Global nanotechnology development from 1991 to 2012: patents, scientific publications, and effect of NSF funding

In a relatively short interval for an emerging technology, nanotechnology has made a significant economic impact in numerous sectors including semiconductor manufacturing, catalysts, medicine, agriculture, and energy production. A part of the United States (US) government investment in basic research has been realized in the last two decades through the National Science Foundation (NSF), beginning with the nanoparticle research initiative in 1991 and continuing with support from the National Nanotechnology Initiative after fiscal year 2001. This paper has two main goals: (a) present a longitudinal analysis of the global nanotechnology development as reflected in the United States Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) patents and Web of Science (WoS) publications in nanoscale science and engineering (NSE) for the interval 1991–2012; and (b) identify the effect of basic research funded by NSF on both indicators. The interval has been separated into three parts for comparison purposes: 1991–2000, 2001–2010, and 2011–2012. The global trends of patents and scientific publications are presented. Bibliometric analysis, topic analysis, and citation network analysis methods are used to rank countries, institutions, technology subfields, and inventors contributing to nanotechnology development. We then, examined how these entities were affected by NSF funding and how they evolved over the past two decades. Results show that dedicated NSF funding used to support nanotechnology R&D was followed by an increased number of relevant patents and scientific publications, a greater diversity of technology topics, and a significant increase of citations. The NSF played important roles in the inventor community and served as a major contributor to numerous nanotechnology subfields.

[1]  Teruo Okazaki,et al.  Capturing Nanotechnology's Current State of Development via Analysis of Patents. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2007/4. , 2007 .

[2]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  Worldwide nanotechnology development: a comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976–2004) , 2007 .

[3]  Philip Shapira,et al.  Funding acknowledgement analysis: an enhanced tool to investigate research sponsorship impacts: the case of nanotechnology , 2011, Scientometrics.

[4]  Sadaaki Miyamoto,et al.  Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing , 2012, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[5]  R. Williams,et al.  Nanotechnology Research Directions: IWGN Workshop Report , 2000 .

[6]  R KalpanaSastry,et al.  Nanotechnology Patents as R&D Indicators for Disease Management Strategies in Agriculture , 2010 .

[7]  Paola Criscuolo,et al.  The 'home advantage' effect and patent families. A comparison of OECD triadic patents, the USPTO and the EPO , 2006, Scientometrics.

[8]  Mihai Surdeanu,et al.  A hybrid unsupervised approach for document clustering , 2005, KDD '05.

[9]  Lipo Wang,et al.  Feature Selection Based on the Rough Set Theory and Expectation-Maximization Clustering Algorithm , 2008, RSCTC.

[10]  Zan Huang,et al.  Longitudinal Nanotechnology Development (1991--2002): National Science Foundation Funding and its Impact on Patents , 2005 .

[11]  Sergey Brin,et al.  The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine , 1998, Comput. Networks.

[12]  A. Pakes,et al.  Does Federal Research Funding Increase University Research Output? , 2003 .

[13]  J. King.  A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation , 1987, J. Inf. Sci..

[14]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  Research Productivity in a System of Universities , 1998 .

[15]  H. Piekkola.  Public Funding of R&D and Growth: Firm-Level Evidence from Finland , 2007 .

[16]  Wei-Ying Ma,et al.  An Evaluation on Feature Selection for Text Clustering , 2003, ICML.

[17]  Jaebong Son,et al.  Nanotechnology Public Funding and Impact Analysis: A Tale of Two Decades (1991-2010) , 2013, IEEE Nanotechnology Magazine.

[18]  Lidiya Kavunenko,et al.  Comparative analysis of journals on social sciences and humanities in Ukraine and the world , 2006, Scientometrics.

[19]  Yan Dang,et al.  Knowledge sharing and diffusion patterns , 2009, IEEE Nanotechnology Magazine.

[20]  Carlos Ordonez,et al.  SQLEM: fast clustering in SQL using the EM algorithm , 2000, SIGMOD '00.

[21]  KingJean.  A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation , 1987 .

[22]  Andrew A. Toole.  The Impact of Public Basic Research on Industrial Innovation: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry , 2011 .

[23]  A. Kulkarni,et al.  Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. , 2009, JAMA.

[24]  Marian Beise,et al.  Public research and industrial innovations in Germany , 1999 .

[25]  Roman Słowiński,et al.  Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing , 2012, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.