Technological cooperation network in biotechnology: Analysis of patents with Brazil as the priority country

Pereira, Cristiano Goncalves; da Silva, Rodrigo Ribeiro; Lavoie, João Ricardo; Porto, Geciane Silveira Article Technological cooperation network in biotechnology: Analysis of patents with Brazil as the priority country Innovation & Management Review Provided in Cooperation with: University of São Paulo, School of Economics, Management, Accounting and Actuarial Sciences (FEA-USP) Suggested Citation: Pereira, Cristiano Goncalves; da Silva, Rodrigo Ribeiro; Lavoie, João Ricardo; Porto, Geciane Silveira (2018) : Technological cooperation network in biotechnology: Analysis of patents with Brazil as the priority country, Innovation & Management Review, ISSN 2515-8961, Emerald, Bingley, Vol. 15, Iss. 4, pp. 416-434, https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-07-2018-0050 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/231596 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Technological cooperation network in biotechnology Analysis of patents with Brazil as the priority country Cristiano Goncalves Pereira and Rodrigo Ribeiro Da Silva Departamento de Administração, Universidade de Sao Paulo Faculdade de Economia Administracao e Contabilidade de Ribeirao Preto, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil João Ricardo Lavoie Engineering and Technology Management, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA, and Geciane Silveira Porto Departamento de Administração, Universidade de Sao Paulo Faculdade de Economia Administracao e Contabilidade de Ribeirao Preto, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil Abstract Purpose –The establishment of partnerships between companies, government and universities aims to enhance innovation and the technological development of institutions. The biotechnology sector has grown in recent years mainly driven by its cooperative business model. Compared to other countries, this sector is slowly advancing in Brazil, with delays in science, technology and innovation, especially in the private sector. This paper aims to examine, through social network analysis, the collaborative networks between institutions that filed patents in biotechnology –medicinal preparations from plants –whose inventions had Brazil as the priority country. Design/methodology/approach –The study of technological cooperation using patent documents is a reliable approach as they serve as good indicators of the interactions between organizations that focus on innovation and development of new product. Social network analysis of cooperation networks helps to understand the connections between patent assignees, and how they establish relationships. Findings –Results show that public universities are the institutions that most deposit patents, as well as those that co-operate the most, especially Universidade of Campinas. The study also reveals the critical role of Research Support Agencies in stimulating research and technological development, which result in new technologies. © Cristiano Gonçalves Pereira. Rodrigo Ribeiro da Silva, João Ricardo Lavoie and Geciane Silveira Porto. Published in Innovation & Management Review. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode The authors thank the financial support obtained from São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) grant number 2014/22500-8, 2012/22686-9 and 2015/13816-4; and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) grant number BEX13297/13-9. Conflict of interest: There is no conflict of interest. INMR 15,4 416 Received 25 October 2017 Accepted 14 August 2018 Innovation & Management Review Vol. 15 No. 4, 2018 pp. 416-434 Emerald Publishing Limited 2515-8961 DOI 10.1108/INMR-07-2018-0050 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/2515-8961.htm Originality/value –The study applied the social network analysis to provide an overview of the interactions among Brazilian institutions with the purpose of helping in decision-making and inciting public policies to leverage the biotechnology sector. Keyword Social network analysis Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2008), innovative potential depends on how knowledge progresses and on the structure of connections of each country’s National Innovation System (NIS). In this regard, the importance of establishing partnerships between companies, government and universities, aiming to enhance technological innovation, has been discussed and emphasized over the years in studies that address NIS (Freeman, 1995;Nelson and Rosenberg, 1993;Lundvall, 1992), open innovation (OI; Chesbrough, 2003) and, more recently, the joint-product orientation (Foray and Lissoni, 2010). In an NIS, the innovative process occurs through the flow of technology and information between the actors of this system, who can be individuals, companies, universities, governments and research institutes, among others. Regarding the same issue, the triple helix innovation model is based on the relationship between government, industry and university. The latter is the driver of connections with the production sector of goods and services, represented by industry and with the government, which regulates economic activity (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 1996). On the other hand, OI stresses the ability of organizations to effectively articulate the use of their internal and external resources, such as ideas, skills, projects, infrastructure, technologies and capital (Rogbeer et al.,2014). Therefore, this model requires organizations to open their borders to enable innovations from internal and external combinations of resources, in view of two main objectives: to absorb external assets and to allow the licensing of the internal means that the firm will not use, avoiding the loss of investments already made (Chesbrough, 2003). Yet, Foray and Lissoni (2010) present a proposal for the management of research, development and innovation (R&D&I), where they replace the vertical structure (by-product orientation), by a shared vocation, the joint-product. This view considers that products with shared technology achieve better results in terms of sales, in addition to lower R&D costs and risks. The development process must be shared with the most competent actors since the beginning, by involving companies and universities to shape strategic relationship networks. The determinants of a stronger cooperation between institutions, as well as their beneficial effects for innovation, are well established in the literature. However, more studies are necessary to improve the visualization and interpretation of these relationships, allowing the identification of the main actors and those more prone to establish partnerships, as well as the dynamics of collaboration between institutions over time. The innovation process is complex, and the way actors interact with each other can define the result of the cooperative effort. As interactions between institutions to achieve innovative results shape a network structure, a valuable tool for understanding and better viewing cooperation between firms, government and universities is to use the metrics and concepts of social network analysis (SNA). This study, in addition to presenting SNA’s methodological features to measure cooperation between institutions, examines a sample of cooperative projects on medical preparations that contain products of plant origin, which resulted in joint technological development with patent applications, where Brazil is the first country of deposit. The basis Brazil as the priority country 417 of the study is the success of the new business model, flexible and open to partnerships, which the biotechnology sector has taken advantage of in the recent years. It focuses on a specific segment related to herbal products with medical and cosmetic application that were first protected in Brazil. This is a relevant topic as the variety of Brazilian biomes reflects the enormous richness of the country’sflora and fauna, which houses the largest biodiversity in the planet. The country owns about 20 per cent of the world’s biodiversity, and the largest regarding plants, with more than 50,000 listed species of trees and bushes. Higher plants, although better indexed, are still far from a reliable total count, and there are estimates that 10 per cent of the Brazilian species have not yet been cataloged (Lewinsohn et al.,2001). This paper presents an analysis of the global scenario of these patents with the evolution of filings over the last 20 years, the main inventors and the kinds of actors –companies, universities and research institutes. It also shows the profile of the partnerships between institutions and highlights the main patent holders with technological capability to generate inventions that adopt the collaborative R&D business model. Following the introduction, the structure of the article consists of a theoretical background on the positive aspects of establishing cooperation, and the importance of adopting SNA for its study. In sequence, we present the methodological approach used in the study, the results and discussion and at the end, the conclusions and future perspectives. 2. Literature review 2.1 Technological cooperation networks to foster innovation Collaborative R&D efforts for new technologies are common in several companies and sectors, and their relevance to the innovation and technological development has been highlighted under different views. Crespo et al. (2015) argue that the knowledge built over the years through R&D management studies proves the importance of collaborations, which lead to higher capacity for innovation and growth. Geum et al. (2013) observe that the benefits of collaborative efforts are evident and stem from the use of external knowledge, which results in diversification of technological skills and increases the pace of production of new technologies. In a recent study, Su (2017) drew on the phenomenon of economic globalization to investigate the interdependency between R&D global partners, pointing to the relevance of international partnerships, which would increase the creation and flow of knowledge, along with the expansion of potential applications of the developed technologies. Mitze et al. (2015) conducted a survey in Germany to measure R&D performance in small and medium companies; they concluded that the most important R&D performance indicators are higher in organizations that make collaborative efforts, in comparison to those that do not conduct them. Spanos et al. (2015) also used surveys to investigate the impact of R&D partnerships funded by governments on the innovation of products and processes, as well as on the inimitability of technologies; they concluded that companies that cooperate show a better performance. Masum et al. (2013) suggest ten rules that should be applied for the effective execution of collaborative R&D and open innovation, suggesting that such efforts can help minimize the two main problems of technological development: the complexity and high costs of applying scientific developments to produce changes and social advances. According to the literature review, globalization is one of the big reasons collaborations have become more important and attractive, especially since the culture of foreign direct investment intensified, as of the 1990s (Su, 2017). Regardless of the advantages that literature associates with collaborations, one of the major challenges is the correct identification and selection of partners (Geum et al.,2013), and there is evidence that partnerships between private companies and universities have the INMR 15,4 418 highest potential to achieve good results (Mitze et al., 2015). As for the information used in studies of collaborative networks, bibliographic data (Geum et al.,2013) and patent data (Crespo et al.,2015;Mitze et al.,2015;Su, 2017) prevail. Although still not as plentiful as abroad, Brazilian studies on collaborative networks and on cooperation in R&D activities are growing in national literature. Alonso-Arroyo et al. (2016) conducted a survey to analyze research collaborations between Brazilian and Spanish institutions in the medical sector, through bibliometric analysis. They concluded that the amount spent on collaborative research as well as the number of collaborations have increased significantly in Brazil, either through partnerships with European and Latin American countries or with the USA. Another study used SNA to investigate scientific cooperation in nanotechnology in the agricultural sector, and observed a strong integration between Brazilian researchers in this area (Campos et al., 2017). A study leaded by de Sousa et al. (2015) observed that R&D collaborations improve the flow of knowledge which positively influence the performance of Brazilian industrial firms as well as the rate of success in product innovation. They further expanded the analysis and concluded that collaborative efforts between private companies and public sector organizations bring economic benefits by stimulating the country’s growth and improving the performance of the national innovation system. Gomes Costa et al. (2018) examined the curricula of researchers, between 1980 and 2010, to investigate scientific collaborations in biotechnology in Northeastern Brazil. They observed the formation of some collaboration clusters (based on geographic proximity and laboratory infrastructure), although with a stronger emphasis on intra-institutional partnerships. The literature on R&D collaborative networks in biotechnology shows that all the advantages of cooperation mentioned before apply to this sector. In addition, owing to their own features, collaborations for scientific and technological development in this field have an even more relevant role as they focus on knowledge and innovation; therefore, companies that make alliances for technological development are more likely to get patents (Al-Laham et al.,2011). Regarding intellectual property policies, Stevens et al. (2016) noticed that there is a strong trend in the biotechnology sector to use public–private partnerships (PPPs) to develop better therapies. Chen and Lin (2016) concluded that biotechnology companies should maintain partnerships with universities to increase their innovation capabilities and improve the marketing of new products. After examining potential trading strategies for biotechnology products, Fernald et al. (2015) mention three types of collaborations used in this sector: (1) informal interactions and knowledge transfer within clusters; (2) intellectual property licensing and collaboration agreements; and (3) acquisition of small companies that hold intellectual property. Other studies restate the advantages of collaborative efforts for this sector. Such collaborations would be advantageous for companies by bringing faster advances to technological development (Eslami et al.,2013), by providing start-up companies with the necessary expertise to market their products (Fernald et al.,2015) and by facilitating the transfer and absorption of skills that result in innovations and new products (Al-Laham et al., 2011). Collaborations are important for biotechnology owing to the multidisciplinary profile of this sector: they involve multiple institutions of different kinds (Powell et al.,1999); they facilitate the flow of information between the participating organizations (Hazir and AutantBernard, 2014); and they allow access to external knowledge, which is an efficient way to Brazil as the priority country 419 achieve strategic competitiveness (Al-Laham et al.,2011). In addition, collaborations in biotechnology result in better products, more innovation and lower risk of development (Kamuriwo and Baden-Fuller, 2016) and the increase in knowledge flow from cooperation efforts may be an advantage for companies of this and other high-tech sectors (D’Amore et al.,2013). 2.2 Social networks analysis related to cooperation studies SNA is considered an appropriate method to view the relationships between network participants, and has gained relevance in scientific articles (Su, 2017), with applications in several cases (Chen and Lin, 2016;D’Amore et al.,2013;Schiffauerova and Beaudry, 2012). In SNA, the network is a non-linear, decentralized, flexible, dynamic structure, with undefined boundaries, self-organizing, established through horizontal relations of cooperation (Borgatti and Halgin, 2011;Tomaél et al.,2006). Nodes, also called actors, spots or vertices, are the discrete units that connect to each other through their intrinsic attributes, previously defined by the researcher. Their study stems from the analysis of the relationship between these nodes, also called a link or arch. Such relationships can be divided into directed, where actors either transmit or receive connections, and nondirected, where they carry out the two functions simultaneously. Among the studies that investigated the results of R&D&I through network analysis, two main areas of application stand out. One aimed at understanding how networks can affect economic activity, such as R&D and patenting in an industry; and the other focused on the ability to reveal the process of networks formation and their influence on a particular topic. Cantner and Graf (2006) applied SNA to describe the evolution of the innovation network in Germany between 1995 and 2001; Owen et al. (2012) focused on R&D cooperation by comparing the organization of scientific research in the USA and Europe through network analysis. A second set of papers shows the use of SNA to study the relationship between common academic inventors in patenting processes, with a focus on different technological categories (Balconi, et al., 2004). Paci and Batteta (2003) investigated localized transfer of knowledge and examined technological networks represented by patent citation flows in different sectors. Studies on collaboration networks seek to explain the performance of individual actors by using the attributes of the network where they take part, by describing the structures of the collaboration network or even justifying the network’s development and dynamics (Van Der Valk and Gijsbers, 2010). Bazzo (2010) analyzed technological cooperation that resulted in patents in Brazil and found that subsidiaries of foreign firms, universities and research institutes exhibit a low sharing of patent ownership; that is, they do little cooperation, which is an indication of the institutional fragility of local innovation. The number of publications and patents in common is a very important indicator for measuring innovation activities and knowledge interaction between actors (Inzelt, 2004). A recent study, also using patent data, carried out a dynamic comparative analysis of interorganizational innovation networks of Brazilian and Spanish biotechnology companies, and used SNA to design and measure network attributes (Gomes et al.,2017) . Results showed an impressive growth of innovation networks in the two countries, but Brazil had a lower rank in terms of frequency, volume of partnerships, diversity of partners and the main types of actors. Patent data are one of the key indicators used by researchers to evaluate R&D&I results (Jaffe and Trajtenberg, 2002;Trajtenberg, 1990). Although they are not perfect indicators (Dosi, 1982), they are a significant factor of income generation from technologies, especially in industries that require large R&D investments, such as the chemical–pharmaceutical, INMR 15,4 420 responsible for launching active agents and formulations, and the biotechnology. Patent analysis provides key information to executives in charge of research and development, technological policies or technological strategy in a company (von Wartburg, Teichert and Rost, 2005;Yoon and Park, 2004), especially in the biotechnology sector. Along with information technology, this is the fastest growing industry in the twentyfirst century (Gartland et al.,2013). Global market was estimated at US$369.62 billion in 2016 and is expected to reach US$727.1 billion in 2025, mainly owing to the establishment of partnerships (Grand View Research, 2017). The largest segment of the biotechnology market is healthcare and medical applications, accounting for 66.2 per cent of the total market value (Soh and Subramanian, 2014). With the increasing importance of this sector and large R&D investments and efforts worldwide, it becomes critical to ensure appropriate protection for the new and revolutionary technologies (Gupta and Subbaram, 1992;Karki and Garg, 1993). 3. Methodology The study is an exploratory–descriptive research of qualitative and quantitative nature, regarded the analysis of patent databases in biotechnology, especially the use of plants (and their derivatives) for the formulation of drugs and cosmetics. As an indicator of technological production, we used the patentometrics technique, associated with the analysis of co-ownership of patents filed primarily in Brazil. With this study, we expect to present an overview of the patent scenario in a segment of biotechnology, as well as to understand how institutions established partnerships that resulted in patent filings. Next, we present the topic of the research; how we accessed, collected and analyzed the patent database; and finally, how we used the SNA approach to study cooperation between institutions. In the last decades, great expectations emerged regarding potential developments in biotechnology. Brazil has been following this process and has systematically implemented policies for its evolution. Among the most relevant aspects of these policies are the support of new companies and the growth of the business sector devoted to biotechnology (Bianchi, 2013). The mastery and use of modern biotechnology require access to advanced technologies that are already available in developed countries; in Brazil, these are located in regions where academic, technological and business development are strongly concentrated, such as Southeast and South regions (Gomes Costa et al.,2018). Thus, this shows the critical importance of establishing partnerships. The rich Brazilian biodiversity is one of the most important global sources for the development of phytocosmetics and drugs that contain active principles of plant origin. The cosmetics sector benefits from it and has gained prominence in recent years. Cosmetic preparations with natural raw materials grow at considerable annual rates in the international market, between 8 and 25 per cent above the observed growth rates among products formulated with synthetic ingredients. Owing to the wide diversity of chemical derivatives from plant extracts, which have different actions, a major effort is taking place to generate investments in research and development for the discovery of new drugs containing natural ingredients. About 30 per cent of the available drugs derive directly or indirectly from natural products, mostly from plants. In diseases like cancer, the use of drugs derived from plants is even higher, reaching 60 per cent (Boldi, 2004;Newman et al., 2002). Although Brazil has a huge biodiversity, it has not been able to develop a significant amount of innovative products. The local industry of herbal drugs holds a technical capacity and is willing to invest in new products; however, it has faced practical difficulties that Brazil as the priority country 421 obstruct and sometimes render impossible the realization of its projects (ABIFINA, 2011). Hence, it is extremely important that the country keeps investing in the sector, and to do this, it is necessary to join experiences and share knowledge through institutional partnerships. 