Search

Over the past two decades, scholars have developed undone science and inclusive innovation to explain knowledge silos, technology and development for marginalised communities. The undone science framework describes the systematic neglect of scientific issues that impact marginalised groups. The inclusive innovation framework emphasises the need to produce innovations that directly benefit marginalised groups. Despite the similar goals of the frameworks, the undone science and inclusive innovation theoretical communities have not interacted with each other, and as a result, the insights from each framework fail to help other disciplines improve opportunities for marginalised groups. This article compares the frameworks by examining nanotechnology policy and research in South Africa and shows how the frameworks help create better policies for marginalised groups. Because the frameworks emphasise different issues, policymakers should use both frameworks as opposed to over-relying on one of them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This study explores the impact nanomedicine will have on global health, poverty and inequality. Materials & methods: Using a nanotechnology search strategy, the team extracted nanotechnology clinical trials (CT) from the dataset clinicaltrials.gov. The team then combined CT with information about burden of disease data from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation. Finally, the team ran regression analyses to determine whether nanotechnology CT are decreasing inequality compared with non-nanotechnology CT. Results & conclusion: Nanomedicine and non-nanomedicine CT follow similar research patterns. In general, nanomedicine is neither increasing nor decreasing the technological gap between countries in the global North and South. (A) Histogram of non-nanomedicine clinical trials (CT) disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) by the human development index classification. (B) Histogram of nanomedicine CT DALYs by HDI classification nanomedicine CT represent about 0.84% of overall CT. Despite nanomedicine being a modern technology, nanomedicine and non-nanomedicine CT follow similar research patterns. Both nanomedicine and non-nanomedicine treat similar diseases with similar severity based on DALYs. Moreover, both types of CT are sponsored mostly by organizations in very high development countries (based on the human development index). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a growing body of literature that acknowledges the overall trends in publication patterns in the least economically advantaged countries. The pattern shows that there are disparities between the Global North and Global South with regard to indexed publication output. Few studies, however, empirically assess the impact that this systematic disparity has on global scientific knowledge. This paper examines this systematic disparity by (1) analysing the co-authorship patterns of the least economically advantaged countries using bibliometric analysis of the Web of Science ISI database, and (2) applying the public-value failure mapping tool to identify potential failures in the scientific scholarship. Our analysis provides strong evidence of public value failures in global scholarly publication output. The paper contributes to the science policy and public value failure literatures using novel theoretical and methodological approaches to explore issues of equity and inequality in global science. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]