This paper focuses on ‘triple helix’ effects in biosciences. Scientific change can have profound socioeconomic effects. The molecular biology revolution tilted pharmaceuticals production away from its fine chemistry path dependence into microbiology and biotechnology. The key to any triple helix effects has thus shifted to universities and spinouts buttressed with burgeoning public funding, leaving ‘big pharma’ increasingly playing the role of licenser and marketer of bought-in therapeutic treatments. Concentration in the healthcare value chain means a few places that have become bioscience ‘mega-centres’ dominate healthcare innovation. Ambitious regions seeking to establish megacentres of their own are causing governments to experiment with ‘regional science policy’ to build up competitiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Philip Cooke (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: