IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5243.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Present at the Revolution: Transformation of Technical Identity for a Large Incumbent Pharmaceutical Firm After the Biotechnological Breakthrough

Author

Listed:
  • Lynne G. Zucker
  • Michael R. Darby

Abstract

This paper is a case study of the transformation in research methods which occurred in a large U.S. pharmaceutical firm as a result of the biotech revolution. This transformation is inconsistent with the hypothesis that technological revolutions make existing firms obsolete and consistent with our wealth-maximization hypothesis that valuable assets (like delivery know-how) will not be wasted if technological change in part of the organization is necessary to remain competitiveness. While the transformation was achieved through a various methods, the primary route was hiring new personnel who had the new technology and incorporating them into the existing structure. While the technological transformation has been profound, biotechnology applications in this large incumbent firm are more likely to be combined with other techno- logies than in the new biotechnology firms (NBFs) which use biotechnology for both discovery and production of new therapeutic entities. This difference in emphasis may result in value-enhancing synergies because of the related knowledge which makes for more effective applications of the new technologies, but it could retard full adoption of biotechnology. It appears that this firm was somewhat slower than the dedicated biotech firms to adopt the new techno- ogy, but once the decision was made to transform the technological identity of the firm massive resources were provided to recruit the human capital required to make it happen. The incumbent firms were slow to adopt biotechnology, but made great strides in the 1980s in increasing their share of all commercial ties to the star scientists as well as their share of patents.

Suggested Citation

  • Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 1995. "Present at the Revolution: Transformation of Technical Identity for a Large Incumbent Pharmaceutical Firm After the Biotechnological Breakthrough," NBER Working Papers 5243, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:5243
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w5243.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 1991. "On the application of robust, regression- based diagnostics to models of conditional means and conditional variances," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 5-46, January.
    2. Comanor, William S, 1986. "The Political Economy of the Pharmaceutical Industry," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 24(3), pages 1178-1217, September.
    3. Elise Brezis & Paul Krugman & Daniel Tsiddon, 1991. "Leapfrogging: A Theory of Cycles in National Technological Leadership," NBER Working Papers 3886, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Zucker, Lynne G. & Darby, Michael R., 1994. "The Organization of Biotechnology Science and Its Commercialization in Japan," Institute for Social Science Research, Working Paper Series qt9qf459t4, Institute for Social Science Research, UCLA.
    5. Henry Grabowski & John Vernon, 1990. "A New Look at the Returns and Risks to Pharmaceutical R&D," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 804-821, July.
    6. Reinganum, Jennifer F, 1983. "Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 741-748, September.
    7. Gary P. Pisano, 1994. "Knowledge, Integration, and the Locus of Learning: An Empirical Analysis of Process Development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 85-100, December.
    8. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby & Jeff Armstrong, 1994. "Intellectual Capital and the Firm: The Technology of Geographically Localized Knowledge Spillovers," NBER Working Papers 4946, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Reinganum, Jennifer F., 1989. "The timing of innovation: Research, development, and diffusion," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 14, pages 849-908, Elsevier.
    10. Grabowski, Henry G. & Vernon, John M., 1994. "Returns to R&D on new drug introductions in the 1980s," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 383-406.
    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. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 1996. "Costly Information in Firm Transformation, Exit, or Persistent Failure," NBER Working Papers 5577, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Mangematin, V., 2000. "PhD job market: professional trajectories and incentives during the PhD," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 741-756, June.
    3. Luigi Orsenigo & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni & Andrea Bonaccorsi & Giuseppe Turchetti, 1997. "The Evolution of Knowledge and the Dynamics of an Industry Network," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 1(2), pages 147-175, June.
    4. Nicola Lacetera, 2000. "Corporate Governance and the Governance of Innovation: the Case of Pharmaceutical Industry," KITeS Working Papers 122, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Dec 2000.
    5. Nicola Lacetera, 2001. "Corporate Governance and the Governance of Innovation: The Case of Pharmaceutical Industry," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 5(1), pages 29-59, March.
    6. Jorge Niosi & Maureen McKelvey, 2018. "Relating business model innovations and innovation cascades: the case of biotechnology," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 1081-1109, December.
    7. Iain Cockburn & Rebecca Henderson & Scott Stern, 1999. "The Diffusion of Science-Driven Drug Discovery: Organizational Change in Pharmaceutical Research," NBER Working Papers 7359, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Hicks, Diana & Breitzman, Tony & Olivastro, Dominic & Hamilton, Kimberly, 2001. "The changing composition of innovative activity in the US -- a portrait based on patent analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 681-703, 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. Zucker, Lynne G. & Darby, Michael R., 1997. "Present at the biotechnological revolution: transformation of technological identity for a large incumbent pharmaceutical firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 429-446, December.
    2. Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 1996. "Star Scientists, Institutions, and the Entry of Japanese Biotechnology Enterprises," NBER Working Papers 5795, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Schwartz, Eduardo S., 2002. "Patents and R& D as Real Options," University of California at Los Angeles, Anderson Graduate School of Management qt86b1n43k, Anderson Graduate School of Management, UCLA.
    4. Patricia M. Danzon & Eric L. Keuffel, 2014. "Regulation of the Pharmaceutical-Biotechnology Industry," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Regulation and Its Reform: What Have We Learned?, pages 407-484, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Ming Ding & Jehoshua Eliashberg, 2002. "Structuring the New Product Development Pipeline," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(3), pages 343-363, March.
    6. Leibowicz, Benjamin D., 2018. "Welfare improvement windows for innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 390-398.
    7. Joseph Dimasi & Henry Grabowski & John Vernon, 1995. "R&D Costs, Innovative Output and Firm Size in the Pharmaceutical Industry," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 201-219.
    8. Austin, David H., 2000. "Patents, Spillovers, and Competition in Biotechnology," Discussion Papers 10808, Resources for the Future.
    9. Karel Cool & Ingemar Dierickx, 1993. "Abstract," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 47-59, January.
    10. Casper, Steven & Matraves, Catherine, 2003. "Institutional frameworks and innovation in the German and UK pharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1865-1879, December.
    11. Aldieri, Luigi & Aprile, Maria Carmela & Vinci, Concetto Paolo, 2015. "R&D Spillovers Effects on strategic behaviour of Large International Firms," MPRA Paper 63402, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Ping Lin & Tianle Zhang & Wen Zhou, 2020. "Vertical integration and disruptive cross‐market R&D," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 51-73, January.
    13. Gilbert Richard J, 2006. "Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Organization Education, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-23, December.
    14. Yongmin Chen & Marius Schwartz, 2013. "Product Innovation Incentives: Monopoly vs. Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 513-528, September.
    15. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Kraft, Kornelius, 2004. "An empirical test of the asymmetric models on innovative activity: who invests more into R&D, the incumbent or the challenger?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 153-173, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Petrakis, Emmanuel, 1994. "Technology diffusion in a differentiated industry," UC3M Working papers. Economics 2921, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    18. Isabelle Brocas, 2003. "Les enjeux de la réglementation de la recherche et développement," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 113(1), pages 125-148.
    19. Robert J. Barro & Xavier Sala-i-Martin, 1994. "Quality Improvements in Models of Growth," NBER Working Papers 4610, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Ludkovski, Michael & Sircar, Ronnie, 2016. "Technology ladders and R&D in dynamic Cournot markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 127-151.

    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:nbr:nberwo:5243. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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.