IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v90y2012i2d10.1007_s11192-011-0520-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology

Author

Listed:
  • Qingjun Zhao

    (Fudan University)

  • Jiancheng Guan

    (Graduate University, Chinese Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

Nanotechnology is a promising research domain with potential and enormous economic value. It is widely acknowledged that nanotechnology, as an emerging and rapidly evolving field with the multidisciplinary nature, is perceived as proximate fields of science and technology. This study provides a further description of the relationship between science and technology at macro-level. The core objective in this paper is to qualify and assess the dynamic associations between scientific activity and technological output. We attempt to illustrate how science and technology relate one another in the case of innovation system. In this paper, we take advantage of the simultaneous equations model to analyze the reciprocal dependence between science and technology. Previous studies about the relationship between science and technology infrequently adopt this model. Our result shows that there is no significant connection between R&D expenditures and actual practices of research in terms of publications and patents for the universities in zone 1 and 2. Our results provoke questions about whether policy-makers should appropriately reallocate scientific and technological resources and other R&D expenditures so as to obtain optimal allocation for resource and achieve maximum results with little effort for scientific research and innovation performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2012. "Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 561-579, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:90:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0520-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-011-0520-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-011-0520-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-011-0520-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Meyer & K. Debackere & W. Glänzel, 2010. "Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 527-539, November.
    2. Auranen, Otto & Nieminen, Mika, 2010. "University research funding and publication performance--An international comparison," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 822-834, July.
    3. Grit Laudel, 2006. "The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(7), pages 489-504, August.
    4. Christopher Palmberg & Hélène Dernis & Claire Miguet, 2009. "Nanotechnology: An Overview Based on Indicators and Statistics," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2009/7, OECD Publishing.
    5. Nightingale, Paul, 1998. "A cognitive model of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 689-709, November.
    6. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Meyer-Krahmer, Frieder & Schmoch, Ulrich, 1998. "Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 835-851, December.
    8. Mowery, David C., 1983. "Industrial Research and Firm Size, Survival, and Growth in American Manufacturing, 1921–1946: An Assessment," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(4), pages 953-980, December.
    9. Butler, Linda, 2003. "Explaining Australia's increased share of ISI publications--the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 143-155, January.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2003. "The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 191-203, October.
    11. Gene M. Grossman & Elhanan Helpman, 1991. "Quality Ladders in the Theory of Growth," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 58(1), pages 43-61.
    12. Martin Meyer, 2006. "Are Co-Active Researchers on Top of their Class? An Exploratory Comparison of Inventor-Authors with their Non-Inventing Peers in Nano-Science and Technology," SPRU Working Paper Series 144, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    13. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 2, pages 63-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Chaves, Catari Vilela & Moro, Sueli, 2007. "Investigating the interaction and mutual dependence between science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 1204-1220, October.
    15. Geuna, Aldo & Nesta, Lionel J.J., 2006. "University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 790-807, July.
    16. Bettina Becker & Nigel Pain, 2008. "What Determines Industrial R&D Expenditure In The Uk?," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 76(1), pages 66-87, January.
    17. Narin, Francis & Breitzman, Anthony, 1995. "Inventive productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 507-519, July.
    18. Guan, Jiancheng & Ma, Nan, 2007. "China's emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience `giants'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 880-886, July.
    19. Richard R. Nelson, 1982. "The Role of Knowledge in R&D Efficiency," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 97(3), pages 453-470.
    20. Chan-Yuan Wong & Kim-Leng Goh, 2010. "Modeling the behaviour of science and technology: self-propagating growth in the diffusion process," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 669-686, September.
    21. Joachim Schummer, 2004. "Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(3), pages 425-465, March.
    22. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    23. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    24. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Loet Leydesdorff & Ping Zhou, 2007. "Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(3), pages 693-713, March.
    26. McMillan, G. Steven & Narin, Francis & Deeds, David L., 2000. "An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8, January.
    27. Klevorick, Alvin K. & Levin, Richard C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1995. "On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 185-205, March.
    28. Wang, Gangbo & Guan, Jiancheng, 2010. "The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China's nanotechnology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 338-350.
    29. Aldo Geuna, 1999. "The Economics of Knowledge Production," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1689.
    30. Bernardes, Americo Tristao & Albuquerque, Eduardo da Motta e, 2003. "Cross-over, thresholds, and interactions between science and technology: lessons for less-developed countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 865-885, May.
    31. Toby E. Stuart, 2000. "Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: a study of growth and innovation rates in a high‐technology industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(8), pages 791-811, August.
    32. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-938, July.
    33. Mariana Pires Luz & Carla Marques-Portella & Mauro Mendlowicz & Sonia Gleiser & Evandro Silva Freire Coutinho & Ivan Figueira, 2008. "Institutional h-index: The performance of a new metric in the evaluation of Brazilian Psychiatric Post-graduation Programs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 361-368, November.
    34. Grupp, Hariolf, 1996. "Spillover Effects and the Science Base of Innovations Reconsidered: An Empirical Approach," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 175-197, May.
