IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v111y2014icp74-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing devices or experimental systems? Cancer clinical trials take the genomic turn

Author

Listed:
  • Nelson, Nicole C.
  • Keating, Peter
  • Cambrosio, Alberto
  • Aguilar-Mahecha, Adriana
  • Basik, Mark

Abstract

Clinical trials are often described as machine-like systems for generating specific information concerning drug safety and efficacy, and are understood as a component of the industrial drug development processes. This paper argues that contemporary clinical trials in oncology are not reducible to mere drug testing. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork and interviews with researchers in the field of oncology from 2010 to 2013, we introduce a conceptual contrast between trials as testing machines and trials as clinical experimental systems to draw attention to the ways trials are increasingly being used to ask open-ended scientific questions. When viewed as testing machines, clinical trials are seen as a means to produce answers to straightforward questions and deviations from the protocol are seen as bugs in the system; but practitioners can also treat trials as clinical experimental systems to investigate as yet undefined problems and where heterogeneity becomes a means to produce novel biological or clinical insights. The rise of “biomarker-driven” clinical trials in oncology, which link measurable biological characteristics such as genetic mutations to clinical features such as a patient's response to a particular drug, exemplifies a trend towards more experimental styles of clinical work. These transformations are congruent with changes in the institutional structure of clinical research in oncology, including a movement towards more flexible, networked research arrangements, and towards using individual patients as model systems for asking biological questions.

Suggested Citation

  • Nelson, Nicole C. & Keating, Peter & Cambrosio, Alberto & Aguilar-Mahecha, Adriana & Basik, Mark, 2014. "Testing devices or experimental systems? Cancer clinical trials take the genomic turn," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 74-83.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:111:y:2014:i:c:p:74-83
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953614002329
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erickson, Paul & Klein, Judy L. & Daston, Lorraine & Lemov, Rebecca & Sturm, Thomas & Gordin, Michael D., 2013. "How Reason Almost Lost Its Mind," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226046631, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cambrosio, Alberto & Campbell, Jonah & Keating, Peter & Polk, Jessica B. & Aguilar-Mahecha, Adriana & Basik, Mark, 2022. "Healthcare policy by other means: Cancer clinical research as “oncopolicy”," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    2. Polk, Jess B. & Campbell, Jonah & Drilon, Alexander E. & Keating, Peter & Cambrosio, Alberto, 2023. "Organizing precision medicine: A case study of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's engagement in/with genomics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    3. Swallow, Julia & Kerr, Anne & Chekar, Choon Key & Cunningham-Burley, Sarah, 2020. "Accomplishing an adaptive clinical trial for cancer: Valuation practices and care work across the laboratory and the clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    4. Cambrosio, Alberto & Campbell, Jonah & Keating, Peter & Bourret, Pascale, 2022. "Multi-polar scripts: Techno-regulatory environments and the rise of precision oncology diagnostic tests," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sylvain Lenfle & Christoph Loch, 2017. "Has Megaproject management lost its way ? Lessons from History," Post-Print hal-03640779, HAL.
    2. Fèvre, Raphaël, 2021. "The Madman and the Economist(s): Georges Bataille and François Perroux as French Critiques of the Marshall Plan," OSF Preprints 6hnvk, Center for Open Science.
    3. Kirtchik, Olessia & Boldyrev, Ivan, 2024. "“Rise And Fall” Of The Walrasian Program In Economics: A Social And Intellectual Dynamics Of The General Equilibrium Theory," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-26, March.
    4. Martin Obschonka & David B. Audretsch, 2020. "Artificial intelligence and big data in entrepreneurship: a new era has begun," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 529-539, October.
    5. Malte Doehne & Catherine Herfeld, 2023. "How academic opinion leaders shape scientific ideas: an acknowledgment analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2507-2533, April.
    6. Michael Ben‐Gad, 2022. "Russia versus the West: Facing the long‐term challenge," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 385-394, June.
    7. Pascal Le Masson & Armand Hatchuel & Mario Le Glatin & Benoit Weil, 2018. "Designing Decisions In The Unknown: Towards A Generative Decision Model For Management Science," Post-Print hal-01937103, HAL.
    8. Fèvre, Raphaël, 2019. "Georges Bataille, François Perroux and French Critiques of the Marshall Plan," OSF Preprints acb6z, Center for Open Science.
    9. Pascal Le Masson & Armand Hatchuel & Benoit Weil, 2016. "Innovation theory and the logic of generativity: from optimization to design, a new post-decisional paradigm in management science," Post-Print hal-01481881, HAL.
    10. Veale, Michael & Brown, Ian, 2020. "Cybersecurity," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 9(4), pages 1-22.
    11. Cherrier, Beatrice & Saïdi, Aurélien, 2019. "A century of economics and engineering at Stanford," SocArXiv adtbj, Center for Open Science.
    12. Sylvain Lenfle & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2014. "Using design theory to characterize various forms of breakthrough R&D projects and their management: revisiting Manhattan & Polaris," Post-Print hal-01002713, HAL.
    13. Rouhani, Omid, 2023. "Public Policy: A science and/or a Field?," MPRA Paper 118121, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Düppe, Till, 2020. "War after War: Wilhem Krelle,1916-2004," OSF Preprints a8rq3, Center for Open Science.
    15. Veale, Michael & Brown, Ian, 2020. "Cybersecurity," LawArXiv c8p36, Center for Open Science.
    16. Paskins, Matthew, 2020. "History of science and its utopian reconstructions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 109300, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Veale, Michael & Brass, Irina, 2019. "Administration by Algorithm? Public Management meets Public Sector Machine Learning," SocArXiv mwhnb, Center for Open Science.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:111:y:2014:i:c:p:74-83. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.