IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v36y2007i10p1635-1654.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biosecurity, bioterrorism and the governance of science: The increasing convergence of science and security policy

Author

Listed:
  • McLeish, Caitriona
  • Nightingale, Paul

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • McLeish, Caitriona & Nightingale, Paul, 2007. "Biosecurity, bioterrorism and the governance of science: The increasing convergence of science and security policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1635-1654, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:36:y:2007:i:10:p:1635-1654
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(07)00208-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hobday, Mike, 1998. "Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 689-710, February.
    2. Cowan, Robin & Foray, Dominique, 1995. "Quandaries in the economics of dual technologies and spillovers from military to civilian research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 851-868, November.
    3. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    4. Jordi Molas-Gallart, 2000. "The Political and Economic Context of European defence R&D," SPRU Working Paper Series 52, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Ben R. Martin & Paul Nightingale (ed.), 2000. "The Political Economy of Science, Technology and Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1660.
    6. Caitriona McLeish & Paul Nightingale, 2005. "The Impact of Dual Use Controls on UK Science: Results from a Pilot Study," SPRU Working Paper Series 132, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Hicks, Diana, 1995. "Published Papers, Tacit Competencies and Corporate Management of the Public/Private Character of Knowledge," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 4(2), pages 401-424.
    8. Hopkins, Michael M. & Nightingale, Paul, 2006. "Strategic risk management using complementary assets: Organizational capabilities and the commercialization of human genetic testing in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 355-374, April.
    9. K. Rao & A. Vijayakumar & R. Sarker, 2006. "Foreword," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 19-20, March.
    10. Nightingale, P., 2000. "The product-process-organisation relationship in complex development projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 913-930, August.
    11. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1963. "Technological Change in the Machine Tool Industry, 1840–1910," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 414-443, December.
    12. Nightingale, Paul, 1998. "A cognitive model of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 689-709, November.
    13. Jordi Molas‐Gallart, 2002. "Coping with Dual‐Use: A Challenge for European Research Policy," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 155-165, March.
    14. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    15. Gibbons, Michael & Johnston, Ron, 1974. "The roles of science in technological innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 220-242, November.
    16. Daniele Archibugi, 2001. "Pavitt'S Taxonomy Sixteen Years On: A Review Article," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(5), pages 415-425.
    17. Martin Beck-Burridge & Jeremy Walton, 2000. "Introduction," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Britain’s Winning Formula, chapter 1, pages 1-17, Palgrave Macmillan.
    18. Sunstein, Cass R, 2003. "Terrorism and Probability Neglect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 121-136, March-May.
    19. Nightingale, Paul, 2004. "Technological capabilities, invisible infrastructure and the un-social construction of predictability: the overlooked fixed costs of useful research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1259-1284, November.
    20. Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
    21. Braithwaite,John & Drahos,Peter, 2000. "Global Business Regulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521784993, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carlo Drago & Matteo Ruggeri, 2019. "Setting research priorities in the field of emergency management: which piece of information are you willing to pay more?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 2103-2115, July.
    2. Fulvio Castellacci & Arne Fevolden, 2014. "Capable Companies or Changing Markets? Explaining the Export Performance of Firms in the Defence Industry," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 549-575, December.
    3. D. Thorleuchter & D. Van Den Poel, 2012. "Technology Classification with Latent Semantic Indexing," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 12/814, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhao, Shengchao & Zeng, Deming & Li, Jian & Feng, Ke & Wang, Yao, 2023. "Quantity or quality: The roles of technology and science convergence on firm innovation performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    2. René Belderbos & Nazareno Braito & Jian Wang, 2024. "Heterogeneous university research and firm R&D location decisions: research orientation, academic quality, and investment type," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1959-1989, October.
    3. repec:got:cegedp:102 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Sofia Patsali, 2019. "Opening the black box of university-suppliers' co-invention: some field study evidence," Working Papers of BETA 2019-46, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    5. Nelson, John P., 2023. "Differential “progressibility” in human know-how: A conceptual overview," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    6. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Marsili, Orietta, 2006. "The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 213-229, March.
    7. Alp Eren Yurtseven & Mehmet Teoman Pamukçu, 2022. "Innovation patterns in firms and intra-industry heterogeneity empirical evidence from Turkey," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 645-679, September.
    8. Su Jung Jee & So Young Sohn, 2023. "A firm’s creation of proprietary knowledge linked to the knowledge spilled over from its research publications: the case of artificial intelligence," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(4), pages 876-900.
    9. Flavio Calvino & Maria Enrica Virgillito, 2018. "The Innovation†Employment Nexus: A Critical Survey Of Theory And Empirics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 83-117, February.
    10. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    11. Alessandro Nuvolari & Emanuele Russo, 2019. "Technical progress and structural change: a long-term view," LEM Papers Series 2019/17, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    12. Mendoza, Mario A. & Rodriguez Alfonso, Mauricio & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2021. "A battle of drones: Utilizing legitimacy strategies for the transfer and diffusion of dual-use technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    13. Holger Graf, 2013. "Inventor Networks in Emerging Key Technologies: Information Technology vs. Semiconductors," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Guido Buenstorf & Uwe Cantner & Horst Hanusch & Michael Hutter & Hans-Walter Lorenz & Fritz Rahmeyer (ed.), The Two Sides of Innovation, edition 127, pages 55-76, Springer.
    14. Amesse, Fernand & Cohendet, P., 2001. "Technology transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge-based economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1459-1478, December.
    15. Robert, Verónica & Yoguel, Gabriel, 2016. "Complexity paths in neo-Schumpeterian evolutionary economics, structural change and development policies," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 3-14.
    16. Simms, Christopher & Frishammar, Johan, 2024. "Technology transfer challenges in asymmetric alliances between high-technology and low-technology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    17. Engwall, Mats & Freilich, Jonatan, 2014. "Architectural Lock-in of the Drug Development Process," INDEK Working Paper Series 2014/4, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Industrial Economics and Management.
    18. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    19. Blandinieres, Florence, 2019. "Anatomy of the medical innovation process: What are the consequences of replicability issues on innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-011, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Huenteler, Joern & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Ossenbrink, Jan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Technology life-cycles in the energy sector — Technological characteristics and the role of deployment for innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 102-121.
    21. Capponi, Giovanna & Martinelli, Arianna & Nuvolari, Alessandro, 2022. "Breakthrough innovations and where to find them," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:36:y:2007:i:10:p:1635-1654. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.