Posts Tagged ‘social networks’
Extract of a recent good review:
“Social networking is beginning to make an impact on the drug discovery process. A convergence of different commercial and publicly accessible chemical informatics, databases and social networking tools is positioned to change the way that scientific and medical collaborations are initiated, maintained and expanded, particularly in the realm of complex, rare and orphan diseases . A community-based platform that combines traditional drug discovery informatics with Web 2.0 platforms and strong privacy is believed to be the key to facilitate richer and instantaneous collaborations involving health care professionals with the same interests. This way data from differential diagnosis, experiments and new drugs being tested are archived, mined and then selectively shared between colleagues in the Internet with standardized formats.
New drugs are subject to exhaustive crucial scrutiny, yet there has never been a corresponding effort to collect reports of drugs delivering unexpected benefits. If open innovation can lead to the creation of the world’s most complete encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, that same approach could be used to capture the exceptional untapped value associated with existing drugs, and to power the discovery of important new medicines. In the Facebook and Google era, there might be a better, more efficient and systematic way of harnessing this communal wisdom for drug discovery. (…)
In light of these initiatives, large pharmaceutical organizations are in the process of transitioning from a fully integrated pharmaceutical company to fully integrated pharmaceutical networks with a social networking component connecting members with similar interests as well as project tracking and planning.
Academic and private sectors need user-friendly and efficient tools for information exchange and to share data points from patients. Pharmaceutical companies have interdepartmental databases of patients and samples for research, clinical trials and for patient follow-up, but there is no communication between these databases, even within databases housed in the same company [Social Media in Science and Medicine: http://www.laboratory-journal.com/science/information-technology-it/social-media-science-and-medicine%5D. To date, there are no social networks in the market that offers useful solutions for science and medicine in the clinical genetics field [Social Media in Science and Medicine: http://www.laboratory-journal.com/science/information-technology-it/social-media-science-and-medicine%5D. It is paramount for physicians to have reliable tools that will facilitate diagnosis and identify better treatments for diseases. (…)
As in the medical field, there is an increasing need for solutions in the scientific field for networking and communication between professionals with common interests. ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Mendeley are already providing some tools to achieve this goal but more specialized open-source media tools are needed in science and medicine. Despite existing competition in science, the best way for science to have a major impact in society and change the way we approach diseases is through collaboration and networking. In the end, the outcome will be the development of better drugs and faster translation of basic science to the patient’s bedside”.
Fabricio F. Costa. Social networks, web-based tools and diseases: implications for biomedical research. Drug Discovery Today, Available online 23 October 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2012.10.006
Nothing new, but a good paper:
“Science, medicine and healthcare have always been collaborative but in recent years this has intensified. The web both encourages powerful networks and makes them easier to explore – whether networks of co-authorship between key opinion leaders, citations between scientific papers or interactions between patients on specialised social networks.
The web has given us the tools to connect and collaborate. For good or ill, influence nowadays is not always defined by knowledge, experience and authority, but also by how connected and engaged you are.
The importance of networks in healthcare and medicine will only increase. (…)
So what can pharma do to ensure it thrives in this environment?
First of all, it must understand the networks. Listening and profiling exercises can identify where conversations are taking place, what content resonates and how it is being shared.Crucially, there is a need to map the relationships between actors in the network, not just the actors themselves. (…)
But listening is not enough. Pharma must engage, embedding itself in networks and communicating honestly, ethically and as an equal. A strong presence will ensure that a brand’s voice is heard, as will checking that all the touchpoints discovered during the research phase are addressed. (…)
This new, highly networked era is a huge opportunity for pharma – an opportunity to get closer to customers and become a bigger part of their lives. But it’s much more than that. It’s also the best feedback loop we could ever wish for, giving us a chance to understand the impact of our actions on those who matter most – healthcare practitioners and their patients.”
Lamb, Andrew. Rethinking influence in a networked world. PMLive, Published on 2nd of March 2012.
By Mark Drapeau, in the Huffington Post, about Research Gate, and the social networks for Scientists in general.
“A “Facebook for Scientists”? It may sound silly, or redundant, but it’s becoming more of a reality. Maybe. (…)
ResearchGate has already convinced roughly 1.4 million researchers to become members and begin sharing. On it, you can search your email accounts to find people you know, read PDF documents of research papers, and chat with others about why a particular lab technique isn’t working for you. Reportedly, the service is appealing to young researchers in their 20’s.
None of this is particularly original. There have long been scientists on Facebook and LinkedIn and connecting via other websites like Scienceblogs. There have long been stores of PDF documents online, and searchable databases of them (particularly if you work at a university). There have long been job boards where you might find your next gig. And there have long been discussion boards or similar places where you could ask questions about lab techniques or which conference to attend this year. (…)
But the ecosystem seems even worse, because many others have tried and failed, or tried and not necessarily caught on, or tried and are much more like “science publication management software” than a social network where people openly share. They have names like Academia.edu, Laboratree, Mendeley, myExperiment, and Epernicus. (…)
The scientific community fundamentally operates under the notion that a peer-reviewed research paper published in a traditional research journal is the discrete end-product of a series of experiments aimed at testing one or more hypotheses. Anyone who has actually been a laboratory scientist knows that this is a complete farse; I need not even elaborate on why. Nevertheless, publishing such papers is the primary yardstick by which you are judged as a grad student, postdoctoral fellow, and professor, even at the more senior levels. On top of that, the same exact research published in a “good” journal vs. an “okay” journal is somehow emotionally different to the reader. The only reason why is perceived prestige of some publications vs. others regardless of actual long-term value of the research. (…)
These are two-fold. One, a culture of secrecy whereby the more “secret” information (vs. community / shared information) is perceived as more valuable. Two, a culture of discrete publications (vs. living knowledge and data sets) whereby people are primarily judged by traditional processes dating back, in the case of science, a couple hundred years. And while there are some well-intentioned, smart people discussing Science 2.0 and what it would take for that to happen, it is in my opinion extremely unlikely that the entire system of how academic science operates in the U.S. will change within the venture capital-backed funding cycle of one of the science social networking companies like ResearchGate. (…)
Drapeau, Mark. Social Networks for Scientists Won’t Work. The Huffington Post, 17th of February 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-drapeau/social-networks-for-scientists_b_1282692.html
Or at least one social-technology tool in 2011, has shown a McKinsey study in November 2011.
- Companies are improving their mastery of social technologies, using them to enhance operations and exploit new market opportunities…
- Executives say that their companies are using them to increase their agility and to manage organizational complexity. Many believe that if organizational barriers to the use of social technologies diminish, they could form the core of entirely new business processes that may radically improve performance.
- Organizations use social tools for internal purposes but have also increased among those that use them for communicating with customers or for integration with partners and suppliers
- The most used tool is Social network (50%), followed by blogs (41%), vidéo (38%) and microblogging which stay marginal (23%)
- Adoption by Industries : HighTech, Telecom, 86% ; … ; Pharma, 74% ; … ; Energy: 62%
Again with ScoopIt!, an excellent curation page by MyScienceWork…
According a recent study, mentioned by iHealth Beat:
Nearly 66% of surveyed practicing physicians never have received an online social network “friend” request from a patient or a patient’s family member
68% of survey respondents did not think it was ethically acceptable to interact with patients
48.7% of respondents were pessimistic about the ability of online social networks to improve doctor-patient communication
79% said they had concerns about maintaining patient confidentialitySource: Journal of General Internal Medicine: “The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey”