Lost in translation
Why fundamental findings are not translated to medical contexts, and how to optimize the translational activity in the neuroscience field
N. Germain (TU Delft - Applied Sciences)
C Wehrmann – Mentor (TU Delft - Groep Science & Engineering Education)
Éva Kalmar – Graduation committee member (TU Delft - Creative Processes)
J. van Keulen – Graduation committee member (TU Delft - Groep Science & Engineering Education)
A. Badura – Graduation committee member (Erasmus MC)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
Summary
Neurological disorders are the leading cause of disabilities and second leading cause of death worldwide. Important discoveries therefor have the potential to save or aid large patient populations. However, valorising this research in a way that leads to this societal impact is not without its obstacles. A lack of resources, a lack of awareness from researchers and institutions, and differences between fundamental and clinical researchers are often mentioned in the literature as bottlenecks limiting the translational activity.
For this study, semi structured interviews were held with researchers from varying backgrounds in either fundamental, translational or clinical neuroscience. Transcripts were coded using iterative coding strategies and analysed for common themes. Based on this analysis, it seems expertise regarding effective translational research is not widely available, collaborators are difficult to find, and resources are sometimes only available for those with interdisciplinary collaborators. There seems to be an interest among researchers in a professional body focussing on translation embedded within the research institute. This body would have a role in helping find collaborators, increasing crosstalk and connections between clinical and fundamental researchers, as well as serving as a source of expertise regarding best translational practises.
These organisations, often called intermediaries, are characterised through three main roles: the knowledge broker, the network manager, and the system transitioner. Based on these three roles and available literature, different intermediary organisations are discussed through a novel framework that builds upon existing models from different fields. Two case studies are used to validate the framework and further explore trade offs and strategic choices made during the founding of the organisation or transitioning to a new strategy. Interviews with experts involved in these organisations were held and used to compare these two organisations based on the proposed framework. Based on their relationship to bridging and bonding social capital, autonomy, and knowledge aggregation, a first proposal is made regarding the best approach for this translational intermediary.
This intermediary tasked with optimizing the translational activity in the neuroscience field should be tasked with collecting and maintaining knowledge, be a centralised organisations with strong ties with different researchers in the network, and function autonomously from any existing institution.