Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2021.08.23.456936

Research Funding for Male Reproductive Health and Infertility in the UK and USA

Abstract

TitleResearch Funding for Male Reproductive Health and Infertility in the UK and USA [2016 - 2019] Study questionWhat is the research funding for male reproductive health and infertility in the UK and US between 2016 to 2019? Summary answerThe average funding for a research project in male reproductive health and infertility was not significantly different to that for female-based projects ({pound}653,733 in the UK and $779,707 in the US). However, only 0.07% and 0.83% of government funds from NIHR (UK) and NICHD (USA) was granted for male reproductive health, respectively. What is known alreadyThere is a marked paucity of data on research funding for male reproductive health. Study design, size, durationExamined government databases over a total 4-year period from January 2016 to December 2019. Participants/materials, setting, methodsInformation on the funding provided to male-based and female-based research was collected using public accessed web-databases from the UKRI-GTR, the NIHRs Open Data Summary, and the US NIH RePORT. Funded projects that began research activity between January 2016 to December 2019 were recorded, along with their grant and project details. Strict inclusion-exclusion criteria were followed for both UK and US data with a primary research focus of male infertility, reproductive health and disorders, and contraception development. Funding support was divided into three research groups: male-based, female-based, and not-specified research. Between the 4-year period, the UK is divided into 5 funding periods, starting from 2015/16 to 2019/20, and the US is divided into 5 fiscal years, from 2016 to 2020. Main results and the role of chanceBetween January 2016 to December 2019, UK agencies awarded a total of {pound}11,767,190 to 18 projects for male-based research and {pound}29,850,945 to 40 projects for female-based research. There was no statistically significant difference in funding average between the two research groups (P=0.56, W=392). The US NIH funded 76 projects totaling $59,257,746 for male-based research and 99 projects totaling $83,272,898 for female-based research. There was no statistically significant difference in funding average between the two groups (P=0.83, W=3834). Limitations, reasons for cautionThe findings of this study cannot be used to generalize and reflect global funding trends towards infertility and reproductive health as the data collected followed a narrow funding timeframe from government agencies and only two countries. Other funding sources such as charities, industry and major philanthropic organizations were not evaluated. Wider implications of the findingsThis is the first study examining funding granted by main government research agencies from the UK and US for male reproductive health. This study should stimulate further discussion of the challenges of tackling male infertility and reproductive health disorders and formulate appropriate investment strategies. Study funding/competing interest(s)CLRB is Editor for RBMO and has received lecturing fees from Merck, Pharmasure, and Ferring. His laboratory is funded by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, CSO, Genus. No other authors declare a conflict of interest.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gumerova, E., De Jonge, C. J., Barratt, C. L.. 2021-08-24. Research Funding for Male Reproductive Health and Infertility in the UK and USA. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.23.456936

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗

"When I talk about it, my eyes light up!" Impacts of a national laboratory internship on community college student success

Participation in technical/research internships may improve undergraduate graduation rates and persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), yet little is known about the benefits of these activities a) for community college students, b) when hosted by national laboratories, and c) beyond the first few years after the internship. We applied Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) to investigate alumni perspectives about how CCI at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) impacted their academic/career activities. We learned that alumni had low confidence and expectations of success in STEM as community college students. Participation in CCI increased their professional networks, expectations of success, and STEM skills, identity, and self-efficacy/confidence. Hispanic/Latinx alumni recalled the positive impact of mentors who prioritized personal connections, and women valued "warm" social environments. We propose several additions to the SCCT model, to better reflect the supports and barriers to STEM persistence for community college students.

scientific communication and education↗

Insights from a survey of mentorship experiences by graduate and postdoctoral researchers

Mentorship is vital for early career researchers in training positions, allowing them to navigate the challenges of work and life in research environments. However, the quality of mentorship received by trainees can vary by investigator and by institution. One challenge faced by those hoping to improve trainee mentorship is that the extent to which mentorship is offered to and experienced by research trainees is not well characterized. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a survey to examine the quality of mentorship received by trainees in research environments, to identify characteristics of positive and negative mentorship, and to highlight best practices to improve trainee mentorship. We received 2,114 responses from researchers at graduate and postdoctoral career stages worldwide. Quantitative analysis showed that at least [~]25-45% of respondents were dissatisfied with some aspects of their mentorship. Qualitative responses revealed that common issues in mentorship include unclear expectations in research and mentoring interactions, lack of guidance, and inadequate support of trainee independence and career goals. Our findings also identified key mentorship elements desired by trainee mentees. Based on trainee suggestions, we describe strategies for individual mentors, departments, and institutions to improve the training experience for graduate and postdoctoral researchers.

scientific communication and education↗