3.1 Patent database We selected the technological area by using the International Patent Classification (IPC) code A61K 36/00, which addresses “Medical preparations of indeterminate constitution containing material from algae, lichens, fungi or plants, or their derivatives”. These include all subgroups, except codes A61K 36/02 to A61K 36/09, which deal with drugs that contain materials derived from algae, fungi and lichens (WIPO, 2017). We extracted the patent database from Derwent Innovation database, of Clarivate Analytics, by searching patents using the field “IPC Current”, for all IPCs previously described, along with the field “Publication year”, between 1995 and 2014. Next, we used the subfilter for adding the country “Brazil”to the field “Priority Country”. Altogether, we examined 191 IPCs’classes and subclasses, totaling 225,327 International Patent Documentation (INPADOCs), of which 466 were object of the research. We selected all INPADOCs’families resulting from the search and exported them in a Microsoft Excel file, to create the patent database. Due to the 18-month confidentiality period, we decided not to include the years 2015 and 2016 as most of the patents of this period have incomplete information. 3.2 Document analysis and data preparation Information on patent number, country code for technology protection, inventors, holders (assignees), date of publication and filing of patents and technology areas (IPCs) were collected for further comprehensive analysis of the documents and graphic design. We standardized the names of all patent holders using the OpenRefine freeware tool (openrefine. org), to generate the collaboration networks. 3.3 Social network analysis We carried out the building and analysis of cooperation networks according to the method and protocol described by Pereira and Porto (2018) and Pereira et al. (2018) and their adaptations. Briefly, information of assignees and code of all patents, represented by INPADOCs, were grouped in an Excel spreadsheet. The presence of co-owners in the “Assignee”field indicates partnership relationships, and as peers share more patents between them, higher is the weight given to the link between holders. We uploaded data on patent code and owners to freeware Gephi (www.gephi.org). To analyze data, we created a bipartite network, containing a spreadsheet of nodes (patents and holders) and a spreadsheet of edges (patents related to their owners). In the global network, nodes’sizes were adjusted according to their degree, and the color according to their category (patents in blue and owners in red). The holders’network was created by using the plug-in Multimode Networks Transformation (https://github.com/jaroslav-kuchar/Multimode-Networks), which eliminated patent nodes and turned them into a criterion of link between holders. Standard statistical measures available in Gephi were used, such as modularity (Blondel et al.,2008), average degree, weighted average degree and centrality. The network of the largest holders was extracted from the global network through the “ego network”filter, following the node’s ID command. INMR 15,4 422 4. Results and discussion The study addressed the analysis of technological collaboration networks that resulted in patents in biotechnology related to drugs and cosmetics containing products of plant origin and their derivatives (IPC classes A61K 36/10 to IPC A61K 36/9068), whose invention has Brazil as the priority country, that is, the first country where patents were filed. Altogether, we found 742 documents, of which 466 INPADOCs (patent families), that is, distinct inventions that were first filed in Brazil. The trend line shows that since 2006, there has been an exponential growth in the number of patent publications in this topic in Brazil [Figure 1(a)]. Figure 1. Evolution of the publication and geographic coverage of patents priority filed in Brazil in the period 1995 to 2014 in the sector of medicinal preparations containing products of plant origin and their derivatives Brazil as the priority country 423 there are institutions that develop technology separately, but still have a high capacity of innovation, proved by the number of patent requests. These institutions could better use their skills by establishing cooperation with other organizations to promote their innovative efforts and drive new discoveries in the area. One limitation regards the restricted field that we chose to examine. Although biotechnology related to herbal medicine has an extensive knowledge and technical capacity, the study addressed only part of what the country produces in this sector. Therefore, it is necessary to extend the study to other sectors. In addition, future research should include the analysis of the collaborations of Brazilian institutions with the global market, and investigate if the technologies protected primarily in the country attract the interest of international institutions. Another study proposal that emerges from our results is to check which of the Brazilian institutions that we studied take part in the routes of technology trends. References ABIFINA (2011), “Inovação em fitoterápicos: Uma corrida de obstáculos Para acesso a recursos genéticos”,Revista FACTO, available at: www.abifina.org.br/revista_facto_materia.php?id=420 Al-Laham, A., Tzabbar, D. and Amburgey, T.L. (2011), “The dynamics of knowledge stocks and knowledge flows: innovation consequences of recruitment and collaboration in biotech”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 555-583. Alonso-Arroyo, A., de Oliveira, E.F.-T., Cabrini-Grácio, M.C., Pandiella, A. and Aleixandre-Benavent, R. (2016), “A bibliometric analysis of collaboration between Brazil and Spain in the field of medical research from 2002 to 2011”,Investigaci on Bibliotecol ogica: Archivonomía, Bibliotecología e Informaci on, Vol. 30 No. 69, pp. 197-221. Amaral, L.F.G. and Fierro, I.M. (2013), “Profile of medicinal plants utilization through patent documents: the andiroba example”,Brazilian Journal of Pharmacognosy, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 716-722, available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-695X2013005000046 Balconi, M., Breschi, S. and Lissoni, F. (2004), “Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data”,Research Policy, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 127-145, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00108-2 Bazzo, K.D.C. (2010), “Redes de cooperação das multinacionais brasileiras: um mapeamento a partir das patentes (dissertação de mestrado)”, Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade de Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, SP, available at: www.teses. usp.br/teses/disponiveis/96/96132/tde-07012011-113511/pt-br.php Bianchi, C. (2013), “A indústria Brasileira de biotecnologia: montando o quebra-cabeça”,Revista Economia and Tecnologia, Vol. 9 No. 2, available at: http://revistas.ufpr.br/ret/article/view/30907 Blondel, V.D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R. and Lefebvre, E. (2008), “Fast unfolding of communities in large networks”,Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, Vol. 2008 No. 10, p. 6, available at: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 Boldi, A.M. (2004), “Libraries from natural product-like scaffolds”,Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 281-286, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2004.04.010 Borgatti, S.P. and Halgin, D.S. (2011), “On network theory”,Organization Science, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 1168-1181, available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0641 Buttow, M.E. and Steindel, M. (2012), “Patent application in biotechnology at subclass C12N in Brazil at the period of 2001 to 2005”,Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 341-348, available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-89132012000300003 Campos, M.M., Guimarães, M.V.A.F., Ferreira, L.J.A. and Alvares, L.M.A.D.R. (2017), “Study of the scientific collaboration network in nanotechnology at the Brazilian agricultural research corporation”,Transinformação, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 115-123. INMR 15,4 430 Cantner, U. and Graf, H. (2006), “The network of innovators in Jena: an application of social network analysis”,Research Policy, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 463-480, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2006.01.002 Chen, S.H. and Lin, W.T. (2016), “The dynamic role of universities in developing an emerging sector: a case study of the biotechnology sector”,Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 123, pp. 283-297. Chesbrough, H. (2003), “The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property”,California Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 33-58, available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/41166175 Crespo, J., Suire, R. and Vicente, J. (2015), “Network structural properties for cluster long-run dynamics: evidence from collaborative R&D networks in the European mobile phone industry”,Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 261-282. D’Amore, R., Iorio, R., Labory, S. and Stawinoga, A. (2013), “Research collaboration networks in biotechnology: exploring the trade-off between institutional and geographic distances”,Industry and Innovation, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 261-276. de Sousa, A.G., Braga, M.J. and Meyer, L.F. (2015), “Impact of cooperation on the R&D activities of Brazilian firms”,Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 24, pp. 172-181. Dosi, G. (1982), “Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change”,Research Policy, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 147-162, available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6 Eslami, H., Ebadi, A. and Schiffauerova, A. (2013), “Effect of collaboration network structure on knowledge creation and technological performance: the case of biotechnology in Canada”, Scientometrics, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 99-119. Fernald, K., Pennings, E. and Claassen, E. (2015), “Biotechnology commercialization strategies: Risk and return in interfirm cooperation”,Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 971-996. Fischer, B.B., Schaeffer, P.R. and Vonortas, N.S. (2018), “Evolution of university-industry collaboration in Brazil from a technology upgrading perspective”,Technological Forecasting and Social Change, available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.001 Foray, D. and Lissoni, F. (2010), “University research and public-private interaction”,Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Vol. 1 No. 1C, pp. 275-314, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S01697218(10)01006-3 Freeman, C. (1995), “The national system of innovation ‘in historical perspective”,Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 5-24. March 1993, available at: https://doi.org/Article Garnica, L.A. and Torkomian, A.L.V. (2009), “Gestão de tecnologia em universidades: uma análise do patenteamento e dos fatores de dificuldade e de apoio à transferência de tecnologia no Estado de São Paulo”,Gestão & Produção, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 624-638, available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/ S0104-530X2009000400011 Gartland, K., Bruschi, F., Dundar, M., Gahan, P., Viola Magni, M. and Akbarova, Y. (2013), “Progress towards the ‘golden age’of biotechnology”,Current Opinion in Biotechnology, Vol. 24, pp. S6-S13, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2013.05.011 Geum, Y., Lee, S., Yoon, B. and Park, Y. (2013), “Identifying and evaluating strategic partners for collaborative R&D: Index-based approach using patents and publications”,Technovation, Vol. 33 No. 6-7, pp. 211-224. Giulietti, A.M., Harley, R.M., Queiroz, L.P., Wanderley, M.G.L. and Berg, C.V.D. (2005), “Biodiversidade e conservação das plantas no Brasil”,Megadiversidade, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 52-61, available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001015 Gomes, R.C., Galina, S.V.R., Vicentin, F.O., do P. and Porto, G.S. (2017), “Interorganizational innovation networks of Brazilian and Spanish biotechnology companies: dynamic comparative analysis”, International Journal of Engineering Business Management, Vol. 9, pp. 1-12, available at: https:// doi.org/10.1177/1847979017739517 Brazil as the priority country 431 Gomes Costa, B.M., Nannini da Silva Florencio, M. and Oliveira Junior, A.M.D. (2018), “Analysis of technological production in biotechnology in northeast Brazil”,World Patent Information, Vol. 52, pp. 42-49, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2018.01.006 Gupta, R.K. and Subbaram, N.R. (1992), “Patenting activity in the field of biotechnology: Indian scenario”,World Patent Information, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 36-41, available at: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0172-2190(92)90149-D Hazir, C.S. and Autant-Bernard, C. (2014), “Determinants of cross-regional R&D collaboration: some empirical evidence from Europe in biotechnology”,The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 369-393. Inzelt, A. (2004), “The evolution of university-industry-government relationships during transition”, Research Policy, Vol. 33 Nos 6/7, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.03.002 Jaffe, A.B. and Trajtenberg, M. (2002), Patents, Citations and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kamuriwo, D.S. and Baden-Fuller, C. (2016), “Knowledge integration using product R&D outsourcing in biotechnology”,Research Policy, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 1031-1045, available at: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.respol.2016.02.009 Karki, M.M.S. and Garg, K.C. (1993), “Patenting activity in the third world —a case study of biotechnology patents filed in India”,World Patent Information, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 165-170, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0172-2190(93)90010-T Lewinsohn, T.M., Prado, P.I. and Almeida, A.M. (2001), “Inventários bi oticos centrados em recursos: insetos fit ofagos e plantas hospedeiras”, in Garay, I. and Dias, B.F.S. (Eds), Conservação da Biodiversidade em Ecossistemas Tropicais: avanços Conceituais e Revisão de Novas Metodologias de Avaliação e Monitoramento, Editora Vozes, Petropolis, pp. 174-189. Leydesdorff, L. and Etzkowitz, H. (1996), “Emergence of a triple helix of university-industrygovernment relations”,Science and Public Policy, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 279-286, available at: https:// doi.org/10.1093/spp/23.5.279 Lundvall, B. (1992), “National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning”, available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=iDXGwacw-4oC&pgis=1 Masum, H., Rao, A., Good, B.M., Todd, M.H., Edwards, A.M., Chan, L., Bunin, B.A., Su, A.I. and Bourne, P.E. (2013), “Ten simple rules for cultivating open science and collaborative R&D”, PLoS Computational Biology, Vol. 9 No. 9, p. e1003244. Ministério da, Saúde (2006), “Brasil - Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos, Departamento de Assistência Farmacêutica”, Programa Nacional de Plantas Medicinais e Fitoterápicos. RDC no 26 de 14/05/2006, Brasília, available at: http://portal.saúde. gov.br Mitze,T.,Alecke,B.,Reinkowski,J.andUntiedt,G.(2015),“Linking collaborative R&D strategies with the research and innovation performance of SMEs in peripheral regions: Do spatial and organizational choices make a difference?”,The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 55 Nos 2/3, pp. 555-596. Moreira, A.C., Müller, A.C.A., Pereira, N. and Antunes, A.M.D.S. (2006), “Pharmaceutical patents on plant derived materials in Brazil: Policy, law and statistics”,World Patent Information, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 34-42, available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2005.07.016 Nelson, R.R. and Rosenberg, N. (1993), “Technical innovation and national systems”, in Nelson, R.R. (Ed), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, 1st ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 560. Newman, D.J., Cragg, G.M., Holbeck, S. and Sausville, E.A. (2002), “Natural products and derivatives as leads to cell cycle pathway targets in cancer chemotherapy”,Current Cancer Drug Targets, Vol. 2 No. 4, available at: https://doi.org/10.2174/1568009023333791 OECD (2008), “Open innovation in global networks”,Global Networks, pp. 9-13, available at: https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264047693-en INMR 15,4 432 Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. and Stilgoe, J. (2012), “Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society”,Science and Public Policy, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 751-760, available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093 Paci, R. and Batteta, E. (2003), Innovation Networks and Knowledge Flows across the European Regions (No. 200313), Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia, available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/cns/cnscwp/200313.html Pereira, C.G. and Porto, G.S. (2018), “Uncovering innovation features and emerging technologies in molecular biology through patent analysis”,Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 1674, pp. 15-34, available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7312-5_2 Pereira, C.G., Picanco-Castro, V., Covas, D.T. and Porto, G.S. (2018), “Patent mining and landscaping of emerging recombinant factor VIII through network analysis”,Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 585-590, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4178 Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W., Smith-Doerr, L. and Owen-Smith, J. (1999), “Network position and firm performance: Organizational returns to collaboration in the biotechnology industry”,Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 129-159. Rogbeer, S., Almahendra, R. and Ambos, B. (2014), “Open-Innovation effectiveness: when does the macro design of alliance portfolios matter?”,Journal of International Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 464-477, available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2014.09.003 Schiffauerova, A. and Beaudry, C. (2012), “Collaboration spaces in Canadian biotechnology: a search for gatekeepers”,Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,Vol.29No.2, pp. 281-306. Soh, P. and Subramanian, A.M. (2014), “When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? the implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination”,Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 807-821. Spanos, Y.E., Vonortas, N.S. and Voudouris, I. (2015), “Antecedents of innovation impacts in publicly funded collaborative R&D projects”,Technovation, Vol. 36, pp. 53-64. Stevens, H., Van Overwalle, G., Van Looy, B. and Huys, I. (2016), “Intellectual property policies in early-phase research in public-private partnerships”,Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 504-510. Su, H.N. (2017), “Global interdependence of collaborative R&D-Typology and association of international Co-Patenting”,Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 541. Tomaél, M.I., Alcará, A.R. and Di Chiara, I.G. (2006), “Das redes sociais à inovação”,Ciência da Informação, Vol. 34 No. 2, 2005, doi: 10.18225/ci.inf.v34i2.1094, available at: http://revista.ibict. br/ciinf/article/view/1094/1206 Trajtenberg, M. (1990), “A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations”, The RAND Journal of Economics,Vol.21No.1,pp.172-187 , available at: https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2555502 Van Der Valk, T. and Gijsbers, G. (2010), “The use of social network analysis in innovation studies: Mapping actors and technologies”,Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 5-17, available at: https://doi.org/10.5172/impp.12.1.5 von Wartburg, I., Teichert, T. and Rost, K. (2005), “Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis”,Research Policy, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 1591-1607. available at: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.001 WIPO (2017), “International patent classification”, available at: www.wipo.int/classifications/ ipc/en/ Yoon, B. and Park, Y. (2004), “A text-mining-based patent network: Analytical tool for high-technology trend”,The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 37-50, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2003.09.003 Brazil as the priority country 433 Further reading Aparna, S. (2017), “Biotechnology market analysis by application (health, food and agriculture, natural resources and environment, industrial processing bioinformatics), by technology and segment forecasts, 2014-2025”, Grand View Research, San Francisco, available at: www. grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/biotechnology-market About the authors Cristiano Gonçalves Pereira is a Bachelor of Science, Masters and PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology. He is a former postdoc in innovation management from the University of Sao Paulo/FEARP. Pereira was a visiting scholar at the University of Texas/MD Anderson Cancer Center and at Portland State University in the ETM Department. He is specialized in innovation management, patent analysis, social network analysis and technology forecasting toward health-care biotechnology. Pereira also develop studies involving the combination of patent assessment and multi-criteria decision making to identify emerging technologies in biotech. Cristiano Goncalves Pereira is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Rodrigo Ribeiro da Silva is a Bachelor in Biomedicine at the Federal University of Triangulo Mineiro, Brazil. A Masters and PhD in cell and molecular biology at Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, Ribeiro de Silva is a former visiting PhD Student at the University of Oxford, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, UK. “He has knowledge related to Intellectual Property, Technology Forecasting tools, management and product innovation, and R&D Management”. Joao R. Lavoie is a PhD candidate at the Engineering and Technology Management Department – Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. He has a graduate certificate in Energy Policy and Management, from Portland State University, and a B.S. in Industrial Engineering from UNICEP University, in Sao Carlos, Brazil. He is a Research Assistant in Dr. Tugrul Daim’s group and works with the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Technology Innovation group. His research areas are technology transfer, roadmapping and technology readiness levels. He is a member of Phi Kappa Phi and Omega Rho Honor Societies, and is part of the PICMET Conference Organizing Committee. Geciane Silveira Porto is Bachelor of Business, Masters and PhD in business administration, who is currently an Associated Professor at the University of São Paulo/FEARP and a Researcher at the Institute of Advances Studies/USP. She has extensive experience in innovation and entrepreneurship management, with topics related to company–university cooperation and cooperation networks; analysis of technological trends and forecasting of emerging technologies through social network analysis; Innovation Habitat's, incubators and technology parks. She is a former President at FIPASE (The Foundation Institute Advanced Pole of Health of Ribeirão Preto), former invited researcher at Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA), former Director of INCT-if (Pharmaceutical Innovation) and currently a Director of INGTEC. She is a fellow researcher producer at National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), and she integrates the NAP-EBC (Low Carbon Economy). For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] INMR 15,4 434