Nanotechnology and the US national innovation system: continuity and change

Abstract

A substantial literature on nanotechnology innovation and commercial development has characterized several elements of these phenomena as constituting new developments in the US national innovation system. Among these elements are the (asserted) ''post-academic'' nature of US universities' involvement with nanotechnology R&D, and federal funding of nanotechnology R&D on goals related to economic competitiveness. This paper challenges the ''novelty'' of these elements, while suggesting that other elements of nanotechnology R&D, including the extensive patenting of the results of nanotechnology-related research and the emphasis within many university-industry collaborations on patent-based channels for ''technology transfer,'' may indeed be new and raise questions for the long-term efficiency and innovative performance of nanotechnology-related R&D.

Observing regional divergence of Chinese nanotechnology centers

“…First, there are many commercial innovations that are not patented. Second, many patents have never been developed into commercially valuable forms [27,47]. However, there have been plenty of studies that demonstrated high correlations between patents and various indicators of innovation, such as the Small Business Administration Innovation Database and corporate R&D activities [48][49][50].…”

The role of public funding in nanotechnology scientific production: Where Canada stands in comparison to the United States

“…Youtie et al (2008) reviewed the rapid growth of nanotechnology publications in different countries between 1990 and 2006 and showed that the US has been one of the leading countries in nanotechnology research and that it has ranked first in terms of the quality of publications. Furthermore, the major US federal support of nanotechnology academic research is provided by the interagency program of the NNI which is mostly motivated by an interest in economic outcomes (Mowery 2011). The public funding of nanotechnology academic research fosters the emergence of collaboration among universities, industry and government and highlights a Triple-Helix of relationships between these organizations (Etzkowitz 2008;Leydesdorff and Meyer 2006;Schultz 2011).…”

Science, Technology and Innovation Policy for the Future

“…The linear model posits that research, development, manufacturing, and market phases are moved through in a sequential manner. As Mowery (2011) indicates, we are in a "pro-patent era" in which high rates of patenting are encouraged in universities and other research-intensive institutions as well as in companies. A variation to both the linear and double-boom models is the concept that science-based innovation proceeds through contemporaneous advancements in research and commercialization.…”