What is the bioeconomy? 29
subsequently constructed. In principle, this allows the transformation of
biomass into a very wide spectrum of marketable products (Hansen, 2014).
Related to drivers and mediators of innovation, the implicit understanding of
innovation processes in the bio- technology vision is in many ways similar to
the so- called linear model of innovation, where innovation processes are
assumed to start with scientific research, which is then followed by product
development, production and marketing (Bush (1945); see Hansen and
Winther (2011) for a summary of critiques of this model). Thus, close interaction between universities and industry is needed in the process in order to
ensure that relevant research is indeed commercialised (Zilberman, Kim,
Kirschner, Kaplan & Reeves, 2013). In this bioeconomy vision technological
progress will solve resource shortages, and resource scarcity is therefore not a
central parameter to analyse (McCormick & Kautto, 2013; Staffas et al.,
2013). Similarly, it seems to be more or less implicitly assumed that waste will
not be a key issue since bio- technology production processes will result in
little or no waste. Since the starting point is at the molecular level, processes
can in principle be designed to result in very little waste. Biotechnologies
may also help transform organic waste into new end- products (Richardson,
2012). It is also suggested that the wide possibilities for application of biotechnology lead to a blurring of boundaries between traditional industries
once the technologies approach the stage of commercialisation (Boehlje &
Bröring, 2011; Wield, 2013). Since research is a central component in this
vision, research councils and other research funding bodies become central
actors in translating the visions of the bioeconomy into the actual development of the field itself (Kearnes, 2013). Related to the prominent role
ascribed to research, some contributions in the literature focus upon issues of
governance of research, such as the history of research policies for the bioeconomy (Aguilar, Magnien & Thomas, 2013).
In terms of spatial focus, the bio- technology vision of the bioeconomy is
expected to lead to a concentration of growth in a limited number of regions
globally that host a combination of large pharmaceutical firms, small biotech
firms and venture capital (Cooke, 2007a, 2009). Also regions specialised in
high- quality public research related to bio- technology may benefit in
developmental terms (Birch, 2009). It is furthermore suggested that connections between these global bio- technology centres are very important for
innovation in the bioeconomy and that certain regions in emerging and
developing economies may also take advantage of the bioeconomy (Cooke,
2006; Wield, 2013). As a consequence of the focus on global competition in
the bioeconomy, the notion of governance of innovation also constitutes a
central feature in some of the research underpinning such a vision (Hogarth
& Salter, 2010; Rosemann, 2014). Associated with the geographies of the
bioeconomy, it is also pointed out how value creation in the bioeconomy
comprises both a material component associated with bio- resources, but
nonetheless also an immaterial component in terms of knowledge and an
ability to develop new knowledge (Birch, 2012). Other parts of this literature
subsequently constructed. In principle, this allows the transformation of
biomass into a very wide spectrum of marketable products (Hansen, 2014).
Related to drivers and mediators of innovation, the implicit understanding of
innovation processes in the bio- technology vision is in many ways similar to
the so- called linear model of innovation, where innovation processes are
assumed to start with scientific research, which is then followed by product
development, production and marketing (Bush (1945); see Hansen and
Winther (2011) for a summary of critiques of this model). Thus, close interaction between universities and industry is needed in the process in order to
ensure that relevant research is indeed commercialised (Zilberman, Kim,
Kirschner, Kaplan & Reeves, 2013). In this bioeconomy vision technological
progress will solve resource shortages, and resource scarcity is therefore not a
central parameter to analyse (McCormick & Kautto, 2013; Staffas et al.,
2013). Similarly, it seems to be more or less implicitly assumed that waste will
not be a key issue since bio- technology production processes will result in
little or no waste. Since the starting point is at the molecular level, processes
can in principle be designed to result in very little waste. Biotechnologies
may also help transform organic waste into new end- products (Richardson,
2012). It is also suggested that the wide possibilities for application of biotechnology lead to a blurring of boundaries between traditional industries
once the technologies approach the stage of commercialisation (Boehlje &
Bröring, 2011; Wield, 2013). Since research is a central component in this
vision, research councils and other research funding bodies become central
actors in translating the visions of the bioeconomy into the actual development of the field itself (Kearnes, 2013). Related to the prominent role
ascribed to research, some contributions in the literature focus upon issues of
governance of research, such as the history of research policies for the bioeconomy (Aguilar, Magnien & Thomas, 2013).
In terms of spatial focus, the bio- technology vision of the bioeconomy is
expected to lead to a concentration of growth in a limited number of regions
globally that host a combination of large pharmaceutical firms, small biotech
firms and venture capital (Cooke, 2007a, 2009). Also regions specialised in
high- quality public research related to bio- technology may benefit in
developmental terms (Birch, 2009). It is furthermore suggested that connections between these global bio- technology centres are very important for
innovation in the bioeconomy and that certain regions in emerging and
developing economies may also take advantage of the bioeconomy (Cooke,
2006; Wield, 2013). As a consequence of the focus on global competition in
the bioeconomy, the notion of governance of innovation also constitutes a
central feature in some of the research underpinning such a vision (Hogarth
& Salter, 2010; Rosemann, 2014). Associated with the geographies of the
bioeconomy, it is also pointed out how value creation in the bioeconomy
comprises both a material component associated with bio- resources, but
nonetheless also an immaterial component in terms of knowledge and an
ability to develop new knowledge (Birch, 2012). Other parts of this literature