Transferring science-based technologies to industry: Does nanotechnology make a difference?

Nanotechnology has been touted as a general purpose technology (GPT) and engine of growth for the 21th century, following in the footsteps of ICT. Nanotechnology is still in an early phase of development, it is scientist driven and thus largely exogenous to the economy at present. In Finland the interest towards nanotechnology is also growing. This is visible especially through relatively large public R&D expenditures and numbers of scientific publications. A key question for the further development of nanotechnology towards commercialization in Finland, as well as for most other countries active in the field, is the degree to which channels for technology transfer from public research to firms can be established and supported further. This paper uses a new and extensive survey data covering individual Finnish researchers (and inventors) active in the field. It assesses whether nanotechnology brings forth new issues of policy relevance in the various dimensions of technology transfer from the viewpoint of public sector researchers. The results offer new insights into the definition of nanotechnology. Clear differences are also observed in the agents, modes, application and commercialization paths between researchers by the intensity at which they are engaged in nanotechnology. However, the challenges appear to be similar to those related to the transfer of science-based technologies generally. The paper also reports basic frequencies across the survey data as a whole.

[1]  Mika Wirgrén Trade Potential, Intra-industry Trade and Factor Content Revealed Comperative Advantage in the Baltic Sea Region , 2006 .

[2]  F. Rothaermel,et al.  Old technology meets new technology: complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation , 2008 .

[3]  Andrea Bonaccorsi,et al.  Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology , 2007 .

[4]  Tuomo Nikulainen,et al.  Identifying nanotechnological linkages in the Finnish economy – an explorative study , 2010, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[5]  Eva María Mora Valentín University—Industry Cooperation: A Framework of Benefits and Obstacles , 2000 .

[6]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology , 2006, Scientometrics.

[7]  Kenneth I. Carlaw,et al.  Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long Term Economic Growth , 2006 .

[8]  C. Palmberg The transfer and commercialisation of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of university and company researchers , 2008 .

[9]  Joachim Schummer,et al.  Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology , 2004, Scientometrics.

[10]  Terttu Luukkonen,et al.  Living up to the Expectations Set by ICT? The Case of Biotechnology Commercialisation in Finland , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[11]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Publications and patents in nanotechnology , 2003, Scientometrics.

[12]  Y. Lee The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An Empirical Assessment , 2000 .

[13]  Christopher Palmberg,et al.  Industrial renewal and growth through nanotechnology? An overview with focus on Finland , 2006 .

[14]  Daniel Ratner,et al.  Nanotechnology: A Gentle Introduction to the Next Big Idea , 2002 .

[15]  M. Meyer Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature , 2000 .

[16]  Martin Meyer Hurdles on the Way to Growth: Commercializing Novel Technologies, The Case of Nanotechnology , 2000 .

[17]  E. Harison,et al.  Innovative software business strategies: Evidence from finnish firms , 2006 .

[18]  Stuart Macdonald,et al.  The survival of the gatekeeper , 1994 .

[19]  Nabil Amara,et al.  Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering , 2007 .

[20]  Maj Munch Andersen,et al.  PATH CREATION IN THE MAKING - THE CASE OF NANOTECHNOLOGY , 2005 .

[21]  Dana Nicolau Innovation and knowledge transfer in emerging fields: the case of Nanotechnology in Australia , 2005 .

[22]  J. Storrs Hall,et al.  Nanofuture: What's Next For Nanotechnology , 2005 .

[23]  Michael E. Gorman,et al.  Types of Knowledge and Their Roles in Technology Transfer , 2002 .

[24]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Domestic Technology Transfer and Competitiveness: An Empirical Assessment of Roles of University and Governmental R&D Laboratories , 1988 .

[25]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  The nanotech vs . the biotech revolution : sources of productivity in incumbent firm research , 2007 .

[26]  Jyoti S. A. Bhat,et al.  Concerns of new technology based industries: The case of nanotechnology. , 2005 .

[27]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology , 2006 .

[28]  V. Bush The Endless Frontier, Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research , 1945 .

[29]  Thomas Heinze,et al.  Nanoscience and Nanotechnology in Europe : Analysis of Publications and Patent Applications including Comparisons with the United States , 2004 .

[30]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory , 2000 .

[31]  Y. Lee,et al.  'TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER' AND THE RESEARCH UNIVERSITY : A SEARCH FOR THE BOUNDARIES OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION , 1996 .

[32]  David Blumenthal,et al.  Entrepreneurship, Secrecy, and Productivity: A Comparison of Clinical and Non-Clinical Life Sciences Faculty , 2001 .

[33]  Richard G. Hamermesh,et al.  U.S. Universities and Technology Transfer , 2011 .

[34]  Rudi Bekkers,et al.  The different channels of university-industry knowledge transfer : empirical evidence from biomedical engineering , 2006 .

[35]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors , 2007, Scientometrics.

[36]  Zan Huang,et al.  International nanotechnology development in 2003: Country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database , 2004 .

[37]  R. Hermans,et al.  Sustainable Biotechnology Development - New Insights into Finland , 2006 .

[38]  C. Palmberg The sources and success of innovations —Determinants of commercialisation and break-even times , 2006 .

[39]  Patrick Llerena,et al.  Interdisciplinary Research and the Organization of the University: General Challenges and a Case Study , 2003 .

[40]  Martin Meyer,et al.  What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency , 2007, Scientometrics.

[41]  P. Boardman,et al.  University researchers working with private companies , 2009 .

[42]  Michael R. Darby,et al.  Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology , 2003 .

[43]  Christine M. Shea Future management research directions in nanotechnology: A case study , 2005 .

[44]  Richard A. L. Jones,et al.  The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology , 2003 .

[45]  M. Tushman,et al.  External Communication and Project Performance: An Investigation into the Role of Gatekeepers. , 1980 .

[46]  N. Islam,et al.  Nanotechnology systems of innovation - An analysis of industry and academia research activities , 2007 .

[47]  Doris Schartinger,et al.  Interactive Relations Between Universities and Firms: Empirical Evidence for Austria , 2001 .

[48]  Laura Valkonen Perhevapaiden vaikutukset naisten ura- ja palkkakehitykseen - kirjallisuuskatsaus , 2006 .

[49]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Knowledge-sourcing strategies for cross-disciplinarity in bionanotechnology , 2006 .

[50]  Stuart J. H. Graham,et al.  Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? , 2008 .

[51]  Pablo D'Este,et al.  University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? , 2007 .

[52]  Grid Thoma,et al.  Cross Pollination in Science and Technology: The Emergence of the Nanobio Subfield , 2009 .

[53]  Michael R. Darby,et al.  Labor Mobility from Academe to Commerce , 1997, Journal of Labor Economics.

[54]  Richard N. Cardozo,et al.  Mapping the university technology transfer process , 1997 .

[55]  Thomas J. Allen,et al.  Managing the flow of technology: technology transfer and the dissemination of technological informat , 1977 .

[56]  A. Leiponen Competing through cooperation: Standard setting in wireless telecommunications , 2006 .

[57]  Christopher Palmberg,et al.  Economic and Industrial Policy Transformations in Finland , 2007 .

[58]  Andrea Piccaluga,et al.  A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university‐industry relationships , 1994 .

[59]  Rebecca Henderson,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[60]  Grid Thoma,et al.  Scientific and technological regimes in nanotechnology. Combinatorial inventors and performance , 2005 .