European Biotechnology Research Articles

Commercialisation, protection juridique et culture des variétés OGM

Rgulations on seeds and varieties established 80 years ago proved to be to be efficient for European agriculture. Genetic progress for many traits, such as yield resistance to pests and diseases, have been observed for all cultivated crops. Plant variety protection by the UPOV (Union Internationale pour la Protetion Végétable) sytem came into being with the adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants by a diplomatic conference in Paris on December 2, 1961. At this point the rights of plant breeders were recognized on an international basis. The UPOV Convention provides a sui generis form of intellectual property protection which has been specifically adapted for the process of plant breeding and has been developed with the aim of encouraging breeders to develop new varieties of plants. In contrast, the European GM regulation is very difficult to apply, very expensive and limits the development of biotechnology in Europe, as well for research as for development.

Exploring the Effects of Corporate Governance on Intellectual Capital Disclosure: An Analysis of European Biotechnology Companies

This paper examines the relationship between governance variables and voluntary intellectual capital disclosure in a sample of European biotechnology firms. We extend previous research by simultaneously considering governance mechanisms such as the proportion of independent directors, board dimension, CEO duality and board structure in relationship to voluntary disclosure on intellectual capital. We understand voluntary disclosure as a multidimensional and complex concept and, hence, use the semantic properties of the information disclosed, and on the content of information, as proxies for the quality of disclosure. Our results suggest that governance-related variables strongly influence the quantity of information disclosed, thus confirming our hypotheses. In regard to the quality of disclosure, our results show that (1) the proportion of independent directors is positively related to the disclosure of internal structure, (2) CEO duality is negatively linked to the disclosure of forward-looking information, and (3) board structure helps to improve the annual report's overall readability. We contribute to agency theory by indicating that corporate governance mechanisms and voluntary disclosure can be used strategically to reduce agency conflicts. The results of this study might be of interest to regulators, investment analysts and market participants.

The Governance of Corporations, Technological Change, and Risk: Examining Industrial Perspectives on the Development of Genetically Modified Crops

Why do corporations develop technologies which can be associated with the generation of various environmental risks and how are the technologies that they develop governed by factors within and around firms? The authors examine the factors that have motivated and guided technological innovation, based on an examination of multinational companies developing genetically modified (GM) crops for the European market. The analysis is based on an inherently interdisciplinary approach to the study of innovation, which incorporates factors that are governed endogenously through the processes within companies (that is, strategic decisionmaking) and exogenously through interactions between firms and their external constituents (that is, government policies and regulations, and stakeholder and public perspectives and engagements). It is found that the introduction of GM technologies in Europe has been shaped significantly by public perception and societal reactions. It is also found that the aspects of industry strategies which contributed most to the course of European public opposition to GM crops were: (a) the choice of first-generation GM products; (b) interactions between pesticide-product and biotechnology-product strategies in different companies, and industry's efforts to present their sector and its products as contributing to sustainable development; (c) cultural and world-view differences between companies; and (d) company responses to European biotechnology policies and risk regulation. It is demonstrated that actions which seem rational to individual actors (corporations, governments, public interest groups) can have counterintuitive, and often counterproductive, outcomes in the longer term and when considered from the perspective of interactions within broader governance processes.

Vernacular science knowledge: its role in everyday life communication

This paper argues that our understanding of how the public understands science is incomplete as long as we do not answer the question of why, under which conditions, and in which form the general public assimilate scientific background knowledge. Everyday life and communication are governed by criteria of social efficiency and evidence. Under the conditions of everyday life, it is sufficient for the lay person to possess and employ metaphoric and iconic representations of scientific facts—called “vernacular science knowledge”—that are wrong in scientific terms, as long as they are able to serve as acceptable and legitimate belief systems in discourses with other lay people. These representations are tools for a purpose that follow local rules of communication. Research within the framework of Social Representation Theory—collective symbolic coping with biotechnology in Europe, lay understanding of sexual conception, as well as traditional versus modern psychiatric knowledge in India—is presented to illustrate.

