Literature DB >> 24826905

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

Fiona A Miller1,2,3, Michael Painter-Main4, Renata Axler1,3, Pascale Lehoux5,6, Mita Giacomini7,8, Barbara Slater9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Responsiveness to citizens as users of technological innovation helps motivate translational research and commercial engagement among academics. Yet, retaining citizen trust and support for research encourages caution in pursuit of commercial science.
OBJECTIVES: We explore citizen expectations of the specifically academic nature of commercial science [i.e. academic entrepreneurship (AE)] and the influence of conflict of interest concerns, hopes about practical benefits and general beliefs. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cross-sectional national opinion survey of 1002 Canadians online in 2010.
RESULTS: Approval of AE was moderate (mean 3.2/5, SD 0.84), but varied by entrepreneurial activity. Concern about conflict of interests (COI) was moderate (mean 2.9/5, SD 0.86) and varied by type of concern. An ordinary least-squares regression showed that expectations of practical benefits informed support for AE, specifically that academic-industry collaboration can better address real-world problems; conflict of interest concerns were insignificant.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that citizens support AE for its potential to produce practical benefits, but enthusiasm varies and is reduced for activities that may prioritize private over public interests. Further, support exists despite concern about COI, perhaps due to trust in the academic research context. For user engagement in research priority setting, these findings suggest the need to attend to the commercial nature of translational science. For research policy, they suggest the need for governance arrangements for responsible innovation, which can sustain public trust in academic research, and realize the practical benefits that inform public support for AE.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  academic entrepreneur; biomedical research; commercialization; conflict of interest; public expectations; responsible innovation

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24826905      PMCID: PMC5810666          DOI: 10.1111/hex.12205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  30 in total

1.  Setting biomedical research priorities: justice, science, and public participation.

Authors:  D Resnik
Journal:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J       Date:  2001-06

2.  How commercialization puts a blight on research.

Authors:  G Laver; A Müllbacher; P Waring
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-08-23       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 3.  Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda.

Authors:  Jonathan Boote; Rosemary Telford; Cindy Cooper
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.980

Review 4.  Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.

Authors:  Justin E Bekelman; Yan Li; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003 Jan 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research.

Authors:  David Wright; Claire Foster; Ziv Amir; Jim Elliott; Roger Wilson
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Viewpoint: professional integrity in industry-sponsored clinical trials.

Authors:  Franklin G Miller; Howard Brody
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  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

8.  The experiential knowledge of patients: a new resource for biomedical research?

Authors:  J Francisca Caron-Flinterman; Jacqueline E W Broerse; Joske F G Bunders
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2004-12-21       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Who needs what from a national health research system: lessons from reforms to the English Department of Health's R&D system.

Authors:  Stephen Hanney; Shyama Kuruvilla; Bryony Soper; Nicholas Mays
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2010-05-13

10.  Health researchers' attitudes towards public involvement in health research.

Authors:  Jill Thompson; Rosemary Barber; Paul R Ward; Jonathan D Boote; Cindy L Cooper; Christopher J Armitage; Georgina Jones
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 3.377

View more
  1 in total

1.  The institutional workers of biomedical science: Legitimizing academic entrepreneurship and obscuring conflicts of interest.

Authors:  Renata E Axler; Fiona A Miller; Pascale Lehoux; Trudo Lemmens
Journal:  Sci Public Policy       Date:  2017-11-06
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.