Inducement and blocking mechanisms in the Finnish life sciences innovation system

Purpose – This paper aims to identify inducement and blocking mechanisms which impact the development of the life sciences innovation system in Finland. Innovation system analysis of emerging technologies is important for the design of technology-specific innovation policy measures to promote desirable futures Design/methodology/approach – This exploratory study uses a functional technological innovation system analysis framework designed to identify policy goals for emerging technological fields. The data consist of 33 qualitative face-to-face interviews with senior managers and decision-makers. Best practices are identified from the San Francisco Bay Area and the Finnish life sciences innovation system is analyzed in detail. Findings – The Finnish system has a good capability to perform top-level basic research, but the commercial aspect is largely missing because of the lack of business know-how, small size of the domestic market, networking failures, scarcity of funding and poor public image. Research...

[1]  Lars Coenen,et al.  Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources , 2012 .

[2]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis , 2008 .

[3]  R. Nelson.  The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research , 1959, Journal of Political Economy.

[4]  Anthony Arundel,et al.  OECD Biotechnology Statistics 2009 , 2006 .

[5]  Raimo Lovio,et al.  Comparing Alternative Path Creation Frameworks in the Context of Emerging Biofuel Fields in the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland , 2012 .

[6]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[7]  R. Nelson.  National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis , 1993 .

[8]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[9]  J. Niosi.  Complexity and path dependence in biotechnology innovation systems , 2011 .

[10]  Christopher M. Weible,et al.  An Advocacy Coalition Framework Approach to Stakeholder Analysis: Understanding the Political Context of California Marine Protected Area Policy , 2006 .

[11]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research , 2000 .

[12]  Per Dannemand Andersen,et al.  Innovation system foresight , 2014 .

[13]  S. Negassi,et al.  Is technology integration the solution to biotechnology's low research and development productivity? , 2006 .

[14]  Frans Berkhout,et al.  Socio-Technological Regimes and Transition Contexts , 2004 .

[15]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930) , 2005, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[16]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences , 2001 .

[17]  F. Malerba.  Sectoral systems of innovation and production , 2002 .

[18]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Innovaton and Emulation: Lessons from American Universities in Selling Private Rights to Public Knowledge , 2007 .

[19]  Jochen Markard,et al.  Innovation processes in large technical systems: Market liberalization as a driver for radical change? , 2006 .

[20]  A. Geuna,et al.  University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence , 2006 .

[21]  David Blumenthal,et al.  Entrepreneurship, Secrecy, and Productivity: A Comparison of Clinical and Non-Clinical Life Sciences Faculty , 2001 .

[22]  Xielin Liu,et al.  Comparing innovation systems: a framework and application to China’s transitional context , 2001 .

[23]  Clayton M. Christensen.  The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail , 2013 .

[24]  A. Saxenian.  The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy , 1994 .

[25]  Anthony Arundel,et al.  OECD Biotechnology Statistics , 2009 .

[26]  Daniele Archibugi,et al.  The Globalizing Learning Economy , 2002 .

[27]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  Socio-cognitive evolution in niche development: Comparative analysis of biogas development in Denmark and the Netherlands (1973–2004) , 2010 .

[28]  Joanna Poyago-Theotoky,et al.  Universities and Fundamental Research: Reflections on the Growth of University–Industry Partnerships , 2002 .

[29]  Carolin Haeussler,et al.  The Determinants of Commercialization Strategy: Idiosyncrasies in British and German Biotechnology , 2009 .

[30]  F. Geels.  Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study , 2002 .

[31]  Hariolf Grupp,et al.  National Technology Foresight Activities Around the Globe , 1999 .

[32]  James B. Rebitzer,et al.  Organizational Fragmentation and Care Quality in the U.S. Health Care System , 2008, The journal of economic perspectives : a journal of the American Economic Association.

[33]  B. Carlsson,et al.  On the nature, function and composition of technological systems , 1991 .

[34]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change , 2007 .

[35]  Riku Lähteenmäki.  Finnish biotechnology—built on solid foundations , 2002, Nature Biotechnology.

[36]  Michelle Gittelman,et al.  Does Geography Matter for Science-Based Firms? Epistemic Communities and the Geography of Research and Patenting in Biotechnology , 2007, Organ. Sci..

[37]  Charles Edquist,et al.  Systems of innovation perspectives and challenges , 2004 .

[38]  Malin E. Brännback,et al.  Building market orientation in biotechnology SMEs: balancing scientific advances , 2005 .

[39]  Sven Lindmark,et al.  Analysing the Dynamics and Fucntionality of Sectoral Innovation Systems - a manual , 2005 .

[40]  S. Borrás.  System of innovation theory and the European Union , 2004 .

[41]  L. Zucker,et al.  Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  S. Cunningham,et al.  Technology futures analysis: Toward integration of the field and new methods , 2004 .

[43]  Johan Schot,et al.  Strategies for shifting technological systems : the case of the automobile system , 1994 .

[44]  Bengt-Åke Lundvall,et al.  The Globalising Learning Economy: Implications for Innovation Policy , 1998 .

[45]  Icíar Dominguez Lacasa,et al.  The performance of European countries in biotechnology: how does Europe compare to the USA? , 2008 .

[46]  Masao Nakamura,et al.  Interaction between public research organizations and industry in biotechnology , 2003 .

[47]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: Contributions and suggestions for research , 2011 .

[48]  Keith Smith.  Innovation as a Systemic Phenomenon: Rethinking the Role of Policy , 2000 .

[49]  David Blumenthal,et al.  Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity , 2001 .

[50]  E. Rogers.  Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[51]  B. Lanvin,et al.  The Global Innovation Index 2011 , 2011 .

[52]  P. Sabatier.  An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein , 1988 .

[53]  Terttu Luukkonen,et al.  Living up to the Expectations Set by ICT? The Case of Biotechnology Commercialisation in Finland , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[54]  P. Cooke.  Regional Innovation Systems, Clusters, and the Knowledge Economy , 2001 .

[55]  J. Fagerberg,et al.  The Oxford handbook of innovation , 2006 .

[56]  V. Gilsing,et al.  A system failure framework for innovation policy design , 2005 .

[57]  B. Truffer,et al.  Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects , 2012 .

[58]  Marko P. Hekkert,et al.  Cumulative causation in biofuels development: a critical comparison of the Netherlands and Sweden , 2008, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..