Showing papers by "Walter W. Powell published in 2007"
TL;DR: The growing salience of intellectual property (IP) rights has reconfigured U.S. science, shifting it from the formerly separate realms of university and commercial science to an increasingly interconnected field of public and proprietary science as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The growing salience of intellectual property (IP) rights has reconfigured U.S. science, shifting it from the formerly separate realms of university and commercial science to an increasingly interconnected field of public and proprietary science. We assess both the magnitude and consequences of these developments, first describing the primary tools of IP and the changing nature of their influence on science, and then examining the effects of IP on the roles, rules, and relations of the scientific enterprise. We also consider the emergence of new models of scientific practice that blend both public and private. We debate whether current changes represent a transition or transformation in the relations between science and property. Finally, we argue that just as the public and private spheres of science may be converging, so must future scholarship if we are to answer harder questions about the appropriate balance between traditional logics of open science and the more recent regimes of proprietary science.
114 citations
23 Apr 2007
TL;DR: This article examined the origins, acceptance, and spread of academic entrepreneurship in the biomedical field at Stanford, a university that championed efforts at translating basic science into commercial application, and analyzed how entrepreneurship became institutionalized, stressing the distinction between factors that promoted such activity and those that sustained it.
Abstract: We examine the origins, acceptance, and spread of academic entrepreneurship in the biomedical field at Stanford, a university that championed efforts at translating basic science into commercial application. With multiple data sources from 1970 to 2000, we analyze how entrepreneurship became institutionalized, stressing the distinction between factors that promoted such activity and those that sustained it. We address individual attributes, work contexts, and research networks, discerning the multiple influences that supported the commercialization of basic research and contributed to a new academic identity. We demonstrate how entrepreneurship expands from an uncommon undertaking to a venerated practice.
104 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors highlight the heterogeneity of American universities and institutions of higher education and argue that imitation of the US example must recognize heterogeneity of its industries and higher education institutions and recognize the diversities that characterize this dynamic system.
Abstract: American universities are purported to excel at technology transfer. This assumption, however, masks important features of American innovation. Attempts to emulate the US example must recognize the heterogeneity of its industries and institutions of higher education. Stanford University and the biomedical cluster in Boston, Massachusetts, illustrate the diversities that characterize this dynamic system.
101 citations
01 Sep 2007
TL;DR: In the Genesis of Clusters workshop as discussed by the authors, the participants were asked for their comments on earlier drafts of the Genesis Clusters Workshop 2003 and the Genesis Cluster Workshop 2004 workshop workshop.
Abstract: and the participants in the 2003 and 2004 Genesis of Clusters workshops for their comments on earlier drafts. We are grateful for research support from the Hewlett Foundation and the Merck Foundation.
84 citations
42 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: In this article, the authors draw on diverse data sets to compare the institutional organization of upstream life science research across the United States and Europe, and demonstrate that innovative research in biomedicine has its origins in regional clusters in the U.S. and Europe.
Abstract: We draw on diverse data sets to compare the institutional organization of upstream life science research across the United States and Europe. Understanding cross-national differences in the organization of innovative labor in the life sciences requires attention to the structure and evolution of biomedical networks involving public research organizations (universities, government laboratories, nonprofit research institutes, and research hospitals), science-based biotechnology firms, and multinational pharmaceutical corporations. We use network visualization methods and correspondence analyses to demonstrate that innovative research in biomedicine has its origins in regional clusters in the United States and in European nations. But the scientific and organizational composition of these regions varies in consequential ways. In the United States, public research organizations and small firms conduct R&D across multiple therapeutic areas and stages of the development process. Ties within and across these regions link small firms and diverse public institutions, contributing to the development of a robust national network. In contrast, the European story is one of regional specialization with a less diverse group of public research organizations working in a smaller number of therapeutic areas. European institutes develop local connections to small firms working on similar scientific problems, while cross-national linkages of European regional clusters typically involve large pharmaceutical corporations. We show that the roles of large and small firms differ in the United States and Europe, arguing that the greater heterogeneity of the U.S. system is based on much closer integration of basic science and clinical development.
15 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: The growing salience of intellectual property (IP) rights has reconfigured U.S. science, shifting it from the formerly separate realms of university and commercial science to an increasingly interconnected field of public and proprietary science as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The growing salience of intellectual property (IP) rights has reconfigured U.S. science, shifting it from the formerly separate realms of university and commercial science to an increasingly interconnected field of public and proprietary science. We assess both the magnitude and consequences of these developments, first describing the primary tools of IP and the changing nature of their influence on science, and then examining the effects of IP on the roles, rules, and relations of the scientific enterprise. We also consider the emergence of new models of scientific practice that blend both public and private. We debate whether current changes represent a transition or transformation in the relations between science and property. Finally, we argue that just as the public and private spheres of science may be converging, so must future scholarship if we are to answer harder questions about the appropriate balance between traditional logics of open science and the more recent regimes of proprietary science.
2 citations