A Delphi Technology Foresight Study: Mapping Social Construction of Scientific Evidence on Metagenomics Tests for Water Safety

Access to clean water is a grand challenge in the 21^st century. Water safety testing for pathogens currently depends on surrogate measures such as fecal indicator bacteria (e.g., E. coli). Metagenomics concerns high-throughput, culture-independent, unbiased shotgun sequencing of DNA from environmental samples that might transform water safety by detecting waterborne pathogens directly instead of their surrogates. Yet emerging innovations such as metagenomics are often fiercely contested. Innovations are subject to shaping/construction not only by technology but also social systems/values in which they are embedded, such as experts’ attitudes towards new scientific evidence. We conducted a classic three-round Delphi survey, comprised of 107 questions. A multidisciplinary expert panel (n = 24) representing the continuum of discovery scientists and policymakers evaluated the emergence of metagenomics tests. To the best of our knowledge, we report here the first Delphi foresight study of experts’ attitudes on (1) the top 10 priority evidentiary criteria for adoption of metagenomics tests for water safety, (2) the specific issues critical to governance of metagenomics innovation trajectory where there is consensus or dissensus among experts, (3) the anticipated time lapse from discovery to practice of metagenomics tests, and (4) the role and timing of public engagement in development of metagenomics tests. The ability of a test to distinguish between harmful and benign waterborne organisms, analytical/clinical sensitivity, and reproducibility were the top three evidentiary criteria for adoption of metagenomics. Experts agree that metagenomic testing will provide novel information but there is dissensus on whether metagenomics will replace the current water safety testing methods or impact the public health end points (e.g., reduction in boil water advisories). Interestingly, experts view the publics relevant in a “downstream capacity” for adoption of metagenomics rather than a co-productionist role at the “upstream” scientific design stage of metagenomics tests. In summary, these findings offer strategic foresight to govern metagenomics innovations symmetrically: by identifying areas where acceleration (e.g., consensus areas) and deceleration/reconsideration (e.g., dissensus areas) of the innovation trajectory might be warranted. Additionally, we show how scientific evidence is subject to potential social construction by experts’ value systems and the need for greater upstream public engagement on metagenomics innovations.     

Research funding, partnership and strategy - a UK perspective

In July 2004, the UK government published a 10-year science and innovation framework aimed at providing a more strategic, partnership-based approach to delivering science. With the aim of creating a UK society that is confident about the governance, regulation and use of science and technology, how can we sustain or increase the supply of money for research, how should funding agencies dispense money, and how can we optimize the partnership arrangements for the funding of research?     

Twenty-first century vaccinomics innovation systems: capacity building in the global South and the role of Product Development Partnerships (PDPs)

The availability of sequence information from publicly available complete genomes and data intensive sciences, together with next-generation sequencing technologies offer substantial promise for innovation in vaccinology and global public health in the beginning of the 21st century. This article presents an innovation analysis for the nascent field of vaccinomics by describing one of the major challenges in this endeavor: the need for capacities in "vaccinomics innovation systems" to support the developing countries involved in the creation and testing of new vaccines. In particular, we discuss the need for understanding how institutional frameworks can enhance capacities as intrinsic to a systems approach to health technology development. We focus our attention on the global South, meaning the technically less advanced and developing nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This focus is timely and appropriate because the challenge for innovation in postgenomics medicine is markedly much greater in these regions where basic infrastructures are often underresourced and new or the anticipated institutional relationships can be fragile. Importantly, we examine the role of Product Development Partnerships (PDPs) as a 21st century organizational innovation that contributes to strengthening fragile institutions and capacity building. For vaccinomics innovation systems to stand the test of time in a context of global public health, local communities, knowledge, and cultures need to be collectively taken into account at all stages in programs for vaccinomics-guided vaccine development and delivery in the global South where the public health needs for rational vaccine development are urgent.     

Diagnostic testing for vaccinomics: is the regulatory approval framework adequate? A comparison of Canada, the United States, and Europe

Vaccinomics aims to integrate variability information from multiple levels of the biological hierarchy from genome to proteome to metabolome, and ways in which these biological parts interact with each other and the environment. Vaccinomics holds significant promise as a new public health tool in designing safer and more effective vaccines for both developed and developing countries. Vaccinomics tests that are envisioned to be used in tandem with vaccine-based health interventions could permit an informed forecast of individual and subpopulation variations in immune responses to vaccines, reduce adverse effects, and contribute to a foundation for rational and directed use of vaccines. A proactive, multidisciplinary engagement with vaccinomics is now timely and much needed in order to develop regulations that best ensure the protection of the public and promote the transition of vaccinomics innovations from discovery to real-life public health applications. This article examines and compares the regulatory oversight of vaccinomics tests in Canada, the United States, and Europe. Recent trends in these jurisdictions suggest that regulatory agencies view personalized genomics/omics medicine, such as vaccinomics, as a desirable goal. At the same time, proposals to increase oversight could impact progress in the field and affect the availability of vaccinomics tests in public health practice and the diagnostic test market. The comparative analysis of vaccinomics in three jurisdictions presented in this article highlights both the convergence and divergence of regulatory oversight. In a rapidly emerging field such as vaccinomics that is pivotal for global public health, achieving better harmonization of policies may be an advantageous target, while ensuring that symmetry exists between the goals of public safety and promoting public health innovation. We suggest it is now timely to proactively initiate a constructive dialogue among all stakeholders (publics, policymakers, researchers, private sector, governments) to foster the development of appropriately targeted regulatory policies in this field.     

The breakthrough paradox: How focusing on one form of innovation jeopardizes the advancement of science

Research needs a balance of risk‐taking in “breakthrough projects” and gradual progress. For building a sustainable knowledge base, it is indispensable to provide support for both. Subject Categories: Careers, Economics, Law & Politics, Science Policy & Publishing

Science is about venturing into the unknown to find unexpected insights and establish new knowledge. Increasingly, academic institutions and funding agencies such as the European Research Council (ERC) explicitly encourage and support scientists to foster risky and hopefully ground‐breaking research. Such incentives are important and have been greatly appreciated by the scientific community. However, the success of the ERC has had its downsides, as other actors in the funding ecosystem have adopted the ERC’s focus on “breakthrough science” and respective notions of scientific excellence. We argue that these tendencies are concerning since disruptive breakthrough innovation is not the only form of innovation in research. While continuous, gradual innovation is often taken for granted, it could become endangered in a research and funding ecosystem that places ever higher value on breakthrough science. This is problematic since, paradoxically, breakthrough potential in science builds on gradual innovation. If the value of gradual innovation is not better recognized, the potential for breakthrough innovation may well be stifled.

While continuous, gradual innovation is often taken for granted, it could become endangered in a research and funding ecosystem that places ever higher value on breakthrough science.

Concerns that the hypercompetitive dynamics of the current scientific system may impede rather than spur innovative research have been voiced for many years (Alberts et al, 2014). As performance indicators continue to play a central role for promotions and grants, researchers are under pressure to publish extensively, quickly, and preferably in high‐ranking journals (Burrows, 2012). These dynamics increase the risk of mental health issues among scientists (Jaremka et al, 2020), dis‐incentivise relevant and important work (Benedictus et al, 2016), decrease the quality of scientific papers (Sarewitz, 2016) and induce conservative and short‐term thinking rather than risk‐taking and original thinking required for scientific innovation (Alberts et al, 2014; Fochler et al, 2016). Against this background, strong incentives for fostering innovative and daring research are indispensable.     

Scientific Citizenship and good governance: implications for biotechnology

In the wake of public distrust regarding biotechnology, it has been suggested that the debate should be moved "upstream", whereby the public help to set research priorities. Although many scientists see this as an illogical reaction to a loss of faith in science, we argue that the boundaries between science and its technological applications have become blurred and this produces conflicts of interests that have led to this crisis of trust. Furthermore, this distrust is also a crisis in governance that calls for a new open and democratic approach to scientific research. We propose that the concept of Scientific Citizenship, based on good governance, will help to restore public trust and bridge the gap between science and the society that it serves. Integral to this is the suggestion that the governance of science forms part of the training for scientists.     

试论宏观生态系统科学研究的多学科维度基本问题及其方法体系

人类社会对解决区域及全球重大资源环境问题的迫切需求,快速地推进了自然科学与人文科学的多学科交叉融合,推动了宏观生态系统科学(MES)的兴起及科学理论创新,以及大陆和全球尺度的科学研究方法与技术体系发展。本研究以服务大陆及全球尺度的生态系统状态变化及其资源环境效应研究的多学科知识体系及方法论体系的融合发展为应用目标,系统论述了大陆尺度宏观生态系统科学研究的多学科维度基本问题、逻辑关系及前沿性领域,讨论了构建大陆及全球尺度宏观生态系统科学研究方法学体系的理念和内容,并提出了开展大陆尺度的联网观测-联网实验-数值模拟-知识融合技术系统的设想,期望为中国及全球生态系统观测试验研究网络的理论设计提供参考。     

