Firearms research: The gun fighter

Wadman, Meredith

doi:10.1038/496412a

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the crowd may fund projects that are in legal (or political) grey zones, and there may be different views regarding the desirability and value of such research. For example, some creators in our sample noted that traditional funding sources would not support projects on gun culture [65], on the impact of the legalization of marijuana, or on the development of molecules that can lead to mutations in humans. Second, although Experiment.com requires that academic researchers proposing research involving human or vertebrate subjects obtain approval from Institutional Review Boards (IRB) or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC), it is not clear whether all creators–especially those outside academia–understand and follow guidelines for ethical and responsible research [6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crowdfunding scientific research: Descriptive insights and correlates of funding success

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crowdfunding has gained traction as a mechanism to raise resources for entrepreneurial and artistic projects, yet there is little systematic evidence on the potential of crowdfunding for scientific research. We first briefly review prior research on crowdfunding and give an overview of dedicated platforms for crowdfunding research. We then analyze data from over 700 campaigns on the largest dedicated platform, Experiment.com. Our descriptive analysis provides insights regarding the creators seeking funding, the projects they are seeking funding for, and the campaigns themselves. We then examine how these characteristics relate to fundraising success. The findings highlight important differences between crowdfunding and traditional funding mechanisms for research, including high use by students and other junior investigators but also relatively small project size. Students and junior investigators are more likely to succeed than senior scientists, and women have higher success rates than men. Conventional signals of quality–including scientists’ prior publications–have little relationship with funding success, suggesting that the crowd may apply different decision criteria than traditional funding agencies. Our results highlight significant opportunities for crowdfunding in the context of science while also pointing towards unique challenges. We relate our findings to research on the economics of science and on crowdfunding, and we discuss connections with other emerging mechanisms to involve the public in scientific research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crowdfunding scientific research: Descriptive insights and correlates of funding success

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rather, passage of the Amendment in 1996 was accompanied by a $2.6 million reduction in the CDC's budget, equivalent to the exact amount the CDC had spent on firearm-related research the previous year [159]. The message seemed clear and effectively squelched any subsequent federally funded research on gun violence, including nearly all extramural National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded research on gun violence despite the massive public health problem that it represents, putatively because no federal agency has been willing to risk the potential political or budgetary repercussions should they fund or participate in such research [160,161]. (The sparse NIH funds that have gone toward investigating gun violence over the years are a positive step forward [162], but still a drop in the bucket compared to what the NIH spends on equivalent public health threats [163][164][165].)…”

Section: Identifying the Most Effective Firearm Safety Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Achieving health equity in US suicides: a narrative review and commentary

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suicide rates in the United States (US) reached a peak in 2018 and declined in 2019 and 2020, with substantial and often growing disparities by age, sex, race/ethnicity, geography, veteran status, sexual minority status, socioeconomic status, and method employed (means disparity). In this narrative review and commentary, we highlight these many disparities in US suicide deaths, then examine the possible causes and potential solutions, with the overarching goal of reducing suicide death disparities to achieve health equity.The data implicate untreated, undertreated, or unidentified depression or other mental illness, and access to firearms, as two modifiable risk factors for suicide across all groups. The data also reveal firearm suicides increasing sharply and linearly with increasing county rurality, while suicide rates by falls (e.g., from tall structures) decrease linearly by increasing rurality, and suicide rates by other means remain fairly constant regardless of relative county urbanization. In addition, for all geographies, gun suicides are significantly higher in males than females, and highest in ages 51–85 + years old for both sexes. Of all US suicides from 1999–2019, 55% of male suicides and 29% of female suicides were by gun in metropolitan (metro) areas, versus 65% (Male) and 42% (Female) suicides by gun in non-metro areas. Guns accounted for 89% of suicides in non-metro males aged 71–85 + years old. Guns (i.e., employment of more lethal means) are also thought to be a major reason why males have, on average, 2–4 times higher suicide rates than women, despite having only 1/4—1/2 as many suicide attempts as women. Overall the literature and data strongly implicate firearm access as a risk factor for suicide across all populations, and even more so for male, rural, and older populations.To achieve the most significant results in suicide prevention across all groups, we need 1) more emphasis on policies and universal programs to reduce suicidal behaviors, and 2) enhanced population-based strategies for ameliorating the two most prominent modifiable targets for suicide prevention: depression and firearms.

show abstract

“…Rather, passage of the Amendment in 1996 was accompanied by a $2.6 million reduction in the CDC's budget, equivalent to the exact amount the CDC had spent on firearm related research the previous year [133]. The message seemed clear and effectively squelched any subsequent federally funded research on gun violence, including nearly all extramural NIH-funded research on gun violence despite the massive public health problem that it represents, putatively because no federal agency has been willing to risk the potential political or budgetary repercussions should they fund or participate in such research [134,135]. (The sparse NIH funds that have gone toward investigating gun violence over the years are a positive step forward [136], but still a drop in the bucket compared to what the NIH spends on equivalent public health threats [137][138][139].)…”

Section: Identifying the Most Effective Firearm Safety Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rising US Suicides: Achieving Health Equity

Perry¹,

Allison²,

Bastiampillai³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence suggests that increased availability of mental health treatment has not significantly reduced depression prevalence and suicide in the US, and that significant personal (i.e., stigma) or practical/logistical barriers to effective mental health care remain. Mental health treatment has increased in the US since the early 1990s with greater use of antidepressant medications, especially SSRIs, however suicide rates continue to climb, with significant gender, ethnic, geographic, socioeconomic, and other health disparities. Depression rates are at best stable, but are increasing in certain subpopulations such as youths ages 12-17. Combating these distressing trends to achieve health equity will require more attention to promising and evidence-based, sustainable, proactive, practical solutions that address the varied causes, demographics, and differential risk factors and mechanisms of suicide deaths. Herein we explore sociodemographic disparities that exist in suicide deaths, with emphasis on two of the largest modifiable targets for suicide prevention: untreated or undertreated depression, and access to the lethal means (firearms) that cause more suicide deaths than all other means combined, and thus pose the greatest threat to individual and public health. Furthermore, we newly define increased or unsafe (i.e. disparate) access to firearms as a suicide health disparity that promotes health inequities. To achieve the greatest results in suicide prevention across all groups, we need 1) more emphasis on policies and universal programs shown to reduce suicidal behaviors, and 2) enhanced focus on the two largest modifiable targets for suicide prevention: depression and firearms.

show abstract

Firearms research: The gun fighter

Cited by 8 publications

References 8 publications

Crowdfunding scientific research: Descriptive insights and correlates of funding success

Crowdfunding scientific research: Descriptive insights and correlates of funding success

Achieving health equity in US suicides: a narrative review and commentary

Rising US Suicides: Achieving Health Equity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About