Governing innovation in the biomedicine knowledge economy: Stem cell science in the USA

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 87-100

  Salter, Brian ^a   Salter, Charlotte ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INNOVATION; MEDICINE; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 77951950039     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/030234210X489617     Document Type: Article

References (96)

1. Amsden, A 1989. Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialisation. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Applebaum, R P and J Henderson eds 1992. States and Development in the Asian Pacific Rim. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3. Asheim, B T and M S Gertler 2004. The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, eds J Fagerberg, D C Mowery and R R Nelson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Biotechnology Industry Organisation 2006. Growing the nation's biotech sector: state bioscience initiatives. New York: Battelle Technology Partnership Practice. Available at: , last accessed 4 March 2009.
5. Bonetta, L 2008. European stem cell patents: taking the moral high road. Cell, 132, 22 February, 514-516.
6. BSI, British Standards Institution 2006. Guidance on Codes of Practice, Standardised Methods and Regulations for Cell-Based Therapeutics from Basic Research to Clinical Application. PAS 83. London: British Standards Institution. Available at: , last accessed 6 August 2008.
7. Büthe, T 2004. Governance through private authority? Non-state actors in world politics. Journal of International Affairs, 58, 281-290.
8. Cerny, P 1990. The Changing Architecture of Politics: Structure, Agency and the Future of the State. London: Sage.
9. Cerny, P 1997. Paradoxes of the competition state: the dynamics of political globalisation. Government and Opposition, 32(2), 251-274.
10. Chen, D W 2007. New Jersey voters defeat stem cell measure. New York Times, 7 November. Available at: , last accessed 10 March 2009.
11. Clark, P 2000. Organizations in Action: Competition Between Contexts. London: Routledge.
12. Cooke, P 2001a. New economy innovation systems: biotechnology in Europe and the USA. Industry and Innovation, 8(3), 267-289.
13. Cooke, P 2001b. Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 945-974.
14. Cooke, P 2002. Regional innovation systems: general findings and some new evidence from biotechnology clusters. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 133-145.
15. Cooke, P 2003. The evolution of biotechnology in three continents: Schumpeterian or Penrosian? Editorial. European Planning Studies, 11(7), 757-763.
16. Cooke, P 2004. Regional knowledge capabilities, embeddedness of firms and industry organisation: bioscience megacentres and economic geography. European Planning Studies, 11(7), 625-641.
17. Cortright, J and H Mayer 2002. Signs of Life: the Growth of Biotechnology Centres in the US. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Centre on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
18. Dalum, B, M Holmén, S Jacobsson, M Preast, A Rickne and G Villumsen 1999. Changing the regional system of innovation. In The Economic Challenge for Europe, eds J Fagerberg, P Guerrieri and B Verspagen, pp. 175-199. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
19. Etzkowitz, H and L Leydesdorff 1997. Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London: Pinter.
20. Etzkowitz, H and L Leydesdorff 1998. The endless transition: a 'triple helix' of university-industry-government relations. Minerva, 36, 203-208.
21. Etzkowitz, H and L Leydesdorff 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and 'mode 2' to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123.
22. Fink, D 2007. US Food and Drug Administration Embryonic Stem Cell-Based Therapies: US_FDA Regulatory Expectations, Stem Cell Research Forum of India Conference, February. Available at: , last accessed 10 April 2009.
23. Freeman, C 1992. Formal scientific and technical institutions in the national system of innovation. In National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, ed. B-Å Lundvall, pp. 169-187. London: Pinter.
24. Giesecke, S 2000. The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany. Research Policy, 29(2), 205-223.
25. Gottlieb, S 2004. California's stem cell follies. Forbes, 1, 1 November. Available at: , last accessed 2 February 2009.
26. Gottweis, H, B Salter and C Waldby 2009. The Global Politics of Stem Cell Science: Regenerative Medicine in Transition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
27. Halme, D and D Kessler 2006. FDA regulation of stem cell-based therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 355(160), 1730-1735.
28. Hansen, A 2001. Biotechnology regulation: limiting or contributing to biotech development? New Genetics and Society, 20(3), 255-271.
29. Hart, D 2002. Private technological capabilities as products of national innovation systems: four ways of looking at the state. Science and Public Policy, 29(3), June, 181-188.
