The promotor was Prof. Erik Jan Hultink and copromotors Dr Ellis van den Hende en Dr R. van der Lugt. The title of this dissertation is Armchair travelling the innovation journey. ‘Armchair travelling’ is an expression for travelling to another place, in the comfort of one’s own place. ‘The innovation journey’ is the metaphor Van de Ven and colleagues (1999) have used for travelling the uncharted river of innovation, the highly unpredictable and uncontrollable process of innovation. This research study began with a brief remark from an innovation project leader who sighed after a long and rough journey: ‘had I known this ahead of time…’. From wondering ‘what could he have known ahead of time?’ the immediate question arose: how do such innovation journeys develop? How do other innovation project leaders lead the innovation journey? And could I find examples of studies about these experiences from an innovation project leader’s perspective that could have helped the sighing innovation project leader to have known at least some of the challenges ahead of time? This dissertation is the result of that quest, as we do know relatively little how this process of the innovation project leader unfolds over time. The aim of this study is to increase our understanding of how innovation project leaders lead their innovation journeys over time, and to capture those experiences that could be a source for others to learn from and to be better prepared. This research project takes a process approach. Such an approach is different from a variance study. Process thinking takes into account how and why things – people, organizations, strategies, environments – change, act and evolve over time, expressed by Andrew Pettigrew (1992, p.10) as catching “reality in flight”.
MULTIFILE
Apart from tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) and urokinase-type plasminogen activator (u-PA), a third PA appears to occur in human plasma. Its activity is initiated when appropriate triggers of the contact system are added, and the activation depends on the presence of factor XII and prekallikrein in plasma. The activity of this, so-called, contact-system dependent PA accounts for 30% of the PA activity in the dextran sulphate euglobulin fraction of plasma and was shown not to be an intrinsic property of one of the contact-system components, nor could it be inhibited by inhibitory antibodies against t-PA or u-PA. We have succeeded in identifying this third PA in dextran sulphate euglobulin fractions of human plasma. Its smallest unit (SDS-PAGE) is an inactive 110 kDa single-chain polypeptide which upon activation of the contact system is converted to a cleaved, disulphide-bridged molecule with PA activity. The native form, presumably, is an oligomer, since the apparent Mr on gel-chromatography is 600,000. The IEP is 4.8, much lower than that of t-PA and u-PA. Although the active 110 kDa polypeptide cannot be inhibited by anti-u-PA, it yet comprises a 37 kDa piece with some u-PA related antigenic determinants. However, these determinants are in a latent or cryptic form, only detectable after denaturation by SDS. The 110 kDa polypeptide is evidently not a dimer of 55 kDa u-PA or a complex of u-PA with an inhibitor.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
LINK
Study goal: This study was carried out to answer the following research question: which motivation do healthy volunteers have to participate in phase I clinical trials? - Methods: A literature search was done through Google Scholar and Academic Search Premier, followed by three interviews with volunteers who had recently concluded their participation in a (non-commercial) phase I trial. - Results: Our literature search revealed mainly commercial motives for volunteers to participate in phase I clinical trials. The interviews (with volunteers in a non-commercial trial) showed that other factors may also play a decisive role, such as: (1) wish to support the investigator (2) wish to contribute to science, (3) access to more/better health care (4) sociability: possibility to relax and to communicate with other participants (5) general curiosity. Precondition is that risks and burden are deemed acceptable. - Conclusions: financial remuneration appears to be the predominant motive to participate voluntarily in a clinical trial. Other reasons were also mentioned however, such as general curiosity, the drive to contribute to science and the willingness to help the investigator. In addition, social reasons were given such as possibility to relax and to meet other people. Potential subjects state that they adequately assess the (safety) risks of participating in a trial as part of their decision process.
