IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v49y2020i7s0048733320301499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty

Author

Listed:
  • Ke, Qing

Abstract

An ongoing interest in innovation studies is to understand how knowledge generated from scientific research can be used in the development of technologies. While previous inquiries have devoted to studying the scientific capacity of technologies and institutional factors facilitating technology transfer, little is known about the intrinsic characteristics of scientific publications that gain direct technological impact. Here we focus on two features, namely basicness and novelty. Using a corpus of 3.8 million papers published between 1980 and 1999, we find that basic science papers and novel papers are substantially more likely to achieve direct technological impact. Further analysis that limits to papers with technological impact reveals that basic science and novel science have more patent citations, experience shorter time lag, and have impact in broader technological fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:49:y:2020:i:7:s0048733320301499
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733320301499
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104071?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. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    2. McMillan, G. Steven & Narin, Francis & Deeds, David L., 2000. "An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8, January.
    3. Godin, Benoit, 1996. "Research and the practice of publication in industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 587-606, June.
    4. Ke, Qing, 2018. "Comparing scientific and technological impact of biomedical research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 706-717.
    5. Narin, Francis & Olivastro, Dominic, 1992. "Status report: Linkage between technology and science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 237-249, June.
    6. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    7. Gambardella, Alfonso, 1992. "Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: The US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 391-407, October.
    8. Jaffe, Adam B, 1989. "Real Effects of Academic Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 957-970, December.
    9. Lim, Kwanghui, 2004. "The relationship between research and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries (1981-1997)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 287-321, March.
    10. Martin S. Meyer, 2001. "Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology:An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(1), pages 163-183, April.
    11. Balconi, Margherita & Brusoni, Stefano & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2010. "In defence of the linear model: An essay," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, February.
    12. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Wang, Jian, 2019. "Scientific novelty and technological impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1362-1372.
    13. Fang Han & Christopher L. Magee, 2018. "Testing the science/technology relationship by analysis of patent citations of scientific papers after decomposition of both science and technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 767-796, August.
    14. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 527-554, September.
    15. Julie Callaert & Maikel Pellens & Bart Looy, 2014. "Sources of inspiration? Making sense of scientific references in patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1617-1629, March.
    16. Popp, David, 2017. "From science to technology: The value of knowledge from different energy research institutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1580-1594.
    17. Narin, Francis & Hamilton, Kimberly S. & Olivastro, Dominic, 1997. "The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 317-330, October.
    18. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    21. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    22. Wagner, Caroline S. & Whetsell, Travis A. & Mukherjee, Satyam, 2019. "International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1260-1270.
    23. Morlacchi, Piera & Nelson, Richard R., 2011. "How medical practice evolves: Learning to treat failing hearts with an implantable device," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 511-525, May.
    24. Debackere, Koenraad & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2005. "The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 321-342, April.
    25. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2013. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 504-525, October.
    26. Shuo Xu & Dongsheng Zhai & Feifei Wang & Xin An & Hongshen Pang & Yirong Sun, 2019. "A novel method for topic linkages between scientific publications and patents," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 70(9), pages 1026-1042, September.
    27. Chai, Sen & Menon, Anoop, 2019. "Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 733-747.
    28. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers & Pluvia Zuniga, 2008. "In search of performance effects of (in)direct industry science links," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 17(4), pages 611-646, August.
    29. Di Gregorio, Dante & Shane, Scott, 2003. "Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 209-227, February.
    30. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    31. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    32. Breschi, Stefano & Catalini, Christian, 2010. "Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists' and inventors' networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 14-26, February.
    33. Francis Narin & Gabriel Pinski & Helen Hofer Gee, 1976. "Structure of the Biomedical Literature," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 27(1), pages 25-45, January.
    34. Margaret E. Blume-Kohout, 2012. "Does Targeted, Disease‐Specific Public Research Funding Influence Pharmaceutical Innovation?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 641-660, June.
    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. Roh, Taeyeoun & Yoon, Byungun, 2023. "Discovering technology and science innovation opportunity based on sentence generation algorithm," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    2. Qing Ke, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and technological impact: evidence from biomedicine," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2035-2077, April.
    3. Shin, Hyunjin & Woo, Hyun Goo & Sohn, Kyung-Ah & Lee, Sungjoo, 2023. "Comparing research trends with patenting activities in the biomedical sector: The case of dementia," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Xu, Shuo & Hao, Liyuan & Yang, Guancan & Lu, Kun & An, Xin, 2021. "A topic models based framework for detecting and forecasting emerging technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).

    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. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Wang, Jian, 2019. "Scientific novelty and technological impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1362-1372.
    2. Ke, Qing, 2020. "An analysis of the evolution of science-technology linkage in biomedicine," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    3. Qing Ke, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and technological impact: evidence from biomedicine," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2035-2077, April.
    4. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Basse Mama, Houdou, 2018. "Nonlinear capital market payoffs to science-led innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1084-1095.
    6. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    7. Ugo Rizzo & Nicolò Barbieri & Laura Ramaciotti & Demian Iannantuono, 2020. "The division of labour between academia and industry for the generation of radical inventions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 393-413, April.
    8. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2017. "Academic knowledge quality differentials and the quality of firm innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(5), pages 821-844.
    9. Gazni, Ali, 2020. "The growing number of patent citations to scientific papers: Changes in the world, nations, and fields," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    10. Ke, Qing, 2018. "Comparing scientific and technological impact of biomedical research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 706-717.
    11. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2022. "Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    12. Fabrizio, Kira R., 2009. "Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 255-267, March.
    13. Felix Poege & Dietmar Harhoff & Fabian Gaessler & Stefano Baruffaldi, 2019. "Science Quality and the Value of Inventions," Papers 1903.05020, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2019.
    14. Matt Marx & Aaron Fuegi, 2020. "Reliance on science: Worldwide front‐page patent citations to scientific articles," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(9), pages 1572-1594, September.
    15. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    16. Anckaert, Paul-Emmanuel & Cassiman, David & Cassiman, Bruno, 2020. "Fostering practice-oriented and use-inspired science in biomedical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    17. Acosta, Manuel & Coronado, Daniel, 2003. "Science-technology flows in Spanish regions: An analysis of scientific citations in patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1783-1803, December.
    18. Sotaro Shibayama & Deyun Yin & Kuniko Matsumoto, 2021. "Measuring novelty in science with word embedding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-16, July.
    19. Elena M. Tur & Evangelos Bourelos & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "The case of sleeping beauties in nanotechnology: a study of potential breakthrough inventions in emerging technologies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 683-708, December.
    20. Ba, Zhichao & Liang, Zhentao, 2021. "A novel approach to measuring science-technology linkage: From the perspective of knowledge network coupling," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).

    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:49:y:2020:i:7:s0048733320301499. 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.