将健康重新想象为生物医学创新的“流动效应”:研究政策作为国家行动主义的场所。

IF 3.2 2区 哲学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Minerva Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-01-18 DOI:10.1007/s11024-021-09456-3
Georgia Miller, Declan Kuch, Matthew Kearnes
{"title":"将健康重新想象为生物医学创新的“流动效应”:研究政策作为国家行动主义的场所。","authors":"Georgia Miller,&nbsp;Declan Kuch,&nbsp;Matthew Kearnes","doi":"10.1007/s11024-021-09456-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As health care systems have been recast as innovation assets, commercial aims are increasingly prominent within states' health and medical research policies. Despite this, the reformulation of notions of social and of scientific value and of long-standing relations between science and the state that is occurring in research policies remains comparatively unexamined. Addressing this lacuna, this article investigates the articulation of 'actually existing neoliberalism' in research policy by examining a major Australian research policy and funding instrument, the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). We identify the MRFF and allied initiatives as a site of state activism: reallocating resources from primary and preventive health care to commercially-oriented biomedical research; privileging commercial objectives in research and casting health as a \"flow on effect\"; reorganising the publicly funded production of health and medical knowledge; and arrogating for political actors a newly prominent role in research grant assessment and funding allocation. We conclude that rather than the state's assumption of a more activist role in medical research and innovation straightforwardly serving a 'public good', it is a driver of neoliberalisation that erodes commitments to redistributive justice in health care and significantly reconfigures science-state relations in research policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8765493/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reimagining Health as a 'Flow on Effect' of Biomedical Innovation: Research Policy as a Site of State Activism.\",\"authors\":\"Georgia Miller,&nbsp;Declan Kuch,&nbsp;Matthew Kearnes\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11024-021-09456-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As health care systems have been recast as innovation assets, commercial aims are increasingly prominent within states' health and medical research policies. Despite this, the reformulation of notions of social and of scientific value and of long-standing relations between science and the state that is occurring in research policies remains comparatively unexamined. Addressing this lacuna, this article investigates the articulation of 'actually existing neoliberalism' in research policy by examining a major Australian research policy and funding instrument, the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). We identify the MRFF and allied initiatives as a site of state activism: reallocating resources from primary and preventive health care to commercially-oriented biomedical research; privileging commercial objectives in research and casting health as a \\\"flow on effect\\\"; reorganising the publicly funded production of health and medical knowledge; and arrogating for political actors a newly prominent role in research grant assessment and funding allocation. We conclude that rather than the state's assumption of a more activist role in medical research and innovation straightforwardly serving a 'public good', it is a driver of neoliberalisation that erodes commitments to redistributive justice in health care and significantly reconfigures science-state relations in research policy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8765493/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-021-09456-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-021-09456-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着卫生保健系统被重新塑造为创新资产,商业目标在各州的卫生和医学研究政策中日益突出。尽管如此,在研究政策中出现的社会和科学价值以及科学与国家之间长期关系的概念的重新制定,相对来说仍然没有得到检验。为了解决这一空白,本文通过研究澳大利亚的一项主要研究政策和资助工具——医学研究未来基金(MRFF),调查了“实际存在的新自由主义”在研究政策中的表达。我们将MRFF和相关倡议确定为国家行动主义的场所:将资源从初级和预防性卫生保健重新分配到以商业为导向的生物医学研究;在研究中优先考虑商业目标,并将健康视为“有效流动”;重组公共资助的卫生和医学知识生产;并在研究经费评估和资金分配方面赋予政治行为者新的突出作用。我们的结论是,国家并没有在医学研究和创新中扮演更积极的角色,而是直接服务于“公共利益”,它是新自由主义化的驱动力,侵蚀了对医疗保健再分配正义的承诺,并在研究政策中显著地重新配置了科学与国家的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reimagining Health as a 'Flow on Effect' of Biomedical Innovation: Research Policy as a Site of State Activism.

As health care systems have been recast as innovation assets, commercial aims are increasingly prominent within states' health and medical research policies. Despite this, the reformulation of notions of social and of scientific value and of long-standing relations between science and the state that is occurring in research policies remains comparatively unexamined. Addressing this lacuna, this article investigates the articulation of 'actually existing neoliberalism' in research policy by examining a major Australian research policy and funding instrument, the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). We identify the MRFF and allied initiatives as a site of state activism: reallocating resources from primary and preventive health care to commercially-oriented biomedical research; privileging commercial objectives in research and casting health as a "flow on effect"; reorganising the publicly funded production of health and medical knowledge; and arrogating for political actors a newly prominent role in research grant assessment and funding allocation. We conclude that rather than the state's assumption of a more activist role in medical research and innovation straightforwardly serving a 'public good', it is a driver of neoliberalisation that erodes commitments to redistributive justice in health care and significantly reconfigures science-state relations in research policy.

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
Minerva
Minerva Multiple-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Minerva is devoted to the study of ideas, traditions, cultures and institutions in science, higher education and research. It is concerned no less with history than with present practice, and with the local as well as the global. It speaks to the scholar, the teacher, the policy-maker and the administrator. It features articles, essay reviews and ''special'' issues on themes of topical importance. It represents no single school of thought, but welcomes diversity, within the rules of rational discourse. Its contributions are peer-reviewed. Its audience is world-wide.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信