Evolutionary Innovations: The Business of Biotechnology

Q4 Social Sciences
E. Miller
{"title":"Evolutionary Innovations: The Business of Biotechnology","authors":"E. Miller","doi":"10.5860/choice.34-3981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evolutionary Innovations: The Business of Biotechnology Maureen D. McKelvey Oxford University Press, 1996 The theoretical first half of this book discusses the theory of evolutionary and institutional economics and the implications for the innovative process. It argues that biology's evolutionary theory offers a useful metaphor for the innovative process in the economy, but not an exact analogy. The innovative process involves the generation of novelty (similar to the mutational and sexual recombination process in evolution) and then selection from the alternatives generated. This is the basis for the metaphor. In contrast to biological evolution by genetic recombination, economic evolution is Lamarckian in that learned innovations are inherited. While in biology each individual represents only one innovation, in the economy a single firm can investigate several innovations. Finally, in the economic sphere, firms and individuals can learn from each other. McKelvey contrasts this dynamic model with the neoclassical one in which technological developments are exogenous, with firms responding to price signals and always reaching a global optimum. I suspect most observers would agree with the correctness of McKelvey's observations here, although some might disagree with how important her points are for specific cases. One case where observers might think that such factors were very important would be biotechnology and the introduction of wholly new technologies. The bulk of the book examines how biotechnology was developed and introduced, with emphasis on one of its earliest products, human growth hormone. Not surprisingly, various institutional details are found to play an important role in the history of this product. After a brief chapter introducing the technology, the history of genetic engineering is told, starting with the university research and the debates over safety. It is pointed out how the traditional dividing line between science (new knowledge that is sought in university) and technology (applied knowledge developed in firms) did not apply here, with both universities (the University of California in San Francisco is the case study here) and firms doing some of both. The story is told of how Genentech was founded, and how the Swedish pharmaceutical firm KabiVitrum gave them an early research contract to develop a new technology for producing human growth hormone. KabiVitrum was then producing this in large quantities from human pituitary glands. The emphasis is placed on the various institutional details that played a role in shaping how firms and universities acted, including the conflict between a prestige-driven academic reward system and the profit-driven-firm one. The book is rich in illustrations of how factors specific to a single firm determined how they acted. Genentech funded the research that led to the bacterial production of somatostatin, a hormone without medical value or known market value. While this may have appeared not to be profit-making activity, this achievement demonstrated the technology's feasibility, and when published brought Genentech the scientific prestige it needed to sell research contracts for more commercial products, and to attract further funding. Thus, firms, and the scientists employed by them, responded to the prestige-seeking incentive structure of science. The point is made that the search for knowledge is conducted in the dark (with little information as to what is likely to be found). Some knowledge-gathering is useful only because it produces the competence to know what knowledge to seek, or where the blind ends are. One example occurred when Genentech did human safety tests of its new genetically manufactured hormone in human volunteers, only to find that it produced negative reactions, even though it was analytically indistinguishable from the natural product. This showed a need for new analytical methods to detect the impurities that were producing the problem. …","PeriodicalId":52486,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.34-3981","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evolutionary Innovations: The Business of Biotechnology Maureen D. McKelvey Oxford University Press, 1996 The theoretical first half of this book discusses the theory of evolutionary and institutional economics and the implications for the innovative process. It argues that biology's evolutionary theory offers a useful metaphor for the innovative process in the economy, but not an exact analogy. The innovative process involves the generation of novelty (similar to the mutational and sexual recombination process in evolution) and then selection from the alternatives generated. This is the basis for the metaphor. In contrast to biological evolution by genetic recombination, economic evolution is Lamarckian in that