Eliminating barriers to biotech research and development is key to innovation
Naczyk 21 Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford Naczyk's research is at the crossroads of social policy, comparative political economy and international political economy. He is a graduate of Sciences Po Paris and received his DPhil in politics from the University of Oxford in 2013. He is also a research associate at the Centre d'etudes europeennes, Sciences Po Paris (Marek Naczyk, 2021, “The Sputnik V moment: Biotech, biodefense and COVID-19 vaccines in Russia’s national security state,” European University institute, https://elsevier-ssrn-document-store-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/21/11/18/ssrn_id3966243_code4834551.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEDgaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIH%2BzIUPSkyBnfbOHu34zdimmVzpa%2FOAf76xUb%2FCv7DNcAiATZT9SNan05v%2FcBA5pSmo7xcR91f%2FDL75eD8GvGG0zzirHBQjh%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAQaDDMwODQ3NTMwMTI1NyIMlSePQx5lsKF%2Fyb9MKpsFryiuALsTFcea09vFuB6VyegO1kGNBTA1S7DIksWYEQESboJzTEgXfZgP27w7PFBwBBQGM1%2F3R2GobraVRBVHW7faNKZ70pqTs9gKWwOzX1Gdq59DfTb5I7ULhzFr0JBh46eml77jxT96zjFStcJodp8aRvga%2FmjGbqBiDDcAFcYGcQ5GYJXc7a2k4WOYT4GjxCnPkRN591HOW%2BzrgpO4En9Uu6HGgowP4L4bAPX%2BMHXkUio8lujwpTpTF5kMJSQdYuKltPS2spwfj%2B8vT3tg1sxg7KFG97lMAsfxPTARq95t2LVIAL72cDpFIxI8UM7I5IPiH2mIn5%2FQrX%2BTnZ99D9uDUp0D%2F5%2FtMmuyJ4fkA6NOLKHfige1uZrxbYlPPJErlZwZZEoq35mR15CqneHHSOXs43GOQYArC0X2AEJjHSRPAXcsL5NnbnX00ndG1AQHKfAQjBc4WjF7YQmAVCHjZ7tcS%2B%2BmGV440RQaUUO2LC9fHy90M633DVMwdI1qmqO2KObqJUQhlWUn9oTkzwmd5UtRh%2BBRK448mmfc53bu8TLVvBtxwTLV15OEe2wUaQZ%2Ftbj%2Fij3bErJDhRkme48o3ycq44rgQzxE1mlHw4LQ8IfCqw9Ykssafkq74fkzq92%2B5fAn1TV08yNGZEe8xdcV1TR4YFM82YO6kRx5SlBuVsv6tbw7EPsdQ5o0WzGwwuMCChdOuQOOV87Mp1PyzWyqbPB%2F8L0jy%2FuOjhaH9lXd6rgvX%2BMqlkhlQnRwbXPcNoPzZkCtFbdI2b%2FNn9G6YtFm23cYuGWDkH%2FFcgptC48gFEHjwQnJ86ez9rq8XaE%2FWmQhxw08n%2BJjKcuM7TIP53gq69wkbufYUeW9r15nrFY5jOVn7xNpJyQIaac%2BXDCtz%2FKzBjqyAZwQW2TP29uJo7ZWt%2BTIOxVsTraT7RRKJ%2FUHcAB5W9LtpNcyzi8aoXtrrkqiH7sZaWEr66EzlGhomtlUrfjNzeA2Q199NOZYQqJgTO6sT%2BUEVXacZUPvYLKkbiM5tvWjbA96ea3gqNx9vq9nuFYOH%2FiJoIVssq3dtbNZlO8uJakOL8xhJReIs%2BpKSsTHUgtGNFOTI0zB53m1OUWFMRRZAK1N%2BuIellvctV8o4HElI4tOEuw%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20240627T005513Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAUPUUPRWESK4JN5ZY%2F20240627%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=f26307822fa526ed5015dbca5ad6fec4d6d5145e501271b67bba7511ff436e31)
Governments have created various types of developmental arrangements that have effectively tried to address the “three challenges” characterizing biotechnology: “first, accessing a science base that generates new knowledge and intellectual property; second, obtaining early funding for the timely development of a viable product; and third, navigating commercial and regulatory demands in taking the product to market” (Gilding et al, 2020). One typical policy instrument that potentially provides a – partial – solution to all three challenges is the creation of incubators and technology/science parks around universities or other types of research institutions. Such parks not only facilitate the diffusion of scientific knowledge and the creation of university spin-offs, but they also typically establish an administrative infrastructure that offers support to entrepreneurial researchers in, for example, finding seed funding for the commercialization of their research findings or in designing business plans and accessing management consultancy services to help them take their product to market (e.g. Casper, 2000; Chiaroni and Chiesa, 2006; Zhang, Cooke and Wu, 2011). Another widely used strategy to address the second challenge identified above has been to get states involved in venture capital either through direct state provision of venture capital funds or, increasingly, through the creation (state-owned) funds of (privately owned) venture capital funds (Klingler-Vidra 2018).
State support for biotechnology has also been shown to have been a key success factor in the rise of the national biotech industry that is widely considered as the leading one in the world, namely American biotech (Block, 2008, pp. 176-178; Mazzucato, 2015, chapter 3). A key role here has been played by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a medical research agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), that has not only massively funded – public and private – research on genetic engineering, but has also lobbied policymakers to eliminate any regulatory barriers that might prevent scientists from pursuing research in this area (Ibid.). Although Block’s and Mazzucato’s analyses would suggest that the US’s developmentalism in the biotech area has been driven by public health concerns, Linda Weiss (2014) – who characterizes the US as a “national security state” pursuing perpetual innovation for military preparedness instead of using Block’s concept of a “hidden developmental state” or Mazzucato’s notion of the “entrepreneurial state” – has suggested that a more important driver has been security considerations.