FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2606607114> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2606607114 endingPage "178" @default.
• W2606607114 startingPage "177" @default.
• W2606607114 abstract "Our society is based on transactions. As customers, we expect to be treated not only politely, but obligingly, by the providers of products or services we pay for. Return policies ensure that, more often than not, we actually get what we pay for. Significantly more often. And then, everything is different when research is funded commercially. If, however, customers get what they pay for, this is nice material for a little scandal.1 This intro is meant to be provocative, but it may be worth attempting a look behind a field that has much more than COI declarations. These days, who pays for science? We do, through tax-funded grants and commercial profits reinvested in R&E, to name just a few. Historically, science funding developed from private patronage to partial government funding to nowadays mix of public grants and corporate sponsorship.2 Depending on the specialty, the balance tilts towards one or the other: in 2000, private companies paid for nearly 75% of trials conducted in clinical medicine in the USA.3 Als-Nielson et al., shortly after, aimed at verifying whether or not customers in this field were getting what they paid for.4, 5 Have a guess, anyone? Research specialties in which overproportionate numbers of sponsors are interested in include health care, fitness and nutrition.2, 6 At Acta Physiologica, the majority of authors does not declare conflict of interests. Does that reflect the theoretical nature of physiology which is too far from any practical implication or immediate therapeutic impact to be interesting to industry? Is there some truth in the tax-funded white-bearded, bespectacled nerd chasing mice around a maze all day? Certainly not: we do not know all our authors' current looks, but modern physiologists do generate numerous excellent studies with immediate or secondary lifestyle implications. A number of recent publications took a close look at skeletal muscle function7, 8 and exercise-induced beneficial effects in the presence of common pathologies such as hypertension,9 cardiac dysfunction,10 hormonal imbalance11 or bed rest.12 Ageing societies benefit from research aiming at understanding the mechanisms of muscle loss13 or gain,14 vitality assessment15 and the impact of nutritional intervention.16 The obesity epidemic has reached endemic proportions, and excellent studies are needed to help us understand foetal programming17 and pathophysiology18 of metabolic syndrome and its related disorders. Dietary supplements have repeatedly been at the centre of interest at our journal.19-21 Corporate funding may damage the reputation of science in the public perspective, although the jury is still out on the practical implications of this issue: Mistrust in science? Academic findings, up for sale? Compliance issues in clinical medicine? Or just ‘manna from heaven for newspaper journalists’?22 Public ratings of scientists’ ethics do not seem to suffer lasting damage, on the contrary: in a longitudinal survey of public ratings of ethics according to profession, scientists fare best, by far.22 On the other hand, knowledge-based economies rely on rapid and effective technology transfer. A recent study on 678 professors at 46 German universities revealed that the proportion of industry funding affects the scientific productivity; in short: less papers, more patents.23 This also yields, one could argue, novel technologies and therapies much more rapidly available to the customer, doctor and patient. Debate and a culture of open, public discourse is needed, while publication bans, as recently installed by The European Journal of Public Health alone will probably fail to work.24 Publication is the only way to let the public learn what is going on, and to subject a study, any study, to rigorous peer review and its authors to full disclosure. Keep scrutinizing, declaring, discussing – and talk to the public, become an advocate for credible science, when – and wherever you get a chance. None." @default.
• W2606607114 created "2017-04-28" @default.
• W2606607114 creator A5055520102 @default.
• W2606607114 creator A5059310123 @default.
• W2606607114 date "2017-05-17" @default.
• W2606607114 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W2606607114 title "Research funding: do you get what you pay for?" @default.
• W2606607114 cites W1591174434 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W1963387364 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W1975781729 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W1993956551 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W1999175005 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W2002644870 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W2050850397 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W2052225210 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W2056313910 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W2072760899 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W2080922260 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W2117548784 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W2142362743 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W2142947341 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W2162965858 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W2164863345 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W2180688893 @default.
• W2606607114 cites W2337821671 @default.
• W2606607114 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.12886" @default.
• W2606607114 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28403557" @default.
• W2606607114 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2606607114 type Work @default.
• W2606607114 sameAs 2606607114 @default.
• W2606607114 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2606607114 countsByYear W26066071142018 @default.
• W2606607114 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2606607114 hasAuthorship W2606607114A5055520102 @default.
• W2606607114 hasAuthorship W2606607114A5059310123 @default.
• W2606607114 hasBestOaLocation W26066071141 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConceptScore W2606607114C10138342 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConceptScore W2606607114C138885662 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConceptScore W2606607114C144133560 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConceptScore W2606607114C162853370 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConceptScore W2606607114C17744445 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConceptScore W2606607114C2778137410 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConceptScore W2606607114C39549134 @default.
• W2606607114 hasConceptScore W2606607114C41895202 @default.
• W2606607114 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2606607114 hasLocation W26066071141 @default.
• W2606607114 hasLocation W26066071142 @default.
• W2606607114 hasOpenAccess W2606607114 @default.
• W2606607114 hasPrimaryLocation W26066071141 @default.
• W2606607114 hasRelatedWork W1978505276 @default.
• W2606607114 hasRelatedWork W1985655604 @default.
• W2606607114 hasRelatedWork W1988022704 @default.
• W2606607114 hasRelatedWork W2003759321 @default.
• W2606607114 hasRelatedWork W2046251599 @default.
• W2606607114 hasRelatedWork W2136710333 @default.
• W2606607114 hasRelatedWork W2187644337 @default.
• W2606607114 hasRelatedWork W281246900 @default.
• W2606607114 hasRelatedWork W3132716659 @default.
• W2606607114 hasRelatedWork W4206036160 @default.
• W2606607114 hasVolume "220" @default.
• W2606607114 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2606607114 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2606607114 magId "2606607114" @default.
• W2606607114 workType "article" @default.