IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/pseptp/halshs-01496928.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Of Mice and Academics: Examining the Effect of Openness on Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Philippe Aghion

    (PSE - Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, Department of Economics, Harvard University, Collège de France - Chaire Economie des institutions, de l'innovation et de la croissance - CdF (institution) - Collège de France)

  • Mathias Dewatripont

    (ULB - Université libre de Bruxelles)

  • Julian Kolev

    (Department of Economics, Harvard University)

  • Fiona Murray

    (MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • Scott Stern

    (MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

Abstract

This paper argues that openness, by lowering costs to access existing research, can enhance both early and late stage innovation through greater exploration of novel research directions. We examine a natural experiment in openness: late-1990s NIH agreements that reduced academics' access costs regarding certain genetically engineered mice. Implementing difference-in-differences estimators, we find that increased openness encourages entry by new researchers and exploration of more diverse research paths, and does not reduce the creation of new genetically engineered mice. Our findings highlight a neglected cost of strong intellectual property restrictions: lower levels of exploration leading to reduced diversity of research output.

Suggested Citation

  • Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Julian Kolev & Fiona Murray & Scott Stern, 2016. "Of Mice and Academics: Examining the Effect of Openness on Innovation," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-01496928, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:pseptp:halshs-01496928
    DOI: 10.1257/pol.20140062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    2. Massimo Florio & Simona Gamba, 2021. "Biomed Europa: After the coronavirus, a public infrastructure to overcome the pharmaceutical oligopoly," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(3), pages 387-409, September.
    3. E Richard Gold, 2016. "Accelerating Translational Research through Open Science: The Neuro Experiment," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-6, December.
    4. Yin, Hua-Tang & Wen, Jun & Chang, Chun-Ping, 2022. "Science-technology intermediary and innovation in China: Evidence from State Administration for Market Regulation, 2000–2019," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    5. Gao, Yanyan & Zheng, Jianghuai, 2020. "The impact of high-speed rail on innovation: An empirical test of the companion innovation hypothesis of transportation improvement with China’s manufacturing firms," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    6. John Liechty & Stefan Wuyts, 2021. "'If I had a hedge fund, I would cure diabetes': endogenous mechanisms for creating public goods," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(10), pages 1-18, October.
    7. Kwon, Seokbeom & Marco, Alan C., 2021. "Can antitrust law enforcement spur innovation? Antitrust regulation of patent consolidation and its impact on follow-on innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    8. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Scheufen, Marc & Waelbroeck, Patrick, 2020. "Does online access promote research in developing countries? Empirical evidence from article-level data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    9. Kevin J. Boudreau, 2018. "Amateurs Crowds & Professional Entrepreneurs as Platform Complementors," NBER Working Papers 24512, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Yongmin Chen & David E.M. Sappington, 2018. "An optimal rule for patent damages under sequential innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(2), pages 370-397, June.
    11. Arianna Martinelli & Elena Romito, 2019. "When authors become inventors: an empirical analysis on patent-paper pairs in medical research," LEM Papers Series 2019/32, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    12. David Karpa & Torben Klarl & Michael Rochlitz, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence, Surveillance, and Big Data," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2108, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    13. Tania Babina & Alex Xi He & Sabrina T. Howell & Elisabeth Ruth Perlman & Joseph Staudt, 2020. "The Color of Money: Federal vs. Industry Funding of University Research," NBER Working Papers 28160, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Nancy Gallini, 2017. "Do patents work? Thickets, trolls and antibiotic resistance," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(4), pages 893-926, November.
    15. Augustine Denteh & D'esir'e K'edagni, 2022. "Misclassification in Difference-in-differences Models," Papers 2207.11890, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    16. John T. Scott, 2016. "Creativity for invention insights: corporate strategies and opportunities for public entrepreneurship," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 43(4), pages 409-448, December.
    17. Feng, Gen-Fu & Zheng, Mingbo & Wen, Jun & Chang, Chun-Ping & Chen, Yin E., 2019. "The assessment of globalization on innovation in Chinese manufacturing firms," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 190-202.
    18. Jeffrey L. Furman & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Automation, Research Technology, and Researchers’ Trajectories: Evidence from Computer Science and Electrical Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 330-354, March.
    19. Florenta Teodoridis, 2018. "Understanding Team Knowledge Production: The Interrelated Roles of Technology and Expertise," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(8), pages 3625-3648, August.
    20. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.
    21. David Karpa & Torben Klarl & Michael Rochlitz, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence, Surveillance, and Big Data," Papers 2111.00992, arXiv.org.
    22. Blandinieres, Florence & Pellens, Maikel, 2021. "Scientist's industry engagement and the research agenda: Evidence from Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-001, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Innovation;

    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:hal:pseptp:halshs-01496928. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Caroline Bauer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.