Literature DB >> 21796883

Understanding the impact of commercialization on public support for scientific research: is it about the funding source or the organization conducting the research.

Christine R Critchley1, Dianne Nicol.   

Abstract

This research examines the influence of commercialization on support for scientific research. It compares the effects of the funding source with the type of organization on public support for stem cell research. Using a national Australian telephone survey (n = 1000), the results reveal that support drops significantly when scientific research is funded by private rather than public interests, and even more so when it is conducted in a private company rather than a public university. Respondents' preference for university research was enhanced if they trusted universities, distrusted major companies and believed that the research would be beneficial. A preference for public funding was also associated with lower trust in companies and a belief that the research would benefit people. Implications of these results are discussed in relation to the challenge of maintaining public support in an increasingly commercialized research environment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21796883     DOI: 10.1177/0963662509346910

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Underst Sci        ISSN: 0963-6625


  18 in total

1.  Commercialization and stem cell research: a review of emerging issues.

Authors:  Sarah Burningham; Adam Ollenberger; Timothy Caulfield
Journal:  Stem Cells Dev       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.272

2.  The impact of commercialisation on public perceptions of stem cell research: exploring differences across the use of induced pluripotent cells, human and animal embryos.

Authors:  Christine R Critchley; Gordana Bruce; Matthew Farrugia
Journal:  Stem Cell Rev Rep       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 5.739

3.  Open science versus commercialization: a modern research conflict?

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Shawn He Harmon; Yann Joly
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2012-02-27       Impact factor: 11.117

4.  Citizen expectations of 'academic entrepreneurship' in health research: public science, practical benefit.

Authors:  Fiona A Miller; Michael Painter-Main; Renata Axler; Pascale Lehoux; Mita Giacomini; Barbara Slater
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Encouraging Participation And Transparency In Biobank Research.

Authors:  Kayte Spector-Bagdady; Raymond G De Vries; Michele G Gornick; Andrew G Shuman; Sharon Kardia; Jodyn Platt
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  Genomics governance: advancing justice, fairness and equity through the lens of the African communitarian ethic of Ubuntu.

Authors:  Nchangwi Syntia Munung; Jantina de Vries; Bridget Pratt
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2021-04-02

7.  Ocular gene transfer in the spotlight: implications of newspaper content for clinical communications.

Authors:  Shelly Benjaminy; Tania Bubela
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 8.  The commercialization of university-based research: Balancing risks and benefits.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Ubaka Ogbogu
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 9.  Genes, cells, and biobanks: Yes, there's still a consent problem.

Authors:  Timothy Caulfield; Blake Murdoch
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 8.029

10.  Access and benefits sharing of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge in northern Canada: understanding the legal environment and creating effective research agreements.

Authors:  Janis Geary; Cynthia G Jardine; Jenilee Guebert; Tania Bubela
Journal:  Int J Circumpolar Health       Date:  2013-08-05       Impact factor: 1.228

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.