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)