NIH plans grant-review overhaul to reduce bias

"Reviewers would no longer score researchers’ expertise and institutions during grant evaluations for the US biomedical agency.

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has released a tentative plan to change how its research grant applications are scored, with the aim of reducing bias and lowering the burden on reviewers. Under the new system, reviewers would no longer rate researchers’ expertise or their institutions’ access to resources, and there would be fewer scoring criteria overall.

 

The NIH’s Center for Scientific Review (CSR), which organizes the peer-review groups that evaluate more than 90% of the research grants awarded by the agency, announced these proposed changes at a meeting on 8 December attended by Lawrence Tabak, acting NIH director, and a panel of his advisers. The revamp has not yet been finalized, and any changes would not be implemented until 2024 at earliest.

Critics have long contended that the NIH perpetuates reputational bias in its review process, which has led to funding disparities among grant recipients. According to a 2022 NIH analysis, the 10% of institutions that receive the most money from the agency get about 65% of its overall funding for research projects, and the bottom half receives less than 5%. These proportions have persisted for years.

 

Many institutions — such as minority-serving universities — produce strong research, says Noni Byrnes, the director of the CSR. But the data show that because of reputational bias, these institutions have not been on a level playing field in the review process, she adds. “And ultimately, what we want is the science to work.”

 

Researchers who spoke to Nature say that changes to the peer-review system are long overdue, and that the proposals are a good start. But some think the revisions don’t go far enough to correct these entrenched problems.

Criteria overhaul

 

Reviewers currently score NIH research proposals according to five criteria: significance, investigator(s), innovation, approach and environment (where the research will be carried out). These criteria are defined by US legislation, so the NIH cannot modify them without approval from lawmakers, but it can change the way they’re interpreted or scored. The new system doesn’t throw out the old criteria, but groups them into three categories: the importance of the research, its feasibility and rigour, and the expertise and resources of the researcher and their institution.

Byrnes says that the last category, which won’t be scored under the proposal, is frequently misinterpreted. Reviewers sometimes score applicants and their institutions without considering them in the context of the proposed research — the original intention of the category. This has led to higher scores for prestigious institutions and individuals. Under the proposal, rather than score this category, reviewers would choose whether they think researcher expertise or institutional resources are adequate or not. If they select the latter, they can leave specific feedback about deficiencies in a text box on the review form. This will “prevent reviewers from waxing poetic about a really famous investigator that tilts the evaluation of the science”, Byrnes says.

 

“For a big funder like NIH, these changes are quite bold,” says Sandra Bendiscioli, a research policy specialist at the European life-sciences organization EMBO in Heidelberg, Germany, who has published about bias in peer review.

The root of the problem

 

Some advisers attending the 8 December meeting pushed back on the plan, suggesting that researchers and institutional resources are crucial factors in determining the merit of research projects. “I do think there’s some value in some objective score to assess the investigator,” said Shelley Berger, an epigeneticist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Without a score, Berger added, it could be difficult to understand the reviewer’s thinking and how they factored researcher expertise into their decision. Speaking at the meeting, Byrnes countered that reviewers would still have the option to leave comments about their concerns, which could be reflected in the overall impact score.

 

NIH scraps plans for cap on research grants

 

Although some critics appreciate that the agency is trying to eliminate reputational bias, they say the proposed changes do not address the root of funding disparities at the NIH. Omolola Eniola-Adefeso, a biomedical engineer at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who co-authored a 2021 article calling on the NIH to fund more Black scientists1, tells Nature that, to have a tangible impact, more diversity is needed among reviewers. She cites a landmark analysis published more than a decade ago2, which found that Black researchers were significantly less likely to receive NIH research funding compared with white researchers, even when factors such as scientific credentials and employer were taken into account. This means efforts to lessen the impact of reputational bias might not translate to more equitable funding, she says.

 

In addition to considering the race and gender of reviewers, ensuring that panels have representation from under-represented institutions could have a big impact, says Enrique Neblett, a public-health researcher at the University of Michigan. Given the persistence of funding disparities, the NIH needs to take bolder action, he says.

 

NIH to limit the amount of grant money a scientist can receive

 

This isn’t the first time the NIH has tried to address reputational bias. In 2017, the agency released a plan to put a cap on the number of grants that a researcher could hold at any one time, but fierce criticism from the biomedical research community led the agency to scrap the changes. Byrnes tells Nature she is optimistic that the new proposal will not face the same kind of backlash. The 2017 plan was made during “a different time, with a whole different set of people in leadership at NIH”, she says.

 

Bendiscioli applauds the agency for searching for innovative ways to reduce bias in its funding, and emphasized the potential global ripple effects of the change, given that the NIH is the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research. “When a big funder like NIH changes things, other funders often want to follow.”

 

The CSR is accepting public feedback about the revisions until 10 March 2023. It will also release proposed changes to the criteria for scoring clinical-trial and training grants in the coming months." [1]

1. Nature 612, 602-603 (2022)

 

How gene therapy is emerging from its ‘dark age’

 

"After years of setbacks, the field is starting to deliver on its promises.

In a landmark 1972 paper1, physician Theodore Friedmann and biochemist Richard Roblin foresaw a future in which DNA could be manipulated to help treat human genetic diseases. But they cautioned that it should remain off-limits until the field gained a firmer grasp of genetic processes in cells, their relationship to disease and the potential side effects of treatments.

Over the following years, scientists began to remove these obstacles, and in 1990 achieved a major breakthrough when a four-year-old girl with a form of severe combined immunodeficiency disease was successfully treated in a clinical trial2. This ushered in a decade of high hopes and bold promises.

But the afterglow of that early achievement proved short-lived, as a labyrinth of technical challenges emerged. A common gene-therapy approach involves delivering a healthy gene to cells that have only defective copies in their genetic libraries. Once inside, the therapeutic gene instructs the cells to manufacture functional proteins instead of faulty ones. One difficulty has been making sure a treatment gene zeroes in on the correct cells in the right tissue, and is shuttled into millions of these cells rather than just a few, all without disrupting the working order of neighbouring genes. Another impediment has been ensuring that the inserted gene produces enough protein to get the job done, says John Rasko, a clinical haematologist who heads the Department of Cell and Molecular Therapies at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, Australia. “We had the tools that could deliver genes into cells, but we just couldn’t do it efficiently enough to get a therapeutic benefit,” he says.

And the therapeutic gene also needed to ride in a delivery vehicle that could slip quietly into cells without triggering a harmful, and sometimes fatal, reaction from the toughest gatekeeper of them all: the immune system.

Despite these challenges, scientists made further progress, but in 1999, an 18-year-old trial participant died of liver failure shortly after receiving a dose of an experimental gene therapy for ornithine transcarbamylase (OTC) deficiency, a rare metabolic disorder that prevents the body from breaking down ammonia. The tragedy triggered a shockwave through the field and forced it to reassess. “Absolutely there was a ‘dark age’ in gene therapy” after this point, says Rasko. However, more promising advances are finally beginning to emerge.

Viruses as delivery drivers

Through the highs and lows, viruses have remained the couriers of choice for delivering therapeutic genes to hard-to-reach cells. In nature, viruses are cunning cellular hijackers that can ignite devastating disease outbreaks and pandemics. Their ability to penetrate cells and hoodwink the host into replicating their genes also makes them the perfect tool for gene therapy. With millions of years of evolution behind them, viruses have a formidable edge over other gene-therapy vectors, such as synthetic nanoparticles, says Julie Crudele, who investigates viral-vector gene therapies for muscular dystrophies at the University of Washington in Seattle. “They’re already designed to do this,” she says. “We just hijack what they do naturally.”

Over the past decade, efforts to vanquish the spectre of failures past have started to pay off, heralding an era of optimism, particularly in the treatment of genetic eye disorders. There are almost 300 clinical trials worldwide investigating viral-vector-based gene therapies. Roughly half of these use modified adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) — small, well-studied viruses that do not cause disease in humans. These viruses are an ideal match for gene therapy as they can target a wide range of tissues and trigger only a mild immune response in most cases, making them safe, versatile and efficient therapeutic tools.

Unveiling clearer vision

One of the recent jewels in the gene-therapy crown has been in inherited retinal diseases, which cause vision loss and blindness in more than two million people worldwide. “There’s been a huge explosion in gene therapy and the eye,” says Christine Kay, a surgeon at Vitreoretinal Associates in Gainesville, Florida. Eyes are immune-privileged, which means they limit local immune and inflammatory responses to preserve vision. This makes them an ideal gene-therapy target because they are shielded from the destructive force of immune-induced inflammation and can sneak in without setting off alarm bells (see ‘Viral vectors’).

