6 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
The making of biotechnology: a case study of radical innovation
This study examines decision making in large and small firms undertaking biotechnology innovation and identifies factors influencing innovation. It also considers aspects of environments external to firms, but relevant to the process of innovation. The study suggests that innovation is best understood as process of change both within the firm and in the external environment.
Factors internal to firms influencing key decisions included economic and political evaluations, company culture, organization, and in large firms, previous areas of corporate activity. A scarcity of appropriate knowledge relating to technical and non-technical aspects of innovation acted as severe restraints to Dedicated Biotechnology Firms (DBFs). Factors external to firms shaping decisions about the technology included changes in the socio-economic and political environment, risk regulation and patenting. Lack of funding and difficulties associated with venture capital constituted additional hurdles for DBFs.
The findings of the study highlight a series of erroneous assumptions built into the linear model of innovation. The cumulative nature of innovation and the importance of 'learning by doing' constitute elements of the critique of the linear model. For related reasons, some Post Fordist theories of current change in advanced industrialized countries, particularly those which advocate flexible specialization as a new model for industrial growth also prove problematic
Recommended from our members
Crowdsourcing based business models: in search of evidence for innovation 2.0
Open innovation has gained increased attention as a potential paradigm for improving innovation performance. This paper addresses crowdsourcing, an under-researched type of open innovation that is often enabled by the web. We focus on a type of crowdsourcing where financial rewards exist, where a crowd is tasked with solving problems which solution seekers anticipate to be empirically provable, but where the source of solutions is uncertain and addressing the challenge in-house perceived to be too high-risk. There is a growing recourse to crowdsourcing, but we really know little about its effectiveness, best practices, challenges and implications. We consider the shift to more open innovation trajectories over time, define crowdsourcing as an open innovation model, and clarify how crowdsourcing differs from other types of 'open' innovation (e.g. outsourcing and open-source). We explore who is crowdsourcing and how, looking at the potential diversity and core features and variables implicated in crowdsourcing models
Public–private collaborations and partnerships in stratified medicine: making sense of new interactions
The field of personalised or stratified medicine is evolving alongside the formation of a plethora of public/private partnerships and collaborations. These new institutional forms, or ‘social technologies’, are varied and emerge in response to several drivers, including the need to draw on a broader base of data inputs relating to genomics, patient behaviour and healthcare system differentiation. This paper discusses some of these drivers of partnerships and collaborations. Although the number of such partnerships is growing, their rationale and basis for collaboration remains unclear. Public–private collaborations are at the core of the set of new life sciences policies in the UK but there is little indication in the policy documents of clear boundaries for these partnerships. In part, this is due to the lack of empirical evidence at the system level for conceptualising what is still a relatively new approach. The collection of evidence in the form of broad evaluations, rather than tightly focused theoretical studies, is more likely to be related back to systems and be of more use for formulating policy rationales
Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy
Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.
Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.
Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21).
Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable