Latest news with #ResearchFunding
The Guardian
27-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Science could enable a fascist future. Especially if we don't learn from the past
Science is in crisis. Funding infrastructures for both basic and applied research are being systematically decimated, while in places of great power, science's influence on decision making is waning. Long-term and far-reaching studies are being shuttered, and thousands of scientists' livelihoods are uncertain, to say nothing of the incalculable casualties resulting from the abrupt removal of life-saving medical and environmental interventions. Understandably, the scientific community is working hard to weather this storm and restore funding to whatever extent possible. In times like these, it may be tempting to settle for the status quo of six months ago, wanting everything simply to go back to what it was (no doubt an improvement for science, compared to the present). But equally, such moments of crisis offer an opportunity to rebuild differently. As Arundhati Roy wrote about Covid-19 in April 2020, 'Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.' What could science look like, and what good could science bring, if we moved through the portal of the present moment into a different world? At worst, science will play its part in accelerating us toward a tech-obsessed end-times-fascist future. At best, science will broaden its power as a positive force, serving the wellbeing of humans and nature alike. Imagining this latter vision in exquisite detail is essential, and we argue here that to first envision and then work towards the best version of science, we need to reckon honestly with science's past and present. Most crucially, we need to confront the commonplace claim that science is – or ought to be – objective and apolitical, uninfluenced by human culture, norms, or values. The current moment has rudely awakened many scientists to the fact that research is indeed political, and further makes clear that scientists' attempts to distance themselves from politics will backfire. Denying the inherent entanglements of science and politics leaves scientists lacking the capacity and tools to mount effective defenses against bad-faith political attacks. This denial also allows science to go unquestioned when it undermines the needs and rights of marginalized beings and places. As much as scientists might wish for science to be cleanly separable from politics, decades of research demonstrates that this has never been true, and never could be. The field of science studies examines the inherently human processes of science – who defines what science is, who gets to conduct scientific research, who pays for it, who benefits from it, who is harmed by it – and how these human dynamics shape scientific knowledge. Feminist science studies in particular documents how power and oppression shape scientific findings and applications, demonstrating that even 'science at its most basic' is in fact inextricable from politics. Some of the most compelling, and consequential, examples of such entanglement can be found in human and animal biology. Consider an analysis of 19th-century science on human race and sex from Sally Markowitz, which clearly reveals the influence of white supremacism on basic biology. Markowitz shows how 19th-century scientists not only asserted that human races are biological categories, but also that the so-called white race is evolutionarily superior. To 'prove' this politically-motivated claim, these scientists first decided that the degree of distinction between men's and women's bodies (or 'sexual dimorphism') was proof of evolutionary superiority, and then claimed, on the basis of selective measurements, that sexual dimorphism is supposedly greater in Europeans than in Africans. Women of African descent were thus mismeasured as both less female and less human than their white counterparts – rendering all people of African descent more 'animal-like'. This 19th-century research has had far-reaching consequences, from justifying enslavement, to supporting eugenic sterilization practices well into the 20th century, to contemporary controversy around the 'femaleness' of elite Black and brown female athletes, among other examples. It may be tempting to relegate such blatant instances to the past, and claim that scientists have since corrected such mistakes. But in fact these ghosts continue to haunt us. In our new book, Feminism in the Wild, we – an evolutionary biologist and a science studies scholar – dive deep into how contemporary scientists describe and understand animal behavior, and find the dominant political perspectives of the last 200 years reflected back to us. Scientific research on mating behavior in species ranging from fruit flies to primates is entangled with patriarchal expectations of masculinity and femininity. Scientists' understanding of animals' foraging behavior mirrors a capitalist theory of economics, based upon assumptions of scarcity and optimization, and expectations of individualism are pervasive throughout scientific research on how animals behave in groups. Contemporary researchers express surprise, for instance, at elephants who alter their eating habits to accommodate a fellow herd member disabled by poachers, at ravens who alert one another to the presence of food in the dead of winter, or at female dolphins who begin lactating without having given birth in order to nurse calves whose mothers have died. Dominant evolutionary theories do not explain such instances of care on their own terms, but instead insist that these behaviors must ultimately be self-interested. Not coincidentally, these theories rooted in individualism only rose to dominance in the last 50 years or so, alongside the rise of neoliberalism. Meanwhile, eugenic perspectives, rooted in racism, classism, and ableism, constrain how scientists understand sex, intelligence, performance and more, in humans and animals alike. For example, today's scientists are still somewhat shocked by lizards who successfully navigate tree trunks and branches with missing limbs, as these agile lizards undermine the presumed correlation between an animal's appearance, performance, and survival that's captured in the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. Other scientists continue to argue that peahens (for instance) choose to mate with the most beautiful peacock, despite his expansive tail's costly impediments, because beauty is a 'favorable' trait even if it doesn't promote survival. Such arguments about female mate choice are rooted in a theory developed decades ago by mathematician and evolutionary biologist Ronald A Fisher, a vocal advocate of 'positive eugenics', which means encouraging only people with 'favorable' traits to reproduce. Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin), in his 1923 presidential address to the Eugenics Education Society, made this connection between Fisher's theories and eugenics explicit, stating: 'Wonderful results have been produced…by the action of sexual selection in all kinds of organisms…and if this be so, ought we not to enquire whether this same agency cannot be utilized in our efforts to improve the human race?' Leonard Darwin then went on to deliver an astoundingly modern-sounding description of sexual selection before considering its implications for effective eugenics propaganda. We offer these examples (and many more, in our book), to show that scientific research on the evolution of animal behavior remains thoroughly and undeniably political. But the moral of our story is not that scientists must root out all politics and strive for pure neutrality. Rather, feminist science studies illustrates how science has always been shaped by politics, and always will be. It is therefore incumbent upon scientists to confront this reality rather than deny it. Thankfully, for as long as science has been aligned with systems of oppression, there have been scientists and other scholars resisting this alignment, both explicitly and implicitly. In Feminism in the Wild, we detail the work of scientists developing new mathematical models about female mating behavior that discard old assumptions aligned with patriarchy and eugenics, instead demonstrating that it's possible and even likely that female animals are not necessarily concerned with mating with the 'best' males and that mate choice can be a more flexible and variable affair. We discuss a rich history of theories about animals' behavior in groups that take both individual and collective well-being seriously. And we explore alternatives rooted in queer, Indigenous, and Marxist standpoints, which counter the dominant view that animal behavior is all about maximizing survival and reproduction. Ultimately, we show that it is possible—and even desirable—to fold political analysis into scientific inquiry in a way that makes science more multifaceted and more honest, bringing us closer to the truth than a science which denies its politics ever could. In this historical moment scientists must embrace, rather than avoid, the political underpinnings and implications of scientific inquiry. As Science's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp put it in 2020, 'science thrives when its advocates are shrewd politicians but suffers when its opponents are better at politics.' We agree, and further insist: scientists must reckon honestly and explicitly with the ways in which the knowledge they produce, and the processes by which they produce it, are already and unavoidably political. In doing so, scientists may lose the shallow authority they have harbored by pretending to be above the political fray. They will instead have to grapple with their own political perspectives constantly, as part of the scientific process—a rougher road, no doubt, but one that will lead us to a stronger science, both more empirically rigorous and more politically resilient. Imagine if scientists seized this moment to remake science even while fighting for it. As MacArthur Genius and feminist science studies scholar Ruha Benjamin recently stated: imagination is '[not] an ephemeral afterthought that we have the luxury to dismiss or romanticize, but a resource, a battleground.' And, she continues: 'most people are forced to live inside someone else's imagination.' United in the goal of building a stronger science, we call upon scientists to put our imaginations to work differently, in ways that move us through this nightmare portal into a dreamier world, where justice is not cropped out of scientific endeavors but rather centered and celebrated. Ambika Kamath is trained as a behavioral ecologist and evolutionary biologist. She lives, works, and grows community in Oakland, California, on Ohlone land Melina Packer is Assistant Professor of Race, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, on Ho-Chunk Nation land. She is the author of Toxic Sexual Politics: Economic Poisons and Endocrine Disruptions