 

In 2017, voretigene neparvovec-rzyl (marketed as Luxturna) was the first gene replacement therapy to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It was one of the first treatments for an inherited retinal disease. Developed by Spark Therapeutics, a biotechnology start-up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the gene therapy is a one-shot treatment for people with a harmful mutation in the gene RPE65, which causes severe vision loss. The drug relies on an AAV vector to deliver a working copy of the gene directly into retinal cells, where it gives instructions for making a protein that converts light into electrical signals. The treatment has also been approved in the European Union and in Australia. “That’s been a boon to the field,” says Thomas Edwards, who leads the retinal gene-therapy research group at the Centre for Eye Research Australia in Melbourne.

Investors and big pharma are catching on. In the two years before 2020, seven pharmaceutical giants — including Novartis, Roche and Bayer — acquired small biotech companies developing viral-vector-based gene therapies at values near or above US$1 billion. Globally, the gene-therapy market’s revenue is projected to jump from $5.33 billion to $19.88 billion by 2027. Positive results from clinical trials in recent years have given patients and researchers a much-needed confidence boost, says Guangping Gao, a gene-therapy researcher specializing in viral vectors at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School in Worcester. “That confidence eventually translates into more investment.”

The Luxturna milestone laid the groundwork for tackling more-common eye disorders underpinned by multiple genes, says Edwards. “Inherited retinal diseases have sort of been the starting point, because they lend themselves to a gene-therapy approach,” he says. “We’re now seeing the technology being applied to more common diseases, which are more genetically complicated.”

One of those diseases is age-related macular degeneration, a leading cause of vision loss globally. GT005, an AAV-based gene therapy developed by London-based Gyroscope Therapeutics, is designed to target dry age-related macular degeneration. GT005’s genetic payload aims to restore balance by boosting the production of complement factor I (CFI), a protein that usually regulates the complement system — a facet of the body’s immune arsenal that drives age-related macular degeneration when it becomes overactive. Turning up the production of CFI reduces the inflammation associated with the overactive complement system, reducing the number of vision-destroying blood vessels in the eye. Phase I/II trials are under way in the United States, Europe and Australia. If proven to be safe and effective, the AAV-based gene therapy could offer hope to patients with the once untreatable disease, says Edwards, who is leading the Australian trials.

The eyes and beyond

Progress is also being made outside the eye, although challenges remain ahead. In 2019, the FDA approved onasemnogene abeparvovec (marketed as Zolgensma), an AAV-based gene therapy for spinal muscular atrophy. Developed by Novartis Gene Therapies, the treatment — which costs $2 million per dose — replaces the disease-causing gene with a healthy version in patients younger than two years old. More than 2,300 patients have been treated with Zolgensma to date. But in August, two children in Russia and Kazakhstan died of acute liver failure about one month after receiving a dose, despite being treated with medication to reduce the risk of side effects. In a statement released after the deaths, Novartis said that acute liver failure “is a known side effect” of Zolgensma, but added that it will update its labelling to reflect that fatalities had been reported. It also said it firmly believed in the drug’s “overall favourable risk/ benefit profile”.

Spinal muscular atrophy isn’t the only neuromuscular disease on the gene-therapy hit-list. With five trials in the United States alone, Duchenne muscular dystrophy is also being targeted for treatment. In 2019, Solid Biosciences, a life-sciences company in Charlestown, Massachusetts, paused its phase I and II trials for SGT-001 gene therapy after several participants experienced adverse side effects, including liver damage and low platelet counts. But after improving the manufacturing process, the company reported in March that three patients receiving high doses showed improvements in their motor and pulmonary function without the harmful side effects seen previously.

Treating muscular diseases with AAV-based gene therapy is a fine balance; massive doses are needed to make a therapeutic impact, which increases the chance of adverse reactions, says Crudele. “You truly have to hit every single cell, which means that you have to give these really huge doses.”

Some researchers are tackling this problem by tweaking AAV vectors to deliver working genes to cells more efficiently, reducing the need for large doses. In 2021, researchers genetically altered the AAV vectors themselves3. When they injected each vector into mice with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, they found that one of the modified vectors reached muscle tissue ten times more efficiently than the standard ones, remaining effective even at low doses.

The end of the dark ages?

Haemophilia — an inherited blood-clotting disorder that affects more than one million people worldwide — has been edging its way to the top of the gene-therapy queue for decades. It is usually treated with regular injections to replace the missing clotting protein. But high costs prevent patients in developing countries, where roughly 80% of haemophilia cases are found, from accessing the treatment. “The majority will die young because of the fact that they can’t access treatment,” says Amit Nathwani, who specializes in gene therapies for haemophilia and other blood disorders at University College London. “For these individuals, gene therapy will be a game-changer.” There are currently at least 12 clinical trials exploring AAV-based gene therapies for haemophilia A and B.

Nathwani and his team at biotech firm Freeline Therapeutics in Stevenage, UK, are leading trials in the United States and Europe on a haemophilia B gene therapy called FLT180a (verbrinacogene setparvovec). The treatment delivers a functional version of the affected gene inside a synthetic AAV vector. In a 2022 paper4, 90% of trial participants’ clotting protein levels remained high two years after receiving a dose, meaning that they no longer needed regular protein injections. “If you had asked 10 or 12 years ago if we would ever achieve a normal range in haemophilia B patients, I would have said no,” says Nathwani. “We’ve been able to push the frontier.”

With emerging treatments such as FLT180a in the pipeline, the future is beginning to look better for people with debilitating genetic diseases, from blood disorders to eye conditions. And although gene therapy still has a way to go before it becomes a routine treatment, the wave of approvals and clinical trials signal that the dark age of gene therapy could finally be over, says Rasko. “It’s here to stay.”” [1]

1. Nature 612, S24-S26 (2022)

 

„Inreal“: siekiant skatinti būsto pardavimus, kainas Lietuvoje gali tekti mažinti

 "Gruodį, palyginti su atitinkamu laikotarpiu pernai, Vilniuje pirminėje rinkoje butų pardavimai mažėjo 78%, Kaune – 86%, Klaipėdoje – 91%, skelbia nekilnojamojo turto paslaugų bendrovė „Inreal“.

 

Jos duomenimis, Vilniuje per praėjusį mėnesį susitarta dėl 141, Kaune – dėl 25, o Klaipėdoje – dėl 2 naujų butų įsigijimo. Sostinėje nutraukti 34 sandoriai, Klaipėdoje ir Kaune tokių nebuvo.

 

Įvertinus korekciją, metinis pardavimo apimties mažėjimas Vilniuje siekė 86%.

 

„Pagrindinės rinkos aktyvumo sumažėjimo priežastys – būsto įperkamumo sumažėjimas dėl rekordinės nominalios būsto kainos, padidėjusios bazinės palūkanų normos, nerimas dėl besitęsiančio karo Ukrainoje, recesijos grėsmė ir sąlyginai ribota būsto pasiūla“, – teigia Tomas Sovijus Kvainickas, „Inreal“ investicijų ir analizės vadovas.

 

Anot jo, paskutinį kartą panašus į šiųmetį rinkos aktyvumas buvo stebėtas 2012 m.

 

„Rinkos aktyvumą slopina ir išaugę nutrauktų sutarčių skaičiai, kurie, lyginant su 2021 m., išaugo dvigubai. Daryčiau prielaidą, kad didžioji dalis sutarčių buvo nutrauktos todėl, kad vystytojai negalėjo įvykdyti savo įsipareigojimų ankstesnėmis, mažesnėmis būsto kainomis. Nusprendus būstą pirkti šiandien tokia priežastis jau menkai tikėtina, tačiau tai – dar vienas veiksnys bendrame problemų katile“, – pranešime cituojamas T. S. Kvainickas.

 

Jo teigimu, dalis pardavėjų jau taiko nuolaidas būstui, tačiau tai vis dar nėra masinis reiškinys.

 

„Kainų korekcija, tikėtina, pirmiausia palies didesne pasiūlos koncentracija pasižyminčius segmentus bei vietoves, taip pat – didžiausius lūkesčius dėl ateities turėjusius pardavėjus. Kainų skirtumai tarp lygiaverčių projektų jau egzistuoja, todėl siekiant paskatinti pardavimus, kainas gali tekti mažinti“, – sako T. S. Kvainickas."

Mobilus darbas: Vokietijos bankai tiria namų biurų užsienyje idėją

"„BayernLB“ ir „DZ Bank“ yra pionieriai. Kiti šiuo metu kuria mobiliojo darbo užsienyje sistemą. Dėl rimtų priežasčių planai dažnai apsiriboja ES šalimis.

