Andrei Mogoutov

Mapping Collaborative Work and Innovation in Biomedicine A Computer-Assisted Analysis of Antibody Reagent Workshops

This paper analyses a major episode in contemporary biomedical research using a new semi-quantitative approach. In the late 1970s, immunologists began producing new kinds of antibodies targeting molecules on the surface of normal and malignant blood cells. These tools quickly transformed biomedical research in immunology and oncology-hematology. Laboratories worldwide produced thousands of these new reagents and reorganized the classification, diagnosis, and prognosis of diseases such as leukemia and the lymphomas. The rapid development of these reagents initially generated considerable confusion. To avoid the impending chaos, researchers in the field, officially supported by the World Health Organization and the International Union of Immunological Societies, launched an ongoing series of distributed workshops that led to the establishment of a nomenclature of antibody reagents and cell surface molecules. The First Workshop (1981-82) mobilized 54 research groups from 14 countries and resulted in the establishment of 15 antibody/molecule categories. By the late 1990s the number of these categories had increased to more than 247 and the number of participating laboratories had risen to more than 500. Sociological analyses of this kind of large-scale collaborative research usually adopt one of two equally unsatisfactory alternatives: either they provide thick descriptions of selected sites, thus missing the figurational dimension of the collaborative network, or they attempt to account for figurational complexity by reducing it to a few quantitative indicators, thus destroying for all practical purposes the very phenomena under investigation. To avoid these two alternatives, we opted for a combination of ethnographic methods (interviews, content analysis) and a computer-based analysis of the more than 6000 antibodies examined during the first six workshops, using Réseau-Lu, a software program specifically designed for the treatment of heterogeneous relational data.

Detection and characterization of translational research in cancer and cardiovascular medicine.

BackgroundScientists and experts in science policy have become increasingly interested in strengthening translational research. Efforts to understand the nature of translational research and monitor policy interventions face an obstacle: how can translational research be defined in order to facilitate analysis of it? We describe methods of scientometric analysis that can do this.MethodsWe downloaded bibliographic and citation data from all articles published in 2009 in the 75 leading journals in cancer and in cardiovascular medicine (roughly 15,000 articles for each field). We calculated citation relationships between journals and between articles and we extracted the most prevalent natural language concepts.ResultsNetwork analysis and mapping revealed polarization between basic and clinical research, but with translational links between these poles. The structure of the translational research in cancer and cardiac medicine is, however, quite different. In the cancer literature the translational interface is composed of different techniques (e.g., gene expression analysis) that are used across the various subspecialties (e.g., specific tumor types) within cancer research and medicine. In the cardiac literature, the clinical problems are more disparate (i.e., from congenital anomalies to coronary artery disease); although no distinctive translational interface links these fields, translational research does occur in certain subdomains, especially in research on atherosclerosis and hypertension.ConclusionsThese techniques can be used to monitor the continuing evolution of translational research in medicine and the impact of interventions designed to enhance it.

A New Clinical Collective for French Cancer Genetics: A Heterogeneous Mapping Analysis

Collaborative forms of work such as extended networks, expert groups, and consortia increasingly structure biomedical activities. They are particularly prominent in the cancer field, where procedures such as multicenter clinical trials have been instrumental in establishing the specialty of oncology, and subfields such as cancer genetics, where bioclinical activities—for example, testing for breast and ovarian cancer (BRCA) genes and follow-up interventions—are predicated on the articulation of a number of tasks performed by new clinical collectives. In this article, we examine the founding and development of a French bioclinical collective—the Groupe Génétique et Cancer (GGC)—that coordinates and structures the activities of most French actors in cancer genetics and operates simultaneously in the clinical, research, and regulatory domains. To examine the group’s structure and dynamics, the article combines information gathered through traditional fieldwork methods with information elicited from a coauthorship and semantic-network analysis of the publications of GGC members from 1969 to 2001.

Biomedical innovation at the laboratory, clinical and commercial interface: A new method for mapping research projects, publications and patents in the field of microarrays

Using the example of microarrays, one of the constitutive technologies of post-genomic biomedicine, this paper introduces a method for analyzing publications, patents and research grants as proxies for “triple-helix interfaces” between university, industry and government activities. Our method creates bridges that allow one to move seamlessly between publication, patent and research project databases that use different fields and formats, and contain different information. These links do not require pre-defined categories in order to search for correspondences between sub-topics or research areas in the three databases. Finally, our results are not restricted to quantitative information but, rather, allow one to carry out qualitative investigations of the content of research activities. Our approach draws on a combination of text-mining and network analysis/mapping software packages.

Information-Seeking Behaviour and Psycho-Social Interactions during the Genetic Testing Process

Objectives: The first aim of this study was to investigate the information-seeking behaviour (ISB) of women attending cancer genetic consultations at which the possibility of BRCA testing is considered. We focused here specifically on ISB apart from the cancer genetic consultation, i.e. on what complementary sources of information about genetic testing were consulted and what factors were involved in this behaviour. The second aim was to study the role of the social network used by the patients to collect various opinions on which to base their decisions about being tested. Methods: A prospective cohort study (2000–2002) was therefore carried out on all women attending a single cancer genetic clinic in France after a BRCA1/2 analysis had been proposed. Closed questionnaires were administered before and after the second cancer genetic consultation. The purpose of this consultation was to confirm the patient’s decision to be tested. Results: Results were analysed in 108 subjects (mean age 47 years, SD 11 years; 74% affected by breast/ovarian cancer). Prior to the 2nd consultation, 35.2% of the women had actively looked for information about BRCA1/2 testing, as compared to 25.0% afterwards. After multivariate adjustment by logistic regression, the pre-consultation ISB was found to be associated with greater satisfaction with the information about the psycho-social consequences of genetic testing [adjusted odds ratio (ORadj) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–1.06] (scale from 0 to 100) and about the certainty of being a gene carrier (ORadj 3.04, 95% CI 1.16–7.98). Those who actively looked for complementary information were also more often accompanied at the consultation by a family member (ORadj 4.82, 95% CI 1.85–12.56). The other variables tested (depression, coping, socio-demographic and medical characteristics) were not significant (p > 0.05). The role of the social network in the decision making process was perceived as being less helpful when the persons consulted tended to have neutral or unfavourable opinions about genetic testing. Conclusions: Few women actively sought complementary information about BRCA genetic testing in addition to the cancer genetic consultation. Those who did so differed from the others in terms of their social network and their satisfaction with the consultation. The cancer geneticist is the key actor in women’s decision making about genetic testing.

What’s in a Pill? On the Informational Enrichment of Anti-Cancer Drugs

The May 28, 2001, cover of Time splashed the following headline: “There Is New Ammunition in the War Against Cancer: These Are the Bullets.”* Color-coded in orange, the words ammunition, cancer, and these pointed to a tiny pile of orange pills identified in a smaller headline: “Revolutionary new pills like GLEEVEC combat cancer by targeting only the diseased cells. Is this the breakthrough we’ve been waiting for?” Two years later, Daniel Vasella, Chairman and CEO of Novartis, the maker of Gleevec, reiterated both the color theme and the war metaphor in the title of his book Magic Cancer Bullet: How a Tiny Orange Pill Is Rewriting Medical History (Vasella, 2003).1

Acknowledgement to the Reviewers

Stephen J.J. Clarke, St. Leonards, Australia Robert L. Coleman, Houston, USA Pier Franco Conte, Modena, Italy Jay Cooper, Brooklyn, USA Daniela Cornelio, Porto Alegre, Brazil Renzo Corvo, Genoa, Italy Long H. Dang, Gainesville, USA Aimery de Gramont, Paris, France Marc Denis, Nantes, France Francesco Di Costanzo, Florence, Italy Phillip J. DiSaia, Orange, USA Tomislav Dragovich, Gilbert, USA Elisabeth L. Dupont, Lakeland, USA Grace K. Dy, Buffalo, USA Florian Eckel, Munich, Germany Patricia Eifel, Houston, USA Bassel F. El-Rayes, Atlanta, USA Matti Eskelinen, Kuopio, Finland Marwan G. Fakih, Ann Arbor, USA Nicola Fazio, Milan, Italy Kate Fife, Cambridge, UK Eric Francois, Nice, France Martin Fruh, St. Gallen, Switzerland Masashi Fujii, Tokyo, Japan Sirish M. Gadgeel, Detroit, USA Vassilis Georgoulias, Heraklion, Greece Domenico Germano, Benevento, Italy Julia Glade Bender, New York, USA Martin Glas, Bonn, Germany Boon-Cher Goh, Singapore, Singapore Erdem Goker, Bornova, Turkey Maria Gonzalez Cao, Barcelona, Spain Christian Gratzke, Munich, Germany Juan-Jose Grau, Barcelona, Spain Tim F. Greten, Bethesda, USA Francesco Grossi, Genova, Italy Victor Gruenwald, Hannover, Germany Pascal Hammel, Clichy, France Toshiyuki Harada, Sapporo, Japan Motohiro Hirao, Osaka, Japan Wolfgang Hohenforst-Schmidt, Coburg, Germany Michael Holick, Boston, USA Masaru Horio, Osaka, Japan Dieter Horsch, Bad Berka, Germany Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa, New York, USA Ana Lucia Abujamra, Porto Alegre, Brazil Banke Agarwal, Saint Louis, USA Jaffer A. Ajani, Houston, USA Masashi Akiyama, Nagoya, Japan Frederic Amant, Leuven, Belgium Peter M. Anderson, Houston, USA Rose Anorlu, Lagos, Nigeria Makoto Arai, Chiba City, Japan Yasuaki Arai, Tokyo, Japan S.A. Arnold, Nashville, USA Ofer Arnon, Beer-Sheva, Israel David August, New Brunswick, USA Hideo Baba, Kumamoto, Japan Alexander Bachmann, Basel, Switzerland Joseph M. Backer, Brookfield, USA Aristotle Bamias, Vrilissia, Athens, Greece Thomas I. Barron, Dublin, Ireland Jean-Pierre Bellocq, Strasbourg, France Jaafar Bennouna, Nantes, France Al B. Benson, Chicago, USA Thierry Berghmans, Brussels, Belgium Jordan D. Berlin, Nashville, USA Stefan Bielack, Stuttgart, Germany Julie Bienertova-Vasku, Brno, Czech Republic Stefan Biesterfeld, Dusseldorf, Germany Narikazu Boku, Sunto-gun, Japan Olivier Braissant, Basel, Switzerland Nguyen Binh Bui, Bordeaux, France Ronald M. Bukowski, Pepper Pike, USA Abdullah Buyukcelik, Kayseri, Turkey Alfredo Carrato, Madrid, Spain Marc Carrier, Ottawa, Canada James Cassidy, Nutley, USA Darko Cerne, Ljubljana, Slovenia Stephen Lam Chan, Hong Kong, China Judy-Anne W. Chapman, Kitchener, Canada Kazuaki Chayama, Hiroshima, Japan Ming-Huang Chen, Taipei, Taiwan Ann-Lii Cheng, Taipei, Taiwan Ya-Wen Cheng, Taichung, Taiwan Marco Chinol, Milan, Italy Julia C. Chisholm, Sutton, UK