IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v57y2011i2p257-273.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Founders' Professional-Education Background on the Adoption of Open Science by For-Profit Biotechnology Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Waverly W. Ding

    (Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720)

Abstract

This paper investigates the effect of founders' professional-education background on the adoption of an open-science technology strategy, using a sample of 512 young biotechnology firms. After controlling for founders' prior work experience and other organizational and environmental factors, I find that firms with proportionally more Ph.D.-holding entrepreneurs on the founding team have a higher probability of adopting open science. In addition, founders' educational background can mitigate the constraint of organizational environments on strategy. A crowded technological niche provides a more challenging environment for firms to implement open science, due to higher scooping risks. The deterrent effect, however, of such a high-risk environment is smaller among firms founded by proportionally more Ph.D.-holding entrepreneurs. There is also some evidence of a stronger effect of founders' educational background on open science in an institutional environment in which open science has yet to become the industry norm. This finding is consistent with and complements the growing body of research that emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurial background in developing knowledge about new-venture strategy and structure. This paper was accepted by Olav Sorenson, organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Waverly W. Ding, 2011. "The Impact of Founders' Professional-Education Background on the Adoption of Open Science by For-Profit Biotechnology Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 257-273, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:57:y:2011:i:2:p:257-273
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1278
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1278?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary Tripsas & Giovanni Gavetti, 2000. "Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1147-1161, October.
    2. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca M. Henderson, 1998. "Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 157-182, June.
    3. Olav Sorenson & Jasjit Singh, 2007. "Science, Social Networks and Spillovers," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 219-238.
    4. Raghu Garud & Michael A. Rappa, 1994. "A Socio-Cognitive Model of Technology Evolution: The Case of Cochlear Implants," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 344-362, August.
    5. Etzkowitz, Henry, 1998. "The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 823-833, December.
    6. Aaron K. Chatterji, 2009. "Spawned with a silver spoon? Entrepreneurial performance and innovation in the medical device industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 185-206, February.
    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. 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.
    9. Cockburn, Iain M & Henderson, Rebecca M, 1998. "Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 157-182, June.
    10. Bates, Timothy, 1990. "Entrepreneur Human Capital Inputs and Small Business Longevity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(4), pages 551-559, November.
    11. Carroll, Glenn R. & Mosakowski, Elaine M., 1987. "The Career Dynamics of Self-Employment," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt13p1n10b, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    12. King, Gary & Honaker, James & Joseph, Anne & Scheve, Kenneth, 2001. "Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(1), pages 49-69, March.
    13. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    14. Gourieroux, Christian & Monfort, Alain & Trognon, Alain, 1984. "Pseudo Maximum Likelihood Methods: Applications to Poisson Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 701-720, May.
    15. Christine M. Beckman & M. Diane Burton, 2008. "Founding the Future: Path Dependence in the Evolution of Top Management Teams from Founding to IPO," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 3-24, February.
    16. Karen A. Bantel & Susan E. Jackson, 1989. "Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(S1), pages 107-124, June.
    17. Evans, David S & Leighton, Linda S, 1989. "Some Empirical Aspects of Entrepreneurship," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 519-535, June.
    18. 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.
    19. Scott Stern, 2004. "Do Scientists Pay to Be Scientists?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 835-853, June.
    20. Baron, James N & Burton, M Diane & Hannan, Michael T, 1996. "The Road Taken: Origins and Evolution of Employment Systems in Emerging Companies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(2), pages 239-275.
    21. Sarah Kaplan & Fiona Murray & Rebecca Henderson, 2003. "Discontinuities and senior management: assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(2), pages 203-233, April.
    22. Phillip Kim & Howard Aldrich & Lisa Keister, 2006. "Access (Not) Denied: The Impact of Financial, Human, and Cultural Capital on Entrepreneurial Entryin the United States," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 5-22, August.
    23. 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.
    24. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    25. Michelle Gittelman & Bruce Kogut, 2003. "Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 366-382, April.
    26. Stuart, Toby E. & Ozdemir, Salih Zeki & Ding, Waverly W., 2007. "Vertical alliance networks: The case of university-biotechnology-pharmaceutical alliance chains," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 477-498, May.
    27. Scott Shane & Rakesh Khurana, 2003. "Bringing individuals back in: the effects of career experience on new firm founding," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(3), pages 519-543, June.
    28. Ajay Agrawal & Rebecca Henderson, 2002. "Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 44-60, January.
    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. Galloway, Tera L. & Miller, Douglas R. & Sahaym, Arvin & Arthurs, Jonathan D., 2017. "Exploring the innovation strategies of young firms: Corporate venture capital and venture capital impact on alliance innovation strategy," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 55-65.
    2. Pan, Xiaozhen & Tang, Hongfei, 2021. "Are both managerial morality and talent important to firm performance? Evidence from Chinese public firms," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    3. Ann-Kathrine Ejsing & Ulrich Kaiser & Hans Christian Kongsted & Keld Laursen, 2013. "The Role of University Scientist Mobility for Industrial Innovation," Working Papers 332, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    4. repec:wip:wpaper:6 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Herrera, Liliana & Nieto, Mariano, 2015. "The determinants of firms' PhD recruitment to undertake R&D activities," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 132-142.
    6. Battaglia, Daniele & Paolucci, Emilio & Ughetto, Elisa, 2021. "Opening the black box of university Proof-of-Concept programs: Project and team-based determinants of research commercialization outcomes," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. Ruilu Yang & Qiang Wu & Yundong Xie, 2023. "Are scientific articles involving corporations associated with higher citations and views? an analysis of the top journals in business research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5659-5685, October.
    8. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    9. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do firms publish? A multi-sectoral analysis," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2018-05, Joint Research Centre.
    10. Sahaym, Arvin & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Boeker, Warren, 2016. "The parent's legacy: Firm founders and technological choice," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2624-2633.
    11. Tin Horvatinovic & Mihaela Mikic & Marina Dabić, 2023. "Dissecting entrepreneurial team research: a bibliometric analysis," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(8), pages 2973-3011, November.
    12. Feifei Lu & Zhaohua Wang & Anne Toppinen & Dalia D’Amato & Zuomin Wen, 2021. "Managerial Risk Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Evidence from the Forestry Sector in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, June.
    13. Zeki Simsek & Justin J. P. Jansen & Alessandro Minichilli & Alejandro Escriba-Esteve, 2015. "Strategic Leadership and Leaders in Entrepreneurial Contexts: A Nexus for Innovation and Impact Missed?," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 463-478, June.
    14. Liu, Ziyu & Du, Yushen, 2022. "Open knowledge disclosure and technical standard competition in transition economies: A legitimacy perspective," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    15. Petra Moog & Arndt Werner & Stefan Houweling & Uschi Backes-Gellner, 2015. "The impact of skills, working time allocation and peer effects on the entrepreneurial intentions of scientists," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 493-511, June.
    16. Christos Kolympiris & Sebastian Hoenen & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2018. "Geographic distance between venture capitalists and target firms and the value of quality signals," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 189-220.
    17. Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2013. "Conflicting Logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 889-909, June.
    18. Henry Sauermann & Michael Roach, 2011. "Not All Scientists pay to be Scientists:," DRUID Working Papers 11-03, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    19. Vicente-Saez, Ruben & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara, 2018. "Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 428-436.
    20. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    21. Jong, Simcha & Slavova, Kremena, 2014. "When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 645-654.
    22. Chul Lee & Gunno Park & Klaus Marhold & Jina Kang, 2017. "Top management team’s innovation-related characteristics and the firm’s explorative R&D: an analysis based on patent data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 639-663, May.
    23. Papadimitri, Panagiota & Pasiouras, Fotios & Tasiou, Menelaos & Ventouri, Alexia, 2020. "The effects of board of directors’ education on firms’ credit ratings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 294-313.
    24. Barge-Gil, Andres & D'Este, Pablo & Herrera, Liliana, 2018. "Corporate scientists as the triggers of transitions towards firms' exploration research strategies," MPRA Paper 85415, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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, 2010. "The Impact of Founder Professional Education Background on the Adoption of Open Science by For-Profit Biotechnology Firms," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt9728v4sv, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    2. 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.
    3. Añón Higón, Dolores, 2016. "In-house versus external basic research and first-to-market innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 816-829.
    4. Dolores Añón Higón, 2016. "In-house versus External Basic Research and First-to-market Innovations," Working Papers 1601, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    5. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    6. Elisa Alvarez-Garrido & Gary Dushnitsky, 2016. "Are entrepreneurial venture's innovation rates sensitive to investor complementary assets? Comparing biotech ventures backed by corporate and independent VCs," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 819-834, May.
    7. Michaël Bikard, 2018. "Made in Academia: The Effect of Institutional Origin on Inventors’ Attention to Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 818-836, October.
    8. Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2013. "Conflicting Logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 889-909, June.
    9. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    10. Markus Simeth & Michele Cincera, 2016. "Corporate Science, Innovation, and Firm Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1970-1981, July.
    11. 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).
    12. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do Firms Publish? A Multi-Sectoral Analysis," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    13. Jong, Simcha & Slavova, Kremena, 2014. "When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 645-654.
    14. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    15. Andrew A. Toole & Dirk Czarnitzki, 2009. "Exploring the Relationship Between Scientist Human Capital and Firm Performance: The Case of Biomedical Academic Entrepreneurs in the SBIR Program," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 101-114, January.
    16. Soh, Pek-Hooi & Subramanian, Annapoornima M., 2014. "When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 807-821.
    17. Sheer, Lia, 2022. "Sitting on the Fence: Integrating the two worlds of scientific discovery and invention within the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    18. Francisco Polidoro & Matt Theeke, 2012. "Getting Competition Down to a Science: The Effects of Technological Competition on Firms' Scientific Publications," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1135-1153, August.
    19. repec:wip:wpaper:6 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," 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 217-273, Elsevier.
    21. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:57:y:2011:i:2:p:257-273. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.