Innovation Systems in Nanotechnology: Policy challenges in an emergent technology - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Innovation Systems in Nanotechnology: Policy challenges in an emergent technology PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 227acd-YzlhZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Innovation Systems in Nanotechnology: Policy challenges in an emergent technology

Description:

Clinical medicine. General medicine. World Science 2006. Source: Rafols & Leydesdorff ... New research exploring science-technology interrelationships through patent ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:66
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 35
Provided by: Comp911
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Innovation Systems in Nanotechnology: Policy challenges in an emergent technology


1
Innovation Systems in Nanotechnology Policy
challenges inan emergent technology
  • Martin Meyer
  • Chair in Business and Innovation
  • Sussex School of Business, Management and
    Economics
  • SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research
  • University of Sussex
  • m.s.meyer_at_sussex.ac.uk

2
Today
  • Innovation Systems as policy approach stress
  • links between different actors
  • value generation through activities connecting
    the various elements within a system
  • Nanotechnologies and related sciences
  • provide particular challenges to policy makers
    and other actors
  • often related to diversity within research,
    technology and commercial systems, and
  • how research is translated into technology and
    commercial application
  • This presentation is to
  • illustrate specific challenges
  • offer a few pointers as to how challenges could
    be overcome

3
Challenge 1
  • Diversity within nano-science and nano-technology

4
Agriculture
Geoscience
Infectious diseases
Ecology
Clinical medicine
Environ. Sci.
General medicine
Chemistry
Biological Sci.
Materials Sci
Neurosciences
Engineering
Computer Sci
World Science 2006 Source Rafols Leydesdorff
Physics
5
Geoscience
Agriculture
Infectious diseases
Ecology
Environ. Sci.
Chemistry
General medicine
Engineering
Biological Sci.
Clinical medicine
Neurosciences
Materials Sci.
Computer Sci.
Physics
Nanotech-related publications in the map of
science (1991)
Variety number of SCs Balance size of SCs
-proportion Disparity distance between SCs
6
Geoscience
Agriculture
Infectious diseases
Ecology
Environ. Sci.
Chemistry
General medicine
Engineering
Biological Sci.
Clinical medicine
Neurosciences
Materials Sci.
Computer Sci.
Physics
Nanotech-related publications in the map of
science (2005)
Variety number of SCs Balance size of SCs
-proportion Disparity distance between SCs
7
Similar picture wrt technologyNot one but
several fields
  • Co-classification and subsequent cluster
    analysis
  • Cluster 1 Measurement focused cluster
  • (incl. subclasses from analysing materials over
    enzymes and micro-organisms, length, thickness,
    optical devices),
  • arguably some convergence or integration
    taking place
  • Cluster 2 Materials cluster, esp. composites and
    coatings
  • strong emphasis on macro-molecular chemistry
  • Cluster 3 Pharmaceuticals/chemicals cluster
  • Very little convergence with others
  • Cluster 4 Semiconductor / nano-layers / devices
    cluster

8
An example Swedish nanotechnology
  • Even more pronounced at the national level
  • Unrelated nanotech groupings
  • life-science and optics

9
Firm-level analysis Integrators still relatively
few and far between
  • Support for proposition also from firm-level case
    analysis
  • By and large, firms appear not to integrate
    different technologies at the nano-scale
  • but adopt a nano-scale technology to either one
    or several markets
  • drawing on UK German nano-industry reviews
  • UK case studies (adopted from Chilcott et al)
  • majority of firms chose a niche strategy one
    nano-scale technology/one target market
  • no UK company has been traced that integrates
    more than one nano-scale technology across more
    than one market
  • only 2 of the 18 UK firms studied integrated or
    combined two different nano-scale technologies
  • both were marketing to one target industry
  • More boundary-crossing was observed across
    application areas

10
Nano-Districts
  • In most nanoscience clusters specialisation on
    certain aspects of nanoscience
  • ? Raises question as to how much integration
    between subfields

Source Meyer, Wagner, Porter et al. (2008)
11
Challenge 2
  • Complex relationship between science, technology,
    and industrial application

