Skip to main content

The “Entrepreneurial State” and the Leveraging of Life in the Field of Regenerative Medicine

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Bioeconomies

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 .

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Accelerated Access. (2015). Accelerated access review: Interim report. London: The Crown.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, A., Born, G., & Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society, 37(1), 20–49. doi:10.1080/03085140701760841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BIS. (2011). Taking stock of regenerative medicine in the United Kingdom. London: Department for Business Innovation & Sills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. (2016). Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534(7609), 684–687. doi:10.1038/nature18315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CGTC. (2014). The cell therapy catapult: First review to March 2014. London: Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dussauge, I., Helgesson, C. F., & Lee, F. (2015). Value practices in the life sciences and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C., & Dunnill, P. (2007). A brief definition of regenerative medicine. Regenerative Medicine, 3(1), 1–5. doi:10.2217/17460751.3.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzucato, M. (2015). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. London: Anthem Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittra, J. (2016). The new health bioeconomy: R&D policy and innovation for the twenty-first century. Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittra, J., & Milne, C. P. (2013). Translational medicine: The future of therapy? Singapore: Pan Stanford.

    Google Scholar 

  • MRC. (2012). A strategy for UK regenerative medicine. London: Medical Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nature Editorial. (2015). Stem the tide. Nature, 163–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • NHS. (2011). Innovation: Health and wealth. London: NHS.

    Google Scholar 

  • NHS. (2014). Five year forward view. London: NHS.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • RMEG. (2014). Building on our own potential: A UK pathway for regenerative medicine. London: Regenerative Medicine Expert Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tait, G., & Banda, J. (2016). Proportionate and adaptive governance of innovative technologies: The role of regulations, guidelines and standards. Edinburgh: Innogen.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, A. (2013). The global dynamics of regenerative medicine: A social science critique. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willetts, D. (2013). Eight great technologies. London: Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics