Comparing a Pharmaceutical and an Agro‐food Bioregion: On the Importance of Knowledge Bases for Socio‐spatial Patterns of Innovation

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to compare the socio‐spatial patterns of innovation and knowledge linkages of a biopharmaceutical and an agro‐food biotech cluster. Dissimilarities can be expected based on differences in terms of historical technological regimes and sectoral innovation system dynamics between the agro‐food and pharmaceutical industries in general and particularly the distinctive analytical (science‐based) knowledge base of biopharmaceuticals in contrast with the more synthetic (engineering‐based) knowledge base of agro‐food biotechnology. Drawing on bibliometric data and case material the study compares two representative bioregions: a biopharmaceutical cluster in Scania, Sweden and an agro‐food biotech cluster in Saskatoon, Canada. The empirical study supports the theoretical expectations and shows that knowledge dynamics in the agro‐food cluster are more localized than in the biopharmaceuticals cluster. It is important, however, to acknowledge that these differences are relative. Both sectors display local and non‐local patterns of collaboration following the general pattern for biotechnology.

Keywords:

• Biotechnology
• clusters
• regional innovation systems
• knowledge bases

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper has benefited from being presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the AAG (American Association of Geographers), Denver, Colorado, 5–9 April and the “Bringing Science to Life” conference held at the University of Toronto, Canada, 29 April–1 May 2005. The authors wish to thank the guest editor of this special issue, Maryann Feldman, as well as Meric Gertler, Proinnsias Breathnach and two anonymous referees for valuable comments. The maps have been developed at the Canada Rural Economy Research Lab (C‐RERL)–University of Saskatchewan. Financial support is gratefully acknowledged from the Swedish Science Council and Öforsk.

Notes

1. Previously Medicon Valley has been analyzed as a cross‐border cluster covering both the Danish and Swedish side. However, based on an analysis of intra‐regional, cross‐border publications it was concluded that the cluster is embedded in two distinct (but related) regional innovation systems (Coenen et al., 2004).

2. With respect to biological synthesis, the introduction of GMOs has led to a sharp increase in technological opportunities which are heavily debated in terms of societal impact.

3. To cater for symmetry in the comparison it would have been beneficial to compare clusters against similar territorial contexts. However, agro‐food biotechnology clusters in Europe have not reached the same level of maturity as is the case for its biopharmaceutical counterparts. This observation underpins the choice for a cross‐Atlantic comparison.

4. The patent data does not allow for this type of distinction on the level of individuals, since the inventors are listed with name and home address, not affiliation.

5. http://www.mva.org

6. Two of the firms that were excluded only had a sales department in the region while the third had no activity at all.

7. Search parameters Brassica  = rapeseed, canola and brassica. Search parameters Animal‐related  = mucosal, immunity and vaccine.

8. Search parameters Brassica lead authors/inventors = Taylor, Zhou, Potts, Rakow, Keller, Datla, Georges, Dormann, Wang, Oelck, Robert, Ripley, Abrams, Gusta and Reaney. Search parameters Animal‐related lead authors/inventors = Bolton, Fontaine, Potter, Babiuk, Rioux, Shryvers, Mittal, Khachatourians and Acres.

9. VIDO is renowned for the research, development and commercialization of products used by producers in the food animal industry and represents a unique organizational configuration. It is a non‐profit organization owned by the University of Saskatchewan, however, it is considered financially self‐reliant.