking certain steps that could reduce waste, and the governments responsible for the public money these agencies distribute are not holding them to account.

“Our investigation has shown that, on the whole, information about the policies and processes used by national funding agencies across the funding landscape are not transparent or readily available,” said Mona Nasser, DDS, of Plymouth University in the UK.

“It would appear that governments around the world often do not hold these agencies accountable for adding value to research and reducing research waste. This is not a call for governments to reduce spending on medical research, but, rather, as public funds become increasingly squeezed, there is no better time for funding agencies and governments to work together to ensure that we will all get the best ‘bang for the buck.’”

For this study, Dr Nasser and her colleagues investigated how research funders monitor and take steps to reduce waste in the research they support. The team also examined how funders support methodology research and the development of research infrastructures to reduce waste.

The investigators looked through the websites of 11 national research funders that distribute public funds in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, France, The Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway.

The team looked for information on how the agencies decide what to fund and how they ensure what they fund is not wasteful. The investigators also contacted these agencies to verify their findings.

The team found that approaches vary among the funders, but there are weaknesses that are applicable across all funding bodies.

One weakness is that grant committees tend to be dominated by academics and clinicians, which is a problem because patients’ interests may be overlooked.

The funders with the “most extensive” involvement of the general public are the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) in the UK and ZonMW in The Netherlands.

Another weakness is the fact that practice and policy decisions are often made without the systematic assessment of existing research evidence.

The only funder to require reference to relevant systematic reviews in all funding applications is NIHR.

Yet another weakness is that only 6 of the 11 funding agencies require the publication of full reports of the research they have funded. And none of the funders have a comprehensive strategy to make data from all research projects freely available.

Based on these results, Dr Nasser and her colleagues concluded that more should be done to ensure transparency and accountability.

“In simple terms, there is a 2-pronged requirement for medical research funding bodies which distribute public funds,” Dr Nasser said. “The first is that they need to be fully responsible for how and why those funds are distributed because they are ultimately answerable to every tax payer in their home countries.”

“The second is that they need to ensure that public funds are not only invested wisely in research projects which represent both good value and waste-limited practice, but also to ensure that the results of these studies are made available in a usable format to the people who need them.”