Biotechnology in comparative perspective

Fuchs, Gerhard; Krauss, Gerhard

doi:10.4324/9780203422700.ch1

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research on biotechnology innovation has drawn on a number of different approaches, including systems of innovation, strategic management, and the "new economic geography" of Krugman and others (see Senker 2005;Birch 2007a). 3 The more recent research in economic geography and regional studies has concerned the local and regional scale, with the conceptualization of concentrations of biotechnology firms and associated organizations as biotechnology clusters (e.g., Lawton Smith, Mihell, and Kingham 2000;Zeller 2001;Cooke 2002Cooke , 2004aCooke , 2004bCooke , 2004cCooke , 2005Audretsch 2003;Fuchs and Krauss 2003;Prevezer 2003;Bagchi-Sen, Lawton Smith, and Hall 2004;Casper and Murray 2004;McKelvey 2004). There have been studies of Scotland (Leibovitz 2004); Maryland, United States (Feldman and Francis 2003); Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom (Casper and Karamanos 2003); and Lombardy, Italy (Breschi, Lissoni, and Orsenigo 2003), among other regions in such countries as Canada, Germany, and Sweden.…”

Section: Clusters and Biotechnologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Alliance‐Driven Governance: Applying a Global Commodity Chains Approach to the U.K. Biotechnology Industry

Birch

2008

Economic Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the economy has globalized, it has also regionalized, which has led to the integration of different spaces across different scales. A number of theories contend that the endogenous assets of these locations provide them with the means to compete in this globalizing economy, especially in relation to knowledge‐based sectors like biotechnology. Among these theories, the cluster concept stands out. However, there is little support for the arguments that local linkages are the central contributors to innovation. Extralocal linkages have also been highlighted, suggesting that other theories that account for these linkages may prove useful in the discussion of knowledge‐based sectors, in general, and biotechnology, in particular. One such theory is the concept of global commodity chains, which explicitly concerns the interconnections within and across different geographic scales. As yet it has seldom been applied to the biotechnology industry. This article uses the approach to explore the U.K. biotechnology industry.

show abstract

Section: Clusters and Biotechnologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Alliance‐Driven Governance: Applying a Global Commodity Chains Approach to the U.K. Biotechnology Industry

Birch

2008

Economic Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They face the increasing cost of R&D, global competition, and a lack of critical mass that interferes with the benefits of economies of scale. Researchers (Baker, 2003; Baker, 2004; Fuchs and Krauss, 2003) have argued that biotech firms are unique for at least three reasons. First, because they are strongly science based, more nimble, and less risk averse than pharmaceutical companies, innovation within these firms is far more radical than in other industries (Gans and Stern, 2004; Powell, Koput, and Smith‐Doerr, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, biotech companies represent tacit knowledge. The generation and economic exploitation of knowledge thus requires intense science‐based interactions (Fuchs and Krauss, 2003). Alliances with other biotech firms, university research centers, and pharmaceutical companies are the norm in the industry, providing biotech with faster access to capital and knowledge, enabling companies to react more quickly and flexibly to new developments, and offering better protection of intellectual property rights (Liebeskind et al, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Invention to Innovation: Toward Developing an Integrated Innovation Model for Biotech Firms^*

Khilji

Mroczkowski

Bernstein

2006

J of Product Innov Manag

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of extant literature reveals various theories on innovation, including technology push, market pull, and an organizational approach. All of these theories have been criticized for their lack of integration and inapplicability to today's competitive environment. An integrated view of innovation has emerged that synthesizes the variables in previous approaches. However, the application of this view has been restricted to investigating the innovation processes within the computer and manufacturing industries, whereas the biotechnology industry has been ignored. This is despite biotech managers' well-acknowledged thirst for innovation and the ability of biotech to shape the way we live. The present article contributes to the literature by applying an integrated approach to the biotech industry, thereby extending understanding of innovation management beyond the traditional field of inquiry. An integrated approach is of particular relevance to biotech companies, given the complexities of managing the industry's long development cycle and intense collaborative activities. In-depth interviews with eight organizations in Maryland formed the basis for an investigation into the challenges of managing the innovation process in biotechnology firms. The findings revealed that biotech entrepreneurs are ill prepared to lead their organizations through several transformations necessary along the product life cycle because of their fixation on a technology-push approach and lack of an understanding of integrated innovation. These leaders also lack the commercialization knowledge necessary to push products to markets, resulting in avoidable delays and loss of productivity. The existing research has dispelled myths associated with biotech. Specifically, it suggests biotech entrepreneurs cannot rely solely on inventions but must invest in a timely application of knowledge to organizational and market forces to take full advantage of the innovation potential associated with the industry. This article presents a conceptual framework for applying the integrated innovation model to biotech firms and makes the case for incorporating market-oriented mechanisms, building and using appropriate organizational capabilities, developing effective collaborations, and creating parallel interactions as major elements in a general strategy toward the success and improved efficiency of biotech companies. The limitations of current research are discussed, and avenues are highlighted for much-needed future research into the biotech industry.Ã The authors would like to thank blind reviewers for their useful comments, Erran Carmel and Alberto Espinosa for their aid in developing the interview procedure, and Lisa Schamess for editorial assistance.

show abstract

“…Nowhere is this confluence of trends more apparent than in biotechnology. The number of collaborative arrangements has grown steadily through the 1980-90s (Allansdottir et al 2002), and the particular significance for biotech firms of collaboration with, and direct knowledge transfer from, academic science has been documented in a number of studies (Santos 2003;Powell 1998;Liebeskind et al 1996;Fuchs 2003).…”

Section: Industry-university Collaboration: Trends and Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights

Valentin

Jensen

2006

J Technol Transfer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several recent studies show European university scientists contributing far more frequently to company-owned patented inventions than they do to patents owned by universities or by the academic scientists themselves. Recognising the significance of this channel for direct commercialisation of European academic research makes it important to understand its response to current Bayh-Dole inspired reforms of university patenting rights. This paper studies the contribution from university scientists to inventions patented by dedicated biotech firms (DBFs) specialised in drug discovery in Denmark and Sweden, which in this respect share a number of structural and historic characteristics. It examines effects of the Danish Law on University Patenting (LUP) effective January 2000, which transferred to the employer university rights to patents on inventions made by Danish university scientists alone or as participants in collaborative research with industry. Sweden so far has left property rights with academic scientists, as they also were in Denmark prior to the reform. Consequently, comparison of Danish and Swedish research collaboration before and after LUP offers a quasi-controlled experiment, bringing out effects on joint research of university IPR reform. In original data on all 3,640 inventor contributions behind the 1,087 patents filed by Danish and Swedish DBFs 1990–2004, Difference-in-Difference regressions uncover notable LUP-induced effects in the form of significant reductions in contributions from Danish domestic academic inventors, combined with a simultaneous substitutive increase of non-Danish academic inventors. A moderate increase in academic inventions channelled into university owned-patents does appear after LUP. But the larger part of the inventive potential of academia, previously mobilised into company-owned patents, seems to have been rendered inactive as a result of the reform. As a likely explanation of these effects the paper suggests that exploratory research, the typical target of joint university-DBF projects in drug discovery, fits poorly into LUP’s requirement for ex ante allocation of IPR. The Pre-LUP convention of IPR allocated to the industrial partner in return for research funding and publication rights to the academic partner may have offered more effective contracting for this type of research. There are indications that LUP, outside the exploratory agenda of drug discovery, offers a more productive framework for inventions requiring less complicated and uncertain post-discovery R&D. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007University technology commercialization, Research collaboration, Biotechnology, I23, L65, O31, O34, O38,

show abstract

Biotechnology in comparative perspective

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Alliance‐Driven Governance: Applying a Global Commodity Chains Approach to the U.K. Biotechnology Industry

Alliance‐Driven Governance: Applying a Global Commodity Chains Approach to the U.K. Biotechnology Industry

From Invention to Innovation: Toward Developing an Integrated Innovation Model for Biotech Firms^*

Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Biotechnology in comparative perspective

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Alliance‐Driven Governance: Applying a Global Commodity Chains Approach to the U.K. Biotechnology Industry

Alliance‐Driven Governance: Applying a Global Commodity Chains Approach to the U.K. Biotechnology Industry

From Invention to Innovation: Toward Developing an Integrated Innovation Model for Biotech Firms*

Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

From Invention to Innovation: Toward Developing an Integrated Innovation Model for Biotech Firms^*