IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v124y2020i2d10.1007_s11192-020-03537-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gatekeepers in knowledge transfer between science and technology: an exploratory study in the area of gene editing

Author

Listed:
  • Xian Li

    (Zhejiang University School of Medicine)

  • Dangzhi Zhao

    (University of Alberta)

  • Xiaojun Hu

    (Zhejiang University School of Medicine)

Abstract

Gene editing is an emerging technology that is promising for the prevention and treatment of human diseases. This paper reports an exploratory study of networks of authors of scientific research publications and of inventors involved in patents during the years 2000–2019 in the area of gene editing. We use patents to represent technological output and their non-patent references to represent scientific output that transferred knowledge to the technological output. We apply social network analysis to identify gatekeepers on the boundary of science and technology. We find that author–inventors are crucial for network-wide knowledge transfer as they connect parts of the network that are otherwise disconnected, and can thus be considered gatekeepers, they occupy prominent positions in the co-authorship and co-invention networks. In the area of gene editing, gatekeepers emerged during 2007–2013 and increased significantly in number during 2014–2019. Our results suggest that there are differences in the brokerage role of gatekeepers identified by different indicators. Top gatekeepers identified by betweenness and Q-measure are in areas with intensive knowledge flow among authors and inventors, whereas gatekeepers occupying more structural hole may be in areas with sparse knowledge flow.

Suggested Citation

  • Xian Li & Dangzhi Zhao & Xiaojun Hu, 2020. "Gatekeepers in knowledge transfer between science and technology: an exploratory study in the area of gene editing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1261-1277, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:124:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03537-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03537-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-020-03537-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-020-03537-y?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
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. Rajeev K. Goel & Daniel P. Rich, 2005. "Organization of Markets for Science and Technology," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(1), pages 1-17, March.
    3. Jeff S. Armstrong & Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 2003. "Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture and firm performance in biotechnology," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Sep, pages 149-170.
    4. Guijie Zhang & Luning Liu & Fangfang Wei, 2019. "Key nodes mining in the inventor–author knowledge diffusion network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 721-735, March.
    5. Martin Meyer, 2006. "Are Co-Active Researchers on Top of their Class? An Exploratory Comparison of Inventor-Authors with their Non-Inventing Peers in Nano-Science and Technology," SPRU Working Paper Series 144, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Kim, Bongsun & Kim, Eonsoo & Miller, Douglas J. & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2016. "The impact of the timing of patents on innovation performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 914-928.
    7. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    8. Holger Graf, 2011. "Gatekeepers in regional networks of innovators," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 35(1), pages 173-198.
    9. Stéphane Maraut & Catalina Martínez, 2014. "Identifying author–inventors from Spain: methods and a first insight into results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 445-476, October.
    10. Rousseau, Ronald & Liu, Yuxian & Guns, Raf, 2013. "Mathematical properties of Q-measures," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 737-745.
    11. Xianwen Wang & Xi Zhang & Shenmeng Xu, 2011. "Patent co-citation networks of Fortune 500 companies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(3), pages 761-770, September.
    12. Alcácer, Juan & Gittelman, Michelle & Sampat, Bhaven, 2009. "Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 415-427, March.
    13. Sujit Bhattacharya & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Large firms and the science-technology interface Patents, patent citations, and scientific output of multinational corporations in thin films," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 265-279, October.
    14. Lorenzo Ductor & Marcel Fafchamps & Sanjeev Goyal & Marco J. van der Leij, 2014. "Social Networks and Research Output," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(5), pages 936-948, December.
    15. Boyack, Kevin W. & Klavans, Richard, 2008. "Measuring science–technology interaction using rare inventor–author names," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 173-182.
    16. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:2:p:157-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Raf Guns & Yu Xian Liu & Dilruba Mahbuba, 2011. "Q-measures and betweenness centrality in a collaboration network: a case study of the field of informetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 133-147, April.
    18. Wang, Feifei & Jia, Chenran & Wang, Xiaohan & Liu, Junwan & Xu, Shuo & Liu, Yang & Yang, Chenyuyan, 2019. "Exploring all-author tripartite citation networks: A case study of gene editing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 856-873.
    19. David Cyranoski, 2016. "CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person for the first time," Nature, Nature, vol. 539(7630), pages 479-479, November.
    20. Hu, Xiaojun & Rousseau, Ronald, 2018. "A new approach to explore the knowledge transition path in the evolution of science & technology: From the biology of restriction enzymes to their application in biotechnology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 842-857.
    21. Breschi, Stefano & Catalini, Christian, 2010. "Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists' and inventors' networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 14-26, February.
    22. Ronald Rousseau & Lin Zhang, 2008. "Betweenness centrality and Q-measures in directed valued networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(3), pages 575-590, June.
    23. Michelle Gittelman & Bruce Kogut, 2003. "Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 366-382, April.
    24. Jiaming Jiang & Rajeev K. Goel & Xingyuan Zhang, 2019. "Knowledge flows from business method software patents: influence of firms’ global social networks," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1070-1096, August.
    25. Bruno Cassiman & Patrick Glenisson & Bart Looy, 2007. "Measuring industry-science links through inventor-author relations: A profiling methodology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 379-391, February.
    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. Shuo Xu & Ling Li & Xin An, 2023. "Do academic inventors have diverse interests?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1023-1053, February.
    2. Eduardo Gonçalves & Ademir Rocha & Raquel Reis, 2023. "The key to knowledge: evaluating the role of gatekeepers on regional inventive performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1274-1299, August.
    3. Xian Li & Ronald Rousseau & Liming Liang & Fangjie Xi & Yushuang Lü & Yifan Yuan & Xiaojun Hu, 2022. "Is low interdisciplinarity of references an unexpected characteristic of Nobel Prize winning research?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2105-2122, April.

