Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The IMI bears a striking similarity to the Critical Path Initiative established in March 2004 by the USA’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA), after a damning report on the pharmaceutical productivity crisis [30]. It is also significant that the latter is a public-led initiative, in contrast to the IMI (Hodgson, 2008).

  2. Background knowledge includes data, know how and information which is held prior to the accession of the Grant Agreement. By contrast, Foreground knowledge includes results, data, know how and information generated under the research project.

References

  1. Birch K (2007) The virtual bioeconomy: the ‘Failure’ of performativity and the implications for bioeconomics. Distinktion: Scand J Soc Theory 14:83–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):2898–2918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Borrás S (2003) The innovation policy of the European union. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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):285–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown N (2003) Hope against hype—accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Sci Stud 16(2):3–21

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brown N, Michael M (2002) ‘From authority to authenticity: the changing governance of biotechnology’. Health Risk Soc 4(3):259–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown N, Michael M (2003) A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Tech Anal Strat Manag 15(1):3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 3–20

    Google Scholar 

  9. Caulfield T (2000) Underwhelmed: hyperbole, regulatory policy, and the genetic revolution. McGill Law J 45(2):437–460

    Google Scholar 

  10. CEC (1993) Growth, competitiveness and employment: the challenges and ways forward into the 21st century. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  11. CEC (2002) Life sciences and biotechnology—a strategy for Europe, COM(2002) 27 final

  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 Document

  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. 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]

  15. CEC (2007b) Annex I: A lead market initiative for Europe. Brussels, Commission of the European Communities [SEC (2007) 1729]

  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]

  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 89–137

    Google Scholar 

  18. DG Research (2005) New perspectives on the knowledge-based bio-economy: Conference report. DG-Research, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  19. DG Research (2006) FP7 Theme 2: food, agriculture, fisheries and biotechnology (FAFB)

  20. DG Research (2007) Third status report on European technology platforms at the launch of FP7. DG-Research, EUR 22706, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  21. EFPIA & IMI (2006) The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI): strategic research agenda. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations & Innovative Medicines Initiative, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  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, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  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, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  24. EFPIA (2005) The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI): strategic research agenda (draft). European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  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)

  26. EU Presidency (2007) En route to the knowledge-based bio-economy. Cologne Summit of the German Presidency, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  27. EuropaBio (2008) Press release: Biotech industry welcomes European Commission’s communication on European lead market initiative. Brussels, EuropaBio

    Google Scholar 

  28. European Council (2000) An agenda of economic and social renewal for Europe: (aka Lisbon agenda). European Council [DOC/00/7], Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  29. European Council (2003) Presidency conclusions: Brussels European Council (20–21 March 2003). European Council [8410/03], Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  30. FDA (2004) Innovation or stagnation? Food and Drug Administration, Rockville

    Google Scholar 

  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, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  32. Genewatch UK (2010) Bioscience for Life? Who decides what research is done in health and agriculture? http://www.genewatch.org/

  33. Georghiou L (2001) Evolving frameworks for European collaboration in research and technology. Res Policy 30(6):891–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Gottweis H (1998) Governing molecules. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  36. Guice J (1999) Designing the future: the culture of new trends in science and technology. Res Policy 28(1):81–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hedgecoe A (2003) Terminology and the construction of scientific disciplines: the case of pharmacogenomics. Science Technol Hum Values 28(4):513–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hedgecoe A, Martin P (2003) The drugs don’t work: expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Soc Stud Sci 33(3):327–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Helen I (2004) Health in prospect: high-tech medicine, life enhancement and the economy of hope. Sci Stud 17(1):3–19

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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. IMI (2007) Intellectual property policy, Brussels: Innovative Medicines Initiative. http://imi.europa.eu/docs/imi-ipr-policy01august2007_en.pdf

  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, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  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 144–166

    Google Scholar 

  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):40–66

    Google Scholar 

  46. Light D, Lexchin J (2012) Pharmaceutical research and development: what do we get for all the money? BMJ 345:22–28

    Google Scholar 

  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. Merton RK (1968) Social theory and social structure. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nightingale P, Martin P (2004) The myth of the biotech revolution. Trends Biotechnol 22(11):564–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. OECD (2005) The bioeconomy to 2030: designing a policy agenda. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  51. OECD (2008) Health biotechnology to 2030. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  52. OLS (2009) Life sciences blueprint: a statement from the office for life sciences. Office for Life Sciences, Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, London

    Google Scholar 

  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. Rappert B (1999) Rationalising the future? Foresight in science and technology policy co-ordination. Futures 31(6):527–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Rosamond B (2002) Imagining the European economy: “Competitiveness” and the social construction of “Europe” as an economic space. New Polit Econ 7(2):157–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Smith K (2005) Changing economic landscape: liberalisation and knowledge infrastructures. SciPublic Policy 32(5):339–347

    Google Scholar 

  57. Surel Y (2000) The role of cognitive and normative frames in policy-making. J Eur Public Policy 7(4):495–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Valiverronen E (2004) Stories of the “Medicine Cow”: representations of future promises in media discourse. Public Underst Sci 13:363–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. van Apeldoorn B (2000) Transnational class agency and European governance: the case of the European Roundtable of Industrialists. New Polit Econ 5(2):157–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. van Lente H (1993) Promising technology—the dynamics of expectations in technological developments. Eburon, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  61. van Lente H, Rip A (1998) The rise of membrane technology: from rhetorics to social reality. Soc Stud Sci 28(2):221–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement no 217647. Entitled ‘Co-operative Research on Environmental Problems in Europe’ (CREPE, www.crepeweb.net), the project had a section on innovation narratives, carried out by Les Levidow and Theo Papaioannou during 2008–2010. The paper also draws on research carried out by Kean Birch while he was working at the Centre for Public Policy for Regions, University of Glasgow. A previous version of this paper was presented at the First ISA Forum on Sociology, Barcelona, in 2008. We would like to thank the participants for their helpful comments. Usual disclaimers apply.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Science, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Kean Birch

  2. Development Policy and Practice, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

    Les Levidow & Theo Papaioannou

Authors
  1. Kean Birch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Les Levidow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Theo Papaioannou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kean Birch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Birch, K., Levidow, L. & Papaioannou, T. Self-Fulfilling Prophecies of the European Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy: The Discursive Shaping of Institutional and Policy Frameworks in the Bio-Pharmaceuticals Sector. J Knowl Econ 5, 1–18 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0117-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0117-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation