ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1993
Prescriptions for medical research. I--Management within the Medical Research Council.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of medical research. Open up the evaluation process.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1993Article
- Management of medical research. Room for improvement.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1993Article
- Management of medical research. Experience confirms directors' dissatisfaction.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1993Article
- Management of medical research. Don't confuse management with administration.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1993Article
- Management of medical research. Who exactly is in charge?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1993Article
- Management of medical research. Management at MRC is modern and flexible.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1993Article
- Management of medical research. Change requires a rational approach.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1993Article
- Management of medical research. Judgement of science needs constant review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1993Article
- Prescriptions for medical research II--Is medical research well served by peer review?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1993Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In their submission to the government in advance of the white paper on science policy in the United Kingdom the Medical Research Council commends the MRC's own approach to managing directly funded research. But a series of semi-structured interviews with the directors of some of the MRC's units suggests a gap between the MRC's model of managed research and the reality. Although such units are theoretically managed from MRC head office (and units are charged an overhead for this), in practice each unit runs its own affairs. Between major reviews average contact time with the head office contact person is seven hours a year. The first paper argues that a purchaser-provider split would recognise the benefits of decentralisation and allow units to bid for research funds from several sources, the successful ones guaranteeing their survival through a rolling series of research programmes. The second paper criticises the MRC's cumbersome peer review system. Reliance on outside experts atrophies the scientific skills of head office staff and builds delays into decision making. A purchaser-provider model would allow the head office scientific staff to act like commercial research and development managers, commissioning research, and using the outcome, rather than peer review, as a criterion for continued funding.
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.