    35. Evenson, Robert E & Kislev, Yoav, 1976. "A Stochastic Model of Applied Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 84(2), pages 265-281, April.
    36. Ravichandra Rao, I.K. & Srivastava, Divya, 2010. "Growth of journals, articles and authors in malaria research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 249-256.
    37. Melissa A. Schilling & Corey C. Phelps, 2007. "Interfirm Collaboration Networks: The Impact of Large-Scale Network Structure on Firm Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(7), pages 1113-1126, July.
    38. Mogoutov, Andrei & Kahane, Bernard, 2007. "Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 893-903, July.
    39. Bihui Jin & Ronald Rousseau & Xiaoxing Sun, 2005. "Key labs and open labs in the Chinese scientific research system: qualitative and quantitative evaluation indicators," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 103-109, August.
    40. Debackere, Koenraad & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2005. "The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 321-342, April.
    41. Kumaresan, Nageswaran & Miyazaki, Kumiko, 1999. "An integrated network approach to systems of innovation--the case of robotics in Japan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 563-585, August.
    42. Jiancheng Guan & Gangbo Wang, 2010. "A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 331-343, August.
    43. Angela Hullmann & Martin Meyer, 2003. "Publications and patents in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(3), pages 507-527, November.
    44. Zhao, Weilin & Watanabe, Chihiro, 2008. "A comparison of institutional systems affecting software advancement in China and India: The role of outsourcing from Japan and the United States," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 429-436.
    45. Loet Leydesdorff & Ping Zhou, 2005. "Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(3), pages 617-630, June.
    46. Rachelle C. Sampson, 2004. "The Cost of Misaligned Governance in R&D Alliances," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 484-526, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuandi Wang & Jiashun Huang & Yantai Chen & Xiongfeng Pan & Jin Chen, 2013. "Have Chinese universities embraced their third mission? New insight from a business perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(2), pages 207-222, November.
    2. Guijie Zhang & Guang Yu & Yuqiang Feng & Luning Liu & Zhenhua Yang, 2017. "Improving the publication delay model to characterize the patent granting process," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 621-637, May.
    3. Guijie Zhang & Luning Liu & Fangfang Wei, 2019. "Key nodes mining in the inventor–author knowledge diffusion network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 721-735, March.
    4. Xiaoling Sun & Kun Ding, 2018. "Identifying and tracking scientific and technological knowledge memes from citation networks of publications and patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1735-1748, September.
    5. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2013. "Love dynamics between science and technology: some evidences in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 113-132, January.
    6. Guijie Zhang & Yuqiang Feng & Guang Yu & Luning Liu & Yanqiqi Hao, 2017. "Analyzing the time delay between scientific research and technology patents based on the citation distribution model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1287-1306, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2013. "Love dynamics between science and technology: some evidences in nanoscience and nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 113-132, January.
    2. Kang, Inje & Yang, Jiseong & Lee, Wonjae & Seo, Eun-Yeong & Lee, Duk Hee, 2023. "Delineating development trends of nanotechnology in the semiconductor industry: Focusing on the relationship between science and technology by employing structural topic model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Wang, Gangbo & Guan, Jiancheng, 2010. "The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China's nanotechnology," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 338-350.
    4. Jiancheng Guan & Gangbo Wang, 2010. "A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 331-343, August.
    5. Elena M. Tur & Evangelos Bourelos & Maureen McKelvey, 2022. "The case of sleeping beauties in nanotechnology: a study of potential breakthrough inventions in emerging technologies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 683-708, December.
    6. Young-Don Cho & Hoo-Gon Choi, 2013. "Principal parameters affecting R&D exploitation of nanotechnology research: a case for Korea," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(3), pages 881-899, September.
    7. Wong, Chan-Yuan & Goh, Kim-Leng, 2010. "Growth behavior of publications and patents: A comparative study on selected Asian economies," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 460-474.
    8. Burhan, Muqbil & Singh, Anil K. & Jain, Sudhir K., 2017. "Patents as proxy for measuring innovations: A case of changing patent filing behavior in Indian public funded research organizations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 181-190.
    9. Dovev Lavie & Israel Drori, 2012. "Collaborating for Knowledge Creation and Application: The Case of Nanotechnology Research Programs," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 704-724, June.
    10. Beaudry, Catherine & Allaoui, Sedki, 2012. "Impact of public and private research funding on scientific production: The case of nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1589-1606.
    11. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.
    12. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    13. Leila Tahmooresnejad & Catherine Beaudry, 2019. "Collaboration or funding: lessons from a study of nanotechnology patenting in Canada and the United States," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 741-777, June.
    14. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    15. Christoph Grimpe & Roberto Patuelli, 2011. "Regional knowledge production in nanomaterials: a spatial filtering approach," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 46(3), pages 519-541, June.
    16. Baba, Yasunori & Shichijo, Naohiro & Sedita, Silvia Rita, 2009. "How do collaborations with universities affect firms' innovative performance? The role of "Pasteur scientists" in the advanced materials field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 756-764, June.
    17. Gazni, Ali, 2020. "The growing number of patent citations to scientific papers: Changes in the world, nations, and fields," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    18. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    19. Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & Aldo Geuna & Federica Rossi, 2011. "University–Industry Interactions: The Unresolved Puzzle," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Roberto Patuelli & Andrea Vaona & Christoph Grimpe, 2010. "The German East‐West Divide In Knowledge Production: An Application To Nanomaterial Patenting," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 101(5), pages 568-582, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:90:y:2012:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-011-0520-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.