    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. Ba, Zhichao & Liang, Zhentao, 2021. "A novel approach to measuring science-technology linkage: From the perspective of knowledge network coupling," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    2. Mariia Shkolnykova, 2021. "Who shapes plant biotechnology in Germany? Joint analysis of the evolution of co-authors’ and co-inventors’ networks," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 27-54, April.
    3. Shuo Xu & Ling Li & Xin An, 2023. "Do academic inventors have diverse interests?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1023-1053, February.
    4. Cassiman, Bruno & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Arts, Sam, 2018. "Mind the gap: Capturing value from basic research through combining mobile inventors and partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1811-1824.
    5. Stéphane Maraut & Catalina Martínez, 2014. "Identifying author–inventors from Spain: methods and a first insight into results," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 445-476, October.
    6. Breschi, Stefano & Catalini, Christian, 2010. "Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists' and inventors' networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 14-26, February.
    7. Shu-Hao Chang, 2018. "A pilot study on the connection between scientific fields and patent classification systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 951-970, March.
    8. Xu, Haiyun & Yue, Zenghui & Pang, Hongshen & Elahi, Ehsan & Li, Jing & Wang, Lu, 2022. "Integrative model for discovering linked topics in science and technology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    9. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    10. Gita Ghiasi & Matthew Harsh & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2018. "Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 785-815, May.
    11. Popp, David, 2017. "From science to technology: The value of knowledge from different energy research institutions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1580-1594.
    12. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Cassiman, Bruno & Arts, Sam, 2012. "Mind the gap: capturing value from basic research: boundary crossing inventors and partnerships," CEPR Discussion Papers 9215, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Landry, Réjean & Saïhi, Malek & Amara, Nabil & Ouimet, Mathieu, 2010. "Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1387-1403, December.
    14. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2013. "Love dynamics between science and technology: some evidences in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 113-132, January.
    15. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    16. Alessandra Scandura, 2019. "The role of scientific and market knowledge in the inventive process: evidence from a survey of industrial inventors," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1029-1069, August.
    17. Michael Roach & Wesley M. Cohen, 2012. "Lens or Prism? Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows from Public Research," NBER Working Papers 18292, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Quatraro, Francesco & Scandura, Alessandra, 2020. "Regional patterns of unrelated technological diversification: the role of academic inventors," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 202001, University of Turin.
    19. Joaquín Azagra-Caro, 2014. "Determinants of national patent ownership by public research organisations and universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 898-914, December.
    20. Gianluca Fabiano & Andrea Marcellusi & Giampiero Favato, 2020. "Public–private contribution to biopharmaceutical discoveries: a bibliometric analysis of biomedical research in UK," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 153-168, July.

    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:spr:scient:v:124:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-020-03537-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.