Clinical research in Uruguay

An issue that has not been solved yet

Authors

  • Álvaro Danza Universidad de la República, Facultad de Medicina, Clínica Médica. Profesor Adjunto. Asistente Académico del Rector de la Universidad de la República

Keywords:

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

Abstract

For some time, the need to promote, decisively and definitively, scientific research in our country has been installed in national academic and political environments. In fact, the elected government less than a year ago has committed to allocate, at the end of the 2016-2020 five-year period, 1% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to scientific research and 6% to public education. For its part, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that 2% of the health budget be invested in research and development in the area (1).
Justifying the investment in scientific research in the 21st century is almost like justifying the need for higher education or, why not, the need to access - once and for all - the cultural independence of our country. Something that should not surprise, while for many years the country allocated a lower percentage of GDP to public education, comparable to countries with very little economic, cultural and scientific development. Only in the last ten years has this reality begun to reverse to reach reasonable figures, although indisputably - and necessarily - improvable.Various circumstances seem to converge in recognizing the importance of investment in higher education and scientific research. However, what is related to clinical research is still scarcely taken into account, when not - plain and simple - ignored.

References

(1) Organización Mundial de la Salud. Investigación y desarrollo para atender las necesidades sanitarias de los países en desarrollo: fortalecimiento de la financiación y coordinación mundiales. Informe del Grupo consultivo de expertos en investigación y desarrollo: financiación y coordinación. Abril de 2012. Ginebra: OMS, 2012:88-9. Disponible en: http://www.who.int/phi/CEWG_Report_ES.pdf . Consulta: 15 julio 2015.
(2) Carvalho EC. La investigación clínica y algunas estrategias para su fortalecimiento. Rev Latinoam Enferm 2011; 19(1):1-2. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rlae/ v19n1/es_01.pdf. Consulta: 10 julio 2015.
(3) Lage Dávila A. El doble paradigma de la investigación clínica. Rev Cuba Farm 2011; 45(1):1-3.
(4) Doval H. Necesitamos una investigación clínica útil: ¿cómo cambiar para que sea de valor? Rev Argent Cardiol 2014; 82(3):254-60.
(5) Ferrante D. Investigación clínica en América Latina y Argentina: ¿es tiempo de cambios? Salud Colect 2011; 7(2):157-9.
(6) Danza A, Lazarov L. Adecuación de las remuneraciones de la actividad docente asistencial. Montevideo: SMU, 2010. Disponible en: http://www.smu.org.uy/sindicales/comunicados/anexo5-sq101014.pdf. Consulta: 17 julio 2015.
(7) Uruguay. Universidad de la República. Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica. Informe de evaluación. Montevideo: CSIC, 2014. Disponible en: http://www .csic.edu.uy/renderPage/index/pageId/188. Consulta: 1 de agosto de 2015.
(8) Mañé Garzón F. Arch Pediatr Urug 2004; 75(4):335-6.
(9) Comité ejecutivo de AnFaMed. Editorial. An Fac Med Montev 2014; 1(2):4-5.

Published

2015-09-30

How to Cite

1.
Danza Álvaro. Clinical research in Uruguay: An issue that has not been solved yet. Rev. Méd. Urug. [Internet]. 2015 Sep. 30 [cited 2024 Nov. 22];31(3):194-7. Available from: https://revista.rmu.org.uy/index.php/rmu/article/view/203