can clinical epidemiology strengthen integrative research?
An analysis of the contributions of “omics technologies” to human health and clinical care needs to address the relationships between internal issues (e.g., methodological shortcomings in “omics” research and clinical biology) and external influences. Among the latter, monetization of intellectual property (IP) appears to be a powerful force favoring methodological limitations and an excessive reductionism and fragmentation of biological knowledge. Following economic successes in other industries (semiconductors, software, and “dot-coms”), monetization of IP tries to market small fragments of big research “puzzles”; the strategy seems partly responsible for the biotech industry having underperformed methodological, clinical, and economic expectations. Hence, internal, purely scientific reasons can hardly explain failures in the application of long-proven principles of clinical epidemiology to the discovery and validation of diagnostic and prognostic tests. Nevertheless, this paper also
Related Questions
- The very close organisational and physical links that will exist between the clinical and research activities of the centre will also assist in attracting the best possible researchers. How will Lifehouse work with other research organisations?
- What insights has plasmapheresis provided to suggest relevant clinical or basic research strategies?
- can clinical epidemiology strengthen integrative research?
