IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v37y2010i2p87-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Governing innovation in the biomedicine knowledge economy: stem cell science in the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Brian Salter
  • Charlotte Salter

Abstract

The burgeoning opportunities of the knowledge economy of biomedicine are matched by the governance challenges it poses to states in the pursuit of national advantage. The future markets are uncertain, the process of knowledge production from basic science to therapeutic product complex, and the possibility of failure ever present. Drawing on theories of the state, innovation and governance, this article explores the governance demands of knowledge production in biomedicine and the roles of state, regional levels of governance and private governance in the policy response. Applying the analytical framework derived from this discussion to the US case, the multi-dimensional governance of stem cell science in the arenas of science, society and the market is examined in an exploration of the USA's innovation capacity in this field. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian Salter & Charlotte Salter, 2010. "Governing innovation in the biomedicine knowledge economy: stem cell science in the USA," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 87-100, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:2:p:87-100
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234210X489617
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Brian Balmer, 2011. "Life as Surplus: Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era," Journal of Cultural Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 105-108, February.

    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:oup:scippl:v:37:y:2010:i:2:p:87-100. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.