30. Hawes, G and H Liu 1993. Explaining the dynamics of the southeast Asian political economy: state, society and the search for economic growth. World Politics, 45(4), 629-660.
31. Hay, C 2004. Re-stating politics, re-politicising the state: neoliberalism, economic imperatives and the rise of the competition state. Political Quarterly, 75(1), 38-50.
32. Hayden, E C 2009. Obama overturns stem-cell ban. Naturenews, 9 March.
33. Hirsch, J 1991. From the Fordist to the post-Fordist state. In The Politics of Flexibility: Restructuring State and Industry in Britain, Germany and Scandinavia, ed. B Jessop. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
34. Hodge, G and K Coghill 2007. Accountability in the privatised state. Governance, 20(4), 675-702.
35. Hooghe, L and G Marks 2003. Unravelling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233-243.
36. Howells, J. 1999. Regional systems of innovation. In Innovation Policy in a Global Economy, eds D Archibugi, J Howells and J Michie, pp. 67-93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Hunter, J 1994. Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America's Culture Wars. New York: The Free Press.
38. IASCR, Interstate Alliance on Stem Cell Research 2007a. Available at: , last accessed 10 April 2009.
39. IASCR, Interstate Alliance on Stem Cell Research 2007b. Meeting Summary, 24-25 October, Cambridge, MA. Available at: , last accessed 27 February 2008.
40. Jasanoff, S 2004. States of Knowledge: the Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge.
41. Jessop, B 2002. The Future of the Capitalist State. Oxford: Polity Press.
42. Johnson, C 1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
43. Kim, Y T 1999. Neoliberalism and the decline of the developmental state. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 29(4), 441-462.
44. Knill, C and D Lehmkuhl 2002. Private actors and the state: internationalisation and changing patterns of governance. Governance, 15(1), 41-63.
45. Laredo, P and P Mustar 2001. General conclusion: three major trends in research and innovation policies. In Research and Innovation Policies in the Global Economy: an International Comparative Perspective, eds P Laredo and P Mustar. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
46. Levine, A 2006. Research policy and the mobility of US stem cell scientists. Nature Biotechnology, 24, 865-866.
47. Lundvall, B-Å ed. 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter, London.
48. Mann, M 1997. Has globalisation ended the rise and rise of the nation state? Review of International Political Economy, 4(3), 472-496.
49. Marks and Clerk Patent and Trademark Attorneys 2005. The Marks and Clerk Biotechnology Report 2005. London: Marks and Clerk Patent and Trademark Attorneys.
50. Marks and Clerk Patent and Trademark Attorneys 2006. The Marks and Clerk Biotechnology Report 2006. London: Marks and Clerk Patent and Trademark Attorneys. Summary available at: , last accessed 4 March 2008.
51. Martin, P, C Coveney, A Kraft et al 2006. Commercial development of stem cell technology: lessons from the past, strategies for the future. Regenerative Medicine, 1(6), 801-807.
52. Messner, D 1997. The Network Society: Economic Development and International Competitiveness as Problems of Social Governance. London: Frank Cass.
53. Mowery, D and B Sampat 2004. The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: a model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1-2), 115-127.
54. Murray, F and S Stern 2007. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 63(4), 648-687.
55. National Academy of Sciences 2005. Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Washington: National Academies Press.
56. National Conference of State Legislatures 2009a. Stem Cell Research. Available at: , last accessed 2 April 2009.
57. National Conference of State Legislatures 2009b. State embryonic and fetal research laws. Available at: , last accessed 2 April 2009].
58. Nature 2008. GlaxoSmithKline cements interest in stem cells. Nature, 454, 564.
59. Nature 2009. Embryonic education. Nature, 458(7237), 385.
60. Nelson, R. Ed.), 1993. National Systems of Innovation. A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
61. NIH, National Institutes of Health 2008a. Stem Cell Information. Available at: , last accessed 20 February 2008.
62. NIH, National Institutes of Health 2009. Estimates of Funding for Various Diseases, Conditions, Research Areas. Available at: , last accessed 1 April 2009.
63. Onis, Z 1991. The logic of the developmental state. Comparative Politics. 24(1): 109-26.
64. Pierre, J ed 2000) Debating governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65. Pincock, S 2004. Britain's brain gain. The Lancet. 364(9429), 127-28.
66. Pricewaterhouse Coopers and National Venture Capital Association 2007. MoneyTree Report. Available at: , last accessed 4 March 2008.
67. Scott, C 2002. Private regulation of the public sector: a neglected facet of contemporary governance. Journal of Law and Society, 29(1), 56-76.
68. President's Council on Bioethics 2002. Human Cloning and Human Dignity: an Ethical Inquiry. Washington: President's Council on Bioethics.
69. President's Council on Bioethics 2004. Monitoring Stem Cell Research. Washington: President's Council on Bioethics.
70. President's Council on Bioethics 2005. Alternative Sources of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells. White Paper. Washington: President's Council on Bioethics.
71. Rabin, S 2005. The gatekeepers of hES cell products. Nature Biotechnology, 23, 817-819.
72. Rai, A and R Eisenberg 2003. Bayh-Dole reform and the progress of biomedicine. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66, 289-314.
73. Regalado, A 2005. Big companies quietly pursue research on 99 Innovation in the biomedicine knowledge economy embryonic stem cells. Wall Street Journal, 12 April.
74. Russo, G 2009. Editorial. Naturejobs. Nature, 458, 371.
75. Salter, B 2007a. Patenting, morality and human embryonic stem cell science: bioethics and cultural politics in Europe. Regenerative Medicine, 2(3), 301-311.
76. Salter, B 2007b. Bioethics and the global moral economy: the cultural politics of human embryonic stem cell science. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32(5), 1-28.
77. Shorrett, P, P Rabinow and P R Billings 2003. The changing norms of the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology, 21, 123-125.
78. Smith, A 2007. Stem cell studies won't sway Big Pharma: experts. CCNMoney.com, 21 November. Available at: , last accessed 28 May 2008.
79. Somers, T 2006. Venture capitalists wary of uncertainty. San Diego Union Tribune, 16 April. Available at: , last accessed 4 February 2009.
80. Stem Cells for Safer Medicine 2008. Available at: , last accessed 5 July 2008.
81. Stolberg, S G 2009. Obama is leaving some stem issues to Congress. New York Times, 8 March.
82. Swan, J, A Goussevskaia, S Newell, M Robertson, M Bresnen and A Obembe 2007. Modes of organising biomedical innovation in the UK and US and the role of integrative and relational capabilities. Research Policy, 36(4), 529-547.
83. Taymor, K, C Scott and H Greely 2006. The paths around stem cell intellectual property. Nature Biotechnology, 24(4), 411-413.
84. The Oval 2009. Obama pledges support for stem cell research, strict guidelines and no human cloning. Available at: , last accessed 1 April 2009.
85. UK Stem Cell Initiative 2005a. Report and Recommendations, Department of Health.
86. UK Stem Cell Initiative 2005b. Global Positions in Stem Cell Research. Available at: , last accessed 30 July 2008.
87. US DHHS, US Department of Health and Human Services 2006. 2020: A New Vision: a Future for Regenerative Medicine. Washington: US DHHS. Available at: , last accessed 21 April 2008.
88. US Food and Drug Administration 2006. Department of Health and Human Services: Human cells, tissues and cellular and tissue based products. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21. Part 127.1.
89. US National Research Council, Commission on Life Sciences 2002. Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
90. Vestal, C 2007. States via for stem cell scientists. Stateline.org. 18 January. Available at: , last accessed 21 July 2008.
91. Wade, R 1990. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in Asian Industrialisation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
92. Wade, R 1996. National Diversity and Global Capitalism. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
93. Webb, S 2007. A patchwork quilt of funding. Nature Reports Stem Cells. 1 November. Available at: , last accessed 25 June 2008.
94. Weiss, L 1998. The Myth of the Powerless State. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
95. Weiss, L 2000. Developmental states in transition: adapting, dismantling, innovating, not 'normalising'. Pacific Review, 13(1), 21-55, 29.
96. Wong, J 2005. Re-making the developmental state in Taiwan: the challenges of biotechnology. International Political Science Review, 26, 169-191.