Innovation in Pharmaceutical Industry

  areas within one industry. According to some, the
One of the biotechs was Repligen, a Cambridge,science base represents a magnet for information
Massachusetts, firm (founded in 1981) that specializedtechnology and biotechnology business. Colleges and
in efforts to develop treatments for cancer anduniversities with a high rate of generating significant
inflammation, as well as AIDS. Typical in severalinnovations like University of California Medical School,
regards of the new pattern of R&D was theSan Francisco in medical research and Stanford in IT
experience of the Merck Research Laboratoriesand biotechnology, can be considered as bases upon
(MRL). While pursuing in-house research, the firm alsowhich commercialization of new knowledge is built.
worked with two biotech companies on alternativeLogically, because scientific output represents an
approaches to HIV prevention with a vaccine oreconomic value it attracts both venture capital and
treatment. Later, Merck collaborated withpharmaceutical companies who have an interest in
MedImmune, Inc., a Maryland biotech, in an attemptboth utilizing the knowledge but also protecting their
to use that firm's monoclonal antibodies as a meansinvestment by placing their managers in the start-ups
of preventing HIV infection. The Merck/Repligenor acquired firms. In addition, small companies,
combination at first produced some promising results,especially in highly knowledge-driven industries,
but neither the vaccine research nor the explorationsdepend heavily on social capital (Cooke and Wills
of monoclonal antibodies proved fruitful. Meanwhile,1999).
MRL's in-house research was successful in developingTherefore, small innovative firms benefit from
a novel antiretroviral therapy, Crixivan (indinavir).intellectual, technological and social "spillovers" based
However, some researchers remained unconvincedon network collaborations with other entrepreneurs,
with the results from such collaborations, because asother scientists, financiers and companies in the same
Galambos and Sturchio assert, “large pharma hasindustry and with comparable mindsets to
no real absorptive capacity to completely benefitthemselves. Unlike Galambos and Sturchio or other
from a strategy of merging with dedicatedopposing specialists, Teece in regard to biochemical
biotechnology firms”.industry offered a term of “strategic alliances”
Opposing to the view of Galambos and Sturchio,or alliances in which both parties, in this case large
other experts present several reasons to why largepharmaceutical company and start-up research
corporations successfully collaborate in innovationlaboratory share their complementary assets.