Keli Vokietijos bankai nagrinėja, ar jie taip pat turėtų leisti dirbti iš namų užsienyje. BayernLB ir DZ Bank jau susitarė dėl to, todėl yra taupomųjų bankų ir kooperatyvų sektoriaus pionieriai. Išorės konsultantai praneša apie padidėjusį paklausimą šia tema, o žodis „darbostogos“ vis dažniau pasirodo darbo reitingų portaluose. Lankstumas gali padidinti darbdavių patrauklumą.

Dekabank yra viena iš institucijų, užsiimančių darbostogomis. Šiais metais ji planuoja „sukurti pagrindus mobiliam darbui užsienyje“, sakė atstovė. Pasak jos pačios pareiškimų, LBBW taip pat rengia darbo reglamentą. Ir Helaba sakė, kad nagrinėja galimybę dirbti iš namų užsienyje.

BayernLB ir DZ bankas tai jau leidžia

„BayernLB“ pasirinktose Europos Sąjungos šalyse dirbti galima nuo praėjusių metų rugpjūčio. Galima iki 20 dienų per metus, daugiausia 10 dienų vienu metu. Dukterinė įmonė DKB leidžia net 30 dienų per metus. Išimtiniais atvejais DZ banko darbuotojai gali dirbti iki 18 dienų per metus iš kitų ES šalių, jei sutinka vadovas.

„Užklausų dėl visų tarptautinių darbuotojų komandiruočių – nuo ​​trumpos darbo praktikos iki nuolatinio namų biuro užsienyje – skaičius išaugo daug kartų“, – sakė vadybos konsultanto EY vyresnioji vadovė Heidi Schindler. Pandemija parodė, kad, dirbant namuose, – nepriklausomai nuo šalies – efektyvumas neprarandamas. Kita vertus, darbuotojų pasitenkinimas gerokai padidėja.

Danielis Lafrentzas, PwC direktorius, pranešė apie kažką panašaus. „Tarpvalstybinis lankstumas darbo vietoje į personalo skyrius atkeliavo, kaip labai patraukli nauda darbuotojams“, – sakė konsultantė. Pagrindinė priežastis buvo kvalifikuotų darbuotojų trūkumas. Šiandien įmonės turi pateikti gerus bendrus pasiūlymus esamiems ir potencialiems darbuotojams, kad išliktų „kare dėl talentų“, t.y. kovoje už geriausius protus.

Kvalifikuotų darbuotojų trūkumas

Nors bankų sektoriuje apskritai mažinamos darbo vietos, kai kuriose srityse darbuotojų vis dar trūksta. DZ banko teigimu, ypač paklausūs atitikties, tvarios bankininkystės ir mokėjimo operacijų specialistai. Tarp bankų vadovų, kurie perspėjo apie kvalifikuotų darbuotojų trūkumą ir laisvų darbo vietų perteklių, yra LBBW ir KfW.

Berlyne įsikūrusios personalo specialistės „Index Gruppe“ duomenimis, vien per trečiąjį 2022 m. ketvirtį Vokietijos bankų sektorius paskelbė apie 30 000 darbo vietų, 26 procentais daugiau, nei tuo pačiu laikotarpiu pernai.

Žvilgsnis į darbdavių vertinimo platformą Kununu.com rodo, kad darbostogos – dviejų terminų, reiškiančių darbą ir atostogas, derinys – dabar darbuotojams vaidina svarbų vaidmenį. Kaip sakė Kununu bosė Nina Zimmermann, termino „darbostogos“ vartojimas per pastaruosius metus išaugo dvylika kartų.

Tai dera su TUI AG pranešimu, kad ilgalaikių ir su darbu susijusių poilsiautojų segmentas kelionių organizatoriuje netrukus gali peržengti 100 tūkst. per metus ribą.

Atitikties kliūtis

Pasak Miuncheno teisininkės Sarah Klachin iš Pinsent Masons advokatų kontoros, yra rimtų priežasčių, kodėl bankai ir kitos įmonės dažnai apsiriboja darbu užsienyje tik ES ir tik tam tikru laikotarpiu. Pavyzdžiui, dirbant ES šalyje, nereikia atskiro leidimo gyventi ar leidimo dirbti, o kitur tai dažnai tenka tikrinti individualiai. Duomenų apsaugos, mokesčių ir socialinės apsaugos aspektai taip pat vaidintų svarbų vaidmenį.

