Withrespect to the role of research publications in these linkages, it has beenargued that particularly in periods when there is a shift in the technologi-cal paradigm to one closely lin
Trang 1manuscripts and partial dissemination of research results, imposing strictconditions on accessing research material and outcomes, and enforcingdelays in publication Given the strategic nature of corporate research andthe importance of intellectual property rights, these publications shouldmainly be seen in the light of corporate business strategies Zucker et al.(1998) asked how a firm’s linkages to scientific networks affects its overalleconomic performance and more specifically its technological progress,particularly in instances when novel technologies are science-based Withrespect to the role of research publications in these linkages, it has beenargued that particularly in periods when there is a shift in the technologi-cal paradigm to one closely linked to science, publications by the leadingfirms are crucial for mobilizing relevant in-house research and externalresearch to make a successful transition.
Whatever explains corporate scientific publishing, it is obvious that lishing is not the main purpose of corporate researchers and engineers, andfirms publish many fewer research articles than comparable public sectorinstitutions (universities, research institutes and government laboratories)with the same research resources and working in the same fields of science.Moreover, if firms do decide to publish, many of these papers are likely to
pub-be co-authored with researchers in the public sector In the case of jointresearch partnerships with public sector organizations, the corporate sector
is bound to apply slightly different knowledge management ations and strategies in view of dissemination-oriented research missions,their incentive structures, and intellectual property rights (IPR) policies oftheir partners in the public sector Corporate sponsors of public researchengaged in contract-based (‘formal’) cooperation will often negotiate thefirst rights (of refusal) to the fruits of research and the scientists must delaypublishing to allow companies a head start for commercializing throughfiling for patents by other means Scientific cooperation with publicresearch organizations on a more ‘informal’ personal basis is more likely togenerate jointly authored research papers, especially in the case of acade-mic partners who have strong incentives to publish results related toresearch sponsored by industry, or conducted in cooperation with the cor-porate sector Irrespective of the nature of contractual agreements, in theprocess of producing these co-authored scientific papers, researchers arelikely to exchange tacit and embodied elements of knowledge and skills.These co-authored research papers therefore not only gauge the production
consider-of new collective knowledge, but also the absorption consider-of external knowledge
by the firm during knowledge creation and codification
In most areas of international open science, the main channel of ure of codified knowledge is that of conference proceedings, or researcharticles published in the quality-controlled peer-reviewed international
Trang 2disclos-scientific and technical journals The next section turns to the further duction of the latter type of research publication and related measurementissues.
General trends in the output of basic research efforts within large intensive technology firms, or for that matter entire science-based industries,can be derived from statistical analyses of the quantity of papers pub-lished in international peer-reviewed scientific and technical journals Thisliterature-based (‘bibliometric’) approach produces a large body of quan-titative data that provides a statistically robust frame of reference foranalysing the changing contribution of corporate research in research com-munities Sets of research papers originating from the same (parent) companyenable comparisons between firms, and the aggregation of those firm-leveldata allows for comparisons between associated science areas and industrialsectors The number of co-authored papers originating from (informal) jointresearch ventures – intrafirm, interfirm and public–private – enable a range ofstatistical analyses on the volume and composition of cooperative corporatebasic research Although these joint papers are considered useful proxies ofthese cooperation-based knowledge flows and exchange, they should behandled with due care as a reliable source of conclusive empirical evidence
science-on actual scientific cooperatiscience-on (Katz and Martin, 1997)
Bibliometric studies of corporate publication output in internationaljournals conducted as early as the 1970s have provided empirical data
on trends in the 1980s up until the mid 1990s, especially for US industry(e.g Halperin and Chakrabarti, 1987; Small and Greenlee, 1977) The find-ings revealed significant increases in the 1980s and early 1990s, resulting in
a 5–10 per cent share of the corporate sector in the global scientific output.Several studies have focused on large firms, a single industry, or the distribu-tion over papers across industrial sectors within one country (e.g Godin,1996; Hicks et al., 1994; Hicks and Katz, 1997; Tijssen et al., 1996) However,
to our knowledge no systemic study has been made of worldwide outputlevels and trends across all sectors and countries
Returning to the major socioeconomic forces impacting upon basicresearch and publication strategies of modern day corporate researchers(i.e the three ‘C’s: Competitiveness, Cooperation, and Commercialization),the aggregate-level bibliometric data on their research papers in inter-national journals allow us to address the following key questions:
Trang 31 To what extent have the competitive pressures in the 1990s forcedscience-based industries to commercialize their research efforts and toshift their focus from being a ‘science performing industry’ towardsoperating as a ‘science using industry’? More specifically, has the pub-lished research output of the corporate sector dropped, and has thenumber of co-authored research papers increased at the same time?
2 How has this reorientation impacted on cooperative research ventures
of firms, especially those with other firms – as opposed to partnershipswith public sector research institutes and universities? In other words,have the share and composition of jointly authored corporate researchpapers changed?
3 And to what extent are the observed trends universal or sector-specific?
Do we find different trends in the major science-based industries?
Providing answers to the above questions requires a comprehensive base of corporate research papers covering all relevant industrial fields ofscience, and the major research-based firms and industrial sectors The bib-liometric study is restricted to the internationally visible production of cor-porate research papers covered by the large multidisciplinary bibliographicdatabases compiled by Thomson–ISI These ISI databases, especially the
data-Science Citation Index®, provides the best source of information to
iden-tify basic research activity across all countries and all fields of science Thestatistical analyses were done with CWTS’s tailored version of the ISI data-bases The research papers include all document types that, in varyingdegrees, originate from original basic research: research articles, review art-icles, research notes, and letters (editorials, book reviews, etc are omitted).The vast majority of those papers are research articles CWTS assigns eachpaper only to those (main) institutions where the address information refersunmistakably to the respective (main) organization(s)
The analysis covers all research papers listing at least one author affiliateaddress referring to an organization that CWTS classified as being part
of the ‘corporate sector’ The demarcation of this sector is based on thefollowing general definition: all business enterprises, organizations andinstitutions whose primary activity is the commercial production of goodsand services (other than higher education and medical care) for sale
to the general public at an economically significant price This tional delineation includes public–private consortia, private nonprofit andnot-for-profit institutions and government-owned nonprofit companies.Also included are private nonprofit R&D organizations mainly serving thebusiness enterprise sector, or privately funded research institutes and other
Trang 4institu-R&D performing institutions (other than the higher education sector
or the medical care sector, and/or mainly controlled by and funded bygovernment)
Data cleaning, unification, and consolidation of those papers to parentcompanies was done using information on websites and occasionally
Dunn & Bradstreet’s Linkages database (formerly the Who Owns Whom
Directory of Corporate Affiliations database) The data were consolidated
in mid 2002, in most cases at the ‘main organizational’level of the legal entity(i.e parent companies, R&D labs, universities, research institutes, etc.).Corporate research laboratories, majority-owned subsidiaries and othercorporate affiliations are included as far as possible in the current parentcompany Companies added to the parent through mergers and acquisitions
in the years 1996–2002 were renamed to the current parent company toensure compatibility over time In the case of multinational companies, aconsolidated group name is defined which refers to the ultimate parent(or holding) Foreign branches and foreign subsidiaries of a company arelabelled with the same consolidated name, or are listed by their country-specific consolidated name Each (parent) company is linked to the country
of location mentioned in the author address
Counts of co-authored papers are defined at the level of these main nizations.7Each organization is defined at the highest aggregate level – themain organizational level They are assigned to the country of location aslisted in the affiliate address on the research publications Dividing up apaper between the participating units (researchers, organizations, coun-tries) is to some extent arbitrary – there is no fair method to determinehow much money, effort, equipment and expertise each entity contributes
orga-to the underlying research effort and writing the paper Our basic tion therefore is that each author, and associated organization, made anon-negligible contribution Consequently, we adopt a counting scheme inwhich each paper is fully allocated to each of the main organizations listed
assump-in the author address headassump-ing
It is important to stress that an unknown fraction of the corporateresearch papers are probably not exclusively basic research-oriented; theywill also relate to application-oriented (‘strategic’) research as well, andperhaps to a certain degree also ‘applied’ research that is directly related totechnological development Since universities are generally accepted to bethe major locus of curiosity-driven ‘blue sky’ basic scientific research, cor-porate papers listing at least one university are assumed to be more basicresearch-oriented as compared to co-publications listing nonuniversitypublic sector research organizations The papers jointly authored withnonuniversity research organizations, and especially those with other firms,are assumed to represent strategic research rather than basic research
Trang 5The publication output analyses distinguishes six types of corporateresearch papers; in addition to papers that were authored solely by oneprivate sector organization, we define the following mutually exhaustive set
of categories of jointly authored research papers:
1 Two firms exclusively;
2 Three or more firms exclusively;
3 One firm with public sector organizations – including one or more versities;
uni-4 One firm with public sector organizations – excluding universities;
5 Two or more firms with public sector organizations – including one ormore universities;
6 Two or more firms with public sector organizations – excludinguniversities
Sector-level analyses deal with two R&D-intensive high technology trial sectors: (1) pharmaceuticals, and (2) the semiconductors industry Bothare characterized by strong relationships between research, technologicaldevelopment, and innovation Both involve difficult learning environmentswhere research-based scientific and technical knowledge play an importantrole in knowledge creation and exploitation Basic research in the pharma-ceuticals industry explores the genetic and biomolecular mechanisms ofdiseases in relation to designs of drugs For semiconductors, basic researchincludes the physics of solid state devices and the chemistry involved inmanufacturing integrated circuits Corporate in-house longer term researchplays a stronger role in the pharmaceuticals industry, where a firm’s progressand competitive position are closely tied to advances in basic research andknowledge appropriation through patenting The expected benefits of basicresearch for design of drugs are therefore much higher than, for example,the design of new materials for semiconductors
indus-These sectors are defined in terms of a representative set of firms thatwere selected from two public databases previously or currently available
on the Internet:
1 ‘R&D Scoreboard 2001’ compiled by the UK Department of Tradewhich covers the annual accounts of the 500 largest R&D spendersworldwide in the period 1996/97–2000/2001 (www.innovation.gov.uk/projects/rd_scoreboard/database/);
2 ‘TR Patent Scorecard 2002’, a joint effort of Technology Review andCHI Research, Inc., covering firm-level R&D performance data based
Trang 6on CHI’s analyses of their USPTO patents granted in 1996–2001(www.technologyreview.com/scorecards/patent_2002.asp).
A joining of both databases for the two industrial sectors resulted in thefollowing sets of companies, which include most of the large and scientifi-cally leading firms across the globe:
1 Pharmaceuticals: 87 firms (55 North America, 16 Asia, 16 Europe);
2 Semiconductors: 75 firms (51 North America, 21 Asia, 3 Europe)
The two lists of companies, and their countries of headquarters, are sented in Tables 9.1 and 9.2 Each set includes those firms that published atleast one research paper during the period 1996–2001 indexed within theISI/CWTS database Note that these sets are assumed to be representativeonly for the large R&D-intensive companies in these sectors, and not neces-sarily so for the sector as a whole, which includes many high tech start-ups, SMEs, and diversified companies classified in different primarybusiness sectors Nonetheless, given the number of selected companies andthe fact that the selection includes the main R&D actors in these industries,
pre-as well pre-as being the main contributors of research papers in internationaljournals, we expect a reasonable coverage of published basic researchoutputs of the entire industrial sector
To what extent are recent shifts in the marketization of industrial R&D, asdescribed in Section 2, visible in the corporate R&D literature? If the majorbusiness enterprises in the advanced industrialized countries indeed spentthe same amounts on basic research in the 1990s, but have become morefocused on strategic/applied research rather than basic research, and nowpromote the protection and exploitation of science-based knowledgerather than dissemination in the open literature, we should expect to find atleast some of the following trends in the available empirical data: (1) morecorporate researchers; (2) declining budgets for basic research; (3) morepatents – especially science-based patents; (4) fewer research papers in theinternational scientific literature; (5) less research cooperation with othercompanies, and (6) more cooperative linkages with universities and otherpublic sector research organizations
Trang 7Worldwide some 290 000 articles were published in the period 1996–
2001 The total publication output by the corporate sector shows a 12 percent decrease during the interval 1996–2001 and this annual decline hasaccelerated in recent years (4 per cent in 2000; 10 per cent in 2001) As forresearch inputs, according to OECD figures its member states spent onaverage about 0.4 per cent of their GDP on basic research in the mid to late1990s (OECD, 2001) However, country-level data on the share of the busi-ness sector are lacking, or difficult to compare, often due to shortcomings
in the somewhat ambiguous concept ‘basic research’ as defined by OECD’s
Frascati Manual (Geullec, 2001).8More detailed information exists for only
a few countries, including the USA where the business sector itself collectsthe data (Larson, 2001).9Fortunately, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides more comprehensive data
on the quantity of researchers in the business sector Using the trends onthe total number of researchers in the OECD member states in the years1994–99 as a baseline, we can examine various R&D output trends over theperiod 1996–2000/2001 The results are presented in Figure 9.1
USPTO patents USPTO patent citations in research papers
Corporate research papers Intercompany research papers
Company–university joint papers
Notes:
*We assume a two year time lag between trends in volume of researchers and R&D outputs published in the open literature The numbers of researchers in the business sector within the OECD refer to the period 1994–99 but are superimposed on the 1996–2001 axis for ease
of comparison.
Data sources: USPTO US Patent Statistics Report – Summary table; US Science and
Engineering Indicators 2002; EPO Annual Reports 2000 and 2001; ISI/CWTS database;
OECD, MSTI database November 2001.
Figure 9.1 Diverging R&D output trends worldwide (1996 100)
Trang 8The longitudinal analysis shows steadily increasing numbers of corporateresearchers (an unknown fraction of which are involved in basic scientificand engineering research) in conjunction with a divergence in the outputtrends between the two major classes of codified R&D information: largegrowth rates of IPR-protected patents versus a gradual decline of the freelydisseminated research papers in the journal literature Moreover, we observe
a significant growth rate in patent citations of the scientific literature, whichcorroborates the observed emphasis on the commercialization of science-based industrial R&D.10 The divergence between both types of R&Doutput is fairly recent: the decline of corporate publishing has been a verygradual process up until 2000 Given the average time lag between researchinputs and published outputs, this bifurcation process must have started inthe mid 1990s, which seems to coincide with anecdotal evidence from othersources (see Section 2.1)
The volume of interfirm co-publications has deteriorated by 25 per centsince 1996, while the numbers of industry/university co-authored articleshas gradually fallen back to the 1996 level So, it would appear that one ofthe main factors driving the declining publication output relates to whether
or not research partners are involved in corporate basic research, and thetype of partners involved Figure 9.2 exhibits a further breakdown of thetrends in the various categories of co-authored research papers, as well
as temporal changes in the numbers of single company-authored articles.The largest decline occurs for research papers listing only one company Wefind an accelerating rate of decline in which the share of these papers hasdropped significantly from 36 per cent to 26 per cent between 1996and 2001 Co-publications involving pairs of companies are also in rapiddecline However, the drop in papers originating from research partnershipsinvolving three or more firms is smaller than for pairs, suggesting differentknowledge creation processes and appropriation regimes in corporateresearch partnering depending on the number of firms involved It wouldseem that the larger the number of partners involved, the more the researchwill be of a generic ‘pre-competitive’ nature and the results are likely to be(partially) transferred to the open literature for strategic reasons.11
When universities are engaged in research partnerships with industry theyact mainly as the producers of basic knowledge and advanced technical skills(and associated human capital in the form of PhD students and researchers),while corporate research partners focus on the transfer, absorption andassimilation of that knowledge and knowhow This relatively clear cut div-ision of labour and responsibilities, in conjunction with the industry’s neverending need for new inputs of leading edge scientific knowledge, instrumentsand skills, ensures a fairly stable quantity of joint research papers withacademics The quantity of industry–university co-authored publications
Trang 9showed a 13 per cent gain in 2000, which slipped back to 6 per cent in 2001.Due to the larger rates of decline of the other categories of corporate papers,the fraction of these articles in the corporate output has increased steadilyfrom 48 per cent in 1996 to 58 per cent in 2001 Coupling the industry’sincreased need for research cooperation with universities, and the outputrewarding incentive systems in the academic community, would seem toensure a sustained flow of joint research papers reflecting knowledge flows
to firms for their in-house research, technological development and furthercommercial use
Interestingly, industry–university co-publications involving multiplefirms are less affected by the general downturn compared to single companyco-publications with universities As the size and heterogeneity of public–private research alliances and networks grows, especially those aimed at pro-ducing scientific or technical knowledge to be shared amongst all (major)partners, the more prone these partnerships seem to be to disseminate this
1 company–research institute 1 companies–university
1 company–research institute Total
Sources for company selection: ‘TR Patent Scorecard 2002’ (Technology Review and CHI
Research, Inc.); ‘R&D Scoreboard 2001’ (UK Department of Trade).
Data source: ISI/CWTS database.
Figure 9.2 Trends in corporate research articles worldwide, all industrial
sectors (1996 100)
Trang 10research information into the public domain – not in the least to satisfy theresearchers in the public sector who need to comply to publication output-driven rewards systems (e.g Tijssen, 1998) In contrast, the volume of jointpapers involving research institutes, or other nonacademic partners in thepublic sector, does show a noticeable decline from 1996 Since nonuniversitypublic sector researchers are less active in basic research and are less driven
by publishing papers in international journals, the number of joint papersco-authored with corporate researchers are now also decreasing signifi-cantly Overall, we see a pattern, similar to the trend found in the interfirmpartnerships, where the number of partners involved in public–privateco-publications is inversely correlated with the rate of decline
Obviously, the overall trends depicted in Figures 9.1 and 9.2 hide a highdegree of variation, both at the firm level and across different industrialsectors It stands to reason that the underlying (changes in) volume ofbasic research and/or decreasing publication activity will vary by industry
A recent bibliometric study by Lim (2001), using research articles in national journals and USPTO patents, indicates a strong link between bothoutputs in the pharmaceuticals sector but a weaker relationship in the semi-conductors industry Lim argues that these differences are due to sector-level
inter-differences in the relevance of basic research for innovations in conjunctionwith firm-level differences in absorptive capacity of knowledge spillovers.Figure 9.3 exhibits the breakdown of the various types of corporateresearch papers for both sectors, disclosing some sector-specific character-istics and developments The large pharmaceuticals companies produced astaggering 55 962 papers in the period 1996–2001, displaying a remarkablyhigh propensity to produce multiple-company papers, the number of whichremained fairly stable in the years 1996–2001 This would seem to indicate
a sustained tendency on the part of these (large) firms to take part in firm or intrafirm research alliances.12
inter-The large semiconductors companies, producing a total of 15 641 papers,exhibit a very large growth in the number of papers from partnershipsinvolving one company and several nonuniversity public research organi-zations The number of these papers rose by some 30 per cent since 1996.Furthermore, the quantity of papers listing several companies and one ormore research institutes remains stable This sector-specific finding ties inwith the results of Lim (2001) suggesting that semiconductor firms dependprimarily on applied knowledge rather than basic knowledge In the semi-conductors industry many intermediate steps are required to transformbasic scientific breakthroughs into useful innovations, which reduces their
Trang 11Sources for company selection: ‘TR Patent Scorecard 2002’ (Technology Review and CHI
Research, Inc.); ‘R&D Scoreboard 2001’ (UK Department of Trade).
