Implementing ‘translational’ biomedical research: Convergence and divergence among clinical and basic scientists

Universities are increasingly regarded as key actors in the new ‘knowledge economy’, with requirements to produce market-oriented knowledge and engage in commercialization. This is of particular significance in the biomedical field, reflecting the perceived gap between success in terms of scientific discoveries and its transformation into products. The dominant discourse attributes this situation to ‘blocks’ in the translational pathway from ‘bench to bedside’, leading to policies to ‘reengineer’ the research enterprise. This study examines a pilot initiative established by the UK’s Medical Research Council (MRC). This involved employing a change agent (Research Translator) supported by a small amount of translational funding to promote the culture and practice of translational research at a university/hospital site in England. An ethnographically informed case study involving semi-structured and open exploratory interviews, observation and document review, was conducted in 2008. Analysis and interpretation were informed by Bourdieu’s logic of practice applied to science. The requirements of translational research promoted by the Research Translator and its sources of capital (authority, prestige etc) were largely congruent with the ‘field’ of clinical science. In contrast, translational research diverged from perceptions of ‘legitimate’ science and requirements for capital accumulation held by the majority of basic scientists who often described this research as ‘high risk’ and were resistant to the Research Translator’s advice. However some differences in motivations and practices were identified within groups of scientists associated with career stage, work environment and specialty. We argue that there are convergent and divergent forces that influence scientists’ readiness to adopt a market-oriented translational research model and in turn facilitate or constrain the effectiveness of a knowledge broker. We also identify ways in which current structures and policies continue to promote a continuum of forms of knowledge production, thus challenging notions of a linear shift.