learned innovations are inherited. While in biology each individual represents only one innovation, in the economy a single firm can investigate several innovations. Finally, in the economic sphere, firms and individuals can learn from each other. McKelvey contrasts this dynamic model with the neoclassical one in which technological developments are exogenous, with firms responding to price signals and always reaching a global optimum. I suspect most observers would agree with the correctness of McKelvey's observations here, although some might disagree with how important her points are for specific cases. One case where observers might think that such factors were very important would be biotechnology and the introduction of wholly new technologies. The bulk of the book examines how biotechnology was developed and introduced, with emphasis on one of its earliest products, human growth hormone. Not surprisingly, various institutional details are found to play an important role in the history of this product. After a brief chapter introducing the technology, the history of genetic engineering is told, starting with the university research and the debates over safety. It is pointed out how the traditional dividing line between science (new knowledge that is sought in university) and technology (applied knowledge developed in firms) did not apply here, with both universities (the University of California in San Francisco is the case study here) and firms doing some of both. The story is told of how Genentech was founded, and how the Swedish pharmaceutical firm KabiVitrum gave them an early research contract to develop a new technology for producing human growth hormone. KabiVitrum was then producing this in large quantities from human pituitary glands. The emphasis is placed on the various institutional details that played a role in shaping how firms and universities acted, including the conflict between a prestige-driven academic reward system and the profit-driven-firm one. The book is rich in illustrations of how factors specific to a single firm determined how they acted. Genentech funded the research that led to the bacterial production of somatostatin, a hormone without medical value or known market value. While this may have appeared not to be profit-making activity, this achievement demonstrated the technology's feasibility, and when published brought Genentech the scientific prestige it needed to sell research contracts for more commercial products, and to attract further funding. Thus, firms, and the scientists employed by them, responded to the prestige-seeking incentive structure of science. The point is made that the search for knowledge is conducted in the dark (with little information as to what is likely to be found). Some knowledge-gathering is useful only because it produces the competence to know what knowledge to seek, or where the blind ends are. One example occurred when Genentech did human safety tests of its new genetically manufactured hormone in human volunteers, only to find that it produced negative reactions, even though it was analytically indistinguishable from the natural product. This showed a need for new analytical methods to detect the impurities that were producing the problem. …
进化创新:生物技术的商业
莫林·d·麦凯维牛津大学出版社,1996年。这本书的理论前半部分讨论了进化和制度经济学的理论及其对创新过程的影响。它认为,生物学的进化理论为经济中的创新过程提供了一个有用的比喻,但不是一个精确的类比。创新过程包括新颖性的产生(类似于进化中的突变和性重组过程),然后从产生的替代中进行选择。这就是这个比喻的基础。与基因重组的生物进化不同,经济进化是拉马克式的,因为习得的创新是遗传的。在生物学中,每个个体只能代表一项创新,而在经济中,一个公司可以研究多项创新。最后,在经济领域,企业和个人可以相互学习。麦凯维将这种动态模型与新古典模型进行了对比。在新古典模型中,技术发展是外生的,企业对价格信号做出反应,并总是达到全局最优。我怀疑大多数观察者会同意麦凯维在这里的观察的正确性,尽管有些人可能不同意她的观点对具体案例的重要性。观察员可能认为这些因素非常重要的一个例子是生物技术和引进全新的技术。这本书的大部分内容探讨了生物技术是如何发展和引入的,重点是生物技术最早的产品之一——人类生长激素。毫不奇怪,各种制度细节在这个产品的历史中发挥了重要作用。在简短的一章介绍了这项技术之后,讲述了基因工程的历史,从大学的研究和对安全性的争论开始。文章指出,科学(在大学中寻求的新知识)和技术(在公司中开发的应用知识)之间的传统分界线在这里并不适用,因为两所大学(旧金山的加州大学是这里的案例研究)和公司都在做这两件事。这个故事讲述了基因泰克是如何成立的,以及瑞典制药公司KabiVitrum如何给他们一份早期研究合同,开发一种生产人类生长激素的新技术。KabiVitrum当时正从人类脑垂体中大量生产这种物质。本书的重点放在了影响企业和大学行为的各种制度细节上,包括声望驱动的学术奖励制度和利润驱动的企业奖励制度之间的冲突。书中有丰富的插图,说明单个公司的特定因素如何决定它们的行动方式。基因泰克资助了一项研究,该研究导致细菌产生生长抑素,这是一种没有医学价值或已知市场价值的激素。虽然这看起来可能不是盈利活动,但这一成就证明了该技术的可行性,并且当发表时给基因泰克带来了它需要的科学声望,以销售更多商业产品的研究合同,并吸引更多的资金。因此,企业和受雇于它们的科学家对科学追求声望的激励结构做出了反应。有人指出,对知识的探索是在黑暗中进行的(几乎没有关于可能发现什么的信息)。一些知识收集是有用的,只是因为它产生了知道要寻求什么知识的能力,或者盲点在哪里。一个例子是,基因泰克公司(Genentech)在人类志愿者身上对其新基因制造的激素进行了人体安全测试,结果发现它产生了负面反应,尽管从分析角度看,它与天然产物没有什么区别。这表明需要新的分析方法来检测产生问题的杂质。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies
Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The quarterly Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies (ISSN 0193-5941), which has been published regularly since 1976, is a peer-reviewed academic journal devoted to scholarly papers which present in depth information on contemporary issues of primarily international interest. The emphasis is on factual information rather than purely theoretical or historical papers, although it welcomes an historical approach to contemporary situations where this serves to clarify the causal background to present day problems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信