Data source: ISI/CWTS database.
Figure 9.3 Trends in corporate research articles worldwide, selected
industrial sectors (1996 100)
Trang 12need to invest heavily in their own longer term research R&D-based conductor firms seem to have increased their investments in precompetitiveresearch at research institutes in the public sector, rather than boosting in-house basic or strategic research or engaging in strategic research ventureswith other firms The technology-oriented research institutes in the publicsector, rather than general universities or technical universities, are soughtout by the semiconductors industry as the main sources of applied scien-tific knowledge.
semi-Similarly to the overall picture in Figure 9.2, Figure 9.3 may hide marked
differences between the large firms, especially between science-based firstmoving ‘innovators’ and the ‘followers’ that spend less of their resources onR&D and in particular on basic research However, given the lack of firm-level data, we can only assume that in view of the increasing internationalcompetitive pressures in both sectors, and the business practices shared bythe major firms, there is no compelling reason to believe that large compa-nies, active in the same fields and competing in the same local or globalmarkets, are adopting fundamentally different strategies for enhancing thecommercial pay-offs of their research efforts
RESEARCH IN DECLINE? OR ARE FIRMS
JUST PUBLISHING LESS?
The erosion of the industry’s contribution to the open scientific and nical literature gained momentum toward the turn of the millennium Wemight be tempted to conclude that this trend follows entirely from firmsswitching their priorities to short term research focused on areas close tothe market where they can make money more quickly These competitivepressures to increase private rates of return, and to boost commercializa-tion of research findings, may have redirected the goals of basic researchand narrowed the focus towards strategic and applied research withshorter time horizons Most likely, companies were also trying to min-imize research costs by contracting out for work rather than conductingin-house research Less funding for in-house exploratory research, and thedownsizing of corporate research labs, would indeed account for the sig-nificant decrease of corporate research articles in the open literature, espe-cially the dramatic decline in the publication rates of papers wherecompanies are the sole creator of new scientific knowledge, as well as thesignificant drops in interfirm co-publications Moreover, the relativelyminor effect on industry–university papers can be explained by closer linkswith the university sector
Trang 13tech-The downturn in corporate spending on basic research would alsoaccount for the significant differences we observe between output trends injoint papers with two partners and those listing three or more Assumingthat the papers listing many research partners arise from joint ventures andconsortia that are primarily engaged with precompetitive research of amore generic nature, these partners have less reason to appropriate collect-ive knowledge and impose more restrictive publishing strategies In otherwords, in the case of basic research involving many partners, either in thecorporate sector or public sector, knowledge dissemination practices tend
to be less vulnerable to changes in corporate research culture As for theindustry’s links with nonacademic research organizations in the publicsector, it is safe to assume that these partnerships are more focused onstrategic or applied research and therefore less affected by withdrawalsfrom basic science Moreover, publishing findings from this kind of jointresearch is likely to be more severely constrained by IPR arrangements andpublication strategies compared to industry–university co-authored papers
in view of the perceived commercial value of such research findings and thegreater risk of unintended spillovers
However, other organizational and socioeconomic factors might also(partially) explain these changes within corporate research culture and its
effect on the propensity to publish in peer-reviewed journals As state of artresearch has become more complex and expensive, and driven by tightertime schedules, research projects have become subject to stricter ‘costs andreturns’ accounting rules that focus on milestones, tangible deliverables andvalue creation As a result, the production of research articles hasdecreased because investing time and effort in writing these papers hasbecome increasingly prohibitive, while other performance targets and R&Dresults such as patents and patent-based licenses are more highly rewardedand generate greater in-house recognition and reputation Researchers mayhave gradually opted for other ‘easier’ publication outlets with less severerefereeing, such as internal report series, contributions in conference pro-ceedings, or papers in professional journals.13Only the truly high qualitypapers are still submitted to peer-reviewed international journals (whererelated research papers, or earlier abridged versions of the same paper aremade public through other outlets)
Concluding, the whole pattern of observations point in the direction ofstructural changes in corporate priorities and strategies concerning basicresearch leading to codified knowledge that is – in principle – publishable
in the open scientific and technical literature The observed trends in output
of corporate research articles in recent years suggest, on the one hand, thatcorporate basic research is being downsized, but on the other hand that cor-porate priorities concerning access to their research-based knowledge, and
Trang 14securing related intellectual property rights, are probably also getting thebetter of sharing and exchanging information with the worldwide scientificcommunity The correlation and causality between diminishing resourcesfor corporate basic research and the declining output levels require furtherinvestigation.
Nonetheless, based on the findings presented in this chapter we cannotrule out the possibility that science-based companies might still be doingthe same magnitude of long term research, but that their R&D labs andresearch managers now operate in different organizational and managerialstructures that are governed by rules and regulations aimed at maximizingthe efficiency of knowledge creation processes and broadening the oppor-tunities for commercial gains of research activities Coupled with IPR-driven knowledge appropriation regimes and more restrictive policies forthe dissemination of findings of general scientific importance, makesresearchers shy away from publishing in peer-reviewed scientific and tech-nical journals
The key question we face at this point in time is whether or not theserecent changes in the industry’s research publication output indicate struc-tural and lasting transformations that are reshaping the worldwide corpo-rate science landscape Or do these trends signal temporary adjustments ofbusiness priorities amongst the science-based large firms to cope with cyclicdevelopments affecting the competitive global markets in which theyoperate? The findings of this exploratory study are obviously suggestiverather than conclusive, and further case studies are necessary to corroboratethe tentative conclusions with more detailed information at the firm leveland industry level These first empirical findings do raise a number ofimportant unanswered questions – and related criticism voiced by the sci-
entific community (Nature, 2001) – regarding the dynamics of knowledge
creation processes in the corporate sector, and interactions with publicresearch organizations in those processes More specifically, to what extentare the business strategies of firms, and cost projections of in-house basicresearch, affecting the reservoir of new scientific knowledge and technicalknowhow to explore new technological opportunities and generateadvanced technologies? How is this process shaping the nature and direc-tion of scientific progress in global science, and the co-evolution of publicand corporate science? And have these changes reduced industry’s absorp-tive capacity for new knowledge? Given the wealth of data contained in thestill large numbers of papers published by corporate researchers, furtherempirical research on these topics could certainly benefit from in-depthanalyses of industry’s contribution to the international scientific and tech-nical journals
Trang 15Sources: DTI’s UK ‘R&D Scoreboard 2002’; Technology Review/CHI Research’s TR Patent Scorecard 2002.
Abbott Laboratories USA
Cell Therapeutics USA
Celltech Chiroscience Group UK
Chiron USA
Chugai Pharmaceutical Japan
COR Therapeutics USA
Emisphere Technologies USA
Fresenius Chem-Pharm Germany
Fujisawa Pharmaceutical Japan
Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Japan
Human Genome Sciences USA
Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Japan Ligand Pharmaceuticals USA Lynx Therapeutics USA Merck & Company USA Millennium Pharmaceuticals USA Neorx USA
Promega USA Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals USA
Sanofi-Synthelabo France
Schering-Plough USA Seikagaku Japan Senju Pharmaceutical Japan
Shionogi & Company Japan Shiseido Japan Sigma-Tau Industrie Italy Synaptic Pharmaceutical USA Taisho Pharmaceutical Japan Takeda Chemical Japan Tanabe Seiyaku Japan Tularik USA Vertex Pharmaceuticals USA
Xoma USA Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Japan Zambon Group Italy
Table 9.1 Selected (parent) companies and country of
headquarters –Pharmaceuticals