Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Regenerative Medicine Venturing at the University-Industry Boundary: Implications for Institutions, Entrepreneurs, and Industry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cardiac Extracellular Matrix

Part of the book series: Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology ((AEMB,volume 1098))

Abstract

Regenerative medicine research at university laboratories has outpaced commercial activity. Legal, regulatory, funding, technological, and operational uncertainty have slowed market entry of regenerative medicine treatments. As a result, commercial development has often been led by entrepreneurial ventures rather than large biopharma firms. Translating regenerative medicine across the university-industry boundary links academic scientists, technology transfer organizations, funders, and entrepreneurs. Conflicting motivations among the participants may significantly hinder these efforts. Unproven downstream business models for regenerative medicine delivery further complicate the entrepreneurial process. This chapter explores the challenges associated with entrepreneurial activity commercializing regenerative medicine science developed at research institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is, unfortunately, impossible to quickly recapitulate the organizational literature on business models and how they function. Interested readers are directed to the following for an introduction to business models in theory and practice [9, 25, 44, 71, 72].

  2. 2.

    Full disclosure: Adam J. Bock, Eric Schmuck, Amish Raval, and Peiman Hematti are the co-founders of Cellular Logistics. Data collection and analysis for this mini-case were implemented by David Johnson who has no relationship to the company.

References

  1. Aboody K, Capela A, Niazi N, Stern JH, Temple S. Translating stem cell studies to the clinic for CNS repair: current state of the art and the need for a Rosetta Stone. Neuron. 2011;70(4):597–613.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Afuah A, Tucci CL. Internet business models and strategies: text and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amit R, Zott C. Value creation in e-business. Strateg Manag J. 2001;22(6/7):493–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barringer BR, Ireland D. Entrepreneurship: successfully launching new ventures. Saddleback: Prentice-Hall Pearson; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baumol WJ. Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive and destructive. J Polit Econ. 1990;98:893–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bergman K, Graff GD. The global stem cell patent landscape: Implications for efficient technology transfer and commercial development. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:419–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bernardo A, Welch I. On the evolution of overconfidence and entrepreneurs. J Econ Manag Strateg. 2001;10(3):301–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bigliardi B, Nosella A, Verbano C. Business models in Italian biotechnology industry: A quantitative analysis. Technovation. 2005;25(11):1299–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bock AJ, George G. The business model book: design, build and adapt business ideas that thrive. Harlow: Pearson; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bock AJ, Johnson D. Entrepreneurial ecosystems: fixing the triple helix. Eur Bus Rev, November–December. 2015;73–76.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bock AJ, Johnson D. A comparative study of ecosystem development in regenerative medicine. In: Phan P, editor. Academic entrepreneurship: translating discoveries to the marketplace. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2016. p. 218–50.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Bock AJ, Johnson D. The uniqueness of stem cell ecosystems: lessons in matching local culture. Coller Venture Rev. 2016;4:42–53.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bock AJ. Technology transfer. In: Marvel, editor. Encyclopedia of new venture management. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bock AJ, Opsahl T, George G, Gann DM. The effects of culture and structure on strategic flexibility during business model innovation. J Manag Stud. 2012;49(2):279–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Breznitz SM, Feldman MP. The larger role of the university in economic development: Introduction to the special issue. J Technol Transf. 2012;37(2):135–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Byrne O, Shepherd DA. Different strokes for different folks: entrepreneurial narratives of emotion, cognition and making sense of business failure. Entrep Theory Pract. 2013;39(2):375–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Calderini M, Franzoni C, Vezzulli A. If star scientists do not patent: The effect of productivity, basicness and impact on the decision to patent in the academic world. Res Policy. 2007;36(3):303–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cyranoski D. Patients seek stem-cell compensation. Nature.com, July 6, 2012. 2012. Accessed online on 17 Sept 2012 at http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/patients-seek-stem-cell-compensation.html.

  19. Denoon A, Vollebregt E. Can regenerative medicine save Big Pharma’s business model from the patent cliff? Regen Med. 2010;5(5):687–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Etzkowitz H. The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Res Policy. 1998;27(8):823–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Feldman M, Feller I, Bercovitz J, Burton R. Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Manag Sci. 2002;48(1):105–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fink DW. FDA regulation of stem cell–based products. Science. 2009;324(5935):1662–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Frangioni JV. The impact of greed on academic medicine and patient care. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26(5):503–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. George G, Bock AJ. Inventing entrepreneurs. Saddleback: Prentice Hall Pearson; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  25. George G, Bock AJ. The business model in practice and its implications for entrepreneurship research. Entrep Theory Pract. 2011;35:83–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. George G, Bock AJ. Models of opportunity. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  27. George G, Kotha R, Zheng Y. Entry into insular domains. A longitudinal study of knowledge structuration and innovation in biotechnology firms. J Manag Stud. 2008;45(8):1448–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Giebel LB. Stem cells – A hard sell to investors. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23(7):798–800.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Graham R. Creating university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems: evidence from emerging world leaders. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Report; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Heirman A, Clarysse B. How and why do research-based start-ups differ at founding? A resource-based configurational perspective. J Technol Transf. 2004;29(3–4):247–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hill CWL, Rothaermel FT. The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Acad Manage Rev. 2003;28(2):257–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. ISIS Innovation website, Oxford University. Accessed on 14 Sept 2012 at http://www.isis-innovation.com/about/index.html.

  33. Jain S, George G, Maltarich M. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Res Policy. 2009;38(6):922–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Johnson D, Bock AJ. Coping with uncertainty: entrepreneurial sensemaking in regenerative medicine venturing. J Technol Transf. 2017;42(1):33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Knight FH. Risk, uncertainty and profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ledford H. In search of a viable business model. Nature Reports Stem Cells, October 30, 2012. 2008. Accessed online on 17 Sept 2012 at http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2008/0810/081030/full/stemcells.2008.138.html.

  37. Markides C, Charitou CD. Competing with dual business models: A contingency approach. Acad Manag Perspect (1993–2005). 2004;18:22–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mason C, Brown R. Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth entrepreneurship. Background paper prepared for the workshop organised by the OECD LEED Programme and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs on entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth orientated entrepreneurship, The Hague, Netherlands, 7th November 2013. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  39. McCormick JB, Owen-Smith J, Scott CT. Distribution of human embryonic stem cell lines: who, when, and where. Cell Stem Cell. 2009;4(2):107–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. McKernan R, McNeish J, Smith D. Pharma’s developing interest in stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2010;6(6):517–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Menzel MP, Fornahl D. Cluster life cycles-dimensions and rationales of cluster evolution. Ind Corp Chang. 2010;19(1):205–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Miner AS, Eesely DT, DeVaughn M, Rura T. The magic beanstalk vision of university venture formation. In: The Entrepreneurship dynamic: origins of entrepreneurship and its role in industry creation and evolution. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nature Biotechnology. “Burning Bridges” – Editorial. 2007. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Nosella A, Petroni G, Verbanoc C. Characteristics of the Italian biotechnology industry and new business models: the initial results of an empirical study. Technovation. 2005;25(8):841–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. O'Connor S. The use of MTAs to control commercialization of stem cell diagnostics and therapeutics. Berkeley Technol Law J. 2006;21(3):1017–54.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Patzelt H, Knyphausen-Aufsess DZ, Nikol P. Top management teams, business models, and performance of biotechnology ventures: an upper echelon perspective. Br J Manag. 2008;19(3):205–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Perkel JM. The evolving regenerative medicine business model: concept and funding. Harvard Stem Cell Institute. 2011. Accessed online Sept 2012 at http://www.stembook.org/node/713.

  48. Porter M. The competitive advantage of nations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press; 1990.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Porter ME. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Adm Sci Q. 1996;41(1):116–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Resnik D. Commercialization of human stem cells: ethical and policy issues. Health Care Anal. 2002;10:127–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rockoff J, Tam PW. Biotech funding gets harder to find. Wall Street J, March 16, 2012. 2012. Accessed online on 17 Sept 2012 at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203961204577267814201399918.html.

  53. Rothaermel FT, Thursby M. Incubator firm failure or graduation?: the role of university linkages. Res Policy. 2005;34(7):1076–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Scott C, Huggett B. Geron’s quixotic fate. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30:497.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Siegel DS, Phan PH. Analyzing the effectiveness of university technology transfer: implications for entrepreneurship education. In: Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation & Economic Growth, vol. 16; 2005. p. 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Siegel DS, Veugelers R, Wright M. Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxf Rev Econ Policy. 2007;23(4):640–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Siegel DS, Waldman DA, Atwater LE, Link AN. Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. J Eng Technol Manag. 2004;21(1–2):115–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Speser PL. The art and science of technology transfer. Hoboken: Wiley; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Stam E. Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. Eur Plan Stud. 2015;23(9):1759–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Stevenson HH, Jarillo JC. A paradigm of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial management. Strateg Manag J. 1990;11(5):17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Taylor L. Stem cell market growth “facing thorny challenges.” PharmaTimes online, June 18, 2012. 2012. Accessed on 17 Sept 20012 at http://www.pharmatimes.com/article/12-06-18/Stem_cell_market_growth_facing_thorny_challenges.aspx.

  62. Tripsas M. Unravelling the process of creative destruction: complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strateg Manag J. 1997;18(S1):119–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Trounson A, Thakar RG, Lomax G, Gibbons D. Clinical trials for stem cell therapies. BMC Med. 2011;9:52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. U.S. Code. Title 35, Part 2, Chapter 18. 1980. Accessed online at http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/35C18.txt.

  65. Van Looy B, Callaert J, Debackere K. Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Res Policy. 2006;35(4):596–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. WARF. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation website. 2012. Accessed at http://www.warf.org/news/index.jsp?cid=20.

  67. WiCell. 2012. WiCell website accessed at http://www.wicell.org/home/about-wicell/about-wicell.cmsx on 1-November 2012.

  68. Willemstein L, van der Valk T, Meeus MTH. Dynamics in business models: an empirical analysis of medical biotechnology firms in the Netherlands. Technovation. 2007;27(4):221–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Wolfinger NH, Mason MA, Goulden M. Stay in the game: gender, family formation and alternative trajectories in the academic life course. Soc Forces. 2009;87(3):1591–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Zucker LG, Darby MR. Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1996;93(23):12709–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Teece DJ. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010;43(2–3):172–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Zott C, Amit R, Massa L. The business model: recent developments and future research. J Manag. 2011;37(4):1019–42.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Adam J. Bock

  2. Edinburgh Napier University Business School, Edinburgh, UK

    David Johnson

Authors
  1. Adam J. Bock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam J. Bock .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Eric G. Schmuck

  2. School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Peiman Hematti

  3. School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Amish N. Raval

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bock, A.J., Johnson, D. (2018). Regenerative Medicine Venturing at the University-Industry Boundary: Implications for Institutions, Entrepreneurs, and Industry. In: Schmuck, E., Hematti, P., Raval, A. (eds) Cardiac Extracellular Matrix. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 1098. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97421-7_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation