learning about science and innovations

1. The Life Science
Innovation Imperative
Professor Iain Gillespie (Edinburgh)
Professor David Castle (Edinburgh)
Professor Joyce Tait (Edinburgh)
Professor Joanna Chataway (RAND, OU)
1

2. A Economic and Moral
Imperative to Innovate
Iain M M Gillespie
2

3. Innovation is key to growth…
3
Contributions to labour productivity growth, 1995-2006, in %
* Investment in intangibles and multi-factor productivity growth account for
between two-thirds and three-quarters of labour productivity growth.

4. …and accounts for major differences between
economies
4
Decomposi)on
of
cross-­‐country
differences
in
GDP
per
capita
into
their
determinants,
2005
(United
States
=
100)
GDP
PPP
per
capita
TFP
Human
capital
Physical
capital
Employment
United
States
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Canada
83.5
72.0
103.3
105.8
106.0
Japan
72.6
52.6
100.4
130.7
105.1
China
9.8
13.6
57.3
105.2
119.5
India
5.2
12.7
47.7
98.3
87.1
Brazil
20.5
29.3
70.1
103.1
96.8
Russian
Federa)on
28.6
31.5
84.9
97.4
99.3
EU27
+
EFTA
64.7
67.8
91.2
114.1
91.3
Total
World
22.8
27.9
64.2
104.2
95.8
Source:
OECD.

5. Innovation can help address global & social
challenges, such as climate change
5
Potential technological contributions to CO2 emission reductions
Note: WEO refers to the IEA’s 2007 World Energy Outlook.
Source: International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050.

6. Green Innovation
6
Pollution
(e.g., CO2 , toxic
chemicals)
Economic Growth (e.g., employment, GDP)
Conventional
technology
Sustainability via
green innovation
Eco-efficiency &
renewable feedstock

7. WE HAVE AN ECONOMIC AND
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO
INNOVATE
7

8. National innovation policy mix 2010
United Kingdom
8

9. The financing of RD has changed over
time …
9
OECD Area, 1981-2005
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Other national
Government
Industry
9

10. But public investment remains key, for
example in the life sciences
10
Reliance of Pharmaceutical patents
on science citations (biochemistry)

11. BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
SECTORS MUST CONTINUE TO
INVEST IN INNOVATION
11

12. Science is increasingly international…
12
Canada
Korea
Italy
Netherlands
Switzerland
India
Belgium
Sweden
Russian Federation
Poland
Australia
Brazil
Spain
United States
Germany
France
China
Japan
United Kingdom
1998 2008
Canada
Korea
Italy
Netherlands
Switzerland
India
Belgium
Sweden
Russian Federation.
Poland
China
Japan
Australia
Brazil
Spain
United States
Germany
France
United Kingdom
Source: OECD (2010) Measuring Innovation: A New Perspective

13. Modern technologies are the sum of
many parts
13

14. The composition of investment has shifted
towards intangible assets
14Source: Corrado, Hulten and Sichel (2007).
§ Within many OECD
countries intangible
investment (software, RD,
training and organisational
factors) is now larger than
investment in machinery,
equipment and buildings.
§ Intangibles are often not
included in firm ( national)
accounts.
§ But market analysts know
this and are probing.

15. Successful investment in innovation demands
enlightened collaboration and networking of knowledge
§ A New Enlightenment…
§ Putting society back at the core of the Innovation
Enterprise
15

16. Innovation and Intellectual
Property
David Castle
16

17. Coupling or Chain Link Model
17
Rothwell 1994

18. Intellectual Property in Context
§ Knowledge management is inclusive of
intellectual property rights;
§ Systems of intellectual property rights are not
monolithic, consistent, or perfected;
§ Knowledge management strategies dictate the
tactics of intellectual property rights
§ Interpreting the purpose of patents is
contextualised in knowledge management
18

19. Intellectual Property in Context
§ Knowledge mobilisation versus returns to
inventors in university-based TTOs;
§ ‘Publish or perish’, or ‘patent or perish’?
§ Social control of knowledge includes intellectual
property rights drive toward public goods
§ There is no definitive role for patents in the
management of knowledge in innovation systems
with respect to increasing / decreasing innovation.
19

20. Intellectual Property in Context
20

21. Intangible Asset Framework
Producing
Accountability
Tracking
Ownership
21

22. 1. Producing Knowledge
§ Research know-how must be augmented with an
understanding of how to create knowledge with
direct applications.
§ How do researchers come to recognize something
as an innovation, attribute value to it, and develop
applications that would have relevance to national
innovation systems or international relevance?
22

23. 2. Tracking Knowledge
§ Before knowledge is legally protected,
commercialised, or otherwise disseminated, a
number of judgments are made about its worth,
whether to share knowledge, who the intended
beneficiaries are, and how and when to respond
to incentives to diffuse the knowledge.
§ These pre-commercialisation activities,
particularly as they bear on downstream
knowledge transfer, are poorly understood.
23

24. 3. Ownership
§ Public coordination of RD is conjoined with
private legal control over IP
§ Open innovation challenges existing models of IP,
knowledge management and incentive structures
24

25. 4. Accountability
§ Reasonable questions arise about the sources of
knowledge production, IP protection, and method
of knowledge diffusion (tech transfer v. advice or
trouble-shooting).
§ New governance structures may be necessary, to
capture the transactions and other interactions
with, and between national innovation systems
and international bodies (e.g. WTO or TRIPS).
25

26. Innovation and Knowledge Flows
26
Maleki1997

27. Observations
§ Leonard Nakamura estimated the US economy
generated ~1 T in intangibles per annum
§ The central challenge remains measurement
(Baruch Lev et al.)
§ Consider the following question:
§ RD expenditures are measurable
§ Once the money is spent, the work completed,
and the knowledge generated…..
§ Which side of the ledger should do the
reporting – as ‘costs’ or as ‘assets’?
27

28. 28
Public private partnerships in
health innovation:
Why and what works?
Joanna Chataway

29. 29
Outline
§ An increase in public and private sector
collaboration
§ The evolving rationale behind collaboration
§ Bad pharma? Bad academia? A good mix?
§ Publics and privates as new ‘social
technologies’

30. Partnerships: a growing phenomenon
§ Public private partnerships in health innovation
are growing in number, diversifying in nature and
are a major feature of the policy landscape
§ UK Life Science Strategy puts partnerships and
collaborations, including those related to
personalised medicine, at the heart of government
policy:
§ Strategy for UK Life Sciences: Building a Life Sciences Ecosystem
§ Innovation Health and Wealth: Accelerating adoption and
diffusion in the NHS (includes opening up NHS patient data)
30

31. There are a range of different collaborations between public
and private sector actors emerging in health innovation
§ Public private collaborations in health innovation
vary with regards to their:
§ range of activities
§ structure and size of networks
§ roles of partners
§ rewards/incentives
§ risks for partners
§ A lot of experimentation but a fragmented and
limited evidence base and a lack of scenarios and
evaluations
31

32. 32
Outline
§ An increase in public and private sector
collaboration
§ The evolving rationale behind collaboration
§ Bad pharma? Bad academia? A good mix?
§ Publics and privates as new ‘social
technologies’

33. Then and Now
Then
§ Market failure
§ Insufficient returns to
private investors
§ Public sector funding
for basic research
Now
§ Extensive patenting
further upstream
§ Public and private
collaboration and joint
funding upstream and
downstream
33

34. A framework for examining PPPs
34
Institutions
provide the
operating
framework
Social
technologies
shape the
uptake
Physical
technologiesSocial technologies are the
means by which the application
of physical technologies are
coordinated – how we produce
the cake
Institutions include regulations,
governance structures, health
systems and the ‘operational
environment’ – the kitchen
Physical technologies are the
science and tech we can put our
hands on – the ‘recipe’ for
baking a cake
Ideas and concepts in this slide are informed by Nelson and Sampat, 2001; Chataway, et al, 2010, Nelson, et al, 2011

35. Why is more clarity useful?
§ Without a clearer understanding of the basis of
collaboration and a shared understanding of the
common boundaries, transaction costs are likely to be
higher
§ Collaboration and partnership will be subject to
political fashion and could become a political football
(especially likely around privacy issues?) and without
a clear understanding of the rationale collaborations
are vulnerable
35

36. 36
Outline
§ An increase in public and private sector
collaboration
§ The evolving rationale behind collaboration
§ Bad pharma? Bad academia? A good mix?
§ Publics and privates as new ‘social
technologies’

37. Bad pharma?
§ Argument is that pharma puts pressure on
knowledge producers to obscure and hide results
§ This is ethically unacceptable
§ Also bad because data about efficacy and
effectiveness is not shared
§ Adds up to a less productive system
§ Recommendation is that we need better regulation
and stronger academic voice in clinical trial
conduct
37

