Suchergebnisse

Experimental basic research provides the foundations for the elucidation of pathophysiological mechanisms of diseases and the development of novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for ophthalmological diseases. The objective of this contribution is to provide an overview of the international interconnection of basic research in ophthalmology in Germany. The international context of ophthalmological research conducted in Germany is presented by means of personal experiences and data published by the German Ophthalmological Society (DOG), the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the European Union (EU). Due to the lack of organized databases this article lays no claim to completeness. Basic research in ophthalmology in Germany is mainly conducted in university eye departments and is mainly related to the etiology, pathophysiology and therapy development for various ophthalmic diseases. It is primarily funded by the DFG, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the EU plays an increasingly important role. Thus, ophthalmological research is integrated into numerous European research networks and beyond that into many international interconnections and relationships. In Germany, both clinical and basic research in ophthalmology is integrated into many international networks and is only functionally viable in an international context; however, given the increasing impact of ophthalmological research in Asian countries, future strategies require a continued focus on career development, research infrastructure, working environment and international cooperation.

For some years now, the concept of basic research has been under attack. Yet although the significance of the concept is in doubt, basic research continues to be used as an analytical category in science studies. But what exactly is basic research? What is the difference between basic and applied research? This article seeks to answer these questions by applying historical semantics. I argue that the concept of basic research did not arise out of the tradition of pure science. On the contrary, this new concept emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a time when scientists were being confronted with rising expectations regarding the societal utility of science. Scientists used the concept in order to try to bridge the gap between the promise of utility and the uncertainty of scientific endeavour. Only after 1945, when United States science policy shaped the notion of basic research, did the concept revert to the older ideals of pure science. This revival of the purity discourse was caused by the specific historical situation in the US at that time: the need to reform federal research policy after the Second World War, the new dimension of ethical dilemmas in science and technology during the atomic era, and the tense political climate during the Cold War.

AbstractThe National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Hazardous Substances Basic Research and Training Program [Superfund Research Program (SRP)] funds transdisciplinary research projects spanning the biomedical and environmental sciences to address issues related to potentially hazardous substances. We used a case study approach to identify how SRP-funded basic biomedical research has had an impact on society. We examined how transdisciplinary research projects from the SRP have advanced knowledge and led to additional clinical, public health, policy, and economic benefits. SRP basic biomedical research findings have contributed to the body of knowledge and influenced a broad range of scientific disciplines. It has informed the development of policies and interventions to reduce exposure to environmental contaminants to improve public health. Research investments by the SRP have had a significant impact on science, health, and society. Documenting the benefits of these investments provides insight into how basic research is translated to real-world applications.

Use-inspired basic research: external report recommends targeted adjustments The Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) commissioned an external evaluation of its funding category "use-inspired basic research" last year. Based on the evaluators' recommendations, it has now decided to introduce targeted changes in its processes. Based on a mandate from the federal government, the Swiss National Science Foundation promotes scientific research; the focus is on basic research. Applied research with an immediate commercial potential does not feature in the SNSF's portfolio. However, the organisation supports research that is linked to practical issues, but makes a contribution to basic science as well. In 2011, the SNSF introduced the category "use-inspired basic research" to ensure the adequate evaluation of applications with a strong practical orientation. Last year it launched a public tender process, eventually selecting Technopolis, a consulting firm specialising in science policy, to analyse the category. The in-depth study focused on the question of how researchers and evaluators define "use-inspired basic research". In addition, it examined whether the evaluation process for use-inspired applications took account of their specific characteristics. Broadening the scope of scientific research Technopolis came to the overall conclusion that the category "use-inspired basic research" has allowed the SNSF to broaden the scope of scientific proposals it receives for evaluation. It does not recommend overhauling the evaluation process and creating a specialised funding scheme. However, the analysis by Technopolis does suggest that the category should be defined more clearly to ensure that applicants, external experts and members of evaluation committees have a shared understanding of it. To this end, Technopolis developed a useful typology of use-inspired applications. The authors also note that use-inspired applications have a lower success rate than applications concerning basic research. In their view, the ...