ReviewBMC medical ethics2015
The commercialization of university-based research: Balancing risks and benefits.
Review in BMC medical ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Moderate to high levels of spin in studies comparing open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures for anterior shoulder instability: A systematic review from the LaTour Group.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic literature review of the 'commercialisation effect' on public attitudes towards biobank and genomic data repositories.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Application of a typology for sustainment of Public health interventions using real-world case studies.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Bridging functional bionanomaterials and the clinic: strategic communication as a translational enabler.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- When genomics companies act as biobanks: governance challenges in an era of genomic assetization.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Towards a trusted genomics repository: Identifying commercialisation fears and preferred forms of governance across segments of the community.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- Contracts and intellectual property rights in translational R&D: furthering safeguards in the public interest.Nature biotechnology · 2024Article
- Assessment of spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes: A methodological study.Caries research · 2023Review
- Disclosing Conflicts of Interest to Potential Research Participants: Good for Nothing?Ethics & human research · 2023Article
- Medical education reforms in China.Lancet (London, England) · 2023Article
- Benefit sharing in genomic and biobanking research in Uganda: Perceptions of researchers and research ethics committee members.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Identifying the nature and extent of public and donor concern about the commercialisation of biobanks for genomic research.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2021Article
- Communication About End of Life for Patients Living With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Scoping Review of the Empirical Evidence.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Can Nanotechnology and Materials Science Help the Fight against SARS-CoV-2?Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- From Commercialization to Accountability: Responsible Health Data Collection, Use, and Disclosure for the 21st Century.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
- When patient advocacy organizations meet industry: a novel approach to dealing with financial conflicts of interest.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Ethical Challenges in Promoting the Implementation of Preventive Interventions: Report of the SPR Task Force.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2018Article
- Availability of researcher-led eHealth tools for pain assessment and management: barriers, facilitators, costs, and design.Pain reports · 2018Article
- Repurposing research data for commercial use: POPIA, a foil or a facilitator?South African journal of scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing push to commercialize university research has emerged as a significant science policy challenge. While the socio-economic benefits of increased and rapid research commercialization are often emphasized in policy statements and discussions, there is less mention or discussion of potential risks. In this paper, we highlight such potential risks and call for a more balanced assessment of the commercialization ethos and trends. DISCUSSION: There is growing evidence that the pressure to commercialize is directly or indirectly associated with adverse impacts on the research environment, science hype, premature implementation or translation of research results, loss of public trust in the university research enterprise, research policy conflicts and confusion, and damage to the long-term contributions of university research. The growing emphasis on commercialization of university research may be exerting unfounded pressure on researchers and misrepresenting scientific research realities, prospects and outcomes. While more research is needed to verify the potential risks outlined in this paper, policy discussions should, at a minimum, acknowledge them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.