Bridgework ahead! Innovation ecosystems vis-à-vis responsible innovation
Source abstract
Abstract
Public funding agencies largely support academic research as an effort to stimulate future product commercialization and foster broader societal benefits. Yet, translating research nurtured in academic settings into such outcomes is complex and demands functional interactions between government, academic, and industry, i.e., “triple helix,” organizations within an innovation ecosystem. This article argues that in the spirit of responsible innovation, research funding should build bridges that extend beyond the triple helix stakeholders to connect to peripheral organizations. To support that argument, evidence from agent network analysis gathered from two case studies reveals strong and weak connections, as well as gaps within innovation ecosystems in Switzerland and metropolitan Phoenix, USA. This article offers insights on how innovation ecosystems are aligned or misaligned with responsible innovation.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Innovation and Knowledge Management · University-Industry-Government Innovation Models · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plan Assoc 35(4):216–224
2. Audretsch DB, Bozeman B, Combs KL, Feldman M, Link AN, Siegel DS, Stephen P, Tassey G, Wessner C (2002) The economics of science and technology. J Technol Transf 27(2):155–20310.1023/A:1014382532639 ↗
3. Avnimlech G, Feldman MP (2010) Regional corporate spawning and the role of homegrown companies. Rev Policy Res 27(4):475–48910.1111/j.1541-1338.2010.00452.x ↗
4. Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C, Guston DH (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 979–1000
5. Beaudry C, Kananian R (2013) Impact of science networks and industry-to-university contracts on academic patenting in nanotechnology and biotechnology. Ind Innov 20(3):241–26010.1080/13662716.2013.791125 ↗
6. Boehm D, Hogan T (2013) ‘A jack of all trades’––the role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. J Technol Transfer 39(1):134–14910.1007/s10961-012-9273-8 ↗
7. Bozeman B, Boardman C (2004) The NSF engineering research centers and the university–industry research revolution: a brief history featuring an interview with Erich Bloch. J Technol Transfer 29(3–4):365–37510.1023/B:JOTT.0000034128.39526.6b ↗
8. Braun D, Benninghoff M (2003) Policy learning in Swiss research policy—the case of the National Centres of Competence in Research. Res Policy 32:1849–186310.1016/S0048-7333(03)00063-5 ↗
9. Brewer G (2007) Inventing the future: scenarios, dillimagination, mastery and control. Sustain Sci 2:159–17710.1007/s11625-007-0028-7 ↗
10. Bybee JS (2013) Natural Resource Defense Council, Petitioner, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, respondent. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. San Francisco. Docket No. 12–70268
11. Chaminade C, Edquist C (2010) Rationales for public policy interventions in the innovation process: systems of innovation approach. In: Smits RE, Kuhlmann S, Shapira P (eds) The theory and practice of innovation policy: an international research handbook. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 95–114
12. Chilvers J (2007) Deliberating competence: theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Sci Technol Human Values 33:155–18510.1177/0162243907307594 ↗
13. Chilvers (2013) Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Sci Commun 35(3):283–31010.1177/1075547012454598 ↗
14. Clark WC, Tomich TP et al (2011) Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proc Natl Acad Sci. doi: 10.1073/pnas.090023110810.1073/pnas.0900231108 ↗
15. Clarysse B, Wright M, Bruneel J, Mahajan A (2014) Creating value in ecosystems: crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Res Policy 43(7):1164–117610.1016/j.respol.2014.04.014 ↗
16. Conseil Suisse de la Science (CCS) (1994) Evaluation des Schwerpunktprogramme des Bundes. Schlussbericht einer internationalen Expertengruppe zuhanden des Schweizerischen Wissenschaftsrates. Forschungspolitik FOP 16/1994, Conseil suisse de la Science, Bern
17. Conti A, Gaule P (2011) Is the US potperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European paradox. Res Policy 40:123–13510.1016/j.respol.2010.10.007 ↗
18. Credit Suisse (2005) Global investor focus 2005: Nanotechnology. Zurich, SW
19. Crow MM (2011) Time to rethink the NIH. Nature 471:569–57110.1038/471569a ↗
20. Cunningham J, O’Reilly P, O’Kane C, Mangematin V (2014) The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research projects. J Technol Transfer 39(1):93–11010.1007/s10961-012-9269-4 ↗
