Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering

Modes of organizing biomedical innovation in the UK and US and the role of integrative and relational capabilities

“…Firstly, our findings echo earlier work by highlighting the importance of access in projects to individuals who work 'at the interstices' of science and commerce in order to acquire relevant knowledge and expertise and to build the skills base (Powell et al, 1996;Murray, 2002;Casper and Murray, 2005). For example, in DiagnosticsLabs, the opportunity to develop a 'theragnostic' was identified by the CEO -an experienced biomedical entrepreneur who also had close networks with PROs.…”

“…Individuals and firms, therefore, need to collaborate formally and informally to acquire the necessary resources. In the biotechnology sector, 'open' channels have been found to be particularly helpful in facilitating opportunities for knowledge creation through the enhanced likelihood of 'spillover effects': that is, knowledge is more likely to 'leak' though more open channels (Owen-Smith and Powell, 2004;Murray, 2002;Kreiner and Schultz, 1993).…”

“…Other research suggests that this mechanism is shaped by a nation's integrative capabilities, which reflect differences in labour market institutions. For example, in her study of innovation in tissue-engineered cartilage, Murray (2002) found that the commercialization of science into new medical treatments depends crucially on overlapping, but distinctive, scientific and technological networks at the institutional level. Connections to scientific networks, via key individuals who work at the interstices of such networks, provide 'knowledge spillover' effects that shape technological progress and influence firms' abilities to develop intellectual capital (Zucker et al 1998).…”

Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry

“…She found, like others (Agrawal and Henderson, 2002;Gittelman and Kogut, 2003), that there is limited network membership overlap between paperauthoring academics and patent-authoring researchers, suggesting that 'inventors' are different from 'researchers'. The researchers, however, 'co-mingle' with industry in various ways, including consulting, advisory board membership and sponsored research (Murray, 2002). Similarly, consulting was found to be a significant predictor of all other forms of academic entrepreneurship (Louis et al, 1989).…”

“…Mansfield (1995) reported that in all industries other than pharmaceuticals, over half of a sample of highly industry relevant academics said that the problems and ideas they worked on in their government-funded research often developed out of consulting. Murray's (2002) work on tissue engineering also points to a distinct research-driven logic. She found, like others (Agrawal and Henderson, 2002;Gittelman and Kogut, 2003), that there is limited network membership overlap between paperauthoring academics and patent-authoring researchers, suggesting that 'inventors' are different from 'researchers'.…”