Innovation systems based on life sciences: towards a study by means of constructive approaches.

SUMMARY

This paper discusses innovation processes based on life sciences, paying special attention to their relevance for underdeveloped countries. The concept of bio-innovation systems is proposed and some of its specific traits in Southern countries are highlighted. A methodological proposal for the study of innovation systems is sketched: the 'constructive approach' builds a comprehensive picture from different blocks, selected to take into account the most important variables of each system, that can differ from one reality to the other. This approach is applied to bio-innovation systems and exemplified by the Uruguayan case.

KEYWORDS

innovation systems; economic development; life sciences; constructive approach; bio-innovation; case study

INTRODUCTION

Very different characterisations and definitions of National System of Innovation (NSI) have been given since the concept was introduced during the 1980s. One of them, due to Christopher Freeman (1987: 1) describes a NSI as 'the network of institutions in the public and private sectors whose activities and interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new technologies'. The term 'new technologies' is not without ambiguity. On the one hand, technological novelties can only be considered in a given context (Kelly et al., 1990: 21): some concrete thing is new for some actor but perhaps not for another. On the other hand, 'new technologies' refers to a set of knowledge in a permanent state of transformation, which is consequently new for everybody. In this second sense the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are generically 'new', although some of its concrete examples may not be new for a given country or firm. The same can be said concerning other technologies--new materials, new types of energy, biotechnology--usually included under the label 'new technologies'. What keeps new these technologies is its close relationship with research--by definition, a source of novelty--and, also, that those who want to interact with such technologies need to become familiar with their scientific base. Quoting Freeman again:

... what is at issue is the ability of a national

science and technology system to make use of

the results of world science to advance national

technology. It is certainly the case that it is

impossible to understand and assimilate new

advances in many branches of science without

an active participation in the world scientific

community. Moreover, it is also the case that

the interdependence of science and technology

is increasing and some of the most important

generic new technologies are intimately related

to basic science. (Id.: 30)

From an economic and social perspective, the importance of a given technology is associated to its possibilities as a factor of technological convergence (Rosenberg, 1976). In some cases the technological convergence is embodied in an artefact--the steam engine for example--or in a family of artefacts, as the capital goods sector. In other cases, the convergence stems from a trend in technical change that is associated with a given family of scientific principles, which is clearly the case concerning biotechnology or new materials. In the 1960s Rosenberg wrote about the technological convergence generated by machine tools in the USA during the period 1840-1910; his paper ended by asking if new such processes were taking place and, in particular, if the chemical and electronic industries would have during the 20th century a similar role (Rosenberg, 1976). Today that role is evident in the case of the set of technologies characterised by a cognitive base closely associated with life sciences.

Scientific understanding of the basic mechanisms of life at the more micro level has grown quickly; such mechanisms can be the direct targets of interventions with the tools of genetic engineering; thus, an incalculably vast and diversified field has been open to innovation. Similar principles are applied for innovative tasks that are so diverse that perhaps their only common point is that they all aim at transforming living matter. The scope of this technological convergence is probably beyond present foresight capabilities. Thus there exists some support for the following conjecture: the advancement of knowledge in the biological field during the last decades has provided a new base for convergent transformations in the production of goods and services that may be conceptualised as the emergence of bio-innovation systems.

Life sciences and related technologies are increasingly relevant in the production and distribution of knowledge, as well as in the associated power relations, risks and conflicts. Innovation processes are consequently profoundly modified. In fact, among the different factors that shape the social processes of technical change, an important one is given by the specific characteristics of the technologies that, in each case, have more deep and wide influence.

Such trends are especially important for countries in the 'South'; both threats and opportunities stem from the changes in innovation processes related with life sciences; in particular, the orientation of innovation, its financial basis and the social appropriation of its results will have lasting consequences for those countries. Life sciences seem to be called to change deeply the conditions of agrarian production, on which underdeveloped countries are usually heavily dependent. Now, technical change in agriculture has a well known 'local' character, stemming from contextual influences; thus, the presence or absence of endogenous innovative capabilities can be highly correlated with successes and failures of innovations. Concerning health, new terrible maladies have appeared, while others that seemed eradicated have re-appeared; their incidence in poor regions is apparent. From this point of view, innovation based on life sciences is most urgent, strategic and, also, highly specific. So those sciences have an important potential, both to contribute to a better quality of life and to make life even harder. Besides that, they show in the South another relevant characteristic: their cognitive base is usually stronger than in the case of other scientific disciplines. In Latin America, for example, every indicator shows the life sciences as the queens of academic research (see for example Cetto and Vessuri, 1998); something similar can be said concerning applications based on them.

In the general context so briefly summarised up to now, this paper aims to comment three related aspects. First, the case of the life sciences will be discussed from a point of view that can be called 'Innovation as seen from the South'. Second, an approximation to the study of Innovation Systems by means of 'constructive approaches' will be sketched. Then, as an example, the Bio-Innovation System of Uruguay will be considered.

INNOVATION AND BIO-INNOVATION SYSTEMS AS SEEN FROM THE SOUTH

Aspects of the NIS conceptualisation that are highlighted by a Southern point of view

We are interested in studying techno-productive change based in life sciences, in a context endowed with a certain degree of regional specificity, be it at a local, sub-national, national or even supra-national level. Thus, innovation is what is new for the region under consideration; moreover, the problems of diffusion within the same region deserve special attention. So, strictly speaking, our subject is defined by the innovation and diffusion systems based on life sciences.

Considered from the South, such statement poses per se a problem: is it reasonably to assume, when considering a given region, that a 'system' necessarily exists? The National System of Innovation approach (initially considered in papers that include Freeman 1987, Andersen and Lundvall 1988, Lundvall 1988) has been elaborated in the North, stemming from the analysis of real processes that, on the whole, show a remarkable systemic character. Thus, it can be said that the NSI concept has been built as an ex post concept. On the contrary, the application of that concept in the South has rather an ex ante character: in general, we don't find innovation 'systems', in the strict meaning of this concept (Arocena and Sutz, 2000). Nevertheless, that does not mean that such approach should be dismissed. On the contrary: a main purpose for this line of research is precisely to analyse the extent up to which innovation systems exist or may exist in peripheral countries.

A second question related with our subject is the following: can we speak of a normative referent for innovation systems? Edquist (1997: 20) says that the notion of an 'optimum' is absent from the NSI approach, so real systems cannot be compared with some ideal one, and it is not possible to say that a specific NSI behaves 'well' or 'badly'. When this issue is considered from the South, it is clear that we should not look for an ideal model, but it is also clear that there are 'better' and 'worse' behaviours. As Albert Hirschman taught, a key problem in underdevelopment is the incapability to use, for development purposes, the strengths that exist in a given society. Such assertion, translated to the 'NSI language', speaks about absences of articulations, of low relational density: a NSI is getting 'better' when it helps to identify and strengthen existing innovative capabilities, by means of multiple interactions between actors and organisations.