21. Dando M (2009) Biologists napping while work militarized. Nature 460(7258):950–95110.1038/460950a ↗
22. Davis G (1996) The significance of board interlocks for corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review 4(3):154–15910.1111/j.1467-8683.1996.tb00144.x ↗
23. Decker M, Fleischer T (2012) Participation in ‘Big Style’: first observations at the German citizens’ dialogue on future technologies. Poiesis Prax 9:81–9910.1007/s10202-012-0119-0 ↗
24. Federal Office of Statistics (2016) Population. Available at: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bevoelkerung.html
25. Feldman MP, Audretsch DB (1999) Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization, and localized competition. Eur Econ Rev 43(2):409–42910.1016/S0014-2921(98)00047-6 ↗
26. Fisher E, Mahajan RL, Mitcham C (2006) Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(6):485–49610.1177/0270467606295402 ↗
27. Foley RW, Wiek A (2013) Patterns of nanotechnology innovation and governance within a metropolitan area. Technol Soc 35(4):233–24710.1016/j.techsoc.2013.10.004 ↗
28. Foley RW, Bernstein MJ, Wiek A (2016) Towards an alignment of activities, aspirations and stakeholders for responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.125738010.1080/23299460.2016.1257380 ↗
29. GAO (2014) Office of Personnel Management: agency needs to improve outcome measures to demonstrate the value of its innovation lab. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/662805.txt
30. Geuna A, Muscio A (2009) The governance of university knowledge transfer: a critical review of the literature. Minerva 47:93–11410.1007/s11024-009-9118-2 ↗
31. Gober P (2005) Metropolitan Phoenix: place making and community building in the desert. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
32. Gorman ME, Werhane PH, Swami N (2009) Moral imagination, trading zones, and the role of the ethicist in nanotechnology. Nanoethics 3:185–19510.1007/s11569-009-0069-8 ↗
33. Granovetter MS (1983) The strength of weak ties: a theory revisited. Sociol Theory 1:201–23310.2307/202051 ↗
34. Guntherodt HJ (2012) Interview with Professor Guntherodt. Available at: http://download.nccr-nano.org/about_us/interview_gue/interview_gue.pdf
35. Guston DH (1996) Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy. Sci Public Policy 23(4):229–240
36. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26:399–40810.1177/016224390102600401 ↗
37. Guston DH (2013) The pumpkin or the tiger? Michael Polanyi, Frederick Soddy, and anticipating emerging technologies. Minerva. doi: 10.1007/s11024-012-9204-810.1007/s11024-012-9204-8 ↗
38. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24(1–2):93–10910.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1 ↗
39. Hilts PJ (2003) Protecting America’s health: the FDA, business, and one hundred years of regulation. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill
40. Howells J (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res Policy 35:715–72810.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005 ↗
41. Hurlbut B (2015) Remembering the future: science, law and the legacy of Asilomar. In: Jasanoff S, Kim S (eds) Dreamscapes of modernity: sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 126–151
42. Jackson DJ (2011) What is an innovation ecosystem?. National Science Foundation. Available at: http://erc-assoc.org/sites/default/files/topics/policy_studies/DJackson_Innovation%20Ecosystem_03-15-11.pdf
43. Kearnes M, Stilgoe J (2007) Nanodialogues report: report of an experiment in upstream public engagement. Demos, London
44. Kemp R, Rotmans J (2009) Transitioning policy: co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Science. doi: 10.1007/s11077-009-9105-310.1007/s11077-009-9105-3 ↗
45. Kemp R, Parto S, Gibson RB (2005) Governance for sustainable development : moving from theory to practice. Int J Sustain Dev 8(1/2):12–3010.1504/IJSD.2005.007372 ↗
46. Krabbenborg L (2013) DuPont and environmental defense fund co-constructing a risk framework for nanoscale materials: an occasion to reflect on interaction processes in a joint inquiry. NanoEthics 7(1):45–5410.1007/s11569-013-0167-5 ↗
47. Krackhardt D, Hanson J (1993) Informal networks: the company behind the charts. Harv Bus Rev 71:104–111
