Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29937617›Full record

ArticleScience & public policy2018

The institutional workers of biomedical science: Legitimizing academic entrepreneurship and obscuring conflicts of interest.

Renata E Axler, Fiona A Miller, Pascale Lehoux, Trudo Lemmens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science & public policy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

4 authors.

Renata E AxlerWorld Health Innovation Network, Odette School of Business, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4, Canada.
Fiona A MillerInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Suite 425, Toronto, ON M5T 3M6, Canada.
Pascale LehouxInstitute of Public Health Research of University of Montreal (IRSPUM), Department of Health Administration, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, 7101 Avenue du Parc, Suite 3082, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada.
Trudo LemmensFaculty of Law, University of Toronto, 78 Queen's Park, Room J448, Toronto, ON M5S 2C3, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given growing initiatives incentivizing academic researchers to engage in 'entrepreneurial' activities, this article examines how these academic entrepreneurs claim value in their entrepreneurial engagements, and navigate concerns related to conflicts of interest. Using data from qualitative interviews with twenty-four academic entrepreneurs in Canada, we show how these scientists value entrepreneurial activities for providing financial and intellectual resources to academic science, as well as for their potential to create impact through translation. Simultaneously, these scientists claimed to maintain academic norms of disinterested science and avoid conflicts of interest. Using theories of institutional work, we demonstrate how entrepreneurial scientists engage in processes of institutional change-through-maintenance, drawing on the maintenance of academic norms as institutional resources to legitimize entrepreneurial activities. As entrepreneurial scientists work to legitimize new zones of academic scientific practice, there is a need to carefully regulate and scrutinize these activities so that their potential harms do not become obscured.

Indexed as

academic entrepreneurshipconflict of interestentrepreneurial scienceinstitutional work

Identifiers

PMID29937617
PMCPMC6003607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.