Financializing epistemic norms in contemporary biomedical innovation

The rapid, recent emergence of new medical knowledge models has engendered a dizzying number of new medical initiatives, programs and approaches. Fields such as evidence-based medicine and translational medicine all promise a renewed relationship between knowledge and medicine. The question for phil...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Synthese (Dordrecht) 2019-11, Vol.196 (11), p.4391-4407
Main Author: Robinson, Mark D.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biomedical research
Education
Epistemology
Evidence-based medicine
Innovations
Logic
Medicine
Metaphysics
Norms
Philosophy
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Science
S.I.: Medical Knowledge
Social philosophy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c346t-f27992f1a24ee9138b677719a8062a9897fa247ea92b150d4e9b91907f939fa73
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c346t-f27992f1a24ee9138b677719a8062a9897fa247ea92b150d4e9b91907f939fa73
container_end_page 4407
container_issue 11
container_start_page 4391
container_title Synthese (Dordrecht)
container_volume 196
creator Robinson, Mark D.
description The rapid, recent emergence of new medical knowledge models has engendered a dizzying number of new medical initiatives, programs and approaches. Fields such as evidence-based medicine and translational medicine all promise a renewed relationship between knowledge and medicine. The question for philosophy and other fields has been whether these new models actually achieve their promises to bring about better kinds of medical knowledge—a question that compels scholars to analyze each model's epistemic claims. Yet, these analyses may miss critical components that explain how these models actually work and function. Using the case of translational medicine, this paper suggests that analyses which treat these models as a primarily epistemic interventions miss the way that new approaches are increasingly shaped by specific financial and commercial agendas. Ultimately, social epistemological analyses that are attentive to market forces are required to make sense of emerging bioscientific research models, which are increasingly tethered to or a manifestation of increasingly financialized models of science research and innovation.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11229-018-1704-0
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1999867112</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>45220033</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>45220033</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c346t-f27992f1a24ee9138b677719a8062a9897fa247ea92b150d4e9b91907f939fa73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFOwzAMhiMEEmPwANwqIY4FO2mb-ogGA6RJXOAcpV06ZVqTknRI8PRkKoedOFmy_8-2PsauEe4QQN5HRM4pB6xzlFDkcMJmWEqRA1XFKZsBCMplXcpzdhHjFgCxKmDGHpfWaddavbM_1m0yM9g4mt62mfOhj5l1Wetd6gw-6PCdNdb3Zm1bvUsj57_0aL27ZGed3kVz9Vfn7GP59L54yVdvz6-Lh1XeiqIa845LIt6h5oUxhKJuKiklkq6h4ppqkl0aSaOJN1jCujDUEBLIjgR1Woo5u5n2DsF_7k0c1dbvg0snFRJRXclkIaVwSrXBxxhMp4Zg-_S8QlAHWWqSpZIsdZClIDF8YmLKuo0JR5v_gW4naBtHH46vcJGAouQ8aRfiFycod40</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1999867112</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Financializing epistemic norms in contemporary biomedical innovation</title><source>Art, Design and Architecture Collection</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection【Remote access available】</source><source>Springer Link</source><source>ProQuest One Literature</source><creator>Robinson, Mark D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Mark D.</creatorcontrib><description>The rapid, recent emergence of new medical knowledge models has engendered a dizzying number of new medical initiatives, programs and approaches. Fields such as evidence-based medicine and translational medicine all promise a renewed relationship between knowledge and medicine. The question for philosophy and other fields has been whether these new models actually achieve their promises to bring about better kinds of medical knowledge—a question that compels scholars to analyze each model's epistemic claims. Yet, these analyses may miss critical components that explain how these models actually work and function. Using the case of translational medicine, this paper suggests that analyses which treat these models as a primarily epistemic interventions miss the way that new approaches are increasingly shaped by specific financial and commercial agendas. Ultimately, social epistemological analyses that are attentive to market forces are required to make sense of emerging bioscientific research models, which are increasingly tethered to or a manifestation of increasingly financialized models of science research and innovation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0039-7857</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11229-018-1704-0</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer</publisher><subject>Biomedical research ; Education ; Epistemology ; Evidence-based medicine ; Innovations ; Logic ; Medicine ; Metaphysics ; Norms ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of Language ; Philosophy of Science ; S.I.: Medical Knowledge ; Social philosophy</subject><ispartof>Synthese (Dordrecht), 2019-11, Vol.196 (11), p.4391-4407</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2019</rights><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2018</rights><rights>Synthese is a copyright of Springer, (2018). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c346t-f27992f1a24ee9138b677719a8062a9897fa247ea92b150d4e9b91907f939fa73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c346t-f27992f1a24ee9138b677719a8062a9897fa247ea92b150d4e9b91907f939fa73</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8619-4576</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1999867112/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1999867112?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,12888,27957,27958,34810,44235,58593,58826,63018,63019,63034,74553,75085</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Mark D.