Where does energy R&D come from? Examining crowding out from energy R&D

Recent efforts to endogenize technological change in climate policy models demonstrate the importance of accounting for the opportunity cost of climate R&D investments. Because the social returns to R&D investments are typically higher than the social returns to other types of investment, any new climate mitigation R&D that comes at the expense of other R&D investment may dampen the overall gains from induced technological change. Unfortunately, there has been little empirical work to guide modelers as to the potential magnitude of such crowding out effects. This paper considers both the private and social opportunity costs of climate R&D. Addressing private costs, we ask whether an increase in climate R&D represents new R&D spending, or whether some (or all) of the additional climate R&D comes at the expense of other R&D. Addressing social costs, we use patent citations to compare the social value of alternative energy research to other types of R&D that may be crowded out. Beginning at the industry level, we find no evidence of crowding out across sectors-that is, increases in energy R&D do not draw R&D resources away from sectors that do not perform R&D. Given this, we proceed with a detailed look at alternative energy R&D. Linking patent data and financial data by firm, we ask whether an increase in alternative energy patents leads to a decrease in other types of patenting activity. While we find that increases in alternative energy patents do result in fewer patents of other types, the evidence suggests that this is due to profit-maximizing changes in research effort, rather than financial constraints that limit the total amount of R&D possible. Finally, we use patent citation data to compare the social value of alternative energy patents to other patents by these firms. Alternative energy patents are cited more frequently, and by a wider range of other technologies, than other patents by these firms, suggesting that their social value is higher. © 2011 Elsevier B.V.

The upstream enhancer elements of the G6PC promoter are critical for optimal G6PC expression in murine glycogen storage disease type Ia.

Glycogen storage disease type-Ia (GSD-Ia) patients deficient in glucose-6-phosphatase-α (G6Pase-α or G6PC) manifest impaired glucose homeostasis characterized by fasting hypoglycemia, growth retardation, hepatomegaly, nephromegaly, hyperlipidemia, hyperuricemia, and lactic acidemia. Two efficacious recombinant adeno-associated virus pseudotype 2/8 (rAAV8) vectors expressing human G6Pase-α have been independently developed. One is a single-stranded vector containing a 2864-bp of the G6PC promoter/enhancer (rAAV8-GPE) and the other is a double-stranded vector containing a shorter 382-bp minimal G6PC promoter/enhancer (rAAV8-miGPE). To identify the best construct, a direct comparison of the rAAV8-GPE and the rAAV8-miGPE vectors was initiated to determine the best vector to take forward into clinical trials. We show that the rAAV8-GPE vector directed significantly higher levels of hepatic G6Pase-α expression, achieved greater reduction in hepatic glycogen accumulation, and led to a better toleration of fasting in GSD-Ia mice than the rAAV8-miGPE vector. Our results indicated that additional control elements in the rAAV8-GPE vector outweigh the gains from the double-stranded rAAV8-miGPE transduction efficiency, and that the rAAV8-GPE vector is the current choice for clinical translation in human GSD-Ia.

Understanding the Context for Long-Term Care Planning.

Evolving family structure and economic conditions may affect individuals' ability and willingness to plan for future long-term care (LTC) needs. We applied life course constructs to analyze focus group data from a study of family decision making about LTC insurance. Participants described how past exposure to caregiving motivated them to engage in LTC planning; in contrast, child rearing discouraged LTC planning. Perceived institutional and economic instability drove individuals to regard financial LTC planning as either a wise precaution or another risk. Perceived economic instability also shaped opinions that adult children are ill-equipped to support parents' LTC. Despite concerns about viability of social insurance programs, some participants described strategies to maximize gains from them. Changing norms around aging and family roles also affected expectations of an active older age, innovative LTC options, and limitations to adult children's involvement. Understanding life course context can inform policy efforts to encourage LTC planning.

The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators

© 2016 The Authors.We revisit the "paradox of openness" in the literature which consists of two conflicting views on the link between patenting and open innovation-the spillover prevention and the organizational openness views. We use the data from the Survey of Innovation and Patent Use and the Community Innovation Survey (CIS6) in the UK to assess the empirical support for the distinct predictions of these theories. We argue that both patenting and external sourcing (openness) are jointly-determined decisions made by firms. Their relationship is contingent upon whether the firms are technically superior to their rivals and lead in the market or not. Leading firms are more vulnerable to unintended knowledge spillovers during collaboration as compared to followers, and consequently, the increase in patenting due to openness is higher for leaders than for followers. We develop a simple framework that allows us to formally derive the empirical implications of this hypothesis and test it by estimating whether the reduced form relationship between patenting and collaboration is stronger for leaders than for followers.