This paper examines place-specific factors affecting geographies of innovation, that is, the transfer of research from the laboratory to bedside in the healthcare sector in four European bioscience regions. These regions are Medical Delta (MD; Leiden, Rotterdam and Delft, Netherlands) Oxford and the Thames Valley (OTV; UK), Biocat (Catalonia, Spain) and Life Science Zurich (LSZ; Switzerland). Evidence is drawn from the European Union-funded Healthcare Technology and Innovation for Economic Success (HealthTIES) project (2010–2013). The analytical framework, the HealthTIES Innovation Cycle, is organised into resources (inputs), innovation system elements and outcomes. The paper shows that each region represents different positions within international value chains of innovation in the healthcare sector. They range from the highly research intensive but with relatively less in the way of commercial exploitation location (OTV) to the less research intensive but with more commercialisation (LSZ).
AutioEKennedyMMustarPSiegelDWrightM (2014) Entrepreneurial innovation: the importance of context. Research Policy43(7): 1097–1108.
4.
Bagchi-SenSLawton SmithHHallL (2004) The U.S. biotechnology industry – policy and practice. Environment and Planning C22(2): 199–216.
5.
BalasEAElkinPL (2013) Technology transfer from biomedical research to clinical practice: measuring Innovation performance. Evaluation & the Health Professions36(4): 505–517.
6.
BirchK (2008) Alliance-driven governance: applying a global commodity chains approach to the U.K. biotechnology industry. Economic Geography84(1): 83–103.
7.
BirchK (2017) Innovation, Regional Development and the Life Sciences beyond Clusters. London: Routledge.
BreschiSLissoniF (2001) Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change10(4): 975–1005.
10.
BreschiSMalerbaF (1997) Chapter 6. Sectoral innovation systems: technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries. In: EdquistC (ed.) Systems of Innovation – Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter, pp. 130–156.
11.
BreznitzSAndersonWP (2006) Boston metropolitan area biotechnology cluster. Canadian Journal of Regional Science/Revue canadienne des sciences régionalesXXVIII(2): 249–264.
12.
BreznitzSM (2013) Cluster sustainability: the Israeli life sciences industry. Economic Development Quarterly27(1): 29–39.
CasperS (2013) The spill-over theory reversed: the impact of regional economies on the commercialization of university science. Research Policy42(8): 1313–1324.
15.
CoenenLMoodyssonJAsheimBT (2004) Nodes, networks and proximities: on the knowledge dynamics of the Medicon Valley biotech cluster. European Planning Studies12(7): 1003–1018.
16.
CoenenLMoodyssonJRyanCAsheimBTPhillipsP (2006) Knowledge bases and spatial patterns of collaboration: comparing the pharma and agro-food bioregions Scania and Saskatoon. Industry and Innovation13(4): 393–414.
17.
CookeP (1992) Regional innovation systems: competitive regulation in the new Europe. Geoforum23(3): 365–382.
18.
CookeP (2005) Rational drug design, the knowledge chain and bioscience megacentres. Cambridge Journal of Economics29(3): 325–341.
19.
CookeP (2013) Growth Cultures: The Global Bioeconomy and Its Bioregions. London: Routledge.
20.
FeldmanMP (2014) The character of innovative places: entrepreneurial strategy, economic development and prosperity. Small Business Economics43(1): 9–20.
21.
FeldmanMPFrancisJL (2006) Chapter 6. Entrepreneurs as agents in the formation of industrial clusters. In: AsheimBCookePMartinR (eds) Clusters and Regional Development. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 115–136.
22.
FreemanC (1995) The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics19(1): 5–24.
23.
FritschMSchindeleY (2011) The contribution of new businesses to regional employment—an empirical analysis. Economic Geography87(2): 153–180.
24.
FritschMWyrwichM (2014) The long persistence of regional levels of entrepreneurship: Germany, 1925 to 2005. Regional Studies48(6): 955–973.
25.
GebhardtC (2015) Chapter 7. Island of bliss? University technology commercialisation practices in the Swiss Innovation system. In: BreznitzSMEtzkowitzH (eds) University Technology Transfer. London: Routledge, pp. 149–178.
26.
GoldsteinHA (2009) Chapter 2. What we know and what we don’t know about the regional economic impacts of universities. In: VargaA (ed.) Universities, Knowledge Transfer and Regional Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 11–35.
27.
GrimshawJMEcclesMPLavisJNHillSJSquiresJE (2012) Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science7(50): 1–17.
28.
HekkertMPSuursRAANegroSOKuhlmannSSmitsREHM (2007) Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change74(4): 413–432.
29.
HowellsJ (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy35(5): 715–728.
30.
KenneyM (1986a) Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31.
KenneyM (1986b) Schumpeterian innovation and entrepreneurs in capitalism: a case study of the U.S. biotechnology industry. Research Policy15(1): 21–31.
32.
KlineSJRosenbergN (1986) An overview of innovation. In: LandauRRosenbergN (eds) The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, pp. 275–305.
33.
Lawton SmithHWatersR ( 2015) Regional synergies in triple helix regions: the case of local economic development policies Oxfordshire.Industry and Higher Education29(1): 25–36. ISSN 0950-4222.
34.
LendelI (2010) The impact of research universities on regional economies: the concept of university products. Economic Development Quarterly24(3): 210–230.
35.
LundvallB-Å (1988) Innovation as an interactive process – from user-producer interaction to national systems of innovation. In: DosiGFreemanCNelsonRSilverbergGSoeteLLG (eds) Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter Publishers, pp. 349–367.
36.
LundvallB-A (1992) National systems of innovation, Pinter.
37.
MalerbaF (2002) Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy1(2): 247–264.
38.
MalerbaF (2005) Sectoral systems: how and why innovation differs across sectors. In Fagerberg: David and Nelson, (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 380–406.
39.
MalmbergA (2003) Beyond the cluster: local milieus and global connections. In: PeckJA (ed.) Remaking the Global Economy: Economic-Geographical Perspectives. London: SAGE, pp. 145–162.
40.
MalmbergMMaskellP (2006) Localised learning revisited. Growth and Change37(1): 1–18.
41.
MalmbergMPowerD (2005) (How) do (firms in) clusters create knowledge?Industry and Innovation12(4): 409–431.
42.
MazzucatoM (2013) The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs Private Sector Myth. London: Anthem Press.
43.
MoodyssonJJonssonO (2007) Knowledge collaboration and proximity the spatial organization of biotech innovation projects. European Urban and Regional Studies14(2): 115–131.
44.
NelsonR (1993) National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford; New York: University Press.
45.
RothwellR (1994) Towards the fifth generation innovation process. International Marketing Review11(1): 7–31.
46.
SpigelB (2015) The relational organisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. Epub ahead of print 25June. DOI: 10.1111/etap.12167.
Swiss Biotech (2016) Swiss Biotech report. Available at: www.swissbiotechreport.ch (accessed 17 March 2016).
50.
TödtlingFTripplM (2015) How do firms acquire knowledge in different sectoral and regional contexts?Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/25, Lund University, CIRCLE - Center for Innovation. Research and Competences in the Learning Economy. (accessed August 15 2016).
WoolthuisRKLankhuizenMGilsingV (2005) A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation25(6): 609–619.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