喀斯特高原石漠化综合治理生态产业技术与示范研究

喀斯特石漠化是威胁我国喀斯特地区生态环境安全、制约区域经济社会发展的重大瓶颈问题。贵州师范大学/国家喀斯特石漠化防治工程技术研究中心石漠化防治研究团队在国家科技计划的资助下,自"九五"以来一直从事石漠化防治的理论与技术创新性研究,并取得一系列成果。此次"十三五"重点研发计划项目(编号:2016YFC0502600)将在石漠化成因、等级划分、治理模式与技术体系等存量研究基础上,围绕生态衍生产业这一主题,增量开展喀斯特高原石漠化综合治理与混农林业复合经营、生态经济集约经营、生态产业规模经营、生物医药、生物能源、山地旅游等基础理论攻关、共性关键技术与技术体系研发,为国家石漠化治理工程和精准扶贫提供科技支撑。     

医学院校培养本科生科研创新能力的认识与思考

科研能力是科学素质的核心,是运用已有的知识和科学方法去探索新的知识和方法,解决新的问题,并在这个过程中形成创新思维的能力。科学技术的创新是医学事业发展的阶梯,科技引领着医学探究生命的本质,通过对各种疾病的根源、机制、发生、后果进行研究,找到预防和治疗疾病的最佳途径,为人类解除疾病带来的痛苦。医学科技创新使医学得到快速发展的同时,为社会培养了高水平、高素质的医学人才。然而,我国的高等教育体制普遍注重教育方法的革新,而忽视学生综合素质和创新能力的培养。特别是医学高等院校,本科生的教育教学工作没有重视与科研相结合。随着高等教育体制改革的不断深入与现代科学技术的迅速发展,本科生的科研创新能力亟待进一步提高。本科生科研能力的培养已经成为当前高等教育改革的一个重要目标。本文针对医学院校本科生培养创新能力的重要性和必要性进行探讨,为医学教育的发展提供参考的资料。     

The intellectual structure and substance of the knowledge utilization field: A longitudinal author co-citation analysis, 1945 to 2004

Background

It has been argued that science and society are in the midst of a far-reaching renegotiation of the social contract between science and society, with society becoming a far more active partner in the creation of knowledge. On the one hand, new forms of knowledge production are emerging, and on the other, both science and society are experiencing a rapid acceleration in new forms of knowledge utilization. Concomitantly since the Second World War, the science underpinning the knowledge utilization field has had exponential growth. Few in-depth examinations of this field exist, and no comprehensive analyses have used bibliometric methods.

Methods

Using bibliometric analysis, specifically first author co-citation analysis, our group undertook a domain analysis of the knowledge utilization field, tracing its historical development between 1945 and 2004. Our purposes were to map the historical development of knowledge utilization as a field, and to identify the changing intellectual structure of its scientific domains. We analyzed more than 5,000 articles using citation data drawn from the Web of Science^®. Search terms were combinations of knowledge, research, evidence, guidelines, ideas, science, innovation, technology, information theory and use, utilization, and uptake.

Results

We provide an overview of the intellectual structure and how it changed over six decades. The field does not become large enough to represent with a co-citation map until the mid-1960s. Our findings demonstrate vigorous growth from the mid-1960s through 2004, as well as the emergence of specialized domains reflecting distinct collectives of intellectual activity and thought. Until the mid-1980s, the major domains were focused on innovation diffusion, technology transfer, and knowledge utilization. Beginning slowly in the mid-1980s and then growing rapidly, a fourth scientific domain, evidence-based medicine, emerged. The field is dominated in all decades by one individual, Everett Rogers, and by one paradigm, innovation diffusion.

Conclusion

We conclude that the received view that social science disciplines are in a state where no accepted set of principles or theories guide research (i.e., that they are pre-paradigmatic) could not be supported for this field. Second, we document the emergence of a new domain within the knowledge utilization field, evidence-based medicine. Third, we conclude that Everett Rogers was the dominant figure in the field and, until the emergence of evidence-based medicine, his representation of the general diffusion model was the dominant paradigm in the field.     

Social behavioural epistemology and the scientific community

The progress of science is influenced substantially by social behaviour of and social interactions within the scientific community. Similar to innovations in primate groups, the social acceptance of an innovation depends not only upon the relevance of the innovation but also on the social dominance and connectedness of the innovator. There are a number of parallels between many well-known phenomena in behavioural evolution and various behavioural traits observed in the scientific community. It would be useful, therefore, to use principles of behavioural evolution as hypotheses to study the social behaviour of the scientific community. I argue in this paper that a systematic study of social behavioural epistemology is likely to boost the progress of science by addressing several prevalent biases and other problems in scientific communication and by facilitating appropriate acceptance/rejection of novel concepts.     

