Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda
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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2021-04, Vol.16 (4), p.e0249661 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | e0249661 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Testoni, Federico E García Carrillo, Mercedes Gagnon, Marc-André Rikap, Cecilia Blaustein, Matías |
| description | 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.
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.
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.
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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0249661 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2509588445</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A657706409</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_d0cd7acc1bfc43739aadc8cc7f209e95</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A657706409</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-ef460a23189e96ab8657601e9d4da1698596efe02f5a119237e6fcbdb0f05b543</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgrAXM-ajTdublWH92IGBBT8vQ5qetBk7yZi0g3vvDzed6a5TUZBetDl53vf0nORE0VOM5phm-NXa9s6Idr61BuaIJAVj-F50igtKZowgev_o-yR65P0aoZTmjD2MTijNCWNpdhr9_NpYD7FvbN9W4HysfdyAaLsmduBBONnEvhOm0qaOrXkdv4EO3EabYd01EH-Dm1jIzgZpoGJpTQem87FV--2tg53Q7UCX2m6g0lK0v61FDaYSj6MHSrQenozvs-jzu7efLq9mq-v3y8vFaiYzwroZqIQhQSjOCyiYKPNQAUMYiiqpBGZFnhYMFCCiUoFxQWgGTMmyKpFCaZkm9Cx6fvDdttbzsYGekxQVaZ4nSRqI5YGorFjzrdMb4W64FZrvA9bVXLhOyxZ4hWSVCSlxqWRCM1oIUclcykwRFP5v8LoYs_VlKFyGtjjRTkynO0Y3vLY7niPCEMHB4Pxg0Pwhu1qs-BBDlCQ0pXg3sC_GZM5-78F3_yhvpGoRKtBG2ZBYbrSXfBGamSGWoCJQ879Q4algo8MBg9IhPhGcTwT7S_Cjq0XvPV9-_PD_7PWXKfvyiD1cS2_bvtPW-CmYHEDprPcO1F27MOLDtNx2gw_TwsdpCbJnxyd0J7odD_oLsAYRXw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2509588445</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Testoni, Federico E ; García Carrillo, Mercedes ; Gagnon, Marc-André ; Rikap, Cecilia ; Blaustein, Matías</creator><contributor>Grundy, Quinn</contributor><creatorcontrib>Testoni, Federico E ; García Carrillo, Mercedes ; Gagnon, Marc-André ; Rikap, Cecilia ; Blaustein, Matías ; Grundy, Quinn</creatorcontrib><description>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.
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.
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.
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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249661</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33826657</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Authorship - standards ; Bibliometrics ; Biomedical Research - standards ; Commercialization ; Computer and Information Sciences ; Conflict of Interest ; Conflicts of interest ; Databases, Factual ; Economic aspects ; Educational aspects ; History, Philosophy and Sociology of Sciences ; Humanities and Social Sciences ; Humans ; Impact factors ; Influence ; Knowledge management ; Medical research ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Medicine, Experimental ; Pharmaceutical industry ; Publications - standards ; R&D ; Research & development ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Social aspects ; Supervision</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2021-04, Vol.16 (4), p.e0249661</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2021 Testoni et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Attribution</rights><rights>2021 Testoni et al 2021 Testoni et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-ef460a23189e96ab8657601e9d4da1698596efe02f5a119237e6fcbdb0f05b543</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-ef460a23189e96ab8657601e9d4da1698596efe02f5a119237e6fcbdb0f05b543</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6309-6888</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8026021/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8026021/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,2096,2915,23847,27905,27906,53772,53774,79349,79350</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33826657$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://u-paris.hal.science/hal-03243531$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Grundy, Quinn</contributor><creatorcontrib>Testoni, Federico E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García Carrillo, Mercedes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gagnon, Marc-André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rikap, Cecilia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blaustein, Matías</creatorcontrib><title>Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>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.
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.
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.
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.</description><subject>Authorship - standards</subject><subject>Bibliometrics</subject><subject>Biomedical Research - standards</subject><subject>Commercialization</subject><subject>Computer and Information Sciences</subject><subject>Conflict of Interest</subject><subject>Conflicts of interest</subject><subject>Databases, Factual</subject><subject>Economic aspects</subject><subject>Educational aspects</subject><subject>History, Philosophy and Sociology of Sciences</subject><subject>Humanities and Social Sciences</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Impact factors</subject><subject>Influence</subject><subject>Knowledge management</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical industry</subject><subject>Publications - standards</subject><subject>R&D</subject><subject>Research & development</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Social aspects</subject><subject>Supervision</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgrAXM-ajTdublWH92IGBBT8vQ5qetBk7yZi0g3vvDzed6a5TUZBetDl53vf0nORE0VOM5phm-NXa9s6Idr61BuaIJAVj-F50igtKZowgev_o-yR65P0aoZTmjD2MTijNCWNpdhr9_NpYD7FvbN9W4HysfdyAaLsmduBBONnEvhOm0qaOrXkdv4EO3EabYd01EH-Dm1jIzgZpoGJpTQem87FV--2tg53Q7UCX2m6g0lK0v61FDaYSj6MHSrQenozvs-jzu7efLq9mq-v3y8vFaiYzwroZqIQhQSjOCyiYKPNQAUMYiiqpBGZFnhYMFCCiUoFxQWgGTMmyKpFCaZkm9Cx6fvDdttbzsYGekxQVaZ4nSRqI5YGorFjzrdMb4W64FZrvA9bVXLhOyxZ4hWSVCSlxqWRCM1oIUclcykwRFP5v8LoYs_VlKFyGtjjRTkynO0Y3vLY7niPCEMHB4Pxg0Pwhu1qs-BBDlCQ0pXg3sC_GZM5-78F3_yhvpGoRKtBG2ZBYbrSXfBGamSGWoCJQ879Q4algo8MBg9IhPhGcTwT7S_Cjq0XvPV9-_PD_7PWXKfvyiD1cS2_bvtPW-CmYHEDprPcO1F27MOLDtNx2gw_TwsdpCbJnxyd0J7odD_oLsAYRXw</recordid><startdate>20210407</startdate><enddate>20210407</enddate><creator>Testoni, Federico E</creator><creator>García Carrillo, Mercedes</creator><creator>Gagnon, Marc-André</creator><creator>Rikap, Cecilia</creator><creator>Blaustein, Matías</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>COVID</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>BXJBU</scope><scope>IHQJB</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6309-6888</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210407</creationdate><title>Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda</title><author>Testoni, Federico E ; García Carrillo, Mercedes ; Gagnon, Marc-André ; Rikap, Cecilia ; Blaustein, Matías</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c726t-ef460a23189e96ab8657601e9d4da1698596efe02f5a119237e6fcbdb0f05b543</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Authorship - standards</topic><topic>Bibliometrics</topic><topic>Biomedical Research - standards</topic><topic>Commercialization</topic><topic>Computer and Information Sciences</topic><topic>Conflict of Interest</topic><topic>Conflicts of interest</topic><topic>Databases, Factual</topic><topic>Economic aspects</topic><topic>Educational aspects</topic><topic>History, Philosophy and Sociology of Sciences</topic><topic>Humanities and Social Sciences</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Impact factors</topic><topic>Influence</topic><topic>Knowledge management</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical industry</topic><topic>Publications - standards</topic><topic>R&D</topic><topic>Research & development</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Social aspects</topic><topic>Supervision</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Testoni, Federico E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García Carrillo, Mercedes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gagnon, Marc-André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rikap, Cecilia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blaustein, Matías</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Coronavirus Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>HAL-SHS: Archive ouverte en Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société</collection><collection>HAL-SHS: Archive ouverte en Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société (Open Access)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Testoni, Federico E</au><au>García Carrillo, Mercedes</au><au>Gagnon, Marc-André</au><au>Rikap, Cecilia</au><au>Blaustein, Matías</au><au>Grundy, Quinn</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2021-04-07</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>e0249661</spage><pages>e0249661-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>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.
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.
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.
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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>33826657</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0249661</doi><tpages>e0249661</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6309-6888</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2021-04, Vol.16 (4), p.e0249661 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2509588445 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Authorship - standards Bibliometrics Biomedical Research - standards Commercialization Computer and Information Sciences Conflict of Interest Conflicts of interest Databases, Factual Economic aspects Educational aspects History, Philosophy and Sociology of Sciences Humanities and Social Sciences Humans Impact factors Influence Knowledge management Medical research Medicine and Health Sciences Medicine, Experimental Pharmaceutical industry Publications - standards R&D Research & development Research and Analysis Methods Social aspects Supervision |
| title | Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-19T14%3A58%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Whose%20shoulders%20is%20health%20research%20standing%20on?%20Determining%20the%20key%20actors%20and%20contents%20of%20the%20prevailing%20biomedical%20research%20agenda&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Testoni,%20Federico%20E&rft.date=2021-04-07&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=e0249661&rft.pages=e0249661-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0249661&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA657706409%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2509588445&rft_id=info:pmid/33826657&rft_galeid=A657706409&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_d0cd7acc1bfc43739aadc8cc7f209e95&rfr_iscdi=true |