12
Knowledge translation
  • Complex knowledge translation processes at work
  • What is recognised as nano-science does not
    necessarily translate directly into
    nano-technology
  • Leadership and excellence in nano-sciences does
    not translate automatically in technological or
    economic leadership
  • See examples of nanomaterials and nanomedicine

13
No widespread but intermittent (i.e., localised)
interaction between nano-science and technology
  • Only 1 in 5 nano-patents cites nano-science
  • Only 1 in 50 nano-papers cited in nano-patents
  • Does not mean that nanotech not strongly
    science-related
  • 80 - 90 of the science linkage of nano patents
    is just non-nano

14
Nanomaterials/Nanochemistry
  • Publication Activity
  • EU outperformed US
  • Rise of BRIC countries

15
Nanomaterials/Nanochemistry
  • Strength in science does not translate 11 into
    Technological Leadership
  • US leading other countries/ trading blocs
  • BRIC and East Asian tiger economies still
    building a portfolio
  • More pronounced in terms of commercial leadership

16
Nanomedicine
  • US and EU have comparable scientific output but
    appear to vary considerably in terms of
    technology development
  • This lead seems not quite to translate into
    commercial products

17
Where does exchange take place?What could be
suitable platforms for exchange?
  • Localised rather than broad-brush convergence
  • Domain-specific

18
Localised convergence !
Stylized map of knowledge integration in
nanoscience
Instrumentalities likely to be key in connecting
areas (Price, 1984, Rafols Meyer 2007, Meyer
2001)
19
Localised knowledge integration and translation
  • Network analysis points to distinctive groups
    that include or do NOT encompass patenting
    scientists

20
Localised knowledge exchange
  • Co-activity occurs in certain areas of
    nano-science and technology while it does not in
    others, e.g. in German NN
  • a group of authors strongly linked to K. Ploog -
    one of Germanys most cited living physicists -
    who has played a leading role in the development
    of molecular beam epitaxy.
  • The research areas of his institute include
    nano-analytics and nano-fabrication.
  • Inventor-authors in his surrounding, such as the
    Nobel laureate K. von Klitzing and co-workers
    (with research in experimental semiconductor
    physics, low dimensional electron systems,
    nanoelectronics, and molecular quantum
    structures).
  • Other co-active researchers in the vicinity carry
    out research in the semiconductor area or farther
    away more closely related to nano-analytics.
  • Another group can be identified around D. Bimberg
    whose nano-scale research focuses on photonics
    and optoelectronics. None of the authors in this
    circle were associated with any patents at the
    time.
  • ? This could suggest that certain fields of
    nanotechnology are not as drawn to patenting as
    others - or are in different, earlier stages of
    development
  • Bimberg and colleagues started patenting activity
    subsequently.

Source. MEYER, Scientometrics, 2007
21
Who is involved?What are or could be the
platforms for collaboration?
  • Big names and high achievers in science often
    also active in technology development
  • Instrumentation still important platform for
    exchange
  • Universities (and other public-research centres)
    as potential key knowledge integrators

22
Who involved?
  • Exploratory study covering Germany, UK, and
    Belgium
  • Authors ranked and grouped into 5 performance
    classes according to publication and citation
    frequencies
  • Co-active authors representation in different
    frequency classes was compared to the overall
    pattern
  • Across all countries inventor-authors are over-
    proportionally represented in the more active
    groups
  • It appears that co-active authors are more
    prolific than their non-inventing peers

23
Instrumentation as a connector of fields
  • Studies seem to underline the role of
    instrumentation as inter-connector in the NN
    area still useful for building technology
    platforms for knowledge transfer
  • e.g. here based on project collaboration data

NOTE The only organisation with activity in
almost all technology areas is a UNIVERSITY
? POTENTIAL SITES OF KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION
24
Role of universities
  • Here Swedish co-invention networks
  • Universities often part of networks, at times
    even as central players

25
Collaborative Networks of UK Nanofirms
  • Multitude of links but noteworthy
  • Universities at the heart of larger
    collabora-tive networks
  • Cluster analysis to explore links more in detail

