The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany

Abstract During the last 30 years, biotechnology development has charted different paths in the US and in Germany. Even though in Germany federal support programs started very early to target biotechnology, the innovative performance of this sector has been lagging behind that of the US, where the federal support was less direct. This article compares the two national science and technology (S&T) policies and analyzes the political, economic and social factors that determined the different paths. The paper concludes that an indirect S&T policy that tries to spread the factors, thereby enabling a preferable “economic ecology” for biotech development, is more successful than an interventionist policy. Political action, however, is limited and can only enhance science and technology development if the policies mesh with the social and economic dispositions.

[1]  A. Chandler,et al.  Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 , 1994 .

[2]  R. Nelson,et al.  National Innovation Systems , 1993 .

[3]  A. Jaffe.  Real Effects of Academic Research , 1989 .

[4]  M. Polanyi.  Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[5]  Steven Casper.  National institutional frameworks and high-technology innovation in Germany: the case of biotechnology , 1999 .

[6]  D. Fredrickson.  Biomedical research in the 1980s. , 1981, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  S. Jasanoff.  Technological Innovation in a Corporatist State : The Case of Biotechnology in the Federal Republic of Germany : Research Policy , 1993 .

[8]  Maryann P. Feldman,et al.  Real Effects of Academic Research: Comment , 1992 .

[9]  Martin Kenney,et al.  Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex , 1986 .

[10]  B. Lundvall.  National Systems of Innovation , 1992 .

[11]  F. W. Scharpf.  Verhandlungssysteme, Verteilungskonflikte und Pathologien der politischen Steuerung , 1988 .

[12]  B. Culliton.  The Hoechst department of Mass General. , 1982, Science.

[13]  J. E. Forrest,et al.  Strategic Alliances between Large and Small Research Intensive Organizations: Experiences in the Biotechnology Industry , 1992 .

[14]  G. Tegge.  BMET-Leistungsplan Biotechnologie (Planperiode 1979–1983). Herausgegeben vom Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie (BMFT), Bonn 1978. 75 Seiten , 1981 .

[15]  Burton A. Weisbrod,et al.  To profit or not to profit , 1998 .

[16]  C. Edquist.  Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations , 1997 .

[17]  D. C. Swain.  The rise of a research empire: NIH, 1930 to 1950. , 1962, Science.

[18]  M. Brewer,et al.  Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises , 1994 .

[19]  S. Krimsky.  Biotechnics and Society: The Rise of Industrial Genetics, Sheldon Krimsky. 1991. Greenwood Press, Inc., Westport, CT. 280 pages. ISBN: 0-275-93860-3. $17.95 , 1994 .

[20]  Bruce L. R. Smith,et al.  American Science Policy Since World War II , 1990 .

[21]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  An International Comparison , 2000 .

[22]  Z. Stos‐gale,et al.  Bronze Age Copper Sources in the Mediterranean: A New Approach , 1982, Science.

[23]  Politics on the Endless Frontier: Postwar Research Policy in the United States. , 1997 .

[24]  J. Howells.  Tacit Knowledge, Innovation and Technology Transfer. , 1996 .

[25]  B. Zider,et al.  How venture capital works. , 1998, Harvard business review.

[26]  A. Elzinga.  The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1997 .

[27]  O. Ulrich.  Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie , 1992 .

[28]  J. Hollingsworth,et al.  Contemporary capitalism : the embeddedness of institutions , 1997 .

[29]  Andreas Stucke.  Institutionalisierung der Forschungspolitik: Entstehung, Entwicklung und Steuerungsprobleme des Bundesforschungsministeriums , 1993 .

[30]  U. Schmoch,et al.  Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields , 1998 .

[31]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  To Profit or Not to Profit: Universities as creators and retailers of intellectual property: Life-sciences research and commercial development , 1998 .

[32]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  Enterprises from science: The origins of science-based regional economic development , 1993 .

[33]  TATuP Redaktion.  Zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands , 1996 .

[34]  Gordon Murray,et al.  Why has the investment performance of technology-specialist, European venture capital funds been so poor? , 1998 .

[35]  Martin Kenney,et al.  Venture Capital, High Technology and Regional Development , 1988 .

[36]  G. Pisano.  Knowledge Integration and the Locus of Learning: An Empirical Analysis , 1994 .

[37]  Müller,et al.  Localized discussion of stimulated processes for Rindler observers and accelerated detectors. , 1994, Physical review. D, Particles and fields.

[38]  C. Gebhardt.  Die Regionalisierung von Innovationsprozessen in der Informationstechnologie , 1997 .

[39]  F. W. Scharpf.  Politische Steuerung und politische Institutionen , 1989 .

[40]  N. Luhmann.  Politische Steuerung: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag , 1989 .

[41]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations (2nd edition) , 2001 .

[42]  U. Schimank,et al.  Konflikte und Gleichgewichte im Forschungssystem: Akteurkonstellationen und Entwicklungspfade in der staatlich finanzierten außeruniversitären Forschung , 1990 .

[43]  N. Luhmann.  Soziale Systeme : Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie , 1984 .

[44]  John L. Campbell,et al.  Beyond Keynesianism: The Socio-Economics of Production and Full Employment. , 1994 .