DZ bankas taip pat aiškiai nurodo, kad apribojimas iki 18 darbo dienų per metus turi mokestinių priežasčių. „Įmonės, galvodamos apie darbą ir panašiai, turėtų žinoti apie kliūtis, – sakė EY ekspertas Schindleris, – kad svajonė apie neribotą lankstumą nesibaigtų atitikties košmaru.""

Oi tie nuobodūs vokiečiai... Visas vokiečių gyvenimas yra atitikties košmaras. Kokie jie paternalistai. Angliškai kalbančios šalys dažnai leidžia ilgiau dirbti iš kitų šalių, namuose, suprasdamos, kad gero mokesčių konsultanto samdymas yra darbuotojo pareiga.

Mobile working: German banks are examining home offices abroad

"BayernLB and DZ Bank are pioneers. Others are in the process of creating the framework for mobile working abroad. Plans are often limited to EU countries for good reasons.

Several German banks are examining whether they should also allow working from home abroad. BayernLB and DZ Bank have already made arrangements for this and are therefore pioneers in the savings bank and cooperative sector. External consultants report increased inquiries on the subject, while the word "workation" appears more and more often in job rating portals. Flexibility can increase the attractiveness of employers.

Dekabank is one of the institutions dealing with workation. Dekabank plans to "create the framework for mobile working abroad" in the course of this year, said a spokeswoman. According to its own statements, LBBW is also working on a regulation on workation. And Helaba said it was examining the possibility of working from home abroad.

BayernLB and DZ Bank already allow it

At BayernLB, workation has been possible in selected countries of the European Union since August of last year. Up to 20 days are available per year, with a maximum of 10 days at a time. The subsidiary DKB even allows 30 days a year. In exceptional cases, employees at DZ Bank can work up to 18 days per year from other EU countries, provided the manager agrees.

"The number of inquiries in connection with all international employee assignments - from a short work placement to permanent home office abroad - has increased many times over," said Heidi Schindler, senior manager at management consultant EY. The pandemic has shown that working from home – regardless of the country – does not result in any loss of efficiency. On the other hand, employee satisfaction increases significantly.

Daniel Lafrentz, Director at PwC, reported something similar. "Cross-border flexibility in the place of work has arrived in HR departments as a very attractive benefit for employees," said the consultant. The main trigger was the lack of skilled workers. Today, companies have to make good overall offers to existing and potential employees in order to survive in the "war for talent" - i.e. the struggle for the best minds.

Shortage of skilled workers

Although jobs are being cut overall in the banking industry, there are still staff shortages in certain areas. According to DZ Bank, specialists in compliance, sustainable banking and payment transactions are in particularly high demand. The bank bosses who have warned of a shortage of skilled workers and vacancies include those of LBBW and KfW.

In the third quarter of 2022 alone, the banking industry in Germany advertised almost 30,000 jobs, 26 percent more than in the same period last year, according to data from the Berlin-based personnel specialist Index Gruppe.

A look at the employer rating platform Kununu.com shows that workation - a combination of the two English terms for work and vacation - now plays an important role for employees. There, the use of the term workation has increased twelvefold in the past year, as Kununu boss Nina Zimmermann said.

This fits in with the report by TUI AG that the segment of long-term and work-related holidaymakers at the tour operator could soon exceed the 100,000-per-year threshold.

Compliance stumbling blocks

According to the Munich lawyer Sarah Klachin from the Pinsent Masons law firm, there are good reasons why banks and other companies often limit working abroad to the EU and certain periods of time. 

 

For example, when working in an EU country, no separate residence permit or work permit is required, whereas elsewhere this often has to be checked individually. Data protection, tax and social security aspects would also play a role.

 

DZ Bank also explicitly points out that the restriction to 18 days of work per year has tax reasons. 

 

"Companies should be aware of the hurdles when they think about workation and the like," said EY expert Schindler, "so that the dream of unlimited flexibility doesn't end in a compliance nightmare.""

 

Oh those stuffy Germans... All German life is a compliance nightmare. How paternalistic they are. English speaking countries often allow longer working from home in other countries understanding that hiring a good tax consultant is a responsibility of the employee.