Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Latest content
    • Latest content
  • Archive
  • About the journal
    • About the journal
    • Editorial board
    • Information for authors
    • FAQs
    • Thank you to our reviewers
    • The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma
  • Submit a paper
    • Online submission site
    • Information for authors
  • Email alerts
    • Email alerts
  • Help
    • Contact us
    • Feedback form
    • Reprints
    • Permissions
    • Advertising
  • BMJ Journals

User menu

  • Login

Search

  • Advanced search
  • BMJ Journals
  • Login
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
TSACO

Advanced Search

  • Latest content
    • Latest content
  • Archive
  • About the journal
    • About the journal
    • Editorial board
    • Information for authors
    • FAQs
    • Thank you to our reviewers
    • The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma
  • Submit a paper
    • Online submission site
    • Information for authors
  • Email alerts
    • Email alerts
  • Help
    • Contact us
    • Feedback form
    • Reprints
    • Permissions
    • Advertising
Open Access

Divergence of military and civilian trauma research priorities

David Baer, Ross Donaldson, Todd McKinley, Robert Guldberg
DOI: 10.1136/tsaco-2021-000765 Published 15 June 2021
David Baer
1Prytime Medical Devices, Boerne, Texas, USA
2Coalition for the Advancement of Research and Innovation in Trauma, Washington, DC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ross Donaldson
2Coalition for the Advancement of Research and Innovation in Trauma, Washington, DC, USA
3Critical Innovations, Inglewood, California, USA
4Department of Emergency Medicine, UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health, Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Todd McKinley
2Coalition for the Advancement of Research and Innovation in Trauma, Washington, DC, USA
5Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Guldberg
2Coalition for the Advancement of Research and Innovation in Trauma, Washington, DC, USA
6Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

While overall trauma research and development funding has a long history of being woefully underfunded in comparison to its societal impact, one saving grace has been the longstanding synergy between military and civilian activities. The crucible of war and caring for those injured in combat has driven innovation in every area of trauma care, with numerous recent examples from Afghanistan and Iraq alone.1 From large-scale innovations such as medical evacuation, to individual devices such as hemostatic dressings, high-impact research, development and innovation has been spurred by military medical necessity, investment and use. This is captured in the adage that the only winner in war is medicine. Military innovations in trauma have spread widely to the civilian arena, where they are more carefully studied and further refined. While it is tempting to examine military medical innovation in the isolated context of military use, the beneficial back and forth between military and civilian trauma care is an essential, not optional, step to ensure maximum benefit to military casualties.2 The overlap between civilian and military trauma care and innovation has thus been of mutually reinforcing benefit.

Many journals and publications have consistently and correctly identified the need for a civilian counterpart to the military’s investment in trauma care. Most recently articulated by Glass et al,3 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has failed to fund this vital research area at levels matching the problem’s scope, which in turn costs untold deaths and disability. Unfortunately, this problem is on the precipice of suddenly worsening, as highlighted by a recent panel discussion between the director of military trauma research and the civilian NIH Office of Emergency Care Research. These leaders presented a growing disconnect between the agendas of these two main funding organizations, as the military adjusts to future combat threats and leaves a void in traditional trauma research that the NIH lacks the current resources to fill.

Given changes in national strategic focus, the US military has recently adapted its trauma research and development activities towards future battlefield challenges that are envisioned to be unlike current or recent wars. This future is termed the multidomain battlefield (MDO).4 As articulated by CDR (Dr) Travis M Polk at a recent panel meeting hosted by Indiana University, the military medical establishment has risen to this challenge by investing its combat casualty care equity to enable extended (eg, 24-hour-plus) casualty stabilization at or near the point of injury. Under development during several years, this concept has been the growing focus of the military’s trauma research requests for the last several grant cycles and, as Dr Polk’s presentation made clear, will continue to be the funding focus for the foreseeable future.

The military’s focus on its key strategic initiative is appropriate. However, the lack of a cohesive civilian strategy and investment portfolio for trauma innovation means the military’s change has the unintended consequence of leaving the civilian trauma challenge with an even larger gap, and without a plan or resources required to address the terrific toll of traumatic injury. In recent years, the military trauma research investment has been diminutive (compared with spending on other medical challenges), despite constituting the lion’s share of the funding in this domain, estimated at over 80% of the total.5 While the NIH’s expenditures in trauma research are an important supplement to this investment, it fails to come close to matching the scope of this problem.

Another symptom of the shift in military funding priorities is the reduction of military investment in trauma innovations addressing the longer term impacts of injury. During the past 10–20 years, the military has made significant investments in functional recovery for injured warfighters, and just as the innovations in acute trauma interventions have benefitted civilian trauma patients, these innovations are inherently dual use. This investment has resulted in important innovations in amputee rehabilitation, improvements in prosthetic devices, burn scar treatments, traumatic brain injury rehabilitation, wound management, and wound infection prevention and treatment among many others. Yet this focus on longer term impacts of injury has similarly shifted, as evidenced by the military deactivating the Joint Program Committee for Clinical and Rehabilitative Medicine, which had been responsible for planning and coordinating the funding of research in these areas. Just as with acute trauma care, responsibility for funding for these topics in the NIH is distributed and minimal compared with the scope of the impact to health.

Today we stand at a crossroads, where military and civilian trauma research investment has left significant gaps in the resources required to reduce mortality and morbidity from traumatic injury. As has been repeatedly discussed at the podium at the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma conference and a recent National Academy of Medicine report,6 the lack of appropriate national focus has left both civilian and military trauma patients without needed devices, drugs, biologics and treatment method innovations to reduce preventable number of deaths and disability. Recent changes in military mission planning and investment are now further mortgaging the future of civilian trauma innovation and highlight a massive risk in assigning the majority of the responsibility for funding of research in this area to the military. While the military investment in this area is appropriately prioritized to its specific challenges, this leaves a growing resource vacuum that needs to be addressed by the appropriate civilian funding agencies (eg, NIH, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) to enhance health, lengthen life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. A cohesive civilian approach to trauma research and development will benefit all Americans and allow US military leaders to focus their efforts on the future battlefield.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not required.

Footnotes

  • Contributorship DB, RD, TM and RG each contributed substantially to the conception of this work. DB drafted the work, RD provided significant editing and RD, TM and RG critically revised the work to develop the final version.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Kellermann A,
    2. Elster E,
    3. Babington C,
    4. Harris R,
    5. Borden I
    . Out of the crucible : how the US military transformed combat casualty care in Iraq and Afghanistan. 2017.
  2. ↵
    1. Remick KN,
    2. Baer DG,
    3. Rasmussen TE
    . Combat casualty care: partnering for preparedness. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2016;81:S69–71.doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000001253pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27602901
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Glass NE,
    2. Riccardi J,
    3. Farber NI,
    4. Bonne SL,
    5. Livingston DH
    . Disproportionally low funding for trauma research by the National Institutes of health: a call for a national Institute of trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2020;88:25–32.doi:10.1097/TA.0000000000002461pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31389923
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. U. Army
    . The US Army in multidomain operations, in: D.o.t. army (Ed.). US army Trainingand doctrine command Pamphlet, 2018:1–100.
  5. ↵
    1. Rasmussen TE,
    2. Kellermann AL
    . Wartime Lessons - Shaping a National Trauma Action Plan. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1612–5.doi:10.1056/NEJMp1607636pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27783910
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. E.a.M
    . National academies of Sicences, a national trauma care system: integrating militaryand civilian trauma systems to achieve zero preventable deaths after injury: The National Academies Press, 2016.
PreviousNext
Back to top
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on TSACO.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Divergence of military and civilian trauma research priorities
(Your Name) has sent you a message from TSACO
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the TSACO web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Divergence of military and civilian trauma research priorities
David Baer, Ross Donaldson, Todd McKinley, Robert Guldberg
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Jun 2021, 6 (1) e000765; DOI: 10.1136/tsaco-2021-000765

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Cite This
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • Endnote
  • MLA
Loading
Divergence of military and civilian trauma research priorities
David Baer, Ross Donaldson, Todd McKinley, Robert Guldberg
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Jun 2021, 6 (1) e000765; DOI: 10.1136/tsaco-2021-000765
Download PDF

Share
Divergence of military and civilian trauma research priorities
David Baer, Ross Donaldson, Todd McKinley, Robert Guldberg
Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open Jun 2021, 6 (1) e000765; DOI: 10.1136/tsaco-2021-000765
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Respond to this article
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Article
    • Ethics statements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Trauma of abortion restrictions and forced pregnancy: urgent implications for acute care surgeons
  • Language of violence: Do words matter more than we think?
  • Sickle cell trait and multisystem trauma: an unaddressed urgent knowledge gap
Show more Current opinion

Similar Articles

 
 

CONTENT

  • Latest content
  • Archive
  • eLetters
  • Sign up for email alerts
  • RSS

JOURNAL

  • About the journal
  • Editorial board
  • Thank you to our reviewers
  • The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma

AUTHORS

  • Information for authors
  • Submit a paper
  • Track your article
  • Open Access at BMJ

HELP

  • Contact us
  • Reprints
  • Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback form

©Copyright 2023 The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma