pp 1–17 | Cite as

Financializing epistemic norms in contemporary biomedical innovation

  • Mark D. Robinson
S.I.: Medical Knowledge


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.


Translational medicine Translational science Clinical translation Translational research Pharmaceutical companies Industry Finance Funding Science policy Social epistemology 


  1. Addison, C. (2017). Bench, bedside, boardroom: Negotiating translational gene therapy. New Genetics and Society, 36(1), 22–42. Scholar
  2. Birch, K. (2016). Rethinking value in the bio-economy finance, assetization, and the management of value. Science, Technology and Human Values, 0162243916661633,
  3. Bole, K. (2011). UCSF receives $112 million to help translate science into cures. University of California-San Francisco, July 18. Accessed February 22, 2014.
  4. Boniolo, G., & Nathan, M. J. (Eds.). (2016). Philosophy of molecular medicine: Foundational issues in research and practice. Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bornstein, S. R., & Licinio, J. (2011). Improving the efficacy of translational medicine by optimally integrating health care, academia and industry. Nature Medicine, 17(12), 1567–1569. Scholar
  6. Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Specialized science. Infection and Immunity, 82(4), 1355–1360. Scholar
  7. Chubb, I. (2012). Can Australia afford to fund translational research? Keynote Address presented at the Biomelbourne Network, Australia. Retrieved from
  8. Clarke, B., Gillies, D., Illari, P., Russo, F., & Williamson, J. (2014). Mechanisms and the evidence hierarchy. Topoi, 33(2), 339–360. Scholar
  9. Cutler, N., & Riordan, H. (2011). The death of CNS drug development: Overstatement or Omen? Journal for Clinical Studies, 3(6), 12–15.Google Scholar
  10. Dai, K.-R., Yang, F., & Gan, Y.-K. (2013). Development of translational medicine in China: Foam or feast? Journal of Orthopaedic Translation, 1(1), 6–10. Scholar
  11. Douglas, M. (1973). Rules and meanings: The anthropology of everyday knowledge. Penguin (Non-Classics).Google Scholar
  12. Duff, M. (2012). Research council sacrifices basic research on the altar of commerce. The Guardian. Retrieved from
  13. Duyk, G. (2003). Attrition and translation. Science, 302(5645), 603–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etzkowitz, H. (2007). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science. Routledge: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Goldman, A., & Whitcomb, D. (Eds.). (2011). Social epistemology: Essential readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Holman, B. (2015). The fundamental antagonism: Science and commerce in medical epistemology. Dissertation, University of California Irvine.Google Scholar
  17. Holman, B. (2017). Philosophers on drugs. Synthese.
  18. Holman, B., & Bruner, J. (2015). The problem of intransigently biased agents. Philosophy of Science, 82, 956–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howick, J. H. (2011). The philosophy of evidence-based medicine (1st ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: BMJ Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keating, P., & Cambrosio, A. (2006). Biomedical platforms: Realigning the normal and the pathological in late-twentieth century medicine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Keating, P., & Cambrosio, A. (2012). Cancer on trial: Oncology as a new style of practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The University-industrial complex. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kleinman, D. L., & Vallas, S. P. (2001). Science, capitalism, and the rise of the “Knowledge Worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society, 30(4), 451–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lave, R., Mirowski, P., & Randalls, S. (2010). Introduction: STS and neoliberal science. Social Studies of Science, 40(5), 659–675. Scholar
  25. Lowen, R. S. (1997). Creating the cold war university: The transformation of stanford (1st ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Maienschein, J., Sunderland, M., Ankeny, R. A., & Robert, J. S. (2008). The ethos and ethics of translational research. The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB, 8(3), 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marincola, F. M. (2007). In support of descriptive studies; relevance to translational research. Journal of Translational Medicine, 5, 21. Scholar
  28. Marincola, F. M. (2011). The trouble with translational medicine. Journal of Internal Medicine, 270(2), 123–127. Scholar
  29. Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-mart. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. (2013). “NIH to Fund Collaborations with Industry to Identify New Uses for Existing Compounds.” US Department of Health and Human Services, June 18. Accessed September 30, 2013.
  31. NIH Roadmap Working Group. (2004). NIH Roadmap: Reengineering the Clinical Research Enterprise Regional Translational Research Centers Interim Report.Google Scholar
  32. Pellegrino, E. D. (2008). The philosophy of medicine reborn: A Pellegrino reader. (H. T. E. Jr & F. Jotterand, Eds.) (1st edition). Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  33. Petryna, A. (2009). When experiments travel: Clinical trials and the global search for human subjects. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ptofenhauer, S., & Jasanoff, S. (2017). Traveling imaginaries: The “practice turn” in innovation policy and the global circulation of innovation models. In D. Tyfield, R. Lave, S. Randalls, & C. Thorpe (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the political economy of science. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Robinson, M. (2017). Translational medicine: Science, risk and an emergent political economy of biomedical innovation. In D. Tyfield, R. Lave, S. Randalls, & C. Thorpe (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the political economy of science. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Rossi, J. (2017). Synthetic biology: A political economy of molecular futures. In D. Tyfield, R. Lave, S. Randalls, & C. Thorpe (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the political economy of science. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Russo, F., & Williamson, J. (2007). Interpreting causality in the health sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 21(2), 157–170. Scholar
  38. Russo, F., & Williamson, J. (2011). Epistemic causality and evidence-based medicine. History and philosophy of the life sciences, pp. 563–581.Google Scholar
  39. Saltelli, A., & Funtowicz, S. (2017). What is science’s crisis really about? Futures,. Scholar
  40. Solomon, M. (2015). Making medical knowledge. OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
  41. Sugarman, J., & McKenna, W. G. (2003). Ethical Hurdles for translational research. Radiation Research, 160(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tyfield, D. (2012). A cultural political economy of research and innovation in an age of crisis. Minerva, 50(2), 149–167. Scholar
  43. Vignola-Gagné, E., Rantanen, E., Lehner, D., & Hüsing, B. (2013). Translational research policies: Disruptions and continuities in biomedical innovation systems in Austria, Finland and Germany. Journal of Community Genetics, 4(2), 189–201. Scholar
  44. Wehling, M. (2008). Translational medicine: Science or wishful thinking? Journal of Translational Medicine., 31(6)Google Scholar
  45. Wilkinson, M., & Notman, N. (2010). Big cuts hit big pharma R&D \({\vert }\) News. Chemistry World. Retrieved from
  46. Zerhouni, E. A. (2005). Translational and clinical science: Time for a new vision. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(15), 1621–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Center for Health Policy and Ethics Interdisciplinary Studies, Graduate SchoolCreighton UniversityOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations