JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Neurotechnologies are commonly developed by partnerships between industry and academia, in which companies and universities work together to translate scientific discoveries into products that can improve health. However, the different priorities and goals of industry and academia can create tension and influence how neurotechnology research is designed, conducted, reported, and applied. Currently, there is little empirical work documenting researchers’ perspectives about industry-academic (IA) partnerships, and none are specific to neurotechnology.

Objective:

We sought to identify and understand researchers’ perspectives about where challenges emerge in neurotechnology-focused IA partnerships.

Methods:

We conducted hour-long interviews with academic researchers (N=15) who had led neurotechnology research as part of an IA partnership or founded their own neurotechnology startup company. Interviews focused on the ethical and practical issues stemming from IA partnerships. We developed a codebook using inductive methods, coded the data, and conducted thematic analysis on the interview transcripts.

Results:

Through thematic analysis, we identified 10 themes about the ethical and practical issues reported by neurotechnology researchers involved in IA partnerships. The themes were grouped into clusters representing the different types of challenges researchers reported: differing priorities between industry and academia, challenges with providing long-term post-trial care, neural data challenges, communication challenges, challenges working with other stakeholders (e.g., academic administrators), and research participant-related challenges. In addition to the themes that represented challenges, researchers also volunteered four strategies they used or recommended for addressing challenges in neurotechnology IA partnerships. The strategies included: partnering with academic administrators, promoting transparent and realistic communication to foster public trust, striving for objectivity in the research, and planning early for long-term care and device maintenance after the trial ends.

Conclusions:

These findings demonstrate the variety of challenges faced by researchers involved in neurotechnology IA partnerships, including ethical concerns about research participant safety and well-being, administrative burdens, and the differences in priorities between industry and academia. Future work should investigate the effectiveness of the strategies proposed and evaluate the possibility of additional useful strategies or policies that could enhance responsible navigation of neurotechnology-focused IA partnerships. Clinical Trial: N/A