B - Reproducibility in preclinical research

Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biology 2016;13(6):e1002165
(doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165)

 

Low reproducibility rates within life science research undermine cumulative knowledge production and contribute to both delays and costs of therapeutic drug development. An analysis of past studies indicates that the cumulative (total) prevalence of irreproducible preclinical research exceeds 50% in the United States alone. The authors outline a framework for solutions and a plan for long-term improvements in reproducibility rates that will help to accelerate the discovery of life-saving therapies and cures.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165

B - Increasing value and reduce waste

Moher D, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening? The Lancet Sept. 28, 2015
(doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00307-4)

Published online during the REWARD/EQUATOR Conference in Edinburgh (September 28-30), this review provides some initial observations on the possible effects of The Lancet 2014 series of five reviews showing how dividends from the investment in research might be increased from the relevance and priorities of the questions being asked, to how the research is designed, conducted, and reported. 17 recommendations were addressed to five main stakeholders—funders, regulators, journals, academic institutions, and researchers, Some examples of individual initiatives show ways to reduce waste and increase value in biomedical research.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)00307-4/fulltext?rss%3Dyes

B - Gender gap in social-science funding

Boyle PJ, Smith LK, Cooper NJ, et al. Women are funded more fairly in social science. Nature 10 Sept. 2015;525:181-183

In the biomedical sciences, women get smaller grants than men in the United States and the United Kingdom. This pattern is evident at different rates across disciplinary domains. The data presented in the article show that there is little difference between female and male social scientists in application rate, success rate and grant size. The authors discuss some lessons that these results may hold for the biomedical sciences.
http://www.nature.com/news/gender-balance-women-are-funded-more-fairly-in-social-science-1.18310