基因数据市场:学术/工业研究伙伴关系的公共利益的制度治理。

Kayte Spector-Bagdady
{"title":"基因数据市场:学术/工业研究伙伴关系的公共利益的制度治理。","authors":"Kayte Spector-Bagdady","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2025.2554770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Trump Administration's cuts to research funding and opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion is destabilizing academic research. These attacks coincide with pointed government support for the private sector. But the conceptualization of academic versus private sector health research has historically been a false binary. Drawing on mixed methods research, this paper examines the genomic data market as an example of advantages and challenges of commercializing academic expertise. It also highlights the structural downsides of researchers individually navigating industry partnerships. While academia is currently being put in the unenviable position of being more likely to need the private sector to conduct research, with less federal funding to offer in exchange, structural pain points have existed for decades. This is an opportunity for academia to harness its powers of expertise and collective action to develop institutional policy to ensure academic/industry research is beneficial to the public health and diverse patient communities.","PeriodicalId":501008,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Bioethics","volume":"80 1","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Genetic Data Market: Institutional Governance of Academic/Industry Research Partnerships for the Public Good.\",\"authors\":\"Kayte Spector-Bagdady\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15265161.2025.2554770\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Trump Administration's cuts to research funding and opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion is destabilizing academic research. These attacks coincide with pointed government support for the private sector. But the conceptualization of academic versus private sector health research has historically been a false binary. Drawing on mixed methods research, this paper examines the genomic data market as an example of advantages and challenges of commercializing academic expertise. It also highlights the structural downsides of researchers individually navigating industry partnerships. While academia is currently being put in the unenviable position of being more likely to need the private sector to conduct research, with less federal funding to offer in exchange, structural pain points have existed for decades. This is an opportunity for academia to harness its powers of expertise and collective action to develop institutional policy to ensure academic/industry research is beneficial to the public health and diverse patient communities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501008,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American Journal of Bioethics\",\"volume\":\"80 1\",\"pages\":\"1-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American Journal of Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2025.2554770\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2025.2554770","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

特朗普政府削减研究经费,反对多样性、公平和包容性,正在破坏学术研究的稳定。这些攻击与政府对私营部门的明确支持不谋而合。但是,学术界与私营部门卫生研究的概念历来是错误的二元对立。利用混合方法研究,本文以基因组数据市场为例,考察了学术专长商业化的优势和挑战。它还突出了研究人员单独驾驭行业合作关系的结构性缺点。虽然学术界目前处于一种不令人羡慕的境地:更有可能需要私营部门来进行研究,而作为交换,联邦政府提供的资金更少,但结构性痛点已经存在了几十年。这是学术界利用其专业知识和集体行动的力量制定制度政策的机会,以确保学术/行业研究有利于公共卫生和不同的患者群体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Genetic Data Market: Institutional Governance of Academic/Industry Research Partnerships for the Public Good.
The Trump Administration's cuts to research funding and opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion is destabilizing academic research. These attacks coincide with pointed government support for the private sector. But the conceptualization of academic versus private sector health research has historically been a false binary. Drawing on mixed methods research, this paper examines the genomic data market as an example of advantages and challenges of commercializing academic expertise. It also highlights the structural downsides of researchers individually navigating industry partnerships. While academia is currently being put in the unenviable position of being more likely to need the private sector to conduct research, with less federal funding to offer in exchange, structural pain points have existed for decades. This is an opportunity for academia to harness its powers of expertise and collective action to develop institutional policy to ensure academic/industry research is beneficial to the public health and diverse patient communities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信