Search

This paper details how patent law purifies “the” inventing subject of big science while simultaneously disqualifying others from patent eligibility for practicing a similar form of collective authorship. The author begins by detailing what is known as the romantic author trope - the assumption within (Western) patent law that invention is the product of one (versus many). The romantic author trope, however, runs counter to the (collective) inventive process in developing countries. Yet this raises the question: are not the inventions of global capital collective in nature? To understand how the collective nature of invention becomes masked by patent law I introduce the idea of corporate authorship. The paper concludes by making visible the inventive assemblages that make the patentable artifacts of big science possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pharmacogenomics is the use of genomic science to study human variability in drug response. Proponents of pharmacogenomics suggest that it will lead to a new era of personalized medicine through a fundamental transformation in the drug discovery and development process. Uncertainty about the regulatory standards and processes for this emergent technology have been widely cited as an obstacle to more widespread and rapid adoption of pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics thus presents an ideal case study of the role of regulators in the co-production of new biomedical technologies. This paper describes the attempt to create a new transnational regulatory regime for pharmacogenomics through the creation of novel regulatory experiments by a transnational network encompassing regulatory agencies, academic scientists and industry. This process has been marked by the creation of new socio-technical spaces in the regulatory regimes for pharmaceuticals – a pre-regulatory space for the sharing of data outside the regulatory decision-making process and a pre-competitive space for the sharing of data between companies. It is marked also by the expansion of a transnational regulatory space for sharing data and setting standards across jurisdictional boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study verifies the existence of strategic groups among biotechnology firms that have filed for an initial public offering (IPO). We found three distinct groupings based on the dimensions of competitive scope and growth. Differences also exist between these groupings and an aspect of market influence - the ability to attract strategic partners. We found that biotechnology IPOs that seek greater breadth in competitive scope and growths also have more alliance partners. This paper adds to our knowledge of the bio-pharmaceutical market-sector and the strategic intentions of firms in an emerging, disruptive industry and their ability to attract strategic coalition partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides an interpretative history of the early genesis of biotechnology in Cambridge and attempts to reconcile how the 1976 adoption of the most restrictive biosafety ordinance in the US created an unexpected business friendly environment that subsequently anchored the industry. The regulation was motivated by community concerns about the environmental effects of recombinant DNA and ignited a lively debate, characterized by an open process with activities to inform and involve citizens in decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper draws a comparison between Chinese and US technology policies aimed at generating clustering in biotechnology. It compares characteristics of biotechnology companies and patents that have been created on the east coast of China since the mid-1990s with early US biotechnology clusters. It highlights Chinese policies aimed at returning scientists and directive locational policies. Policy deficiencies include: difficulty in shifting away from government-led responsiveness to funding programmes; failure to set in place governance structures that promote interaction between the domestic science base and domestic firms; and shortcomings in policies towards returnees and the financing of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper compares the regulation of biotechnology in Britain, Germany and the United States and shows that systematic differences have developed around four issues: abortion, assisted reproduction, stem cells, and genetically modified crops and foods. Policy choices with respect to these issues reflect the capacity of each nation's regulatory institutions to deal with the scientific, social and ethical uncertainties around biotechnology. National regulatory frameworks constitute an apparatus of collective sense-making through which governments and publics interpret biotechnology's risks and promises. Specifically, regulatory choices position the novel ontologies created by biotechnology either on the side of the familiar and manageable or on the side of the unknown and insupportably risky. The comparison shows that public responses to biotechnology are embedded within robust and coherent political cultures and are not ad hoc expressions of concern that vary unpredictably from issue to issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]