Carter Bloch

Assessing recent developments in innovation measurement: The third edition of the Oslo Manual

This paper assesses developments in innovation measurement that have been incorporated into the recent revision of the Oslo Manual. Among the most central points emphasized in recent innovation literature are a need for: data that is adequate for the analysis of innovation systems and for policy-making; and a suitable measurement framework to capture the substantial innovation activity within services. The new measurement framework, which includes an expansion of the innovation concept beyond technological product and process innovation and a more complete treatment of linkages and knowledge flows, provides greater coverage of these topics. However, while these changes are a significant step forward in innovation measurement, there are a number of areas in which survey guidelines can be improved further, among them human resource development and the role of demand in innovation. The paper discusses some options for building on these changes in the future. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

National innovation policy and global open innovation: exploring balances, tradeoffs and complementarities

The aim of this article is to suggest a framework for examining the way national policy mixes are responding to the challenges and opportunities of globally distributed knowledge networks, cross-sectoral technology flows and consequently open innovation processes occurring on an international scale. We argue that the purpose of public research and innovation policy remains one of developing and sustaining territorial knowledge bases capable of growing and supporting internationally competitive industries. But the rules of the game have changed. Public policy now needs to carefully balance between: a) promoting the formation of international linkages for knowledge sourcing and information exposure; b) providing incentives for domestic industry intramural RD and c) sustaining domestic networking to allow accumulated knowledge to diffuse and recombine. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

R&D investment and internal finance: the cash flow effect

This paper investigates the cash flow effect on R&D investments for firms in Denmark. Evidence is found that internal funds are important in explaining R&D investments, indicating that R&D investment decisions are affected by credit market imperfections. Cash flow sensitivities are larger both for smaller firms and for firms with low debt relative to assets. Furthermore, this effect is also present after controlling for cash flow’s potential role as a predictor of future profitability.

THE MARKET VALUATION OF KNOWLEDGE ASSETS

This paper studies the market valuation of R&D in Denmark for 1989–2001, adding to the limited number of studies of countries outside of the US or the UK. In terms of financial systems or ownership structure, Denmark can be seen as an intermediate case between Anglo-Saxon models in the US and the UK and large continental European countries such as France, Germany and Italy. In order to facilitate international comparison, the analysis follows Hall and Oriani (2006), and it is found that the relative shadow value of R&D for Denmark is larger than comparable values for France, Germany, Italy and the US, and similar to those for the UK. Though, while relative shadow values are high overall, shadow values are substantially lower for firms with high R&D intensity. The role of ownership structure is also examined and it is found, in contrast to comparable results for France and Italy, that R&D is actually valued more highly in Danish firms with a single large shareholder. It is argued that this difference may be due to greater investor protection in Denmark.

Developing a methodology to assess the impact of research grant funding: A mixed methods approach

This paper discusses the development of a mixed methods approach to analyse research funding. Research policy has taken on an increasingly prominent role in the broader political scene, where research is seen as a critical factor in maintaining and improving growth, welfare and international competitiveness. This has motivated growing emphasis on the impacts of science funding, and how funding can best be designed to promote socio-economic progress. Meeting these demands for impact assessment involves a number of complex issues that are difficult to fully address in a single study or in the design of a single methodology. However, they point to some general principles that can be explored in methodological design. We draw on a recent evaluation of the impacts of research grant funding, discussing both key issues in developing a methodology for the analysis and subsequent results. The case of research grant funding, involving a complex mix of direct and intermediate effects that contribute to the overall impact of funding on research performance, illustrates the value of a mixed methods approach to provide a more robust and complete analysis of policy impacts. Reflections on the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology are used to examine refinements for future work.

Europe's plans for responsible science

Drug addiction is a major global health issue, and the opioid crisis is a notable example of its catastrophic effects (1). In his News In Depth story “Chemists seek antiaddiction drugs to battle hijacked brain” (13 April, p. 139), R. F. Service discusses some promising ways to treat drug addiction, including vigabatrin and a more effective version of that drug named OV329. However, the optimistic tone of the article should be tempered by the potential side effects of these treatments. The gamma-aminobutyric acid aminotransferase (GABA-AT) enzyme plays a key role in brain signaling by inactivating GABA (2). Currently, the only licensed drug that targets this enzyme is vigabatrin, an antiepileptic that is usually reserved for severe intractable seizures (2). OV329 is mechanistically similar to vigabatrin, but—as Service explains in the News story—it binds more tightly to GABA-AT. Although more potent GABA-AT inhibitors may reduce the dopaminergic signaling that is responsible for reinforcing addiction, we should be aware of the possibility that these drugs may themselves cause physical and/or psychological dependence. Edited by Jennifer Sills LETTERS

Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation

Gender diversity has the potential to drive scientific discovery and innovation. Here, we distinguish three approaches to gender diversity: diversity in research teams, diversity in research methods and diversity in research questions. While gender diversity is commonly understood to refer only to the gender composition of research teams, fully realizing the potential of diversity for science and innovation also requires attention to the methods employed and questions raised in scientific knowledge-making. We provide a framework for understanding the best ways to support the three approaches to gender diversity across four interdependent domains — from research teams to the broader disciplines in which they are embedded to research organizations and ultimately to the different societies that shape them through specific gender norms and policies. Our analysis demonstrates that realizing the benefits of diversity for science requires careful management of these four interdependent domains.Increasing gender diversity can bring about substantial benefits for research and society. Nielsen et al. propose a framework for increased diversity not only in the composition of teams, but also in research methods and in the questions targeted by research.

Patenting and the Role of Knowledge Spillovers

This paper examines the role of public and private R&D spillovers and other determinants on the propensity to patent (whether firms engage in patenting activity) and patenting output (the number of patent applications). Knowledge spillovers are constructed based on the research profiles of businesses and public research institutions, respectively. We find that both private and public spillovers have an impact on patenting behaviour, though in opposite directions. Spillovers from business R&D have a negative impact, potentially reflecting adverse effects of rival firms’ R&D on expected returns of own patenting activity. In contrast, public spillovers are found to have a positive effect on patenting activity, possibly reflecting the value to firms’ patenting activity of basic and applied research conducted by public research institutes.