Who leads research productivity growth? Guidelines for R&D policy-makers

[EN] This paper evaluates to what extent policy-makers have been able to promote the creation and consolidation of comprehensive research groups that contribute to the implementation of a successful innovation system. Malmquist productivity indices are applied in the case of the Spanish Food Technology Program, finding that a large size and a comprehensive multi-dimensional research output are the key features of the leading groups exhibiting high efficiency and productivity levels. While identifying these groups as benchmarks, we conclude that the financial grants allocated by the program, typically aimed at small-sized and partially oriented research groups, have not succeeded in reorienting them in time so as to overcome their limitations. We suggest that this methodology offers relevant conclusions to policy evaluation methods, helping policy-makers to readapt and reorient policies and their associated means, most notably resource allocation (financial schemes), to better respond to the actual needs of research groups in their search for excellence (micro-level perspective), and to adapt future policy design to the achievement of medium-long term policy objectives (meso and macro-level).Jiménez Saez, F.; Zabala Iturriagagoitia, JM.; Zofio, JL. (2013). Who leads research productivity growth? Guidelines for R&D policy-makers. Scientometrics. 94(1):273-303. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0763-0S273303941Abbring, J. H., & Heckman, J. J. (2008). Dynamic policy analysis. In L. Mátyás & P. Sevestre (Eds.), The econometrics of panel data (3rd ed., pp. 795–863). Heidelberg: Springer.Acosta Ballesteros, J., & Modrego Rico, A. (2001). Public financing of cooperative R&D projects in Spain: the concerted projects under the national R&D plan. Research Policy, 30, 625–641.Arbel, A. (1981). Policy evaluation in the dynamic input–output model. International Journal of Systems Science, 12, 255–260.Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluation research and innovation policy: A systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Evaluation, 13, 3–17.Arrow, J. K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for inventions. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factor (pp. 609–625). Princeton: Princeton University Press and NBER.Autio, E. (1997). New, technology-based firms in innovation networks symplectic and generative impacts. Research Policy, 26, 263–281.Balk, B. (2001). Scale efficiency and productivity change. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 15, 153–183.Balzat, M., & Hanusch, H. (2004). Recent trends in the research on national innovation systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, 197–210.Berg, S. A., Førsund, F. R., & Jansen, E. S. (1992). Malmquist indices of productivity growth during the deregulation of Norwegian banking. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, S211–S228.Bergek, A., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., Rickne, A., & Jacobsson, S. (2008). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy, 37, 407–429.Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2005). Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity. Scientometrics, 63(1), 87–120.Buisseret, T. J., Cameron, H., & Georghiou, L. (1995). What difference does it make? Additionality in the public support of R&D in large firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 10, 587–600.Bustelo, M. (2006). The potential role of standards and guidelines in the development of an evaluation culture in Spain. Evaluation, 12, 437–453.Chavas, J. P., & Cox, T. M. (1999). A generalized distance function and the analysis of production efficiency. Southern Economic Journal, 66, 295–318.CICYT. (1987). Programa Nacional de Tecnología de los Alimentos. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia.CICYT (1988). Plan Nacional de Investigación Científica y Desarrollo Tecnológico 1988–1991. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Secretaría de Estado de Universidades e Investigación, Madrid.Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2000). Data envelopment analysis: A comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-software. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.David, P., Mowery, D., & Steinmueller, W. E. (1994). Analyzing the economic payoffs from basic research. In D. Mowery (Ed.), Science and technology policy in interdependent economies (pp. 57–78). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Dopfer, K., Foster, J., & Potts, J. (2004). Micro-meso-macro. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, 263–279.Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (2008). Comparing national systems of innovation in Asia and Europe: Theory and comparative framework. In C. Edquist & L. Hommen (Eds.), Small country innovation systems: Globalisation, change and policy in Asia and Europe (pp. 1–28). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M., & Zhang, Z. (1994). Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. American Economic Review, 84, 66–83.Farrell, M. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, General, 120(3), 253–281.Førsund, F. R. (1993). Productivity growth in Norwegian ferries. In H. O. Fried, C. A. K. Lovell, & S. S. Schmidt (Eds.), The measurement of productive efficiency: Techniques and applications (pp. 352–373). New York: Oxford University Press.Førsund, F. R. (1997). The Malmquist productivity index, TFP and scale. University of Oslo, Oslo: Working Paper, Department of Economics and Business Administration.Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Printer Publishers.García-Martínez, M., & Briz, J. (2000). Innovation in the Spanish food & drink industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3, 155–176.Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.Grammatikopoulos, V., Kousteiios, A., Tsigilis, N., & Theodorakis, Y. (2004). Applying dynamic evaluation approach in education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30, 255–263.Grifell-Tatjé, E., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1999). A generalized Malmquist productivity index. Top, 7(1), 81–101.Grimpe, C., & Sofka, W. (2007). Search patterns and absorptive capacity: A comparison of low- and high-technology firms from thirteen European countries. Discussion paper no. 07-062. Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), Mannheim, Germany.Guan, J., & Wang, J. (2004). Evaluation and interpretation of knowledge production efficiency. Scientometrics, 59(1), 131–155.Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 413–432.Jiménez-Sáez, F. (2005). Una Evaluación del Programa Nacional de Tecnología de Alimentos: análisis de la articulación fomentada sobre el Sistema Alimentario de Innovación en España. PhD dissertation, Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia.Jiménez-Sáez, F., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Zofío, J. L., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2011). Evaluating research efficiency within National R&D Programmes. Research Policy, 40, 230–241.Kao, C. (2008). Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empirical study. OMEGA, 36, 653–664.Kuhlmann, S. (2003). Evaluation of research and innovation policies: A discussion of trends with examples from Germany. International Journal of Technology Management, 26, 131–149.Laitinen, E. K. (2002). A dynamic performance measurement system: Evidence from small Finnish technology companies. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 65–99.Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2008). Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting. Research Policy, 37(5), 823–835.Lee, T.-L., & von Tunzelman, N. (2005). A dynamic analytic approach to national innovation systems: The IC industry in Taiwan. Research Policy, 34, 425–440.Lipsey, R., & Carlaw, K. (1998). A structuralist assessment of technology policies: Taking Schumpeter seriously on policy. Ottawa: Industry Canada Research Publications Program.Lipsey, R., Carlaw, K., & Bekar, C. (2005). Economic transformations: General purpose technologies and long term economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lundvall, B. Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Printer Publishers.Lundvall, B. Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31, 213–231.Markard, J., & Truffer, B. (2008). Actor-oriented analysis of innovation systems: Exploring micro-meso level linkages in the case of stationary fuel cells. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20, 443–464.Metcalfe, J. S. (2002). Equilibrium and evolutionary foundations of competition and technology policy: New perspectives on the division of labour and the innovation process. CRIC Working Papers series, University of Manchester.Miettinen, R. (1999). The riddle of things. Activity theory and actor network theory as approaches of studying innovations. Mind, Culture and Activity, 6, 170–195.Molas-Gallart, J., & Davies, A. (2006). Toward theory-led evaluation: The experience of European science, technology, and innovation policies. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 64–82.Mytelka, L. K., & Smith, K. (2002). Policy learning and innovation theory: An interactive and co-evolving process. Research Policy, 31, 1467–1479.Olazarán, M., Lavía, C., & Otero, B. (2004). ¿Hacia una segunda transición en la ciencia? Política científica y grupos de investigación. Revista Española de Sociología, 4, 143–172.Potts, J. (2007). The innovation system & economic evolution. Productivity commission submission, public support for science & innovation, productivity commission, Camberra.Ray, S., & Desli, E. (1997). Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries: Comment. American Economic Review, 87(5), 1033–1039.Rip, A., & Nederhof, A. J. (1986). Between dirigism and laissez-faire: Effects of implementing the science policy priority for biotechnology in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 15, 253–268.Schmidt, E. K., Graversen, E. K., & Langberg, K. (2003). Innovation and dynamics in public research environments in Denmark: A research-policy perspective. Science and Public Policy, 30, 107–116.Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2009). Sustainability of incentives for excellent research—The German case. Scientometrics, 81(1), 195–218.Shephard, R. (1970). Theory of cost and production functions. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (1998). Productivity growth in industrialized countries. Discussion paper 9810, Universite Catholique de Louvain, Belgium.Van Raan, A. F. J. (2000). R&D evaluation at the beginning of the new century. Research Evaluation, 8, 81–86.Zofio, J. L. (2007). Malmquist productivity index decompositions: A unifying framework. Applied Economics, 39, 2371–2387.Zofio, J. L., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1998). Yet another Malmquist productivity index decomposition. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.Zofio, J. L., & Lovell, C. A. K. (2001). Graph efficiency and productivity measures: An application to US agriculture. Applied Economics, 33(10), 1433–1442.Zofio, J. L., & Prieto, A. M. (2006). Return to dollar, generalized distance function and the Fisher productivity index. Spanish Economic Review, 8, 113–138

Network-Based Integration of GWAS and Gene Expression Identifies a HOX-Centric Network Associated with Serous Ovarian Cancer Risk

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have so far reported 12 loci associated with serous epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) risk. We hypothesized that some of these loci function through nearby transcription factor (TF) genes and that putative target genes of these TFs as identified by coexpression may also be enriched for additional EOC risk associations. METHODS: We selected TF genes within 1 Mb of the top signal at the 12 genome-wide significant risk loci. Mutual information, a form of correlation, was used to build networks of genes strongly coexpressed with each selected TF gene in the unified microarray dataset of 489 serous EOC tumors from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Genes represented in this dataset were subsequently ranked using a gene-level test based on results for germline SNPs from a serous EOC GWAS meta-analysis (2,196 cases/4,396 controls). RESULTS: Gene set enrichment analysis identified six networks centered on TF genes (HOXB2, HOXB5, HOXB6, HOXB7 at 17q21.32 and HOXD1, HOXD3 at 2q31) that were significantly enriched for genes from the risk-associated end of the ranked list (P < 0.05 and FDR < 0.05). These results were replicated (P < 0.05) using an independent association study (7,035 cases/21,693 controls). Genes underlying enrichment in the six networks were pooled into a combined network. CONCLUSION: We identified a HOX-centric network associated with serous EOC risk containing several genes with known or emerging roles in serous EOC development. IMPACT: Network analysis integrating large, context-specific datasets has the potential to offer mechanistic insights into cancer susceptibility and prioritize genes for experimental characterization

Variants in genes encoding small GTPases and association with epithelial ovarian cancer susceptibility

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the fifth leading cause of cancer mortality in American women. Normal ovarian physiology is intricately connected to small GTP binding proteins of the Ras superfamily (Ras, Rho, Rab, Arf, and Ran) which govern processes such as signal transduction, cell proliferation, cell motility, and vesicle transport. We hypothesized that common germline variation in genes encoding small GTPases is associated with EOC risk. We investigated 322 variants in 88 small GTPase genes in germline DNA of 18,736 EOC patients and 26,138 controls of European ancestry using a custom genotype array and logistic regression fitting log-additive models. Functional annotation was used to identify biofeatures and expression quantitative trait loci that intersect with risk variants. One variant, ARHGEF10L (Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factor 10 like) rs2256787, was associated with increased endometrioid EOC risk (OR=1.33, p=4.46 x 10-6). Other variants of interest included another in ARHGEF10L, rs10788679, which was associated with invasive serous EOC risk (OR=1.07, p=0.00026) and two variants in AKAP6 (A-kinase anchoring protein 6) which were associated with risk of invasive EOC (rs1955513, OR=0.90, p=0.00033; rs927062, OR =0.94, p=0.00059). Functional annotation revealed that the two ARHGEF10L variants were located in super-enhancer regions and that AKAP6 rs927062 was associated with expression of GTPase gene ARHGAP5 (Rho GTPase activating protein 5). Inherited variants in ARHGEF10L and AKAP6, with potential transcriptional regulatory function and association with EOC risk, warrant investigation in independent EOC study populations

Collaborating for Innovation: the socialised management of knowledge

Although the importance of diverse knowledge is widely recognised for open innovation, there may be a gap in our understanding of the social processes that shape how collaborators engage in knowledge exchange. This social gap may be significant because of the powerful, but largely unexplained, role attributed to trust as a social artefact. Moreover, we see trust as a process and that different types of trust are involved in the collaborative process. Thus, this paper uses a qualitative methodology to capture the experiences of innovation collaborators. As explanation of the dynamic interplays of knowledge and trust, we offer a description of phases in the process. Our analysis finds that the relationship moves from transactional to social. The early phases are characterised by technical knowledge, but the later and mature phases are identified with knowledge of the person and by personal trust. The success of innovation is a result of relationships with augmented trust. We found that a fabric of trust is woven from the weft of professional knowledge and the warp of personal knowledge to support innovation. We propose that this developing of relationships might be conceived as becoming more open in the sense of sharing with one another. If so, we seem to have described and offered a social dimension of open innovation