What you give is what you get: Investment in European biotechnology

The European biotechnology industry receives less funding, and less funding per company, than the North American industry, especially at the sensitive early stages of company development, and the European industry is substantially smaller in terms of employment, products and capitalisation than the US industry. The cause and effect of this relationship are explored in this paper. It is shown that if the European industry is immature it is because its growth has been slower, most probably because of low investment levels, and that the relatively lower value of biotech companies at initial public offering (IPO) is a result of the lower amount of investment they receive, not a reason for. This suggests that poor investment levels are a primary cause of the small size of European biotech companies and the European industry as a whole, not an effect of it. Investor mistrust and investment mechanisms are plausible reasons for this under-investment.

Opportunism and unilateral commitment: the moderating effect of relational capital

PurposeThis paper focuses on the decision by firms to commit and to invest unilaterally. It is concerned with the intriguing question as to whether unilateral commitments are mechanisms that help a firm manage risks in alliance relationships in a proactive manner.Design/methodology/approachThe hypotheses are tested with survey data on 344 alliance relationships of European biotechnology small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs).FindingsIn this paper it is shown that unilateral commitments have a positive effect on perceived opportunistic behavior. However, the evidence suggests that, by creating a basis for exchange, relational capital moderates the relationship between unilateral commitments and the perception of opportunistic behavior.Research limitations/implicationsThis research adopts a static perspective. It is known that alliances evolve, and develop. Consequently, future research could extend and modify this study along this dimension and analyze the evolution of unilateral commitments through longitudinal research.Practical implicationsFrom a managerial point‐of‐view, this paper shows that motivation for commitments is different and their effects on risk perception can be contradictory according to the level of relational capital in the inter‐organizational relationship.Originality/valueThis paper is one of the few empirical studies that explored the concept of unilateral commitments and provided empirical evidence to highlight the significance of some managerial practices such as building trust.

Conflict resolution mechanisms, trust and perception of conflict in contractual agreements

Given that conflict is inevitable in inter-firm relationships, an important question then arises: how is this conflict best managed? This research is interested in determining which conflict resolution mechanisms are constructive and which are destructive, through analysing perception of managers of European Biotechnology SMEs.

The citation impact of research collaborations: the case of European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988–2002)

Research collaboration is generally motivated by quality enhancement. The networks underlying collaborative knowledge production also serve as vehicles of knowledge diffusion. Both aspects are expected to contribute to the citation impact of publications. We analyse knowledge production in European biotechnology for the period 1988–2002 focusing on the role of research collaboration. Different aspects of research collaboration are taken into account simultaneously to assess their relative importance. We distinguish between the number of contributing authors and addresses as to differentiate between the effect of the collaboration between individuals and between organizations. We further distinguish between different spatial scales of collaboration (national, European, international) and between different institutional types of collaboration (between academia, outside academia, and hybrid). We find evidence that the diffusion of scientific knowledge, as measured by citation rate, is dependent on both intra- and inter-organisational characteristics. An important finding has also been that the further differences in citation impact can be related to the geographical scale of collaboration with the European scale being most successful. Furthermore, country-fixed effects suggest that the European Union, though successful as a geographical scale of collaboration, still harbours many national varieties of knowledge production.

Careers and clusters: analyzing the career network dynamic of biotechnology clusters

Abstract Access to a pool of talented employees is an important element of entrepreneurial firms’ ability to build innovative capabilities. Through an empirical examination of two European biotechnology clusters – Cambridge, UK, and Munich, Germany – we investigate the degree to which macro-labor market institutions shape the micro-dynamics of career affiliation networks between scientific employees. Using bibliometric methods to trace careers and a series of social network analysis methods, we examine similarities and differences in career network dynamics across the two clusters. In particular, we investigate whether patterns of long-term employment within most German large firms, as opposed to more short-term employment in the United Kingdom, affects network structure, network performance and network composition in the two clusters. We show that contrary to the expectations of comparative institutional theory, network structures are grossly similar across the two clusters and, moreover, the performance of these networks as measured by “small-world” methods are similar; career affiliation networks in the two regions are formed through social interactions that appear largely unrelated to macro-institutional factors. Where the macro-institutional forces are effective is as a gatekeeper to network composition: the Cambridge network contains a roughly equal mix of scientists with recent industry and scientific experience, whereas the Munich network is populated almost entirely by academic scientists with no prior industrial experience.

The Impact of TRIPS on the Validity of the European Biotechnology Directive

In July 2003, the European Commission referred Germany, Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden to the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Court of Justice) for their failure to transform arts. 1 to 11 of the European Biotechnology Directive,1 (the Directive) into their national patent laws by July 2002. This action by the European Commission, eight years after the European Parliament passed the Directive against eight out of fifteen Member States that made up the European Community (EC) at the time, demonstrates that the patentability of subject matter that comes within arts. 3.2 and 5.2 Directive2 continues to be controversial in Europe and that the passage of the Directive has not yet resolved this controversy. The fact that by the end of October, 2004 the Court of Justice confirmed that Germany had breached the Directive3 and that by early December 2004 Germany’s Bundestag had conceded the debate by passing legislation transforming the Directive into German patent law does not address the complaint which is made against the European Parliament, the European Commission and those Member States that have complied with the Directive. They are each individually and collectively in violation of art. 27.14 of the Agreement On Trade-Related Aspects Of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and consequently, of art. XVI.45 of the World Trade Agreement (WTA). The fact that these violations have been allowed to persist together with the actions of the European Commission in pursing enforcement, is today a matter of paramount importance not only to those nations that have refused to adopt the Directive but to all one hundred and forty eight members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). It must be understood that all WTO members are bound to “ensure the conformity of [their] laws, regulations and administrative procedures with [their] obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements,”6 with TRIPS being one of these. Relevantly, TRIPS contains a detailed set of minimum international legislative and regulatory standards that are designed to “promote effective and adequate protection of intellectual property rights, and to ensure that measures and procedures to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade.”7 Clearly, these standards must be uniformly adhered to if the WTO is to function fairly and efficiently and if the stated objectives of TRIPS are to be met multilaterally. Daniel Gervais in his authoritative work8 on the drafting history of TRIPS described it as one of the Luigi Palombi*

BioValley – Life Sciences Cluster in the Centre of Europe

BioValley is a leading trinational biotech region in Europe covering the Alsace in France, Northwestern Switzerland and the region of South Baden in Germany. It is a unique location for highly successful developments in life sciences and biotechnology in Europe and an established network linking more than 40,000 people working in all areas of the life sciences and related industries. The goal of BioValley is to maintain a common culture, provide services, and enhance BioValley's profile in the whole world.

Financing, Incubating, Coaching, and the Cluster Effect

More innovation financing, incubating and coaching would be helpful for European biotechnology. Venture capital is available for all stages of biotech company development, providing companies are innovative and of high quality. Several venture funds are active in the BioValley. To compensate for the shortcomings of management experience, a low-cost portfolio of integrated services could be provided by seasoned managers but the system has to be created, managed, and paid for by the small companies. Such shortcomings facing young companies can be overcome by seed financing, incubating and coaching, and providing a dynamic regional biotech/life sciences development organization leading to a cluster effect. This allows much better use of available assets including sparse financial means.

From sectoral to horizontal public policies: the evolution of support for biotechnology in Europe, 1994-2001

A number of policies have been developed in Europe, to facilitate the scientific and commercial development of high-technology sectors. How effective have these policies been? This paper addresses this question by exploring the impacts of policy on the development of biotechnology in the Member States. It analyses policy effects on the performance of different actor types that are crucial for a prospering biotechnology innovation system (start-ups, established firms, research labs, universities, and so on). The diversity of the measures and schemes to encourage the development of biotechnology reflects the diversity of the framework conditions, cultural preferences and political priorities in the Member States. Priority could have been given to research or to commercialisation. Incentive schemes and support policies could be dedicated to biotechnology as a sector, or targeted towards all innovative sectors, depending on national context. The organisation of research and development may be more or less efficient, depending on how funds are allocated and on the extent to which they are linked to priorities

Introduction to special issue on innovation policies for biotechnology in Europe

Introduction to special issue on innovation policies for biotechnology in Europe

Performance of European Member States in biotechnology

Despite an increasing policy interest in biotechnology in Europe, there is a lack of internationally comparable data on national performance in biotechnology. This paper presents a performance analysis of 14 Member States using science technology and economic indicators. A strong relationship between scientific and commercial performance was found. Four performance clusters were identified: the best-performing countries Denmark, Sweden and Finland; the second-best performers The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Belgium and Germany; cluster three with Austria, France and Ireland, performing below the European median performance value, and the Mediterranean countries Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece performing weakly as measured by all indicators. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Trends and gaps in biotechnology policies in European Member States since 1994

Most European national policy systems have gradually intensified their efforts in supporting the development of the biotechnology knowledge base and its industrial application. Aim of the paper is to increase understanding of the national approaches to promote biotechnology in Europe, to explore heterogeneity and general trends in the design and implementation of policy instruments, and finally to identify the gaps of national innovation policies since 1994 in Europe. The paper analysis policy intervention in the 4 main networks of the biotechnology innovation system: the knowledge base, the industry, the financial system and the market.

Relational Risks Perception in European Biotechnology Alliances:: The Effect of Contextual Factors

Strategic alliances are characterized by inherent instability arising from uncertainty regarding a partner’s future behaviour and the absence of a higher authority to ensure compliance. Consequently, when firms adopt these strategies, they are confronted with a relational risk. This paper adopts a multidimensional view of relational risk. Generally, perception of risk depends on several factors; some of them are situational and contextual. This study links managers’ risk relational perception in alliance relationships with three situational factors: the degree of relational capital, the structure of the relationship and the degree of asymmetries between partners. The hypotheses were tested with survey data on partnerships of European Biotechnology firms. The results suggest that relational risk perception is more influenced by informal contextual factors than by formal contextual factors.

European doctorate in biotechnology: Added value for european academia and industry

It has long been recognized that educational programs and degrees are not equivalent across Europe. Add to this the fact that Europe consists of many different cultures and languages, then it is not surprising that the free circulation of scientists and their job market in the European Union is severely restricted. This is one of several debated causes for the crisis in European biotechnology, which is in danger of succumbing to the competition of North America, Japan, and some of the developing countries. The Universities (even those tradition-ridden), the European University Association, and the European Commission are aware of the danger and plans are in preparation for sweeping organizational and cultural changes. The problem is how long will it take and how long can we afford to wait? A number of biotechnologists and scientists from several institutions and many countries decided, instead of waiting, to make a preliminary move in the right direction. With the help of the European Commission and using European Molecular Biology Organization, European Federation of Biotechnology, and the European University Rectors as references, the European Association for Higher Education in Biotechnology was founded in 1995 by representatives of universities and research institutes. It awards the additional title of European Doctor to PhD graduates showing excellence in biotechnology and/or related Life Science subjects and who are willing to fulfil a program of studies that is both international and interdisciplinary. The present article reports on the first 9 years of this adventure.

2003: What lessons for European biotechnology?

The biotech sector had a sizzling year last year, raising US$19bn in cash globally. This paper looks at the performance of the biotechnology sector on both sides of the Atlantic in terms of financing activity. Financing activity in the European biotechnology industry is still a long way off from the USA, with public fundraising only reaching the level that the USA had in 1997 and venture capital financings getting close to the US levels of 1994–95. This suggests that at least another five to eight years is needed before there is even a chance to get near where the USA is today. However, the sheer size of the US equity capital market and its liberal attitude to fundraisings and higher-risk appetite is likely to mean that European biotechs will never catch up with the USA, even if our science (across the whole of Europe) is as good. This does not mean that Europe cannot have a thriving biotechnology industry. Indeed, the current level of activity in the venture capital and public markets suggests that Europe is only just getting serious on biotechnology.

2003: What lessons for European biotechnology?

The biotech sector had a sizzling year last year, raising US$19bn in cash globally. This paper looks at the performance of the biotechnology sector on both sides of the Atlantic in terms of financing activity. Financing activity in the European biotechnology industry is still a long way off from the USA, with public fundraising only reaching the level that the USA had in 1997 and venture capital financings getting close to the US levels of 1994–95. This suggests that at least another five to eight years is needed before there is even a chance to get near where the USA is today. However, the sheer size of the US equity capital market and its liberal attitude to fundraisings and higher-risk appetite is likely to mean that European biotechs will never catch up with the USA, even if our science (across the whole of Europe) is as good. This does not mean that Europe cannot have a thriving biotechnology industry. Indeed, the current level of activity in the venture capital and public markets suggests that Europe is only just getting serious on biotechnology.