![28 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff
and the majority of the listed coauthors (including three of the selected
authors in this survey) had no direct involvement in its preparation other
than through collaboration membership.
We next use regression analysis to examine the relation between the modes
of collaboration and the number of researchers listed as authors and the
number of references in a paper, both of which tend to be positively related
to citations. To the extent that the references influence the paper by providing
information and ideas from other scientists, they can be viewed as indicators
of “invisible coauthors,” self-citations aside.
Table 1.2 records the regression coefficients and standard errors for regres-
sions of numbers of coauthors and references on the type of collaboration
and a year trend for each field. While there is a broad similarity in the esti-
mated effect of the collaborations on the number of coauthors and references
across the fields, there are also differences that presumably reflect differences
in their research technologies. In all of the fields, the regression of number
of coauthors on the dummy variable for whether or not the paper had an
international coauthor gives a positive coefficient on the dummy variable.
But the magnitudes of the coefficients differ greatly. The estimated coefficient
on international collaborations in particle physics in column (1) (43.8) shows
that the number of authors on papers is much higher for those than for the
US collaboration reference group, whereas the estimated coefficients for the
relation between international collaborations and coauthors in nanotech and
biotech are magnitudes smaller: 1.3 more authors on international papers
than papers written by authors solely in the United States for nano (column
[2]) and 2.2 more authors on international papers than US-only papers for
biotech (column [3]). The more detailed measures of collaborations in col-
umns(4),(5),and(6)showthatthisdifferenceislargelydrivenbyinternational
collaborationsinwhichtheUSscientistsdoingparticlephysicsarefrommany
locationsaswell.Thisreflectsthebigsciencenatureof empiricalparticlephys-
ics, where huge numbers of collaborators work together with massive instru-
mentsandmachinescomparedtothesmallerlabscienceof nanoandbiotech.
The regressions in columns (7)–(9) show greater differences among the
fields in the number of references on international papers relative to US non-
colocated papers, and differences among the fields in the relation between
numbersof coauthorsandnumbersof references.Inparticlephysics,numbers
of references for papers with international collaborations exceed those for US
non-colocatedpapers,whichinturnexceedboththoseforUScolocatedinter-
national papers and those US colocated (column [7]). In biotech, numbers of
references for papers with international collaborations and non-colocated
US collaborations exceed those for US non-colocated papers, which in turn
exceed those for US colocated papers (column [9]). A potential explanation is
that persons in a given location are more likely to cite papers written in their
location, so that the greater the number of locations, the greater the number
of references. But the regression for number of references in the nano papers](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25718179-250519115209-cd138554/85/The-Changing-Frontier-Rethinking-Science-And-Innovation-Policy-Adam-B-Jaffe-Editor-Benjamin-F-Jones-Editor-41-320.jpg)
![30 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff
shows a different relation between references and collaborations (column
[8]). Finally, the estimated coefficients on the number of authors also shows
no consistent pattern among the fields: negligible effects for particle physics
(potentially because the number of authors can be extremely high), slight
negativeeffectsinnano,butsubstantialpositiveeffectsinbiotech(column[9]).
All told, table 1.2 shows that simple comparisons of papers with interna-
tional and national collaborations can present a misleading picture about the
science involved in various types of collaborations. The collaborations can
involve huge differences in the numbers of coauthors and differing relations
to the numbers of references. Given these results, we examine the relation
between the citations to a paper and the form of collaboration separately for
each filed using a regression that includes the number of coauthors and the
number of references in the paper. To deal with the life cycle of citations in
which the number of citations increases sharply in the first five to seven years
after publication and then grows more slowly, we include dummy variables
for the year the paper was published as well.
Tables 1.3A, 1.3B, and 1.3C give the results of this analysis. Column (1) of
each of the tables estimates the difference in citations between international
papers and US-only collaborations. The estimates show a disparate pattern
across the fields: an insignificant positive relation between international col-
laborations and citations for particle physics, a negative relation in nano, and
a positive relation in biotech. Column (2) of each table adds the number of
coauthors to the regression. In each of the fields, the addition of numbers
of authors reduces the coefficient on international collaborations. In bio-
tech it turns the coefficient from positive to negative.5
With the addition of
numbers of references in column (3), the estimated relation of international
collaborations to citations is significantly negative in all three fields. The
disaggregation of types of collaborations in columns (4) in tables 1.3A–1.3C
show sufficiently weak and different patterns across the fields to suggest that
there is nothing universal in the link between international collaborations
and ensuing citations to papers.
All told, the regression analysis in tables 1.2 and 1.3A, 1.3B, and 1.3C
document the changing patterns of cooperation across locations in the three
fields and their disparate relation with citations. While invaluable as descrip-
tions about collaborations, such bibliometric analysis cannot, however, pro-
vide insight into the ways collaborating scientists work together to conduct
the research that leads to published papers. To gain insight into what goes on
in collaborations, we turn to the survey of corresponding authors described
in section 1.1.
5. To see if this is a more general pattern, we ran similar regressions for other scientific fields
in the WoS and find variation across fields in the difference between citation rates for inter-
national collaborations and domestic collaborations; the addition of the number of coauthors
to citation regressions reduces the coefficient on international collaborations in almost all
fields.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25718179-250519115209-cd138554/85/The-Changing-Frontier-Rethinking-Science-And-Innovation-Policy-Adam-B-Jaffe-Editor-Benjamin-F-Jones-Editor-43-320.jpg)
![Maréchale d'Ancre was not resumed until eight or ten days later. It
needs a robust constitution to hold up against such a check! The
Maréchale d'Ancre held its own and had quite a good run. Between
the Maréchale d'Ancre and Henry Monnier's first appearance a three-
act drama was played at the Porte-Saint-Martin, patronised by Hugo
and myself: this was Farruck le Maure, by poor Escousse. The piece
was not good, but owing to Bocage it had a greater success than
one could have expected. It afterwards acquired a certain degree of
importance because of the author's suicide, who, in his turn, was
better known by the song, or rather, the elegy which Béranger wrote
about him, than by the two plays he had had played. We shall return
to this unfortunate boy and to Lebras his fellow-suicide.
It was on 5 July that Henry Monnier came out. I doubt if any début
ever produced such a literary sensation. He was then about twenty-
six or twenty-eight years of age; he was known in the artistic world
on three counts. As painter, pupil of Girodet and of Gros, he had,
after his return from travel in England, been instrumental in
introducing the first wood-engraving executed in Paris, and he
published Mœurs administratives, Grisettes and Illustrations de
Béranger. As author, at the instigation of his friend Latouche, he
printed his Scènes populaires, thanks to which the renown of the
French gendarme and of the Parisian titi[1] spread all over the world.
Finally, as a private actor in society he had been the delight of
supper-parties, acting for us, with the aid of a curtain or a folding-
screen, his Halte d'une diligence, his Étudiant and his Grisette, his
Femme qui a trop chaud and his Ambassade de M. de Cobentzel.
On the strength of being applauded in drawing-rooms, he thought
he would venture on the stage, and he wrote for himself and for his
own début, a piece called La Famille improvisée, which he took from
his Scènes populaires. Two types created by Henry Monnier have
lasted and will last: his Joseph Prudhomme, professor of writing,
pupil of Brard and Saint-Omer; and Coquerel, lover of la Duthé and
of la Briand. I have spoken of the interior of the Théâtre-Français on
the day of the first performance of Henri III.; that of the Vaudeville](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25718179-250519115209-cd138554/85/The-Changing-Frontier-Rethinking-Science-And-Innovation-Policy-Adam-B-Jaffe-Editor-Benjamin-F-Jones-Editor-58-320.jpg)
![We were hardly at Honfleur before we were making inquiries as to
the best means of being transported to Trouville. There were two
ways of going, by land or by sea. By land they offered us a wretched
wagon and two bad horses for twenty francs, and we should travel
along a bad road, taking five hours to reach Trouville. Going by sea,
with the outgoing tide, it would take two hours, in a pretty barque
rowed by four vigorous oarsmen; a picturesque voyage along the
coast, where I should see great quantities of birds, such as sea-
mews, gulls and divers, on the right the infinite ocean, on the left
immense cliffs. Then if the wind was good—and it could not fail to
be favourable, sailors never doubt that!—it would only take two
hours to cross. It was true that, if the wind was unfavourable, we
should have to take to oars, and should not arrive till goodness
knows when. Furthermore, they asked twelve francs instead of
twenty. Happily my travelling companion—for I have forgotten to say
that I had a travelling companion—was one of the most economical
women I have ever met; although she had been very sick in crossing
from Havre to Honfleur, this saving of eight francs appealed to her,
and as I had gallantly left the choice of the two means of transport
to her she decided on the boat. Two hours later we left Honfleur as
soon as the tide began to turn.
[1] Young workman of the Parisian faubourgs.
CHAPTER XII
Appearance of Trouville—Mother Oseraie—How people are
accommodated at Trouville when they are married—The price of
painters and of the community of martyrs—Mother Oseraie's
acquaintances—How she had saved the life of Huet, the
landscape painter—My room and my neighbour's—A twenty-
franc dinner for fifty sous—A walk by the sea-shore—Heroic
resolution](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25718179-250519115209-cd138554/85/The-Changing-Frontier-Rethinking-Science-And-Innovation-Policy-Adam-B-Jaffe-Editor-Benjamin-F-Jones-Editor-62-320.jpg)
!["Oh! but with us when people are married they sleep together!"
"First of all, who told you that madame and I were married?...
Besides, when we are, I shall be of the opinion of one of my friends
whose name is Alphonse Karr!"
"Well, what does your friend whose name is Alphonse Karr say?"
"He says that at the end of a certain time, when a man and a
woman occupy only one room together, they cease to become lover
and mistress and become male and female; that is what he says."
"Ah! I do not understand. However, no matter! you want two
rooms?"
"Exactly."
"Well, you shall have them; but I would much rather you only took
one [prissiez]."
I will not swear that she said prissiez, but the reader will forgive me
for adding that embellishment to our dialogue.
"Of course, I can see through that," I replied; "you would have
made us pay for two and you would have had one room left to let to
other travellers."
"Precisely!—I say, you are not very stupid for a Parisian, I declare!"
I bowed to Mother Oseraie.
"I am not altogether a Parisian," I replied; "but that is a mere matter
of detail."
"Then you will have the two rooms?"
"I will."
"I warn you they open one out of the other."
"Capital!"
"You shall be taken to them."](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25718179-250519115209-cd138554/85/The-Changing-Frontier-Rethinking-Science-And-Innovation-Policy-Adam-B-Jaffe-Editor-Benjamin-F-Jones-Editor-65-320.jpg)
![You see he was not mistaken in his own estimate; these lines were
thoughtful and well-constructed; they march with a proud and lusty
swing, hand-on-hip, slender-waisted, splendidly draped in their
Spanish cloak. They were not like Lamartine, or Hugo or de Vigny: a
flower culled from the same garden, it is true; a fruit of the same
orchard even; but a flower possessed of its own odour and a fruit
with a taste of its own. Good! Here am I, meaning to relate
worthless things concerning myself, saying good things about Alfred
de Musset. Upon my word, I do not regret it and it is all the better
for myself.[1] I have, however, do not let us forget, yet to explain
how that dramatic pastiche which goes by the name of Charles VII.
came to be written. The night went by in a flash. Alfred de Musset
read the whole volume instead of a few pieces from it: Don Paez,
Porcia, the Andalouse, Madrid, the Ballade à la lune, Mardoche, etc.,
probably about two thousand lines; only, I must admit that the
young girls who were present at the reading, whether they were
with their mammas or alone, must have had plenty to do to look
after their eyelids and their fans. Among these pieces was a kind of
comedy entitled the Marrons du feu. La Camargo, that Belgian
dancer, celebrated by Voltaire, who was the delight of the opera of
1734 to 1751, is its heroine; but, it must be said, the poor girl is
sadly calumniated in the poem. In the first place, the poet imagines
she was loved to distraction by a handsome Italian named Rafaël
Garuci, and that this love was stronger at the end of two years than
it had ever been. Calumny number one. Then, he goes on to
suppose that Seigneur Garuci, tired of the dancer, gives his clothes
to the Abbé Annibal Desiderio, and tells him how he can gain access
to the beautiful woman. Calumny number two—but not so serious as
the first, Seigneur Rafaël Garuci having probably never existed save
in the poet's brain. Finally, he relates that, when she finds herself
face to face with the abbé disguised as a gentleman, and finds out
that it is Rafaël who has provided him with the means of access to
her, whilst he himself is supping at that very hour with la Cydalise, la
Camargo is furious against her faithless lover, and says to the abbé—](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25718179-250519115209-cd138554/85/The-Changing-Frontier-Rethinking-Science-And-Innovation-Policy-Adam-B-Jaffe-Editor-Benjamin-F-Jones-Editor-74-320.jpg)
The Changing Frontier Rethinking Science And Innovation Policy Adam B Jaffe Editor Benjamin F Jones Editor
- 1. The Changing Frontier Rethinking Science And Innovation Policy Adam B Jaffe Editor Benjamin F Jones Editor download https://ebookbell.com/product/the-changing-frontier-rethinking- science-and-innovation-policy-adam-b-jaffe-editor-benjamin-f- jones-editor-51436358 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Pushing The Digital Frontier Insights Into The Changing Landscape Of Ebusiness Nirmal Pal https://ebookbell.com/product/pushing-the-digital-frontier-insights- into-the-changing-landscape-of-ebusiness-nirmal-pal-6823618 Frontier Nursing In Appalachia History Organization And The Changing Culture Of Care 1st Ed 2019 Edie West https://ebookbell.com/product/frontier-nursing-in-appalachia-history- organization-and-the-changing-culture-of-care-1st-ed-2019-edie- west-10797132 The New Frontier Investors How Pension Funds Sovereign Funds And Endowments Are Changing The Business Of Investment Management And Longterm Investing 1st Edition Jagdeep Singh Bachher https://ebookbell.com/product/the-new-frontier-investors-how-pension- funds-sovereign-funds-and-endowments-are-changing-the-business-of- investment-management-and-longterm-investing-1st-edition-jagdeep- singh-bachher-5478096 High Frontiers Dolpo And The Changing World Of Himalayan Pastoralists Kenneth Michael Bauer https://ebookbell.com/product/high-frontiers-dolpo-and-the-changing- world-of-himalayan-pastoralists-kenneth-michael-bauer-51838064
- 3. High Frontiers Dolpo And The Changing World Of Himalayan Pastoralists Kenneth Michael Bauer https://ebookbell.com/product/high-frontiers-dolpo-and-the-changing- world-of-himalayan-pastoralists-kenneth-michael-bauer-1699094 Asian Foreign Policy In A Changing Arctic The Diplomacy Of Economy And Science At New Frontiers 1st Edition Aki Tonami Auth https://ebookbell.com/product/asian-foreign-policy-in-a-changing- arctic-the-diplomacy-of-economy-and-science-at-new-frontiers-1st- edition-aki-tonami-auth-5610430 Web3 Charting The Internets Next Economic And Cultural Frontier Alex Tapscott https://ebookbell.com/product/web3-charting-the-internets-next- economic-and-cultural-frontier-alex-tapscott-52370458 Chasing Alaska A Portrait Of The Last Frontier Then And Now C B Bernard https://ebookbell.com/product/chasing-alaska-a-portrait-of-the-last- frontier-then-and-now-c-b-bernard-49888458 Chasing Alaska A Portrait Of The Last Frontier Then And Now Bernard https://ebookbell.com/product/chasing-alaska-a-portrait-of-the-last- frontier-then-and-now-bernard-7561184
- 7. A National Bureau of Economic Research Conference Report
- 8. The Changing Frontier Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy Edited by Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London
- 9. Adam B. Jaffe is director and a senior fellow of Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, the Sir Douglas Myers Visiting Professor at Auckland University Business School, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Benjamin F. Jones is professor of management and strategy at the Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management and faculty affiliate at the Center for International Economics and Development and the Center for International and Comparative Studies at Northwestern University, where he also holds a courtesy appointment in the Department of Political Science. He is also a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 2015 by the National Bureau of Economic Research All rights reserved. Published 2015. Printed in the United States of America 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 1 2 3 4 5 ISBN-13: 978-0-226-28672-3 (cloth) ISBN-13: 978-0-226-28686-0 (e-book) DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226286860.001.0001 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The changing frontier : rethinking science and innovation policy / edited by Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones. pages cm — (National Bureau of Economic Research conference report) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-226-28672-3 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-226- 28686-0 (e-book) 1. Science and state. 2. Technological innovations. I. Jaffe, Adam B., editor. II. Jones, Benjamin F., editor. III. Series: National Bureau of Economic Research conference report. Q125.C435 2015 338.9'26—dc23 2014041834 o This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).
