IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v45y2018i1p24-35..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Translational research in the science policy debate: a comparative analysis of documents

Author

Listed:
  • Clemens Blümel

Abstract

Translational research (TR) can be viewed as a prominent concept that reflects expectations of societal relevance and has become an important issue in science policy. This article analyses the framings of TR in the policy discourse by comparing policy papers in the USA and some European countries. Problem frames in favor of TR are interpreted as expressions of specific conceptions of science, being either organizational or professional. Based on a qualitative content analysis, different policy documents relating to TR between 2003 and 2013 in the USA and Europe are compared. I found that TR in the USA is more strongly framed as a professional problem whereas in Europe, TR is framed as an organizational problem. It is argued that these different framings of TR have consequences for conceptions of societal relevance and steering in TR.

Suggested Citation

  • Clemens Blümel, 2018. "Translational research in the science policy debate: a comparative analysis of documents," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 24-35.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:1:p:24-35.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scx034
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Declan Butler, 2008. "Translational research: Crossing the valley of death," Nature, Nature, vol. 453(7197), pages 840-842, June.
    2. Braun, Dietmar, 1998. "The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 807-821, December.
    3. Alison Abbott, 2010. "Germany plans for healthy future," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7322), pages 358-359, November.
    4. Axel Philipps, 2013. "Mission statements and self-descriptions of German extra-university research institutes: A qualitative content analysis," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(5), pages 686-697, April.
    5. Hopkins, Michael M. & Martin, Paul A. & Nightingale, Paul & Kraft, Alison & Mahdi, Surya, 2007. "The myth of the biotech revolution: An assessment of technological, clinical and organisational change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 566-589, May.
    6. Etienne Vignola-Gagné, 2014. "Argumentative practices in science, technology and innovation policy: The case of clinician-scientists and translational research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 94-106.
    7. Sheila Jasanoff, 2004. "Science and citizenship: a new synergy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 90-94, April.
    8. R. L. Juliano, 2013. "Pharmaceutical innovation and public policy: The case for a new strategy for drug discovery and development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 393-405, February.
    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. Ute Laermann-Nguyen & Martin Backfisch, 2021. "Innovation crisis in the pharmaceutical industry? A survey," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(12), pages 1-37, December.
    2. Sang-Min Park & Nicholas S. Vonortas, 2023. "Translational research: from basic research to regional biomedical entrepreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 60(4), pages 1761-1783, April.
    3. Karen Bickerstaff & Peter Simmons & Nick Pidgeon, 2008. "Constructing Responsibilities for Risk: Negotiating Citizen — State Relationships," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(6), pages 1312-1330, June.
    4. Yang, Hyeonchae & Jung, Woo-Sung, 2016. "Structural efficiency to manipulate public research institution networks," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 21-32.
    5. Watzinger, Martin & Schnitzer, Monika, 2019. "Standing on the Shoulders of Science," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 215, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    6. Fernandez Martinez, Roberto & Lostado Lorza, Ruben & Santos Delgado, Ana Alexandra & Piedra, Nelson, 2021. "Use of classification trees and rule-based models to optimize the funding assignment to research projects: A case study of UTPL," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    7. Alberto Onetti & Hal Steger, 2007. "Formulating an open source business model requires community segmentation and targeted marketing," Economics and Quantitative Methods qf0707, Department of Economics, University of Insubria.
    8. Daniel P. Gross & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2022. "Crisis Innovation Policy from World War II to COVID-19," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 135-181.
    9. Tylecote, Andrew, 2019. "Biotechnology as a new techno-economic paradigm that will help drive the world economy and mitigate climate change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 858-868.
    10. Roberta Piergiovanni & Enrico Santarelli, 2013. "The more you spend, the more you get? The effects of R&D and capital expenditures on the patenting activities of biotechnology firms," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 497-521, February.
    11. Conor O’Kane & Jing A. Zhang & Jarrod Haar & James A. Cunningham, 2023. "How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 799-826, August.
    12. DiVito, Lori, 2012. "Institutional entrepreneurship in constructing alternative paths: A comparison of biotech hybrids," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 884-896.
    13. Auranen, Otto & Nieminen, Mika, 2010. "University research funding and publication performance--An international comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 822-834, July.
    14. Benedetto Lepori & Emanuela Reale & Stig Slipersaeter, 2011. "The Construction of New Indicators for Science and Innovation Policies: The Case of Project Funding Indicators," Chapters, in: Massimo G. Colombo & Luca Grilli & Lucia Piscitello & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra (ed.), Science and Innovation Policy for the New Knowledge Economy, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Victor Pelaez, 2005. "Science And Governance In The National Systems Of Innovation Approach," Working Papers 0010, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Department of Economics.
    16. Balietti, Stefano & Riedl, Christoph, 2021. "Incentives, competition, and inequality in markets for creative production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    17. Marguin, Séverine & Haus, Juliane & Heinrich, Anna Juliane & Kahl, Antje & Schendzielorz, Cornelia & Singh, Ajit, 2021. "Positionality Reloaded: Debating the Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship Between Science and Society: An Editorial," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 46(2), pages 7-34.
    18. Lepori, Benedetto, 2011. "Coordination modes in public funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 355-367, April.
    19. Albert, Mathieu & Laberge, Suzanne, 2017. "Confined to a tokenistic status: Social scientists in leadership roles in a national health research funding agency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 137-146.
    20. Ohid Yaqub, 2018. "Variation in the dynamics and performance of industrial innovation: what can we learn from vaccines and HIV vaccines?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 173-187.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:1:p:24-35.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.