The Guardian
27-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Science could enable a fascist future. Especially if we don't learn from the past
Science is in crisis. Funding infrastructures for both basic and applied research are being systematically decimated, while in places of great power, science's influence on decision making is waning. Long-term and far-reaching studies are being shuttered, and thousands of scientists' livelihoods are uncertain, to say nothing of the incalculable casualties resulting from the abrupt removal of life-saving medical and environmental interventions. Understandably, the scientific community is working hard to weather this storm and restore funding to whatever extent possible. In times like these, it may be tempting to settle for the status quo of six months ago, wanting everything simply to go back to what it was (no doubt an improvement for science, compared to the present). But equally, such moments of crisis offer an opportunity to rebuild differently. As Arundhati Roy wrote about Covid-19 in April 2020, 'Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.' What could science look like, and what good could science bring, if we moved through the portal of the present moment into a different world? At worst, science will play its part in accelerating us toward a tech-obsessed end-times-fascist future. At best, science will broaden its power as a positive force, serving the wellbeing of humans and nature alike. Imagining this latter vision in exquisite detail is essential, and we argue here that to first envision and then work towards the best version of science, we need to reckon honestly with science's past and present. Most crucially, we need to confront the commonplace claim that science is – or ought to be – objective and apolitical, uninfluenced by human culture, norms, or values. The current moment has rudely awakened many scientists to the fact that research is indeed political, and further makes clear that scientists' attempts to distance themselves from politics will backfire. Denying the inherent entanglements of science and politics leaves scientists lacking the capacity and tools to mount effective defenses against bad-faith political attacks. This denial also allows science to go unquestioned when it undermines the needs and rights of marginalized beings and places. As much as scientists might wish for science to be cleanly separable from politics, decades of research demonstrates that this has never been true, and never could be. The field of science studies examines the inherently human processes of science – who defines what science is, who gets to conduct scientific research, who pays for it, who benefits from it, who is harmed by it – and how these human dynamics shape scientific knowledge. Feminist science studies in particular documents how power and oppression shape scientific findings and applications, demonstrating that even 'science at its most basic' is in fact inextricable from politics. Some of the most compelling, and consequential, examples of such entanglement can be found in human and animal biology. Consider an analysis of 19th-century science on human race and sex from Sally Markowitz, which clearly reveals the influence of white supremacism on basic biology. Markowitz shows how 19th-century scientists not only asserted that human races are biological categories, but also that the so-called white race is evolutionarily superior. To 'prove' this politically-motivated claim, these scientists first decided that the degree of distinction between men's and women's bodies (or 'sexual dimorphism') was proof of evolutionary superiority, and then claimed, on the basis of selective measurements, that sexual dimorphism is supposedly greater in Europeans than in Africans. Women of African descent were thus mismeasured as both less female and less human than their white counterparts – rendering all people of African descent more 'animal-like'. This 19th-century research has had far-reaching consequences, from justifying enslavement, to supporting eugenic sterilization practices well into the 20th century, to contemporary controversy around the 'femaleness' of elite Black and brown female athletes, among other examples. It may be tempting to relegate such blatant instances to the past, and claim that scientists have since corrected such mistakes. But in fact these ghosts continue to haunt us. In our new book, Feminism in the Wild, we – an evolutionary biologist and a science studies scholar – dive deep into how contemporary scientists describe and understand animal behavior, and find the dominant political perspectives of the last 200 years reflected back to us. Scientific research on mating behavior in species ranging from fruit flies to primates is entangled with patriarchal expectations of masculinity and femininity. Scientists' understanding of animals' foraging behavior mirrors a capitalist theory of economics, based upon assumptions of scarcity and optimization, and expectations of individualism are pervasive throughout scientific research on how animals behave in groups. Contemporary researchers express surprise, for instance, at elephants who alter their eating habits to accommodate a fellow herd member disabled by poachers, at ravens who alert one another to the presence of food in the dead of winter, or at female dolphins who begin lactating without having given birth in order to nurse calves whose mothers have died. Dominant evolutionary theories do not explain such instances of care on their own terms, but instead insist that these behaviors must ultimately be self-interested. Not coincidentally, these theories rooted in individualism only rose to dominance in the last 50 years or so, alongside the rise of neoliberalism. Meanwhile, eugenic perspectives, rooted in racism, classism, and ableism, constrain how scientists understand sex, intelligence, performance and more, in humans and animals alike. For example, today's scientists are still somewhat shocked by lizards who successfully navigate tree trunks and branches with missing limbs, as these agile lizards undermine the presumed correlation between an animal's appearance, performance, and survival that's captured in the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. Other scientists continue to argue that peahens (for instance) choose to mate with the most beautiful peacock, despite his expansive tail's costly impediments, because beauty is a 'favorable' trait even if it doesn't promote survival. Such arguments about female mate choice are rooted in a theory developed decades ago by mathematician and evolutionary biologist Ronald A Fisher, a vocal advocate of 'positive eugenics', which means encouraging only people with 'favorable' traits to reproduce. Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin), in his 1923 presidential address to the Eugenics Education Society, made this connection between Fisher's theories and eugenics explicit, stating: 'Wonderful results have been produced…by the action of sexual selection in all kinds of organisms…and if this be so, ought we not to enquire whether this same agency cannot be utilized in our efforts to improve the human race?' Leonard Darwin then went on to deliver an astoundingly modern-sounding description of sexual selection before considering its implications for effective eugenics propaganda. We offer these examples (and many more, in our book), to show that scientific research on the evolution of animal behavior remains thoroughly and undeniably political. But the moral of our story is not that scientists must root out all politics and strive for pure neutrality. Rather, feminist science studies illustrates how science has always been shaped by politics, and always will be. It is therefore incumbent upon scientists to confront this reality rather than deny it. Thankfully, for as long as science has been aligned with systems of oppression, there have been scientists and other scholars resisting this alignment, both explicitly and implicitly. In Feminism in the Wild, we detail the work of scientists developing new mathematical models about female mating behavior that discard old assumptions aligned with patriarchy and eugenics, instead demonstrating that it's possible and even likely that female animals are not necessarily concerned with mating with the 'best' males and that mate choice can be a more flexible and variable affair. We discuss a rich history of theories about animals' behavior in groups that take both individual and collective well-being seriously. And we explore alternatives rooted in queer, Indigenous, and Marxist standpoints, which counter the dominant view that animal behavior is all about maximizing survival and reproduction. Ultimately, we show that it is possible—and even desirable—to fold political analysis into scientific inquiry in a way that makes science more multifaceted and more honest, bringing us closer to the truth than a science which denies its politics ever could. In this historical moment scientists must embrace, rather than avoid, the political underpinnings and implications of scientific inquiry. As Science's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp put it in 2020, 'science thrives when its advocates are shrewd politicians but suffers when its opponents are better at politics.' We agree, and further insist: scientists must reckon honestly and explicitly with the ways in which the knowledge they produce, and the processes by which they produce it, are already and unavoidably political. In doing so, scientists may lose the shallow authority they have harbored by pretending to be above the political fray. They will instead have to grapple with their own political perspectives constantly, as part of the scientific process—a rougher road, no doubt, but one that will lead us to a stronger science, both more empirically rigorous and more politically resilient. Imagine if scientists seized this moment to remake science even while fighting for it. As MacArthur Genius and feminist science studies scholar Ruha Benjamin recently stated: imagination is '[not] an ephemeral afterthought that we have the luxury to dismiss or romanticize, but a resource, a battleground.' And, she continues: 'most people are forced to live inside someone else's imagination.' United in the goal of building a stronger science, we call upon scientists to put our imaginations to work differently, in ways that move us through this nightmare portal into a dreamier world, where justice is not cropped out of scientific endeavors but rather centered and celebrated. Ambika Kamath is trained as a behavioral ecologist and evolutionary biologist. She lives, works, and grows community in Oakland, California, on Ohlone land Melina Packer is Assistant Professor of Race, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, on Ho-Chunk Nation land. She is the author of Toxic Sexual Politics: Economic Poisons and Endocrine Disruptions
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Protein Expression Market to Reach $5 Billion by 2032, Growing at a CAGR of 7.6% from 2025, Says Meticulous Research®
Market Growth Driven by Rising Biopharmaceutical Demand, Recombinant Protein Development, and Government Life Science Research Funding REDDING, Calif., June 30, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- According to a comprehensive market research report titled "Protein Expression Market by System (Mammalian [CHO, HEK 293], Non-mammalian [Bacterial, Insect, Yeast]), Offering (Kits & Reagents, Vectors, Competent Cells, Services), Application (Industrial, Therapeutic, Research), and End User—Global Forecast to 2032", the Protein Expression market is projected to reach $5.0 billion by 2032, growing at a robust CAGR of 7.6% during the forecast period from 2025. The significant growth of the protein expression market is driven by the rapidly expanding biopharmaceutical sector, increasing demand for recombinant proteins across therapeutic and research applications, and substantial government initiatives supporting life science research and development. The market's expansion is fueled by the growing adoption of biosimilars in oncology and autoimmune diseases, emerging opportunities in underpenetrated economies, and the critical need for advanced protein synthesis technologies across pharmaceutical research, biotechnology development, and industrial applications. The industry is experiencing transformational growth through advanced mammalian cell expression systems, innovative recombinant protein technologies, and specialized solutions for therapeutic protein production. Leading companies are investing heavily in contract research organization partnerships while expanding manufacturing capabilities to meet the surging demand for biopharmaceuticals and developing customized protein expression platforms for diverse research and industrial applications. For more comprehensive insights, download the FREE report sample: Revolutionary Market Transformation Through Advanced Protein Synthesis Technologies The protein expression market represents a critical evolution in biopharmaceutical development and biotechnology research. As the healthcare industry faces increasing demand for personalized medicine and novel therapeutic proteins, protein expression systems offer comprehensive platforms that address the growing complexity of recombinant protein production, biosimilar development, and advanced research applications across therapeutic and industrial sectors. Market leaders are investing substantially in mammalian cell expression technologies, advanced recombinant DNA systems, and sustainable protein production methods, establishing manufacturing capabilities that can deliver high-yield, high-quality protein synthesis solutions for pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology firms, and academic research institutions. This technological advancement is making sophisticated protein expression systems increasingly accessible to emerging biopharmaceutical companies while delivering enterprise-grade performance and comprehensive regulatory compliance capabilities. Dynamic Growth Across Key Market Segments Based on system type, the Mammalian Cell Expression System segment dominates the market in 2025, capturing the largest share due to their low risk of cross-contamination, elimination of post-translational modification requirements, and wider acceptance for therapeutic applications. Mammalian systems, particularly CHO (Chinese Hamster Ovary) and HEK 293 (Human Embryonic Kidney) cells, provide superior protein folding capabilities and native glycosylation patterns essential for therapeutic protein production, making them indispensable for biopharmaceutical manufacturing and clinical research applications. Based on products and services, the Reagents segment is expected to dominate the market in 2025, reflecting their frequent utilization across research, therapeutic development, and industrial protein production processes. The widespread adoption of specialized reagents for protein expression, purification, and analysis drives consistent demand across all end-user segments. Based on application, the Research