Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33190636›Full record

ArticleLife sciences, society and policy2020

Governance of research consortia: challenges of implementing Responsible Research and Innovation within Europe.

Michael Morrison, Miranda Mourby, Heather Gowans, Sarah Coy, Jane Kaye

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life sciences, society and policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021
    Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael MorrisonCentre for Health, Law, and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. michael.morrison@law.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6870-6673
Miranda MourbyCentre for Health, Law, and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Heather GowansCentre for Health, Law, and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sarah CoyCentre for Health, Law, and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jane KayeCentre for Health, Law, and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

Innovative Medicines Initiative 115317Innovative Medicines Initiative 115439Leverhulme Trust RPG-2017-330Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 096599/2/11/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Responsible Research and Innovation ('RRI') is a cross-cutting priority for scientific research in the European Union and beyond. This paper considers whether the way such research is organised and delivered lends itself to the aims of RRI. We focus particularly on international consortia, which have emerged as a common model to organise large-scale, multi-disciplinary research in contemporary biomedical science. Typically, these consortia operate through fixed-term contracts, and employ governance frameworks consisting of reasonably standard, modular components such as management committees, advisory boards, and data access committees, to co-ordinate the activities of partner institutions and align them with funding agency priorities. These have advantages for organisation and management of the research, but can actively inhibit researchers seeking to implement RRI activities. Conventional consortia governance structures pose specific problems for meaningful public and participant involvement, data sharing, transparency, and 'legacy' planning to deal with societal commitments that persist beyond the duration of the original project. In particular, the 'upstream' negotiation of contractual terms between funders and the institutions employing researchers can undermine the ability for those researchers to subsequently make decisions about data, or participant remuneration, or indeed what happens to consortia outputs after the project is finished, and can inhibit attempts to make project activities and goals responsive to input from ongoing dialogue with various stakeholders. Having explored these challenges, we make some recommendations for alternative consortia governance structures to better support RRI in future.

Indexed as

Clinical GovernanceEthics, ResearchResearch DesignSocial ResponsibilityEuropeHumansConsortiaData sharingGovernancePublic engagementResponsible Research and Innovation (RRI)StakeholdersTransparency

Identifiers

PMID33190636
PMCPMC7667809
OpenAlexW3106194622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.