• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Research policy >Research paradigms and useful inventions in medicine: Patents and licensing by teams of clinical and basic scientists in Academic Medical Centers
【24h】

Research paradigms and useful inventions in medicine: Patents and licensing by teams of clinical and basic scientists in Academic Medical Centers

机译：医学研究范例和有用发明：学术医学中心的临床和基础科学家团队的专利和许可

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In recent decades, teams that combine basic scientists with clinical researchers have become an important organizational mechanism to translate knowledge made in basic science ("the bench") to tangible medical innovations ("the bedside"). Our study explores whether inventing teams that span basic and clinical research are more effective at licensing than teams comprised of inventors from only one domain. We propose that laboratory science and clinical research represent fundamentally different research paradigms that defy a simple arithmetic of combining the skills of individuals on teams. Clinical and basic researchers inhabit distinct cultures of work that yield different, and sometimes conflicting, beliefs and approaches to problem-solving. We claim that the complexity and variability of most human medical problems limits the role of basic science in medical innovation. Instead, we argue that clinical research remains an important engine of innovation, even in a period of rapid advances in molecular and genetics sciences, and advanced analytical techniques, because clinical researchers have unique opportunities for insights that emerge from the joint activities of research and close observations of living patients. Our empirical analysis focuses on patents and licenses from two prominent Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) over a 30 year period. In hazard models of licensing we find, controlling for a range of effects, that inventions by teams composed of clinical researchers (MDs) are more likely to be licensed than inventions by teams of basic scientists (PhDs), and that inventions that include both MDs and PhDs are not more likely to be licensed. This leads us to question the translational model of combining expertise to bridge different domains. We also find that the training of the team leader has an effect on licensing that is independent of team composition, lending support to our interpretation. Our results help inform policy about the relationship between research paradigms, team composition, and successful innovation in bio-medicine.
机译：近几十年来，由基础科学家和临床研究人员组成的团队已成为一种重要的组织机制，可以将基础科学（“替补席”）中的知识转化为切实的医学创新（“床边”）。我们的研究探讨了跨越基础研究和临床研究的发明团队是否比仅来自一个领域的发明人组成的团队更有效。我们建议实验室科学和临床研究代表根本上不同的研究范式，这些范式违反了将个人技能结合到团队中的简单算法。临床和基础研究人员居住在不同的工作文化中，这些工作文化产生了不同的，有时是相互矛盾的信念和解决问题的方法。我们认为，大多数人类医学问题的复杂性和可变性限制了基础科学在医学创新中的作用。相反，我们认为，即使在分子和遗传学以及先进的分析技术迅速发展的时期，临床研究仍然是创新的重要引擎，因为临床研究人员拥有独特的机会，可以从研究和紧密合作的共同活动中获得见解。在世患者的观察。我们的经验分析着重于两个著名的学术医学中心（AMC）在30年内的专利和许可。在许可的危害模型中，我们发现，在控制多种影响的情况下，由临床研究人员（MD）组成的团队进行的发明比由基础科学家（PhD）团队进行的发明更容易获得许可，并且同时包含两个MD的发明并且博士学位不太可能获得许可。这使我们对结合专业知识以桥接不同领域的转换模型提出质疑。我们还发现，对团队负责人的培训对许可的影响与团队组成无关，这为我们的解释提供了支持。我们的研究结果有助于就研究范式，团队组成和生物医学成功创新之间的关系提供政策依据。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号