26
Case of UK NN
  • Concentration of activity on established regional
    centres
  • But what about collaborative networks of
    nano-firms?
  • ? Survey (Meyer and Libaers, 2008) identified
    technology-centred networks rather than regional
    networks

27
  • Several technology clusters in a region

Only one case study need to update and
compare with other countries
  • Large clusters technology-specific

Source Meyer and Libaers 2008
28
Clusters Division of Labour between Actors ?
  • ? 3 DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY BASED CLUSTERS
  • Materials and instruments
  • Micronic Laser Systems and Sandvik central firms
  • Life-science,
  • reaching out to instruments sensors
  • Gyros and biotech/pharmaceuticals firms
  • Instrument-oriented
  • materials research organisation (Acreo) linking
    out the most
  • ? NOTE WHICH FIRMS MOST PROMINENT LINKS BETWEEN
    CLUSTERS

29
Insights Challenges
  • Nano-science and Nano-Technology not
    necessarily as closely related as one might
    think
  • A lot of nanotechnology is related to science
    that is NOT nano and vice versa
  • Universities (or public-sector research
    organisations) seen at centre of networks
  • Potential sites of knowledge integration (IRCs,
    etc)
  • Knowledge transfer often strong in programmes
    that are focused on building technology
    platforms
  • Transfer programmes should not be designed too
    research oriented but not necessarily
    industry-specific either
  • Converging technologies are an important vision
    but knowledge integration occurs in a much more
    focused manner
  • Division of labour between large multinationals
    and spin-offs
  • Knowledge acquisition through MNCs while
    knowledge integration through new firms as
    potential agents of convergence???

30
Conclusions
Policy Implications
Not one but several fields of technology
Concerns about one area of nano-tech might not
be readily transferred to another
No widespread but intermittent interaction
between s t
Policies geared to integrate nano-science and
nano-technology only might be ill-conceived
Instrumentation as a connector of fields
Reminder not to neglect support for
Instrumentation facilities
31
Implications(1)
  • Need to understand the various underlying systems
    of innovation to discuss appropriate governance
    frameworks
  • ? Traditional value chain analysis not
    necessarily appropriate
  • ? Developing specific hour-glass innovation
    models for (e.g. nanomaterials, applicable to
    enabling technologies, such as lab-on-a-chip
  • variety of inputs (from different institutional
    sources)
  • converge on a range of technologies
  • sharing an ability to exploit nano-scale
    phenomena, and
  • then diffused to a variety of product markets
    across different sectors (divergence)

32
The hour-glass modelnanomaterials as process
technologies
Technology
Basic Research
Economic Sectors
Electronics
Mechanical Eng.
Chemicals
Electronic Eng.
Automobiles
Materials Science
Nanomaterials
Textile
Physical Chemistry
Food industry
Applied Physics
  • Widely used are relatively few
  • CNTs and related
  • Semiconductor QDs
  • Gold, silver nanoparticles
  • Metal oxide nanoparticles

Cosmetics
Pharmacology
Pharmaceuticals
Genetics
Often incremental innovation enhancement of
products
Source RCEP report (Nightingale et al., 2008)
33
Implication (2)
  • No widespread but intermittent interaction
    between nanosciences and nanotechnologies with
    instrumentalities as connector of fields
  • ? Need to understand nature of exchange processes
    better
  • Work ongoing in terms of knowledge sourcing in
    the sciences (collaboration vis-à-vis in-house
    learning and knowledge acquisition) (Rafols and
    Meyer 2007, together with GT)
  • New research exploring science-technology
    interrelationships through patent bibliometric
    analyses
  • Understanding the role of nano better within
    disciplines, e.g. chemistry (project with IUPAC)

34
Implications (3)
  • Change in NN tends to be incremental rather than
    discontinuous
  • ? Raises questions about the emergence of
    nanotechnologies in general 1 - How firms
    approach nanotech taxonomy
  • Past studies suggested
  • By and large, firms appear not to integrate
    different technologies at the nano-scale
  • but adopt a nano-scale technology to either one
    or several markets
  • Has there been a change over time?
  • Distinction to be made between MNCs and startups?
  • ? Panel studies potentially insightful here

Source Chilcott et al., Meyer (2007)
About PowerShow.com