Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Innovation and industry evolution
- Part II Firm growth and market structure
- Part III Policy implications
- 10 The effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation
- 11 Upstream patents and public health: the case of genetic testing for breast cancer
- 12 Competition, regulation, and intellectual property management in genetically modified foods: evidence from survey data
- 13 Governance, policy, and industry strategies: pharmaceuticals and agro-biotechnology
- 14 The dynamics of knowledge accumulation, regulation, and appropriability in the pharma-biotech sector: policy issues
- Index
- References
13 - Governance, policy, and industry strategies: pharmaceuticals and agro-biotechnology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Innovation and industry evolution
- Part II Firm growth and market structure
- Part III Policy implications
- 10 The effects of research tool patents and licensing on biomedical innovation
- 11 Upstream patents and public health: the case of genetic testing for breast cancer
- 12 Competition, regulation, and intellectual property management in genetically modified foods: evidence from survey data
- 13 Governance, policy, and industry strategies: pharmaceuticals and agro-biotechnology
- 14 The dynamics of knowledge accumulation, regulation, and appropriability in the pharma-biotech sector: policy issues
- Index
- References
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).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Knowledge Accumulation and Industry EvolutionThe Case of Pharma-Biotech, pp. 378 - 401Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
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.
(2003), “Governing through governance: education policy control under New Labour,” Political Studies, 51 (2), 300–14,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2003), Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and their Evaluation, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
(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.
, , and (2004), “Understanding company R&D strategies in agro-biotechnology: trajectories and blind spots,” Research Policy, 33 (6–7), 1041–57.CrossRefGoogle 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.
, , and (2000), The Governance of Innovation in Europe: Regional Perspectives on Global Competitiveness, Pinter, London.Google Scholar
, , and (eds.) (2000), What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services, Policy Press, Bristol.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DTI (1998), Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge-Driven Economy, White Paper Cm 4176, Department of Trade and Industry, London.
, , , and (2003), “Human tissue-engineered products – drugs or devices? Tackling the regulatory vacuum,” British Medical Journal, 326, 1159–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giddens, A. (1999), BBC Reith Lectures, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/.
and (2005) New Modes of Governance: Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment, Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing.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.
, and (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.
(2002), “Governance: contested perceptions of civic participation,” Scottish Affairs, 39 (Spring), 103–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1998), “Governance as theory: five propositions,” International Social Science Journal, 50, 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinardi, G., and R. Williams (2005), “The governance challenges of breakthrough science and technology,” in and (eds.), New Modes of Governance: Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment, Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing, 45–66.Google Scholar
(2001), “More Faust than Frankenstein: the European debate about risk regulation for genetically modified crops,” Journal of Risk Research, 4 (2), 175–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tait, J., and A. Bruce (2004), “Global change and transboundary risks,” in and (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.
, and (1992), “Proactive and reactive approaches to risk regulation: the case of biotechnology,” Futures, 24 (3), 219–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1999), “Policy approaches to research and development: foresight, framework and competitiveness,” Science and Public Policy, 26 (2), 101–12.CrossRefGoogle 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.
- 1
- Cited by