IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v46y2017i2p475-484.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing regimes in clinical trials: Evidence from four polio vaccine trajectories

Author

Listed:
  • Yaqub, Ohid

Abstract

This paper highlights distinctive features of a neglected class of economic activity in the domain of medical innovation, namely the creation of testing regimes in clinical trials, asking how their nature might be expected to affect innovation of medical technology. It argues firstly that clinical trials are not simply about passively validating an already well-known technology and verifying its safety. Rather, clinical trials are part of a more active process of learning that allows pharmaceutical innovations to be useful outside the laboratory. It argues secondly that product development can proceed along a number of long and costly paths before a product’s behaviour in actual practice becomes clear, which can make selecting between alternative courses of action difficult. Thus, product choice and product development need to go hand-in-hand. To consider these arguments, the paper maps out four trajectories of polio vaccine development, tracing their paths through clinical trials since the 1950s, and describes some of the defining features of testing regimes for medical innovation. These include institutions that integrate knowledge and co-ordinate skills in testing processes, and capabilities for allocating testing resources, managing testability constraints, sharing knowledge and improving commensurability between testing communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Yaqub, Ohid, 2017. "Testing regimes in clinical trials: Evidence from four polio vaccine trajectories," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 475-484.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:2:p:475-484
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.12.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733316302049
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2016.12.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean O. Lanjouw, 2003. "Intellectual Property and the Availability of Pharmaceuticals in Poor Countries," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 3, pages 91-130, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Rosenberg, Nathan, 2009. "Some critical episodes in the progress of medical innovation: An Anglo-American perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 234-242, March.
    3. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    4. Blume, Stuart S., 2005. "Lock in, the state and vaccine development: Lessons from the history of the polio vaccines," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 159-173, March.
    5. Davide Consoli & Ronnie Ramlogan, 2012. "Patterns of organization in the development of medical know-how: the case of glaucoma research," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 21(2), pages 315-343, April.
    6. Nathan Rosenberg & W. Edward Steinmueller, 2013. "Engineering knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(5), pages 1129-1158, October.
    7. Nick von Tunzelmann & Franco Malerba & Paul Nightingale & Stan Metcalfe, 2008. "Technological paradigms: past, present and future," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(3), pages 467-484, June.
    8. Gittelman, Michelle, 2016. "The revolution re-visited: Clinical and genetics research paradigms and the productivity paradox in drug discovery," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1570-1585.
    9. Paul Nightingale, 2014. "What is technology? Six definitions and two pathologies," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-19, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    10. Yaqub, Ohid & Nightingale, Paul, 2012. "Vaccine innovation, translational research and the management of knowledge accumulation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2143-2150.
    11. Yaqub, Ohid & Castle-Clarke, Sophie & Sevdalis, Nick & Chataway, Joanna, 2014. "Attitudes to vaccination: A critical review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 1-11.
    12. Richard R. Nelson, 2008. "Factors affecting the power of technological paradigms," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(3), pages 485-497, June.
    13. Rosenberg,Nathan, 1994. "Exploring the Black Box," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521459556, January.
    14. Mina, A. & Ramlogan, R. & Tampubolon, G. & Metcalfe, J.S., 2007. "Mapping evolutionary trajectories: Applications to the growth and transformation of medical knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 789-806, June.
    15. Nelson, Richard R. & Buterbaugh, Kristin & Perl, Marcel & Gelijns, Annetine, 2011. "How medical know-how progresses," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1339-1344.
    16. Rinaldo Jr., C.R., 2005. "Passive immunization against poliomyelitis: The Hammon gamma globulin field trials, 1951-1953," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(5), pages 790-799.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Blandinieres, Florence, 2019. "Anatomy of the medical innovation process: What are the consequences of replicability issues on innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-011, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. Ferriani, Simone & Lazerson, Mark H. & Lorenzoni, Gianni, 2020. "Anchor entrepreneurship and industry catalysis: The rise of the Italian Biomedical Valley," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    3. Blandinieres, Florence & Pellens, Maikel, 2021. "Scientist's industry engagement and the research agenda: Evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-001, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Nelson, John P., 2023. "Differential “progressibility” in human know-how: A conceptual overview," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    5. Ohid Yaqub, 2018. "Variation in the dynamics and performance of industrial innovation: what can we learn from vaccines and HIV vaccines?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 173-187.
    6. Ohid Yaqub & Javier A Luna & Duncan Aq Moore & Alfredo Yegros-Yegros, 2022. "Responding to a disease with resources from other diseases: Evidence from Zika vaccine research dynamics [Protective Efficacy of Multiple Vaccine Platforms against Zika Virus Challenge in Rhesus Mo," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(6), pages 942-950.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ohid Yaqub, 2018. "Variation in the dynamics and performance of industrial innovation: what can we learn from vaccines and HIV vaccines?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 173-187.
    2. Nelson, John P., 2023. "Differential “progressibility” in human know-how: A conceptual overview," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    3. Blandinieres, Florence, 2019. "Anatomy of the medical innovation process: What are the consequences of replicability issues on innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-011, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    5. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    6. Yaqub, Ohid & Nightingale, Paul, 2012. "Vaccine innovation, translational research and the management of knowledge accumulation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2143-2150.
    7. Beniamino Callegari & Christophe Feder, 2022. "The long-term economic effects of pandemics: toward an evolutionary approach [Epidemics and trust: the case of the Spanish flu]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 31(3), pages 715-735.
    8. Ávila-Robinson, Alfonso & Islam, Nazrul & Sengoku, Shintaro, 2019. "Co-evolutionary and systemic study on the evolution of emerging stem cell-based therapies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 324-339.
    9. Taran Thune & Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2016. "Combining knowledge to generate new ideas. A study of disclosed ideas for life science inventions," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20161209, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    10. Thune, Taran & Mina, Andrea, 2016. "Hospitals as innovators in the health-care system: A literature review and research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1545-1557.
    11. Wang, Xuefeng & Zhang, Shuo & Liu, Yuqin & Du, Jian & Huang, Heng, 2021. "How pharmaceutical innovation evolves: The path from science to technological development to marketable drugs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    12. Anckaert, Paul-Emmanuel & Cassiman, David & Cassiman, Bruno, 2020. "Fostering practice-oriented and use-inspired science in biomedical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    13. Ali, Ayfer & Gittelman, Michelle, 2016. "Research paradigms and useful inventions in medicine: Patents and licensing by teams of clinical and basic scientists in Academic Medical Centers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1499-1511.
    14. Nemet, Gregory F., 2012. "Inter-technology knowledge spillovers for energy technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1259-1270.
    15. Paul Nightingale, 2014. "What is technology? Six definitions and two pathologies," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-19, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    16. Yaqub, Ohid, 2018. "Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 169-179.
    17. Carolina Castaldi & Roberto Fontana & Alessandro Nuvolari, 2009. "‘Chariots of fire’: the evolution of tank technology, 1915–1945," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 545-566, August.
    18. Zohal Hessami, 2016. "How Do Voters React to Complex Choices in a Direct Democracy? Evidence from Switzerland," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 263-293, May.
    19. Constant, Edward II, 2002. "Why evolution is a theory about stability: constraint, causation, and ecology in technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1241-1256, December.
    20. G Cameron, 1996. "Innovation and Economic Growth," CEP Discussion Papers dp0277, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:46:y:2017:i:2:p:475-484. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.