Abstract
Governments are attempting to create a ‘health and wealth’-generating Regenerative Medicine industry in a manner that aligns with the Entrepreneurial State by supporting innovation -facilitating initiatives. This chapter explores such initiatives in the UK and the values invoked within them. The chapter argues that the power of the Entrepreneurial State in reconfiguring the bioeconomy derives from its capacity to appeal to diverse values, and consequently, mobilize and orientate a range of actors (industry , scientists, clinicians and patients ) into a common project aimed at generating ‘health and wealth’. The chapter reflects on the State’s role in attempting to serve as a broker between public and private good, and in doing so it also highlight some of the tensions and countervailing processes at play within the new health bioeconomy .
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Accelerated Access. (2015). Accelerated access review: Interim report. London: The Crown.
Aspers, P. (2007). Theory, reality, and performativity in markets. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 66(2), 379–398. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.2007.00515.x.
Barry, A., Born, G., & Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society, 37(1), 20–49. doi:10.1080/03085140701760841.
BIS. (2011). Taking stock of regenerative medicine in the United Kingdom. London: Department for Business Innovation & Sills.
Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. (2016). Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534(7609), 684–687. doi:10.1038/nature18315.
CGTC. (2014). The cell therapy catapult: First review to March 2014. London: Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult.
CGTC. (2015). The cell therapy catapult: Growing a UK cell therapy industry, delivering health and wealth. Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult. Retrieved September 23, 2015, from https://ct.catapult.org.uk/.
CGTC. (2016). Our purpose. Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult. Retrieved June 20, 2016, from https://ct.catapult.org.uk/about-us/purpose-vision-and-mission/.
DoH. (2015). Terms of reference: Innovative medicines and medtech review. London: Department of Health.
Dussauge, I., Helgesson, C. F., & Lee, F. (2015). Value practices in the life sciences and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Editorial. (2016). FDA should stand firm on stem-cell treatments. Nature, 535, 7–8. doi:10.1038/535007b.
EMA. (2016). Adaptive pathways. London: European Medicines Agency. Retrieved June 28, 2016, from http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000601.jsp.
Epha. (2016). Scientists voice concerns about adaptive pathways. Epha. Retrieved July 1, 2016, from http://epha.org/.
Gardner, J. (2016). Patient-centred medicine and the broad clinical gaze: Measuring outcomes in paediatric deep brain stimulation. BioSocieties. doi:10.1057/biosoc.2016.6.
Gardner, J., Faulkner, A., Mahalatchimy, A., & Webster, A. (2015). Are there specific translational challenges in regenerative medicine? Lessons from other fields. Regenerative Medicine, 10(7), 885–895. doi:10.2217/rme.15.50.
Gardner, J., & Webster, A. (2017). Accelerating innovation in the creation of biovalue. Science, Technology, & Human Values. Early access online. doi: 10.1177/0162243917702720.
Gibbons, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
GOV.UK. (2016). Accelerated access review. The Crown. Retrieved June 29, 2016, from https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/accelerated-access-review.
HoL. (2013). Regenerative medicine report. London: House of Lords Science and Technology Committee.
Malik, N. N. (2014). Reimbursement and adoption of advanced therapies: The 5-C framework. Regenerative Medicine, 9(5), 573–578. doi:10.2217/rme.14.51.
Malik, N. N. (2016). Pay-for-performance pricing for a breakthrough heart drug: Learnings for cell and gene therapies. Regenerative Medicine, 11(3), 225–227. doi:10.2217/rme-2016-0014.
Mason, C., & Dunnill, P. (2007). A brief definition of regenerative medicine. Regenerative Medicine, 3(1), 1–5. doi:10.2217/17460751.3.1.1.
Mazzucato, M. (2015). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. London: Anthem Press.
Milne, C.-P., & Tait, J. (2009). Evolution along the government-governance continuum: Impacts of regulations on medicines innovation in the United States. In C. Lyall, J. Smith, & T. Papaioannou (Eds.), The limits of governance: The challenge of policy-making for the new life sciences (pp. 107–132). London: Ashgate.
Mittra, J. (2016). The new health bioeconomy: R&D policy and innovation for the twenty-first century. Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mittra, J., & Milne, C. P. (2013). Translational medicine: The future of therapy? Singapore: Pan Stanford.
MRC. (2012). A strategy for UK regenerative medicine. London: Medical Research Council.
Nature Editorial. (2015). Stem the tide. Nature, 163–164.
NHS. (2011). Innovation: Health and wealth. London: NHS.
NHS. (2014). Five year forward view. London: NHS.
NHSE. (2016a). Academic health science networks. England: NHS. Retrieved June 30, 2016, from https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/part-rel/ahsn/.
NHSE. (2016b). Test beds. England: NHS. Retrieved June 3, 2016, from https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/innovation/test-beds/.
NIH. (2011). NIH roadmap and roadmap-affiliated initiatives. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Retrieved June 27, 2011, from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/funding/grants/announcements/roadmap/.
NIHR. (2016). Biomedical research centres. NHS. Retrieved June 30, 2016, from http://www.nihr.ac.uk/about/biomedical-research-centres.htm.
Ogawa, N. (2015). Japan working hard on regenerative medicine. Tokyo.
Omidvar, O., De Grijs, M., Castle, D., Mittra, J., Rosiello, A., & Tait, J. (2014). Regenerative medicine: Business models, venture capital and the funding gap. Edinburgh: Innogen Institute.
RMEG. (2014). Building on our own potential: A UK pathway for regenerative medicine. London: Regenerative Medicine Expert Group.
Sipp, D. (2015). Conditional approval: Japan lowers the bar for regenerative medicine products. Cell Stem Cell, 16(4), 353–356. doi:10.1016/j.stem.2015.03.013.
Tait, G., & Banda, J. (2016). Proportionate and adaptive governance of innovative technologies: The role of regulations, guidelines and standards. Edinburgh: Innogen.
UKRMP. (2012). UK regenerative medicine platform. UK Regenerative Medicine Platform. Retrieved June 22, 2012, from http://www.ukrmp.org.uk/.
UKRMP. (2015). Annual report. London: United Kingdom Regenerative Medicine Platform.
Von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 51–74). London: Wiley.
Webster, A. (2013). The global dynamics of regenerative medicine: A social science critique. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Willetts, D. (2013). Eight great technologies. London: Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.
Wilson-Kovacs, D. M., & Hauskeller, C. (2012). The clinician-scientist: Professional dynamics in clinical stem cell research. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34(4), 497–512. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01389.x.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gardner, J., Webster, A., Mittra, J. (2017). The “Entrepreneurial State” and the Leveraging of Life in the Field of Regenerative Medicine. In: Pavone, V., Goven, J. (eds) Bioeconomies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55651-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55651-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55650-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55651-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)