48. Lal B, Boardman C (2013) International practice in cooperative research centers programs: summary of an exploratory study of engineering-focused cooperative research centers worldwide. In: Boardman C, Gray DO, Rivers D (eds) Cooperative research centers and technical innovation: government policies, industry strategies, and organizational dynamics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 293–30710.1007/978-1-4614-4388-9_13 ↗
49. Larson KL, Casagrande D, Harlan SL, Yabiku ST (2009) Residents’ yard choices and rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Environ Manag 44:921–93710.1007/s00267-009-9353-1 ↗
50. Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H (1998) The triple helix of innovation. Sci Public Policy 25:358–364
51. Loorbach D (2007) Transition management: new mode of governance for sustainable development. Utrecht, NL
52. Luck M, Marik V, Stepankova O, Trappel R (eds) (2001) Multi-agent systems and applications. Springer, Berlin
53. Luckingham B (1989) Phoenix: the history of a southwest metropolis. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson
54. Macnaghten P, Davies S, Kearnes M (2010) Narrative and public engagement: some findings from the DEEPEN project. In: von Schomberg R, Davies S (eds) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp 13–29
55. Moore J (1996) The death of competition: leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. Harper Collins, New York
56. Nanoscale Science Institute (NSI) (2012) Spin offs. Available at: http://www.nanoscience.ch/nccr/about_us/sni_network/spin_offs
57. NCCR (2014) The National Centres of Competence in Research NCCRs: Research in Networks Available at: http://www.snf.ch/SiteCollectionDocuments/nccr_brochure_e.pdf
58. Nelson RR, Rosenberg N (1993) Technical innovation in national systems. In: Nelson RR (ed) National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–2110.1093/oso/9780195076165.003.0001 ↗
59. NNIN (2015) ASU NanoFab. Available at: http://www.nnin.org/research-support/nnin-sites/arizona-state-university
60. NSF (2016) GEN-3 Engineering Research Center program solicitation. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15589/nsf15589.pdf
61. ObservatoryNANO (2012) Guide to responsible nano-business: how to use nanotechnologies for the benefit of business, customers, and society. Available at: http://www.visbdev.net/visbdev/fe/Docs/GuideResponsibleNano_ObservatoryNANO_ti.pdf . Accessed 15 May 2012
62. OECD (2012) Science and innovation: Switzerland Chapter IV.10. In Science, Technology and industry Outlook 2012. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/switzerland/sti-outlook-2012-switzerland.pdf
63. Ordinance 813.112.1 (2005) Ordinance on Good Laboratory Practice (OGLP). Available at: https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/20031589/201212010000/813.112.1.pdf
64. Ordinance 814.81 (2005) Ordinance on the reduction of risks relating to the use of certain particularly dangerous substances, preparations and articles (Chemical Risk Reduction Ordinance, ORRChem) Available at: https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/20021520/index.html
65. Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor10.3998/mpub.9739 ↗
66. Owen R, Goldberg N (2010) Responsible innovation: a pilot study with the U.K. engineering and physical sciences research council. Risk Anal 30(11):1699–170710.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01517.x ↗
67. Owen R, Baxter D, Maynard T (2009) Beyond regulation: risk pricing and responsible innovation. Environ Sci Technol 43:6902–690610.1021/es803332u ↗
68. Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy 39:751–76010.1093/scipol/scs093 ↗
69. Owen R, Stilgoe J, Macnaghten P, Gorman M, Fisher E, Guston DH (2013) A framework for responsible innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible Innovation. Wiley, New York, pp 27–5010.1002/9781118551424.ch2 ↗
70. Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2004) Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organ Sci 15(1):5–2110.1287/orsc.1030.0054 ↗
71. Powell WW, Packalen K, Whittington K (2012) Organizational and institutional genesis: the emergence of high-tech in the life sciences. In: Padgett JF, Powell WW (eds) The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 434–46510.1515/9781400845552-018 ↗
72. Rasiah RKX-X, Lin Y, Song J (2012) Explaining variations in semiconductor catch-up strategies in China, Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan. In: Malerba F, Nelson RR (eds) Economic development as a learning process: variation across sectoral systems. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 113–156
73. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8(2):153–19110.1007/s11051-006-9092-7 ↗
74. Rex TR (2000) Development of metropolitan Phoenix: historical, current, and future trends. Morrison Institute for Public Policy: Tempe, AZ
75. Rip A (2004) Strategic research, post-modern universities and research training. Higher Educ Policy 17:153–16610.1057/palgrave.hep.8300048 ↗
76. Rip A, van Lente H (2013) Bridging the gap between innovation and ELSA: the TA program in the Dutch nano-R&D program NanoNed. NanoEthics 7:7–1610.1007/s11569-013-0171-9 ↗
77. Robbins PT (2007) The reflexive engineer: perceptions of integrated development. J Int Dev 19:99–11010.1002/jid.1351 ↗
78. Robinson DKR (2009) Co-evolutionary scenarios: an application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 76:1222–123910.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.015 ↗
79. Robinson DKR (2011) Value chains as a linking-pin framework for exploring governance and innovation in nano-involved sectors: illustrated for nanotechnologies and the food packaging sector. European Journal of Law and Technology 2:3
80. Russell MG, Huhtamaki J, Still K, Rubens N, Basole RC (2011) Relational capital for shared vision in innovation ecosystems. Triple Helix 2(8):1–36
81. Russell MG, Huhtamäki J, Still K, Rubens N, Basole RC (2015) Relational capital for shared vision in innovation ecosystems. Triple Helix 2:8. doi: 10.1186/s40604-015-0017-210.1186/s40604-015-0017-2 ↗
82. Sampat BN (2006) Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: the world before and after Bayh-Dole. Res Policy 35(6):772–78910.1016/j.respol.2006.04.009 ↗
83. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Harthorm BH (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:752–75810.1038/nnano.2009.265 ↗
84. Saxenian A (1994) Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
85. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T-J, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2:732–74310.1038/nnano.2007.392 ↗
86. Schoemaker PJH (1995) Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review 36(2):25–40
87. Selin C (2007) Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(2):196–22010.1177/0162243906296918 ↗
88. Sheppard S, Shaw A, Flanders D, Burch S, Wiek A, Carmichael J, Robinson J, Cohen S (2011) Future visioning of local climate change: a framework for community engagement and planning with scenarios and visualization. Futures 43:400–41210.1016/j.futures.2011.01.009 ↗
89. Shilton K (2014) This is an intervention: foregrounding and operationalizing ethics during technology design. In: Pimple KD (ed) Emerging Pervasive Information and Communication Technologies (PICT). Springer, New York, pp 177–19210.1007/978-94-007-6833-8_9 ↗
90. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007a) Laypeople’s and expert’s perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–6910.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x ↗
91. Siegrist M, Wiek A, Helland A, Kastenholz H (2007b) Risks and nanotechnology: the public is more concerned than experts and industry. Nat Nanotechnol 2:6710.1038/nnano.2007.10 ↗
92. Steen M (2015) Upon opening the black box and finding it full: exploring the ethics in design practices. Science, Technology, and Human Values 40(3):389–42010.1177/0162243914547645 ↗
93. Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42:1568–158010.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008 ↗
94. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) (1999) National Centres of Competence in Research (NCCR). Programme Call. SNF, Bern
95. U.S. Census (2012) Population distribution and change: 2000–2010. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf . Accessed May 2012
96. Van Asselt MBA (2000) Perspectives on uncertainty and risk. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht10.1007/978-94-017-2583-5 ↗
97. Van Asselt MBA, van’t Klooster S, van Notten P, Smits L (2010) Foresight in action: developing policy-oriented scenarios. Earthscan, London
98. Wellman B (1988) Structural analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance. In: Berkowitz S, Wellman B (eds) Social structure: a network approach. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 19–61
99. Westeren KI (2012) Innovation: from Schumpeter to the knowledge economy. In: Westeren KI (ed) Foundations of the knowledge economy: innovation, learning, and clusters. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 57–7410.4337/9780857937728 ↗
100. Wiek A, Zemp S, Siegrist M, Walter AI (2007) Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology. Technol Soc 29:388–40610.1016/j.techsoc.2007.08.010 ↗