- 10. National Bureau of Economic Research Officers Martin B. Zimmerman, chairman Karen N. Horn, vice chairman James M. Poterba, president and chief executive officer Robert Mednick, treasurer Kelly Horak, controller and assistant corporate secretary Alterra Milone, corporate secretary Denis Healy, assistant corporate secretary Directors at Large Peter C. Aldrich Elizabeth E. Bailey John H. Biggs John S. Clarkeson Don R. Conlan Kathleen B. Cooper Charles H. Dallara George C. Eads Jessica P. Einhorn Mohamed El-Erian Linda Ewing Jacob A. Frenkel Judith M. Gueron Robert S. Hamada Peter Blair Henry Karen N. Horn John Lipsky Laurence H. Meyer Michael H. Moskow Alicia H. Munnell Robert T. Parry James M. Poterba John S. Reed Marina v. N. Whitman Martin B. Zimmerman Directors by University Appointment Jagdish Bhagwati, Columbia Timothy Bresnahan, Stanford Alan V. Deardorff, Michigan Ray C. Fair, Yale Edward Foster, Minnesota John P. Gould, Chicago Mark Grinblatt, California, Los Angeles Bruce Hansen, Wisconsin–Madison Benjamin Hermalin, California, Berkeley Marjorie B. McElroy, Duke Joel Mokyr, Northwestern Andrew Postlewaite, Pennsylvania Cecilia Rouse, Princeton Richard L. Schmalensee, Massachusetts Institute of Technology David B. Yoffie, Harvard Directors by Appointment of Other Organizations Jean-Paul Chavas, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Martin Gruber, American Finance Association Ellen L. Hughes-Cromwick, National Association for Business Economics Arthur Kennickell, American Statistical Association William W. Lewis, Committee for Economic Development Robert Mednick, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Alan L. Olmstead, Economic History Association Peter L. Rousseau, American Economic Association Gregor W. Smith, Canadian Economics Association William Spriggs, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Bart van Ark, The Conference Board Directors Emeriti George Akerlof Glen G. Cain Carl F. Christ Franklin Fisher George Hatsopoulos Saul H. Hymans Rudolph A. Oswald Peter G. Peterson Nathan Rosenberg John J. Siegfried Craig Swan
- 11. Relation of the Directors to the Work and Publications of the National Bureau of Economic Research 1. The object of the NBER is to ascertain and present to the economics profession, and to the public more generally, important economic facts and their interpretation in a scientific manner without policy recommendations. The Board of Directors is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the work of the NBER is carried on in strict conformity with this object. 2. The President shall establish an internal review process to ensure that book manuscripts pro- posed for publication DO NOT contain policy recommendations. This shall apply both to the proceedings of conferences and to manuscripts by a single author or by one or more co-authors but shall not apply to authors of comments at NBER conferences who are not NBER affiliates. 3. No book manuscript reporting research shall be published by the NBER until the President has sent to each member of the Board a notice that a manuscript is recommended for publica- tion and that in the President’s opinion it is suitable for publication in accordance with the above principles of the NBER. Such notification will include a table of contents and an abstract or summary of the manuscript’s content, a list of contributors if applicable, and a response form for use by Directors who desire a copy of the manuscript for review. Each manuscript shall contain a summary drawing attention to the nature and treatment of the problem studied and the main conclusions reached. 4. No volume shall be published until forty-five days have elapsed from the above notification of intention to publish it. During this period a copy shall be sent to any Director requesting it, and if any Director objects to publication on the grounds that the manuscript contains policy recommendations, the objection will be presented to the author(s) or editor(s). In case of dispute, all members of the Board shall be notified, and the President shall appoint an ad hoc committee of the Board to decide the matter; thirty days additional shall be granted for this purpose. 5.The President shall present annually to the Board a report describing the internal manu- script review process, any objections made by Directors before publication or by anyone after publication, any disputes about such matters, and how they were handled. 6. Publications of the NBER issued for informational purposes concerning the work of the Bureau, or issued to inform the public of the activities at the Bureau, including but not limited to the NBER Digest and Reporter, shall be consistent with the object stated in paragraph 1. They shall contain a specific disclaimer noting that they have not passed through the review procedures required in this resolution. The Executive Committee of the Board is charged with the review of all such publications from time to time. 7. NBER working papers and manuscripts distributed on the Bureau’s web site are not deemed to be publications for the purpose of this resolution, but they shall be consistent with the object stated in paragraph 1. Working papers shall contain a specific disclaimer noting that they have not passed through the review procedures required in this resolution. The NBER’s web site shall contain a similar disclaimer. The President shall establish an internal review process to ensure that the working papers and the web site do not contain policy recommendations, and shall report annually to the Board on this process and any concerns raised in connection with it. 8. Unless otherwise determined by the Board or exempted by the terms of paragraphs 6 and 7, a copy of this resolution shall be printed in each NBER publication as described in paragraph 2 above.
- 12. vii Preface ix Introduction 1 Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones I. The Organization of Scientific Research 1. Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration 17 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff 2. The (Changing) Knowledge Production Function: Evidence from the MIT Department of Biology for 1970‒2000 49 Annamaria Conti and Christopher C. Liu 3. Collaboration, Stars, and the Changing Organization of Science: Evidence from Evolutionary Biology 75 Ajay Agrawal, John McHale, and Alexander Oettl Comment: Julia Lane 4. Credit History: The Changing Nature of Scientific Credit 107 Joshua S. Gans and Fiona Murray Contents
- 13. viii Contents II. The Geography of Innovation 5. The Rise of International Coinvention 135 Lee Branstetter, Guangwei Li, and Francisco Veloso 6. Information Technology and the Distribution of Inventive Activity 169 Chris Forman, Avi Goldfarb, and Shane Greenstein III. Entrepreneurship and Market-Based Innovation 7. Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Renewable Energy 199 Ramana Nanda, Ken Younge, and Lee Fleming 8. Economic Value Creation in Mobile Applications 233 Timothy F. Bresnahan, Jason P. Davis, and Pai-Ling Yin 9. State Science Policy Experiments 287 Maryann Feldman and Lauren Lanahan IV. Historical Perspectives on Science Institutions and Paradigms 10. The Endless Frontier: Reaping What Bush Sowed? 321 Paula Stephan Comment: Bruce A. Weinberg 11. Algorithms and the Changing Frontier 371 Hezekiah Agwara, Philip Auerswald, and Brian Higginbotham Comment: Timothy Simcoe Contributors 415 Author Index 419 Subject Index 425
- 14. ix The idea for this volume was born in a conversation about science and innovation policy with Lawrence H. Summers, who wondered whether the classic, postwar perspective laid out in Vannevar Bush’s classic, Science: The Endless Frontier, needed any substantial updates for the twenty-first century. To help answer this question we issued a call for papers and held two conferences, resulting in the eleven chapters and associated comments collected in this volume. While the subject of how science is changing is a vast one—perhaps endless itself—the chapters in this volume demonstrate numerous, essential changes in the scientific enterprise with potentially sub- stantial policy implications. We hope that the perspective of the “changing frontier” will continue to spark new research on shifts in the systems of scientific and technological progress and the effectiveness of their support. Funds for this project were provided by the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Erwin Marion Kauffman Foundation. We are indebted to these organizations for their support. We thank all of the authors and discussants for their contributions to this work, and thank Josh Lerner and Scott Stern for suggesting that we undertake this project. Special thanks are due to Rob Shannon at the NBER for expertly managing the conferences in Cambridge and Chicago and to the 1871 entrepreneurship incubator in Chicago for letting us use their space. We also thank our editor, Joe Jackson, at the University of Chicago Press, and Helena Fitz-Patrick at the NBER for her great help in managing the publication process. Preface
- 16. 1 Adam Jaffe is director and senior fellow of Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, the Sir Douglas Myers Visiting Professor at Auckland University Business School, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Benjamin Jones is associate professor of management and strategy at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. For acknowledgments, sources of research support, and disclosure of the authors’ material financial relationships, if any, please see http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13027.ack. With the 1945 publication of Science: The Endless Frontier, Vannevar Bush established an intellectual architecture that helped define a set of public science institutions that were dramatically different from those that came before. Yet what was radical in 1945 remains largely in place today. At the start of the twenty-first century, many aspects of the science and innova- tion system—from its organization and scale to the role of geography and the nature of entrepreneurship—have witnessed important changes, with potentially substantial implications for the design of science policy and insti- tutions both today and in the decades ahead. This volume explores two overarching questions: What are critical dimen- sions of change in science and innovation systems? and What are the impli- cations of these changes for policies and institutions in the twenty-first century? In this introduction, we present an overview of eleven new contri- butions that explore important dimensions of these questions. Part I of the volume investigates the organization of scientific research, especially new norms around collaboration, which appears to be a central force reshaping the production of knowledge. These studies also lay some important foundations for part II, which considers shifts in the geography of scientific research and connects to a broader literature suggesting that geographic agglomeration remains an enduring and, in some ways, strength- Introduction Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones
- 17. 2 Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones ening feature of innovative activity. Part III considers modern modes of entrepreneurship and market-based innovation, with chapters studying mobile applications, clean energy, and state-level entrepreneurship policies. Finally, in part IV, our contributors investigate changes in science insti- tutions and science-innovation linkages within broader historical visions, including from the perspective of Science: The Endless Frontier itself. The following sections discuss each of the volume’s chapters, with the purpose of presenting key findings while drawing out common themes and potential policy implications. In a concluding section, we summarize the broad, fundamental changes these contributions inform and point to addi- tional aspects of the science and innovation system that may be undergoing substantial shifts but remain for future study. The Organization of Scientific Research A primary theme, featured in four different contributions to this volume, considers the evolving role of collaboration in science—within institutions, across institutions, and through the scientific community as a whole. These contributions build primarily on two theories for increased collaboration in the sciences, both of which increase the return to collaboration. One theory emphasizes the benefits of increased collaboration as individual researchers become increasingly specialized. This tendency can be seen as a necessary response to the rising “burden of knowledge” as the stock of knowledge accumulates and the individual knows an increasingly narrow fraction of it (Jones 2009). The second theory emphasizes the declining costs of collabora- tion through the advance of information and communications technologies (Agrawal and Goldfarb 2008). An observation that persists across the con- tributions of this volume and elsewhere (Kim, Morse, and Zingales 2009; Agrawal, Goldfarb, and Teodoridis 2013) is that both forces appear to be operating. The following contributions add substantial and novel evidence to these dimensions, while also extending conceptions of collaboration in the organization of scientific research. In“WhyandWhereforeof IncreasedScientificCollaboration,”RichardB. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff establish several new facts about scientific collaborations, comparing colocated coauthors, geo- graphically distant coauthors within the United States, and coauthors across countries. Freeman et al. study nanotechnology, subfields of biomedicine, and subfields of physics. An important innovation of this chapter is to con- duct in-depth surveys of the authors, rather than relying purely on biblio- metric databases; the surveys produce first-order, novel insights about the various collaborations. One striking finding is that nearly all geographically distant coauthors were once colocated. Typically these distant coauthors were previously colocated either as colleagues, as visitors, or in an advisor-student relation-
- 18. Introduction 3 ship. These findings extend a body of work establishing that face-to-face interaction appears valuable even as communication technologies advance (e.g., Olson and Olson 2003; Olson, Zimmerman, and Bos 2008). A second finding is that the most common reason for collaboration, whether domestic or international, is access to specialized human capital, which is consistent with the burden of knowledge view of the demand for collaboration. Col- laborations motivated by access to physical equipment or grant funding are, by comparison, less common. In “The (Changing) Knowledge Production Function: Evidence from the MIT Department of Biology for 1970–2000,” Annamaria Conti and Christopher C. Liu provide a rich and textured analysis of changes in scien- tific production by focusing on a leading biology department. The authors establish that later cohorts of students experience longer training periods, longer periods until the publication of their first paper, fewer first-author publications, and, consistent with much other literature, more coauthors per paper. The life cycle effects are consistent with the extended training phases associated with a rising burden of knowledge (Jones 2010), while the extended training period is also consistent with a declining number of future positions per student in biomedicine (Stephan 2012). Regardless, as the authors discuss, the incentive for entering biomedical careers may be decreasing; a striking fact in their data is that the length of training, includ- ing graduate and postdoctoral work, now exceeds ten years—a long road that may dissuade entry into these scientific careers. Ajay Agrawal, John McHale, and Alexander Oettl, in “Collaboration, Stars, and the Changing Organization of Science: Evidence from Evolution- ary Biology,”examine how the locus of top research in evolutionary biology has changed with time. The chapter presents two intriguing and seemingly contradictory facts: the concentration of quality-weighted research pro- duced by the top 20 percent of university departments is decreasing with time, yet the concentration of quality-weighted research produced by the top 20 percent of individual scientists is increasing with time. To reconcile these contrasting trends, the authors suggest that rising collaboration is a natural mechanism. In particular, the decline in the costs of distant collabo- ration, via advances in information and computing technology, may better connect lower-tier research departments to top researchers. A more specific mechanism may be the increasing capacity of star researchers to maintain collaborative relationships with their students once their students move away. More generally, the theme where information technology can link geographically distant players to centers of research excellence (here, stars) is repeated in various forms below—see the contributions of Branstetter, Li, and Veloso (chapter 5) and Forman, Goldfarb, and Greenstein (chapter 6). In “Credit History: The Changing Nature of Scientific Credit,”Joshua S. Gans and Fiona Murray explore collaboration in a broader frame, empha- sizing that collaborations also occur across papers in the community of
- 19. 4 Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones scholars pushing forward a scientific field. This notion, which is strongly grounded in the cumulative nature of innovation, emphasizes that scien- tific collaboration often proceeds through mechanisms other than the coauthor-based organizational form of a single paper. Taking classic Mer- tonian conceptions of scientific norms, this chapter then argues that the organizational form of collaboration that scientists take naturally hinges on credit considerations. On one dimension, credit considerations may influ- ence coauthorship choices—both whether and with whom to coauthor. Moreover, the decision of when to call research “complete” and publish it, rather than continuing on one’s own in private, may also naturally hinge on how credit is given when others build on the initial work. Thus both the unit of common analysis—the paper itself—and its coauthorship arrangement may be endogenous to credit considerations, and in important ways. This chapter reviews collaborative choices under this broader frame, ani- mates these choices with compelling examples that illuminate the diversity of organizational forms and concerns over credit, and provides a formal model to synthesize the analysis. The model develops conditions under which an author may “integrate”(keep their initial research results private in pursuit of gaining credit for a larger cumulative contribution), “collaborate” (draw in coauthors to improve the research potential), or “publish”(disclose the early results and gain credit as others build on the findings). The model thus links knowledge accumulation, collaboration, and credit sharing to inform many credit-related issues. Applications include the “salami slicing” of results into small, publishable pieces and the potential divergence between equilibrium organizational forms and the social optimum; for example, if peers assign excessive joint credit to coauthored research, then credit con- siderations will lead scientists to coauthor too much. More generally, this chapter nicely integrates credit considerations into research on collaboration and outlines a compelling and rich agenda for further work. The Geography of Innovation The geography of innovation has also undergone substantial changes. Three large forces appear to be at work. First, economic development has led many countries to catch up to the world technology frontier, introduc- ing new players onto the global science and innovation landscape. Second, the advance of information and communication technologies has allowed people at geographically distant points to interact more easily in the pro- duction and consumption of new ideas. This force has led some observers to declare a “death of distance” (Cairncross 1997) or that the “world is flat”(Friedman 2005), with possible fundamental implications for economic geography. Third, and in contrast to the last forces, increased specialization of human capital or other inputs may encourage further geographic agglom- eration. This force, which can link burden of knowledge reasoning (driving
- 20. Introduction 5 increasing specialization) with a classic Marshallian analysis of geographic agglomeration, suggests that the primacy of place (e.g., in Silicon Valley or other clusters) may increase with time rather than dissolve. The policy implications of these forces are substantial. Should regions increasingly pluck the fruit of research insights produced elsewhere, local taxation to support such public goods may be more difficult to sustain po- litically. Meanwhile, local investments to promote innovative clusters, often attempted by polities seeking to replicate other region’s successes, may be either more or less well motivated or sustainable depending on the balance of the above forces. Thissectionconsiderstwovaluablecontributionsthatspeaktotheseissues. In “The Rise of International Coinvention,” Lee Branstetter, Guangwei Li, and Francisco Veloso examine the explosion of patenting from inventors in China and India. They start by noting a puzzle: both countries appear to have remarkably high patenting rates despite low per-capita income, which appears to contradict a basic idea of economic development where develop- ing countries grow primarily through capital accumulation and the adoption of existing technologies, rather than through the innovation of new tech- nologies. In Branstetter and colleague’s contribution, the puzzle is resolved through two kinds of empirical analysis. First, studying patents issued in the United States by Chinese and Indian inventors, they find the vast majority of patents coming from these developing countries occur through multina- tional corporations. Moreover, these patents typically involved collabora- tions between inventors located in China or India and inventors located in advanced economies. One implication is that the rise in patenting by China and India may not be undermining the technological leadership of advanced economies and their multinational corporations, but rather assisting it. While these results are based on patents issued in the United States (which are presumably the inventions with more substantial global value), this chap- ter also provides a detailed assessment of patents issued domestically in China by the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO). China’s domestic patent rates have recently soared, which has suggested to some observers that domestic Chinese firms have become highly innovative. However, Branstet- ter, Li, and Veloso find that only 20 percent of these SIPO patents qualify as patents in the usual sense (being new and useful, and evaluated as such). Moreover, half of these patents are already filed in foreign jurisdictions and are simply seeking protection in China. Among the remainder, many come from multinational subsidiaries. This chapter thus takes an especially deep look at the first force for geo- graphic change noted above by studying the entry of newly developing coun- tries onto the innovation landscape. The chapter finds that China and India neither overturn conventional wisdom about the development process nor suggest much innovation independent from multinational enterprises. At the same time, these countries are increasingly connected through collaboration
- 21. 6 Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones into multinational research and development (R&D) efforts, suggesting a dimension on which the world has become flatter, but in dependence with global collaboration. In “Information Technology and the Distribution of Inventive Activity,” Chris Forman, Avi Goldfarb, and Shane Greenstein turn the geographic lens to the concentration of patenting within the United States and explore link- ages between geography and information technology. Studying patenting at the county level, they find that counties saw larger patenting growth rates when they were both patenting laggards in 1990 but Internet adoption lead- ers in 2000. Echoing the prior study, the authors also find some evidence that it is distant collaboration in the context of multiestablishment firms, rather than purely local innovation, that information technologies appear to assist. Nonetheless, despite this evidence, a primary finding of Forman and col- leagues is that the overall geographic concentration of patenting activity has substantially increased with time. While the rate of patenting increased 27percentovertheirstudyperiod(1990–2005),itincreased50percentamong the initial top quartile of patenting counties. In initially below-median coun- ties, patent rates did not grow. This chapter comes close to an explicit analysis of the contest between second and third forces noted above, with emphasis on measuring over- all concentration trends while explicitly accounting for variation in access to information and communication technologies. Increasing concentra- tion appears to win out, suggesting the dominance of some version of the third force, while information technologies somewhat soften the concentra- tion tendency. Overall, these chapters paint a picture where concentration appears to be increasing, and any tendency for a death of distance occurs pri- marily through collaboration with the agglomerated regions. From a policy perspective, these findings suggest that the presumption of substantially “local” gains may be a surprisingly durable basis for public R&D support, both in the robustness of clusters and the dominance of advanced econo- mies, or at least their multinationals, in the invention process. Entrepreneurship and Market-Based Innovation The words “entrepreneur” and “entrepreneurship” do not appear in The Endless Frontier. Today, many analysts of the science/innovation system see them as crucial to reaping the potential social and economic rewards of the public investment in science. While other National Bureau of Eco- nomic Research (NBER) volumes have been devoted to the role of entrepre- neurship in this system, in this volume we have two chapters that focus on entrepreneurship in specific emerging sectors (renewable energy and mobile applications software), and one that looks at the history of the “policy inno- vation”of state-level programs designed to foster local/regional innovation and entrepreneurship.
- 22. Introduction 7 Ramana Nanda, Ken Younge, and Lee Fleming explore the nature of the patents of venture capital-backed firms in the renewable energy sector in “Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Renewable Energy.”Given climate change challenges and the role that venture capital-backed firms have played in biotechnology and information technology, this chapter examines VC’s role in the renewable energy sector. Using a new data set of the renewable energy patents of both VC-backed and incumbent firms, the authors find that most such patents still come from incumbent firms. However, patents from VC-backed firms are more novel (defined by a measure derived from textual analysis of patent claims) and have greater technological impact (based on the number of later citations to the patent from subsequent pat- ents) than those of incumbent firms. The authors also show that a surge of VC funding in this sector early in the first decade of the twenty-first century was associated with an increase in patenting by start-ups. Finally, the chapter discusses structural aspects of this sector that may limit the abil- ity of venture capital to provide the support needed if rapid technological improvement is a policy goal. In “Economic Value Creation in Mobile Applications,”Timothy F. Bres- nahan, Jason P. Davis, and Pai-Ling Yin characterize the state of innovation and entrepreneurship in a new sector: mobile software applications. The authors note that in just a few years the installed base of mobile devices already vastly exceeds that of any other programmable device; this large base combined with the ease of entry into the two mobile programming platforms (iOS and Android) has allowed three-quarters of a million programming innovations (apps) to be created. The chapter proceeds to analyze the ways in which this innovation wave resembles and differs from previous waves. The authors note the tremendous importance of the last step in the chain from technical discovery to creation of economic value, whereby creating new markets may itself require innovations that are distinct from the tech- nological ones. The scale of the mobile sector is qualitatively greater than we have seen before, with market-dominant personal computer (PC) appli- cations such as the spreadsheet having emerged when the quantity of soft- ware created for that platform numbered in the hundreds rather than the hundreds of thousands already in existence for mobile. The authors argue that this vastly greater scale creates a bottleneck whereby a new app and the subset of potential customers who might use it have trouble finding each other. Currently, existing firms (e.g., Starbucks or airline companies) have been most successful at solving this problem in mobile apps because they start with an existing customer base, but it remains to be seen what market mechanisms will evolve in the future and what firms will be most successful with those mechanisms. If The Endless Frontier launched science and innovation as a central con- cern of the federal government, it was several decades before states began to consider their own policy choices. Maryann Feldman and Lauren Lanahan
- 23. 8 Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones describe the emergence and evolution of state-level interventions in “State Science Policy Experiments.”On one level, states invest in science and inno- vation for the same reason as the federal government, to create public goods and derive the spillover benefits therefrom. But this raises the obvious ques- tion of why states would not just leave this to the federal government and enjoy the benefits within their borders without having to invest their own resources. The answer, of course, is that the spillovers may be partially local- ized, so that states invest to increase local innovation and local economic growth. This chapter looks at the factors affecting states’ adoption of the three main categories of state programs: “eminent scholars,” designed to attract scientific talent to the state; “centers of excellence,”designed to build research expertise that involves industry; and “university research grants,” which provide funding for specific research projects. The results indicate that eminent scholar and university research grant programs seem to build on existing strengths in research, while the centers of excellence seem motivated by more generic economic growth concerns. Given the apparent durability of geographic agglomeration in anchoring innovation (see the above section on geography and innovation), state-level policies may arguably be quite fruitful in bringing local benefits if these policies are well designed. The Feldman and Lanahan analysis thus appears to push forward an important research agenda. State policy to encourage innovation is widespread and expanding, thus calling for a detailed assess- ment of its effectiveness, especially given the variety of policy approaches states can undertake. These chapters speak to entrepreneurship but more generally speak to market-based innovation and its potential interfaces with policy. If Bush’s vision in The Endless Frontier centered on a robust public commitment to R&D, and the postwar period initially saw enormous growth in public R&D expenditure, the story since the early 1960s has been quite different, where private sector R&D funding has grown much faster than public funding.1 The above chapters suggest specific mechanisms—including the roles of venture capital and platform formation—that go beyond the vision of Bush and appear to be central features of the modern innovation system. The role of standard setting, which can be assisted by public institutions, and market-based innovation policies such as the R&E tax credit and the tax treatment of early stage finance may then be increasingly important policy levers to encourage innovation, suggesting a broader and retuned vision from the emphasis on basic science that Bush articulated. We further take up these themes below, where the next two contributions consider the reali- 1. For example, in 1960 US federal government R&D funding and US private sector R&D funding were nearly 2 percent and 1 percent of GDP, respectively. By 2000, these shares had reversed. (See the National Science Foundation Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/).
- 24. Introduction 9 zation and limits to Bush’s vision and the shifting technology paradigms that may help define where innovation occurs. Historical Perspectives on Science Institutions and Paradigms The changes in science over the last half century encompass institutional evolutions as Bush’s vision came to be implemented and also evolutions in the science-innovation paradigm itself as the types of technologies driving economic progress have evolved. Two chapters in this volume confront these central historical developments in the science and innovation system and offer rich, novel, and intriguing assessments of such changes. This volume closes with these broader historical analyses. In “The Endless Frontier: Reaping What Bush Sowed?” Paula Stephan compares the current state of the basic research system with the vision that Bush originally articulated. On the surface we got what Bush wanted: a large basic research enterprise, centered in the university system, and funded by the federal government. But the system differs in some important ways from that envisioned by Bush, and Stephan argues that these differences are connected to a number of problems or issues in the existing system. First, the dependence on federal research funds for academic year salaries and the investments in buildings and equipment universities have made in order to compete for federal research funds have made universities dependent on a perpetually growing funding pie that no longer seems likely to grow at the samerate.Second,Bushenvisionedresearchfundedbyresearchgrants,while the building of human capital would be funded by fellowship programs. But today the salaries of PhD students and postdoctoral scholars are paid largely out of research grants. The result is that the size of education and training programs is determined not by the number of positions available for graduates, but by the needs of existing research labs for research staff. Such a system can operate in balance if the total research funding grows continu- ously, but creates another source of system instability as research funding remains flat. Third, perhaps as a result of the funding pressure created when a system built for growth confronts static funding levels, the need for public funding to facilitate high-risk breakthrough research seems to be giving way to a demand for incremental projects with a higher likelihood of success. Finally, while Bush envisioned a public investment in research that would be something like one-third medical and biosciences and two-thirds physical sciences, the political process that determines funding allocation has instead consistently devoted more than half of the federal research resources to biomedical sciences. A second chapter providing a broad historical analysis argues that the scientific frontier discussed by Bush was not, in fact, endless, but was rather one in a succession of frontiers that sometime around the millennium was replaced by the “algorithmic frontier.”“Algorithms and the Changing Fron-
- 25. 10 Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones tier,” by Hezekiah Agwara, Philip Auerswald, and Brian Higginbotham, argues that while the defining attribute of the world technological frontier in the mid-twentieth century was the application of science to product and process innovation, the current defining feature of the technological frontier is the ever-improving connections and interoperability among firm-level production algorithms, which are in turn made possible by the adoption of standards. Just as the transition from the industrial frontier of the nineteenth century to the scientific frontier of the late twentieth century meant that economists needed new analytical tools such as the knowledge production function and endogenous growth models, economists are now embarking on the development of new tools to understand algorithm-based innova- tion and growth. An implication of this chapter is to emphasize that standard-setting insti- tutions, in addition to basic science institutions, may be crucial for encourag- ing technological progress both today and in the decades ahead. Standard setting, like research and development, happens through both private sector and public sector mechanisms. To the extent that Agwara, Auerswald, and Higginbotham’s analysis is accurate, research to improve standard-setting mechanisms becomes an increasingly impactful area of study. One may look no further than the recent development of mobile operating standards like iOS and Android to see an example of standards knitting together down- streamdemandandencouragingmassiveinnovationandentrepreneurshipin software applications—as detailed in Bresnahan, Davis, and Yin (chapter 8). Concluding Comments In July 1945, when Vannevar Bush wrote Science: The Endless Frontier, the world’s scientific enterprise was a tiny fraction of its current scale. By articulating a compelling case for the impact of science and the need of public support (the first two sections of his introduction are entitled “Scien- tific Progress is Essential” and “Science is a Proper Concern of Govern- ment”), he helped set the United States, and ultimately many other countries, on a path toward strong and well-funded institutions of science, centered on universities and government labs, which can provide basic research insights and/or develop scientific human capital. Both of these outputs—ideas and people—Bush saw as the primary and essential way in which government can support industrial R&D. Now we approach the seventieth anniversary of his seminal work and Bush’s ensuing efforts within the government to create the modern science architecture. It is clear, based on the analysis in this volume, that major changes in the nature of science and innovation have occurred. One fun- damental shift has occurred in the organization of scientific research. At a microlevel the shift toward collaboration, and the increasingly long period of PhD and postdoctoral study before researchers establish their
- 26. Introduction 11 own labs, impacts the scientific workforce considerations that center in the Bush vision. As articulated by both Paula Stephan and Conti and Liu, the system of human capital formation appears increasingly arduous, with a funding system that may redirect students from efficient skill building to faculty research needs. If the burden of knowledge is raising human capital demands on scientists, efficient training may be increasingly important; yet, as Stephan argues, our training systems may be pushing the other way. The shift toward collaboration also suggests a shift in the character of training, where learning collaborative and management skills may become an increas- ingly high-return investment, ultimately in furtherance of the individual’s career and the overall science enterprise. The shifts in organization, especially in collaboration, also link to shifts in the geography of innovation. Vannevar Bush wrote at a time when the United States sat uniquely as the only advanced economy left largely undam- aged by war. It is not surprising that issues of the geography of innova- tion did not feature in Endless Frontier, while it is also not surprising that in today’s globalized economy they are central to science and innovation policy debates. As discussed above, the chapters in this volume add to other recent empirical evidence (e.g., Glaeser and Kerr 2009; Puga 2010; Glaeser 2010) that suggests agglomeration economies remain a profoundly impor- tant aspect of innovation geography. The world may be getting flatter with respect to tasks that depend on codified knowledge and that can therefore be made routine, but fundamentally creative processes such as innovation appear to remain dependent on complex interactions among people that are facilitated by geographic concentration. While important aspects of geography—where distant researchers are increasingly connected, espe- cially those who were once colocated—flattens the world in some respects, it appears that agglomerative tendencies continue to be strong, suggesting that local spillovers may remain a potentially credible basis for motivating a polity to bear costs in pursuit of science and innovation’s public goods. It seems plausible to imagine that a major force compelling Bush’s vision of the long-run benefits of public science was the contributions that tech- nologies such as radar, aircraft, and the atomic bomb had made to the war effort. These are examples of science harnessed for social goals essentially outside of the market system. But today our innovation goals—even those greatly enmeshed in public policy such as environment and health—are typi- cally met by bringing products and processes to the marketplace successfully. Moreover, the private sector is the increasingly dominant source of R&D funding in the United States. This means that issues of market behavior and institutions, such as entrepreneurship and standard setting, play a significant role in the success of the overall system in delivering ultimate social and economic benefits from scientific research. From a policy perspective, these issues raise many possibilities for market failure. The chapters in this volume on innovation and entrepreneurship in clean energy and mobile applications,
- 27. 12 Adam B. Jaffe and Benjamin F. Jones and on state science/innovation programs, illuminate important aspects of these issues. Other issues, not studied here, suggest further substantial changes in the science and innovation system. Theuniversity-market interface has evolved, especially with the Bayh-Dole Act, the rise of technology transfer offices, and the interest of nonprofit research institutions in both creating and tap- ping royalty streams. Intellectual property regimes including patenting, copyright, and even noncompete agreements, have experienced changes in their strength, scale, and strategic use through evolutions of law, court inter- pretation, and with the rise of new types of codified knowledge, like software and gene sequences, that challenge standing intellectual property systems. Constraints imposed on the basis of social ethics, too, have evolved, with more oversight and restrictions upon human experimentation, especially through institutional review boards, even as ever-expanding consumer data resources are unleashing new innovative opportunities in the private sector, often at the expense of consumer privacy. These subjects and others are also worthy of substantial consideration in any holistic assessment of the “changing frontier.” What is clear is that science and innovation landscape has undergone profound transformations since Vannevar Bush shaped the US science institutions based on the landscape he observed. References Agrawal, Ajay, and Avi Goldfarb. 2008. “Restructuring Research: Communication Costs and the Democratization of University Innovation.” American Economic Review 98 (4): 1578‒90. Agrawal, Ajay, Avi Goldfarb, and Florenta Teodoridis. 2013. “Does Knowledge Accumulation Increase the Returns to Collaboration? Evidence from the Collapse of the Soviet Union.” NBER Working Paper no. 19694, Cambridge, MA. Cairncross, Frances. 1997. The Death of Distance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press. Friedman, Thomas L. 2005. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Glaeser, Edward L. 2010. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Healthier, and Happier. New York: Penguin Press. Glaeser, Edward L., and William R. Kerr. 2009. “Local Industrial Conditions and Entrepreneurship: How Much of the Spatial Distribution Can We Explain?”Jour- nal of Economics & Management Strategy 18 (3): 623‒63. Jones, Benjamin F. 2009. “The Burden of Knowledge and the ‘Death of the Renais- sance Man’: Is Innovation Getting Harder?” Review of Economic Studies 76 (1): 283‒317. ———. 2010. “Age and Great Invention.” Review of Economics and Statistics 92 (1): 1‒14. Kim, E. Han, Adair Morse, and Luigi Zingales. 2009. “Are Elite Universities Losing Their Competitive Edge?” Journal of Financial Economics 93 (3): 353‒81.
- 28. Introduction 13 Olson, Gary, and Judith Olson. 2003. “Mitigating the Effect of Distance on Col- laborative Work.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 12 (1): 27‒42. Olson, Gary, Ann Zimmerman, and Nathan Bos, eds. 2008. Science Collaboration on the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Puga, Diego. 2010. “The Magnitude and Causes of Agglomeration Economies.” Journal of Regional Science 50 (1): 203‒19. Stephan, Paula. 2012. How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- 30. 17 Richard B. Freeman holds the Herbert Ascherman chair in economics at Harvard University andisaresearchassociateof theNationalBureauof EconomicResearch.InaGanguliisassistant professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, a research affiliate at the Stockholm Insti- tute of Transition Economics (SITE) at the Stockholm School of Economics, and a postdoctoral affiliate at the Center for International Development, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Raviv Murciano-Goroff is a PhD candidate in economics at Stanford University. We appreciate assistance with the survey from John Trumpbour and input from Jennifer Amadeo-Holl, Paula Stephan, and Andrew Wang. We received helpful comments from Adam Jaffe, Ben Jones, Manuel Trajtenberg, and participants at the NBER “The Changing Frontier: Rethinking Science and Innovation Policy” conferences. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation’s National Nanotechnology Initiative, award 0531146. For acknowledgments, sources of research support, and disclosure of the authors’ material finan- cial relationships, if any, please see http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13040.ack. Scientists increasingly collaborate on research with other scientists, produc- ing an upward trend in the numbers of authors on a paper (Jones, Wuchty, and Uzzi 2008; Wuchty, Jones, and Uzzi 2007; Adams et al. 2005). Papers with larger numbers of authors garner more citations and are more likely to be published in journals with high impact factors than papers with fewer authors (Lawani 1986; Katz and Hicks 1997; deB. Beaver 2004; Wuchty, Jones, and Uzzi 2007; Freeman and Huang 2014), which seems to justify increased collaborations in terms of scientific productivity. The trend in coauthorshipextendsacrosscountrylines,withalargerproportionof papers coauthored by scientists from different countries (National Science Board 2012; Adams 2013). In the United States and other advanced economies, the proportion of papers with international coauthors increased from the 1990s through the first decade of the twenty-first century, while the proportion of papers with domestic coauthors stabilized. In emerging economies, where collaboration has not yet reached the proportions in the United States and 1 Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff
- 31. 18 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff other advanced countries, the share of papers with domestic collaborations and the share with international collaborations have both increased. The spread of scientific workers and research and development activ- ity around the world (Freeman 2010) has facilitated the increase in inter- national collaborations. The growing number of science and engineering PhDs in developing countries, some of whom are international students and postdocs returning to their country of origins (Scellato, Franzoni, and Stephan 2012) has expanded the supply of potential collaborators outside the North American and Western European research centers. A rising trend in government and industry research and development (R&D) spending in developing countries and grant policies by the European Union and other countries favor international cooperation. At the same time, the lower cost of travel and communication has reduced the cost of collaborating with persons across geographic locales (Agrawal and Goldfarb 2008; Catalini, Fons-Rosen, and Gaulé 2014). The increased presence of China in scientific research, exemplified by China’s move from a modest producer of scientific papers to number two in scientific publications after the United States, has been associated with huge increases in collaborations between Chinese scien- tists and those in other countries.1 Finally, the location of scientific equipment and materials, such as the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)’s Large Hadron Col- lider, huge telescopes in particular areas, or geological or climatological data available only in special localities, have also increased collaborations. The United States was not a prime funder for CERN, but Americans are the largest group of scientists and engineers working at CERN. China eschewed joining the CERN initiative as an associate member state, but many China- born scientists and engineers work at CERN as members of research teams from other countries. How successful are collaborations across country lines and across loca- tions in the same country? How do collaborators meet and develop suc- cessful research projects? What are the main advantages and challenges in collaborative research? To answer these questions, we combine data from a 2012 survey that we conducted of corresponding authors on collaborations with at least one US coauthor with bibliometric data from Web of Science (WoS) (Thomson Reuters 2012) in three growing fields—particle and field physics, nanosci- ence and nanotechnology, and biotechnology and applied microbiology. The survey data allow us to investigate the connections among coauthors in collaborations and the views of corresponding authors about collabora- tions. The WoS data allows us to examine patterns of collaborations over 1. Science and Engineering Indicators 2013, appendix table 5–27, gives scientific papers for the top five countries in 2009: United States, 208,601; China, 74,019; Japan, 49,627; United Kingdom, 45,649; and Germany, 45,002.
- 32. Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration 19 time and to compare patterns found in our fields to those found in scientific publications broadly. To determine whether borders or space are the primary factors that affects the nature and impact of collaborations, we contrast col- laborations across locations in the United States, collaborations in the same city in the United States, and collaborations with international researchers. We find that US collaborations increased across US cities as well as inter- nationally and that scientists involved in these collaborations and those who collaborate in the same locale report broad similarities in their experiences. Most collaborators first met while working in the same institution. Most say that face-to-face meetings are important in communicating with coauthors across distances. And most say that specialized knowledge and skills of co- authors drive their collaborations. We find that international collaborations have a statistically significant higher citation rate than domestic collabora- tions only in biotech, a modestly higher citation rate in particle physics, but a lower rate in nanotech. Because international collaborations have a greater number of authors than other collaborations, once we account for the number of coauthors on papers, the higher citation rate for biotech and particle physics international collaborations also disappear. Our results suggest that the benefits to international collaboration in terms of citations depend on the scientific field in question, rather than from any “international magic”operating on collaborations with the same number of researchers. By limiting our sample to papers with at least one US-based author, however, we exclude the possibility that international collaborations greatly benefit researchers in countries with smaller research communities by linking them to experts outside their country, the United States aside. 1.1 The Growing Trend of International Collaboration We analyze data from corresponding authors and articles in which researchers collaborate in particle and field physics, nanoscience and nano- technology, and biotechnology and applied microbiology. These three fields cover a wide span of scientific activity, with different research tools and methodologies. Particle physics has a theoretical part and an empirical part. Leading edge empirical research requires massive investments in accelerators and collid- ers, of which the Large Hadron Collider is the most striking. Europe’s deci- sion to fund the Hadron Collider while the United States’ rejection to build a large collider in Texas shifted the geographic locus of empirical research from the United States to Europe and arguably spurred the greater growth of string theory (which does not need direct access to the Collider) in the United States than in Europe. Particle physics is the most mathematically and theoretically sophisticated of the sciences we study, where pathbreaking mathematical analysis guides empirical work, and where the massive equip- ment exemplifies big science.
- 33. 20 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff Nanotechnology is a general interdisciplinary applied technology, where engineers often collaborate with material scientists. The electron microscope is a pivotal research tool. The United States made sizable investments in nanotechnology beginning at the turn of the twenty-first century, when President Clinton called for greater investment in nano-related science and technology. This led to the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and De- velopment Act that President Bush signed in 2003. Other countries under- took similar initiatives in the same period. Biotechnology is lab-based, in which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) dominates basic research funding, but where big pharmaceutical firms also fund considerable research. The most important change in biotech research technology has been the US-sponsored Human Genome Project and associated new methods of genetic analysis and engineering that allow labs around the world to modify the biological underpinnings of living crea- tures to advance medicine and improve biological products and processes. To measure collaboration patterns in the three fields, we use publication data from the WoS. We identified all papers in the WoS database from 1990– 2010, with at least one US coauthor in journal subject categories particle and field physics; nanoscience and nanotechnology; and biotechnology and applied microbiology. From these papers, we identify teams by the names of coauthors and locate the authors by author affiliations. This sample includes 125,808 papers. Using the location of the authors on each paper, we define four types of collaborations: US-only collaborations, divided into US colocated, in which all US authors are in the same city; US non-colocated, in which US coauthors are in at least two different cities; international collaborations, divided into international/US colocated, in which US coauthors are in the same city with at least one foreign coauthor; and international/US non-colocated, in which US coauthors are in two or more cities with at least one foreign coauthor. Distinguishing between these forms of collaborations allows us to iden- tify differences between papers with international collaborations and papers with collaborations in different locations, whether they are in the United States or overseas, as well as between papers with collaborations across loca- tions within the United States. By focusing only on papers in which there is some US presence, our analysis may not generalize to papers written in which all authors are based outside the United States; by differentiating city location only for US coauthors, our findings do not address the potential effects of colocation or non-colocation of non-US-based researchers on paper outcomes. Figure 1.1 displays the proportion of papers in our four categories and the proportion with single authors in the three fields taken together in each year. The solid top line gives the share of papers in which a US-based author col- laborates solely with authors colocated in the same city. It shows a marked
- 34. Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration 21 decrease in collaborations between these authors from 1990 through 2000, which then stabilizes at about 40 percent of papers. The line labeled Solo shows the proportion of papers that are solo authored. It drops from 20 per- cent to about 5 percent from 1990 to 2010. The line for International/US Colocated papers gives the share of papers for which at least one of the authors is in another country while all US authors are in the same city. It increases by 18 percentage points from 1990 to 2010. The line for Interna- tional/US non-colocated increases by about 5 percentage points from 1990 to 2010. Most of the increase in international collaborations was between US scientists based in one location and persons in another country. Overall, while papers with authors in different US cities increased less than inter- national collaborations, the data shows that increased geographic scope of collaborations involved more than crossing national boundaries. To see whether the trend in collaborations varied noticeably among fields, figures 1.2A, 1.2B, and 1.2C display the proportion of papers by collabora- tion type for the three fields separately. The data for particle physics in figure 1.2A show the highest level of international collaborations, due presumably totheimportanceof particleacceleratorsandotherequipmentthatareavail- able at only some sites. Figures 1.2B and 1.2C show that in nano and biotech, the most common form of collaborations are US-colocated teams, while Fig. 1.1 Share of papers by collaboration type Notes: Includes all papers in the Web of Science database with at least one US author, and with journal subject categories of particle and field physics, nanoscience and nanotechnology, and biotechnology and applied microbiology, published from 1990 to 2010.
- 35. Fig. 1.2B Share of papers by collaboration type, nanotechnology Fig. 1.2A Share of papers by collaboration type, particle physics
- 36. Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration 23 international/US-colocated collaborations are the second most common and US non-colocated collaborations are third in frequency. International collaborations were roughly as common as US non-colocated collabora- tions in nano and biotech until late in the first decade of the twenty-first century, when international collaborations increased sharply. In all fields, the proportion of papers by sole researchers and by researchers collaborating in the same city falls. The increase in international collaborations in our three fields resembles the patterns in National Science Board (2012) and in Adams (2013) for science more broadly. Similarly, the increased geographic dispersion of coauthorship in our fields reflects the pattern in science more broadly in the United States as well. 1.2 Survey of Corresponding Authors To go beyond bibliometric data on collaborations, in August 2012 we conducted an online survey of the corresponding authors of papers pub- lished in 2004, 2007, and 2010 in the Web of Science nano, biotech, and par- ticle physics subject categories with at least one US coauthor. We identified unique corresponding authors based on e-mail addresses in these categories and selected one paper for each author, randomly choosing the paper from authors who had more than one paper in the database. Using the e-mail address of the corresponding author, we sent a personalized e-mail in Fig. 1.2C Share of papers by collaboration type, biotechnology
- 37. 24 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff English that invited them to complete the survey by clicking a link that con- nected them to the online survey instrument. If a paper had more than one corresponding author, we selected the one that appeared first. We sent two follow-up e-mail reminders in August and September 2012. We used Qual- trics Survey Software and respondents accessed it from the Qualtrics server. We customized each survey to ask the respondent about the specific col- laboration and individual team members. The survey had twenty-five ques- tions and was designed so that respondents could complete it in ten to fifteen minutes. The questions sought to discover how the team formed, how it com- municated and interacted during the collaboration, the contribution of each coauthor, types of research funding, and the advantages and disadvantages of working with the team. The survey also included an open-ended question for respondents to make comments. Several respondents sent e-mails with additional thoughts and information about the collaboration. Between August 13, 2012, and August 20, 2012, we e-mailed a total of 19,836 individuals. Since some e-mail addresses had expired, changed, or some individuals were deceased, the number of individuals who received the e-mail is lower. We received 3,925 responses, which implies a response rate of 20 percent—a proportion that is in line with other surveys of scientists (Sauermann and Roach 2013). For individuals who published their papers in the most recent year of our survey (2010), the response rate was 26 per- cent. Taking account of the proportion of e-mails that likely did not reach respondents, we estimate approximately 29 percent of recipients of e-mails answered them.2 The survey asked the respondent which country each coauthor was “pri- marily based in during the research and writing”of the article. This gives us a more accurate measure of whether teams are international than in the WoS data, which are based on author affiliations at the time of publication, which can differ from those during the work either because affiliations change between the time of the research and the time of publication, or because some people have multicountry affiliations. Table 1.1 compares the characteristics of collaborations in the papers we analyze to those in the full sample of WoS papers and those in the 2004, 2007, and 2010 WoS sample from which we drew the survey. Our final sample includes 3,452 respondents, which is lower in part than the returned responses due to the fact that some papers with US addresses on the pub- lication did not meet our requirement that at least one author be primarily based in the United States at the time of the research. Our analysis uses the respondents’ information to define US colocated, US non-colocated, 2. Of those who received the e-mail, 5,744 opened the survey, and 3,925 completed and submitted their answers. While we are unable to precisely count how many e-mails reached active mailboxes, based on the number of e-mails that “bounced” back from a sample of the messages sent, we estimate that approximately 32 percent of e-mails sent were undeliverable. Given this estimate, we approximate a response rate of 29 percent from the deliverable messages.
- 38. Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration 25 and international teams.3 The column giving the difference between the distribution of our sample in column (3) and the distribution of the WoS sample in column (2) shows that our survey sample is overrepresented by US colocated teams, the more recent publication year (2010), and publica- tions from biotechnology. 1.3 Collaborations over Distance In what ways, if any, do papers with international collaborations differ from collaborations that occur solely in the United States? 3. Comparing the 34.01 percent in row “int’l collaboration survey,” which is based on the respondent’s answers regarding the location of coauthors, and the 36.35 percent in “int’l col- laboration,” table 1.1 shows that using only reported author affiliations from publications overestimates the number of international teams by 2.35 percentage points. Table 1.1 Distribution of papers by characteristics, Web of Science papers and survey respondents Papers, 1990–2010 (1) Papers in 2004, 2007, and 2010 (2) Survey sample, papers in 2004, 2007, and 2010 (3) Difference (3)–(2) Collaboration type US collaboration only 66.29 63.65 62.25 –1.4 US colocated 44.81 41.56 46.84 5.28 US non-colocated 21.47 22.09 15.41 –6.68 Int’l collaboration 33.71 36.35 37.75 1.4 Int’l/US colocated 24.04 26.04 26.94 0.9 Int’l/US non- colocated 9.68 10.31 10.81 0.5 Int’l collaboration survey 34.01 Year 2004 6.08 25.38 18.42 –6.96 2007 8.05 33.61 29.46 –4.15 2010 9.83 41.01 52.11 11.1 Field Particle physics 25.19 21.75 19.55 –2.2 Nano 23.82 32.85 30.5 –2.35 Biotechnology 50.99 45.40 49.94 4.54 N 125,808 30,141 3,452 Notes: Column (1) includes all papers in the Web of Science with more than one author, at least one US coauthor, and with journal subject categories of particle and field physics, nano- science and nanotechnology, and biotechnology and applied microbiology, published from 1990 to 2010. Column (2) includes those papers in 2004, 2007, and 2010. Column (3) includes the respondents to our survey, which was a sample based on unique corresponding authors appearing in column (2) that had more than one author.
- 39. 26 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff As others have found (e.g., Katz and Hicks 1997; Rigby 2009; Guerrero Bote, Olmeda-Gómez, and Moya-Anegón 2013; Lancho Barrantes et al. 2012; Adams 2013), international collaborations tend to produce more highly cited papers than collaborations of persons in a single country. Tak- ing all of our fields together gives a similar pattern, where the United States is the single country to which we compare the international collaborations. We examined citations for papers published in 1990–2007—dates chosen to allow time for papers to gain substantial numbers of citations. In this group, US papers with foreign authors obtained 26.59 citations compared to 25.65 citations in which collaborations were solely with fellow residents of the United States. Since US-authored papers average more citations than papers worldwide, it would have been reasonable to expect the opposite: fewer cita- tions for US-based scientists collaborating with persons outside the country than for US-based scientists collaborating with other US scientists. Does this mean that international collaborations per se produce better science as reflected in numbers of citations?4 We answer this question by comparing citations for papers with interna- tionalcollaborationsandcitationsforpaperswithcollaborationsacrosslocales in the United States. If the observed international effect is due to something special about international collaborations, the average citations for interna- tionalcollaborationswouldexceedaveragecitationsforcollaborationsamong non-colocated authors in the United States as well as exceed the average cita- tions for colocated authors in the United States. Figure 1.3 shows the average numberof citationsforpaperspublishedbetween1990(withtwenty-oneyears of potential citations) and 2007 (with three years of potential citations) for these three forms of collaboration. The number of citations varies over time, from approximately thirty for the older papers to three to four citations for the newer papers. In almost all years, papers with international collaborators and papers with non-colocated US collaborators have more citations than those published by collaborators in the same US city. But there is no clear pattern of differences in citations for papers coauthored by people in different US cities than for papers coauthored by people in the United States and in a foreign location. Among papers published between 1998 and 2007, US non- colocated collaborations obtain more citations than international papers, but among papers published between 1990 and 1997, there is no clear difference. That cites per year between US non-colocated papers and international col- laborations are reasonably similar and that both are notably larger than cites to US-colocated papers suggests that the greater cites of international col- laborationsreflectmultiplelocationsmorethanhavingauthorsacrossnational borders. 4. Citations measure the attention given to a paper, which is an imperfect measure of its scientific contribution since citation behavior can be driven by factors besides its contribution to knowledge (see, e.g., Simkin and Roychowdhury 2003). But it is still a sufficiently valuable indicator of the impact of a paper and is the most widely used measure in the science of science.
- 40. Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration 27 We pursue the comparison of citations across types of collaborations for each of our three fields separately. The style of research in the fields differs greatly between particle physics, where empirical work often involves huge collaborations around particular pieces of equipment, and the smaller col- laborations of nanotechnology and biotechnology research. This difference shows itself in the much higher average number of authors per paper in physics than in the other two fields (see appendix table 1A.1). The difference is concentrated in the upper tail of the distribution of authors per paper. In particlephysics,theupper95thpercentileof thenumberof authorsperpaper have 100 authors, while those in the 99th percentile have 523 authors—which far exceed the upper percentile numbers for authors in nano and biotech. Reflecting the “big science” nature of some of the physics projects, the corresponding author on a physics paper with over 450 coauthors noted in our survey: This research was carried out as part of a very large collaboration in which every member gets authorship and this is listed in alphabetical order on our papers. The collaboration consists of scientists and engineers with a wide range of expertise—many primarily involved in designing, building, and running instrumentation, and many analyzing data for various kinds of signal. This particular research was primarily carried out by myself, Fig. 1.3 Citations by the nature of collaboration, all fields by year of publication Notes: Figure shows forward citations of all papers in the Web of Science database with at least one US author, and with journal subject categories of particle and field physics, nanosci- ence and nanotechnology, and biotechnology and applied microbiology, published from 1990 to 2007. Year indicates the year of publication of the cited paper.
- 41. 28 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff and the majority of the listed coauthors (including three of the selected authors in this survey) had no direct involvement in its preparation other than through collaboration membership. We next use regression analysis to examine the relation between the modes of collaboration and the number of researchers listed as authors and the number of references in a paper, both of which tend to be positively related to citations. To the extent that the references influence the paper by providing information and ideas from other scientists, they can be viewed as indicators of “invisible coauthors,” self-citations aside. Table 1.2 records the regression coefficients and standard errors for regres- sions of numbers of coauthors and references on the type of collaboration and a year trend for each field. While there is a broad similarity in the esti- mated effect of the collaborations on the number of coauthors and references across the fields, there are also differences that presumably reflect differences in their research technologies. In all of the fields, the regression of number of coauthors on the dummy variable for whether or not the paper had an international coauthor gives a positive coefficient on the dummy variable. But the magnitudes of the coefficients differ greatly. The estimated coefficient on international collaborations in particle physics in column (1) (43.8) shows that the number of authors on papers is much higher for those than for the US collaboration reference group, whereas the estimated coefficients for the relation between international collaborations and coauthors in nanotech and biotech are magnitudes smaller: 1.3 more authors on international papers than papers written by authors solely in the United States for nano (column [2]) and 2.2 more authors on international papers than US-only papers for biotech (column [3]). The more detailed measures of collaborations in col- umns(4),(5),and(6)showthatthisdifferenceislargelydrivenbyinternational collaborationsinwhichtheUSscientistsdoingparticlephysicsarefrommany locationsaswell.Thisreflectsthebigsciencenatureof empiricalparticlephys- ics, where huge numbers of collaborators work together with massive instru- mentsandmachinescomparedtothesmallerlabscienceof nanoandbiotech. The regressions in columns (7)–(9) show greater differences among the fields in the number of references on international papers relative to US non- colocated papers, and differences among the fields in the relation between numbersof coauthorsandnumbersof references.Inparticlephysics,numbers of references for papers with international collaborations exceed those for US non-colocatedpapers,whichinturnexceedboththoseforUScolocatedinter- national papers and those US colocated (column [7]). In biotech, numbers of references for papers with international collaborations and non-colocated US collaborations exceed those for US non-colocated papers, which in turn exceed those for US colocated papers (column [9]). A potential explanation is that persons in a given location are more likely to cite papers written in their location, so that the greater the number of locations, the greater the number of references. But the regression for number of references in the nano papers
- 43. 30 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff shows a different relation between references and collaborations (column [8]). Finally, the estimated coefficients on the number of authors also shows no consistent pattern among the fields: negligible effects for particle physics (potentially because the number of authors can be extremely high), slight negativeeffectsinnano,butsubstantialpositiveeffectsinbiotech(column[9]). All told, table 1.2 shows that simple comparisons of papers with interna- tional and national collaborations can present a misleading picture about the science involved in various types of collaborations. The collaborations can involve huge differences in the numbers of coauthors and differing relations to the numbers of references. Given these results, we examine the relation between the citations to a paper and the form of collaboration separately for each filed using a regression that includes the number of coauthors and the number of references in the paper. To deal with the life cycle of citations in which the number of citations increases sharply in the first five to seven years after publication and then grows more slowly, we include dummy variables for the year the paper was published as well. Tables 1.3A, 1.3B, and 1.3C give the results of this analysis. Column (1) of each of the tables estimates the difference in citations between international papers and US-only collaborations. The estimates show a disparate pattern across the fields: an insignificant positive relation between international col- laborations and citations for particle physics, a negative relation in nano, and a positive relation in biotech. Column (2) of each table adds the number of coauthors to the regression. In each of the fields, the addition of numbers of authors reduces the coefficient on international collaborations. In bio- tech it turns the coefficient from positive to negative.5 With the addition of numbers of references in column (3), the estimated relation of international collaborations to citations is significantly negative in all three fields. The disaggregation of types of collaborations in columns (4) in tables 1.3A–1.3C show sufficiently weak and different patterns across the fields to suggest that there is nothing universal in the link between international collaborations and ensuing citations to papers. All told, the regression analysis in tables 1.2 and 1.3A, 1.3B, and 1.3C document the changing patterns of cooperation across locations in the three fields and their disparate relation with citations. While invaluable as descrip- tions about collaborations, such bibliometric analysis cannot, however, pro- vide insight into the ways collaborating scientists work together to conduct the research that leads to published papers. To gain insight into what goes on in collaborations, we turn to the survey of corresponding authors described in section 1.1. 5. To see if this is a more general pattern, we ran similar regressions for other scientific fields in the WoS and find variation across fields in the difference between citation rates for inter- national collaborations and domestic collaborations; the addition of the number of coauthors to citation regressions reduces the coefficient on international collaborations in almost all fields.
- 44. Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration 31 1.4 Survey Evidence I think the best example of collaboration I have done is . . . where all the authors are from different countries and we met at the Bellagio Conference Center of the Rockefeller Foundation. I think that it is absolutely indispensable to meet people in person to have effective collaborations. Skype was not available . . . at the time we completed this work. We now use Skype or ITV connection to meet and discuss data with collaborators on a weekly basis. The international collaboration worked so well because of my frequent trips to Brazil during the project.6 6. The four quotes are based on comments from the open-ended section of our survey. Table 1.3A The estimated relation between number of citations to a paper and the type of collaboration that produced the paper, particle physics (1) (2) (3) (4) US collaboration only US colocated US non-colocated 1.664* (0.691) Int’l collaboration 0.718 0.096 –1.212** (0.469) (0.452) (0.464) Int’l/US colocated –1.418** (0.532) Int’l/US non- colocated 1.402 (0.856) No. coauthors 0.014** 0.014** 0.010** (0.003) (0.002) (0.002) No. references 0.398** 0.396** (0.017) (0.017) Constant 24.030** 24.031** 15.404** 14.817** (1.953) (1.945) (1.894) (1.901) Year FE Yes Yes Yes Yes R2 0.030 0.031 0.072 0.073 No. of obs. 31,690 31,690 31,690 31,690 Notes: Sample is all papers in the Web of Science with more than one author, at least one US coauthor, and with a journal subject category of particle and field physics, published from 1990 to 2010. **Significant at the 1 percent level, OLS estimation. *Significant at the 5 percent level, OLS estimation. + Significant at the 10 percent level, OLS estimation.
- 45. 32 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff For scientists to collaborate, they must meet and decide to work together, communicate during the collaboration, and combine their knowledge and skills to create sufficient new knowledge to generate a publishable paper. 1.4.1 Meeting and Communicating We asked corresponding authors to answer the following question about their coauthors: “How did you FIRST come in contact with each of these coauthors?” For papers with up to six authors, we asked about each coau- thor. For papers with more than six we asked about the first and the last authors, if they were not the corresponding author, and about randomly selected authors from the list of coauthors to obtain information on a maximum of six collaborators. Figure 1.4 displays the proportion of persons of each collaboration type who the corresponding author first met as advisor-student/postdoc; col- leagues in the same department/institution; through contact without an introduction; at a conference, seminar, or other meeting; or by visiting the Table 1.3B The estimated relation between number of citations to a paper and the type of collaboration that produced the paper, nanotechnology (1) (2) (3) (4) US collaboration only US colocated US non-colocated –3.971** (0.423) Int’l collaboration –2.300** –3.732** –3.637** (0.358) (0.388) (0.387) Int’l/US colocated –4.849** (0.470) Int’l/US non- colocated –6.305** (0.621) No. coauthors 1.074** 1.110** 1.294** (0.083) (0.080) (0.085) No. references 0.295** 0.293** (0.068) (0.068) Constant 26.252** 21.712** 14.660** 14.747** (4.749) (4.683) (4.805) (4.819) Year FE Yes Yes Yes Yes R2 0.039 0.045 0.068 0.070 No. of obs. 30,761 30,761 30,761 30,761 Notes: Sample is all papers in the Web of Science with more than one author, at least one US coauthor, and with a journal subject category of nanoscience and nanotechnology, published from 1990 to 2010. **Significant at the 1 percent level, OLS estimation. *Significant at the 5 percent level, OLS estimation. + Significant at the 10 percent level, OLS estimation.
- 46. Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration 33 department/institution. The figure shows that for all forms of collaboration, most first meetings occurred when the corresponding author and the other person worked in the same institution. For papers written in the same loca- tion, the predominant contact was throughadvisor-student or postdoc rela- tionships, but that over one-third of the meetings came about as colleagues. For papers with authors from other US locations or foreign locations, the corresponding authors met through working in the same place, primarily as a colleague, but with nearly 10 to 16 percent meeting the person as a visitor. Conferences also accounted for a substantial proportion of the first meetings between corresponding authors on papers written with persons in other US locations or in foreign locations.7 Overall, figure 1.4 shows broad similarity in the mode of meeting between non-colocated US authors and 7. The time series data in appendix figures 1A.1 and 1A.2 show that conferences have become a less important way to meet future coauthors, while students/postdocs have become more important, possibly due to their increased importance in the scientific production process. Table 1.3C The estimated relation between number of citations to a paper and the type of collaboration that produced the paper, biotechnology (1) (2) (3) (4) US collaboration only US colocated US non-colocated 1.109* (0.531) Int’l collaboration 1.800** –1.466* –1.583* (0.597) (0.680) (0.677) Int’l/US colocated –2.138** (0.647) Int’l/US non- colocated 2.394 (1.891) No. coauthors 1.506** 1.412** 1.333** (0.103) (0.101) (0.110) No. references 0.193** 0.191** (0.015) (0.015) Constant 34.629** 29.522** 24.805** 24.917** (2.047) (2.054) (2.075) (2.067) Year FE Yes Yes Yes Yes R2 0.025 0.032 0.036 0.036 No. of obs. 64,153 64,153 64,153 64,153 Notes: Sample is all papers in the Web of Science with more than one author, at least one US coauthor, and with a journal subject category of biotechnology and applied microbiology, published from 1990 to 2010. **Significant at the 1 percent level, OLS estimation. *Significant at the 5 percent level, OLS estimation. + Significant at the 10 percent level, OLS estimation.
- 47. 34 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff in the mode of meeting between US and foreign-located authors compared to the mode of meeting for coauthors in US-colocated collaborations. We asked corresponding authors the frequency with which they commu- nicated with one or more of their coauthors from “every week” to “never.” Because collaborations that include persons in the same locale and persons in other locales as the corresponding author allow the corresponding author to meet face-to-face easily with some coauthors but only infrequently with coauthors in other locations, the question does not pin down differences associated with distance. To overcome this problem, we show in figure 1.5 modes of communication between coauthors on two-authored papers, which differentiate properly communication between colocated, US non- colocated, and foreign coauthors. The results show that the corresponding author relies extensively on face- to-face meetings when all authors are in the same location. But figure 1.5 also shows that while face-to-face meetings are much lower for authors across distances, such meetings are still frequent. Among the two-author papers, just over 50 percent of corresponding authors on international teams report meeting face-to-face at least a few times per year, while 64 percent of those on US non-colocated papers reported face-to-face meetings at least a few times a year. By contrast, the figure shows no noticeable differ- ences in using e-mail by distance. Corresponding authors in all forms of col- Fig. 1.4 Share of persons who first met in a given way by the nature of collaboration Notes: Share of all coauthors on papers for a given collaboration type. Question was phrased as “How did you FIRST come in contact with each of these coauthors?”
- 48. Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration 35 laborations use e-mail frequently to communicate with their collaborators, approximately forty weeks during the year. There are substantial differences in use of telephone versus Internet (e.g., Skype) between US-based teams and international teams that are readily explained by the differential in cost of international and within US telephone calls. Our survey findings that face-to-face meetings are important in both the initiation of research collaborations and the working of distant collabora- tions are consistent with evidence on the role of colocation in the formation of research collaborations (such as Boudreau et al. 2014) and the need for periodic colocation to maintain the effectiveness of distant collaborations even with advances in long-distance communication technologies (see, e.g., Olson and Olson 2000, 2003; Cummings and Kiesler 2005). 1.4.2 What Coauthors Bring to Collaboration To understand what factors helped produce the collaborations, we asked the corresponding author to specify the unique contribution of each team member. Our question was “Did any of the team members working on this Fig. 1.5 Overcoming distance: Frequency of communication modes for two-author papers by the nature of collaboration (approx. weeks per year) Notes: Question was phrased as “When carrying out the research and writing for this article, how frequently did you use the following forms of communication with one or more of your coauthors?” The possible choices were transformed into approximate number of weeks per year that each communication type was used: 6 = every week (52), 5 = almost every week (45), 4 = once or twice a month (15), 3 = a few times per year (5), 2 = less often than that (2), and 1 = never (0).
- 49. 36 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff article (including yourself) have access to one of the following resources that the other team members did NOT have, which made it important for you to all work together on this topic?” The possible choices were: access to data, material, or components; data, material, or components protected by intel- lectual property; a critical instrument, facility, or infrastructure; funding; or unique knowledge, expertise, or capabilities. Figure 1.6 shows that the major factor cited for all collaborations was “unique knowledge, expertise, or capabilities.” That access to specialized human capital seems to drive collaborations, whether in the United States or international, implies that a theory of collaboration should focus on the complementarity of skills and knowledge of collaborators just as the theory of tradefocusesoncomparativeadvantageincreatingtradeamongcountries. Buttherearedifferencesintheimportanceof otherfactorsacrossformsof col- laboration. Non-colocated and international teams were more likely to have a coauthor contributing data, material, or components than US colocated teams—a pattern that has increased over time (see appendix figure 1A.3). While most corresponding authors reported the contribution and role of their coauthors, those on huge collaborations told a different story. As one respondent remarked, “Many of the questions are hard to translate to the field of experimental particle physics, where an international collabora- tion of hundreds of scientists work on the same project with funding from Fig. 1.6 Contribution of coauthors by the nature of collaboration Notes: Share of US and foreign coauthors on two-author papers only, as reported by the cor- responding author.
- 50. Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration 37 many countries. I can only guess where the funding from each of the ~300 coauthors comes from, many of whom I have not even met. The published research is primarily the work of a single person (myself), but would not have been possible without having access to custom software and data provided by the collaboration.” Finally, taking advantage of the unique identification of authors in two- authored papers, we compare the specific contributions of foreign-located coauthors and domestic coauthors on those papers (see figure 1.7). The US and foreign coauthors were equally likely to contribute “unique knowledge, expertise, or capabilities” and “data, material, or components protected by intellectual property.” Foreign coauthors are slightly more likely to con- tribute access to “data, material, or components” or “a critical instrument, facility, or infrastructure,” while the US coauthor was slightly more likely to contribute funding. 1.4.3 Advantages and Challenges To assess the effects of the different forms of collaboration on the produc- tion and output of scientific activity, we use our survey, where we asked the Fig. 1.7 Contribution of US and foreign coauthors for two-author papers Notes: Share of papers for which the corresponding author reported at least one coauthor contributing the given resource. Question was phrased as “Did any of the team members working on this article (including yourself) have access to one of the following resources that the other team members did NOT have, which made it important for you to all work together on this topic?”
- 51. 38 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff corresponding authors their views of the advantages and challenges on their collaboration, and the bibliometric data, where we estimated a regression model linking the number of citations to a paper to the attributes of the collaboration reported on the survey. Table 1.4 summarizes the responses of corresponding authors on the advantages and challenges of the collaborations. It records the average score on a five-point scale of agreement (5) or disagreement (1) with statements regarding the attributes of the collaboration. The corresponding authors agreed that their collaboration had substantial advantages in harnessing human capital to produce a scientific outcome. “Complementing our knowl- edge, expertise, and capabilities” and “learning from each other” are the only items with average scores greater than (4) in the table. The next highest score was that collaborations made the research experience more pleasant. There is little variation here in the responses between US non-colocated and international teams. Corresponding authors on the both of those collabo- rations gave modestly higher scores to the knowledge advantages than the colocated teams. Similarly, all three groups ranked highly “gaining access to data, material, or components,”with the highest assessment coming from the corresponding authors of US non-colocated teams. The corresponding authors of international teams gave higher scores to the advantage of “our research reached a wider audience”than did the cor- responding authors of US non-colocated teams, who in turn gave higher scores than the corresponding authors of US colocated only teams. Viewing “wider audience” in terms of the geographic distribution of citations, this suggests that the wider the geographic distribution of authors, the wider is the distribution of citations, possibly even among papers with the same numbers of citations. Regarding the challenges of collaborations, US non-colocated and inter- national teams reported similarly that there was “insufficient time for com- munication,” “problems coordinating with team members’ schedules,” and “insufficient time to use a critical instrument, facility, or infrastructure” than did US colocated teams. As in the bibliometric analysis in section 1.3, geographic location appears to be more than national boundaries in the way teams operated. We also asked whether the corresponding authors viewed teams as having the optimal size. The responses, given in appendix table 1A.2, show that most corresponding authors viewed their team as having the right size. Presum- ably the principal investigator(s) would have modified the team if they did not think that was the case, but there are some differences by collabora- tion type. The US colocated teams were more likely to say that they needed additional collaborators (7.58 percent vs. 3.48 percent, and 3.38 percent for US non-colocated and international), whereas international teams were more likely to say that fewer team members were needed (6.67 percent vs. 3.37 percent for US colocated). Reflecting the role of government policies,
- 53. 40 Richard B. Freeman, Ina Ganguli, and Raviv Murciano-Goroff 24 percent of the international teams received funding aimed at supporting cross-country collaboration, with 6.65 percent receiving US government funding, 4.64 percent receiving EU funding, and the remainder from other government sources. As our second way to assess how the attributes of collaborations affect outcomes we added the corresponding authors’descriptions of the collabo- ration to the table 1.3 regressions of the number of citations on attributes of papers. Because publication of the paper preceded the survey, some of the corresponding author views of the collaboration will presumably have been affected by the success of the paper, which would give a distorted view of the link from collaboration to outcome. To deal with this problem, we limit analysis to the survey responses that seem least prone to be affected by the outcome—relatively objective questions about the way corresponding authors met coauthors, what coauthors contributed, and funding support. Table 1.5 gives the results of this analysis. Columns (1) and (2) replicate the regression estimates in table 1.3 for the dichotomous international col- laboration variable. The results in table 1.5 show some differences in the regression coefficients from that found in the larger WoS sample. The posi- tive coefficient on international collaborations in column (1) in table 1.5 is larger than the coefficient in the comparable regression using the larger WoS sample papers in our three fields. The coefficients on the number of coauthors and number of references variables are positive and significant in column (2) of table 1.5 but the coefficient on coauthors is larger than that of references, contrary to the result in the larger WoS sample. Subject to these differences, which suggest some modest differences between the papers of respondents to the survey and the population of papers, the estimated coefficients on the survey variables in columns (3), (4), and (5) tell a clear story. They show that papers in which at least one coauthor met at a con- ference had higher citations, that papers for which a coauthor contributed funding had lower citations, and that papers that got funding specifically for cross-country collaborations had lower citations.8 The natural interpre- tation of these patterns is that collaborations based on ideas or relations developed at conferences produce more cited and potentially better science than collaborations based on funding. 1.5 Toward an Economics of Scientific Collaborations Scientific collaborations have become increasingly important in scientific research, but the nature of collaborations, their determinants, effects on scientific outcomes, and the incentives that drive scientists to collaborate or 8. We also estimated the model including dummies for whether the corresponding author did not view the team size as optimal, and an average of the scores assessing the advantages and disadvantages to the collaboration, but found no effect of these measures on citations.