Modeling technology innovation: How science, engineering, and industry methods can combine to generate beneficial socioeconomic impacts

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Government-sponsored science, technology, and innovation (STI) programs support the socioeconomic aspects of public policies, in addition to expanding the knowledge base. For example, beneficial healthcare services and devices are expected to result from investments in research and development (R&D) programs, which assume a causal link to commercial innovation. Such programs are increasingly held accountable for evidence of impact--that is, innovative goods and services resulting from R&D activity. However, the absence of comprehensive models and metrics skews evidence gathering toward bibliometrics about research outputs (published discoveries), with less focus on transfer metrics about development outputs (patented prototypes) and almost none on econometrics related to production outputs (commercial innovations). This disparity is particularly problematic for the expressed intent of such programs, as most measurable socioeconomic benefits result from the last category of outputs. METHODS: This paper proposes a conceptual framework integrating all three knowledge-generating methods into a logic model, useful for planning, obtaining, and measuring the intended beneficial impacts through the implementation of knowledge in practice. Additionally, the integration of the Context-Input-Process-Product (CIPP) model of evaluation proactively builds relevance into STI policies and programs while sustaining rigor. RESULTS: The resulting logic model framework explicitly traces the progress of knowledge from inputs, following it through the three knowledge-generating processes and their respective knowledge outputs (discovery, invention, innovation), as it generates the intended sociobeneficial impacts. It is a hybrid model for generating technology-based innovations, where best practices in new product development merge with a widely accepted knowledgetranslation approach. Given the emphasis on evidence-based practice in the medical and health fields and "bench to bedside" expectations for knowledge transfer, sponsors and grantees alike should find the model useful for planning, implementing, and evaluating innovation processes. CONCLUSIONS: High-cost/high-risk industries like healthcare require the market deployment of technologybased innovations to improve domestic society in a global economy. An appropriate balance of relevance and rigor in research, development, and production is crucial to optimize the return on public investment in such programs. The technology-innovation process needs a comprehensive operational model to effectively allocate public funds and thereby deliberately and systematically accomplish socioeconomic benefits.     

军队医院科研创新存在的问题及对策分析

科学技术是第一生产力,科技的进步是医学不断发展的基础。随着我国医疗卫生体制改革的不断推进,医院科研管理的作 用越来越突出。近年来,军队医院的科研实力和水平面临着巨大的挑战。因此,建立完善的科研机制,实施科研创新战略是推动卫 生事业改革与发展的动力。科研创新是指在立项、论证、研究方法、数据处理等科研活动中所表现出的与前人不同的思维方式和 行为方式。科研活动本身是以现有的现象、认知和习惯为基础的活动,凭借知识和经验预测科研可能达到的科学目的。在不同层 次对人们熟悉的思维方式高度抽象或转换,是科研创新的主要特征。本研究分析现阶段军队医院科研管理存在的问题,探讨科研 创新的必要性,强调医院科研管理应贯彻系统化思想,建立多元化科研模式。     

The United States of America and Scientific Research

To gauge the current commitment to scientific research in the United States of America (US), we compared federal research funding (FRF) with the US gross domestic product (GDP) and industry research spending during the past six decades. In order to address the recent globalization of scientific research, we also focused on four key indicators of research activities: research and development (R&D) funding, total science and engineering doctoral degrees, patents, and scientific publications. We compared these indicators across three major population and economic regions: the US, the European Union (EU) and the People''s Republic of China (China) over the past decade. We discovered a number of interesting trends with direct relevance for science policy. The level of US FRF has varied between 0.2% and 0.6% of the GDP during the last six decades. Since the 1960s, the US FRF contribution has fallen from twice that of industrial research funding to roughly equal. Also, in the last two decades, the portion of the US government R&D spending devoted to research has increased. Although well below the US and the EU in overall funding, the current growth rate for R&D funding in China greatly exceeds that of both. Finally, the EU currently produces more science and engineering doctoral graduates and scientific publications than the US in absolute terms, but not per capita. This study''s aim is to facilitate a serious discussion of key questions by the research community and federal policy makers. In particular, our results raise two questions with respect to: a) the increasing globalization of science: “What role is the US playing now, and what role will it play in the future of international science?”; and b) the ability to produce beneficial innovations for society: “How will the US continue to foster its strengths?”     

