The Cognitive Dynamics of Biotechnology and the Evolution of Its Technological Systems

  • Rikard Stankiewicz
Part of the Economics of Science, Technology and Innovation book series (ESTI, volume 26)


The termtechnologyis notoriously ambiguous. For our purposes, the term denotes the intellectual resources necessary for the conception and production of goods and services. Technology is knowledge, but it is a particular species of knowledge that is distinct from others, such as science. As a cognitive system, technology has a structure, albeit one that continues to be poorly understood.


Technological System Design Space Reverse Engineering Design Language Entrepreneurial Firm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J., N. Williams, D. Seemungal, F. Narin, and D. Olivastro 1996. “Human Genetic Technology: Exploring the Links between Science and Innovation.”Technology Analysis and Strategic Management8(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arber, Werner, and Mathis Brauchbar 1998. “Biotechnology for the Twenty-first Century”. InTwenty-first Century Technologies - Promises and Perils of a Dynamic Future.Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, Kenneth J. 1962. “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention”. In R. R. Nelson (ed.)The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity.Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Audretsch, David B., and Paula E. Stephan 1999. “Knowledge Spillovers in Biotechnology: Sources and Incentives.”Journal of Evolutionary Economics9, 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström 2000. “Inertia and Change in Scandinavian Public Sector Research Systems: The Case of Biotechnology.”Science and Public Policy27(6). Bioteknikkommittén 2000.Att spränga gränser: Bioteknikens möjligheter och risker. Stockholm: Bioteknikkommittén.Google Scholar
  6. Bud, Robert 1993. The Uses of Life. A History of Biotechnology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chataway, Joanna, and Gerald Assouline 1998. “Risk Perception, Regulation and the Management of Agrobiotechnologies.” In J. Senker (ed.)Biotechnology and Competitive Advantage.Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  8. Chataway, Joanna, and Joyce Tait 1993. “Management of Agriculture-related Biotechnology: Constraints on Innovation.”Technology Analysis & Strategic Management5(4), 345–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Constant, Edward 1980.The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dasgupta, Partha, and Paul A. David 1994. “Towards a New Economics of Science.”Research Policy23, 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doll, John J. 1998. “The Patenting of DNA.”Science280 (1 May), 689–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drews, Jürgen 1999.In Quest of Tomorrow’s Medicines.Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. Drews, Jürgen 2000. “Drug Discovery: A Historical Perspective”.Science287 (17 March 2000), 1960–1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenberg, Rebecca S. 1987. “Proprietary Rights and the Norms of Science in Biotechnology Research.”Yale Law Journal97, 177–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ernst and Young 1994.European Biotech 94: A New Industry Emerges.London: Ernst and Young.Google Scholar
  16. Ernst and Young 1996.European Biotech 96: Volatility and Value.London: Ernst and Young.Google Scholar
  17. Ernst and Young 1998.New Directions 98. The Twelfth Biotechnology Industry Report.Palo Alto: Ernst and Young.Google Scholar
  18. Ernst and Young 1999.Biotech 99:Bridging the Gap.Palo Alto: Ernst andYoung. Ernst and Young 2000.Convergence.Palo Alto: Ernst and Young.Google Scholar
  19. Garber, Ken 2000a “Proteomics Gears Up.”Signals MagazineAvailable from Google Scholar
  20. Garber, Ken 2000b “Homestead 2000: The Genome.”Signals Magazine.Available from Google Scholar
  21. Heller, Michael A., and Rebecca S. Eisenberg 1998. “Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anti-commons in Biomedical Research.”Science280 (1 May 1998), 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaku, Michio 1998.Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the Twenty-first Century and Beyond.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Keller, Evelyn Fox 2000.The Century of the Gene.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kenney, Martin 1986. “Schumpeterian Innovation and Entrepreneurs in Capitalism: The Case of the U.S. Biotechnology Industry.”Research Policy, 15, 21–31.Google Scholar
  24. Kline, Stephen J., and Nathan Rosenberg 1986. “An Overview of Innovation.” In R. Landau and N. Rosenberg (eds.)The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kreiner, Kristian, and Majken Schultz 1993. “Informal Collaboration in R&D: The Formation of Networks Across Organizations.”Organization Studies14, 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laudan, Rachel,(ed.) 1984.The Nature of Technological Knowledge. Are Models of Scientific Change Relevant?Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  27. Malerba, Franco, and Luigi Orsenigo 1997. “Technological Regimes and Sectoral Patterns of Innovative Activities.”Industrial and Corporate Change6, 83–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McMillan, G. Steven, Francis Narin, and Davud L. Deeds 2000. “An Analysis of the Critical Role of Public Science in Innovation: The Case of Biotechnology.”Research Policy29, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morange, Michel 1998.A History of Molecular Biology.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Narin, Francis, and. Richard P. Rozek 1988. “Bibliometric Analysis of U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry Research Performance.”Research Policy27, 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nelson, Richard R. 1959. “The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research.”Journal of Political Economy65, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelson, Richard R., and. Sidney G. Winter 1982.An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nightingale, Paul 2000. “Economies of Scale in Experimentation: Knowledge and Technology in Pharmaceutical R&D.”Industrial and Corporate Change9, 315–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Powell, Walter W., Kenneth W. Koput, and Laurel Smith-Doerr 1996. “Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology.”Administrative Science Quarterly41, 116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prevezer, Martha. 1996. “The Dynamics of Industrial Clustering in Biotechnology.”Small Business Economics8, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rothaermel, Frank T. 2000. “Technological Discontinuities and the Nature of Competition.”Technology Analysis and Strategic Management12(2), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saviotti, Pier Paolo 1998. “Industrial Structure and the Dynamics of Knowledge Generation in Biotechnology.” In J. Senker (ed.)Biotechnology and Competitive Advantage: Europe’s Firms and the U.S. Challenge.Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  38. Stankiewicz, Rikard 2000. “The Concept of ‘Design Space.’ In J. Ziman (ed.)Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Stephan, Paula E. 1996. “The Economics of Science.”Journal of Economic Literature34, 1199–1235.Google Scholar
  40. Vincenti, Walter G. 1990.What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wald, Salomon 1996.“On Pervasiveness of Biotechnology.”STI Review19 (special issue on biotechnology).Google Scholar
  42. Ziman, John (ed.) 2000.Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Zucker, Lynne G., Michael R. Darby, and Marilynn Brewer. 1998.“Intellectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises.”American Economic Review88(1), 290–306.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rikard Stankiewicz

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations