Developing the model - being innovative in an innovation system

Regional or national innovation systems cf. Freeman Lundvall 1988, Porter 1990, Nelson 1993, Edquist 1997, Braczyk 1998 

---

Developing the model - being innovative in an innovation system... 

Together with the other chemicals-related projects in the [riw] program (INNOCHEM and COIN) an abstract model of the innovation system was drawn up according to Hemmelskamp 2000 . To obtain a more generalisable understanding of chemicals-related innovation systems, the results of the case samples and the hypothesis development were also interlinked and abstracted in such a way that two basic types of innovation systems were able to be identified and illustrated towards the end of the project. 

A closer examination of the case studies reveals the extreme complexity and inter-hnked nature of the processes in an innovative system. Determining, which were the decisive factors that were manifest by a particular example of substitution, tended to be irresolvable in view of this complexity. A top-down analysis of the systems view of the simple model assists in orientation. In addition, some phenomena that are important for iimovation processes can only be revealed from a systems view, e.g. system inertia and system ambience , which is frequently referred to as the innovation chmate . Decisively, phenomena such as emergence are only discemable at a systems level. Emergence is of central importance for the comprehension of innovation processes, where development of a new element is the core feature. Emergence means that a novel, impredicted and usually complex feature is produced in the system (or by the system) which no individual contributor had planned or could conceivably plan. In most cases, new elements can neither be commanded externally nor can they be negotiated in a discourse between the participants from their estabhshed interests. Creativity is required here. 

It can be stated as a generalisation that historic or innovation cultural and institutional aspects play an important role (and supposedly also one that is gaining in importance) for comprehending innovation events . This conclusion is reached, for example, if we examine by way of summary the stated distinctions of the main obstacle system inertia (such as path dependency, investment cycles, complexity of the iimovation system and level of iimovation) as well as the distinctive features of the main driver competition (such as competition or market type and especially the role of the public). Case studies doubtless have an important function for comprehending these elements and developments. On the basis of such studies the innovation system model can also be improved and developed further (cf Figure 20). 

Development of a model and a more profound comprehension of the complexity of an innovation process can help unprove the ability of an iimovation system to be innovative. It cannot provide orientation, nor ensure that the direction of an innovation is appropriate. This is the preserve of the evaluation processes, which also must cope with knowledge gaps and the unavoidable uncertainty involved in any innovation. 

In summary, while the last 10 years has seen considerable developments and innovations in the use of in vitro toxicity models, particularly for predicting acute drug toxicity, there is still no single system that would predict acute hepatotox-icity induced by an agent such as APAP. Prediction of chronic hepatotoxicity is even less advanced, and until it is possible to incorporate components of both the innate and adaptive immune systems into the models, it is unlikely that these types of toxicity will be routinely detected preclinically. 

---