Abstract
Over the last decade, ‘innovation’ has acquired an iconic status in the pantheon of state policies as governments compete for access to the knowledge economies of the future through a search for the appropriate alchemy of innovation governance. Propelled by the imperatives of globalisation, the expectations of their populations and the geopolitics of inter-state competition for future economic territories, ambitious governments have uniformly come to regard innovation policy as the key to unlocking the potential offered by the advancement of science. With the advent of the emerging economies of the developing world, we see an added political impetus as countries such as China, India, and Brazil have aggressively moved to establish their own innovation platforms. In their turn, the developed countries of North America, Europe, and Japan are well aware that they must respond to the challenge posed by the emerging economies to their traditional leadership of scientific innovation.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asheim, B. T. and M. S. Gertler (2004) The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems, in J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery and R. R. Nelson (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 213–237.
Biophoenix (2006) Opportunities in Stem Cell Research and Commercialisation. London: Business Insights, p. 80.
British Standards lnstitution (2006) Guidance on Codes of Practice, Standardised Methods and Regulations for Cell-based Therapeutics from Basic Research to Clinical Application. PAS 83. London: British Standards Institution. Available at: http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/Industry-Sectors/Healthcare/Regenerative-Medicine-/?recid=819, accessed 6 February 2012.
Brown, N. (2003) Hope against hype: accountability in biopasts, presents and futures, Science Studies, 16(2): 3–21.
Brown, N. and M. Michael (2003) A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15(1): 3–18.
Brown, N., B. Rappert and A. Webster (eds) (2000) Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Technoscience. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Burrill Report (2012) Biotech sector scores wins in November. Burrill Report. Available at: http://www.burrillreport.com/article-the_january_2012_issue_of_the_burrill_report.html, accessed 22 February 2012.
Büthe, T. (2004) Governance through private authority? Non-state actors in world politics, Journal of International Affairs, 58: 281–290.
Chinese Academy of Sciences (2011) Clean energy and stem cell research among China’s science goals for 2020. Available at: http://english.cas.cn/Ne/CASE/201102/t20110209_64985.shtml, accessed 10 February 2012.
Cooke, P. (2001) New economy innovation systems: biotechnology in Europe and the USA, Industry and Innovation, 8(3): 267–289.
Cooke, P. (2003) The evolution of biotechnology in three continents: Schumpeterian or Penrosian? Editorial, European Planning Studies, 11(7): 757–763.
Cooke, P. (2004) Regional knowledge capabilities, embeddedness of firms and industry organisation: bioscience megacentres and economic geography, European Planning Studies, 11(7): 625–641.
De La Porte, C. (2002) Is the open method of coordination appropriate for organising activities at European level in sensitive policy areas?, European Law Journal, 8(1): 38–58.
Department of Universities, Innovation and Skills (2008) Innovation Nation. Cm 7345. London: The Stationery Office.
Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff (1997) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London: Pinter.
Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdortf (1998) The endless transition: a ‘triple helix’ of university-industry-government relations, Minerva, 36: 203–208.
Etzkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations, Research Policy, 29(2): 109–123.
European Commission (2009) European Research Projects Involving Stem Cells in the 6th Framework Programme. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/pl/stemcells/pdf/stemcell_eu_research_fp6_en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=bookmarks, accessed 22 February 2012.
European Commission (2011) State of the Innovation Union 2011. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2011) 849 final.
Executive of the President (2011) American Strategy for Innovation. Washington, DC: National Economic Council.
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (2007) Regenerative Technologies for Medicine and Biology — Contributions for a Strategic Funding Concept. Berlin: Capgemini Deutschland.
Giesecke, S. (2000) The contrasting roles of government in the development of biotechnology industry in the US and Germany, Research Policy, 29(2): 205–223.
Global Industry Analysts Inc. (2010) Regenerative medicine: a global strategic business report. Summary available at: http://www.prweb.com/releases/regenerative_medicine/stem_cell_research/prweb4657624.htm, accessed 7 February 2012.
Gov.cn (2006) Chinese Government’s official website. Available at: http://english.gov.cn/2006–01/09/content_151631.htm, accessed 6 February 2012.
Hansen, A. (2001) Biotechnology regulation: limiting or contributing to biotech development?, New Genetics and Society, 20(3): 255–271.
Hawes, G. and H. Liu (1993) Explaining the dynamics of the Southeast Asian political economy: state, society and the search for economic growth, World Politics, 45(4): 629–660.
Holden, K. and D. Demeritt (2008) Democratising science? The politics of promoting biomedicine in Singapore’s developmental state, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(1): 68–86.
Hooghe, L. and G. Marks (2003) Unravelling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance, American Political Science Review, 97: 233–243.
Hughes-Wilson, W. and D. Mackay (2007) European approval system for advanced therapies: good news for patients and innovators alike, Regenerative Medicine, 2(1): 5–6.
Jasanoff, S. (2004) States of Knowledge: Co-production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge.
Kassim, H. and P. le Gales (2010) Exploring governance in a multi-level polity: a policy instruments approach, West European Politics, 33(1): 1–21.
Kessler, C. (2010) EU support for stem cell research. Presented at: EMA Workshop on Stem Cell-Based Therapies. London, UK, 10 May 2010. Available at: www.emea.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Presentation/2010/05/WC500090649.pdf, accessed 10 February 2012.
Kim, L. (1997) Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Korea’s Technological Learning. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kim, T. G. (2006) $450 million budget set for stem cell research, The Korean Times, May 29.
Knill, C. and D. Lehmkuhl (2002) Private actors and the state: internationalisation and changing patterns of governance, Governance, 15(1): 41–63.
Lander, B. H. Thorsteinsdóttir, P. A. Singer and A. S. Daar et al. (2008) Harnessing stem cells for health needs in India, Cell Stem Cell, 3(1): 11–15.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville (2007) Race to the Top: A Review of Government’s Science and Innovation Policies. London: HM Treasury.
Majone, G. (1996) Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.
Martin, P., R. Hawkesley and A. Turner (2009) The Commercial Development of Cell Therapy: Lessons for the Future. University of Nottingham: Institute for Science and Society.
McGuinness, N. and C. O’Carroll (2010) Benchmarking Europe’s lab benches: how successful has the OMC been in research policy?, JCMS, 48(2): 293–318.
McMahon, D. S. et al. (2010) Cultivating regenerative medicine innovation in China, Regenerative Medicine, 5(1): 35–44.
Morrison, M. (2012) Promissory futures and possible pasts: the dynamics of contemporary expectations in contemporary medicine, Biosocieties, 7: 1–20.
National Conference of State Legislatures (2012) Stem Cell Research. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics/embfet.htm, accessed 19 February 2012.
National Innovation Council (2011) Report to the People. National Innovation Council. Available at: http://www.innovationcouncil.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96:-report-to-the-people-2011&catid=8:report&Itemid=10, accessed 15 February 2012.
National Institutes of Health (2012) Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition and Disease Categories. Available at: http://report.nih.gov/rcdc/categories/, accessed 19 February 2012.
National Science Board (2012) Science and Engineering Indicators2012. Washington, DC: National Science Board.
National Science Foundation (2012) New Report Outlines Trends in US Global Competitiveness in Science and Technology. Press Release 12–011. Washington: National Science Foundation.
Office of Adviser to the Prime Minister (2011) Towards A More Inclusive and Innovative India. Indian Innovation Council. Available at: http://www.innovationcouncil.gov.in/images/stories/report/Innovation_Strategy.pdf, accessed 14 February 2012.
Onis, Z. (1991) The logic of the developmental state, Comparative Politics, 24(1): 109–126.
Padma, T. V. (2005) India plans stem cell initiative, SciDevNet, 13 January. Available at: http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1849&language=1, accessed 9 February 2012.
Regent, S. (2003) The open method of coordination: a new supranational form of governance?, European Law Journal, 9(2): 190–214.
Salter, B. (2009a) State strategies and the global knowledge economy: the geopolitics of regenerative medicine, Geopolitics, 14: 1–31.
Salter, B. (2009b) China, globalisation and health biotechnology innovation: venture capital and the adaptive state, East Asian Science and Technology: An International Journal, 3(4): 401–420.
Salter, B. (2011) Biomedical innovation and the geopolitics of patenting: China and the struggle for future territory, East Asian Science and Technology: An International Journal, 5: 1–18.
Salter, B. and S. Hogarth (2011) The dynamics of RM innovation in the EU: states, strategies and alliances, REMEDiE Project. Workpackage Four. Final Report.
Salter, B. and R. Qiu (2009) Bioethical governance and basic stem cell science: China and the global biomedicine economy, Science and Public Policy, 36(1): 47–59.
UK Stem Cell Initiative (2005) Report and Recommendations. London: Department of Health.
US Department of Health and Human Services (2006) 2020: A New Vision — A Future for Regenerative Medicine. Washington: US Department of health and Human Services.
Wade, R. (1990) Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in Asian Industrialisation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Waldby, C. and B. Salter (2008) Global governance in human embryonic stem cell science: standardisation and bioethics in research and patenting, Studies in Ethics Law and Technology, 2(1): 1–23.
Weiss, L. (2003) Guiding globalisation in East Asia: new roles for old developmental states, in L. Weiss (ed) States in the Global Economy: Bringing Domestic Institutions Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 145–168.
Wong, J. (2011) Betting on Biotech: Innovation and the Limits of Asia’s Developmental State. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Brian Salter
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Salter, B. (2013). Governing Innovation Paths in Regenerative Medicine: The European and Global Struggle for Political Advantage. In: Webster, A. (eds) The Global Dynamics of Regenerative Medicine. Health, Technology and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137026552_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137026552_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-43924-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-02655-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)