Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

To explore differences in employee- or employer-directed medical care for workplace injuries, related to the prolonged physical therapy (PT) and attorney involvement in the workers' compensation claim process. Eight thousand eight hundred fourteen rotator cuff tear claims filed to a nationwide insurance carrier from 2007 to 2022 were analyzed for difference in prolonged PT (≥360 days) and attorney involvement by medical direction groups. Employee-directed and shared employee- and employer-directed medical care had odds ratios of 1.41 and 1.58 for prolonged PT compared with employer direction, respectively. Employer-directed and shared employee and employer medical direction had odds ratios of 2.33 and 1.62 for attorney involvement compared with employee direction, respectively. Employee-directed medical care is associated with more PT, and employer-involved direction is associated with more attorney involvement.

Research that better aligns policy, practice, and research communities is gaining momentum around the world. This includes engaged research strategies that bring partners, and their diverse perspectives and kinds of knowledge, together to shape research agendas with on-the-ground-needs and to create dynamic problem-solving processes. These approaches aim to generate more equitable and effective solutions to societal challenges. Although many of these partnered strategies have a longstanding history, entrenched research cultures, practices, and institutional structures stand in the way of scaling them. Given the outsized role funders play in shaping research efforts, funders are a critical lever for change. This perspective describes the efforts of a global collaborative of philanthropic and public funders who are adapting their practices, supporting the development of infrastructure (e.g., capacity-strengthening, facilitation expertise, processes to guide relational work, etc.), and targeting system-level challenges to enable engaged research to maximize its potential. The authors integrate insights from different issue areas, geographies, and funding areas to provide concrete examples of funder activities that support engaged research and to suggest areas for further action. Recommendations include scaling changes in funding practices, deepening understanding of how and when engaged research leads to improved outcomes, and reshaping how success is defined and measured.

ABSTRACTWe document an unprecedented brain drain of Artificial Intelligence (AI) professors from universities from 2004 to 2018. We find that students from the affected universities establish fewer AI startups and raise less funding. The brain‐drain effect is significant for tenured professors, professors from top universities, and deep‐learning professors. Additional evidence suggests that unobserved city‐ and university‐level shocks are unlikely to drive our results. We consider several economic channels for the findings. The most consistent explanation is that professors' departures reduce startup founders' AI knowledge, which we find is an important factor for successful startup formation and fundraising.

Obstructive heart defects (OHDs) share common structural lesions in arteries and cardiac valves, accounting for ~25% of all congenital heart defects. OHDs are highly heritable, resulting from interplay among maternal exposures, genetic susceptibilities, and epigenetic phenomena. A genome-wide association study was conducted in National Birth Defects Prevention Study participants (Ndiscovery =3978; Nreplication =2507), investigating the genetic architecture of OHDs using transmission/disequilibrium tests (TDT) in complete case-parental trios (Ndiscovery_TDT =440; Nreplication_TDT =275) and case-control analyses separately in infants (Ndiscovery_CCI =1635; Nreplication_CCI =990) and mothers (case status defined by infant; Ndiscovery_CCM =1703; Nreplication_CCM =1078). In the TDT analysis, the SLC44A2 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs2360743 was significantly associated with OHD (pdiscovery =4.08 × 10-9 ; preplication =2.44 × 10-4 ). A CAPN11 SNP (rs55877192) was suggestively associated with OHD (pdiscovery =1.61 × 10-7 ; preplication =0.0016). Two other SNPs were suggestively associated (p < 1 × 10-6 ) with OHD in only the discovery sample. In the case-control analyses, no SNPs were genome-wide significant, and, even with relaxed thresholds ( × discovery < 1 × 10-5 and preplication < 0.05), only one SNP (rs188255766) in the infant analysis was associated with OHDs (pdiscovery =1.42 × 10-6 ; preplication =0.04). Additional SNPs with pdiscovery < 1 × 10-5 were in loci supporting previous findings but did not replicate. Overall, there was modest evidence of an association between rs2360743 and rs55877192 and OHD and some evidence validating previously published findings.

For more than ten years, Stanford Prof. Rob Reich has lamented that foundations have been allowed to be subsidized, unaccountable, opaque, and powerful -as he and others conceive of foundations and their environment.Given more than a century of persistently similar criticisms and condemnations, he decries the lack of attention given to a theory of philanthropy, as if suggesting that greater attention in the past might have reined in the apparently corrosive effects of foundations on our democracy and society over time and today.He also seems to urge that greater attention in the present, especially as a political theory of philanthropy, will prevent or at least minimize their future corrosive effects.His new book is his most extensive effort to call attention to that need and to try to begin filling the void.Unfortunately, the book is too confusing, nuanced, and incomplete to be considered an effective theory of philanthropy or to achieve other overtly stated purposes, except for bringing useful attention to the value of discussions about having a coherent theory of philanthropy and/or foundations.The book positions its purposes as structured on five pillars: (1) philanthropy is repugnant to democracy as described; (2) philanthropy is an "artifact" of the State; (3) foundations are opaque and unaccountable; (4) donor intent and perpetuity are subversive; and (5) the charitable deduction is a financial subsidy with no redeeming value.However and as is shown below, each pillar leaves out critical elements and analysis, and the vacillation between abstraction and practice without consistently noting the switches or fully presenting either creates confusion.In other words, while the pillars may appear to be made of marble, there is more than enough papier-mache to undermine their structural, weight-bearing integrity such that the roof does not remain aloft.That roof consists in part of identifying two possible roles -and only two roles -as acceptable for foundations in democracy: supporting discovery and advancing pluralism.While both roles are appropriate for foundations and philanthropy, their positioning in the book neglects important chronologies and histories and suffers from other missing substantive analyses that counter bases for restricting foundations to these and only these functions.Finally, the book is too confusing and nuanced about its purposes and path.It overtly states it is advocating for or presenting a political theory of philanthropy, but its major criticisms and roles most directly apply to foundations specifically, not philanthropy more broadly.The exception may be the book's overarching theme that the charitable deduction is "indefensible" (134).Moreover, the book overall appears actually -but subtlyto be more critical of and more of a commentary on America's representative democracy rather than of either foundations or philanthropy.None of this is bad or wrong in itself.But the seeming disconnect between overt objectives, actual presentation, and implicit purposes can leave a reader wondering which path they are on, where they have been, and where they are being led.The book does succeed in drawing useful attention to its topics.As members of a society and a representative democracy, we benefit from these points of view, discussions of, and hopefully even counters to them.The book also succeeds in other ways that are worth mentioning.Among the book's other successes is an interesting perspective of philanthropy in Ancient Athens and as developed and practiced in Islam throughout history and into the present.Another is a relatively concise summary of the theoretical bases for the charitable deduction and commentary on them.Two other contributions are the book joining in the principled call for making the charitable deduction available to all taxpayers -not just to itemizers (81, 121) -and its presentations on the value of pluralism to and its essential contributions to furthering our representative democracy.