This paper focuses on ‘triple helix’ effects in biosciences. Scientific change can have profound socioeconomic effects. The molecular biology revolution tilted pharmaceuticals production away from its fine chemistry path dependence into microbiology and biotechnology. The key to any triple helix effects has thus shifted to universities and spinouts buttressed with burgeoning public funding, leaving ‘big pharma’ increasingly playing the role of licenser and marketer of bought-in therapeutic treatments. Concentration in the healthcare value chain means a few places that have become bioscience ‘mega-centres’ dominate healthcare innovation. Ambitious regions seeking to establish megacentres of their own are causing governments to experiment with ‘regional science policy’ to build up competitiveness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndermannA, 1996, “Physicians, fads and pharma: a history of aspirin”, Faculty of Mediane, McGill University, Montreal
CookeP, 2002a, “Managing knowledge spillovers: the role of ‘megacentres’ in biosciences”, paper presented at the International Workshop on ‘Knowledge Spillovers and Knowledge Management in Industrial Clusters and Industrial Networks’, Ljungby, Sweden, 19–21 September; to be published in 2004 in Knowledge Spillovers and Knowledge Management Eds KarlssonC (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos)
5.
CookeP, 2002b, “Towards regional science policy? The rationale from biosciences”, paper presented at the Conference on ‘Rethinking Science Policy: Analytical Frameworks for Evidence-based Policy’, SPRU, University of Sussex, 21–23 March; published in 2003 in Clusters Old and New Ed. WolfeD A (McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal); revised version “Life sciences and regional science policy”, forthcoming in Urban Studies 2004
6.
CookeP, 2002c, “Rational drug design, the knowledge value chain and bioscience megacentres”, presented at the International Workshop ‘Clusters in High-technology: Aerospace, Biotechnology and Software Compared’, Department of Management and Technology, Université du Québec, Montréal, 1 November; forthcoming in Cambridge Journal of Economics 2004
CookeP, 2002e, “Regional science policy and the growth of knowledge megacentres in bioscience clusters”, paper presented at the Regional Science Association 42nd European Congress, Dortmund, Germany, 27–31 August; forthcoming as “Regional knowledge capabilities, embeddedness of firms, and industry organisation: bioscience megacentres and economic geography” European Planning Studies 2004
9.
CookePManningCHugginsR, 2000, “Industrial liaison and academic entrepreneurship in Wales”Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeografie44246–260
10.
CortrightJMayerH, 2002Signs of Life: The Growth of Biotechnology Centres in the US (The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC)
11.
DTI, 1999Biotechnology ClustersDepartment of Trade and Industry, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1A 2NL
12.
DyerG, 2002, “Testing times for the pharmaceuticals industry”Financial Times 15 February, page 17
13.
DyerGGriffithV, 2001, “Growing together”Financial Times 19 December, page 20
14.
EMEA, 2002, “Medicinal products with a Community marketing authorisation”, The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, 7 Westferry Circus, London E14 4HB
15.
EtkowitzHLeydesdorffL (Eds), 1997Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy (Pinter, London)
16.
GibbonsMLimogesHNowotnySSchwartzmanSScottPTrowM, 1994The New Production of Knowledge (Sage, London)
17.
HassinkRLagendijkA, 2001, “The dilemmas of interregional institutional learning”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy1965–84
18.
HendersonROrsenigoLPisanoG, 1999, “The pharmaceutical industry and the revolution in molecular biology: interactions among scientific, institutional and organisational change”, in Sources of Industrial Leadership Eds MoweryDNelsonR (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 267–311
19.
JohnsonJ, 2002, “‘Valley’ in the Alps”Financial Times 27 February, page 10
20.
LatourB, 1998, “From the world of science to the world of research?”Science280208–209
21.
MalerbaFOrsenigoL, 2002, “Innovation and market structure in the dynamics of the pharmaceutical industry and biotechnology: towards a history-friendly model”, Industrial and Corporate Change11667–703
22.
NiosiJBasT, 2001, “The competencies of regions—Canada's clusters in biotechnology”Small Business Economics1731–42
23.
NonakaIReinmöllerP, 1998, “The legacy of learning: toward endogenous knowledge creation for Asian economic development”, in Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin Jahrbuch (Wissenschaftszentrum, Berlin) pp 401–431
PorterM, 1998On Competition (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA)
26.
PowellWKoputKBowieJSmith-DoerrL, 2002, “The spatial clustering of science and capital: accounting for biotech firm—venture capital relationships”Regional Studies36291–305
SchumpeterJ, 1919Business Cycles (McGraw-Hill, New York)
29.
StankiewiczR, 2002, “The evolving design space of technology and the public R&D system”, paper to conference on ‘Rethinking Science Policy: Analytical Frameworks for Evidence-based Policy’, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, 21–23 March; copy available from the author, European University Institute, Florence
30.
Van ReenenJ, 2002, “Economic issues for the UK biotechnology sector”New Genetics and Society21109–130
31.
WebsterAEtkowitzH, 1991Academic—Industry Relations: A Second Academic Revolution?Science Policy Support Group, London
