Growing Stem Cells: The Impact of Federal Funding Policy on the U.S. Scientific Frontier

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 661-705

  Furman, Jeffrey L ^a,c   Murray, Fiona ^b   Stern, Scott ^b,c  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862528107     PISSN: 02768739     EISSN: 15206688     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pam.21644     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Adams, J. D., & Griliches, Z. (1998). Research productivity in a system of universities. Annals of INSEE, 49, 127-162.
2. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60, 323-351.
3. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., & Stein, J. C. (2008). Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics, 39, 617-635.
4. Allison, P. D., & Waterman, R. P. (2002). Fixed effects negative binomial regression models. In R. Stolzenberg (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 155-172). Boston: Basil Blackwell.
5. Anand, G., & Regalado, A. (2002, April 10). Slow road for a stem-cell researcher. Wall Street Journal, p. 1.
6. Angrist, J., & Krueger, A. (2001). Instrumental variables and the search for identification: From supply and demand to natural experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 69-85.
7. Azoulay, P., Waverly, D., & Stuart, T. (2007). The impact of academic patenting on (public) research output. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63, 599-623.
8. Azoulay P., Graff Zivin, J., & Wang, J. (2010). Superstar extinction. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 549-589.
9. Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J., & Manso, G. (2011). Incentives and creativity: Evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND Journal of Economics, 42, 527-554.
10. Beardsley, S. (2005). A world of approaches to stem cell research. Scientific American, 292(6), 16.
11. Clark, J. (2001, August 31). Squandering our technological future. New York Times, p. A19.
12. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487-521.
13. David, P. A. (1998). Common agency contracting and the emergence of "open science" institutions. American Economic Review, 88, 15-21.
14. David, P. A. (2001). Patronage, reputation, and common agency contracting in the scientific revolution: From keeping "nature's secrets" to the institutionalization of "open science." SIEPR Working Paper. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
15. David, P. A. (2008). The historical origins of "open science": An essay on patronage, reputation and common agency contracting in the scientific revolution. Capitalism and Society, 3, Article 5.
16. De Solla Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
17. De Solla Price, D. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510-515.
18. De Solla Price, D. (1967). Nations can publish or perish. International Science and Technology, 70, 84-90.
19. Ding, W., Murray, F., & Stuart, T. (2006). An empirical study of gender differences in patenting among academic life scientists. Science, 313, 665-667.
20. Dreifus, C. (2006, January 24). At Harvard's stem cell center, the barriers run deep and wide. New York Times, F2.
21. Evans, M., & Kaufman, M. (1981). Establishment in culture of pluripotent cells from mouse embryos. Nature, 292, 154-156.
22. Fire, A., Xu, S., Montgomery, M. K., Kostas, S. A. Driver, S. E., & Mello, C. C. (1998). Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 391, 806-811.
23. Fletcher, L. (2001). US stem cell policy comes under fire. Nature Biotechnology, 19, 893-894.
24. Fuchs, E. (2009). Cloning DARPA successfully. Issues in Science and Technology, 26(1), 65-70.
25. Fuchs, E. (2010). DARPA does Moore's Law: The case of DARPA and optoelectronic interconnects. In F. Block & M. Keller (Eds.), State of innovation: The U.S. government's role in technology development (pp. 133-148). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
26. Furman, J. L., & Hayes, R. (2004). Catching up or standing still? National innovative productivity among "follower" nations, 1978-1999. Research Policy, 33, 1329-1354.
27. Furman, J. L., & Murray, F. (2008). Autonomy & the fragile structure of the scientific community: Examining U.S. stem cell policy. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Sociological Association, Boston, MA.
28. Furman, J. L, & Stern, S (2011). Climbing atop the shoulders of giants: The impact of institutions on cumulative research. American Economic Review, 101, 1933-1963.
29. Furman, J. L., Jensen, K. & Murray, F. (2012). Governing knowledge production in the scientific community: Quantifying the impact of retractions. Research Policy.
30. Gans J., & Murray, F. (2012). Public funding restrictions and their impact on the rate and direction of scientific research. In J. Lerner and S. Stern (Eds.), Rate and direction of inventive activity, revisited (pp. 51-103). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science-New dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122, 108-111.
32. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1, 359-375.
33. Garud, R., & Rappa, M. A. (1995). On the persistence of researchers in technological development. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15, 811-846.
34. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 92, 630-653.
35. Griliches, Z. (1998). R&D and productivity: The econometric evidence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36. Hall, B., Mairesse, J., & Turner, L. (2007). Identifying age, cohort and period effects in scientific research productivity: Discussion and illustration using simulated and actual data on French physicists. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 16, 159-177.
37. Harvard Stem Cell Institute. (2005). Harvard stem cell institute annual report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
38. Harvard Stem Cell Institute. (2006). Harvard stem cell institute annual report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
39. Harvard Stem Cell Institute. (2009). Harvard stem cell institute annual report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
40. Hausman, J., Hall, B., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52, 909-938.
41. Hughes, R. J. (2006, July 28). Stem-cell funding's private side. Wall Street Journal, p. W2.
42. Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 5-86.
43. Jaffe, A. (2006, June). The "science of science policy": Reflections on the important questions and the challenges they present. Keynote Address at the NSF Workshop on Advancing Measures of Innovation: Knowledge Flows, Business Metrics, and Measurement Strategies, Arlington, VA.
44. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45. Lane, J. (2009). Assessing the impact of science funding. Science, 324, 1273-1275.
46. Lane, J., & Bertuzzi, S. (2011). Measuring the results from science investments. Science, 331, 678-680.
47. Levin, S., & Stephan, P. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review, 81, 114-132.
48. Levine, A. (2005). Geographic trends in human embryonic stem cell research. Politics and the Life Sciences, 23, 40-45.
49. Levine, A. (2008). Identifying under- and overperforming countries in research related to human embryonic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 521-524.
50. Lindsey, D. (1989). Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science: Measuring what's measurable rather than what's valid. Scientometrics, 15, 189-203.
51. Löser, P., Schirm, J., Guhr, A., Wobus, A. W., & Kurtz, A. (2009). Human embryonic stem cell lines and their use in international research. Stem Cells, 28, 240-246.
52. MacKinnon, J. G. (2002). Bootstrap inference in econometrics. Canadian Journal of Economics, 35, 615-645.
53. Marburger, J. (2005). Wanted: Better benchmarks. Science, 308, 1087.
54. Martin, G. (1981). Isolation of a pluripotent cell line from early mouse embryos cultured in medium conditioned by teratocarcinoma stem cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 78, 7634-7638.
55. Martin, M. J., Muotri, A., Gage, F., & Varki, A. (2005). Human embryonic stem cells express an immunogenic nonhuman sialic acid. Nature Medicine, 11, 228-232.
56. McCormick, J., Owen-Smith, J., & Scott, C. (2009). Distribution of human embryonic stem cell lines: Who, when and where. Cell Stem Cell, 4, 107-110.
57. McGinley, L., & Regalado, A. (2002, April 10). Cloning clamor grows. Wall Street Journal, pp. B1.
58. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59. Mokyr, J. (2002). The gifts of Athena. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
60. Murray, F. (2007). The stem-cell market-Patents and the pursuit of scientific progress. The New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 2341-2343.
61. Murray, F. (2010). The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a source of productive tension at the boundary of overlapping institutions. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 341-388.
62. Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63, 648-687.
63. Murray, F., Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Kolev, J., & Stern, S. (2011). Of mice and academics: The role of openness in science. MIT Sloan Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
64. NIH. (1999). Fact sheet on stem cell research. Bethesda, MD: Author.
65. NIH. (2001). Stem cells: Scientific progress and future research directions. Bethesda, MD: Author.
66. NIH. (2011). Estimates of funding for various research, condition, and disease categories (RCDC). Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved November 10, 2011, from.
67. Owen-Smith, J., & McCormick, J. (2006). An international gap in human embryonic stem cell research. Nature Biotechnology, 24, 391-392.
68. Rabb, H. (1999, January 15). Memorandum from Harriet Rabb to Harold Varmus.
69. Rewerski, P. (2007). The need for a new U.S. stem cell research policy: A comparative look at international stem cell research laws. Journal of Law, Technology, and Policy, 2, 415-432.
70. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, S71-S102.
71. Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1993). Reference standards for citation based assessments. Scientometrics, 26, 21-35.
72. Scotchmer, S. (1991). Standing on the shoulders of giants: Cumulative research and the patent law. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 29-41.
73. Scott, C. T., McCormick, J., & Owen-Smith, J. (2009). And then there were two: Use of hESC lines. Nature Biotechnology, 27, 696-697.
74. Scott, C. T., McCormick, J., DeRouen, M., & Owen-Smith, J. (2010). Federal policy and the use of pluripotent stem cells. Nature Methods, 11, 866-867.
75. Scott, C. T., McCormick, J., DeRouen, M., & Owen-Smith, J. (2011). Democracy derived: New trajectories in pluripotent stem cell research. Cell, 145, 820-826.
76. Smaglik, P. (2001). Stem-cell seduction. Nature, 412, 3.
77. Stephan, P. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 1199-1235.
78. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
79. Thomson, J. A., Itskovitz-Eldor, J., Shapiro, S. S., Waknitz, M. A. Swiergiel, J. J., Marshall, V. S, & Jones, J. M. (1998). Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science, 282, 1145-1147.
80. Vestal, C. (2007, June 21). Embryonic stem cell research divides states. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from.
81. Vestal, C. (2009, March 11). States applaud new stem-cell funding. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from.
82. Vogel, G. (2001). Bush squeezes between lines on stem cells. Science, 293, 1242-1245.
83. Walters, L. (2004). Human embryonic stem cell research: An intercultural perspective. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 14, 3-38.
84. Wertz, D. C. (2002). Embryo and stem cell research in the United States: History and politics. Gene Therapy, 9, 674-678.
85. Williams, H. (2010). Intellectual property rights and innovation: Evidence from the human genome. NBER Working Paper 16213. Cambridge, MA: NBER.