Lee, Yong-Gil*+, Chung, Yun-Chul*++ *R&D planning division, Korea Institute of Science and Technology + Researcher, ++ Director

Transcription

1 How can we drive collaborative research efficiently between Governmentsponsored Research Institutes (GRIs)? : An example to conduct vertical and horizontal collaborative research between GRIs in life science area Lee, Yong-Gil*+, Chung, Yun-Chul*++ *R&D planning division, Korea Institute of Science and Technology + Researcher, ++ Director Abstract Government-sponsored research institutes (GRIs) play an important role and occupy a strategic position in national innovation system of Korea. Especially, GRIs lead the cutting-edge research field or area such as nano- and bio, in which private firms cannot invest so much because of high cost and risk. The Korea government designed national roadmap (NTRM) to develop those technologies, which take high cost and risk, efficiently. NTRM contains the contents of key list to be developed and promotion plans year by year to In this article, we analyzed the technologies listed in NTRM, especially the list of life science area and matched the GRIs research area to NTRM. Through this matching and analysis, we suggested the proposition how to collaborate between GRIs. There could be mainly two types of collaboration patterns between GRIs. The one is vertical collaborative relationship, and the other is horizontal. Vertical collaborative relationship is formed when the cluster grouped by similarity has vertical structure. For example, the cluster related to new drug discovery and development is structured vertically. When GRIs should conduct co-research, they should consider this point. Horizontal collaborative relationship is formed when the cluster has horizontal structure. The cluster related to innovation in diagnosis and disease treatment is structured horizontally. In this case, GRIs should form horizontal relationship. In these two cases, the role of technological coordinator is important. Key words: government-sponsored research institute (GRI), national roadmap (NTRM), vertical collaborative research, horizontal collaborative research, technological coordinator 1

2 1. Introduction Government-sponsored research institutes (GRIs) play an important role and occupy a strategic position in national innovation system of Korea. Especially, GRIs lead the cutting-edge research field or area such as nano- and bio, in which private firms cannot invest, research, and develop so much because of high cost and risk of those research fields. So, the Korean government designed national roadmap (NTRM) to develop those frontier technologies, which take high cost and risk, efficiently. NTRM contains the contents of key list to be developed and promotion plans year by year to In this article, we analyzed the technologies listed in NTRM, especially the list of life science area and matched the GRIs research area to NTRM. Through this matching and analysis, we suggested the method of how to collaborate between GRIs. There could be mainly two types of collaboration patterns between GRIs. The one is vertical collaborative relationship, and the other is horizontal. Vertical collaborative relationship is formed when the cluster grouped by similarity has vertical structure. When GRIs should conduct co-research, they should consider this point. Horizontal collaborative relationship is formed when the cluster has horizontal structure. In these two cases, the role of technological coordinator is important. Especially in the vertical collaborative research, the technological coordinator should cover the whole process of development. First we would mention the theoretical background of collaborative R&D and two major types of collaborative research. Then we addressed the characteristics of life science and analyzed the research area of GRIs bases on NTRM. Next we structured the cluster and propose two types of collaboration between GRIs. 2. Collaborative R&D 2.1 Theoretical background of Collaborative R&D A large portion of the literature on collaborative research has focused on the issue of the motivation for co-operation. In view of the increasing complexity and multi-disciplinary characteristics of research, firms and institutes seek to access complementary resources outside their boundaries. It is generally known that the propensity to co-operate on R&D is higher for firms and institutes from science-based or high based sectors with relatively high R&D intensity. During 2

3 the 1980s, electronic products at the earliest stages of the life cycle exhibited a higher number of R&D alliances (Cairnaca et al., 1992). It is also known that the propensity to co-operate on R&D is higher for firms and institutes that draw the most on scientific resources to innovate. The literature on innovation and transfer has said that access is not sufficient to learn from external knowledge sources, adequate absorption capacity being a necessary complement (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989). Absorption capabilities depend on specific investment, including the existence of an R&D department and enough qualified human resources. Internal R&D capabilities have complex influences on the propensity to co-operate. On the one hand, cooperation may become necessary because internal resources are insufficient to meet the firms and institutes strategic goals. On the other hand, the existence of adequate absorption capabilities increases the returns firms and institutes can expect from access to external resources. Especially, this second effect has been found to be stronger in bio (Arora and Gambardella, 1990). It is known that the propensity to co-operate on R&D is higher for firms and institutes with stronger absorptive capabilities. Vertical R&D co-operation is more frequent than horizontal cooperation with their rivals. Horizontal co-operation with rivals is more frequent in high-tech sectors. Public research institutions do not seek commercial applications and tend to focus on the most generic or basic end of the R&D complex. Consortia involving a large number of firms, including rivals, tend to focus on this type of research and have often been supported by public funds. 2.2 Types of Collaborative R&D It is known that the propensity to co-operate on R&D is higher for firms and institutes with stronger absorptive capabilities. Vertical R&D co-operation is more frequent than horizontal cooperation with their rivals. Horizontal co-operation with rivals is more frequent in high-tech sectors. Public research institutions do not seek commercial applications and tend to focus on the most generic or basic end of the R&D complex. Consortia involving a large number of firms, including rivals, tend to focus on this type of research and have often been supported by public funds. There could be two types of collaborative research patterns between GRIs. Vertical collaborative relationship is formed when the cluster grouped by similarity has vertical structure. Horizontal collaborative relationship is formed when the cluster has horizontal structure. In these two cases, the role of technological coordinator is important. Technological coordinator plays a role like tuning the flow of the research between each research stage in vertical collaborative research. Technological coordinator also plays a role like 3

4 combining each research output in horizontal collaborative research. 3. The characteristics of R&D in life science Area: from synthetic chemistry to genetic engineering Life science is a science based research field and its basic research is closely related to applied research and development. The output of academic research could contribute directly and greatly to industrial growth. Innovation system in which the output of academic research could be used efficiently is emphasized to accelerate the technological innovation. Creative and original R&D and its results, patents occupy the key position in competing. The process is somewhat complicated, but its product is simple. The reverse engineering method by imitation is not appropriate in this field. The patents of life science are very important outputs of research behavior. In bio, generic developments such as recombinant RNA and protein synthesis technologies spawned an avalanche of new drug, chemical, and agricultural applied R&D. These and many other generic technologies constitute the building blocks for much larger applied R&D investments that develop the specific products and processes. At last, bio began to offer a new generic basis for creating vaccines. Drawing on several decades of basic research in molecular biology, a new generic was developed called genetic engineering. This makes it possible to produce just a portion of an infectious agent, which can stimulate the desired protective immune response. By using just the antigen, the danger of an actual infection is removed. Some large pharmaceutical firms have transformed their technological identity in drug discovery from a chemical, random screening to biological and drug design model. Henderson, Orsenigo & Pisano (1999) explored the changing epistemology underlying scientific method in biosciences consequent upon the emergence of bio. They called this the molecular biology revolution. This was, to some extent, predicted by Gibbons et al.(1994) as the onset of Mode 2 methods of knowledge production. Mode 2 knowledge production is networked, trans-disciplinary and reflexive compared to Mode 1 which was traditional, hierarchical, disciplinary and determinate. It is inappropriate about using an engineering template to characterize knowledge production and exploitation in life science area. The pharmaceuticals industry is, in evolutionary terms, path dependent on synthetic chemistry. Firms do not suffer the competence destroying effects of the creative destruction as much as predicted. This is because pharmaceuticals firms contain a wide variety of competences, from research to trailing and due diligence to financing, production, and marketing. Over the 4

5 twentieth century they built up global reach with respect to each of these functions, and neither universities nor the majority of DBFs can outperform each of them. However, in the allimportant R&D function it looks increasingly to be the case that essential competences are quickly being destroyed. 4. Research area analysis 4.1 Defining research area in view of National Technology Roadmap (NTRM) The background and meaning of NTRM Korean government decided to distribute limited resources efficiently through the "selection and concentration" strategy to enhance national competitiveness. It means that intensively supporting technologies, which are likely to acquire world-level superiority in competitiveness, is important. For this purpose, the government, mainly ministry of science and, analyzed industries and technological trends internally and externally, selected promising key technologies that can acquire global competitiveness based on 10 years time span, and designed national road map (NTRM) for promoting strategic research and development programs. NTRM can minimize risks through sharing information and strategies in the rapidly changing technological environments, and induce the standardization of (Ministry of Science and Technology et al., 2002). By forecasting industrial development and analyzing technological trend, NTRM proposes visions 10 years from now to enhance the national competitiveness, defines strategic technologies, and suggests a national road map for key technologies. NTRM provides guidelines for sharing strategies related to key technologies among the government and private sectors and for conducting research and development Identifying research area of Life Science in NTRM The list of Life Science in NTRM is identified as follows. 21 technologies are listed and analyzed. The 21 technologies are mainly composed of such fields as new drug discovery and development, innovation in diagnosis and disease treatment, and Technologies related to Rehabilitation. 5

6 <Table 1> The 21 key technologies in Life Science in National Technology Roadmap Technology title A Biological diagnosis B High-speed analysis system C Target recognition D Target validity verification E Candidate substance screening F Candidate substance optimization G Mass production process H Drug production I Drug delivery system J Safety, evaluation and efficacy analysis for medicine K Clinical test L Handling of biological signal process M Handling of biological image process N Body function analysis O Bio-machine/robotics P Bio materials Q Stem cell cultivation R Gene identifying and conveying S Monitoring of biological function T Bio-information creation and preservation U Bio-information utilization 4.2 Mapping the list in NTRM to GRIs research area Mainly, KRIBB (Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Bio) and KIST (Korea Institute of Science and Technology) among Public Research Institutes in Korea cover the development of the technologies in life science area. KRICT (Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology), KFRI (Korea Food Research Institute), and KIOM (Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine) cover some other fields. The mapping between PRIs research areas and technologies is as Table 2. 6

7 <Table 2> Distribution of Research Areas of 5 GRIs Technologies Government-funded Research Institutes KIST KRIBB KRICT KFRI KIOM A + ++ B C D E F G ++ + H I + J K + ++ L M N + ++ O + P Q ++ + R S T U ++ ++: More strategic research field of PRI +: Less strategic research field of PRI 5. Vertical vs horizontal collaborative research between GRIs 5.1 Vertical collaborative research Vertical collaborative relationship is formed when the cluster grouped by similarity has vertical structure. For example, the cluster related to new drug discovery and development in NTRM is structured vertically. When GRIs should conduct co-research, they should consider this point. The number of technologies related to New drug discovery and 7

8 development in NTRM is 9 and the contents are as follows. <Table 3> Technologies related to New drug discovery and development Technology title Government-funded Research Institutes KIST KRIBB KRICT KFRI KIOM C Target recognition D Target validity verification E Candidate substance screening F Candidate substance optimization G Mass production process H Drug production I Drug delivery system + 1 J Safety, evaluation and efficacy analysis for medicine K Clinical test Total # 9 technologies We can construct the cluster of New drug discovery and development as one vertical process. To discover new drugs effectively, target recognition should be conducted at first. Target recognition category contains the target recognition, and the target validity verification. Then, candidate substance should be screened. The main technologies associated with this category are candidate substance screening, candidate substance optimization, and drug delivery system. Next test should be done, and then production begins. The four processes are linked vertically. We can represent the process as Figure 1. By the way, Figure 1 also shows the main GRIs which cover the each procedure. KIST and KRIBB cover the whole vertical processes of New drug discovery and development. Other GRIs cover the field partly. To succeed in developing the new drugs, the four procedures should be conducted very efficiently and closely linked together. The vertical relationship between GRIs is accented and the R&D program should be conducted collaboratively. 8

9 <Figure1> Technology flow of New drug discovery and development Target Recognition Target recognition Target validity verification KIST, KRIBB KIST, KRIBB Candidate Substance Candidate substance screening Candidate substance optimization tech. Drug delivery system KIST, KRIBB, KRICT, KIOM KIST, KRICT KIST Test Safety, evaluation and efficacy analysis for medicine KIST, KRIBB, KRICT, KFRI, KIOM Clinical test KIST, KIOM Production Drug production Mass production process KIST, KFRI, KIOM KRIBB, KFRI * Here the underlined GRIs is more focused on the area. 9

10 5.2 Horizontal collaborative research Horizontal collaborative relationship is formed when the cluster has horizontal structure. The cluster related to innovation in diagnosis and disease treatment is structured horizontally. In this case, GRIs should form horizontal relationship. Technologies related to Innovation in diagnosis and disease treatment in NTRM are as follows. <Table 4> Technologies related to Innovation in diagnosis and disease treatment Technology title Government-funded Research Institutes KIST KRIBB KRICT KFRI KIOM A Biological diagnosis B High-speed analysis system L Handling of biological signal process 0 M Handling of biological image process 0 N Body function analysis R Gene identifying and conveying S Monitoring of biological function T Bio-information creation and preservation U Bio-information utilization ++ 2 Total # 9 technologies The technologies related to Innovation in diagnosis and disease treatment could be structured horizontally as Figure 2. It could be divided into three major categories. Each category forms the horizontal relationship. The category associated with Biological Signal contains the highspeed analysis system, handling technologies of biological signal process, and handling of biological image. The category related to Biological Function has such technologies as biological diagnosis, body function analysis, and Monitoring of biological function. The Bio-information category consists of Gene 10

11 identifying and conveying, Bio-information creation and preservation, and Bio-information utilization. Each category is structured relatively horizontally compared with the cluster of New drug discovery and development. Here, the own success in each field is more important. Then the horizontal collaborative relationship could be formed effectively. <Figure 2> Technology flow of Innovation in diagnosis and disease treatment Biological Signal High-speed analysis system KRIBB, KRICT, KFRI Handling tech. of biological signal process Handling of biological image Biological Function Biological diagnosis Body function analysis Monitoring tech. of biological function KIST, KRIBB KIST, KIOM KIST, KIOM Bio-information Gene identifying and conveying tech. Bio-information creation and preservation Bio-information utilization KRIBB, KFRI, KIOM KIST KIST, KRIBB 11

