Mapping knowledge translation and innovation processes in Cancer Drug Development: the case of liposomal doxorubicin

📝 Abstract

We explored how the knowledge translation and innovation processes are structured when they result in innovations, as in the case of liposomal doxorubicin research. In order to map the processes, a literature network analysis was made through Cytoscape and semantic analysis was performed by GOPubmed which is based in the controlled vocabularies MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) and GO (Gene Ontology). We found clusters related to different stages of the technological development (invention, innovation and imitation) and the knowledge translation process (preclinical, translational and clinical research), and we were able to map the historic emergence of Doxil as a paradigmatic nanodrug. This research could be a powerful methodological tool for decision-making and innovation management in drug delivery research.

💡 Analysis

We explored how the knowledge translation and innovation processes are structured when they result in innovations, as in the case of liposomal doxorubicin research. In order to map the processes, a literature network analysis was made through Cytoscape and semantic analysis was performed by GOPubmed which is based in the controlled vocabularies MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) and GO (Gene Ontology). We found clusters related to different stages of the technological development (invention, innovation and imitation) and the knowledge translation process (preclinical, translational and clinical research), and we were able to map the historic emergence of Doxil as a paradigmatic nanodrug. This research could be a powerful methodological tool for decision-making and innovation management in drug delivery research.

📄 Content

RESEARCH Open Access Mapping knowledge translation and innovation processes in Cancer Drug Development: the case of liposomal doxorubicin David Fajardo-Ortiz1, Luis Duran2, Laura Moreno2, Hector Ochoa3 and Victor M Castaño4,5* Abstract We explored how the knowledge translation and innovation processes are structured when theyresult in innovations, as in the case of liposomal doxorubicin research. In order to map the processes, a literature network analysis was made through Cytoscape and semantic analysis was performed by GOPubmed which is based in the controlled vocabularies MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) and GO (Gene Ontology). We found clusters related to different stages of the technological development (invention, innovation and imitation) and the knowledge translation process (preclinical, translational and clinical research), and we were able to map the historic emergence of Doxil as a paradigmatic nanodrug. This research could be a powerful methodological tool for decision-making and innovation management in drug delivery research. Keywords: Drug development, Innovation change, Liposomes, Neoplasm, Translational medicine Introduction Technological Innovation (TI) -the processes leading to the emergence of new technologies in the market- and Knowledge Translation (KT), −the conversion of research results into better practices- notoriously converge, more obvious than in any other scientific discipline, in bio- medical sciences. The epistemological fundamental idea behind both concepts is that Science must serve, prim- ordially, to enhance the life conditions of Humankind. Ever since the Enlightenment, modern history of human society cannot be understood without that powerful dream -Science helping to build a better world-, which has been repeated over and over again by scientists and philosophers, from Thomas Jefferson to Bertrand Russell [1,2]. Regardless the specific epistemological approach to Science, the transition from research results to the deliv- ery of solutions to solve the needs of human society is the common base of innovation and knowledge translation. However, both processes are based on two very different tautologies: KT is founded on a Medical and Health sciences, with the moral obligation to provide useful advice to build a better general health status [3], whereas TI aims to produce temporal monopolies in a competitive market context [4]. KT, therefore, is an effort to articulate basic research with clinical practice and health social goals and, to that effect, there is a continuing complaint about science and practices being, in practice, poorly communicated, i.e., that “we are lost in translation” [5]. In this regard, the United States government [6], as well as other countries [7], have made important, and costly, efforts to institutionalize strategies in order to accelerate KT. Additionally, models [8] and experiences [9] on how to close the gap between research and practices can be found more and more frequently in the specialized literature. Accordingly, for the purposes of this article, TI process is understood as the entire process of technological change. TI process is composed by three phases: invention, innovation and imitation. Invention is the stage in which the technological base is created. Innovation starts when the final inventions are published and ends when the product is approved and delivered to the market. Imita- tion is the research and development of the international community following the success of the innovation leader [10]. In turn, KT is divided in three steps: first, when basic

• Correspondence: meneses@unam.mx 4Centro de Fisica Aplicada y Tecnologia Avanzada, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Queretaro, Mexico 5CIATEQ, Queretaro, Mexico Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © 2014 Fajardo-Ortiz et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Fajardo-Ortiz et al. Journal of Translational Medicine 2014, 12:227 http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/12/1/227 research is translated into clinical knowledge; second, when the latter is translated to clinical practice and finally, when these results in public health outcome [11]. It has been pointed out by various authors that there is a disproportion between the number of papers published and the amount of nanodrugs readily available in the market [10]. Indeed, there exist thousands of papers as compared to just 247 confirmed commercial products in a preclinical, clinical or commercial stage [12]. The question then arises

This content is AI-processed based on ArXiv data.