Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26009258›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2016

What is Proof of Concept Research and how does it Generate Epistemic and Ethical Categories for Future Scientific Practice?

Catherine Elizabeth Kendig

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04320355 (Exploring the Effects of Soft Tissue Manual Therapy on the Viscoelastic Properties, Pressure Sensitivity and Touch Sensitivity of the Caesarean Section Scar), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04320355 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Exploring the Effects of Soft Tissue Manual Therapy on the Viscoelastic Properties, Pressure Sensitivity and Touch Sensitivity of the Caesarean Section Scar

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversité de SherbrookeRan2020 to 2020Enrolled51ConditionsCesarean Section ComplicationsArmsSoft tissue manual therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Proof of concept studies in mental health systems research: strategy and steps.International journal of mental health systems · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Catherine Elizabeth KendigDepartment of Philosophy and Religion, Missouri Western State University, 4525 Downs Drive, Saint Joseph, MO, 64507, USA. ckendig@missouriwestern.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8865-2924

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

"Proof of concept" is a phrase frequently used in descriptions of research sought in program announcements, in experimental studies, and in the marketing of new technologies. It is often coupled with either a short definition or none at all, its meaning assumed to be fully understood. This is problematic. As a phrase with potential implications for research and technology, its assumed meaning requires some analysis to avoid it becoming a descriptive category that refers to all things scientifically exciting. I provide a short analysis of proof of concept research and offer an example of it within synthetic biology. I suggest that not only are there activities that circumscribe new epistemological categories but there are also associated normative ethical categories or principles linked to the research. I examine these and provide an outline for an alternative ethical account to describe these activities that I refer to as "extended agency ethics". This view is used to explain how the type of research described as proof of concept also provides an attendant proof of principle that is the result of decision-making that extends across practitioners, their tools, techniques, and the problem solving activities of other research groups.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchProof of Concept StudyResearchScienceEpistemic categoriesExtended agencyNormative ethicsProof of principleRe-engineeringSynthetic biology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.