Consistently, every year, more than half of the submissions to the Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine flag the ‘‘potential’’ of the discussed innovation for translation into a bedside solution. Yet, even beyond the confines of JMSM, very few groups advance their research beyond a small animal model biocompatibility validation. As a journal and as a research community, we need to look more closely at our capacity to translate discoveries into viable clinical solutions. Where are the barriers and how can they be eliminated? The Editors would like to encourage an open discussion and assessment of current biomedical research practice. To ensure uniformity, translational research is understood as defined by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), i.e., ‘‘the movement of discoveries in basic research to application at the clinical level’’.
Recently I had an opportunity to discuss the state of translational research with Professor James M. Anderson, MD, PhD [Case Western Reserve University, USA], and Professor Yasuhiko Tabata, MD, PhD, D. Pharm. [University of Kyoto, Japan]. Some of their thoughts are incorporated below, and suggest that whether translational research is trickling or reshaping the biomedical research landscape depends on who you ask. The primary barriers to bedside translation and adoption of biomedical research are often recognized to be: (1) operation within ‘‘silos’’ [no/limited communication/exchange]; (2) research abandoned/stagnant before the biocompatibility validation is completed; (3) operation within a product life-cycle vacuum [no early consideration towards critical product design parameters for reaching the bedside]. Are we operating under a silo syndrome?
The answer seems to be ‘‘Yes!’’. While competition is a healthy practice, restricted or no communication as a result of competition [to publish or attract funding] will impact innovation. We tend to come together under one project goal only when we are forced/enticed by specific funding mechanisms. We challenge our readers to take a hard look at their track record: How many times have you actually pursued a collaboration in the absence of consortium project funding? The traditional scenario plays out as: we come together ? we put together the consortium ? the project (unfortunately) does not get funded ? we say ‘‘goodbye’’ only to return to our own silo. This is the behavior of someone in ‘‘survival mode.’’
As scientists, we need funding to survive, hence we try anything and everything, more often than not using a shotgun approach, hoping to find the ‘‘right’’ formula. The danger of the silo effect is highlighted by award-winning writer Gillian Tett’s most recent release ‘‘The Silo Effect’’ where she demonstrates the anti-innovation effect brought about by the of absence of collaboration and communication. Do we have a short attention span, changing research focus gears more often than we should? Again, the answer seems to be ‘‘Yes!’’. How many of us think beyond the 24 well plate biocompatibility validation? How many of us verify the actual potential of the innovation to reach bedside with a colleague clinician beyond a 15 min phone call or a five sentence e-mail? Preliminary findings are often discarded/abandoned to re-direct the focus towards the post-doc who just brought in some funding tied into a specific research goal.
