ArticleFASEB bioAdvances2021
The costs and benefits of a modified biomedical science workforce.
Article in FASEB bioAdvances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The systemic marginalisation of long-term casualised researchers in UK higher education.Frontiers in sociology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Analyses of the biomedical research workforce, the biomedical research enterprise, and its sustainability have identified a number of threats and offered many solutions to alleviate the problems. While a number of these solutions have been implemented, one solution that has not been broadly adopted, despite being widely recommended, is to increase the number of staff scientists and reduce dependency on trainees. The perceived impediment of this is the cost. This paper explores the costs associated with laboratory personnel and the benefits, in terms of productivity, associated with different positions in the workforce. The results of this cost-benefit analysis depend upon the values assigned to different metrics of productivity by individuals and institutions. If first and senior author publications are the most important metrics of productivity, a trainee-dependent workforce is much more cost effective. If total publications are the most valued metric of productivity, the cost effectiveness of trainee and staff scientists is reasonably equitable. This analysis provides data for consideration when making personnel decisions and for the continued discussion of modification of the biomedical research workforce. It also provides insight into the incentives for modification of the workforce at the grass roots, which must be considered by institutions genuinely committed to workforce modification to sustain the biomedical research enterprise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.