IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v39y2010i5p567-582.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Entrepreneurial experiments in science policy: Analyzing the Human Genome Project

Author

Listed:
  • Huang, Kenneth G.
  • Murray, Fiona E.

Abstract

We re-conceptualize the role of science policy makers, envisioning and illustrating their move from being simple investors in scientific projects to entrepreneurs who create the conditions for entrepreneurial experiments and initiate them. We argue that reframing science policy around the notion of conducting entrepreneurial experiments - experiments that increase the diversity of technical, organizational and institutional arrangements in which scientific research is conducted - can provide policy makers with a wider repertoire of effective interventions. To illustrate the power of this approach, we analyze the Human Genome Project (HGP) as a set of successful, entrepreneurial experiments in organizational and institutional innovation. While not designed as such, the HGP was an experiment in funding a science project across a variety of organizational settings, including seven public and one private (Celera) research centers. We assess the major characteristics and differences between these organizational choices, using a mix of qualitative and econometric analyses to examine their impact on scientific progress. The planning and direction of the Human Genome Project show that policy makers can use the levers of entrepreneurial experimentation to transform scientific progress, much as entrepreneurs have transformed economic progress.

Suggested Citation

  • Huang, Kenneth G. & Murray, Fiona E., 2010. "Entrepreneurial experiments in science policy: Analyzing the Human Genome Project," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 567-582, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:39:y:2010:i:5:p:567-582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(10)00052-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Daron Acemoglu & Philippe Aghion & Leonardo Bursztyn & David Hemous, 2012. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 131-166, February.
    2. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 1999. "Distribution-free estimation of some nonlinear panel data models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 77-97, May.
    3. Goldfarb, Brent & Kirsch, David & Miller, David A., 2007. "Was there too little entry during the Dot Com Era?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 100-144, October.
    4. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Jeremy C. Stein, 2008. "Academic freedom, private‐sector focus, and the process of innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 617-635, September.
    5. Paula E. Stephan, 2008. "Science and the University: Challenges for Future Research," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, vol. 54(2), pages 313-324, June.
    6. Link, Albert N. & Scott, John T., 2001. "Public/private partnerships: stimulating competition in a dynamic market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 763-794, April.
    7. Heidi L. Williams, 2013. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from the Human Genome," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(1), pages 1-27.
    8. Hoetker, Glenn & Agarwal, Rajshree, 2005. "Death Hurts, But It Isn't Fatal: The Postexit Diffusion of Knowledge Created by Innovative Companies," Working Papers 05-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    9. Murray, Fiona, 2002. "Innovation as co-evolution of scientific and technological networks: exploring tissue engineering," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1389-1403, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. William Greene, 2004. "Fixed Effects and Bias Due to the Incidental Parameters Problem in the Tobit Model," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 125-147.
    13. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1994. "Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Effects in Pharmaceutical Research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 63-84, December.
    14. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    15. Shane Greenstein, 2008. "Economic Experiments and Neutrality in Internet Access," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 8, pages 59-109, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott, 2007. "Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 648-687, August.
    17. Fiona E. Murray & Scott Stern, 2007. "Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge?: An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    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. Kenneth Guang-Lih Huang & Xuesong Geng & Heli Wang, 2017. "Institutional Regime Shift in Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation Strategies of Firms in China," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 355-377, April.
    2. Kenneth G Huang & Jiatao Li, 2019. "Adopting knowledge from reverse innovations? Transnational patents and signaling from an emerging economy," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(7), pages 1078-1102, September.
    3. Brian W. Head, 2011. "Governance for sustainable regions: can government meet the innovation policy challenge?," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(3), pages 219-230, August.
    4. Kurakova, Natalia (Куракова, Наталия) & Zinov, Vladimir (Зинов, Владимир) & Komarov, Vladimir (Комаров, Владимир) & Pavlov, Pavel (Павлов, Павел), 2014. "Long-term projections as a tool for the formation of science and technology policy [Долгосрочные Прогнозы Как Инструмент Формирования Научно-Технологической Политики]," Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 4, pages 7-32.
    5. Peter-J. Jost & Stefanie Schubert & Miriam Zschoche, 2015. "Incumbent positioning as a determinant of strategic response to entry," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 577-596, March.

    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. 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.
    2. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    3. Fehder, Daniel C. & Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott, 2014. "Intellectual property rights and the evolution of scientific journals as knowledge platforms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 83-94.
    4. Mukherjee, Arijit & Stern, Scott, 2009. "Disclosure or secrecy? The dynamics of Open Science," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 449-462, May.
    5. Michaël Bikard & Keyvan Vakili & Florenta Teodoridis, 2019. "When Collaboration Bridges Institutions: The Impact of University–Industry Collaboration on Academic Productivity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 426-445, March.
    6. Mahdiyeh Entezarkheir, 2017. "Patent thickets, defensive patenting, and induced R&D: an empirical analysis of the costs and potential benefits of fragmentation in patent ownership," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 599-634, March.
    7. Jasjit Singh & Ajay Agrawal, 2011. "Recruiting for Ideas: How Firms Exploit the Prior Inventions of New Hires," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 129-150, January.
    8. Larsen, Maria Theresa, 2011. "The implications of academic enterprise for public science: An overview of the empirical evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 6-19, February.
    9. Kenneth G Huang & Jiatao Li, 2019. "Adopting knowledge from reverse innovations? Transnational patents and signaling from an emerging economy," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(7), pages 1078-1102, September.
    10. Boudreau, Kevin J. & Lakhani, Karim R., 2015. "“Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 4-19.
    11. Michael Noel & Mark Schankerman, 2013. "Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 481-520, September.
    12. Heidi L. Williams, 2016. "Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation: Evidence from Health Care Markets," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 53-87.
    13. Agarwal, Rajshree & Shah, Sonali K., 2014. "Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: Firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1109-1133.
    14. Comin, Diego & Licht, Georg & Pellens, Maikel & Schubert, Torben, 2018. "Do Companies Benefit from Public Research Organizations? The Impact of the Fraunhofer Society in Germany," Papers in Innovation Studies 2018/7, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    15. Fiona Murray & Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Julian Kolev & Scott Stern, 2016. "Of Mice and Academics: Examining the Effect of Openness on Innovation," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 212-252, February.
    16. Pierre Azoulay & Waverly Ding & Toby Stuart, 2009. "The Impact Of Academic Patenting On The Rate, Quality And Direction Of (Public) Research Output," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 637-676, December.
    17. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark, 2013. "Patents and cumulative innovation: causal evidence from the courts," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51539, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500129 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    20. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    21. Nagler, Markus & Watzinger, Martin & Fackler, Thomas & Schnitzer, Monika, 2016. "Antitrust, Patents, and Cumulative Innovation: Evidence from Bell Labs," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145580, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    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:39:y:2010:i:5:p:567-582. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.