IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0174538.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling timelines for translational science in cancer; the impact of technological maturation

Author

Listed:
  • Laura M McNamee
  • Fred D Ledley

Abstract

This work examines translational science in cancer based on theories of innovation that posit a relationship between the maturation of technologies and their capacity to generate successful products. We examined the growth of technologies associated with 138 anticancer drugs using an analytical model that identifies the point of initiation of exponential growth and the point at which growth slows as the technology becomes established. Approval of targeted and biological products corresponded with technological maturation, with first approval averaging 14 years after the established point and 44 years after initiation of associated technologies. The lag in cancer drug approvals after the increases in cancer funding and dramatic scientific advances of the 1970s thus reflects predictable timelines of technology maturation. Analytical models of technological maturation may be used for technological forecasting to guide more efficient translation of scientific discoveries into cures.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura M McNamee & Fred D Ledley, 2017. "Modeling timelines for translational science in cancer; the impact of technological maturation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0174538
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174538
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174538
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174538&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0174538?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Balconi, Margherita & Brusoni, Stefano & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2010. "In defence of the linear model: An essay," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, February.
    2. Leslie A Gillum & Christopher Gouveia & E Ray Dorsey & Mark Pletcher & Colin D Mathers & Charles E McCulloch & S Claiborne Johnston, 2011. "NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-9, February.
    3. Christensen, Clayton M. & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1995. "Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 233-257, March.
    4. Iain M. Cockburn & Rebecca M. Henderson, 1998. "Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 157-182, June.
    5. Meade, Nigel & Islam, Towhidul, 1995. "Forecasting with growth curves: An empirical comparison," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 199-215, June.
    6. Toole, Andrew A., 2012. "The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-12.
    7. Frank R. Lichtenberg, 2013. "The Impact of Biomedical Knowledge Accumulation on Mortality: A Bibliometric Analysis of Cancer Data," NBER Working Papers 19593, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Kenneth Zahringer & Christos Kolympiris & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, 2017. "Academic knowledge quality differentials and the quality of firm innovation," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(5), pages 821-844.
    4. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    5. Añón Higón, Dolores, 2016. "In-house versus external basic research and first-to-market innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 816-829.
    6. Dedrick, Jason & Kraemer, Kenneth L., 2015. "Who captures value from science-based innovation? The distribution of benefits from GMR in the hard disk drive industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1615-1628.
    7. Manuel Hermosilla & Jorge Lemus, 2018. "Therapeutic Translation of Genomic Science: Opportunities and Limitations of GWAS," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Dimensions of Personalized and Precision Medicine, pages 21-52, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Hohberger, Jan, 2016. "Diffusion of science-based inventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 66-77.
    9. Kapoor, Rahul & Klueter, Thomas, 2020. "Progress and setbacks: The two faces of technology emergence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    10. Ozgur Aydogmus & Erkan Gürpinar, 2022. "Science, Technology and Institutional Change in Knowledge Production: An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Framework," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1163-1188, December.
    11. Emre Yildiz, H. & Murtic, Adis & Klofsten, Magnus & Zander, Udo & Richtnér, Anders, 2021. "Individual and contextual determinants of innovation performance: A micro-foundations perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Yuliya Snihur & Llewellyn D. W. Thomas & Robert A. Burgelman, 2018. "An Ecosystem‐Level Process Model of Business Model Disruption: The Disruptor's Gambit," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1278-1316, November.
    13. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    14. Yildiz, H. Emre & Murtic, Adis & Zander, Udo, 2024. "Re-conceptualizing absorptive capacity: The importance of teams as a meso-level context," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    15. Dietmar Harhoff & Elisabeth Mueller & John Van Reenen, 2014. "What are the Channels for Technology Sourcing? Panel Data Evidence from German Companies," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 204-224, March.
    16. Hagedoorn, John & Carayannis, Elias & Alexander, Jeffrey, 2001. "Strange bedfellows in the personal computer industry: technology alliances between IBM and Apple," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 837-849, May.
    17. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    18. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    19. Rachel Levy & Pascale Roux & Sandrine Wolff, 2009. "An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large European University," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 1-23, February.
    20. Hoekman, Jarno & Rake, Bastian, 2024. "Geography of authorship: How geography shapes authorship attribution in big team science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).

    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:plo:pone00:0174538. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.