Knowledge Translation Moving Proteomics Science to Innovation in Society

Overcoming KT Hurdles

In the current research environment, there is an increasing recognition by funders and by scientists of the need for enhanced KT and dissemination of research outcomes beyond the traditional forms (Estabrooks et al., 2008; Tetroe et al., 2008). Yet, key barriers to academics engaging more effectively and broadly in KT include: the effort it takes to sustain collaborative relationships; the products of less traditional forms of KT are not always highly valued for funding, hiring, tenure, and promotion; and scientists lack the communication skills to present their findings in clear, accessible language (Dobbins et al., 2007; Estabrooks et al., 2008).

These are serious barriers that can be overcome with a clear KT goal and knowledge user input. Graham et al. (2006) suggest that knowledge producers increase the use of their research by highlighting: what should be disseminated, to whom, by whom, how, and with what effect? Active engagement with these kinds of questions will increase the engagement of others with proteomics and make it easier for researchers to more clearly articulate their place in broader public debates about the public value of science, in which issues of public engagement are crucial (Stilgoe et al., 2014).

Although some research funders are requiring the integration of ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of science and technology (Lopez and Lunau, 2012) research into scientific research under integrated projects, it is important to recognize that this is not synonymous with increasing KT in the way it is understood in the KT literature. Increasing social, scientific, legal, or ethical perspectives on technological innovation may improve the fit of technological innovation to society, the KT literature itself is focused on a direct relationship with the knowledge users themselves.

KT in Proteomics Research

In respect of proteomics science, proteomics scientists by default actively engage in traditional KT. We found considerable interest among some scientists in employing broader KT strategies, although the level of this interest varied considerably. However, researchers also expressed concern that the time required for outreach, integrated, or targeted KT reduced the time available for traditional KT and the publications that are required for grants and career advancement. There was increasing recognition of the need for targeted KT, with proteomics scientists claiming that the field has matured sufficiently to contribute to functional genomics, systems biology, and clinical research.

In this context then, the proteomics scientists we interviewed and those who discussed these issues in conferences identified knowledge users as scientists in closely related fields and students. Methods included improving educational opportunities for students, publication in the journals of related fields, and attendance of conferences in those fields, as well as organizational initiatives to create and present knowledge in a way in which knowledge could be more easily used by genomics and those omics sciences that used genomics as a touchstone.

Integrated KT is comparatively rare in the proteomics community and mostly encompasses the concept of working in multidisciplinary teams, which does not necessarily constitute integration in its purest sense. Truly integrated projects remain rare because they require a level of commitment to collaboration that involves significant energy and effort, not to mention anticipatory thinking so as to incorporate, when possible, the knowledge users in the “upstream” research agenda and design process. Nevertheless, we did find examples of this kind of KT. In some research, clinicians were identified as knowledge users and they were brought into the research at the design stage to make it more pertinent. We note that concerns over the time and effort involved in these kinds of KT are an important factor determining their ease of implementation and success.

In contrast to the effort of integrated KT projects, public outreach KT can require as little as 140 characters on Twitter. Our qualitative research suggests a higher level of engagement by proteomics scientists with public outreach KT strategies. This could be attributed to forms of interaction, such as social media, that involve minimal commitment of time and resources. It might also be attributed to scientists perceiving obligations inherent in accepting public funding for science. There may also be an increasing recognition that when funders choose to fund (or not) proteomics, they are also making funding choices about some other field of science. These decisions are informed by a general understanding (or not) of the science, how it operates, and its potential. In general, the examples we observed with proteomics scientists and outreach KT focused on information transfer, rather than fostering an ongoing dialogue with the public, so there is an opportunity for proteomics to expand into forms of outreach that truly engage lay audiences.

In considering outreach KT strategies for proteomics, we also caution that approaches that have been successful for genomics in the past should be evaluated carefully for their use with proteomics, given that our review of the literature on genomics and society shows that genomics is associated with deeply held cultural explanations, which, we argue, often do not carry over to proteomics (Holmes et al., 2016). Indeed, in terms of the social scientific study of the new omics sciences, we argue that social science must expect that the social implications of other omics sciences may play out very differently than they did for genomics (Holmes et al., 2016).

It is also worthwhile to comment on the extent to which proteomics scientists might engage with social science and humanities research concerning emerging technology knowledge domains such as proteomics. A recent analysis on the concept of anticipatory or early technology assessment by Steuten (2016) provides useful insights in this regard, from the works by later Nobel Prize winner Frederick Soddy—who in the year 1915 forecasted the social consequences of atomic energy (i.e., an atomic bomb) long before atomic energy became a mainstream idea. Accordingly, Steuten (2016) observes that: Importantly, to achieve his insights, Soddy supplemented scientific knowledge and logical argument with so-called “nonscientific” sources including contemporary politics, social context, emotion, and imagination. This example provides strong evidence for the informative value of multiple sources of knowledge in technology assessment, most eloquently described by Sclove, 1989: “After all, many scientists shared Soddy's scientific knowledge, but none became as committed as he to investigate the social implications of that knowledge, much less reached conclusions of comparable power” (Sclove, 1989; Steuten, 2016).

It is evident, however, from our social science data that the value of layered and targeted dissemination strategies promoted in the KT literature is recognized in the strategies of proteomics scientists. To embrace such strategies, proteomics scientists must still fight the entrenched conventions of scientific practice, perhaps similar to the early works by Soddy noted earlier.

The requirements of traditional KT within academia are firmly linked to tenure, promotion, and research funding, whereas forms of targeted KT, integrated KT, and outreach KT have been less valued. In this respect, proteomics scientists might need to challenge their own normative approaches to dissemination (i.e., their ranking of what forms of dissemination are and are not important) when serving on grant funding committees and evaluating colleagues. This is in addition to making their own decisions about which knowledge users they wish to reach with their research, and the best methods to do this. In light of this, further exploration of the balance between structural/organizational factors (e.g., entrenched academic conventions and the HUPO's efforts to support targeted engagement) and individual factors (e.g., a particular scientist's affinity for social media) in the pursuit of different KT strategies may be valuable.

As a final note, we suggest that although there are many benefits to a field in expanding the kinds of KT in which they engage, there is also the possibility that too much pressure on forms such as integrated KT or the needs of knowledge users can lead to suggestions that scientific independence may be compromised (Heath, 1998). Indeed, some scientists may place higher value on curiosity-driven research than that driven by knowledge users. An individual scientist might need to consider at which stage these different values are competing, where they overlap, and how and when each should be prioritized.

The above article was first published in the June 2016 issue of OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology with the title “Knowledge Translation: Moving Proteomics Science to Innovation in Society”. The views expressed here are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers, or their affiliates. No endorsement of any entity or technology is implied.