Knowledge Translation: Moving Proteomics Science to Innovation in Society

OMICS A Journal of Integrative Biology

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 352-361

  Holmes, Christina ^a   McDonald, Fiona ^a,b   Jones, Mavis ^a   Graham, Janice ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; PROTEOMICS; PUBLICATION; SCIENCE; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SCIENTIST; PROCEDURES; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH;

PROTEOME;

HUMANS; PROTEOME; PROTEOMICS; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84975519575     PISSN: 15362310     EISSN: 15578100     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/omi.2016.0032     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Basalla G. (1967). The spread of western science. Science 167, 611-622.
2. Besley JC. (2015). What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement? Sci Public Policy 42, 201-214.
3. Borchers C, Kast J, Foster LJ, et al. (2014). The human proteome organization chromosome 6 consortium: Integrating chromosome-centric and biology/disease driven strategies. J Proteomics 100, 60-67.
4. Bowen SJ, and Graham ID. (2013). From knowledge translation to engaged scholarship: Promoting research relevance and utilization. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 94, S3-S8.
5. Canadian Institute of Health Research. (2014). More about knowledge translation at CIHR. http://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39033 .htm. Accessed March 13, 2015.
6. Curran JA, Grimshaw J, Hayden JA, and Campbell B. (2011). Knowledge translation research: The science of moving research into policy and practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof 31, 174-180.
7. Dobbins M, Hanna S, Ciliska D, et al. (2009a). A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies. Implement Sci 4, 1-16.
8. Dobbins M, Robeson P, Ciliska D, et al. (2009b). A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implement Sci 4, 1-9.
9. Dobbins M, Rosenbaum P, Plews N, Law M, and Fysh A. (2007). Information transfer: What do decision makers want and need from researchers? Implement Sci 2, 1-12.
10. Einsiedel E. (2006). The challenges of translating genomic knowledge. Clin Genet 70, 433-437.
11. Emerson RM, Fretz RI, and Shaw LL. (2011). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes, 2nd ed. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
12. Estabrooks CA, Norton P, Birdsell JM, Newton MS, Adewale AJ, and Thornley R. (2008). Knowledge translation and research careers: Mode I and mode II activity among health researchers. Res Policy 37, 1066-1078.
13. Foucault M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press.
14. Gambardella A. (1995). Science and Innovation: The US Pharmaceutical Industry During the 1980s. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
15. Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, et al. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof 26, 13-24.
16. Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Lavis J, Hill S, and Squires J. (2012). Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 7, 50.
17. Habermas J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.
18. Hagstrom W. (1965). The Scientific Community. London: Basic Books.
19. Hammersley M, and Atkinson P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
20. Heath D. (1998). Bodies, antibodies and modest interventions. In: Cyborgs and Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies. Downey G, and Dumit J, eds. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press, 67-82.
21. Hess D. (2007). Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry: Activism, Innovation, and the Environment in an Era of Globalization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
22. Holmes C, Carlson S, McDonald F, Jones M and Graham J. (2016). Exploring the post-genomic world: Differing explanatory and manipulatory functions of post-genomic sciences. New Genet Soc 35, 49-68.
23. Huberman M. (1987). Steps toward an integrated model of research utilization. Knowledge Creation Diffusion Utilization 8, 586-611.
24. Keown P. (2011). Chromosomes 6 as a Canadian HPP. Presented at the Canadian Human Proteome Meeting, Toronto, ON, Canada, February 22, 2011. http://www.cnpn.ca/projects/ chpp/pdfs/present/Keown-Foster-Chromosome6.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2016.
25. Kvale S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
26. Lopez JL, and Lunau J. (2012). ELSIfication in Canada: Legal modes of reasoning. Sci Cult 21:77-99.
27. Mayo D, and Hollander R. (1991). Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management. New York: Oxford University Press.
28. Merton R. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29. Metcalfe J. (2013). Science engagement in Australia is a 20th century toy. Online: TheConversation.com. http://theconversation .com/science-engagement-in-australia-is-a-20th-century-toy- 12456. Accessed November 13, 2015.
30. National Centre for the Dissemination of Disability Research. (2005). What is knowledge translation? Focus, Technical Brief Number 10. http://ktdrr.org/ktlibrary/articles-pubs/ ncddrwork/focus/focus10/Focus10.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2015
31. Nonaka I, and Takeuchi H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32. Özdemir V, Dove E, and Srivastava S. (2015). Social innovation with proteomics technology. Nature India August (Special Issue: Proteomics Research in India) 16-17.
33. Pleblani M, and Marincola FM. (2006). Research translation: A new frontier for clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 44, 1303-1312.
34. Poliakoff E, and Webb TL. (2007). What factors predict scientists' intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Sci Commun 29, 242-263.
35. Popper K. (1962). The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume 2. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
36. Sakshat Virtual Labs. (2016). Virtual Proteomics Laboratory. http://iitb.vlab.co.in/?sub=41&brch=118. Accessed August 7, 2016.
37. Sclove RE. (1989). From alchemy to atomic war: Frederick Soddy's "Technology Assessment" of atomic energy, 1900-1915. Sci Technol Human Values 14, 163-194.
38. Shaxson L, Bielak A, Ahmed I, et al. (2012). Expanding our understanding of K.∗ (KT, KE, KTT, KMb, KB, KM, etc.): A concept paper emerging from the K.∗ conference held in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, April 2012. United Nations University-Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), Hamilton, ON, Canada. http://www.inweh .unu.edu. Accessed May 12, 2013.
39. Steuten LM. (2016) Early stage health technology assessment for precision biomarkers in oral health and systems medicine. OMICS 20, 30-35.
40. Stilgoe J, Lock SJ, and Wilsdon J. (2014). Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Underst Sci 33, 4-15.
41. Srivastava S, Özdemir V, Ray S, et al. (2013). Online education: E-learning booster in developing world. Nature 501, 316.
42. Tetroe J, Graham ID, Foy R, et al. (2008). Health research funding agencies' support and promotion of knowledge translation: An international study. Milbank Q 86, 125-155.
43. Varner J. (2014). Scientific outreach: Toward effective public engagement with biological science. BioScience 64, 333-340.
44. Wilsdon J, Wynne B, and Stilgoe J. (2005). The Public Value of Science. London: Demos. http://www.demos.co.uk/files/ publicvalueofscience.pdf. Accessed December 4, 2016.
45. Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW, and Nazareth I. (2010). Disseminating research findings: What should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implement Sci 5, 1-16.