IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/5300.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Real Impediments to Academic Biomedical Research

In: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 8

Author

Listed:
  • Wesley M. Cohen
  • John P. Walsh

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Wesley M. Cohen & John P. Walsh, 2008. "Real Impediments to Academic Biomedical Research," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 8, pages 1-30, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:5300
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5300.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fiona Murray & Scott Stern, 2005. "Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge? An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis," NBER Working Papers 11465, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Owen-Smith, Jason, 2003. "From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1081-1104, June.
    3. Jeffrey L. Furman & Scott Stern, 2006. "Climbing Atop the Shoulders of Giants: The Impact of Institutions on Cumulative Research," NBER Working Papers 12523, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Pénin, Julien, 2011. "Sur les conséquences du brevet d’invention dans la science : résultats d’une enquête auprès des inventeurs académiques français," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 87(2), pages 137-173, juin.
    2. Dr Chiara Rosazza Bondibene, 2012. "A Study of Patent Thickets," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 401, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    3. Denicolò, Vincenzo & Zanchettin, Piercarlo, 2012. "A dynamic model of patent portfolio races," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 924-927.
    4. Haeussler, Carolin & Jiang, Lin & Thursby, Jerry & Thursby, Marie, 2014. "Specific and general information sharing among competing academic researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 465-475.
    5. Teece, David J., 2018. "Reply to Nelson, Helfat and Raubitschek," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1400-1402.
    6. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    7. Pénin, Julien & Wack, Jean-Pierre, 2008. "Research tool patents and free-libre biotechnology: A suggested unified framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1909-1921, December.
    8. Mudambi, Ram & Swift, Tim, 2009. "Professional guilds, tension and knowledge management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 736-745, June.
    9. Xu-hua Chang & Qiang Chen & Patrick S. W. Fong, 2017. "University invention disclosure: balancing the optimal stage and type," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 510-537, June.
    10. Julien Pénin, 2009. "On the consequences of university patenting: What can we learn by asking directly to academic inventors?," Working Papers of BETA 2009-04, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    11. Julien Pénin, 2008. "More open than open innovation? Rethinking the concept of openness in innovation studies," Working Papers of BETA 2008-18, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    12. Dr Chiara Rosazza Bondibene, 2012. "A Study of Patent Thickets," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 401, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    13. Walsh, John P. & Huang, Hsini, 2014. "Local context, academic entrepreneurship and open science: Publication secrecy and commercial activity among Japanese and US scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 245-260.

    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. Ding, Waverly W. & Murray, Fiona & Stuart, Toby E., 2009. "Commercial Science: A New Arena for Gender Differences in Scientific Careers?," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt0m0877rr, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    2. Colyvas, Jeannette A., 2007. "From divergent meanings to common practices: The early institutionalization of technology transfer in the life sciences at Stanford University," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 456-476, May.
    3. Walsh, John P. & Huang, Hsini, 2014. "Local context, academic entrepreneurship and open science: Publication secrecy and commercial activity among Japanese and US scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 245-260.
    4. Daniel Ogachi & Lydia Bares & Zoltan Zeman, 2021. "Innovation and Scientific Research as a Sustainable Development Goal in Spanish Public Universities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-12, April.
    5. Fiona Murray & Scott Stern, 2007. "When Ideas Are Not Free: The Impact of Patents on Scientific Research," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 7, pages 33-69, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Fiona Murray & Siobhán O'Mahony, 2007. "Exploring the Foundations of Cumulative Innovation: Implications for Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 1006-1021, December.
    7. Simplice A Asongu, 2013. "On the Obituary of Scientific Knowledge Monopoly," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(4), pages 2718-2731.
    8. Paula Susana Figueiredo Moutinho & Margarida Fontes & Manuel Mira Godinho, 2007. "Do individual factors matter? A survey of scientists’ patenting in Portuguese public research organisations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 355-377, February.
    9. Toleubayev, Kazbek & Jansen, Kees & van Huis, Arnold, 2010. "Commodification of science and the production of public goods: Plant protection research in Kazakhstan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 411-421, April.
    10. Suzanne G. Tilleman & Michael V. Russo & Andrew J. Nelson, 2020. "Institutional Logics and Technology Development: Evidence from the Wind and Solar Energy Industries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 649-670, May.
    11. Véronique Schaeffer & Sıla Öcalan-Özel & Julien Pénin, 2020. "The complementarities between formal and informal channels of university–industry knowledge transfer: a longitudinal approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 31-55, February.
    12. Maki Umemura, 2014. "Crisis and change in the system of innovation: The Japanese pharmaceutical industry during the Lost Decades, 1990-2010," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(5), pages 816-844, July.
    13. Kitagawa, Fumi & Wigren, Caroline, 2010. "From Basic Research to Innovation: Entrepreneurial Intermediaries for Research Commercialization at Swedish ‘Strong Research Environments’," Papers in Innovation Studies 2010/2, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    14. Simplice A. Asongu & Vanessa S. Tchamyou & Paul N. Acha-Anyi, 2020. "Who Is Who in Knowledge Economy in Africa?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(2), pages 425-457, June.
    15. Marc Rysman & Timothy Simcoe, 2008. "Patents and the Performance of Voluntary Standard-Setting Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1920-1934, November.
    16. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2012. "Complementary assets, patent thickets and hold-up threats: Do transaction costs undermine investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-015, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. Ryan, Paul & Geoghegan, Will & Hilliard, Rachel, 2018. "The microfoundations of firms’ explorative innovation capabilities within the triple helix framework," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 15-27.
    18. Hellmann, Thomas, 2007. "The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 624-647, August.
    19. Stefan Houweling & Sven Wolff, 2020. "The influence of scientific prestige and peer effects on the intention to create university spin-offs," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1432-1450, October.
    20. Owen-Smith, Jason & Powell, Walter W., 2003. "The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: assessing the importance of experience and connectivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1695-1711, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nbr:nberch:5300. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.