This essay reflects the journey of two business scholars, Stephen X. Zhang and Jiyao Chen, who ventured into mental health research during the COVID-19 pandemic. We experienced first-hand how health sciences have operated their publication systems in ways that uphold scientific standing while addressing real-world problems. In doing so, we found the publishing expectations and norms in health and medical sciences to be vastly different from those in management. This essay further discusses aspects such as the preference for evidence over theory, the relationship with basic sciences, diverse evaluation criteria, encouragement of exploration and replication, timeliness, and democratization and inclusivity of scholarship as concrete steps of responsible research.

In this perspective article, I draw on transition research that has been developed to account for the transitions in many socio-technical systems within human society, such as energy, water, and food. I argue that many ideas developed in transition research can be applied to the ecosystem of contemporary business schools in China for its transformation. Using the multi-level perspective (MLP) from transition research as an analytic framework, I examine the socio-technical system of business schools in China for understanding the main forces that may shape a potential transition of the sector. I also draw on transition management theory and insights from research on the politics of transitions for important conditions that are required to enable a transition in this specific context.

Health research is generally undertaken to resolve existing health problems or enhance existing solutions. Research ethics committees have been the main governance tool for research for more than half a century. Their role is to ensure that research is undertaken ethically. To close the increasing gap between science and society, other governance tools are required. The European Commission recommends and actively promotes the policy of responsible research and innovation (RRI). In addition to sound research ethics, a key feature of RRI is the involvement of different societal stakeholders throughout the research process.

But how accepted is the involvement of societal stakeholders in the research of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the health care sector? This question is examined based on 18 in-depth interviews with private health care industry representatives from across Europe in companies focusing on developing medical device technology. Findings suggest that SMEs are reluctant to undertake research involving patients, especially in the early stages of the research and innovation process. For some SMEs this is due to concerns about the dangers of raising expectations they cannot meet, while for others the main concerns are increasing costs and producing less competitive products. Implications of the research findings are discussed.

The field of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) has grown considerably in recent decades and is receiving increasing recognition from health policymakers. Today, DOHaD research aims to offer a comprehensive perspective on health and disease that traces how different life experiences shape health and disease risks over the entire life course. This integrative perspective opens up distinct possibilities for improving health. At the same time, it raises questions regarding the specific social responsibilities of DOHaD as a field and about possible pathways to a socially just and scientifically robust implementation of DOHaD knowledge in society. In this article, we review the history and key characteristics of DOHaD as a field of scientific knowledge production. We argue that based on its key assumptions – that life circumstances, health and disease are closely linked on a molecular scale – DOHaD is an inherently political research field. When tracing how life environments affect health and disease, it is of utmost social and political importance to specify how DOHaD understands and frames these life environments, which aspects of life worlds are included and which excluded, and how research results are interpreted and translated into health recommendations at individual, societal and policy levels. We suggest a number of ways by which the DOHaD community can constructively and responsibly meet the demands that these inherent characteristics place on knowledge production and dissemination in the field.