China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The Evolution of Anticancer Therapies
Published in David E. Thurston, Ilona Pysz, Chemistry and Pharmacology of Anticancer Drugs, 2021
Even before the structure of DNA was elucidated in the 1950s, it was known that genetic information resides in the chromosomes and that some human diseases can be passed on through the generations. After the structure of DNA was established, interest in finding sequences of DNA that may relate to specific diseases became intense. This led to the Human Genome Project, an international scientific research project with the goal of determining the sequence of nucleotide base pairs that make up human DNA, and of mapping and identifying all of the genes of the human genome from both a functional and physical standpoint. The HGP began in 1990 and was declared complete on 14 April 2003 and remains the world’s largest collaborative biological project. Initially, funding was provided by the US government through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as numerous other groups from around the world. However, a parallel project was conducted in the commercial sector by Celera Genomics which was launched in 1998. Most of the government-sponsored sequencing was performed in 20 universities across the world in countries including the US, UK, Japan, Germany, France, and China. The HGP had an official logo represented by the Vitruvian Man sketch drawn by Leonardo da Vinci (Figure 2.4).
The Health Care System Structure
Published in Walter F. Stanaszek, Mary J. Stanaszek, Robert J. Holt, Steven Strauss, Understanding Medical Terms, 2020
Walter F. Stanaszek, Mary J. Stanaszek, Robert J. Holt, Steven Strauss
A host of federal government agencies is involved in the delivery or regulation of health care. The central authority on the national level is vested in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), which is responsible for the nation's massive programs of social security and public assistance. Administration and financing of health programs within the DHHS are primarily under the jurisdiction of the Social Security Administration (for Medicare) and the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). Direct provision of health care, however, generally falls to the U.S. Public Health Service and its subdivisions such as the Indian Health Service. Also within the DHHS is included the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that funds and conducts much of the health-related research in the United States.
Public Health Education in the United States
Published in Ira Nurmala, Yashwant V. Pathak, Advancing Professional Development through CPE in Public Health, 2019
Ira Nurmala, Yashwant V. Pathak
Public health in the United States is regulated by the following organizations: (1) the National Institutes of Health; (2) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; (3) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; (4) the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; (5) the Health Resources and Services Administration; and (6) the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The National Institutes of Health mainly deals with research; it conducts and administers the research projects. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the main epidemiologic unit of the nation; it directly deals with state and local departments and provides them with technical assistance. The Health Resources and Services Administration is concerned with development of resources and health workforce. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration's job is to oversee lessening the impact of substance abuse and mental illness on the American population. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates the standards of food and drugs safety (Figure 1.2).
National Institutes of Health Funding Trends to Ophthalmology Departments at U.S. Medical Schools
Published in Seminars in Ophthalmology, 2022
Parth A. Patel, Rhea Gopali, Anvith Reddy, Kajol K. Patel
Per its mission, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) strives to develop an understanding of underlying biological processes and apply that knowledge towards the improvement of health. Consequently, this organization provides a significant number of research awards in ophthalmology, distributing $335,564,747 in 2020, as determined from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) and NIH RePORTER. Such funding is a crucial pathway for both inexperienced and established clinician-scientists to independently conduct research by alleviating potential financial pressures. Indeed, the receipt of NIH funding at the onset of one’s career may affect later success in obtaining grants.1 Yet, despite its importance to the achievement of physicians’ research goals, NIH inflation-adjusted funding has effectively stagnated over the past two decades, even with increasing numbers of applications.2 This competition is speculated to be one of the factors contributing to the decline of clinician-scientists in ophthalmology.3–6
Thirty Years of Publications in Suicidology: A Bibliometric Analysis
Published in Archives of Suicide Research, 2021
Louis-Paul Astraud, Jeffrey A. Bridge, Fabrice Jollant
The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the top funding agency, followed by the US Army and the British National Institute of Health Research. The economic dominance of global public research in the USA is fully in line with the government budget funding of health-related R&D, 2014 report (OECD, 2015). The USA puts 0.2% of its “Direct budget support for health R&D” while the average of the 28 members of the UE stood at 0.06%. The OECD states that in 2013, “The USA is the world’s largest R&D performer, with nearly 433 billion USD in domestic R&D expenditures in 2013. This amount represents more than one-third of all R&D undertaken in China, the second-largest performer, which is broadly on the level of the combined EU28 area.” It is obvious that the USA owes some of its superiority in volume and influence on its considerable investment efforts, which are greater in volume and proportion than those of other countries.
Sweet flowers are slow, and weeds make haste: leveraging methodology from research on tobacco, alcohol, and opioid analgesics to make rapid and policy-relevant advances in cannabis science
Published in International Review of Psychiatry, 2018
Evan S. Herrmann, Brantley P. Jarvis, Alicia C. Sparks, Amy M. Cohn, Bartosz Koszowski, Zachary R. Rosenberry, Victoria H. Coleman-Cowger, Wallace B. Pickworth, Erica N. Peters
The absence of data on regulating cannabis as a licit recreational drug of abuse is also in part a function of federal policy. The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest funder of biomedical research, globally. As a Schedule I drug at the federal level, most of NIH-funded research has historically approached cannabis use as a behaviour that is explicitly problematic at all levels, with little focus on identifying criteria for responsible use, harm reduction-type approaches. There is also little known about how various regulatory policies related to cultivation, sale, and use might affect consumption patterns and influence cannabis-use related harms. Indeed, much of the data used to guide policy related to other medical and licit recreational drugs of abuse was garnered via close monitoring of the effects of policy changes on health outcomes and behaviour (World Health Organization, 2012). The issue with relying on these approaches is that they often require waiting for mistakes to happen to develop measures of policies to remedy them, with edibles labelling in Colorado being a prime example. This problem is compounded by the fact that legalization has driven rapid increases in the overall size and value of the medical and recreational cannabis markets, as well as the emergence of cannabis-specific investment, market research, and lobbying firms to promote the financial interests of the cannabis industry.