Do material transfer agreements affect the choice of research agendas? the case of biotechnology in Belgium

Scientometrics

Volumn 71, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 239-269

  Rodriguez, Victor ^a   Janssens, Frizo ^b   Debackere, Koenraad ^a   De Moor, Bart ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b Katholieke Universiteit Leuven   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34047218335     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-007-1666-3     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. BASTIDE, F., COURTIAL, J. P., CALLON, M. (1989), The use of review articles in the analysis of research area. Scientometrics, 15 : 535-562.
2. BEN-HUR, A., ELISSEEFF, A., GUYON, I. (2002), A stability based method for discovering structure in clustered data. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 7 : 6-17.
3. CALLON, M., COURTIAL, J. P., LAVILLE, F. (1991), Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22 : 155-205.
4. CALLON, M., COURTIAL, J. P., TURNER, W. A., BAUIN, S. (1983), From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22 : 191-235.
5. CARAYOL, N. (2003), Objectives, agreements and matching in science-industry collaborations: Reassembling the pieces of the puzzle. Research Policy, 32 : 887-908.
6. COASE, R. H. (1960), The problem of social costs. Journal of Law and Economics, 3 : 1-44.
7. COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS (1997), Material Transfer in Academia. Council of Governmental Relations, Washington, DC.
8. COURTIAL, J. P. (1989), Qualitative models, quantitative tools and network analysis. Scientometrics, 15 : 527-534.
9. COURTIAL, J. P. (1998), Comments on Leydesdorff's article. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49 : 98.
10. DASGUPTA, P., DAVID, P. A. (1994), Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23 : 487-521.
11. DUNNING, T. (1993), Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19 : 61-74.
12. ENSERINK, M. (1999), NIH Proposes Rules for Materials Exchange. Science, 284 : 1445.
13. GLÄNZEL, W., MEYER, M., SCHLEMMER, B., DU PLESSIS, M., THUS, B., MAGERMAN, T., DEBACKERE, K., VEUGELERS, R. (2003), Biotechnology: An Analysis Based on Publications and Patents. Steunpunt O&O Statistieken, Leuven.
14. HANSEN, S., BREWSTER, A., ASHER, J. (2005), Intellectual Property in the AAAS Scientific Community: A Descriptive Analysis of the Results of a Pilot Survey on the Effects of Patenting in Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.
15. HELLER, M. A., EISENBERG, R. S. (1998), Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280 : 698-701.
16. JAIN, A., DUBES, R. (1988), Algorithms for Clustering Data. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
17. KAUFMAN, L., ROUSSEEUW, P. J. (1990), Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
18. KRATTIGER, A. F. (2004), Financing the bioindustry and facilitating biotechnology transfer. IP Strategy Today, 1 : 1-45.
19. LAW, J., BAUIN, S., COURTIAL, J. P., WHTTTAKER, J. (1988), Policy and the mapping of scientific change: A co-word analysis of research into environmental acidification. Scientometrics, 14 : 251-264.
20. LEYDESDORFF, L. (1997), Why words and co-words cannot map the development of the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48 : 418-427.
21. MANNING, C. D., SCHÜTZE, H. (2000), Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
22. MERTON, R. K. (1942), Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1 : 115-126.
23. MERTON, R. K. (1968), The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159 : 56-63.
24. MURRAY, F. (2002), Innovation as overlapping scientific and technological trajectories: exploring tissue engineering. Research Policy, 31 : 1389-1403.
25. MURRAY, F. (2006), The Oncomouse that roared: Resistance and accommodation to patenting in Academic Science. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper.
26. MURRAY, F., STERN, S. (2005), Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 11465.
27. NATIONAL ACADEMIES (2005), Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
28. NOYONS, E. (2001), Bibliometric mapping of science in a science policy context. Scientometrics, 50 : 83-98.
29. PISANO, G. (2002), Pharmaceutical biotechnology. In: NELSON, R. R., VICTOR, D. G., STEIL, B. (Eds), Technological Innovation and Economic Performance. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
30. PORTER, M. F. (1980), An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program, 14 : 130-137.
31. RIP, A., COURTIAL, J. P. (1984), Co-words maps of biotechnology. An example of cognitive scientometrics. Scientometrics, 6 : 381-400.
32. RODRIGUEZ, V. (2005), Material transfer agreements: Open science vs. proprietary claims. Nature Biotechnology 23 : 489-491.
33. ROUSSEEUW, P. J. (1987), Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20 : 53-65.
34. SCHUMPETER, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
35. STEPHAN, P. E. (1996), The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34 : 1199-1235.
36. STREITZ, W. D., DE BEAR, I., CALMETTES, C. S., REINHART, F. (2003), Material Transfer Agreements: A Win-Win for Academia and Industry. Association of University Technology Managers, Northbrook, IL.
37. TURNER, W. A., ROJOUAN, F. (1991), Evaluating input/output relationships in a regional research network using co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 22 : 139-154.
38. VAN OVERWALLE, G., VAN ZIMMEREN, E., VERBEURE, B., MATTHIJS, G. (2006), Models for facilitating access to patents on genetic inventions. Nature Reviews Genetics, 7 : 143-148.
39. VAN ZIMMEREN, E., VERBEURE, B., MATTHIJS, G., VAN OVERWALLE, G. (2006), A clearing house for diagnostic testing: The solution to ensure access to and use of patented genetic inventions? Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84 : 352-359.
40. VERBEURE, B., MATTHIJS, G., VAN OVERWALLE, G. (2006), Analysing DNA patents in relation with diagnostic genetic testing. European Journal of Human Genetics, 14 : 26-33.
41. VERBEURE, B., VAN ZIMMEREN, E., MATTHUS, G., VAN OVERWALLE, G. (2006), Patent pools and diagnostic testing. Trends in Biotechnology, 24 : 115-120.
42. WALSH, J. P., CHO, C., COHEN, W. M. (2005), View from the bench: Patents and material transfers. Science, 309 : 2002-2003.
43. WHITTAKER, J. (1989), Creativity and conformity in science: Titles, keywords and co-word analysis. Social Studies of Science, 19 : 473-496.
44. WILLIAMS, R., LAW, J. (1980), Beyond the bounds of credibility. Fundamenta Scientiae, 1 : 295-315.
45. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (2006), Public Health: Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights. World Health Organization Press, Geneva.
46. ZIMAN, J. (1987), The problem of 'problem choice'. Minerva, 25 : 92-106.
47. ZIPF, G. K. (1949), Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA.