Download PDF
Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2012; 229(11): 1130-1137
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1314987
Klinische Studie
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Möglichkeiten der Forschungsförderung – die Ophthalmologie in der DFG

Research Funding in German Ophthalmology
F. Ziemssen
1   Eberhard Karl Universität Tübingen, Department für Augenheilkunde, Tübingen
,
C. Meltendorf
2   Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Universitätsklinik und Poliklinik für Augenheilkunde, Halle (Saale)
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

eingereicht 18 March 2012

akzeptiert 25 April 2012

Publication Date:
23 July 2012 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ascoli GA. Biomedical research funding: when the game gets tough, winners start to play. Bioessays 2007; 29: 933-936
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wadman M. Research funding: Closing arguments. Nature 2009; 457: 650-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ravin JG. Sesquicentennial of the ophthalmoscope. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117: 1634-1638
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Folkman J. Tumor angiogenesis. Adv Cancer Res 1985; 43: 175-203
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Meyer JS, Katz ML, Kirk MD. Stem cells for retinal degenerative disorders. Ann NY Acad Sci 2005; 1049: 135-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Knauer C, Pfeiffer N. Blindness in Germany – today and in 2030. Ophthalmologe 2006; 103: 735-741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hirneiss C, Neubauer AS, Tribus C et al. Value-based medicine in ophthalmology. Ophthalmologe 2006; 103: 493-500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lansingh VC, Carter MJ, Martens M. Global cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1670-1678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Maier W. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG): Neuorganisation des Begutachtungsverfahrens und Wahlen von Fachgutachtern. Der Nervenarzt 2003; 74: 937-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Weeks WB, Wallace AE. Gender differences in ophthalmologistsʼ annual incomes. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1696-1701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. J Infometrics 2008; 1: 226-238
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wessely S. Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?. Lancet 1998; 352: 301-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Goldstein JL, Brown MS. The clinical investigator: bewitched, bothered, and bewildered – but still beloved. J Clin Invest 1997; 99: 2803-2812
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Soling HD. Clinical research in Germany. Med Klin (Munich) 1999; 94: 282-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Wolfram C. Ophthalmologic publications from Germany. Ophthalmologe 2008; 105: 1115-1120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Olsson CA, Kennedy WA. Urology peer review at the National Institutes of Health. J Urol 1995; 154: 1866-1869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Harris RR. A brief history of the National Eye Institute. Gov Publ Rev 1985; 12: 427-448
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Sieving PA. At the frontier of vision research: the National Eye Institute celebrates 40 years. Am J Ophthalmol 2010; 149: 179-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Wenneras C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature 1997; 387: 341-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Pouris A. Peer review in scientifically small countries. R & D Management 1988; 18: 333-340
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Dorsey ER, Vitticore P, De Roulet J et al. Financial anatomy of neuroscience research. Ann Neurol 2006; 60: 652-659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Banatvala J, Bell P, Symonds M. The Research Assessment Exercise is bad for UK medicine. Lancet 2005; 365: 458-460
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Brahler E, Strauss B. Performance-oriented allocations of financial resources at medical schools: an overview. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2009; 52: 910-916
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Kremkow R. Welche Faktoren fördern Forschung?. Dtsch Arztbl 2011; 108: 2652-2653
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Loholter R, Sass H, von Jagow G. The German university medicine map. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2009; 52: 802-806
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Butler L. Using a balanced approach to bibliometrics : quantitative performance measures in the Australian Research Quality Framework. ESEP 2008; 8: 1-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Luukkonen T. Bibliometrics and evaluation of research performance. Ann Med 1990; 22: 145-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Senatskommission für Klinische Forschung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft. Empfehlungen zu einer „Leistungsorientierten Mittelvergabe“ (LOM) an den Medizinischen Fakultäten. Bonn: DFG; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Sparrow JM. British academic ophthalmology in crisis. Br J Ophthalmol 2006; 90: 404-405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Bonetta L. Enhancing NIH grant peer review: a broader perspective. Cell 2008; 135: 201-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Wissenschaftsrat. Empfehlungen zu forschungs- und lehrförderlichen Strukturen in der Universitätsmedizin. Köln: Wissenschaftsrat; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 52 Boron WF. NIH funding of the independent investigator. Physiology (Bethesda) 2006; 21: 300-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Shekelle P. Pharmaceutical company-sponsored drug trials: what are we to believe?. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 126-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Novack GD. The role of pharmaceutical companies in sponsored research. Ophthalmology 2007; 114: 1037-1038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Jampol LM, Packer S, Mills RP et al. A perspective on commercial relationships between ophthalmology and industry. Arch Ophthalmol 2009; 127: 1194-1202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Koren G. How to increase your funding chances: common pitfalls in medical grant applications. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 12: e182-e185
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Inouye SK, Fiellin DA. An evidence-based guide to writing grant proposals for clinical research. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 274-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Konze-Thomas B. Promoting research in Germany. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd 1998; 115: 741-743
    PubMedGoogle Scholar