IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v174y2017icp70-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Promissory identities: Sociotechnical representations & innovation in regenerative medicine

Author

Listed:
  • Gardner, John
  • Higham, Ruchi
  • Faulkner, Alex
  • Webster, Andrew

Abstract

The field of regenerative medicine (RM) is championed as a potential source of curative treatments and economic wealth, and initiatives have been launched in several countries to facilitate innovation within the field. As a way of examining the social dimensions of innovation within regenerative medicine, this paper explores the sociotechnical representations of RM technologies in the UK, and the tensions, affordances and complexities these representations present for actors within the field. Specifically, the paper uses the Science and Technology Studies-inspired notions of ‘technology identity’ and ‘development space’ to examine how particular technologies are framed and positioned by actors, and how these positionings subsequently shape innovation pathways. Four developing RM technologies are used as case studies: bioengineered tracheas; autologous chondrocyte implantation; T-cell therapies; and a ‘point-of-care’ cell preparation device. Using these case studies we argue that there are particular identity aspects that have powerful performative effects and provide momentum to innovation projects, and we argue that there are particular stakeholders in the UK RM landscape who appear to have considerable power in shaping these technology identities and thus innovation pathways.

Suggested Citation

  • Gardner, John & Higham, Ruchi & Faulkner, Alex & Webster, Andrew, 2017. "Promissory identities: Sociotechnical representations & innovation in regenerative medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 70-78.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:174:y:2017:i:c:p:70-78
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.12.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953616306980
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.12.018?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. Ulucanlar, S. & Faulkner, A. & Peirce, S. & Elwyn, G., 2013. "Technology identity: The role of sociotechnical representations in the adoption of medical devices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 95-105.
    2. Gardner, John & Webster, Andrew, 2016. "The social management of biomedical novelty: Facilitating translation in regenerative medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 90-97.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Askfors, Ylva & Fornstedt, Helena, 2018. "The clash of managerial and professional logics in public procurement: Implications for innovation in the health-care sector," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 78-90.
    2. Hogarth, Stuart & Löblová, Olga, 2022. "Regulatory niches: Diagnostic reform as a process of fragmented expansion. Evidence from the UK 1990–2018," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    3. Alberto Bezama & Carlo Ingrao & Sinéad O’Keeffe & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Resources, Collaborators, and Neighbors: The Three-Pronged Challenge in the Implementation of Bioeconomy Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Stanislav Birko & Edward S Dove & Vural Özdemir, 2015. "Evaluation of Nine Consensus Indices in Delphi Foresight Research and Their Dependency on Delphi Survey Characteristics: A Simulation Study and Debate on Delphi Design and Interpretation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-14, August.
    5. Dahlke, Johannes & Beck, Mathias & Kinne, Jan & Lenz, David & Dehghan, Robert & Wörter, Martin & Ebersberger, Bernd, 2024. "Epidemic effects in the diffusion of emerging digital technologies: evidence from artificial intelligence adoption," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    6. James F. Stark, 2018. "Perspectives on human regeneration," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6, December.
    7. Ivlev, Ilya & Vacek, Jakub & Kneppo, Peter, 2015. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(1), pages 216-228.
    8. Massaro, Sebastiano & Lorenzoni, Gianni, 2021. "Nanomedicine: a socio-technical system," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    9. Abrishami, Payam & Boer, Albert & Horstman, Klasien, 2014. "Understanding the adoption dynamics of medical innovations: Affordances of the da Vinci robot in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 125-133.
    10. Erik Aarden & Luca Marelli & Alessandro Blasimme, 2021. "The translational lag narrative in policy discourse in the United States and the European Union: a comparative study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    11. Gardner, John & Webster, Andrew, 2016. "The social management of biomedical novelty: Facilitating translation in regenerative medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 90-97.

    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:174:y:2017:i:c:p:70-78. 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.