Translational science and the hidden research system in universities and academic hospitals: A case study

Lander, Bryn; Atkinson-Grosjean, Janet

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.11.019

Cited by 68 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In general terms, a larger share of collaborative papers are published in top journals, while the share of non-collaborative papers published in Q1 journals is lower. The only exception can be found for CIBER 4 where the share of IC papers was lower in both periods analysed -20062010-2011. We must note that the share of No IC and No Collaboration Q1 papers was lower than 60% for all CIBER centres in both time periods.…”

Section: Internal Collaboration Patterns In the Ciber Programmementioning

confidence: 75%

“…Lander and Atkinson-Grosjean (2011) deepened on the relationship between scientists and clinicians when researching on a particular disease. Among other findings, they reported that these interactions were more fruitful in the public sector and that the translational research process was 'iterative and untidy' (Lander & Atkinson-Grosjean, 2011). Molas-Gallart, D'Este, Llopis and Rafols (2014) explored the ways in which translational research takes place and what factors may promote collaboration between the different actors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tracking the performance of an R&D programme in the biomedical sciences

Robinson-García

Cabezas-Clavijo

Jiménez‐Contreras

2016

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims at offering an evaluation framework of an R&D programme in the Biomedical Sciences. It showcases the Spanish Biomedical Research Networking Centres initiative (CIBER) as an example of the effect of research policy management on performance. For this it focuses on three specific aspects: its role on the national research output in the biomedical sciences, its effect on promoting translational research through internal collaboration between research groups, and the perception of researchers on the programme as defined by their inclusion of their CIBER centres in the address field. Research output derived from this programme represents around 25% of the country's publications in the biomedical fields. After analysing a seven year period, the programme has enhanced collaborations between its members, but they do not seem to be sufficiently strong. With regard to the credit given to the initiative, 54.5% of the publications mentioned this programme in their address, however an increase on the share of papers mention it is observed two years after it was launched. We suggest that by finding the point in which the share of mentions stabilises may be a good strategy to identify the complete fulfilment of these types of R&D policies.

show abstract

Section: Internal Collaboration Patterns In the Ciber Programmementioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tracking the performance of an R&D programme in the biomedical sciences

Robinson-García

Cabezas-Clavijo

Jiménez‐Contreras

2016

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…생명공학기술은 인류건강, 삶의 질 향상을 위해 생명현상의 기전 (起傳), 질병의 원인 또는 발 병과정에 대한 연구를 통하여 생명공학의 원천지식을 제공 하는 생리학 · 병리학 · 약리학 등의 학문인 기초의과학 (基礎醫科學)을 포함한다 [2,3]. 생명공학기술은 1차 생산 (primary production), 보건 (health) 보건의료연구개발사업은 생명공학기술이 지니고 있는 한 계인 임상시험 등 실용화 단계의 병목현상 (bottleneck)과 생산성 위기 (productivity crisis)를 해결할 수 있는 데 그 중요성이 있다 [8,9] (Fig. 3).…”

Section: 서론unclassified

Effective Performance Analysis of Disease-oriented Translational Research from a Point of View of Biotechnology

Cheon¹,

Jung²,

Je³

et al. 2012

KSBB Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1) Recently, translational research (TR) in health technology (HT) has been considered as an emerging alternative research system for the improvement of human health. TR from bench to bedside involves a strong bidirectional relationship between basic science discovery and clinical practice. To support R&D planning and policy in HT effectively, the performance of TR programs was analyzed and evaluated in a R&D project on health and medical technology. TR programs were classified into three parts: unilateral TR, bilateral TR and multilateral TR. Bibliometrics and citation analysis were performed to assess research papers and gather information for the performance analysis of TR programs. In addition, both quantitative and qualitative analysis were successfully carried out using ISI Web of Science, Google Scholar Citations, SCOPUS and Knowledgematrix. In conclusion, the performance analysis of TR programs could significantly improve the efficiency of R&D plans, R&D management and evaluation for a safe and healthy life.

show abstract

“…This term refers to a series of 'gaps' identified in the assumed trajectories of biomedical research and development, including translation of new knowledge into drugs, therapies, diagnostics, and public health practices (Molas-Gallart et al 2015). More broadly at the science policy level the term sometimes comes to connote promises with regards to how biomedical science can enhance its contributions to society in the form of clinical, civic, or commercial pay-offs (Lander and Atkinson-Grosjean 2011). In this sense the slogan bears resemblances with more general notions like strategic science (Rip 2004), triple helix (Etzkowitz 2008), Mode 2 (Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons 2001), Academic Capitalism (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004), and 'Pasteur's Quadrant' (Stokes 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here a number of important studies have flagged the importance of contributions qualitative case studies around specific clinical problems can make to reporting how translational science 'works' in sites expected or claiming to participate in such activity (Wainwright et al 2009). These studies focus on how 'two cultures' of science and medicine come together and interact in new spaces of knowledge production (Lander and Atkinson-Grosjean 2011). Spotting strong discursive overlaps with the earlier 'linear model' of innovation, their main focus is critiquing the bench-to-bedside model for providing an over-simplified, reified, and deterministic version of biomedical innovation, far removed from practical, day-to-day struggles of enacting this promise at the 'coal-face' of knowledge sites (Martin, Brown, andKraft 2008, Wainwright et al 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%