2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.scaman.2011.06.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Institutionalizing technoscience: Post-genomic technologies and the case of systems biology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 95 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the biological revolution led to a fundamental technological discontinuity (Sabatier et al, 2012;De Alcantara and Martens, 2019), in that the discovery and the development of new biochemical drugs require a completely different set of bioscientific technology competences (Bonaccorsi and Vargas, 2010;Sabatier et al, 2012). Therefore, the existing dominant R&D logic of pharmaceutical firms following a single technology development pathway becomes insufficient (Sabatier et al, 2012;Tierney et al, 2013), because the latest advancement of biopharma innovations is often generated at the interface between multiple root biopharma research areas (Allhoff, 2009;Styhre, 2011). In this sense, innovations led by practitioners in DIY laboratories may push forward the frontier of biopharma research from a new angle (Fox, 2014, Seyfried et al, 2014Hecker et al, 2018).…”
Section: The Emergence Of Contract Research Organizations (Cros) In T...mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, the biological revolution led to a fundamental technological discontinuity (Sabatier et al, 2012;De Alcantara and Martens, 2019), in that the discovery and the development of new biochemical drugs require a completely different set of bioscientific technology competences (Bonaccorsi and Vargas, 2010;Sabatier et al, 2012). Therefore, the existing dominant R&D logic of pharmaceutical firms following a single technology development pathway becomes insufficient (Sabatier et al, 2012;Tierney et al, 2013), because the latest advancement of biopharma innovations is often generated at the interface between multiple root biopharma research areas (Allhoff, 2009;Styhre, 2011). In this sense, innovations led by practitioners in DIY laboratories may push forward the frontier of biopharma research from a new angle (Fox, 2014, Seyfried et al, 2014Hecker et al, 2018).…”
Section: The Emergence Of Contract Research Organizations (Cros) In T...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the other end, pharmaceutical firms are more interested in projects with high commercial potentials (Lauto and Valentin, 2016;De Beer and Jain, 2018). However, this narrow commercial focus may ignore new findings in relevant biopharma fields (Allhoff, 2009;Styhre, 2011). By linking these two entities and align their interests, CROs arguably can act as an important hub in this innovation ecosystem to transform the inclusive biopharma innovations originated from DIY laboratories into real economic returns and societal benefits.…”
Section: Integrating Diy Laboratories Into Pharmaceutical Randd Netwo...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First and second generation roadmaps are focused on a single root technology based innovation or product. A shift has occurred and many of today's pharmaceutical innovations are increasingly generated at the interface of two or more root technologies [106,6]. Innovations developed at the interface of multiple root technologies are perhaps the single most problematic issue for current roadmapping techniques to address.…”
Section: Many Of Today's Innovations Are Using Technology Differentlymentioning
confidence: 99%