Search

We argue that, while there is general agreement within the field of proteomics that standards are important to science, the goals of the researchers, depending on their research type (discovery, methods or clinical [see Table 3.1]), determine whether they see laboratory quality standards as a necessity or as a potential barrier to scientific creativity and innovation.

How do postgenomic innovations emerge and become legitimate? Proteomics, a frequently utilized postgenomic technology, provides a valuable case study of the sociotechnical strategies used by an emergent scientific field to establish its legitimacy and assert political power. Chief among these strategies is standard making, an inherently political process that requires examination through a critical social science lens. We report in this study an original case study from interviews with proteomics scientists and observations at conferences of the Human Proteome Organization and Australasian Proteomics Society over a 5-year period (2011-2015). The study contributes new knowledge on how an emerging postgenomic science uses standard-setting practices to politically legitimize a hitherto contested technology. Drawing on legitimacy theory, we show how proteomics scientists and organizations used standards as strategic tools to establish the legitimacy of this postgenomic field and affirm that proteomics can generate verifiable and reproducible results, thereby establishing it as a legitimate scientific field. Notably, legitimacy can be leveraged, at the same time, to maximize political power vis-à-vis other fields of science and as such embodies power relationships. These data collectively inform the broader context, in which postgenomic innovations emerge and legitimize, both technically and politically, through standards making. These findings have relevance for the design of next generation technology policies by demonstrating that standards are not "just" standards or neutral constructs but also tools to leverage political power of and by science and innovation actors, as shown in this case study of the emerging early phase of proteomics from 2011 to 2015.

Proteomics is one of the pivotal next-generation biotechnologies in the current “postgenomics” era. Little is known about the ways in which innovative proteomics science is navigating the complex socio-political space between laboratory and society. It cannot be assumed that the trajectory between proteomics laboratory and society is linear and unidirectional. Concerned about public accountability and hopes for knowledge-based innovations, funding agencies and citizens increasingly expect that emerging science and technologies, such as proteomics, are effectively translated and disseminated as innovation in society. Here, we describe translation strategies promoted in the knowledge translation (KT) and science communication literatures and examine the use of these strategies within the field of proteomics. Drawing on data generated from qualitative interviews with proteomics scientists and ethnographic observation of international proteomics conferences over a 5-year period, we found that proteomics science incorporates a variety of KT strategies to reach knowledge users outside the field. To attain the full benefit of KT, however, proteomics scientists must challenge their own normative assumptions and approaches to innovation dissemination—beyond the current paradigm relying primarily on publication for one's scientific peers within one's field—and embrace the value of broader (interdisciplinary) KT strategies in promoting the uptake of their research. Notably, the Human Proteome Organization (HUPO) is paying increasing attention to a broader range of KT strategies, including targeted dissemination, integrated KT, and public outreach. We suggest that increasing the variety of KT strategies employed by proteomics scientists is timely and would serve well the omics system sciences community.

Proteomics is one of the pivotal next generation biotechnologies in the current “postgenomics” era. Little is known about the ways in which innovative proteomics science is navigating the complex socio-political space between laboratory and society. It cannot be assumed that the trajectory between proteomics lab and society is linear and unidirectional. Concerned about public accountability and hopes for knowledge-based innovations, funding agencies and citizens increasingly expect that emerging science and technologies, such as proteomics, are effectively translated and disseminated as innovation-in-society. Here, we describe translation strategies promoted in the knowledge translation (KT) and science communication literatures and examine the use of these strategies within the field of proteomics. Drawing on data generated from qualitative interviews with proteomics scientists and ethnographic observation of international proteomics conferences over a 5-year period, we found that proteomics science incorporates a variety of KT strategies to reach knowledge users outside the field. To attain the full benefit of KT, however, proteomics scientists must challenge their own normative assumptions and approaches to innovation dissemination – beyond the current paradigm relying primarily on publication for one’s scientific peers within one’s field - and embrace the value of broader (interdisciplinary) KT strategies in promoting the uptake of their research. Notably, the Human Proteome Organization (HUPO) is paying increasing attention to a broader range of KT strategies, including targeted dissemination, integrated KT, and public outreach. We suggest that increasing the variety of KT strategies employed by proteomics scientists is timely and would serve well the omics system sciences community.

Richard Lewontin proposed that the ability of a scientific field to create a narrative for public understanding garners it social relevance. This article applies Lewontin's conceptual framework of the functions of science (manipulatory and explanatory) to compare and explain the current differences in perceived societal relevance of genetics/genomics and proteomics. We provide three examples to illustrate the social relevance and strong cultural narrative of genetics/genomics for which no counterpart exists for proteomics. We argue that the major difference between genetics/genomics and proteomics is that genomics has a strong explanatory function, due to the strong cultural narrative of heredity. Based on qualitative interviews and observations of proteomics conferences, we suggest that the nature of proteins, lack of public understanding, and theoretical complexity exacerbates this difference for proteomics. Lewontin's framework suggests that social scientists may find that omics sciences affect social relations in different ways than past analyses of genetics.

Gaining support for proteomics science requires effective knowledge translation. Knowledge translation (KT) processes turn the evidence generated by scientific discovery into recommendations for clinical applications, funding priorities, and policy/regulatory reforms. Clinicians, regulators, and funders need to understand why emerging proteomics knowledge is relevant, and what are the potential applications of that knowledge. A lack of clarity remains about what KT means.

Background: Outside the mass-spectrometer, proteomics research does not take place in a vacuum. It is affected by policies on funding and research infrastructure. Proteomics research both impacts and is impacted by potential clinical applications. It provides new techniques & clinically relevant findings, but the possibilities for such innovations (and thus the perception of the potential for the field by funders) are also impacted by regulatory practices and the readiness of the health sector to incorporate proteomics-related tools & findings. Key to this process is how knowledge is translated. Methods: We present preliminary results from a multi-year social science project, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, on the processes and motivations for knowledge translation in the health sciences. The proteomics case within this wider study uses qualitative methods to examine the interplay between proteomics science and regulatory and policy makers regarding clinical applications of proteomics. Results: Adopting an interactive format to encourage conference attendees’ feedback, our poster focuses on deficits in effective knowledge translation strategies from the laboratory to policy, clinical, & regulatory arenas. An analysis of the interviews conducted to date suggests five significant choke points: the changing priorities of funding agencies; the complexity of proteomics research; the organisation of proteomics research; the relationship of proteomics to genomics and other omics sciences; and conflict over the appropriate role of standardisation. Conclusion: We suggest that engagement with aspects of knowledge translation, such as those mentioned above, is crucially important for the eventual clinical application ofproteomics science on any meaningful scale.

BAKGRUND:I Vygotskijs pedagogiska teorier är det betydelsen av kulturen och den sociala interaktion som är viktigt för barns utveckling. Forskare har kommit fram till att socialt deltagande är viktigt för barn, då de utvecklar en egen identitet. Barnen kan med hjälp av bildskapandet inspirera och påverka varandra samt skapa olika kamratgrupper. I dessa grupper finns det en dold längtan till att bara få vara med, men även känna trygghet och en gemenskap.SYFTE:Vårt syfte är att undersöka hur förskolebarn i åldern ett till fem använder det fria bildskapandet som ett forum för att skapa social samhörighet.METOD:Vi använder oss av den kvalitativa forskningsmetoden med observationer som forskningsredskap. Våra observationer skedde på två olika förskolor där barnen var i åldrarna två till sex. Vi valde att observera tio olika tillfällen då vi var intresserade av hur barnen skapar social samhörighet.RESULTAT:Vi har sett att barn under det fria bildskapandet utvecklar sociala färdigheter så som att samspela och kommunicerar. I det fria bildskapandet hjälper barn varandra, de skapar grupper och de testar på olika makt positioner. Resultatet visar även på hur barnen använt sig av olika strategier till att få inträde i en pågående aktivitet, men även hur de har uteslutit någon

Standardization is critical to scientists and regulators to ensure the quality and interoperability of research processes, as well as the safety and efficacy of the attendant research products. This is perhaps most evident in the case of “omics science,” which is enabled by a host of diverse high-throughput technologies such as genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics. But standards are of interest to (and shaped by) others far beyond the immediate realm of individual scientists, laboratories, scientific consortia, or governments that develop, apply, and regulate them. Indeed, scientific standards have consequences for the social, ethical, and legal environment in which innovative technologies are regulated, and thereby command the attention of policy makers and citizens. This article argues that standardization of omics science is both technical and social. A critical synthesis of the social science literature indicates that: (1) standardization requires a degree of flexibility to be practical at the level of scientific practice in disparate sites; (2) the manner in which standards are created, and by whom, will impact their perceived legitimacy and therefore their potential to be used; and (3) the process of standardization itself is important to establishing the legitimacy of an area of scientific research.

Dr. Young-Ki Paik directs the Yonsei Proteome Research Center in Seoul, Korea and was elected as the President of the Human Proteome Organization (HUPO) in 2009. In the December 2009 issue of the Current Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine (CPPM), Dr. Paik explains the new field of pharmacoproteomics and the approaching wave of “proteomics diagnostics” in relation to personalized medicine, HUPO’s role in advancing proteomics technology applications, the HUPO Proteomics Standards Initiative, and the future impact of proteomics on medicine, science, and society. Additionally, he comments that (1) there is a need for launching a Gene-Centric Human Proteome Project (GCHPP) through which all representative proteins encoded by the genes can be identified and quantified in a specific cell and tissue and, (2) that the innovation frameworks within the diagnostics industry hitherto borrowed from the genetics age may require reevaluation in the case of proteomics, in order to facilitate the uptake of pharmacoproteomics innovations. He stresses the importance of biological/clinical plausibility driving the evolution of biotechnologies such as proteomics,instead of an isolated singular focus on the technology per se. Dr. Paik earned his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Missouri-Columbia and carried out postdoctoral work at the Gladstone Foundation Laboratories of Cardiovascular Disease, University of California at San Francisco. In 2005, his research team at Yonsei University first identified and characterized the chemical structure of C. elegans dauer pheromone (daumone) which controls the aging process of this nematode. He is interviewed by a multidisciplinary team specializing in knowledge translation, technology regulation, health systems governance, and innovation analysis.