- 54. Table 1.5 The estimated relation between number of citations to a paper and the type and characteristics of collaboration, survey sample (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) US collaboration only US colocated US non-colocated –0.355 0.434 0.444 (0.779) (0.779) (0.773) Int’l collaboration 0.878+ 0.192 –0.579 0.370 0.495 (0.529) (0.538) (0.649) (0.600) (0.586) No. coauthors 0.161* 0.157* 0.160* 0.161* (0.066) (0.066) (0.066) (0.066) No. references 0.099** 0.098** 0.099** 0.098** (0.015) (0.015) (0.015) (0.015) How they met Advisor-stu./postdoc –0.734 (0.656) Colleagues 0.592 (0.547) Visiting 0.703 (0.877) Conference 2.939** (0.993) No introduction 0.575 (0.890) Coauthor contributions Knowledge, etc. 0.498 (0.682) Funding –1.327* (0.553) Data, etc. –0.305 (0.520) IP data, etc. 0.124 (0.630) Instrument, etc. 0.166 (0.567) Cross-country funding –1.207* (0.610) Constant 17.433** 14.655** 14.654** 14.925** 14.676** (2.497) (2.513) (2.593) (2.607) (2.548) R2 0.076 0.114 0.119 0.116 0.115 No. of obs. 3,452 3,452 3,452 3,452 3,452 Notes: All regressions include year, field, and year × field fixed effects. Sample is the survey sample described in section 1.2. “How they met” and “coauthor contribution” variables are dummies indicating whether any coauthor on the team met that way/contributed the resource. **Significant at the 1 percent level, OLS estimation. *Significant at the 5 percent level, OLS estimation. + Significant at the 10 percent level, OLS estimation.
- 55. Random documents with unrelated content Scribd suggests to you:
- 56. Médicis, resolving upon that infamous deed whilst playing at chess with his favourite, de Luynes, who was hardly two years older than himself; a monarch timid in council and brave in warfare, a true Valois astray among the Bourbons, lean, melancholy and sickly- looking, with a profile half like that of Henri IV. and half like Louis XIV., without the goodness of the one and the dignity of the other; this Louis XIII. held out to me the promise of a curious royal figure to take as a model, I who had already given birth to Henri III. and was later to bring Charles IX. to the light of day. But, as I have said, I had renounced it. De Vigny, who did not know Paul Lacroix, or hardly knew him, had not the same reason for abstaining, and he had written a five-act drama in prose on this subject, which had been received at the Odéon. Here was yet another battle to fight. De Vigny, at that time, as I believe he still does, belonged to the Royalist party. He had therefore two things to fight—the enemies which his opinions brought him, and those who were envious of his talent,—a talent cold, sober, charming, more dreamy than virile, more intellectual than passionate, more nervous than strong. The piece was excellently well put on: Mademoiselle Georges took the part of the Maréchale d'Ancre; Frédérick, that of Concini; Ligier, Borgia; and Noblet, Isabelle. The difference between de Vigny's way of treating drama and mine shows itself in the very names of the characters. One looked in vain for Louis XIII. I should have made him my principal personage. Perhaps, though, the absence of Louis XIII. in de Vigny's drama was more from political opinion than literary device. The author being, as I say, a Royalist, may have preferred to leave his royalty behind the wings than to show it in public with a pale and bloodstained face. The Maréchale d'Ancre is more of a novel than a play; the plot, so to speak, is too complicated in its corners and too simple in its middle spaces. The Maréchale falls without a struggle, without catastrophe, without clinging to anything: she slips and falls to the ground; she is seized; she dies. As to Concini, as the author was much embarrassed to know what to do with him, he makes him spend ten hours at a Jew's, waiting for a young girl whom he has only seen once; and, just when he learns
- 57. that Borgia is with his wife, and jealousy lends him wings to fly to the Louvre, he loses himself on a staircase. During the whole of the fourth act, whilst his wife is being taken to the Bastille, and they are trying her and condemning her, he is groping about to find the bannisters and seeking the door; when he comes out of Isabelle's room at the end of the third act, he does not reappear again on the stage till the beginning of the fifth, and then only to die in a corner of the rue de la Ferronnerie. That is the principal idea of the drama. According to the author, Concini is the real assassin of Henry IV.; Ravaillac is only the instrument. That is why, instead of being killed within the limits of the court of the Louvre, the Maréchal d'Ancre is killed close to the rue de la Ferronnerie, on the same spot where the assassin waited to give the terrible dagger-stroke of Friday, 14 May 1610. In other respects I agree with the author; I do not think it at all necessary that a work of art should possess as hall-mark, "un parchemin par crime et un in-folio par passion." For long I have held that, in theatrical matters specially, it seems to me permissible to violate history provided one begets offspring thereby; but to let Concini kill Henri IV. with no other object than that Concini should reign, after the death of Béarnais, by the queen and through the queen, is to give a very small reason for so great a crime. Put Concini behind Ravaillac if you will, but, behind Concini, place the queen and Épernon, and behind the queen and Épernon place Austria, the eternal enemy of France! Austria, who has never put out her hand to France save with a knife in it, the blade of Jacques Clément, the dagger of Ravaillac and the pen-knife of Damiens, knowing well it would be too dangerous to touch her with a sword- point. It did not meet with much success, in spite of the high order of beauty which characterised the work, beauty of style particularly. An accident contributed to this: after the two first acts, the best in my opinion, I do not know what caprice seized Georges, but she pretended she was ill, and the stage-manager came on in a black coat and white tie to tell the spectators that the remainder of the representation was put off until another day. As a matter of fact, the
- 58. Maréchale d'Ancre was not resumed until eight or ten days later. It needs a robust constitution to hold up against such a check! The Maréchale d'Ancre held its own and had quite a good run. Between the Maréchale d'Ancre and Henry Monnier's first appearance a three- act drama was played at the Porte-Saint-Martin, patronised by Hugo and myself: this was Farruck le Maure, by poor Escousse. The piece was not good, but owing to Bocage it had a greater success than one could have expected. It afterwards acquired a certain degree of importance because of the author's suicide, who, in his turn, was better known by the song, or rather, the elegy which Béranger wrote about him, than by the two plays he had had played. We shall return to this unfortunate boy and to Lebras his fellow-suicide. It was on 5 July that Henry Monnier came out. I doubt if any début ever produced such a literary sensation. He was then about twenty- six or twenty-eight years of age; he was known in the artistic world on three counts. As painter, pupil of Girodet and of Gros, he had, after his return from travel in England, been instrumental in introducing the first wood-engraving executed in Paris, and he published Mœurs administratives, Grisettes and Illustrations de Béranger. As author, at the instigation of his friend Latouche, he printed his Scènes populaires, thanks to which the renown of the French gendarme and of the Parisian titi[1] spread all over the world. Finally, as a private actor in society he had been the delight of supper-parties, acting for us, with the aid of a curtain or a folding- screen, his Halte d'une diligence, his Étudiant and his Grisette, his Femme qui a trop chaud and his Ambassade de M. de Cobentzel. On the strength of being applauded in drawing-rooms, he thought he would venture on the stage, and he wrote for himself and for his own début, a piece called La Famille improvisée, which he took from his Scènes populaires. Two types created by Henry Monnier have lasted and will last: his Joseph Prudhomme, professor of writing, pupil of Brard and Saint-Omer; and Coquerel, lover of la Duthé and of la Briand. I have spoken of the interior of the Théâtre-Français on the day of the first performance of Henri III.; that of the Vaudeville
- 59. was not less remarkable on the evening of 5 July; all the literary and artistic celebrities seemed to have arranged to meet in the rue de Chartres. Among artists and sculptors were, Picot, Gérard, Horace Vernet, Carle Vernet, Delacroix, Boulanger, Pradier, Desbœufs, the Isabeys, Thiolier and I know not who else. Of poets there were Chateaubriand, Lamartine, Hugo, the whole of us in fact. For actresses, Mesdemoiselles Mars, Duchesnois, Leverd, Dorval, Perlet and Nourrit, and every actor who was not taking part on the stage that night. Of society notabilities there were Vaublanc, Mornay, Blanc-ménil, Madame de la Bourdonnaie, the witty Madame O'Donnell, the ubiquitous Madame de Pontécoulant, Châteauvillars, who has the prerogative of not growing old either in face or in mind, Madame de Castries, all the faubourg Saint-Germain, the Chaussée- d'Antin and the faubourg Saint-Honoré. The whole of the journalist world was there. It was an immense success. Henry Monnier reappeared twice, being called first as actor then as author. This, as I have said, was on 5 July, and from that day until the end of December the piece was never taken off the bills. I went away the next day. Where was I going? I did not know. I had flung a feather to the wind; it blew that day from the south, so my feather was carried northwards. I set out therefore, for the north, and should probably go to Havre. There seems to be an invincible attraction leading one back to places one has previously visited. It will be remembered that I was at Havre in 1828 and rewrote Christine, as far as the plot was concerned, in the coach between Paris and Rouen. Then, too, Rouen is such a beautiful town to see with its cathedral, its church of Saint-Ouen, its ancient houses with their wood-carvings, its town-hall and hôtel Bourgtheroude, that one longs to see it all again! I stopped a day there. Next day the boat left at six in the morning. At that time it still took fourteen hours to get from Paris to Rouen by diligence, and ten hours from Rouen to Havre by boat. Now, by express train it only takes three and a half! True, one departs and arrives—when one does arrive—but one does not really travel; you do not see Jumiéges, or la Meilleraie or Tancarville, or all that charming country by Villequier, where, one
- 60. day, ten years after I was there, the daughter of our great poet met her death in the midst of a pleasure party. Poor Léopoldine! she would be at Jersey now, completing the devout colony which provided a family if not a country for our exiled Dante, dreaming of another inferno! Oh! if only I were that mysterious unknown whose elastic arm could extend from one side of the Guadalquiver to the other, to offer a light to Don Juan's cigar, how I would stretch out each morning and evening my arm from Brussels to Jersey to clasp the beloved hand which wrote the finest verse and the most vigorous prose of this century! We no longer see Honfleur, with its fascinating bell-tower, built by the English; an erection which made some bishop or other, travelling to improve his mind, say, "I feel sure that was not made here!" In short, one goes to Havre and returns the same day, and one can even reach Aix-la-Chapelle the next morning. If you take away distance, you augment the duration of time. Nowadays we do not live so long, but we get through more. When I reached Havre I went in search of a place where I could spend a month or six weeks; I wanted but a village, a corner, a hole, provided it was close to the sea, and I was recommended to go to Sainte-Adresse and Trouville. For a moment I wavered between the two districts, which were both equally unknown to me; but, upon pursuing my inquiries further, and having learnt that Trouville was even more isolated and hidden and solitary than Sainte-Adresse, I decided upon Trouville. Then I recollected, as one does in a dream, that my good friend Huet, the landscape painter, a painter of marshes and beaches, had told me of a charming village by the sea, where he had been nearly choked with a fish bone, and that the village was called Trouville. But he had forgotten to tell me how to get to it. I therefore had to make inquiries. There were infinitely more opportunities for getting from Havre to Rio-de-Janeiro, Sydney or the coast of Coromandel than there were to Trouville. Its latitude and longitude were, at that time, almost as little known as those of Robinson Crusoe's island. Sailors, going from Honfleur to Cherbourg, had pointed out Trouville in the distance, as a little settlement of
- 61. fishermen, which, no doubt, traded with la Délivrande and Pont- l'Évêque, its nearest neighbours; but that was all they knew about it. As to the tongue those fisherfolk talked they were completely ignorant, the only relations they had hitherto had with them had been held from afar and by signs. I have always had a passion for discoveries and explorations; I thereupon decided, if not exactly to discover Trouville, at least to explore it, and to do for the river de la Touque what Levaillant, the beloved traveller of my childhood, had done for the Elephant River. That resolution taken, I jumped into the boat for Honfleur, where fresh directions as to the route I should follow would be given me. We arrived at Honfleur. During that two hours' crossing at flood-tide, everybody was seasick, except a beautiful consumptive English lady, with long streaming hair and cheeks like a peach and a rose, who battled against the scourge with large glasses of brandy! I have never seen a sadder sight than that lovely figure standing up, walking about the deck of the boat, whilst everybody else was either seated or lying down; she, doomed to death, with every appearance of good health, whilst all the other passengers, who looked at the point of death, regained their strength directly they touched the shore again, like many another Antæus before them. If there are spirits, they must walk and look and smile just as that beautiful English woman walked and looked and smiled. When we landed at Honfleur, just as the boat stopped, her mother and a young brother, as fair and as rosy as she seemed, rose up as though from a battlefield and rejoined her with dragging steps. She, on the contrary, whilst we were sorting out our boxes and portmanteaux, lightly cleared the drawbridge which was launched from the landing-stage to the side of the miniature steam- packet, and disappeared round a corner of the rue de Honfleur. I never saw her again and shall never see her again, probably, except in the valley of Jehoshaphat; but, whether I see her again, there or elsewhere—in this world, which seems to me almost impossible, or in the other, which seems to me almost improbable—I will guarantee that I shall recognise her at the first glance.
- 62. We were hardly at Honfleur before we were making inquiries as to the best means of being transported to Trouville. There were two ways of going, by land or by sea. By land they offered us a wretched wagon and two bad horses for twenty francs, and we should travel along a bad road, taking five hours to reach Trouville. Going by sea, with the outgoing tide, it would take two hours, in a pretty barque rowed by four vigorous oarsmen; a picturesque voyage along the coast, where I should see great quantities of birds, such as sea- mews, gulls and divers, on the right the infinite ocean, on the left immense cliffs. Then if the wind was good—and it could not fail to be favourable, sailors never doubt that!—it would only take two hours to cross. It was true that, if the wind was unfavourable, we should have to take to oars, and should not arrive till goodness knows when. Furthermore, they asked twelve francs instead of twenty. Happily my travelling companion—for I have forgotten to say that I had a travelling companion—was one of the most economical women I have ever met; although she had been very sick in crossing from Havre to Honfleur, this saving of eight francs appealed to her, and as I had gallantly left the choice of the two means of transport to her she decided on the boat. Two hours later we left Honfleur as soon as the tide began to turn. [1] Young workman of the Parisian faubourgs. CHAPTER XII Appearance of Trouville—Mother Oseraie—How people are accommodated at Trouville when they are married—The price of painters and of the community of martyrs—Mother Oseraie's acquaintances—How she had saved the life of Huet, the landscape painter—My room and my neighbour's—A twenty- franc dinner for fifty sous—A walk by the sea-shore—Heroic resolution
- 63. The weather kept faith with our sailors' promise: the sea was calm, the wind in the right quarter and, after a delightful three hours' crossing—following that picturesque coast, on the cliffs of which, sixteen years later, King Louis-Philippe, against whom we were to wage so rude a war, was to stand anxiously scanning the sea for a ship, if it were but a rough barque like that Xerxes found upon which to cross the Hellespont—our sailors pointed out Trouville. It was then composed of a few fishing huts grouped along the right bank of the Touque, at the mouth of that river, between two low ranges of hills enclosing a charming valley as a casket encloses a set of jewels. Along the left bank were great stretches of pasture-land which promised me magnificent snipe-shooting. The tide was out and the sands, as smooth and shining as glass, were dry. Our sailors hoisted us on their backs and we were put down upon the sand. The sight of the sea, with its bitter smell, its eternal moaning, has an immense fascination for me. When I have not seen it for a long time I long for it as for a beloved mistress, and, no matter what stands in the way, I have to return to it, to breathe in its breath and taste its kisses for the twentieth time. The three happiest months of my life, or at any rate the most pleasing to the senses, were those I spent with my Sicilian sailors in a speronare, during my Odyssey in the Tyrrhenian Sea. But, in this instance, I began my maritime career, and it must be conceded that it was not a bad beginning to discover a seaport like Trouville. The beach, moreover, was alive and animated as though on a fair day. Upon our left, in the middle of an archipelago of rocks, a whole collection of children were gathering baskets full of mussels; upon our right, women were digging in the sand with vigorous plying of spades, to extract a small kind of eel which resembled the fibres of the salad called barbe de capucin (i.e. wild chicory); and all round our little barque, which, although still afloat, looked as though it would soon be left dry, a crowd of fishermen and fisher-women were shrimping, walking with athletic strides, with the water up to their waists and pushing in front of them long-handled nets into which they reaped their teeming harvest. We stopped at every step; everything on that unknown sea-
- 64. shore was a novelty to us. Cook, landing on the Friendly Isles, was not more absorbed or happy than was I. The sailors, noticing our enjoyment, told us they would carry our luggage to the inn and tell them of our coming. "To the inn! But which inn?" I asked. "There is no fear of mistake," replied the wag of the company, "for there is but one." "What is its name?" "It has none. Ask for Mother Oseraie and the first person you meet will direct you to her house." We were reassured by this information and had no further hesitation about loafing to our heart's content on the beach of Trouville. An hour later, various stretches of sand having been crossed and two or three directions asked in French and answered in Trouvillois, we managed to land at our inn. A woman of about forty—plump, clean and comely, with the quizzical smile of the Norman peasant on her lips—came up to us. This was Mother Oseraie, who probably never suspected the celebrity which one day the Parisian whom she received with an almost sneering air was to give her. Poor Mother Oseraie! had she suspected such a thing, perhaps she would have treated me as Plato in his Republic advises that poets shall be dealt with: crowned with flowers and shown to the door! Instead of this, she advanced to meet me, and after gazing at me with curiosity from head to foot, she said— "Good! so you have come?" "What do you mean by that?" I asked. "Well, your luggage has arrived and two rooms engaged for you." "Ah! now I understand." "Why two rooms?" "One for madame and one for myself."
- 65. "Oh! but with us when people are married they sleep together!" "First of all, who told you that madame and I were married?... Besides, when we are, I shall be of the opinion of one of my friends whose name is Alphonse Karr!" "Well, what does your friend whose name is Alphonse Karr say?" "He says that at the end of a certain time, when a man and a woman occupy only one room together, they cease to become lover and mistress and become male and female; that is what he says." "Ah! I do not understand. However, no matter! you want two rooms?" "Exactly." "Well, you shall have them; but I would much rather you only took one [prissiez]." I will not swear that she said prissiez, but the reader will forgive me for adding that embellishment to our dialogue. "Of course, I can see through that," I replied; "you would have made us pay for two and you would have had one room left to let to other travellers." "Precisely!—I say, you are not very stupid for a Parisian, I declare!" I bowed to Mother Oseraie. "I am not altogether a Parisian," I replied; "but that is a mere matter of detail." "Then you will have the two rooms?" "I will." "I warn you they open one out of the other." "Capital!" "You shall be taken to them."
- 66. She called a fine strapping lass with nose and eyes and petticoats turned up. "Take madame to her room," I said to the girl; "I will stop here and talk to Mother Oseraie." "Why?" "Because I find your conversation pleasant." "Gammon!" "Also I want to know what you will take us for per day." "And the night does not count then?" "Night and day." "There are two charges: for artists, it is forty sous." "What! forty sous ... for what?" "For board and lodging of course!" "Ah! forty sous!... And how many meals for that?" "As many as you like! two, three, four—according to your hunger—of course!" "Good! you say, then, that it is forty sous per day?" "For artists—Are you a painter?" "No." "Well, then it will be fifty sous for you and fifty for your lady—a hundred sous together." I could not believe the sum. "Then it is a hundred sous for two, three or four meals and two rooms?" "A hundred sous—Do you think it is too dear?" "No, if you do not raise the price." "Why should I raise it, pray?"
- 67. "Oh well, we shall see." "No! not here ... If you were a painter it would only be forty sous." "What is the reason for this reduction in favour of artists?" "Because they are such nice lads and I am so fond of them. It was they who began to make the reputation of my inn." "By the way, do you know a painter called Decamps?" "Decamps? I should think so!" "And Jadin?" "Jadin? I do not know that name." I thought Mother Oseraie was bragging; but I possessed a touch- stone. "And Huet?" I asked. "Oh, yes! I knew him." "You do not remember anything in particular about him, do you?" "Indeed, yes, I remember that I saved his life." "Bah! come, how did that happen?" "One day when he was choking with a sole bone. It doesn't take long to choke one's self with a fish bone!" "And how did you save his life." "Oh! only just in time. Why, he was already black in the face." "What did you do to him?" "I said to him, 'Be patient and wait for me.'" "It is not easy to be patient when one is choking." "Good heavens! what else could I have said? It wasn't my fault. Then I ran as fast as I could into the garden; I tore up a leek, washed it, cut off its stalks and stuffed it right down his throat. It is a sovereign remedy for fish bones!"
- 68. "Indeed, I can well believe it." "Now, he never speaks of me except with tears in his eyes." "All the more since the leek belongs to the onion family." "All the same, it vexes me." "What vexes you? That the poor dear man was not choked?" "No, no, indeed! I am delighted and I thank you both in his name and in my own: he is a friend of mine, and, besides, a man of great talent. But I am vexed that Trouville has been discovered by three artists before being discovered by a poet." "Are you a poet, then?" "Well, I might perhaps venture to say that I am." "What is a poet? Does it bring in an income?" "No." "Well, then, it is a poor sort of business." I saw I had given Mother Oseraie but an indifferent idea of myself. "Would you like me to pay you a fortnight in advance?" "What for?" "Why! In case you are afraid that as I am a poet I may go without paying you!" "If you went away without paying me it would be all the worse for you, but not for me." "How so?" "For having robbed an honest woman; for I am an honest woman, I am." "I begin to believe it, Mother Oseraie; but I, too, you see, am not a bad lad."
- 69. "Well, I don't mind telling you that you give me that impression. Will you have dinner?" "Rather! Twice over rather than once." "Then, go upstairs and leave me to attend to my business." "But what will you give us for dinner?" "Ah! that is my business." "How is it your business?" "Because, if I do not satisfy you, you will go elsewhere." "But there is nowhere else to go!" "Which is as good as to say that you will put up with what I have got, my good friend.... Come, off to your room!" I began to adapt myself to the manners of Mother Oseraie: it was what is called in the morale en action and in collections of anecdotes "la franchise villageoise" (country frankness). I should much have preferred "l'urbanité parisienne" (Parisian urbanity); but Mother Oseraie was built on other lines, and I was obliged to take her as she was. I went up to my room: it was quadrilateral, with lime- washed walls, a deal floor, a walnut table, a wooden bed painted red, and a chimney-piece with a shaving-glass instead of a looking- glass, and, for ornament, two blue elaborately decorated glass vases; furthermore there was the spray of orange-blossom which Mother Oseraie had had when she was twenty years of age, as fresh as on the day it was plucked, owing to the shade, which kept it from contact with the air. Calico curtains to the window and linen sheets on the bed, both sheets and curtains as white as the snow, completed the furnishings. I went into the adjoining room; it was furnished on the same lines, and had, besides, a convex-shaped chest of drawers inlaid with different coloured woods which savoured of the bygone days of du Barry, and which, if restored, regilded, repaired, would have looked better in the studio of one of the three painters Mother Oseraie had just mentioned. The view from both windows was magnificent. From mine, the valley of the Touque É
- 70. could be seen sinking away towards Pont-l'Évêque, which is surrounded by two wooded hills; from my companion's, the sea, flecked with little fishing-boats, their sails white against the horizon, waiting to return with the tide. Chance had indeed favoured me in giving me the room which looked on to the valley: if I had had the sea, with its waves, and gulls, and boats, its horizon melting into the sky always before me, I should have found it impossible to work. I had completely forgotten the dinner when I heard Mother Oseraie calling me— "I say, monsieur poet!" "Well! mother!" I replied. "Come! dinner is ready." I offered my arm to my neighbour and we went down. Oh! worthy Mother Oseraie! when I saw your soup, your mutton cutlets, your soles en matelote, your mayonnaise of lobster, your two roast snipe and your shrimp salad, how I regretted I had had doubts of you for an instant! Fifty sous for a dinner which, in Paris, would have cost twenty francs! True, wine would have accounted for some of the difference; but we might drink as much cider as we liked free of charge. My travelling companion suggested taking a lease of three, six, or nine years with Mother Oseraie; during which nine years, in her opinion, we could economise to the extent of a hundred and fifty thousand francs! Perhaps she was right, poor Mélanie! but how was Paris and its revolutions to get on without me? As soon as dinner was finished we went back to the beach. It was high tide, and the barques were coming into the harbour like a flock of sheep to the fold. Women were waiting on the shore with huge baskets to carry off the fish. Each woman recognised her own boat and its rigging from afar; mothers called out to their sons, sisters to their brothers, wives to their husbands. All talked by signs before the boats were near enough to enable them to use their voices, and it was soon known whether the catch had been good or bad. All the while, a hot July sun was sinking below the horizon, surrounded by great clouds which it fringed with purple, and through the gaps between the
- 71. clouds it darted its golden rays, Apollo's arrows, which disappeared in the sea. I do not know anything more beautiful or grand or magnificent than a sunset over the ocean! We remained on the beach until it was completely dark. I was perfectly well aware that, if I did not from the beginning cut short this desire for contemplation which had taken possession of me, I should spend my days in shooting sea-birds, gathering oysters among the rocks and catching eels in the sand. I therefore resolved to combat this sweet enemy styled idleness, and to set myself to work that very evening if possible. I was under an agreement with Harel; it had been arranged that I should bring him back a play in verse, of five acts, entitled Charles VII chez ses grands vassaux. M. Granier, otherwise de Cassagnac, published, in 1833, a work on me, since continued by M. Jacquot, otherwise de Mirecourt, a work in which he pointed out the sources whence I had drawn all the plots for my plays, and taken all the ideas for my novels. I intend, as I go on with these Memoirs, to undertake that work myself, and I guarantee that it shall be more complete and more conscientious than that of my two renowned critics; only, I hope my readers will not demand that it shall be as malicious. But let me relate how the idea of writing Charles VII. came to me, and of what heterogeneous elements that drama was composed. CHAPTER XIII A reading at Nodier's—The hearers and the readers—Début— Les Marrons du feu—La Camargo and the Abbé Desiderio— Genealogy of a dramatic idea—Orestes and Hermione—Chimène and Don Sancho-Goetz von Berlichingen—Fragments—How I render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's
- 72. Towards the close of 1830, or the beginning of 1831, we were invited to spend an evening with Nodier. A young fellow of twenty- two or twenty-three was to read some portions of a book of poems he was about to publish. This young man's name was then almost unknown in the world of letters, and it was now going to be given to the public for the first time. Nobody ever failed to attend a meeting called by our dear Nodier and our lovely Marie. We were all, therefore, punctual in our appearance. By everybody, I mean our ordinary circle of the Arsenal: Lamartine, Hugo, de Vigny, Jules de Rességuier, Sainte-Beuve, Lefèbvre, Taylor, the two Johannots, Louis Boulanger, Jal, Laverdant, Bixio, Amaury Duval, Francis Wey, etc.; and a crowd of young girls with flowers in their dresses, who have since become the beautiful and devoted mothers of families. About ten o'clock a young man of ordinary height—thin, fair, with budding moustache and long curling hair, thrown back in clusters to the sides of his head, a green, tight-fitting coat and light-coloured trousers— entered, affecting a very easy demeanour which, perhaps, was meant to conceal actual timidity. This was our poet. Very few among us knew him personally, even by sight or name. A table, glass of water and two candles had been put ready for him. He sat down, and, so far as I can remember, he read from a printed book and not from a manuscript. From the very start that assembly of poets trembled with excitement; they felt they had a poet before them, and the volume opened with these lines, which I may be permitted to quote, although they are known by all the world. We have said, and we cannot repeat it too often, that these memoirs are not only Memoirs but recollections of the art, poetry, literature and politics of the first fifty years of the century. When we have attacked, severely, perhaps, but honestly and loyally, things that were base and low and shameful; when we have tracked down hypocrisy, punished treachery, ridiculed mediocrity, it has been both good and sweet to raise our eyes to the sky, to look at, and to worship in spirit, those beautiful golden clouds which, to many people, seem but flimsy vapours, but which to us are planetary worlds wherein we hope our souls will find refuge throughout eternity; and, even though conscious that we may, perhaps, be wrong in so doing, we hail their
- 73. uncommon outlines with more pride and joy than when setting forth our own works. I am entirely disinterested in the matter of the author of these verses; for I scarcely knew him and we hardly spoke to one another a dozen times. I admire him greatly, although he, I fear, has not a great affection for me. The poet began thus— "Je n'ai jamais aimé, pour ma part, ces bégueules Qui ne sauraient aller au Prado toutes seules; Qu'une duègne toujours, de quartier en quartier, Talonne, comme fait sa mule un muletier; Qui s'usent, à prier, les genoux et la lèvre, Se courbent sur le grès plus pâles, dans leur fièvre, Qu'un homme qui, pieds nus, marche sur un serpent, Ou qu'un faux monnayeur au moment qu'on le pend. Certes, ces femmes-là, pour mener cette vie, Portent un cœur châtré de tout noble envie; Elles n'ont pas de sang e pas d'entrailles!—Mais, Sur ma télé et mes os, frère, je vous promets Qu'elles valent encor quatre fois mieux que celles Dont le temps se dépense en intrigues nouvelles. Celles-là vont au bal, courent les rendez-vous, Savent dans un manchon cacher un billet doux, Serrar un ruban noir sur un beau flanc qui ploie, Jeter d'un balcon d'or une échelle de soie, Suivre l'imbroglio de ces amours mignons Poussés dans une nuit comme des champignons; Si charmantes d'ailleurs! Aimant en enragées Les moustaches, les chiens, la valse et les dragées. Mais, oh! la triste chose et l'étrange malheur, Lorsque dans leurs filets tombe un homme de cœur! Frère, mieux lui vaudrait, comme ce statuaire Qui pressait de ses bras son amante de pierre, Réchauffer de baisers un marbre! Mieux vaudrait Une louve enragée en quelque âpre forêt!..."
- 74. You see he was not mistaken in his own estimate; these lines were thoughtful and well-constructed; they march with a proud and lusty swing, hand-on-hip, slender-waisted, splendidly draped in their Spanish cloak. They were not like Lamartine, or Hugo or de Vigny: a flower culled from the same garden, it is true; a fruit of the same orchard even; but a flower possessed of its own odour and a fruit with a taste of its own. Good! Here am I, meaning to relate worthless things concerning myself, saying good things about Alfred de Musset. Upon my word, I do not regret it and it is all the better for myself.[1] I have, however, do not let us forget, yet to explain how that dramatic pastiche which goes by the name of Charles VII. came to be written. The night went by in a flash. Alfred de Musset read the whole volume instead of a few pieces from it: Don Paez, Porcia, the Andalouse, Madrid, the Ballade à la lune, Mardoche, etc., probably about two thousand lines; only, I must admit that the young girls who were present at the reading, whether they were with their mammas or alone, must have had plenty to do to look after their eyelids and their fans. Among these pieces was a kind of comedy entitled the Marrons du feu. La Camargo, that Belgian dancer, celebrated by Voltaire, who was the delight of the opera of 1734 to 1751, is its heroine; but, it must be said, the poor girl is sadly calumniated in the poem. In the first place, the poet imagines she was loved to distraction by a handsome Italian named Rafaël Garuci, and that this love was stronger at the end of two years than it had ever been. Calumny number one. Then, he goes on to suppose that Seigneur Garuci, tired of the dancer, gives his clothes to the Abbé Annibal Desiderio, and tells him how he can gain access to the beautiful woman. Calumny number two—but not so serious as the first, Seigneur Rafaël Garuci having probably never existed save in the poet's brain. Finally, he relates that, when she finds herself face to face with the abbé disguised as a gentleman, and finds out that it is Rafaël who has provided him with the means of access to her, whilst he himself is supping at that very hour with la Cydalise, la Camargo is furious against her faithless lover, and says to the abbé—
- 75. "Abbé, je veux du sang! j'en suis plus altérée Qu'une corneille au vent d'un cadavre attirée! Il est là-bas, dis-tu? Cours-y donc! coupe-lui La gorge, et tire-le par les pieds jusqu'ici! Tords-lui le cœur, abbé, de peur qu'il n'en réchappe; Coupe-le en quatre, et mets les morceaux dans la nappe! Tu me l'apporteras; et puisse m'écraser La foudre, si tu n'as par blessure un baiser!... Tu tressailles, Romain? C'est une faute étrange, Si tu te crois conduit ici par ton bon ange! Le sang te fait-il peur? Pour t'en faire un manteau De cardinal, il faut la pointe d'un couteau! Me jugeais-tu le cœur si large, que j'y porte Deux amours à la fois, et que pas un n'en sorte? C'est une faute encor: mon cœur n'est pas si grand, Et le dernier venu ronge l'autre en entrant ..." The abbé has to fight Rafaël on the morrow; he entreats her to wait at least until after that. "Et s'il te tu Demain? et si j'en meurs? si j'en suis devenue Folle? si le soleil, de prenant à pâlir, De ce sombre horizon ne pouvait plus sortir? On a vu quelquefois de telles nuits au monde! Demain! le vais-je attendre à compter, par seconde, Les heures sur mes doigts, ou sur les battements De mon cœur, comme un juif qui calcule le temps D'un prêt? Demain, ensuite, irai-je, pour te plaire, Jouer à croix ou pile, et mettre ma colère. Au bout d'un pistolet qui tremble avec ta main? Non pas! non! Aujourd'hui est à nous, mais demain Est a Dieu!..."
- 76. The abbé ended by giving in to the prayers, caresses and tears of la Camargo, as Orestes yielded to Hermione's promises, transports and threats; urged on by the beautiful, passionate courtesan, he killed Rafaël, as Orestes killed Pyrrhus; and, like Orestes, he returned to demand from la Camargo recompense for his love, the price of blood. Like Hermione, she failed to keep her word to him. Calumny number three. "Entrez! (L'abbé entre et lui présente son poignard; la Camargo le considère quelque temps, puis se lève.) A-t-il souffert beaucoup? —Bon! c'est l'affaire D'un moment! —Qu'a-t-il dit? —Il a dit que la terre Tournait. —Quoi! rien de plus? —Ah! qu'il donnait son bien A son bouffon Pippo. —Quoi! rien de plus? —Non, rien. —Il porte au petit doigt un diamant: de grâce, Allez me le chercher! —Je ne le puis. —La place Où vous l'avez laissé n'est pas si loin. —Non, mais Je ne le puis. —Abbé, tout ce que je promets, Je le tiens. —Pas ce soir!... —Pourquoi? —Mais... —Misérable
- 77. Tu ne l'as pas tué! —Moi? Que le ciel m'accable Si je ne l'ai pas fait, madame, en vérité! —En ce cas, pourquoi non? —Ma foi, je l'ai jeté Dans la mer. —Quoi! ce soir, dans la mer? —Oui, madame. —Alors, c'est un malheur pour vous, car, sur mon âme, Je voulais cet anneau. —Si vous me l'aviez dit, Au moins! —Et sur quoi donc t'en croirai-je, maudit Sur quel honneur vas-tu me jurer? sur laquelle De tes deux mains de sang? oh la marque en est elle? La chose n'est pas sûre, et tu peux te vanter! Il fallait lui couper la main, et l'apporter. —Madame, il fassait nuit, la mer était prochaine ... Je l'ai jeté dedans. —Je n'en suis pas certaine. —Mais, madame, ce fer est chaud, et saigne encor! —Ni le feu ni le sang ne sont rares! —Son corps N'est pas si loin, madame; il se peut qu'on se charge ... —La nuit est trop épaisse, et l'Océan trop large! —Mais je suis pâle, moi tenez! —Mon cher abbé, L'étais-je pas, ce soir, quand j'ai joué Thisbé, Dans l'opéra? —Madame, au nom du ciel! —Peut-être Qu'en y regardant bien, vous l'aurez.... Ma fenêtre Donne sur la mer. (Elle sort.)
- 78. —Mais elle est partie!... O Dieu! J'ai tué mon ami, j'ai mérité le feu, J'ai taché mon pourpoint, et l'on me congédie! C'est la moralité de cette comédie." The framework of this scene, far removed from it though it is by its form, is evidently copied from this scene in Racine's Andromaque: "HERMIONE. Je veux qu'à mon départ toute l'Épire pleure! Mais, si vous me vengez, vengez-moi dans une heure. Tous vos retardements sont pour moi des refus. Courez au temple! Il faut immoler ... ORESTE. Qui? HERMIONE. Pyrrhus! —Pyrrhus, madame? —Hé quoi! votre haine chancelle! Ah! courez, et craignez que je ne vous rappelle! . . . . . . . . . . Ne vous suffit-il pas que je l'ai condamné? Ne vous suffit-il pas que ma gloire offensée Demande une victime à moi seule adressée; Qu'Hermione est le prix d'un tyran opprimé; Que je le hais! enfin, seigneur, que je l'aimai? Malgré la juste horreur que son crime me donne, Tant qu'il vivra, craignez que je ne lui pardonne! Doutez jusqu'à sa mort d'un courroux incertain. S'il ne meurt aujourd'hui je peux l'aimer demain! . . . . . . . . . .
- 79. —Mais, madame, songez ... —Ah! c'en est trop, seigneur Tant de raisonnements offensent ma colère. J'ai voulu vous donner les moyens de me plaire, Rendre Oreste content; mais, enfin, je vois bien Qu'il veut toujours se plaindre, et ne mériter rien. Je m'en vais seule au temple où leur hymen s'apprête, Où vous n'osez aller mériter ma conquête; Là, de mon ennemi je saurai m'approcher; Je percerai le cœur que je n'ai pu toucher, Et mes sanglantes mains, sur moi-même tournées. Aussitôt, malgré lui, joindront nos destinées; Et, tout ingrat qu'il est, il me sera plus doux De mourir avec lui que de vivre avec vous! —Non, je vous priverai de ce plaisir funeste, Madame, il ne mourra que de la main d'Oreste! Vos ennemis par moi vous vont être immolés, Et vous reconnaîtrez mes soins, si vous voulez!" And Orestes departs, kills Pyrrhus, then returns with his bloody sword in his hand to find Hermione. "—Madame, c'en est fait, et vous êtes servie: Pyrrhus rend à l'autel son infidèle vie! —Il est mort?... —Il expire, et nos Grecs, irrités, Ont lavé dans son sang ses infidélités! . . . . . . . . . . Mais c'est moi dont l'ardeur leur a servi d'exemple; Je les ai pour vous seule entraînés dans le temple, Madame, et vous pouvez justement vous flatter D'une mort que leurs bras n'ont fait qu'exécuter: Vous seule avez porté les coups!
- 80. —Tais-toi, perfide! Et n'impute qu'à toi lâche parricide! Va faire chez les Grecs admirer ta fureur, Va! je te désavoue, et tu me fais horreur!... Barbare! qu'as-tu fait? Avec quelle furie As-tu tranché le cours d'une si belle vie? Avez-vous pu, cruels, l'immoler aujourd'hui, Sans que tout votre sang se soulevât pour lui? Mais parle! De son sort qui t'a rendu l'arbitre? Pourquoi l'assassiner? qu'a-t-il fait? à quel titre? Qui te l'a dit? —O dieux! quoi! ne m'avez-vous pas Vous-même, ici, tantôt, ordonné son trépas? —Ah! fallait-il en croire une amante insensé?..." It is the same passion, we see, in both women: Opera dancer and Spartan princess, they speak differently, but act in the same manner. True, both have copied la Chimène in the Cid. Don Sancho enters, sword in hand, and prostrates himself before Chimène. "—Madame, à vos genoux j'apporte cette épée ... —Quoi! du sang de Rodrigue encor toute trempée? Perfide! oses-tu bien te montrer à mes yeux Après m'avoir ôté ce que j'aimais le mieux? Éclate, mon amour! tu n'as plus rien à craindre; Mon père est satisfait; cesse de te contraindre! Un même coup a mis ma gloire en sûreté, Mon âme au désespoir, ma flamme en liberté! —D'un esprit plus rassis ... —Tu me parles encore, Exécrable assassin du héros que j'adore! Va, tu l'as pris en traître! Un guerrier si vaillant N'eût jamais succombé sous un tel assaillant!
- 81. N'espère rien de moi; tu ne m'as point servie; En croyant me venger, tu m'as ôté la vie!... True, Corneille borrowed this scene from Guilhem de Castro, who took it from the romancers of the Cid. Now, the day I listened to that reading by Alfred de Musset, I had had already, for more than a year, a similar idea in my head. It had been suggested to me by the reading of Goethe's famous drama Goetz von Berlichingen. Three or four scenes are buried in that titanic drama, each of which seemed to me sufficient of themselves to make separate dramas. There was always the same situation of the woman urging the man she does not love to kill the one she loves, as Chimène in the Cid, as Hermione in Andromaque. The analysis of Goetz von Berlichingen would carry us too far afield, we will therefore be content to quote these three or four scenes from our friend Marmier's translation: "ADÉLAÏDE, femme de Weislingen; FRANTZ, page de Weislingen. ADÉLAÏDE.—Ainsi, les deux expéditions sont en marche? FRANTZ.—Oui, madame, et mon maître a la joie de combattre vos ennemis.... —Comment va-t-il ton maître? —A merveille! il m'a chargé de vous baiser la main. —La voici ... Tes lèvres sont brûlantes! —C'est ici que je brûle. (Il met la main sur son cœur.) Madame, vos domestiques sont les plus heureux des hommes! ... Adieu! il faut que je reparte. Ne m'oubliez pas! —Mange d'abord quelque chose, et prends un peu repos. —A quoi bon? Je vous ai vue, je ne me sens ni faim ni fatigue. —Je sais que tu es un garçon plein de zèle. —Oh! madame!
- 82. —Mais tu n'y tiendrais pas ... Repose-toi, te dis-je, et prends quelque nourriture. —Que de soins pour un pauvre jeune homme! —Il a les larmes aux yeux ... Je l'aime de tout mon cœur! Jamais personne ne m'a montré tant d'attachement! ADÉLAÏDE, FRANTZ, entrant une lettre à la main. FRANTZ.—Voici pour vous, madame. ADÉLAÏDE.—Est-ce Charles lui-même qui te l'a remise? —Oui. —Qu'as-tu donc? Tu parais triste! —Vous voulez absolument me faire périr de langueur ... Oui, je mourrai dans l'âge de l'espérance, et c'est vous qui en serez cause! —Il me fait de la peine ... Il m'en coûterait si peu pour le rendre heureux!—Prends courage, jeune homme, je connais ton amour, ta fidélité; je ne serai point ingrate. —Si vous en étiez capable, je mourrais! Mon Dieu! moi qui n'ai pas une goutte de sang qui ne soit à vous! moi qui n'ai de sens que pour vous aimer et pour obéir à ce que vous désirez! —Cher enfant! —Vous me flattez! et tout cela n'aboutit qu'à s'en voir préférer d'autres ... Toutes vos pensées tournées vers Charles!... Aussi, je ne le veux plus ... Non, je ne veux plus servir d'entremetteur! —Frantz, tu t'oublies! —Me sacrifier!... sacrifier mon maître! mon cher maître! —Sortez de ma présence! —Madame....
- 83. —Va, dénonce-moi a ton cher maître ... J'étais bien folle de te prendre pour ce que tu n'es pas. —Chère noble dame, vous savez que je vous aime! —Je t'aimais bien aussi; tu étais près de mon cœur ... Va, trahis-moi! —Je m'arracherais plutôt le sein!... Pardonnez-moi, madame; mon âme est trop pleine, je ne suis plus maître de moi! —Cher enfant! excellent cœur! (Elle lui prend les mains, l'attire à elle; leurs bouches se rencontrent; il se jette à son you en pleurant.) —Laisse-moi!... Les murs ont des yeux ... Laisse-moi ... (Elle se dégage.) Aime-moi toujours ainsi; sois toujours aussi fidèle; la plus belle récompense t'attend! (Elle sort.) —La plus belle récompense! Dieu, laisse-moi vivre jusque! ... Si mon père me disputait cette place, je le tuerais! WEISLINGEN, FRANTZ. WEISLINGEN.—Frantz! FRANTZ.—Monseigneur! —Exécute ponctuellement mes ordres: tu m'en réponds sur ta vie. Remets-lui cette lettre; il faut qu'elle quitte la cour, et se retire dans mon château à l'instant même. Tu la verras partir, et aussitôt tu reviendras m'annoncer son départ. —Vos ordres seront suivis. —Dis-lui bien qu'il faut qu'elle le veuille ... Va! ADÉLAÏDE, FRANTZ. (Adélaïde tient à la main la lettre de son mari apportée par Frantz.) ADÉLAÏDE.—Lui ou moi!... L'insolent! me menacer! Nous saurons le prévenir ... Mais qui se glisse dans le salon?
- 84. FRANTZ, se jetant à son you.—Ah! madame! chère madame!... —Écervelé! si quelqu'un t'avait entendu! —Oh! tout dort!... tout le monde dort! —Que veux-tu? —Je n'ai point de sommeil: les menaces de mon maître ... votre sort ... mon cœur ... —Il était bien en colère quand tu l'as quitté? —Comme jamais je ne l'ai vu! 'Il faut qu'elle parte pour mon château! a-t-il dit; il faut qu'elle le veuille!' —Et ... nous obéirons? —Je n'en sais rien, madame. —Pauvre enfant, dupe de ta bonne foi, tu ne vois pas où cela mène! Il sait qu'ici je suis en sûreté ... Ce n'est pas d'aujourd'hui qu'il en veut à mon indépendance ... Il me fait aller dans ses domaines parce que, là, il aura le pouvoir de me traiter au gré de son aversion. —Il ne le fera pas! —Je vois dans l'avenir toute ma misère! Je ne resterai pas longtemps dans son château: il m'en arrachera pour m'enfermer dans un cloître! —O mort! ô enfer! —Me sauveras-tu? —Tout! tout plutôt que cela! —Frantz! (En pleurs et l'embrassant.) Oh! Frantz! pour nous sauver.... —Oui, il tombera ... il tombera sous mes coups! je le foulerai aux pieds!
- 85. —Point d'emportement! Teins, remets-lui plutôt un billet plein de respect, où je l'assure de mon entière soumission à ses ordres ... Et cette fiole ... cette fiole, vide-la dans son verre. —Donnez, vous serez libre! WEISLINGEN, puis FRANTZ. WEISLINGEN.—Je suis si malade, si faible!... mes os sont brisés: une fièvre ardente en a consumé la moelle! Ni paix ni trêve, le jour comme la nuit ... un mauvais sommeil agité de rêves empoisonnés.... (Il s'assied.) Je suis faible, faible ... Comme mes ongles sont bleus!...Un froid glaciel circule dans mes veines, engourdit tous mes membres ... Quelle sueur dévorante! tout tourne autour de moi ... Si je pouvais dormir!... FRANTZ, entrant dans la plus grande agitation.—Monseigneur! —Eh bien? —Du poison ... du poison de votre femme ... Moi, c'est moi! (Il s'enfuit, ne pouvant en dire davantage.) —Il est dans le délire ... Oh! oui, je le sens ... le martyre! la mort.... (Voulant se lever.) Dieu! je n'en puis plus! je meurs!... je meurs!... et, pourtant, je ne puis cesser de vivre ... Oh! dans cet affreux combat de la vie et de la mort, il y a tous les supplices de l'enfer!..." Now that the reader has had placed before him all these various fragments from Goetz von Berlichingen, the Cid, Andromaque and the Marrons du feu, which the genius of four poets—Goethe, Corneille, Racine and Alfred de Musset—have given us, he will understand the analogy, the family likeness which exists between the different scenes; they are not entirely alike, but they are sisters. Now, as I have said, these few passages from Goetz von Berlichingen had lain dormant in my memory; neither the Cid nor Andromaque had aroused them: the irregular, passionate, vivid
- 86. poetry of Alfred de Musset galvanized them into life, and from that moment I felt I must put them to use. About the same time, too, I read Quentin Durward and was much impressed by the character of Maugrabin; I had taken note of several of his phrases full of Oriental poetry. I decided to place my drama in the centre of the Middle Ages and to make my two principal personages, a lovely and austere lady of a manor and an Arab slave who, whilst sighing after his native land, is kept tied to the land of exile by a stronger chain than that of slavery. I therefore set to work to hunt about in chronicles of the fifteenth century to find a peg on which to hang my picture. I have always upheld the admirable adaptibility of history in this respect; it never leaves the poet in the lurch. Accordingly, my way of dealing with history is a curious one. I begin by making up a story; I try to make it romantic, tender and dramatic, and, when sentiment and imagination are duly provided, I hunt through history for a framework in which to set them, and it is invariably the case that history furnishes me with such a setting; a setting so perfect and so exactly suited to the subject, that it seems as though the frame had been made to fit the picture, and not the picture to fit the frame. And, once more, chance favoured me and was more than kind. See what I found on page five of the Chronicles of King Charles VII., by Maître Alain Chartier homme très-honorable: "And at that time, it happened to a knight called Messire Charles de Savoisy that one of his horse-boys, in riding a horse to let him drink at the river, bespattered a scholar, who, with others, was going in procession to Saint Katherine, to such an extent that the scholar struck the said horse-boy; and, then, the servants of the aforesaid knight sallied forth from his castle armed with cudgels, and followed the said scholars right away to Saint Katherine; and one of the servants of the aforesaid knight shot an arrow into the church as far as to the high altar, where the priest was saying Mass; then, for this fact, the University made such a pursuit after the said knight, that the
- 87. house of the said knight was smitten down, and the said knight was banished from the kingdom of France and excommunicated. He betook himself to the pope, who gave him absolution, and he armed four galleys and went over the seas, making war on the Saracens, and there gained much possessions. Then he returned and made his peace, and rebuilt his house in Paris, in fashion as before; but he was not yet finished, and caused his house of Signelay (Seignelais) in Auxerrois to be beautifully built by the Saracens whom he had brought from across the sea; the which château is three leagues from Auxerre." It will be seen that history had thought of everything for me, and provided me with a frame which had been waiting for its picture for four hundred years. It was to this event, related in the Chronicle of Maître Alain Chartier, that Yaqoub alludes when he says to Bérengère: "Malheureux?... malheureux, en effet; Car, pour souffrir ainsi, dites-moi, qu'ai-je fait?... Est-ce ma faute, à moi, si votre époux et maître, Poursuivant un vassal, malgré les cris du prêtre, Entra dans une église, et, là, d'un coup mortel, Le frappa? Si le sang jaillit jusqu'à l'autel, Est-ce ma faute? Si sa colère imbécile, Oublia que l'église était un lieu d'asile, Est-ce ma faute? Et si, par l'Université, A venger ce forfait le saint-père excité, Dit que, pour désarmer le céleste colère, Il fallait que le comte armât une galère, Et, portant sur nos bords la désolation, Nous fît esclaves, nous, en expiation, Est-ce ma faute encore? et puis-je pas me plaindre Qu'au fond de mon désert son crime aille m'atteindre?..."
- 88. This skeleton found, and my drama now having, so to speak, in the characters of Savoisy, Bérengère and Yaqoub, its head, heart and legs, it was necessary to provide arms, muscles, flesh and the rest of its anatomy. Hence the need of history; and history had in reserve Charles VII., Agnes and Dunois; and the whole of the great struggle of France against England was made to turn on the love of an Arab for the wife of the man who had made him captive and transported him from Africa to France. I think I have exposed, with sufficient clearness, what I borrowed as my foundation, from Goethe, Corneille, Racine and Alfred de Musset; I will make them more palpable still by quotations; for, as I have got on the subject of self- criticism, I may as well proceed to the end, rather than remain before my readers, solus, pauper et nudus, as Adam in the Earthly Paradise, or as Noah under his vine-tree! "BÉRENGÈRE, YAQOUB. —Yaqoub, si vos paroles Ne vous échappent point comme des sons frivoles, Vous m'avez dit ces mots: 'S'il était, par hasard, Un homme dont l'aspect blessât votre regard; Si ses jours sur vos jours avaient cette influence Que son trépas pût seul finir votre souffrance; De Mahomet lui-même eût-il reçu ce droit, Quand il passe, il faudrait me le montrer du doigt Vous avez dit cela? —Je l'ai dit ... Je frissonne Mais un homme par moi fut excepté. —Personne. —Un homme à ma vengeance a le droit d'échapper... —Si c'était celui-là qu'il te fallût frapper? S'il fallait que sur lui la vengeance fût prompte?... —Son nom? —Le comte. —Enfer? je m'en doutais; le comte? —Entendez-vous? le comte!... Eh bien?
- 89. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com