Networks for Learning and Knowledge Creation in Biotechnology by Amalya Lumerman Oliver - Essay Example

Exam (Book) Analysis: Short Answers Question The hot cause, cool mobilization concept worked well in Rao’s Swadeshi (home manufacturers) movement example. With the hot cause being the partition that the British viceroy Lord Curzon had of Bengal province which was presumed to be along religious lines in the year 1905 and the cool mobilization being hinged on an improvisational act, this was a true depiction of the concept. The hot cause moved the urban Indians into supporting the artisanal weavers that made the Indian cloth known as khadi. With the cloth as a symbol the hot cause played out too well as the people took to the street in solidarity even supporting the artisanal producers with a passion. They carried out demonstrations that compounded their cause and symbolized their unity by carrying out mass burning of British made clothes. This shared experience worked wonders for the demonstration. The cool mobilization factor was established as the people joined forces even with little or no knowledge on the factors behind the conflict with the British manufactures. The people identified themselves with their counterparts and additional action was inspired by virtue of the shared feelings. The making of biotechnology into a hot cause did not go down well as an illustration of the hot cause, cool mobilization concept. As the green party rose and made its way into the national parliament, the party gained access and a place at the Enquete Komission. Though the activists framed their target in this case biotechnology as a possible Feustian bargain that risked being the source of the resurrection of the Nazi eugenics, this did not create a sense of oneness between the protestors, rather they only rallied because of fear of the said repercussions of the biotechnology, the so called ‘incalculable risks’. In this case, the protestors only did protest from their different groups of communal activities and not as one group. Thereby Rao’s explanation of this concept does not hold water. Question 5: The idea that the academics have given a blind eye to the fact that social movements are key to the shaping of the radical innovations seen in the markets is well explained by Rao. This statement holds water as many of the economists have tended to look at the markets as under the influence of an invisible guided hand (Hayagreeva Rao 5). With this mindset, the economists have tended to ignore the fact that the activists that have joined hands have been and will continue to have an effect on the innovations that are in the markets. These activists are not taken to be the ones behind the different pressures upon researchers and innovators to innovate along certain lines. Instead, the students think that they research to create shocks to the markets but not as a response to collective actions of these activists. However much this is discussed and advocated for by Rao, other scholars do not think activists actions are a major trigger to innovation. The major triggers to innovation are as follows; accidents, analogy, problems as a result of harmful and negative effects, performance barriers, evolving customer needs, hidden customer demands, eliminating needs, technology diversification, trends of technology evolution, scientific research, cost-effectiveness and finally market competition. Rao’s concept does not hold water in this case. Question 3: The neo-classical and classical theorists have gone to great trouble trying to define entrepreneurship only to agree that there is not one single definition of the word. The definition is dependent on the person defining the term and the circumstances surrounding them. It is therefore a multidimensional concept. The different entrepreneurship theories include; Cantillon’s theory that does not view the entrepreneur as a production factor but rather as one who equilibrates supply and demand in the economy by taking on risk. An example depicting this theory is a business owner who goes ahead and rents capital and labour from workers where there is uncertain production and demand. Marshall’s theory works around the creation of equilibrium. In another instance, entrepreneurship is viewed as a social enterprise. In this theory, the entrepreneur is taken to be one who uses earned income to pursue a triple or double bottom line. This theory includes the issuance of charitable contributions as well as public sector subsidies. Long Answers Question 1: According to Rao, the invention and development of the hybrid cars was a s a result of the action of activists advocating for environmental causes (Hayagreeva Rao 5). He states that the spearheading by the market rebels of the environmental movements created an arousing a client that was interested in the green concept cars. Toyota went for it and made a mark with their Prius, who’s owners seem to want to make a statement that they mind their environment (Hayagreeva Rao 179). There are other factors that led to the demand for the hybrid cars in USA. Government policies were created to advocate and encourage hybrid cars development. These were formulated specifically to pave way and enable the hybrid cars market to run and last. The prices of the volatile gases also took part as they spurred demand for the hybrid cars. New government incentives were put in place globally to offer support for the innovation. US DOE (Department Of Energy) supported the technology by spending over $25Billion over a period of three years. The Energy Independence & Security Act (EISA) of the year 2007 mandated for a 40% increase of the standards of fuel economy for light trucks as well as automobiles by the year 2020. To this effect, the hybrid car manufacturing industry expected an increase of up to 3 – 5 M hybrid vehicles on the road by the year 2020.The low government tax rates for the hybrid cars also went a long way to encourage the manufacturers. In the US alone, more than $900 Billion was spent on diesel, other petroleum products and gasoline. For the emergence of a market for these hybrid cars, different factors have to be at play. The community has to be convinced that they have the necessary infrastructure to manage and service the cars once acquired. The community has to have a burden to want to go green with their cars and prevent pollution. This can be sold to them in terms of environment conservation. With a burden for their environment, demand for the hybrid cars is bound to be created. Compared to Rao’s ideology, demand for the hybrid cars was created by activists who advocated for environment conservation. These activists had the hybrid cars concept as a cool solution to the hot cause (Hayagreeva Rao 179). With the combination of all these factors, demand for the hybrid cars was created in the 20th Century though not much but substantial enough for the cars to be manufactured. Question 2: New Biotechnology Firms (NBFs) have some particular characteristics. They restrict their scientists to some degree, they are not allowed to freely collaborate with the university scientists and their external ties are complemented and supplemented by inter-organizational ties (Amalya Lumerman Oliver 16). With these firms, research is done privately and at no one time is it shared with outside firms. On the other hand, the universities are institutions which conduct ‘open science’. The research findings of the NBF research are not shared while in universities the findings are shared for further research and development. NBF’s are hybrid models of both university as well and the NBF as it incorporates the aspects of both concepts. Open minded inquiries are carried out on the subject where it is significantly interesting this is university style. The findings of the research being conducted are then exchanged through different forms of media. This is commonly done to create opportunity to benefit the society and also discover new findings. The collaboration between the university scientists is not managed by any hand, while the scientists receive incentives to discover new findings. This form has different strengths and weaknesses. The unguided collaboration at the university is one weakness. With this in place, the scientists can be quite unpredictable on the products that they come up with. Where there is need for a commercially viable invention, the scientist can loose and leak information concerning an invention as they share their progress. Although a good strategy to come up with an innovation within a short time, the managers usually have a hard time in selection or pairing of scientists. The best way around this is for the scientists to select their partners for themselves. The concept is also disadvantaged by the fact that at times it can be imposed upon the scientist what they should produce if they want funding on their project (Amalya Lumerman Oliver 16). Success in the innovations at NBF’s is contributed upon by the fact that most of the scientists working there are graduates of institutes where there is cutting edge research is conducted. The fact that many of the scientists were once faculty members is another advantage as they bring with them very important collegial ties that will be used by the firm during collaboration. The dense network that allows for their collaboration with other firms also has gone a long way to create success. Works Cited Amalya Lumerman Oliver, Networks for Learning and Knowledge Creation in Biotechnolog. Cambridge University Press, New York 2008 Hayagreeva Rao, Market Rebels: How Activists Make or break Radical Innovations. Princeton University Press. Princeton & Oxford, 2009. Read More