Patient-led research and displacements of biomedical knowledge production,distribution,and consumption

Abstract

Patient and Public Involvement in Research (PPIR) has become an increasingly prevalent and integral part of biomedical research. In this paper, we focus on patient-led research, taking as our case the construction of new biomedical knowledge regarding the rare disease ADNP syndrome. Specifically, we seek to understand how concepts of experiential knowledge and lay expertise become integral to rather than separate from scientific expertise. In the case of ADNP, the parent-led research “mimes” biomedical knowledge practices in a way that, on the one hand, enhances the legitimacy of science and scientific expertise, and on the other displaces and transforms science by the fact that other knowledge agents (patients, next-of-kin) enter these practices.

Keywords

biomedicine citizen science health activism knowledge production lay-scientist interactions patient and public involvement patient advocacy patient activism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arnstein

(2019) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 85(1): 24–34.

Barnes

Cotterell

(eds) (2011) Critical Perspectives on User Involvement. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Beresford

(2021) Participatory Ideology: From Exclusion to Involvement. Policy Press Scholarship Online, Book. Bristol: Policy Press.

Callon

Rabeharisoa

(2003) Research ‘in the wild’ and the shaping of new social identities. Technology and Society 25(2): 193–204.

Clare

(ed.) (2017) Brilliant Imperfection: Grappling With Cure, 1st edn. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Clarke

Shim

Mamo

, et al. (eds) (2010) Biomedicalization Technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and U.S. biomedicine. e-Duke Books Scholarly Collection. Durham, NC: Duke University Press: 47–87.

Clarke

Friese

Washburn

(eds) (2017) Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Interpretive Turn, 2nd edn. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Conrad

Bandini

Vasquez

(2016) Illness and the Internet: From private to public experience. Health 20(1): 22–32.

Epstein

(1995) The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science Technology & Human Values 20(4): 408–437.

10.

Epstein

(2021) Cultivated co-production: Sexual health, human rights, and the revision of the ICD. Social Studies of Science 51(5): 657–682.

11.

Epstein

(2022) The Quest for Sexual Health: How an Elusive Ideal Has Transformed Science, Politics, and Everyday Life. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

12.

Franzke

Bechmann

Zimmer

, et al. (2020) Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0. Available at: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf

13.

Fujimura

(1996) Crafting Science: A Sociohistory of the Quest for the Genetics of Cancer. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

14.

Gozes

Helsmoortel

Vandeweyer

, et al. (2015) The compassionate side of neuroscience: Tony Sermone’s undiagnosed genetic journey—ADNP mutation. Journal of Molecular Neuroscience 56(4): 751–757.

15.

Gozes

Patterson

Van Dijck

, et al. (2017) The eight and a half year journey of undiagnosed AD: Gene sequencing and funding of advanced genetic testing has led to hope and new beginnings. Frontiers in Endocrinology 8: 107.

16.

Helsmoortel

Vulto-van Silfhout

Coe

, et al. (2014) A SWI/SNF-related autism syndrome caused by de novo mutations in ADNP. Nature Genetics 46(4): 380–384.

17.

Hernberg-Ståhl

Reljanović

(2013) Orphan drugs: Understanding the rare disease market and its dynamics. In: Orphan Drugs. Elsevier Science & Technology.

18.

Hine

(2015) Ethnography for the Internet. London: Taylor & Francis Group.

19.

Holen

Strand

(2022) Patientinvolvering og patientaktivisme i medicinsk forskning. Academic Quarter | Akademisk kvarter 24: 57–70.

20.

Holmes

Murray

Perron

, et al. (2006) Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 4(3): 180–186.

21.

Irwin

(2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1–18.

22.

Irwin

Jensen

Jones

(2013) The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science 43(1): 118–135.

23.

Israel

(ed.) (2013) Methods for Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

24.

Knorr Cetina

(1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

25.

Kolevzon

Levy

Barkley

, et al. (2022) An open-label study evaluating the safety, behavioral, and electrophysiological outcomes of low-dose ketamine in children with ADNP syndrome. Human Genetics and Genomics Advances 3(4): 100138.

26.

Kozinets

(2015) Netnography. In: The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society. London: Sage, pp.1–8.

27.

Latour

Woolgar

(2018) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton Paperbacks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

28.

Lindén

(2021) Moving evidence: Patients’ groups, biomedical research, and affects. Science Technology & Human Values 46(4): 815–838.

29.

Lupton

(2012) Medicine as Culture. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

30.

Lupton

(2021) Doing fieldwork in a pandemic (crowd-sourced document). Crowd-Sourced Document. Available at: SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4228791 (accessed 5 July 2021).

31.

MacKenzie

Muniesa

Siu

(2007) Do Economists Make Markets?: On the Performativity of Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

32.

Markham

Baym

(2008) Internet Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Incorporated.

33.

Mol

(2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

34.

Morris

Chakravorty

(eds) (2010) Can the Subaltern Speak?: Reflections on the History of an Idea. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

35.

Nielsen

Sandvei

Hørder

(2018) The challenges faced by researchers involving patients as partners in research. Ugeskrift for læger 180(45). Available at: https://ugeskriftet.dk/videnskab/forskerens-perspektiver-pa-patientinddragelse-i-forskning

36.

Nowotny

Scott

Gibbons

(2003) Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva 41(3): 179–194.

37.

Panofsky

(2011) Generating sociability to drive science: Patient advocacy organizations and genetics research. Social Studies of Science 41(1): 31–57.

38.

Pols

(2014) Knowing patients: Turning patient knowledge into Science. Science Technology & Human Values 39(1): 73–97.

39.

Rabeharisoa

Moreira

Akrich

(2014a) Evidence-based activism: Patients’, users’ and activists’ groups in knowledge society. BioSocieties 9(2): 111–128.

40.

Rabeharisoa

Callon

(2004) Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research. In: Jasanoff S (ed.) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. Lancaster University: International Library of Sociology: 142–160.

41.

Rabeharisoa

Callon

Filipe

, et al. (2014b) From ‘politics of numbers’ to ‘politics of singularisation’: Patients’ activism and engagement in research on rare diseases in France and Portugal. BioSocieties 9(2): 194–217.

42.

Schroegel

Kolleck

(2019) The many faces of participation in Science: Literature review and proposal for a three-dimensional framework. Science and Technology Studies 32(2): 77–99.

43.

Smith

(ed.) (2021) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, 3rd edn. London: Zed Books.

44.

Steffensen

Matzen

Wadmann

(2022) Patient participation in priority setting: Co-existing participant roles. Social Science & Medicine 294: 114713.

45.

Wynne

(1998) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert–lay knowledge divide. In: Lash S, Szerszynski B and Wynne B (ed.) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. Theory, Culture & Society, bookitem. London: Sage Publications Ltd, pp.44–83.