bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2021.08.23.456936

Research Funding for Male Reproductive Health and Infertility in the UK and USA

Gumerova, E.·De Jonge, C. J.·Barratt, C. L.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

TitleResearch Funding for Male Reproductive Health and Infertility in the UK and USA [2016 - 2019] Study questionWhat is the research funding for male reproductive health and infertility in the UK and US between 2016 to 2019? Summary answerThe average funding for a research project in male reproductive health and infertility was not significantly different to that for female-based projects ({pound}653,733 in the UK and $779,707 in the US). However, only 0.07% and 0.83% of government funds from NIHR (UK) and NICHD (USA) was granted for male reproductive health, respectively. What is known alreadyThere is a marked paucity of data on research funding for male reproductive health. Study design, size, durationExamined government databases over a total 4-year period from January 2016 to December 2019. Participants/materials, setting, methodsInformation on the funding provided to male-based and female-based research was collected using public accessed web-databases from the UKRI-GTR, the NIHRs Open Data Summary, and the US NIH RePORT. Funded projects that began research activity between January 2016 to December 2019 were recorded, along with their grant and project details. Strict inclusion-exclusion criteria were followed for both UK and US data with a primary research focus of male infertility, reproductive health and disorders, and contraception development. Funding support was divided into three research groups: male-based, female-based, and not-specified research. Between the 4-year period, the UK is divided into 5 funding periods, starting from 2015/16 to 2019/20, and the US is divided into 5 fiscal years, from 2016 to 2020. Main results and the role of chanceBetween January 2016 to December 2019, UK agencies awarded a total of {pound}11,767,190 to 18 projects for male-based research and {pound}29,850,945 to 40 projects for female-based research. There was no statistically significant difference in funding average between the two research groups (P=0.56, W=392). The US NIH funded 76 projects totaling $59,257,746 for male-based research and 99 projects totaling $83,272,898 for female-based research. There was no statistically significant difference in funding average between the two groups (P=0.83, W=3834). Limitations, reasons for cautionThe findings of this study cannot be used to generalize and reflect global funding trends towards infertility and reproductive health as the data collected followed a narrow funding timeframe from government agencies and only two countries. Other funding sources such as charities, industry and major philanthropic organizations were not evaluated. Wider implications of the findingsThis is the first study examining funding granted by main government research agencies from the UK and US for male reproductive health. This study should stimulate further discussion of the challenges of tackling male infertility and reproductive health disorders and formulate appropriate investment strategies. Study funding/competing interest(s)CLRB is Editor for RBMO and has received lecturing fees from Merck, Pharmasure, and Ferring. His laboratory is funded by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, CSO, Genus. No other authors declare a conflict of interest.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Gumerova, E., De Jonge, C. J., Barratt, C. L.. 2021-08-24. Research Funding for Male Reproductive Health and Infertility in the UK and USA. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.23.456936

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2023

MolecularWebXR: Multiuser discussions about chemistry and biology in immersive and inclusive VR

MolecularWebXR is a new website for education, science communication and scientific peer discussion in chemistry and biology, based on modern web-based Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR). With no installs as it is all web-served, MolecularWebXR enables multiple users to simultaneously explore, communicate and discuss concepts about chemistry and biology in immersive 3D environments, by manipulating and passing around objects with their bare hands and pointing at different elements with natural hand gestures. User may either be present in the same real space or distributed around the world, in the latter case talking naturally with each other thanks to built-in audio features. Although MolecularWebXR is most immersive when running in the web browsers of high-end AR/VR headsets, its WebXR core also allows participation by users with consumer devices such as smartphones, possibly inserted into cardboard goggles for deeper immersivity, or even in computers and tablets. MolecularWebXR comes with preset VR rooms that cover topics from general, inorganic and organic chemistry, biophysics and structural biology, and general biology; besides, new content can be added at will through moleculARwebs PDB2AR tool or by contacting the lead authors. We verified MolecularWebXRs ease of use and versatility by people aged 12-80 years old in entirely virtual sessions or in mixed real-virtual sessions at various science outreach events, in courses at the bachelor, masters and early doctoral levels, in scientific collaborations, and in conference lectures. MolecularWebXR is available for free use without registration at https://molecularwebxr.org, and a blog post version of this preprint with embedded videos is available at https://go.epfl.ch/molecularwebxr-blog-post.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2023

Willingness of Japanese people in their 20s, 30s and 40s to pay for genetically modified foods

The application of genetically modified (GM) technology to food products has increased worldwide. The adaptation has extended to conventional grains and animal products, such as salmon. However, in Japan, the publics acceptance of GM foods is low and experts and policymakers need to know the publics preference for various types of GM foods. Therefore, this study aims to clarify and compare the preferences for various GM foods among Japanese people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, using the Willingness-to-pay (WTP) indicator. An online survey with 1122 valid responses from people in their 20s-40s was used for analysis. The results showed that the percentages of willingness to purchase various items were as follows - GM blue roses (n = 628; 56%), tomatoes fertilized with GM oil cake (n = 519; 46.3%), potato chips made from GM potatoes (n = 489; 43.6%), chicken thighs fed on GM corn (n = 472; 42.1%), corn flakes made from GM corn (n = 471; 42.0%), GM apples (n = 420; 37.4%), wine brewed with GM yeast (n = 416; 37.1%), GM tomatoes (n = 408; 36.4%), GM chicken thighs (n = 360; 32.1%), GM salmon (n = 349; 31.1%). Comparing the WTP discount rates for animal and plant foods, it was around 20% for animal products (GM chicken thighs = 17.8% and GM salmon = 19.5%), and 15-35% for plant foods (GM corn flakes = 24.1%, GM tomatoes = 17.2%, GM potato chips = 16.4%, GM yeast wine = 36.7%, GM apples = 25.3%). The WTP discount rates were 11.9% for tomatoes fertilized with GM oil cake compared with 17.2% for GM tomatoes, and 21.5% for GM-fed animal products compared with 17.8% for chicken thighs fed with GM corn. Therefore, the WTP values of GM animal foods were lower than GM plant foods and ornamental products.

scientific communication and education↗