Darren E. Zinner

Participation Of Academic Scientists In Relationships With Industry

Relationships between academic researchers and industry have received considerable attention in the past twenty years. However, current data on the prevalence, magnitude, and trends in such relationships are rare. In a mailed survey of 3,080 academic life science researchers conducted in 2007, we found that 52.8 percent have some form of relationship with industry. Life science faculty with industry research support were more productive than faculty without such support on virtually every measure. However, we also found a significant decrease in industry support of university research, which could have major consequences for the academic life science research sector.

Activities, Productivity, and Compensation of Men and Women in the Life Sciences

Purpose To determine whether professional activities, professional productivity, and salaries of life sciences faculty differ by gender. The authors undertook this study because previous studies found differences in the academic experiences of women and men. Method In 2007, the authors conducted a mailed survey of 3,080 life sciences faculty at the 50 universities whose medical schools received the greatest amount of National Institutes of Health funding in 2004. The response rate was 74% (n = 2,168). The main outcome measures were a faculty members total number of publications; number of publications in the past three years; average impact score of the journals in which he or she had published; professional activities; work hours per week; the numbers of hours spent specifically in teaching, patient care, research, professional activities, and administrative activities; and annual income. Results Among professors, the women reported greater numbers of hours worked per week and greater numbers of administrative and professional activities than did the men. Female faculty members reported fewer publications across all ranks. After control for professional characteristics and productivity, female researchers in the life sciences earned, on average, approximately

Codifying collegiality: recent developments in data sharing policy in the life sciences.

13,226 less annually than did their male counterparts. Conclusions Men and women in the academic life sciences take on different roles as they advance through their careers. A substantial salary gap still exists between men and women that cannot be explained by productivity or other professional factors. Compensation and advancement policies should recognize the full scope of the roles that female researchers play.

The Changing Nature of Scientific Sharing and Withholding in Academic Life Sciences Research: Trends From National Surveys in 2000 and 2013.

Over the last decade, there have been significant changes in data sharing policies and in the data sharing environment faced by life science researchers. Using data from a 2013 survey of over 1600 life science researchers, we analyze the effects of sharing policies of funding agencies and journals. We also examine the effects of new sharing infrastructure and tools (i.e., third party repositories and online supplements). We find that recently enacted data sharing policies and new sharing infrastructure and tools have had a sizable effect on encouraging data sharing. In particular, third party repositories and online supplements as well as data sharing requirements of funding agencies, particularly the NIH and the National Human Genome Research Institute, were perceived by scientists to have had a large effect on facilitating data sharing. In addition, we found a high degree of compliance with these new policies, although noncompliance resulted in few formal or informal sanctions. Despite the overall effectiveness of data sharing policies, some significant gaps remain: about one third of grant reviewers placed no weight on data sharing plans in their reviews, and a similar percentage ignored the requirements of material transfer agreements. These patterns suggest that although most of these new policies have been effective, there is still room for policy improvement.

Early Impact Of CareFirst’s Patient-Centered Medical Home With Strong Financial Incentives

Purpose Since 2000, federal funders and many journals have established policies requiring more open sharing of data and materials post-publication, primarily through online supplements and third-party repositories. This study examined changes in sharing and withholding practices among academic life scientists, particularly geneticists, between 2000 and 2013. Method In 2000 and 2013, the authors surveyed separate samples of 3,000 academic life scientists at the 100 U.S. universities receiving the most National Institutes of Health funding. Respondents were asked to estimate the number of requests for information, data, and materials they made to and received from other academic researchers in the past three years. They were also asked about potential consequences of sharing and withholding. Results Response rates were 63.9% (1,849/2,893) in 2000 and 40.8% (1,165/2,853) in 2013. Proportions of faculty in 2000 and 2013 who received, denied, made, or were denied at least one request were not statistically different. However, the total volume of requests received from or made to other scientists dropped substantially (19.4 received in 2000 versus 10.8 in 2013, P < .001; 8.4 made in 2000 versus 6.6 in 2013, P < .001). Faculty in 2013 also made an average of 8.4 requests to third-party repositories. Researchers in 2013 were less likely to report sharing resulted in new research or collaborations. Conclusions The results show a dramatic shift in sharing mechanisms, away from a peer-to-peer sharing model toward one based on central repositories. This may increase efficiency, but collaborations may suffer if personal communication among scientists is deemphasized.

Does Focus Improve Operational Performance? Lessons from the Management of Clinical Trials

In 2011 CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, a large mid-Atlantic health insurance plan, implemented a payment and delivery system reform program. The model, called the Total Care and Cost Improvement Program, includes enhanced payments for primary care, significant financial incentives for primary care physicians to control spending, and care coordination tools to support progress toward the goal of higher-quality and lower-cost patient care. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of the initiatives first three years. Our quantitative analyses used spending and utilization data for 2010-13 to compare enrollees who received care from participating physician groups to similar enrollees cared for by nonparticipating groups. Savings were small and fully shared with providers, which suggests no significant effect on total spending (including bonuses). Our qualitative analysis suggested that early in the program, many physicians were not fully engaged with the initiative and did not make full use of its tools. These findings imply that this and similar payment reforms may require greater time to realize significant savings than many stakeholders had expected. Patience may be necessary if payer-led reform is going to lead to system transformation.