Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America - Tập 93 Số 23 - Trang 12709-12716 - 1996
Lynne G. Zucker1, Michael R. Darby1
1Department of Sociology and Organizational Research Program, Institute for Social Science Research, University of California, Box 951484, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1484; and John M. Olin Center for Policy, John E. Anderson School Graduate School of Management, University of California, Box 951481, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1481

Tóm tắt

The most productive (“star”) bioscientists had intellectual human capital of extraordinary scientific and pecuniary value for some 10–15 years after Cohen and Boyer’s 1973 founding discovery for biotechnology [Cohen, S., Chang, A., Boyer, H. & Helling, R. (1973) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 70, 3240–3244]. This extraordinary value was due to the union of still scarce knowledge of the new research techniques and genius and vision to apply them in novel, valuable ways. As in other sciences, star bioscientists were very protective of their techniques, ideas, and discoveries in the early years of the revolution, tending to collaborate more within their own institution, which slowed diffusion to other scientists. Close, bench-level working ties between stars and firm scientists were needed to accomplish commercialization of the breakthroughs. Where and when star scientists were actively producing publications is a key predictor of where and when commercial firms began to use biotechnology. The extent of collaboration by a firm’s scientists with stars is a powerful predictor of its success: for an average firm, 5 articles coauthored by an academic star and the firm’s scientists result in about 5 more products in development, 3.5 more products on the market, and 860 more employees. Articles by stars collaborating with or employed by firms have significantly higher rates of citation than other articles by the same or other stars. The U.S. scientific and economic infrastructure has been particularly effective in fostering and commercializing the bioscientific revolution. These results let us see the process by which scientific breakthroughs become economic growth and consider implications for policy.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

L G Zucker, M R Darby, M B Brewer, Y Peng Trust in Organizations, eds R M Kramer, T Tyler (Sage, Newbury Park, CA), pp. 90–113 (1996).

10.1287/orsc.7.4.428

P S Tolbert, L G Zucker Handbook of Organization Studies, eds S R Clegg, C Hardy, W R Nord (Sage, London), pp. 175–190 (1996).

L G Zucker, M R Darby, M B Brewer Working Paper (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, No. 4653. (1994).

L G Zucker, M R Darby, J Armstrong Working Paper (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, No. 4946. (1994).

L G Zucker, M R Darby Working Paper (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, No. 5243. (1995).

10.2307/2091086

H Zuckerman Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States (Free Press, New York, 1977).

10.1073/pnas.70.11.3240

10.2307/1905380

10.1086/258177

Arrow K. J. (1962) in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors N.B.E.R. Special Conference Series ed. Nelson R. R. (Princeton Univ. Press Princeton) Vol. 13 pp. 609–625.

K J Arrow The Limits of Organization (Norton, New York, 1974).

R R Nelson, S G Winter An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982).

N Rosenberg Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1982).

Zucker L. G. & Darby M. R. (1995) in AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations Phase II: Space Science and Geophysics Report No. 2: Documenting Collaborations in Space Science and Geophysics eds. Warnow-Blewett J. Capitos A. J. Genuth J. & Weart S. R. (American Institute of Physics College Park MD) pp. 149–178.

L G Zucker, I G G Kreft Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations, eds J A C Baum, J V Singh (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford), pp. 194–313 (1994).

L G Zucker Res Sociol Organ 8, 157–189 (1991).

G M Grossman, E Helpman Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991).

A Marshall Principles of Economics (Macmillan, 8th Ed., London, 1920).

Audretsch D. B. & Feldman M. P. (1993) The Location of Economic Activity: New Theories and Evidence Centre for Economic Policy Research Conference Proceedings (Consorcio de la Zona Franca di Vigo Vigo Spain) pp. 235–279.

K Head, J Ries, D Swenson Working Paper (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, No. 4767. (1994).

10.1525/9780520338715-009

10.1086/261420

Romer P. M. (1990) J. Polit. Econ. 98 Suppl. S71–S102.

10.1257/jep.8.1.23

10.1086/262002

R R Nelson, E N Wolff Reports (New York Univ., New York, No. 92-27. (1992).

10.1016/0048-7333(93)00762-I

R C Levin Government and Technological Progress: A Cross-Industry Analysis, ed R R Nelson (Pergamon, New York), pp. 9–100 (1982).

Balkin D. B. & Gomez-Mejia L. R. (1985) Pers. Admin. 111-123.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Tập 93 Số 23

12709-12716

Thông tin tác giả