</creatorcontrib><title>Financializing epistemic norms in contemporary biomedical innovation</title><title>Synthese (Dordrecht)</title><addtitle>Synthese</addtitle><description>The rapid, recent emergence of new medical knowledge models has engendered a dizzying number of new medical initiatives, programs and approaches. Fields such as evidence-based medicine and translational medicine all promise a renewed relationship between knowledge and medicine. The question for philosophy and other fields has been whether these new models actually achieve their promises to bring about better kinds of medical knowledge—a question that compels scholars to analyze each model's epistemic claims. Yet, these analyses may miss critical components that explain how these models actually work and function. Using the case of translational medicine, this paper suggests that analyses which treat these models as a primarily epistemic interventions miss the way that new approaches are increasingly shaped by specific financial and commercial agendas. Ultimately, social epistemological analyses that are attentive to market forces are required to make sense of emerging bioscientific research models, which are increasingly tethered to or a manifestation of increasingly financialized models of science research and innovation.</description><subject>Biomedical research</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Logic</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Metaphysics</subject><subject>Norms</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of Language</subject><subject>Philosophy of Science</subject><subject>S.I.: Medical Knowledge</subject><subject>Social philosophy</subject><issn>0039-7857</issn><issn>1573-0964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AIMQZ</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMFOwzAMhiMEEmPwANwqIY4FO2mb-ogGA6RJXOAcpV06ZVqTknRI8PRkKoedOFmy_8-2PsauEe4QQN5HRM4pB6xzlFDkcMJmWEqRA1XFKZsBCMplXcpzdhHjFgCxKmDGHpfWaddavbM_1m0yM9g4mt62mfOhj5l1Wetd6gw-6PCdNdb3Zm1bvUsj57_0aL27ZGed3kVz9Vfn7GP59L54yVdvz6-Lh1XeiqIa845LIt6h5oUxhKJuKiklkq6h4ppqkl0aSaOJN1jCujDUEBLIjgR1Woo5u5n2DsF_7k0c1dbvg0snFRJRXclkIaVwSrXBxxhMp4Zg-_S8QlAHWWqSpZIsdZClIDF8YmLKuo0JR5v_gW4naBtHH46vcJGAouQ8aRfiFycod40</recordid><startdate>20191101</startdate><enddate>20191101</enddate><creator>Robinson, Mark D.</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GB0</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8619-4576</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191101</creationdate><title>Financializing epistemic norms in contemporary biomedical innovation</title><author>Robinson, Mark D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c346t-f27992f1a24ee9138b677719a8062a9897fa247ea92b150d4e9b91907f939fa73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Biomedical research</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Logic</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Metaphysics</topic><topic>Norms</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of Language</topic><topic>Philosophy of Science</topic><topic>S.I.: Medical Knowledge</topic><topic>Social philosophy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Robinson, Mark D.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>DELNET Social Sciences &amp; Humanities Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Art, Design and Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Arts &amp; Humanities Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Synthese (Dordrecht)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Robinson, Mark D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Financializing epistemic norms in contemporary biomedical innovation</atitle><jtitle>Synthese (Dordrecht)</jtitle><stitle>Synthese</stitle><date>2019-11-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>196</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>4391</spage><epage>4407</epage><pages>4391-4407</pages><issn>0039-7857</issn><eissn>1573-0964</eissn><abstract>The rapid, recent emergence of new medical knowledge models has engendered a dizzying number of new medical initiatives, programs and approaches. Fields such as evidence-based medicine and translational medicine all promise a renewed relationship between knowledge and medicine. The question for philosophy and other fields has been whether these new models actually achieve their promises to bring about better kinds of medical knowledge—a question that compels scholars to analyze each model's epistemic claims. Yet, these analyses may miss critical components that explain how these models actually work and function. Using the case of translational medicine, this paper suggests that analyses which treat these models as a primarily epistemic interventions miss the way that new approaches are increasingly shaped by specific financial and commercial agendas. Ultimately, social epistemological analyses that are attentive to market forces are required to make sense of emerging bioscientific research models, which are increasingly tethered to or a manifestation of increasingly financialized models of science research and innovation.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer</pub><doi>10.1007/s11229-018-1704-0</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8619-4576</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0039-7857
ispartof Synthese (Dordrecht), 2019-11, Vol.196 (11), p.4391-4407
issn 0039-7857
1573-0964
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1999867112
source Art, Design and Architecture Collection; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection【Remote access available】; Springer Link; ProQuest One Literature
subjects Biomedical research
Education
Epistemology
Evidence-based medicine
Innovations
Logic
Medicine
Metaphysics
Norms
Philosophy
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Science
S.I.: Medical Knowledge
Social philosophy
title Financializing epistemic norms in contemporary biomedical innovation
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-21T04%3A37%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Financializing%20epistemic%20norms%20in%20contemporary%20biomedical%20innovation&rft.jtitle=Synthese%20(Dordrecht)&rft.au=Robinson,%20Mark%20D.&rft.date=2019-11-01&rft.volume=196&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=4391&rft.epage=4407&rft.pages=4391-4407&rft.issn=0039-7857&rft.eissn=1573-0964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11229-018-1704-0&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E45220033%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c346t-f27992f1a24ee9138b677719a8062a9897fa247ea92b150d4e9b91907f939fa73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1999867112&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=45220033&rfr_iscdi=true