Health Care Analysis · 2012 · 119 citations · 40 references
HumanitiesBiomedical SciencesTranslational SciencesPhilosophy Of ScienceResearch EthicsTranslational MedicineBench-to-bedside ResearchBiomedical TranslationPublic Understanding Of ScienceRhetoric Of ScienceScientific ProgressScientific TranslationBiomedical Research EthicsMoral ForceResearch-clinical BoundaryScientific DiscourseScientific InterpretationTranslation To PracticeViews
Translational Research (TR) has become a popular label in biomedical science, presented as a bridge between laboratory discoveries and clinical application, yet its use varies widely and obscures the intended societal benefits. This study analyzes the scientific discourse on TR to disentangle and critically evaluate its multiple meanings. The authors reconstruct the concept’s history, then examine a sample of TR publications to uncover how the label is applied and the presuppositions underlying different views. They distinguish three dimensions of TR—construction of the translational gap, the translational process model, and the cause of the perceived gap—and conclude that while the goal of societal benefit is laudable, prevailing TR views may not effectively achieve it.
The label 'Translational Research' (TR) has become ever more popular in the biomedical domain in recent years. It is usually presented as an attempt to bridge a supposed gap between knowledge produced at the lab bench and its use at the clinical bedside. This is claimed to help society harvest the benefits of its investments in scientific research. The rhetorical as well as moral force of the label TR obscure, however, that it is actually used in very different ways. In this paper, we analyse the scientific discourse on TR, with the aim to disentangle and critically evaluate the different meanings of the label. We start with a brief reconstruction of the history of the concept. Subsequently, we unravel how the label is actually used in a sample of scientific publications on TR and examine the presuppositions implied by different views of TR. We argue that it is useful to distinguish different views of TR on the basis of three dimensions, related to (1) the construction of the 'translational gap'; (2) the model of the translational process; and (3) the cause of the perceived translational gap. We conclude that the motive to make society benefit from its investments in biomedical science may be laudable, but that it is doubtful whether the dominant views of TR will contribute to this end.
40
Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation
William G. Tierney, Donald Stokes, Andrew Abbott · Academe · 2005 · 2.1K citations
The Meaning of Translational Research and Why It Matters
Steven H. Woolf · JAMA · 2008 · 1.9K citations