The outbreak and diffusion of COVID-19 infection had remarkably affected Research & Development (R&D) activities—which includes basic and applied research—both in a short- and long-term perspective across all European (EU) states, as well as around the globe. R&D represent a critical field of work and a strategic area of investment, with an estimated return of around 428 billion dollars [~2.5% of Gross Domestic Spending (GDP) in 2019; (1)]. Furthermore, it is well known that investment on R&D activities represent a core target in EU global development strategies. In particular, the EU Member States agreed, in the last years, to gradually increase the investments in R&D activities to the 3% of national GDP, following the so called “Barcelona target”. First exploratory analyses highlighted that the impact on research activities of the outbreak was appraised as medium or severe in 85% of reached research centers or institutions, while only 2% of them reported the absence of a relevant impact on their R&D projects (2).

Concerning the economic impact, the COVID-19 pandemic has entailed several adverse effects. In general, a negative impact has been observed on different economic sectors, as marked by the increase of unemployment rates, bankruptcy, and other financial consequences. Like the other occupational sectors, productivity in biomedical, experimental, and clinical research too has been negatively affected by the outbreak and by the related pandemics management policies due to the suspension of research activities not primarily related to COVID-19, especially for basic research institutions. Indeed, as also demonstrated by a report published by the Congressional Research Service about the effects of the COVID-19 on the federal research and development company, it emerged that the mandatory implementation of specific guidelines would have led to the interruption of the research activity carried out by many laboratories due to the loss or limited access to different equipment, the inability to purchase new instruments, and the cancellation of scientific events and conferences (3). Furthermore, in addition to the experimental research field, also the clinical research and clinical practice, due to the suspension of many routine activities, have suffered significant financial repercussions in terms of loss of wages and business, which have in turn caused several problems to the work of healthcare professionals and support personnel (4). Those phenomena produced an unprecedented crisis for global research enterprises, especially in the neuroscientific field, whose basic and clinical research activity is heavily based on first-hand data collection with test animal, test subjects or patients (5–8).

In fact, the inertia imposed by the emergency situation on neuroscience, but also neuropsychological and neurophysiological research activities, might have a too heavy price to pay in terms of social and economic aftermath. Between many, the main issues could be:

The negative impact caused by the pandemics has pointed out the need to develop safe work programs, strategic rearrangement of research activities, and efficient supportive programs for economic funds (12). In particular, to limit the repercussions on scientific productivity and healthcare of the infection, some activities have been reorganized, with remote and digital tools, in most institutions and centers (13, 14). It was also asked to the scientific community to identify and implement evidence-based policies that could promote the development of new, resilient, and shared cultural practices, which involve the combination of effective remote work and on-site activities even in the neuroscientific field. Standardized and shared policies are necessary in order to improve activity and make neuroscience, neuropsychology and neurophysiology research and practice in the laboratories overcome the crisis, to capitalize present experience, and to be prepared to face potential future challenges while, at the same time, assuring public health for all the actors involved.

In line with this need, many research groups have begun to share consensus guidelines for the management of neuroscientific data collection in the pandemic period. Bikson et al. (15) proposed consensus guidelines for TMS/tES clinical services and research through the COVID-19 pandemic. In a similar work, Campanella et al. (6) reported the outcomes of a survey on the impact of COVID-19 on the use of electroencephalography (EEG) in clinical practice and research in several countries (including some EU countries such as Italy, Germany, Belgium and Czech Republic). The authors have also presented the recommendations of an international panel of experts for the safe application of EEG during and after this pandemic. Even if based on a limited number of participants and restricted to a peculiar area–i.e., electrophysiology–the study is insightful and carries within itself some precious information about situational know-how and strategies, which might reduce risks for COVID-19 spread. Among the others: a rigid check for COVID-19 symptomatology before inclusion in studies and research activities; respect of sufficient social distance and favoring of one-to-one contact, primarily between the technician and the patient, in data collection; the use of different rooms for data collection; disinfection between each recording. The authors have also suggested an update of common practices to allow safe EEG recordings in both research and clinical settings. In parallel, Sozzi et al. (7) proposed potential solutions for conducting neuropsychological assessment and neuropsychological rehabilitation with patients showing alterations of cognitive functions even during emergency situations. Furthermore, a roadmap for conducting neuroscience research in the COVID-19 era, together with the recommendations from the Society of Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SNACC) Research Committee was recently published (8).

We think that the pandemic emergency that we have had to face provides, at least, the unique opportunity to reflect on the strategic value of clear, efficient and lean organizational and management guidelines, as well as of both effective vertical communication between institutions and its components and horizontal communication to share evidence-based practices between institutions. Projects like the one briefly introduced here will provide valuable food for thought concerning the development of standardized and shared practices necessary to restore pre-epidemic activities and planning, in order to ensure that R&D overcomes this crisis and potential future challenges, while also protecting the public health and all actors involved in the strategic research field of basic, clinical and applied neurosciences. Indeed, to define guidelines and new best practices for an efficient and sustainable management of these necessary activities in the short and long term is a current critical challenge, and might help containing the cost of their interruption on healthcare for the population and on individual/social well-being.

MBa, DC, LA, and GF wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All the authors contributed to the manuscript final writing and revision. All the authors read and approved the submitted version.

This project was funded by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR), with the Special Supplementary Fund for Research (in Italian: Fondo Integrativo Speciale per la Ricerca, FISR) of 2020 (FISR 2020 COVID).

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.