Research Institute of New Social Sciences


Cancer and Science Policy Research for Public Interest

Missions

© Boston Cancer Policy Institute, Inc


Our missions are to:

1. Conduct policy-oriented research on mechanisms that will advance paths towards individualizing cancer     therapeutics and diagnostics, especially for metastasized/ rare cancers; and

2. Contribute to improving cancer and science policy outcomes.

Our focus is social science aspects. We conduct unbiased social science research in order to address our missions.


​​​​Background

Basic science research is research performed without thought of practical ends which results in general knowledge and an understanding of nature and its laws (Bush 1945). In going through complex trajectories, benefits of science are diffused in several instrumental forms. For example, a recent study at a stem cell institute developed a method to understand biological pathways in which defects in a certain neuron affect a specific biological/physiological disorder.

Boston Cancer Policy Institute was incorporated in Massachusetts in 2012 with a mission to conduct social science research on pathways towards individualized cancer therapeutics and diagnostics, and to contribute to improving scientific research policy outcomes.  Our focus is on governance, managerial economics, and management theories in new social sciences relevant to phenomena that occur in non-clinical/ pre-clinical science-stage research. Our research programs have continuously evolved to concentrate on managerial and governance aspects of translational science (see, Research Programs). Ultimate goals are to liberate humans from biological and physiological burdens though scholarly social science publications and presentations.


Regarding the examples that basic sciences are ultimately translated to clinical settings, see:  ​​​​


National Academy of Medicine (2018), Cancers: Can we beat the odds?, Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. 

https://nam.edu/event/annual-meeting-2018-scientific-program/https://nam.edu/event/annual-meeting-2018-scientific-program/

Regarding social science approaches to science organizations, see:

Azoulay, P. (2004), Capturing Knowledge within and across Firm Boundaries: Evidence from Clinical Development, The American Economic Review, 94(5).  


Elhauge, E. ed. (2010), The Fragmentation of U.S. Health Care, Oxford University Press
.


Fleming, L. & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal,  25, pp. 909-928.


Mahoney J.T., McGahan A.M., & Pitelis C.N. (2009). The Interdependence of Private and Public Interests, Organization Science, 20(6): 1034-1052.​​


Rangan, S. et a. (2006), Constructive Partnerships: When Alliances between Private Firms and Public Actors can Enable Creative Strategies, Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 735-751.


Short, J. & M. W. Toffel (2010). Making Self-Regulation More Than Merely Symbolic: The Critical Role of the Legal Environment, Administrative Science Quarterly 55.


Tushman M. & Anderson P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments, Administrative Science Quarterly, 3: 439-465.

Vaughn, D. (1990), Autonomy, Independence, and Social Control: NASA and the Space Shuttle Challenger, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35. Cf. NASA ended the Space Shuttle Program successfully in 2011.