12 The list related to Rehabilitation is as follows. <Table 5> Technologies related to Rehabilitation Technology title Government-funded Research Institutes KIST KRIBB KRICT KFRI KIOM O Bio-machine/robotics + 1 P Bio materials 0 Q Stem cell cultivation Total # 3 technologies Technological coordinator in the collaborative research In these two cases, the role of technological coordinator is important. Technological coordinator plays a role like tuning the flow of the research between each research stage in vertical collaborative research. Technological coordinator also plays a role like combining each research output in horizontal collaborative research. We could picture the technological coordinator s roles as follows. <Figure 3> Technological coordinator in vertical and horizontal collaborative research A E B F Institutes Institutes C G D H 12

13 6. Conclusion Up to now, we suggest two types of collaborative research patterns between GRIs. Vertical collaborative relationship is formed when the cluster grouped by similarity has vertical structure. For example, the cluster related to new drug discovery and development is structured vertically. When GRIs should conduct co-research, they should consider this point. We could construct the cluster of New drug discovery and development as one vertical process, target recognition, candidate substance, test, and then production. The four processes are linked vertically. Among GRIs, KIST and KRIBB cover the whole vertical process of New drug discovery and development. Other GRIs cover the field partly. Horizontal collaborative relationship is formed when the cluster has horizontal structure. The cluster related to innovation in diagnosis and disease treatment is structured horizontally. It could be divided into three major categories. Each category forms the horizontal relationship. The categories are biological signal, biological function, and Bio-information. In this case, GRIs should form horizontal relationship. In these two cases, the role of technological coordinator is important. Technological coordinator plays a role like tuning the flow of the research between each research stage in vertical collaborative research. So if KIST and KRIBB could be technological coordinator, the whole process may probably be linked effectively. Technological coordinator also plays a role like combining each research output in horizontal collaborative research. References Arora, A., Gambardella, A., Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of large firms in bio. The Journal of Industrial Economics XXXVIII (June), Cairnaca, G.-C., Colombo, M., Mariotti, S., Agreements between firms and the technological life cycle model: evidence from information technologies. Research Policy 21, Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal 99,

14 Cooke, Philip, Rational drug design and the rise of bioscience megacenters. The fourth Triple Helix Conference, Copenhagen November 6-9. Cooke, Philip, Networks and hierarchies in bioscientific knowledge management. DRUID Summer Conference 2003, Copenhagen June Galambos, L., Sturchio, J., The pharmaceutical industry in the twentieth century: a reappraisal of the sources of innovation. History and Technology Vol.13 No.2, pp Gibbons, M, Limoges, H, Nowotny, S, Schwartzman, S, Scott, P & Trow, M., The New Production of Knowledge, London, Sage. Henderson, R., The evolution of integrative capabilities: innovation in cardiovascular drug discovery. Industrial and Corporate Change Vol.3, No.3, pp Henderson, R. and I. Cockburn, Scale, Scope and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery, Rand Journal of Economics Vol. 27, No.1, pp Henderson, R., Orsenigo, L., Pisano, G.P., The pharmaceutical industry and the revolution in molecular biology: exploring the interactions between scientific institutional and organizational change, In: Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R. Eds., The Sources of Industrial Leadership. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA. Jaffe, A. B., M. Trajtenberg and R. Henderson, Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations, Quarterly Journal of Economics. Lee, Se-Jun, Yoo-Hyung Won, Sung-Bae Park, Yong-Gil Lee, 2002, An Analysis of Structural Arrangement in GRI s mission and Functions. STEPI, Seoul. (Korean) Lee, Yong-Gil, Se-Jun Lee, Tai-Yoo Kim, 2003, Identification of Generic Technologies in Life Science Area: Evidence from an Institutional Level in South Korea. The 5th Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET'03), Portland, Oregon USA. July, 20~24. Luis Miotti, Frédérique Sachwald, 2003, Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An 14

15 integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy 32, pp Ministry of Science and Technology et al., 2002, National Technology Roadmap - Outline. KISTEP, Seoul. Pisano, G.P., The governance of innovation. Vertical integration and collaborative arrangements in the bio industry. Research Policy 20, Powell, W.W., Interorganizational collaboration in the bio industry. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics Vol.152, No.1, pp Powell, W.W., Doput, K.W., Smith-Doerr, L., Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in bio. Administrative Science Quarterly Vol. 41, pp Won, Yoo-Hyung, Se-Jun Lee, Yong-Gil Lee, Sung-Bae Park, How to identify the strategic research position of public laboratories in nation's innovation system? : A case from Korean government-sponsored research institutes (GRIs). The 12th International Conference on Management of Technology IAMOT 2003, Nancy, France. May, 13~15. 15