Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda
- Autores
- Testoni, Federico E; García Carrillo, Mercedes; Gagnon, Marc André; Rikap, Cecilia Alejandra; Blaustein Kappelmacher, Matias
- Año de publicación
- 2021
- Idioma
- inglés
- Tipo de recurso
- artículo
- Estado
- versión publicada
- Descripción
- Background: Conflicts of interest in biomedical research can influence research results and drive research agendas away from public health priorities. Previous agenda-setting studies share two shortfalls: they only account for direct connections between academic institutions and firms, as well as potential bias based on researchers’ personal beliefs. This paper’s goal is to determine the key actors and contents of the prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, overcoming these shortfalls. Methods: We performed a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 95,415 scientific articles published between 1999 and 2018 in the highest impact factor journals within HBMS, using the Web of Science database and the CorText platform. HBMS’s prevailing knowledge network of institutions was proxied with network maps where nodes represent affiliations and edges the most frequent co-authorships. The content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda was depicted through network maps of prevalent multi-terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts. Results: The HBMS research agendas of large private firms and leading academic institutions are intertwined. The prevailing HBMS agenda is mostly based on molecular biology (40% of the most frequent multi-terms), with an inclination towards cancer and cardiovascular research (15 and 8% of the most frequent multi-terms, respectively). Studies on pathogens and biological vectors related to recent epidemics are marginal (1% of the most frequent multi-terms). Content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda prioritizes research on pharmacological intervention over research on socio-environmental factors influencing disease onset or progression and overlooks, among others, the study of infectious diseases. Conclusions: Pharmaceutical corporations contribute to set HBMS’s prevailing research agenda, which is mainly focused on a few diseases and research topics. A more balanced research agenda, together with epistemological approaches that consider socio-environmental factors associated with disease spreading, could contribute to being better prepared to prevent and treat more diverse pathologies and to improve overall health outcomes.
Fil: Testoni, Federico E. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras; Argentina
Fil: García Carrillo, Mercedes. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Biociencias, Biotecnología y Biología Traslacional; Argentina
Fil: Gagnon, Marc André. Carleton University; Canadá
Fil: Rikap, Cecilia Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas; Argentina. Institut Francilien Recherche Innovation Societe. Centre Population Et Developpement; Francia
Fil: Blaustein Kappelmacher, Matias. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Biociencias, Biotecnología y Biología Traslacional.; Argentina - Materia
-
BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH
CANCER
PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATIONS - Nivel de accesibilidad
- acceso abierto
- Condiciones de uso
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/
- Repositorio
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/162497
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
id |
CONICETDig_8c5a9df51f00981e0438f5873e4c2e75 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/162497 |
network_acronym_str |
CONICETDig |
repository_id_str |
3498 |
network_name_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
spelling |
Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agendaTestoni, Federico EGarcía Carrillo, MercedesGagnon, Marc AndréRikap, Cecilia AlejandraBlaustein Kappelmacher, MatiasBIOMEDICINE AND HEALTHCANCERPHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATIONShttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.9https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6Background: Conflicts of interest in biomedical research can influence research results and drive research agendas away from public health priorities. Previous agenda-setting studies share two shortfalls: they only account for direct connections between academic institutions and firms, as well as potential bias based on researchers’ personal beliefs. This paper’s goal is to determine the key actors and contents of the prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, overcoming these shortfalls. Methods: We performed a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 95,415 scientific articles published between 1999 and 2018 in the highest impact factor journals within HBMS, using the Web of Science database and the CorText platform. HBMS’s prevailing knowledge network of institutions was proxied with network maps where nodes represent affiliations and edges the most frequent co-authorships. The content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda was depicted through network maps of prevalent multi-terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts. Results: The HBMS research agendas of large private firms and leading academic institutions are intertwined. The prevailing HBMS agenda is mostly based on molecular biology (40% of the most frequent multi-terms), with an inclination towards cancer and cardiovascular research (15 and 8% of the most frequent multi-terms, respectively). Studies on pathogens and biological vectors related to recent epidemics are marginal (1% of the most frequent multi-terms). Content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda prioritizes research on pharmacological intervention over research on socio-environmental factors influencing disease onset or progression and overlooks, among others, the study of infectious diseases. Conclusions: Pharmaceutical corporations contribute to set HBMS’s prevailing research agenda, which is mainly focused on a few diseases and research topics. A more balanced research agenda, together with epistemological approaches that consider socio-environmental factors associated with disease spreading, could contribute to being better prepared to prevent and treat more diverse pathologies and to improve overall health outcomes.Fil: Testoni, Federico E. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras; ArgentinaFil: García Carrillo, Mercedes. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Biociencias, Biotecnología y Biología Traslacional; ArgentinaFil: Gagnon, Marc André. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Rikap, Cecilia Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas; Argentina. Institut Francilien Recherche Innovation Societe. Centre Population Et Developpement; FranciaFil: Blaustein Kappelmacher, Matias. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Biociencias, Biotecnología y Biología Traslacional.; ArgentinaPublic Library of Science2021-04info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/162497Testoni, Federico E; García Carrillo, Mercedes; Gagnon, Marc André; Rikap, Cecilia Alejandra; Blaustein Kappelmacher, Matias; Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda; Public Library of Science; Plos One; 16; 11; 4-2021; 1-171932-6203CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249661info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0249661info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:17:15Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/162497instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:17:16.099CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda |
title |
Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda |
spellingShingle |
Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda Testoni, Federico E BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH CANCER PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATIONS |
title_short |
Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda |
title_full |
Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda |
title_fullStr |
Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda |
title_full_unstemmed |
Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda |
title_sort |
Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda |
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Testoni, Federico E García Carrillo, Mercedes Gagnon, Marc André Rikap, Cecilia Alejandra Blaustein Kappelmacher, Matias |
author |
Testoni, Federico E |
author_facet |
Testoni, Federico E García Carrillo, Mercedes Gagnon, Marc André Rikap, Cecilia Alejandra Blaustein Kappelmacher, Matias |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
García Carrillo, Mercedes Gagnon, Marc André Rikap, Cecilia Alejandra Blaustein Kappelmacher, Matias |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH CANCER PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATIONS |
topic |
BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH CANCER PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATIONS |
purl_subject.fl_str_mv |
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.9 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6 |
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
Background: Conflicts of interest in biomedical research can influence research results and drive research agendas away from public health priorities. Previous agenda-setting studies share two shortfalls: they only account for direct connections between academic institutions and firms, as well as potential bias based on researchers’ personal beliefs. This paper’s goal is to determine the key actors and contents of the prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, overcoming these shortfalls. Methods: We performed a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 95,415 scientific articles published between 1999 and 2018 in the highest impact factor journals within HBMS, using the Web of Science database and the CorText platform. HBMS’s prevailing knowledge network of institutions was proxied with network maps where nodes represent affiliations and edges the most frequent co-authorships. The content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda was depicted through network maps of prevalent multi-terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts. Results: The HBMS research agendas of large private firms and leading academic institutions are intertwined. The prevailing HBMS agenda is mostly based on molecular biology (40% of the most frequent multi-terms), with an inclination towards cancer and cardiovascular research (15 and 8% of the most frequent multi-terms, respectively). Studies on pathogens and biological vectors related to recent epidemics are marginal (1% of the most frequent multi-terms). Content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda prioritizes research on pharmacological intervention over research on socio-environmental factors influencing disease onset or progression and overlooks, among others, the study of infectious diseases. Conclusions: Pharmaceutical corporations contribute to set HBMS’s prevailing research agenda, which is mainly focused on a few diseases and research topics. A more balanced research agenda, together with epistemological approaches that consider socio-environmental factors associated with disease spreading, could contribute to being better prepared to prevent and treat more diverse pathologies and to improve overall health outcomes. Fil: Testoni, Federico E. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras; Argentina Fil: García Carrillo, Mercedes. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Biociencias, Biotecnología y Biología Traslacional; Argentina Fil: Gagnon, Marc André. Carleton University; Canadá Fil: Rikap, Cecilia Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas; Argentina. Institut Francilien Recherche Innovation Societe. Centre Population Et Developpement; Francia Fil: Blaustein Kappelmacher, Matias. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Biociencias, Biotecnología y Biología Traslacional.; Argentina |
description |
Background: Conflicts of interest in biomedical research can influence research results and drive research agendas away from public health priorities. Previous agenda-setting studies share two shortfalls: they only account for direct connections between academic institutions and firms, as well as potential bias based on researchers’ personal beliefs. This paper’s goal is to determine the key actors and contents of the prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, overcoming these shortfalls. Methods: We performed a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 95,415 scientific articles published between 1999 and 2018 in the highest impact factor journals within HBMS, using the Web of Science database and the CorText platform. HBMS’s prevailing knowledge network of institutions was proxied with network maps where nodes represent affiliations and edges the most frequent co-authorships. The content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda was depicted through network maps of prevalent multi-terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts. Results: The HBMS research agendas of large private firms and leading academic institutions are intertwined. The prevailing HBMS agenda is mostly based on molecular biology (40% of the most frequent multi-terms), with an inclination towards cancer and cardiovascular research (15 and 8% of the most frequent multi-terms, respectively). Studies on pathogens and biological vectors related to recent epidemics are marginal (1% of the most frequent multi-terms). Content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda prioritizes research on pharmacological intervention over research on socio-environmental factors influencing disease onset or progression and overlooks, among others, the study of infectious diseases. Conclusions: Pharmaceutical corporations contribute to set HBMS’s prevailing research agenda, which is mainly focused on a few diseases and research topics. A more balanced research agenda, together with epistemological approaches that consider socio-environmental factors associated with disease spreading, could contribute to being better prepared to prevent and treat more diverse pathologies and to improve overall health outcomes. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-04 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/162497 Testoni, Federico E; García Carrillo, Mercedes; Gagnon, Marc André; Rikap, Cecilia Alejandra; Blaustein Kappelmacher, Matias; Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda; Public Library of Science; Plos One; 16; 11; 4-2021; 1-17 1932-6203 CONICET Digital CONICET |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/162497 |
identifier_str_mv |
Testoni, Federico E; García Carrillo, Mercedes; Gagnon, Marc André; Rikap, Cecilia Alejandra; Blaustein Kappelmacher, Matias; Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda; Public Library of Science; Plos One; 16; 11; 4-2021; 1-17 1932-6203 CONICET Digital CONICET |
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249661 info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0249661 |
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/ |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ar/ |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Public Library of Science |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Public Library of Science |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET) instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
reponame_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
collection |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
instname_str |
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar |
_version_ |
1844614124608159744 |
score |
13.070432 |