Abstract
Clinical trials require funding – often a lot. Funders of clinical trials are not just sources of funding however. They are actors in their wider research systems, have their own philosophies, values, and objectives, and operate within different political, social, and economic environments. While there are commonalities, differences in their context and culture shape their approaches to funding decisions, what they are looking for from the research community, and therefore how to successfully engage with them. By understanding the commonalities and differences between funding agencies, the types of funding models they may use, what they are trying to achieve, and what the decision-making process looks like may help increase the success of proposals.
This chapter summarizes the similarities and differences of clinical trial funding agencies around the world and the implications for funding models and proposals. It is primarily aimed at trialists seeking to understand and ultimately succeed in applying and funding; it will also be of interest to research funding agencies (RFAs) and regulators.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Chalmers I, Glasziou P (2009) Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374(9683):86–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9
Clark DR, McGrath PJ, MacDonald N (2007) Members’ of parliament knowledge of and attitudes toward health research and funding. CMAJ 177(9):1045–1051. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.070320
Guthrie S, Ghiga I, Wooding S (2017) What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? F1000Res 6:1335. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11917.2
Guthrie S, Ghiga I, Wooding S (2018) What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? An updated review of the literature and six case studies. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1822.html
HMSO (1971) A framework for Government research and development. HMSO, London
HMSO (1918) Report of the Machinery of Government Committee under the chairmanship of Viscount Haldane of Cloan. HMSO, London. https://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/1918_Haldane_Report.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2020
Mazzucato M (2018) The entrepreneurial state, 1st edn. Penguin, London
Nurse P (2015) Nurse review of research councils. GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/nurse-review-of-research-councils. Accessed 27 June 2019
Obama B (2013) Public papers of the Presidents of the United States: Barack Obama, Book I, p 345. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PPP-2013-book1/PPP-2013-book1-doc-pg342. Accessed 10 June 2020
Rubio D, Schoenbaum E, Lee L, Schteingart D, Marantz P, Anderson K, Platt L, Baez A, Esposito K (2010) Defining translational research: implications for training. Acad Med 85(3):470–475. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccd618
Series. Research: increasing value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. (2014) The Lancet 383(9912):156–185 e3–e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1
World Health Organization (2017) Joint statement on public disclosure of results from clinical trials. Available at: https://www.who.int/ictrp/results/jointstatement/en/. Accessed 28 June 2019
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Westmore, M., Meadmore, K. (2020). Funding Models and Proposals. In: Piantadosi, S., Meinert, C. (eds) Principles and Practice of Clinical Trials. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52677-5_55-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52677-5_55-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52677-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52677-5
eBook Packages: Springer Reference MathematicsReference Module Computer Science and Engineering