In with the new
Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?
Pierre Azoulay, Christian Fons-Rosen & Joshua Graff Zivin
NBER Working Paper, December 2015
Abstract:
We study the extent to which eminent scientists shape the vitality of their fields by examining entry rates into the fields of 452 academic life scientists who pass away while at the peak of their scientific abilities. Key to our analyses is a novel way to delineate boundaries around scientific fields by appealing solely to intellectual linkages between scientists and their publications, rather than collaboration or co-citation patterns. Consistent with previous research, the flow of articles by collaborators into affected fields decreases precipitously after the death of a star scientist (relative to control fields). In contrast, we find that the flow of articles by non-collaborators increases by 8% on average. These additional contributions are disproportionately likely to be highly cited. They are also more likely to be authored by scientists who were not previously active in the deceased superstar's field. Overall, these results suggest that outsiders are reluctant to challenge leadership within a field when the star is alive and that a number of barriers may constrain entry even after she is gone. Intellectual, social, and resource barriers all impede entry, with outsiders only entering subfields that offer a less hostile landscape for the support and acceptance of "foreign" ideas.
---------------------
Fabian Waldinger
Review of Economics and Statistics, forthcoming
Abstract:
I examine the role of human and physical capital for the creation of scientific knowledge. I address the endogeneity of human and physical capital with two exogenous shocks: the dismissal of scientists in Nazi Germany and WWII bombings. A 10% shock to human capital reduced output by 0.2 sd in the short-run, and the reduction persisted in the long-run. A 10% shock to physical capital reduced output by 0.05 sd in the short-run, and the reduction did not persist. The dismissal of "star scientists" caused much larger reductions in output because they are key for attracting other successful scientists.
---------------------
The Impact of Stakeholder Orientation on Innovation: Evidence from a Natural Experiment
Caroline Flammer & Aleksandra Kacperczyk
Management Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
In this study, we assess the causal impact of stakeholder orientation on innovation. To obtain exogenous variation in stakeholder orientation, we exploit the enactment of state-level constituency statutes, which allow directors to consider stakeholders' interests when making business decisions. Using a difference-in-differences methodology, we find that the enactment of constituency statutes leads to a significant increase in the number of patents and citations per patent. We further argue and provide evidence suggesting that stakeholder orientation sparks innovation by encouraging experimentation and enhancing employees' innovative productivity. Finally, we find that the positive effect of stakeholder orientation on innovation is larger in consumer-focused and less eco-friendly industries.
---------------------
How Do Patents Affect Follow-On Innovation? Evidence from the Human Genome
Bhaven Sampat & Heidi Williams
NBER Working Paper, October 2015
Abstract:
We investigate whether patents on human genes have affected follow-on scientific research and product development. Using administrative data on successful and unsuccessful patent applications submitted to the US Patent and Trademark Office, we link the exact gene sequences claimed in each application with data measuring follow-on scientific research and commercial investments. Using this data, we document novel evidence of selection into patenting: patented genes appear more valuable - prior to being patented - than non-patented genes. This evidence of selection motivates two quasi-experimental approaches, both of which suggest that on average gene patents have had no effect on follow-on innovation.
---------------------
Michael Frakes & Melissa Wasserman
Duke Law Journal, forthcoming
Abstract:
Concerns regarding low quality patents and inconsistent decisions prompted Congress to enact the first major patent reform act in over sixty years and likewise spurred the Supreme Court to take a renewed interest in substantive patent law. Since little compelling empirical evidence exists as to what features affect the Agency's granting behavior, policymakers have been trying to fix the patent system without understanding the root causes of its dysfunction. This Article aims to fill at least part of this gap by examining one feature of patent examiners that may affect their grant rate throughout their tenure: the year in which they were hired by the Patent Office. An examiner may develop a general examination "style" in the critical early stages of her career that persists even in the face of changes in application quality or patent allowance culture at the agency. To the extent initial hiring environments influence a newly hired examiner's practice style, variations in such initial conditions suggests examiners of different hiring cohorts may follow distinct, enduring pathways with their examination practices. Consistent with this prediction, we find strong evidence that the year an examiner was hired has a lasting effect on her granting patterns over the tenure of her career. Moreover, we find that the variation in the particular pathways adopted by different Patent Office cohorts aligns with observed fluctuations in the initial conditions faced by such cohorts. By documenting the existence of cohort effects and by demonstrating the importance of initial environments in explaining certain long-term outcomes, this analysis holds various implications for patent policy and the administrative state more generally.
---------------------
Team-Specific Capital and Innovation
Xavier Jaravel, Neviana Petkova & Alex Bell
Harvard Working Paper, July 2015
Abstract:
We establish the importance of team-specific capital in the typical inventor's career. Using administrative tax and patent data for the population of US patent inventors from 1996 to 2012 and the premature deaths of 4,714 inventors, we find that an inventor's premature death causes a large and long-lasting decline in their co-inventor's earnings and citation-weighted patents (-4% and -15% after 8 years, respectively). We rule out firm disruption, network effects and top-down spillovers as primary drivers of this result. Consistent with the team-specific capital interpretation, the effect is larger for more closely-knit teams and primarily applies to co-invention activities.
---------------------
The effect of patent litigation and patent assertion entities on entrepreneurial activity
Stephen Kiebzak, Greg Rafert & Catherine Tucker
Research Policy, February 2016, Pages 218-231
Abstract:
This paper empirically investigates the statistical relationship between levels of patent litigation and venture capital investment in the U.S. We find that VC investment, a major funding source for entrepreneurial activity, initially increases with the number of litigated patents. However, there is a "tipping point" where further increases in the number of patents litigated are associated with decreased VC investment, which suggests an inverted U-shaped relation between patent litigation and VC investment. This appears strongest for technology patents, and negligible for products such as pharmaceuticals. Strikingly, we find evidence that litigation by frequent patent litigators, a proxy for litigation by patent assertion entities, is directly associated with decreased VC investment, with no positive effects initially.