Governance, policy, and industry strategies: pharmaceuticals and agro-biotechnology

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511493232.013

13 - Governance, policy, and industry strategies: pharmaceuticals and agro-biotechnology

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009

Joyce Tait ,

Joanna Chataway ,

Catherine Lyall and

David Wield

Edited by

Mariana Mazzucato and

Giovanni Dosi

Show author details

Joyce Tait: Affiliation:
Economic and Social Research Council Innogen Centre, Edinburgh University, United Kingdom
Joanna Chataway: Affiliation:
Economic and Social Research Council Innogen Centre, Technology, Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Catherine Lyall: Affiliation:
Economic and Social Research Council Innogen Centre Edinburgh University United Kingdom
David Wield: Affiliation:
Economic and Social Research Council Innogen Centre, Technology Open University Milton Keynes United Kingdom
Mariana Mazzucato: Affiliation:
The Open University, Milton Keynes
Giovanni Dosi: Affiliation:
Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa

Book contents

Get access

Summary

New approaches to the governance of innovation

The emergence of new fundamental knowledge in life sciences is leading to new, “breakthrough” technologies, completely new product ranges, and new innovation trajectories. Some breakthrough technologies are potentially disruptive (Spinardi and Williams, 2005), in the sense that they step outside existing paradigms, requiring a major shift in product types and in their place in the market. Examples include GM crops in agro-biotechnology, and stem cells and pharmaco-genetics in the pharmaceutical industry. The shift of emphasis from innovation based on chemical knowledge to biotechnology-based pathways creates turbulence in companies' internal product development strategies, changes the balance of competitiveness among companies, and opens up new areas of regulatory uncertainty. At the same time, governance processes are becoming more complex and are placing greater constraints and uncertainties on companies that have made major investments in the development of new types of product over long periods of time.

This chapter is based on a series of research projects we have conducted to study innovation in pharmaceutical and agro-biotechnology companies and the interactions between:

science, technology, and innovation strategies in multinational companies (MNCs);
policy development, risk regulation, and governance; and
public and stakeholder attitudes and concerns.

The background for this research has been the emergence of new governance structures and policy processes in Europe and North America (Giddens, 1999; Cabinet Office, 1999a; Commission of the European Communities, 2001).

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Knowledge Accumulation and Industry Evolution
The Case of Pharma-Biotech
, pp. 378 - 401

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493232.013 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

6, P. (2003), The Governance of Technology: Concepts, Trends, Theory, Normative Principles and Research Agenda, paper prepared for the conference on “Human choice and global technological change,” 24–25 February, Lisbon.

Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (2003), GM Nation? Public Debate, available at http://www/gmnation.org.uk.

Bache, I. (2003), “Governing through governance: education policy control under New Labour,” Political Studies, 51 (2), 300–14,CrossRef Google Scholar

Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., Rist, R. C., and Vedung, E. (2003), Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and their Evaluation, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar

Bonnicksen, A. L. (2002), Crafting a Cloning Policy: From Dolly to Stem Cells, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Bowe, C. (2005), “Vioxx woes help launch a new blockbuster,” Financial Times, 19 January, 1.

Cabinet Office (1999a), Modernising Government: White Paper, Cabinet Office, London.

Cabinet Office(1999b), Professional Policy Making for the Twenty-First Century, Cabinet Office, Strategic Policy Making Team, London.

Cabinet Office(2000), Wiring it up: Whitehall's Management of Cross-Cutting Policies and Services, Cabinet Office, Performance Innovation Unit, London.

Chataway, J., Tait, J., and Wield, D. (2004), “Understanding company R&D strategies in agro-biotechnology: trajectories and blind spots,” Research Policy, 33 (6–7), 1041–57.CrossRef Google Scholar

Commission of the European Communities (2000), Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM (2000) 1, European Commission, Brussels.

Commission of the European Communities(2001), European Governance: A White Paper, COM (2001) 428 Final, European Commission, Brussels.

Cooke, P., Boekholt, P., and Todtling, F. (2000), The Governance of Innovation in Europe: Regional Perspectives on Global Competitiveness, Pinter, London.Google Scholar

Davies, H. T. O., Nutley, S. M., and Smith, P. C. (eds.) (2000), What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services, Policy Press, Bristol.CrossRef Google Scholar

DTI (1998), Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge-Driven Economy, White Paper Cm 4176, Department of Trade and Industry, London.

Faulkner, A., Kent, J., Geesink, I., and Fitzpatrick, D. (2003), “Human tissue-engineered products – drugs or devices? Tackling the regulatory vacuum,” British Medical Journal, 326, 1159–60.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Giddens, A. (1999), BBC Reith Lectures, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/.

Lyall, C., and Tait, J. (2005) New Modes of Governance: Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment, Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar

Mantegazzini, M. C. (1986), The Environmental Risks from Biotechnology, Pinter, London.Google Scholar

Mittra, J. (2003), Innovation Processes in Genomics Industry Sectors, Working Paper no. 5, Innogen Centre, Edinburgh University, available at http://www.innogen.ac.uk.

Murphy, J., and Yanacopulos, H. (forthcoming), “Understanding governance and coalitions: transatlantic networks and the regulation of GMOs,” Geoforum.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (1986), Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

Office of Science and Technology Policy (1990), “Principles for federal oversight of biotechnology: planned introduction into the environment of organisms with modified hereditary traits,” Federal Register, 55, 31118–21.

Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1989), Thirteenth Report: The Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms to the Environment, Cmd720, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.

Sloat, A. (2002), “Governance: contested perceptions of civic participation,” Scottish Affairs, 39 (Spring), 103–17.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stoker, G. (1998), “Governance as theory: five propositions,” International Social Science Journal, 50, 17–28.CrossRef Google Scholar

Spinardi, G., and R. Williams (2005), “The governance challenges of breakthrough science and technology,” in Lyall, C. and Tait, J. (eds.), New Modes of Governance: Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment, Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing, 45–66.Google Scholar

Tait, J. (2001), “More Faust than Frankenstein: the European debate about risk regulation for genetically modified crops,” Journal of Risk Research, 4 (2), 175–89.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tait, J., and A. Bruce (2004), “Global change and transboundary risks,” in McDaniels, T. and Small, M. (eds.), Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterisation of the Field, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 367–419.Google Scholar

Tait, J., and J. Chataway (2000), Policy Influences on Technology for Agriculture: Chemicals, Biotechnology and Seeds – Zeneca Agrochemicals Monograph, PITA Report to TSER, project no. SOE1/CT97/1068, available at http://www.technology.open.ac.uk/cts/pita/ and http://www.supra.ed.ac.uk/NewWeb/Reports.htm.

Tait, J., and J. Chataway(forthcoming), “Risk and uncertainty in genetically modified crop development: the industry perspective,” Environment and Planning – C [currently available as Innogen Working Paper no. 1, available at http://www.innogen.ac.uk].

Tait, J., J. Chataway, and D. Wield (2000), Final Report, PITA Project, available at http://www.technology.open.ac.uk/cts/projects.htm#biotechnology.

Tait, J., and Levidow, L. (1992), “Proactive and reactive approaches to risk regulation: the case of biotechnology,” Futures, 24 (3), 219–31.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tait, J., and Williams, R. (1999), “Policy approaches to research and development: foresight, framework and competitiveness,” Science and Public Policy, 26 (2), 101–12.CrossRef Google Scholar

Yogendra, S. (2004), FQPA in the United States: A Review of the Dynamics of Pesticide Regulation and Firm Responses, Working Paper no. 11, Innogen Centre, Edinburgh University available at http://www.innogen.ac.uk.

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.