Worldwide Topology of the Scientific Subject Profile: A Macro Approach in the Country Level

Background

Models for the production of knowledge and systems of innovation and science are key elements for characterizing a country in view of its scientific thematic profile. With regard to scientific output and publication in journals of international visibility, the countries of the world may be classified into three main groups according to their thematic bias.

Methodology/Principal Findings

This paper aims to classify the countries of the world in several broad groups, described in terms of behavioural models that attempt to sum up the characteristics of their systems of knowledge and innovation. We perceive three clusters in our analysis: 1) the biomedical cluster, 2) the basic science & engineering cluster, and 3) the agricultural cluster. The countries are conceptually associated with the clusters via Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and a Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) map with all the countries is presented.

Conclusions/Significance

As we have seen, insofar as scientific output and publication in journals of international visibility is concerned, the countries of the world may be classified into three main groups according to their thematic profile. These groups can be described in terms of behavioral models that attempt to sum up the characteristics of their systems of knowledge and innovation.     

Variable cultural acquisition costs constrain cumulative cultural evolution

One of the hallmarks of the human species is our capacity for cumulative culture, in which beneficial knowledge and technology is accumulated over successive generations. Yet previous analyses of cumulative cultural change have failed to consider the possibility that as cultural complexity accumulates, it becomes increasingly costly for each new generation to acquire from the previous generation. In principle this may result in an upper limit on the cultural complexity that can be accumulated, at which point accumulated knowledge is so costly and time-consuming to acquire that further innovation is not possible. In this paper I first review existing empirical analyses of the history of science and technology that support the possibility that cultural acquisition costs may constrain cumulative cultural evolution. I then present macroscopic and individual-based models of cumulative cultural evolution that explore the consequences of this assumption of variable cultural acquisition costs, showing that making acquisition costs vary with cultural complexity causes the latter to reach an upper limit above which no further innovation can occur. These models further explore the consequences of different cultural transmission rules (directly biased, indirectly biased and unbiased transmission), population size, and cultural innovations that themselves reduce innovation or acquisition costs.     

Vaccinomics and a new paradigm for the development of preventive vaccines against viral infections

In this article we define vaccinomics as the integration of immunogenetics and immunogenomics with systems biology and immune profiling. Vaccinomics is based on the use of cutting edge, high-dimensional (so called "omics") assays and novel bioinformatics approaches to the development of next-generation vaccines and the expansion of our capabilities in individualized medicine. Vaccinomics will allow us to move beyond the empiric "isolate, inactivate, and inject" approach characterizing past vaccine development efforts, and toward a more detailed molecular and systemic understanding of the carefully choreographed series of biological processes involved in developing viral vaccine-induced "immunity." This enhanced understanding will then be applied to overcome the obstacles to the creation of effective vaccines to protect against pathogens, particularly hypervariable viruses, with the greatest current impact on public health. Here we provide an overview of how vaccinomics will inform vaccine science, the development of new vaccines and/or clinically relevant biomarkers or surrogates of protection, vaccine response heterogeneity, and our understanding of immunosenescence.     

Evaluating how we evaluate

Evaluation of scientific work underlies the process of career advancement in academic science, with publications being a fundamental metric. Many aspects of the evaluation process for grants and promotions are deeply ingrained in institutions and funding agencies and have been altered very little in the past several decades, despite substantial changes that have taken place in the scientific work force, the funding landscape, and the way that science is being conducted. This article examines how scientific productivity is being evaluated, what it is rewarding, where it falls short, and why richer information than a standard curriculum vitae/biosketch might provide a more accurate picture of scientific and educational contributions. The article also explores how the evaluation process exerts a profound influence on many aspects of the scientific enterprise, including the training of new scientists, the way in which grant resources are distributed, the manner in which new knowledge is published, and the culture of science itself.     

Biotechnology education for non-scientists in the USA

The focus and funding for science education in the USA is to channel bright students into PhD programs and science research careers. While this goal is necessary to our country's continued technical innovation, the contributions of non-scientist members of our society to the cycle of economic development through technical innovation are usually overlooked. Public support of scientific research, both financial and philosophical, and the commercialization of useful technologies by business people are critical components of the cycle which depend on increasing science education for non-scientists. For the industry's continued success, it must adopt business strategies that maintain public confidence and defuse countermarketing efforts by several small but influential public opposition groups.The author is with Biotechnology Training Programs, Inc., Bryant College, 1150 Douglas Pike, Smithfield, RI 02917 USA