Journal of the Knowledge Economy

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 1–18 | Cite as

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies of the European Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy: The Discursive Shaping of Institutional and Policy Frameworks in the Bio-Pharmaceuticals Sector

Article

Abstract

Discourses matter. They help to shape institutions and policies. A new discourse has emerged in recent EU innovation policy centred on the idea of a knowledge-based bio-economy (KBBE). It is officially defined as ‘the sustainable, eco-efficient transformation of renewable biological resources into health, food, energy and other industrial products.’ The KBBE agenda links current problem diagnoses, research priorities, technological innovation, and societal benefits. In analysing the KBBE discourse, this paper draws on the sociology of technological expectations, which emphasises the performative, mobilising and self-fulfilling roles of such future-oriented visions. For example, the KBBE agenda shapes European research and innovation priorities in the bio-pharmaceutical sector. It frames socially relevant bio-knowledge in terms of pre-competitive research which can eventually facilitate new commercial products and patentable knowledge. Moreover, the agenda defines new institutional and policy frameworks necessary to realise societal benefits from these products and knowledge.

Keywords

Knowledge-based bio-economy European technology platforms Self-fulfilling prophecies Technological expectations Institutional and policy frameworks Bio-pharmaceuticals 

References

  1. 1.
    Birch K (2007) The virtual bioeconomy: the ‘Failure’ of performativity and the implications for bioeconomics. Distinktion: Scand J Soc Theory 14:83–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Birch K, Levidow L, Papaioannou T (2010) Sustainable Capital? The neoliberalization of nature and knowledge in the European knowledge-based bio-economy. Sustainability 2(9):2898–2918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borrás S (2003) The innovation policy of the European union. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, Van Lente H (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3/4):285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown N (2003) Hope against hype—accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Sci Stud 16(2):3–21Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown N, Michael M (2002) ‘From authority to authenticity: the changing governance of biotechnology’. Health Risk Soc 4(3):259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown N, Michael M (2003) A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Tech Anal Strat Manag 15(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A (2000) Introducing contested futures: from looking into the future to looking at the future. In: Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A (eds) Contested futures. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 3–20Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caulfield T (2000) Underwhelmed: hyperbole, regulatory policy, and the genetic revolution. McGill Law J 45(2):437–460Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    CEC (1993) Growth, competitiveness and employment: the challenges and ways forward into the 21st century. Commission of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    CEC (2002) Life sciences and biotechnology—a strategy for Europe, COM(2002) 27 finalGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    CEC (2005) Report on European Technology Platforms and Joint Technology Initiatives: fostering public–private R&D partnerships to boost Europe’s industrial competitiveness. Commission Staff Working DocumentGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    CEC (2006) Creating an Innovative Europe. Report of the Independent Expert Group on R&D and Innovation appointed following the Hampton Court Summit and chaired by Esko Aho, Brussels, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/aho_report.pdf
  14. 14.
    CEC (2007a) Communication from the Commission on the Mid-Term Review of the Strategy on Life Sciences and Biotechnology. Brussels, Commission of the European Communities [COM (2007) 175]Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    CEC (2007b) Annex I: A lead market initiative for Europe. Brussels, Commission of the European Communities [SEC (2007) 1729]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    CEC (2007c) Analysis of the effects of a Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) in the area of innovative medicines. Brussels, Commission of the European Communities [SEC (2007) 568]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cerny P (1999) ‘Reconstructing the political in a globalizing world: states, institutions, actors and governance’. In: Buelens F (ed) Globalization and the Nation-State. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 89–137Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    DG Research (2005) New perspectives on the knowledge-based bio-economy: Conference report. DG-Research, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    DG Research (2006) FP7 Theme 2: food, agriculture, fisheries and biotechnology (FAFB)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    DG Research (2007) Third status report on European technology platforms at the launch of FP7. DG-Research, EUR 22706, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    EFPIA & IMI (2006) The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI): strategic research agenda. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations & Innovative Medicines Initiative, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    EFPIA (2004a) Position paper: barriers to innovation in the development of new medicines in Europe and possible solutions to address these barriers. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    EFPIA (2004b) Vision: innovative medicines for Europe: creating biomedical R&D leadership for Europe to benefit patients and society. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    EFPIA (2005) The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI): strategic research agenda (draft). European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    EFPIA (2009) Innovative Medicines Initiative: EUR 246 million to support public–private research cooperation for a fast development of better medicines, 18 May (press statement)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    EU Presidency (2007) En route to the knowledge-based bio-economy. Cologne Summit of the German Presidency, CologneGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    EuropaBio (2008) Press release: Biotech industry welcomes European Commission’s communication on European lead market initiative. Brussels, EuropaBioGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    European Council (2000) An agenda of economic and social renewal for Europe: (aka Lisbon agenda). European Council [DOC/00/7], BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    European Council (2003) Presidency conclusions: Brussels European Council (20–21 March 2003). European Council [8410/03], BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    FDA (2004) Innovation or stagnation? Food and Drug Administration, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Felt U, Wynne B, Callon M, Goncalves ME, Jasanoff S, Jepsen M, Joly P-B, Konopasek Z, May S, Neubauer C, Rip A, Siune K, Stirling A, Tallacchini M (2007) Science and governance: taking European knowledge society seriously. European Commission, EUR 22700, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Genewatch UK (2010) Bioscience for Life? Who decides what research is done in health and agriculture? http://www.genewatch.org/
  33. 33.
    Georghiou L (2001) Evolving frameworks for European collaboration in research and technology. Res Policy 30(6):891–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gillespie I et al (2007) The Innovative Medicines Initiative: Assessment of Economical and Societal Effects. Brussels, European Commission. http://imi.europa.eu/docs/imi-ia-report-032007_en.pdf
  35. 35.
    Gottweis H (1998) Governing molecules. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Guice J (1999) Designing the future: the culture of new trends in science and technology. Res Policy 28(1):81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hedgecoe A (2003) Terminology and the construction of scientific disciplines: the case of pharmacogenomics. Science Technol Hum Values 28(4):513–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hedgecoe A, Martin P (2003) The drugs don’t work: expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Soc Stud Sci 33(3):327–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Helen I (2004) Health in prospect: high-tech medicine, life enhancement and the economy of hope. Sci Stud 17(1):3–19Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    IMI (2004) Creating biomedical R&D leadership for Europe to benefit patients and society. Brussels: Innovative Medicines Initiative. http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/p1/innovative-medicines/pdf/vision_en.pdf
  41. 41.
    IMI (2006) The Innovative Medicines Initiative: keys for success–industry input. http://www.imi-europe.org/Lists/IMIPublicationDocuments/20070309_IMI_Keys_for_Success%20Final.pdf
  42. 42.
    IMI (2007) Intellectual property policy, Brussels: Innovative Medicines Initiative. http://imi.europa.eu/docs/imi-ipr-policy01august2007_en.pdf
  43. 43.
    IMI (2008) The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) research agenda: creating biomedical R&D leadership for Europe to benefit patients and society. Innovative Medicines Initiative, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jessop B (2005) Cultural political economy, the knowledge-based economy, and the state. In: Barry A, Slater D (eds) The technological economy. Routledge, London, pp 144–166Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Levidow L, Birch K, Papaioannou T (2012) EU agri-innovation policy: two contending visions of the knowledge-based bio-economy. Critical Policy Stud 16(1):40–66Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Light D, Lexchin J (2012) Pharmaceutical research and development: what do we get for all the money? BMJ 345:22–28Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Menéndez L, Borrás S (2000) Explaining changes and continuity in EU technology policy: the politics of ideas. Unidad de Políticas Comparadas (CSIC), Madrid, Working Paper 00-01. http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/1490/1/dt-0001.pdf Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Merton RK (1968) Social theory and social structure. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nightingale P, Martin P (2004) The myth of the biotech revolution. Trends Biotechnol 22(11):564–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    OECD (2005) The bioeconomy to 2030: designing a policy agenda. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    OECD (2008) Health biotechnology to 2030. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    OLS (2009) Life sciences blueprint: a statement from the office for life sciences. Office for Life Sciences, Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ragan C I (2007) Pre-competitive R&D: Applying science along the whole value chain from early discovery to pharmacovigilance, EFPIA presentation at Future Pharma UK 2007. http://www.imi-europe.org/Lists/IMIEventAttachments/Future%20Pharma%202007.pdf
  54. 54.
    Rappert B (1999) Rationalising the future? Foresight in science and technology policy co-ordination. Futures 31(6):527–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rosamond B (2002) Imagining the European economy: “Competitiveness” and the social construction of “Europe” as an economic space. New Polit Econ 7(2):157–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Smith K (2005) Changing economic landscape: liberalisation and knowledge infrastructures. SciPublic Policy 32(5):339–347Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Surel Y (2000) The role of cognitive and normative frames in policy-making. J Eur Public Policy 7(4):495–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Valiverronen E (2004) Stories of the “Medicine Cow”: representations of future promises in media discourse. Public Underst Sci 13:363–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    van Apeldoorn B (2000) Transnational class agency and European governance: the case of the European Roundtable of Industrialists. New Polit Econ 5(2):157–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    van Lente H (1993) Promising technology—the dynamics of expectations in technological developments. Eburon, DelftGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    van Lente H, Rip A (1998) The rise of membrane technology: from rhetorics to social reality. Soc Stud Sci 28(2):221–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social ScienceYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Development Policy and PracticeOpen UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations