Möglichkeiten der Forschungsförderung – die Ophthalmologie in der DFG

Zusammenfassung

Seit 2004 werden Forschungsanträge aus der Augenheilkunde unter anderem zusammen mit denen aus der Neurochirurgie, Neuropathologie, Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde und Neurologie in einem gemeinsamen Fachkollegium bewertet. Angesichts niedriger Antragszahlen aus der Augenheilkunde, die in Widerspruch zur Bedeutung und dem Bedarf okulärer Volkskrankheiten stehen, wurde die Perspektive des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses untersucht, finanzielle Unterstützung für Forschungsprojekte zu erhalten. In der Wahrnehmung der Augenärztinnen und -ärzte wurden der Einwerbung von Drittmitteln über einen DFG-Antrag geringe Chancen eingeräumt. Dagegen zeigte die Abfrage der fachspezifischen Förderquoten – ganz ähnlich zu den anderen neurowissenschaftlichen Fächern neben der Augenheilkunde – stabile Zahlen und eine enge Korrelation zwischen beantragten und ausgezahlten Fördergeldern. Die hier dargestellte Situation der Forschungsförderung im Bereich der Ophthalmologie soll daher auch ein motivierender Leitfaden für junge Nachwuchswissenschaftler sein, die Initiative für eigene Forschungsprojekte zu ergreifen.

Abstract

Since 2004 applications for research funding in ophthalmology have been evaluated together with those from neurosurgery, neuropathology, psychiatry, psychotherapy, psychosomatics, otolaryngology and neurology by a joint review board of the German Research Council (DFG). Facing a decreasing number of applications – in contrast to the need and importance of widespread ocular diseases – the working group “young academics” of the Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft (DOG) assessed the perception of funding programmes and grants available. Young ophthalmologists think that they have poor prospects to receive funding by a DFG proposal. In comparison, specialist funding quotas show a stable development within the neurosciences over the last years. The sum of requested funding has a strong correlation with the total amount actually paid. By clarifying the number of funded proposals, the better transparency and communication for the existing programmes should improve the cooperativeness, the funding rate and number of applications in future. This inventory explicitly includes a motivational guidance for young researchers to take the initiative to do more proposals.

Schlüsselwörter

Forschungsförderung - Ophthalmologie - Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft - klinische Forschung - Fördergelder

Key words

research funding - ophthalmology - German Research foundation - clinical research - grants

• Literatur

• 1 Seif G, Trope G. Impact of 10 years of glaucoma research funding: the Glaucoma Research Society of Canada. Can J Ophthalmol 2010; 45: 132-134
• 2 Adler G, von dem Knesebeck J. Inhaltliche Perspektiven der Forschungsförderung von hochschulmedizinischer Forschung auf der Ebene von BMBF, DFG und EU. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2009; 52: 917-924
• 3 Ascoli GA. Biomedical research funding: when the game gets tough, winners start to play. Bioessays 2007; 29: 933-936
• 4 Wadman M. Research funding: Closing arguments. Nature 2009; 457: 650-655
• 5 Ravin JG. Sesquicentennial of the ophthalmoscope. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117: 1634-1638
• 6 Folkman J. Tumor angiogenesis. Adv Cancer Res 1985; 43: 175-203
• 7 Pleyer U, Dannowski H, Reszka R et al. Gene therapy in ophthalmology. Review of options and trends in corneal diseases. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2001; 218: 140-147
• 8 Meyer JS, Katz ML, Kirk MD. Stem cells for retinal degenerative disorders. Ann NY Acad Sci 2005; 1049: 135-145
• 9 Steven P, Hovakimyan M, Guthoff RF et al. Imaging corneal crosslinking by autofluorescence 2-photon microscopy, second harmonic generation, and fluorescence lifetime measurements. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010; 36: 2150-2159
• 10 Zrenner E, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Benav H et al. Subretinal electronic chips allow blind patients to read letters and combine them to words. Proc Biol Sci 2011; 278: 1489-1497
• 11 Knauer C, Pfeiffer N. Blindness in Germany – today and in 2030. Ophthalmologe 2006; 103: 735-741
• 12 Peeters A, Schouten JS, Webers CA et al. Cost-effectiveness of early detection and treatment of ocular hypertension and primary open-angle glaucoma by the ophthalmologist. Eye (Lond) 2008; 22: 354-362
• 13 Ke KM. The direct, indirect and intangible costs of visual impairment caused by neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Eur J Health Econ 2010; 11: 525-531
• 14 Hirneiss C, Neubauer AS, Tribus C et al. Value-based medicine in ophthalmology. Ophthalmologe 2006; 103: 493-500
• 15 Lansingh VC, Carter MJ, Martens M. Global cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1670-1678
• 16 Pfeiffer N, Knauer C, Wolfram C. Weißbuch zur Situation der ophthalmologischen Forschung in Deutschland. (Herausgeber: Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft). Im Internet: http://www.dog.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/DOG_Weissbuch_2008.pdf Stand: 2008
• 17 Meltendorf C, Ziemssen F. Wie sind die Arbeitsbedingungen für den wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchs in der Augenheilkunde? – Ergebnisse einer aktuellen Online-Befragung. Ophthalmologe 2010; 107: 1176-1184
• 18 Buddeberg-Fischer B, Stamm M, Buddeberg C et al. Career-success scale – a new instrument to assess young physiciansʼ academic career steps. BMC Health Serv Res 2008; 8: 120
• 19 Maier W. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG): Neuorganisation des Begutachtungsverfahrens und Wahlen von Fachgutachtern. Der Nervenarzt 2003; 74: 937-938
• 20 Weeks WB, Wallace AE. Gender differences in ophthalmologistsʼ annual incomes. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1696-1701
• 21 Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. J Infometrics 2008; 1: 226-238
• 22 Wessely S. Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?. Lancet 1998; 352: 301-305
• 23 Goldstein JL, Brown MS. The clinical investigator: bewitched, bothered, and bewildered – but still beloved. J Clin Invest 1997; 99: 2803-2812
• 24 Siewert JR, Niethammer D. Clinical research in Germany. The problems involved in patient-oriented research and the conducting of clinical studies in German university hospitals. Chirurg 2003; 74: 1-3
• 25 Soling HD. Clinical research in Germany. Med Klin (Munich) 1999; 94: 282-289
• 26 Wolfram C. Ophthalmologic publications from Germany. Ophthalmologe 2008; 105: 1115-1120
• 27 Olsson CA, Kennedy WA. Urology peer review at the National Institutes of Health. J Urol 1995; 154: 1866-1869
• 28 Wiener SL, Urivetzky M, Bregman D et al. Peer review: inter-reviewer agreement during evaluation of research grant applications. Clin Res 1977; 25: 306-311
• 29 Beisiegel U. Motivation of young academics for medical research. Position of the German Council of Science and Humanities. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2009; 52: 850-855
• 30 Wheeler-Schilling TH, Zrenner E, Schiefer U. Integrated approach to the promotion of young academics in vision research at a European level. Ophthalmologe 2006; 103: 104-108
• 31 Hensler D. Perceptions of the National Heart Foundation peer review process: a report on a survey of NSF reviewers and applicants. Washington: Committee on Peer Review, National Science Board; 1976
• 32 Harris RR. A brief history of the National Eye Institute. Gov Publ Rev 1985; 12: 427-448
• 33 Sieving PA. At the frontier of vision research: the National Eye Institute celebrates 40 years. Am J Ophthalmol 2010; 149: 179-181
• 34 Fuhrer MJ, Grabois M. Grant application and review procedures of the National Institute of Handicapped Research: survey of applicant and peer reviewer opinions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1985; 66: 318-321
• 35 Wenneras C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 1997; 387: 341-343
• 36 Pouris A. Peer review in scientifically small countries. R & D Management 1988; 18: 333-340
• 37 Lin JM, Bohland JW, Andrews P et al. An analysis of the abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Society for Neuroscience from 2001 to 2006. PLoS One 2008; 3: e2052
• 38 Naud A, Usui S. Exploration of a collection of documents in neuroscience and extraction of topics by clustering. Neural Netw 2008; 21: 1205-1211
• 39 Dorsey ER, Vitticore P, De Roulet J et al. Financial anatomy of neuroscience research. Ann Neurol 2006; 60: 652-659
• 40 Banatvala J, Bell P, Symonds M. The Research Assessment Exercise is bad for UK medicine. Lancet 2005; 365: 458-460
• 41 Druss BG, Marcus SC. Academic medicine: who is it for? Funding gap between clinical and basic science publications is growing. BMJ 2005; 330: 360-361
• 42 Brahler E, Strauss B. Performance-oriented allocations of financial resources at medical schools: an overview. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2009; 52: 910-916
• 43 Kremkow R. Welche Faktoren fördern Forschung?. Dtsch Arztbl 2011; 108: 2652-2653
• 44 Scholl HP, Wheeler-Schilling TH, Zrenner E et al. Establishing ophthalmology in the research framework programs of the European Union. Ophthalmologe 2006; 103: 91-99
• 45 Loholter R, Sass H, von Jagow G. The German university medicine map. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2009; 52: 802-806
• 46 Butler L. Using a balanced approach to bibliometrics : quantitative performance measures in the Australian Research Quality Framework. ESEP 2008; 8: 1-10
• 47 Luukkonen T. Bibliometrics and evaluation of research performance. Ann Med 1990; 22: 145-150
• 48 Senatskommission für Klinische Forschung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. Empfehlungen zu einer „Leistungsorientierten Mittelvergabe“ (LOM) an den Medizinischen Fakultäten. Bonn: DFG; 2004
• 49 Sparrow JM. British academic ophthalmology in crisis. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 404-405
• 50 Bonetta L. Enhancing NIH grant peer review: a broader perspective. Cell 2008; 135: 201-204
• 51 Wissenschaftsrat. Empfehlungen zu forschungs- und lehrförderlichen Strukturen in der Universitätsmedizin. Köln: Wissenschaftsrat; 2004
• 52 Boron WF. NIH funding of the independent investigator. Physiology (Bethesda) 2006; 21: 300-301
• 53 Shekelle P. Pharmaceutical company-sponsored drug trials: what are we to believe?. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 126-127
• 54 Lichter PR. Continuing medical education, physicians, and Pavlov: can we change what happens when industry rings the bell?. Arch Ophthalmol 2008; 126: 1593-1597
• 55 Novack GD. The role of pharmaceutical companies in sponsored research. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1037-1038
• 56 Jampol LM, Packer S, Mills RP et al. A perspective on commercial relationships between ophthalmology and industry. Arch Ophthalmol 2009; 127: 1194-1202
• 57 Koren G. How to increase your funding chances: common pitfalls in medical grant applications. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 12: e182-e185
• 58 Inouye SK, Fiellin DA. An evidence-based guide to writing grant proposals for clinical research. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 274-282
• 59 Agarwal R, Chertow GM, Mehta RL. Strategies for successful patient oriented research: why did I (not) get funded?. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2006; 1: 340-343
• 60 Kuo KN, Hwang TL, Chen PJ. Physician-scientist: attitude of graduates of clinical medicine graduate schools. J Formos Med Assoc 2008; 107: 519-526
• 61 Konze-Thomas B. Promoting research in Germany. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd 1998; 115: 741-743