↓ Skip to main content

What is Proof of Concept Research and how does it Generate Epistemic and Ethical Categories for Future Scientific Practice?

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
Title
What is Proof of Concept Research and how does it Generate Epistemic and Ethical Categories for Future Scientific Practice?
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11948-015-9654-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Elizabeth Kendig

Abstract

"Proof of concept" is a phrase frequently used in descriptions of research sought in program announcements, in experimental studies, and in the marketing of new technologies. It is often coupled with either a short definition or none at all, its meaning assumed to be fully understood. This is problematic. As a phrase with potential implications for research and technology, its assumed meaning requires some analysis to avoid it becoming a descriptive category that refers to all things scientifically exciting. I provide a short analysis of proof of concept research and offer an example of it within synthetic biology. I suggest that not only are there activities that circumscribe new epistemological categories but there are also associated normative ethical categories or principles linked to the research. I examine these and provide an outline for an alternative ethical account to describe these activities that I refer to as "extended agency ethics". This view is used to explain how the type of research described as proof of concept also provides an attendant proof of principle that is the result of decision-making that extends across practitioners, their tools, techniques, and the problem solving activities of other research groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 169 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 16%
Student > Master 27 16%
Researcher 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 42 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 22 13%
Engineering 21 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 11 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Other 50 29%
Unknown 48 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,898,861
of 24,126,099 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#675
of 950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,661
of 270,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#17
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,126,099 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,632 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.