Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns

Abstract

This study looks at the United States biotechnology industry as a community of practice caught between two evolutionary logics by which valuable scientific knowledge and valuable innovations are selected. We analyze the publications and patents of 116 biotechnology firms during the period 1988--1995. In models that link scientific capabilities to patent citations, we show that scientific ideas are not simply inputs into inventions; important scientific ideas and influential patents follow different and conflicting selection logics. Publication, collaboration, and science intensity are associated with patented innovations; however, important scientific papers are negatively associated with high-impact innovations. These results point to conflicting logics between science and innovation, and scientists must contribute to both while inhabiting a single epistemic community. We identify individuals listed on patents and scientific papers and find they effectively integrate science with innovation, leading to more successful innovations. Our findings suggest that the role of the small, research-intensive firm is to create a repository of knowledge; to act as an organizational mechanism to combine the capabilities of versatile scientists within and outside the boundaries of the firm; and to manage the selection of scientific ideas to produce valuable technical innovations.Science, Citations, Patents, Scientists, Epistemic Community, Biotechnology

Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry

“…Murray's (2002) work on tissue engineering also points to a distinct research-driven logic. She found, like others (Agrawal and Henderson, 2002;Gittelman and Kogut, 2003), that there is limited network membership overlap between paperauthoring academics and patent-authoring researchers, suggesting that 'inventors' are different from 'researchers'. The researchers, however, 'co-mingle' with industry in various ways, including consulting, advisory board membership and sponsored research (Murray, 2002).…”

Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology

“…Industrial researchers that do not have a track record of published articles have more difficulties in getting access to critical external knowledge and to built up absorptive capacity. Similarly, companies that want to access external knowledge may hire people with a track record in public research (Gittelman and Kogut 2003). Assuming that the case sub iv) is less important, we could conclude that this group identifies rather precisely industrial R&D that has no or very weak institutional complementarity with public research.…”

Vertical alliance networks: The case of university–biotechnology–pharmaceutical alliance chains

“…Beginning with a bibliometric dataset of individual life scientists in universities, Azoulay et al (in press) found that 38% of the members of a random sample of 3800 U.S.-based, academic life scientists had, at some point in their careers, coauthored one or more papers with scientists working in the private-sector. Starting with a sample of biotechnology firms, Gittelman and Kogut (2003) found that more than 70% of the scientific papers published by members of firms were coauthored with a scientist in academia.…”