Talk:Translational research

Untitled
If someone thinks this aricle is not neutral, please say why on this talk page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.167.146 (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I find that the contents of article is taken over by genomics, even if Translational research is more general term referring to systems feedback. There are mental and social systems impacting health and disease as well. 213.243.181.194 (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Translational research is definitely more broad than genomics and much/most translational research does not involve genomics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.139.220.114 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The first part of this article...
IMHO, fails to deliver a brief and clear definition of "what TR is". For a layperson, the article then drags on and the question is only partially answered. Anybody who knows their TR care to improve this? elpincha (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no brief and clear definition of "what TR is," at least not one that truly distinguishes it from what we used to call "research." This particular article is an exercise in hand waving and wishful thinking; more of an opinion piece than an authoritative entry. Josehill (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Point taken. Anybody????? elpincha (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Handwaving is the mot juste. I came here to find out what TR is, and am none the wiser (I am a medical translator). As to the categorical, unqualified statement 'medicine is not a science', that's nonsense. Medicine contains vast amounts of (applied, if you insist) science. Certainly, clinical trials are conducted according to scientific principles in order to obtain scientific information.
 * In sum, the article is biased, uninformative and waffling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.238.101 (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article is not informative. I am watching it to see if someone comes along who is interested in collaborating to improve it, but do not have the means to improve it all alone. If anyone wants to work with me then come to the talk page and propose a plan of action and I will help.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I too would say that the article is neither to the point nor as concise as I wished it to be. Also, yes, the statement "Medicine is not a science" needs some qualification. The "practice of clinical medicine" can be viewed as not being a science (in the sense that its goal is not generation of new, generally applicable and reproducible knowledge, but rather provision of care to a patient), but this needs to be stated more clearly. However, I fail to see why such a distinction would help in this particular context in the first place. [User:dhk] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.88.178.76 (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about becoming a Wikipedia editor and fixing this article? Could I help you get started?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason why one would want to know is that there is a whole journal called Science Translational Medicine published by AAAS http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/7/278/278ra33. I found an article in it and was wondering whether it was a bullshit journal or not? The description of the journal http://stm.sciencemag.org/site/misc/about.xhtml waffles also. Wikiskimmer (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge with other "translational" articles?
Looking at this article and translational medicine and translational science for the first time, it seems like these 3 are similar enough to be considered for merging under one or another of the terms. Of possible interest in this regard is a current proposal to merge applied research into applied science.--A12n (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed:merge as soon as possible. There is a need for focus: one Go-To article that clarifies any differences and reinforces the general concept. Protozoon (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree it is not clear but I do not agree with the merger as there is a general concept of translational (theory to practice) research and translational research publications and modes of publication. The current text however is mostly gobbly gook (apologies to who wrote it): Translational research – often used interchangeably with translational medicine or translational science – is a highly interdisciplinary field, the primary goal of which is to coalesce assets of various natures within the individual pillars in order to improve the global healthcare system significantly. The goal of translational medicine is to combine disciplines, resources, expertise, and techniques within these pillars to promote enhancements in prevention, diagnosis, and therapies.[1] The term translational refers to the "translation" of basic scientific findings in a laboratory setting into potential treatments for disease.

Here is a suggestion for alternative text Translational Research is research which has, as its prime focus, linking theory and research findings to applications in practice. The concept of translational research applies in all disciplines but is most developed at the current time in the medical sector. Emerging practice from medicine and education is helping to refine methods and forms of publication see for example the MESH system - Mapping Educational Specialist knowHow www.meshguides.org and the parallel and better developed National Institute for Clinical and Health Excellence knowledge pathways wwww.pathways.nice.org.uk.

Not all researchers are able to translate their research into applications in practice because they are not experienced practitioners in the field in which their research may apply. Take for example, research on water purification. The findings my be relevant to policy makers and to teachers at all levels in all schools and specifically science teachers. For the pure research to be usable in classroom teaching or by policy makers, a 'translation' process is needed addressing the questions: What does this mean in practice? How strong is the evidence for application x in context y. Emerging practice is that this can be most efficiently done by bringing research users with the researchers together, face to face or virtually, to work on the translation and the application. Marilyn Leask (Prof) I can add sources if colleagues like the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marilyn Leask (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I came to this article because of the "European Journal of Translational Myology". After reading the article, I still could not understand what "translational research" was. Seemed like ordinary "research" to me: moving ideas along the path from basic science to applications. Your description is much better. After reading your description, I'd say translational research is dedicated to streamlining the flow of ideas from basic/fundamental science to applied research to field applications by bringing all the participants together. Is this correct? If it is, I think it should be put in the first paragraph of the article, as right now the article is completely inscrutable. --46.242.12.2 (talk) 08:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Examples needed
This article would really benefit from a new section called "Examples" listing some representations as bullet points. Not full sentences like the rest of the article (which is a little wishy washy in parts), but a few words per line which crisply communicate specifics. I would do so myself but I don't know this field well enough. Thanks! Mebden (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)