38. Bad academics?
§ Increasing evidence that the quality of basic health
research is very low (Prinz, 2011; Ioannides, 2010)
§ Publishing in Nature, Amgen researchers report
that they were unable to replicate 47 out of 53
‘landmark’ basic science publications in cancer
which had originated in academia
§ Might more private sector presence in basic
research increase the quality at that point in the
research value chain?
38

39. 39
Outline
§ An increase in public and private sector
collaboration
§ The evolving rationale behind collaboration
§ Bad pharma? Bad academia? A good mix?
§ Publics and privates as new ‘social
technologies’

40. Public and private social technologies driving
better science
40
Institutions build
trust and openness
New patterns of
public and
private
partnership
across basic
and applied
research
Improved and
faster
development of
physical
technology
‘ingredients’
Do we need a new set
of public and private
engagements to drive
better and faster
innovation?

41. To build new ways of working….
§ We need better understanding of different public
private partnerships actually deliver
§ Better articulation of the rationale: The language
of market failure, leveraging investment and de-
risking does not capture the issue
§ Increased clarity on potential benefits for the
health innovation ecosystem
41

42. Good Governance and
Responsible Innovation
Joyce Tait
42

43. A Policy Revolution: from “Government” to
“Governance”
Government
§ Pre 1980s – “Powers
over”
§ A top-down legislative
approach
§ Attempts to regulate the
behaviour of people and
institutions in detailed
and compartmentalised
ways
Governance
§ Post 1980s – “Powers
to”
§ Sets the parameters of
the system within which
people and institutions
behave so that self-
regulation achieves the
desired outcomes
43

44. Outcomes of Adopting a Governance
Approach in Life Sciences
The Precautionary Principle
+
Upstream Engagement
=
An innovation process that has been at the mercy of
media campaigns and ideologically manipulated
public opinion
44

45. Governance and Regulation – from Science to
Market Place
45
Upstream
Regulation
Upstream
Engagement
Scientific
Research
Translation
Application
10-15 years and
£500M – 1Bn
Downstream, Product
Regulation
Downstream
Engagement
Process regulation
Product regulation

46. Anticipatory and Adaptive Governance
Anticipatory Governance
The new governance agenda claims to be lighter-touch, less top-
down, but in effect it has extended the regulatory process into areas
that used to be left to market forces. It claims to be more democratic,
involving a wider range of stakeholders in the decision making
process, but in effect it has merely led to a shift in power relations
away from industry and commerce and in favour of advocacy groups
with equally limited claims to represent ‘society’.
Adaptive Governance
46
An adaptive risk governance approach is enabling of innovation,
minimises risks to people and the environment, and balances the
interests and values of all relevant stakeholders. It provides for trade-
offs between these factors and supports smarter regulatory
approaches that seek to balance potential social benefits and
potential risks, particularly where both are uncertain in the early
stages of technology development.

47. Smart, Adaptive Governance of Innovative
Technology – Upstream and Downstream
§ Regulation can be modified in the light of changes in risk
assessment, e.g. improved scientific understanding of the
technology and its impacts and the levels of uncertainty
associated with them, or changes in the policy and
political context.
§ Recognises its role in enabling innovation
§ Balances the risks and benefits to people and the
environment
§ Balances the interests and values of ALL relevant
stakeholders
§ Is explicit about political influences on policy decisions
§ REGULATORY SCIENCE – Is able to consider ‘technical
fixes’ as an alternative or complement to regulation
47

48. Critical Stakeholder Engagement – upstream
and downstream
§ Be equitably skeptical about the motivations of those
with whom you engage
§ Consider innovation and regulatory processes, as well
as science
§ Consider benefits of the technology and balance
against costs and risks
§ Develop standards for engagement, including
standards for the quality of evidence on which
decisions are based
§ In a plural democracy, maintain choice as far as
possible
48
Tait, J. and Barker, G., (2011) EMBO Reports, 12, pp763-768.
Tait, J. (2009) EMBO Reports. , 10, pp 18-22

49. Ethical principles - NCOB
1. The development should not be at the expense of
people’s essential rights;
2. The development should be environmentally
sustainable;
3. The development should contribute to a net
environmental benefit;
4. Products should be developed in accordance with
trade principles that are fair;
5. The costs and benefits of a development should be
distributed in an equitable way;
6. If the first five principles are respected and the
development can mitigate environmental and social
harm, then depending on market and economic
considerations, there is a duty to undertake the
development. 49

50. www.innogen.ac.uk
For further details, please contact Elisabeth
Barlow at elisabeth.barlow@ed.ac.uk
50