Pushing Scientists into the Marketplace: Promoting Science Entrepreneurship

This comparative study investigating the relationship between the U.S. high-tech sectors and German and Japanese attempts to catch up on developments of newer high-tech sectors is based onthe concept of "science entrepreneurship." This concept, meaning the simultaneous dedication of scientists to academic science and economic profit, is an established tradition in the United States, but is relatively new in Japan and Germany. Germany and Japan are examples of countries at two end of the spectrum: Germany is a leading science nation, but has not encouraged academic scientists to commercialize their discoveries;Japan is a country in which academic science has not been accorded the same policy importance as mastery of more applied technology fields with direct commercial uses. Biotechnology is a scientific field that crosses the boundaries between basic and applied research. In both Japan and Germany, economic competitiveness is primarilythe responsibility of the private sector, and both countries have been successful in accelerating the growth of biotechnology start-ups through aggressive policy action.Catching-up in science entrepreneurship with the U.S. will challenge the political will of both countries. Although Japan lags behind Germany in basic science, its level of reform in national R & D is higher. Policies intended to pressure German or Japanese scientists to perform as their U.S. colleagues do will not necessarily change their experience radically, given the difference in speed and extra effort that is required of U.S. scientists in their competitive environments.Science and science entrepreneurship remain one of the last unquestioned bastions of institutional integrity and excellence for the United States.(CBS)

[1]  Steven Casper,et al.  Institutional Adaptiveness, Technology Policy, and the Diffusion of New Business Models: The Case of German Biotechnology , 2000 .

[2]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th-Century America , 1998 .

[3]  Arvids A. Ziedonis,et al.  The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole act of 1980 , 2001 .

[4]  Jacqueline Senker,et al.  National systems of innovation, organizational learning and industrial biotechnology , 1996 .

[5]  J. Ziegler,et al.  Institutions, Elites, and Technological Change in France and Germany , 1995, World Politics.

[6]  Luigi Orsenigo,et al.  The Emergence of Biotechnology: Institutions and Markets in Industrial Innovation , 1989 .

[7]  Robert Kneller,et al.  Autarkic drug discovery in Japanese pharmaceutical companies: insights into national differences in industrial innovation , 2003 .

[8]  Anthony I. Wasserman,et al.  University-Industry Cooperation , 1976 .

[9]  Fiona E. Murray.  Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering , 2002 .

[10]  Mark Lehrer,et al.  Has Germany Finally Fixed its High-Tech Problem? The Recent Boom in German Technology-Based Entrepreneurship , 2000 .

[11]  N. Rosenberg,et al.  How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transforma-tion of the Industrial World , 1987 .

[12]  Rebecca Henderson,et al.  Sources of Industrial Leadership: The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Revolution in Molecular Biology: Interactions Among Scientific, Institutional, and Organizational Change , 1999 .

[13]  Kazuhiro Asakawa,et al.  Organizational tension in international R&D management : The case of Japanese firms , 2001 .

[14]  H. Etzkowitz.  Research groups as ???quasi-firms???: the invention of the entrepreneurial university , 2003 .

[15]  Werner Meske,et al.  Transforming science and technology systems, the endless transition? , 1998 .

[16]  M. Lehrer,et al.  Can High-technology Industries Prosper in Germany? Institutional Frameworks and the Evolution of the German Software and Biotechnology Industries , 1999 .

[17]  E. Vogel,et al.  Ideology and National Competitiveness: An Analysis of Nine Countries , 1987 .

[18]  D. Dohse,et al.  Technology policy and the regions — the case of the BioRegio contest , 2000 .

[19]  Roger G. Noll,et al.  Forged Consensus: Science, Technology, and Economic Policy in the United States, 1921–1953. By Hart David M.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998. 267p. $39.95 , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[20]  Gary P. Pisano,et al.  Learning-before-doing in the development of new process technology , 1996 .

[21]  John L. Campbell,et al.  Governing Ideas: Strategies for Innovation in France and Germany , 1997 .

[22]  Steven Casper,et al.  NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS AND THE HYBRIDIZATION OF ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS MODELS: THE GERMAN AND UK BIOTECHNOLOGY SECTORS , 2001 .

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

[24]  R. Kneller.  University-Industry Cooperation and Technology Transfer in Japan Compared with the United States: Another Reason for Japan's Economic Malaise , 2003 .

[25]  Richard Whitley,et al.  Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of institutional frameworks on the organisation of academic science ☆ , 2003 .

[26]  Keith Pavitt,et al.  Public Policies to Support Basic Research: What Can the Rest of the World Learn from US Theory and Practice? (And What They Should Not Learn) , 2001 .

[27]  Basil Achilladelis,et al.  The dynamics of technological innovation: the case of the pharmaceutical industry , 2001 .

[28]  Robert J. W. Tijssen,et al.  In search of the European Paradox: an international comparison of Europe's scientific performance and knowledge flows in information and communication technologies research , 1999 .