segment is projected to register the highest CAGR during the forecast period, driven by expanding R&D expenditure, emergence of new disease targets, and increasing focus on pharma-academic collaborations for advanced protein research and drug discovery initiatives. Based on end-user, the Contract Research Organizations (CROs) segment is expected to exhibit the highest CAGR, reflecting the growing trend of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies outsourcing protein expression services to specialized providers, supported by government initiatives expanding research activities and cost-optimization strategies in drug development. Get Insightful Data on Regions, Market Segments, Customer Landscape, and Top Companies (Charts, Tables, Figures and More) - Strategic Market Opportunities and Innovation Drivers The market presents exceptional growth opportunities through biosimilar development expansion, emerging economy penetration, and advancement of specialized expression systems for complex therapeutic proteins. Companies are discovering new revenue streams through contract manufacturing services, customized expression platforms, and comprehensive protein production ecosystems while establishing advanced capabilities for large-scale biopharmaceutical manufacturing. Key market drivers include: Expanding Biopharmaceutical Market: Rapid growth in biologics development, biosimilar production, and personalized medicine creating unprecedented demand for scalable, high-quality protein expression systems across therapeutic applications Rising Recombinant Protein Demand: Increasing adoption of recombinant proteins in therapeutics, vaccines, and industrial applications due to advantages including reduced immune reaction risk, elimination of protein contaminants, and shorter production lead times Government Research Funding: Substantial public and private investment in life science research, biotechnology development, and healthcare innovation driving demand for advanced protein expression technologies in academic and research institutions Biosimilar Market Growth: Significant expansion of biosimilar therapeutics in oncology, autoimmune diseases, and rare conditions, supported by favorable regulatory frameworks and cost advantages compared to originator biologics Emerging Economy Opportunities: Rapid biopharmaceutical industry development in China, India, and other emerging markets creating substantial demand for protein expression systems and contract research services Contract Research Expansion: Growing trend of pharmaceutical companies outsourcing protein expression services to specialized CROs for cost optimization, risk mitigation, and access to advanced technologies Regional Market Leadership and Emerging Growth Asia-Pacific emerges as the fastest-growing region during the forecast period, driven by substantial investments in life science research across China and India, growing preference for recombinant technology advantages, and expanding biopharmaceutical manufacturing capabilities. The region benefits from increasing government initiatives supporting biosimilar development, rising pharmaceutical R&D expenditure, and growing demand for biologics across diverse therapeutic areas. Asia-Pacific's rapid growth is further propelled by the development of multinational clinical centers, accelerated approval processes for specialty medicines, and introduction of Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) frameworks enabling efficient biosimilar commercialization. The region's emerging economies offer significant advantages including infrastructure development investments, competitive labor costs, improving adherence to global manufacturing standards, and increasing regulatory oversight supporting international market access. North America represents a substantial established market supported by mature biopharmaceutical industries, comprehensive regulatory frameworks, and concentration of leading pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies requiring advanced protein expression technologies. The region's robust research infrastructure creates significant opportunities for specialized protein expression solutions and contract research services. Europe maintains strong market presence driven by established biopharmaceutical industries, comprehensive regulatory standards, and emphasis on innovative therapeutic development. The region's diverse biotechnology sectors, including biosimilar development and specialized therapeutics, create substantial demand for advanced protein expression technologies. Request a customized research analysis tailored to your specific requirements: Dynamic Competitive Landscape Driving Innovation The global protein expression market features a sophisticated competitive ecosystem comprising established biotechnology leaders, specialized protein expression technology providers, and innovative contract research organizations. This diverse landscape fosters rapid technological advancement and comprehensive solution development across therapeutic, research, and industrial applications. Industry leaders are implementing integrated protein expression platforms that combine advanced mammalian cell systems, specialized reagents, and comprehensive service offerings. Companies are pursuing strategic partnerships with pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions while addressing evolving regulatory requirements across diverse therapeutic applications and international markets. Immediate Delivery Available | Buy this Research Report (Insights, Charts, Tables, Figures and More) - Market Leaders Shaping Industry Future Key players driving the global protein expression market include Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (U.S.), Promega Corporation (U.S.), Merck KGaA (Germany), Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. (U.S.), Takara Holdings Inc. (Japan), GenScript Biotech Corporation (U.S.), Qiagen N.V. (Germany), Agilent Technologies, Inc. (U.S.), Danaher Corporation (U.S.), and BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY (U.S.). Latest Industry Developments Recent market developments reflecting industry innovation include: Biosimilar Manufacturing Expansion: Major biopharmaceutical companies expanding manufacturing facilities to meet growing biosimilar demand, including strategic partnerships such as Biocon Ltd. and Mylan N.V.'s biosimilar business combination creating larger-scale production capabilities Contract Research Organization Growth: Rapid expansion of CRO services in emerging economies, driven by pharmaceutical companies' increasing focus on outsourcing protein expression services for cost optimization and risk mitigation Advanced Expression System Development: Investment in next-generation mammalian cell expression technologies offering enhanced protein yields, improved quality control, and streamlined production processes for complex therapeutic proteins Emerging Market Penetration: Strategic expansion into underpenetrated markets across Asia-Pacific and Latin America, capitalizing on growing biopharmaceutical demand, increasing aging populations, and rising disposable income supporting healthcare access Academia-Pharma Collaboration: Increasing partnerships between pharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions for advanced protein research, drug discovery, and therapeutic development leveraging specialized expression technologies Related Reports: DNA Sequencing Market Forecast: Next-Generation Sequencing Technologies Analysis Through 2032 Protein Assays Market Analysis: Technology Analysis Through 2032 Digital Therapeutics Market: Software-Based Therapeutic Applications Analysis Through 2031 About Meticulous Research We are a trusted research partner for leading businesses worldwide, empowering Fortune 500 organizations and emerging enterprises with market intelligence designed to drive revenue transformation and strategic growth. Our insights reveal future growth opportunities, equipping clients with a competitive edge through a versatile suite of research solutions—including syndicated reports, custom research, and direct analyst engagement. To find out more, visit or follow us on LinkedIn Contact:Mr. Khushal BombeMeticulous Market Research Pvt. Ltd.1267 Willis St, Ste 200 Redding,California, 96001, +1-646-781-8004Europe: +44-203-868-8738APAC: +91 744-7780008Email- sales@ Our Website: with us on LinkedIn- Source: Logo: View original content: SOURCE Meticulous Market Research Pvt. Ltd. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CBC
11-06-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Manitoba tops up research funding following pleas from scientists
Manitoba's NDP government is topping up its annual funding for Research Manitoba following complaints from scientists about inadequate support for the agency responsible for providing the bulk of research funding in Manitoba. The province will increase its annual funding for Research Manitoba from $14 million to $19 million, Innovation and New Technology Minister Mike Moroz announced Wednesday in a press release. Oversight of the agency is also moving over to his ministry from advanced education, he said. The increase in research funding comes two months after dozens of Manitoba scientists, researchers and academics penned an open letter to the government, noting funding to Research Manitoba had not increased significantly since the former Progressive Conservative government cut the agency's budget. That letter was inspired by comments made in March by Premier Wab Kinew, who mused about attracting disaffected U.S. scientists to Manitoba. Dylan MacKay, a University of Manitoba food scientist who was among the signatories of the April letter, said Wednesday he was pleasantly surprised the provincial government listened to him and his peers. More funding for Research Manitoba will translate directly into more actual research and make the province more competitive, both nationally and internationally, MacKay said. Provincial funding for Research Manitoba bottomed out at $12 million in 2023, according to the agency's most recent annual report. In 2023-24, the agency allocated nearly $7 million to health research, slightly more than $5 million to natural science and engineering research, and just over $500,000 for the social sciences and humanities, according to the report. That supported 195 researchers and 267 students at a total of 154 organizations, the report stated.
