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
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/162497

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