Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature

Research Policy

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 409-434

  Meyer, Martin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Citation; Nonpatent references; Patents; Science; Technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001739118     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00040-2     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Anttinen, P., Lounasmaa, J., 1997. Nanotechnology in the USA. Report for the Technological Development Centre of Finland TEKES, Helsinki.
2. Arora, A., 1991. The transfer of technological know-how to developing countries: technology licensing, tacit knowledge, and the acquisition of technological capability. PhD dissertation, Stanford University, see David (1993).
3. Bachmann, G., 1995. Nanotechnology: technology analysis. VDI-Technologiezentrum Physikalische Technologien, Düsseldorf, Germany.
4. Baré R. Results of a statistical study of the references cited in the search reports established by the EPO (January 1981). World Patent Information. 3(2):1981;56-60.
5. Bell M., Pavitt K. Technological accumulation and industrial growth: contrasts between developed and developing countries. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2(2):1993;157-210.
6. Braun T., Schubert A., Zsindely S. Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics. 38:1997;321-325.
7. Budworth, D.W., 1996. Overview of activities on nanotechnology and related technologies. Institute for Prospective Technology Studies of the European Commission, Joint Research Center, IPTS Technical Report Series, IPTS-JRC, Seville.
8. Cambrosio A., Keating P., MacKenzie M. Scientific practice in the courtroom: the construction of sociotechnical identities in a biotechnology patent dispute. Social Problems. 37(3):1990;275-293.
9. Campbell, B., 1989. Generalists, practitioners, and intellectuals: the credibility of experts in English patent law. In: Smith, R., Wynne, B. (Eds.), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law. Routledge, London, pp. 210-236.
10. Campbell, R.S., Nieves, A.L., 1979. Technology Indicators Based on Patent Data. The Case of Catalytic Converters - Phase I Report, Design and Demonstration. Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, n.p.
11. Carpenter M.P., Narin F. Validation study: patent citations as indicators of science and foreign dependence. World Patent Information. 5(3):1983;180-185.
12. Collins P., Wyatt S. Citations in patents to the basic research literature. Research Policy. 17:1988;65-74.
13. David, P.A., 1993. Intellectual property institutions and the panda's thumb: patents, copyrights, and trade secrets in economic theory and history. In: Wallerstein, M.B. et al. (Eds.), The Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology: a Conference, January 7-8, 1992. National research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 19-61.
14. Dosi G. Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature. 26:1988;1120-1171.
15. European Commission, 1997. The second European report on science and technology indicators. Report EUR 17639 EN, Chap. 7, in particular, p. 359ff.
16. Ganguli P., Blackman M.J.R. Patent documents: a multi-edge tool. World Patent Information. 17(4):1995;245-256.
17. Grupp, H., Schmoch, U., 1992. Perceptions of scientification of innovation as measured by referencing between patents and papers: dynamics in science-based fields of technology. In Grupp (1992) pp. 73-128.
18. Hicks D. Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change. 4(2):1995;401-424.
19. Hilgartner S. The dominant view of popularization: conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science. 20:1990;519-539.
20. Howells J. Tacit knowledge, innovation and technology transfer. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 8(2):1996;91-106.
21. Iversen, E.J., 1998. Knowledge bases and interactions in the Norwegian system: a patent share and citation analysis. Discussion draft, dated 8 May 1998, for 'STEP rapport/report 1997'. Presented at the 3rd Nordic Workshop in Bibliometrics, Oslo, 3-4 August 1998.
22. Jaffe, A.D., Traitenberg, M., Henderson, R., 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 577-598.
23. Kuusi, O., 1994. Materiaalit murroksessa. VATT, Helsinki.
24. Malsch, I., 1997. Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts' Perceptions and Scientific Relations between Sub-areas. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Seville.
25. Martin, B., Salter, A., 1996. The relationship between publicly funded basic research and economic performance. Science Policy Research Unit, Brighton.
26. Marquis D.G., Allen T.J. Communication patterns in applied technology. American Psychologist. 21:1966;1051-1060.
27. Meyer M., Persson O. Nanotechnology - interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics. 42(2):1998;195-205.
28. Meyer-Krahmer, F., Schmoch, U., 1997. Chemistry, information technology, biotechnology, and production technology: a comparison of linking mechanisms in four fields. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany.
29. Narin F. Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics. 30(1):1994;147-155.
30. Narin F., Noma E. Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics. 7(3-6):1985;369-381.
31. Narin F., Hamilton K.S., Olivastro D. Linkage between agency supported research and patented industrial technology. Research Evaluation. 5(3):1995;183-187.
32. Narin F., Hamilton K.S., Olivastro D. The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy. 26(3):1997;317-330.
33. Nelson, R., 1998. Different perspectives on technological evolution. In: Ziman, J. (Ed.), Technological innovation as an evolutionary process. Cambridge Univ. Press.
34. Noyons E.C.M., van Raan A.F.J., Grupp H., Schmoch U. Exploring the science and technology interface: inventor-author relations in laser medicine research. Research Policy. 23:1994;443-457.
35. Pavitt K. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy. 13:1984;343-373.
36. Pavitt K. The objectives of technology policy. Science and Public Policy. 14:1987;182-188. see David (1993).
37. Pavitt, K., 1998. Do patents reflect the useful research output of universities? SPRU Electronic Working Papers series. Paper No 6. Science Policy Research Unit, Brighton, also published in Research Evaluation 23, 105-111.
38. Pavitt K. Technologies, products and organisation in the innovating firm: what Adam Smith tells us and Joseph Schumpeter doesn't. Industrial Policy and Corporate Change. 7:1998;433-452.
39. Rabeharisoa, V., 1992. A special mediation between science and technology: when inventors publish scientific articles in fuel cells research. In Grupp (1992), pp. 45-72.
40. Rip, A., 1986. Mobilising resources through texts. In: Callon, M., Law, J., Rip, A. (Eds.), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. Macmillan, London, pp. 84-99.
41. Rip, A., 1992. Science and technology as dancing partners. In: Kroes, P., Bakker, M. (Eds.), Technological Development and Science in the Industrial Age. Kluwer, n.p., pp. 231-270.
42. Rosenberg N. Why do companies do basic research with their own money? Research Policy. 19:1990;165-174. see David (1993).
43. Schild, I., no date, Using patent indicators to map inventive activity in East Gothia: a methodological exploration with preliminary results. Work in progress. Linköping, Tema T Department of Technology and Social Change, Linköping University.
44. Schmoch U. Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators. Scientometrics. 26(1):1993;193-211.
45. Schmoch U., Kirsch N., Lay W., Plescher E., Jung K.-O. Analysis of technical spin-off effects of space-related R&D by means of patent indicators. Acta Astronautica. 24:1991;353-362.
46. Tolles W.M. Nanoscience and nanotechnology in Europe. Nanotechnology. 7:1996;59-105.
47. van den Belt, H., 1989. Action at a distance: A.W. Hofmann and the French patent disputes (1860-1863), or how a scientist may influence legal decisions without appearing in court. In: Smith, R., Wynne, B. (Eds.), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law. Routledge, London.
48. van Vianen B.G., Moed H.F., van Raan A.F.J. An exploration of the science base of recent technology. Research Policy. 19:1990;61-81.
49. Walker, R.D., 1995. Patents as scientific and technical literature. The Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ.
50. Whitley, R., 1985. Knowledge producers and knowledge acquirers: popularisation as a relation between scientific fields and their publics. In Shinn, T., Whitley, R. (Eds.), Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Vol. 4. Reidel, Dordrecht and Boston, MA, pp. 3-28.
51. Yin, R.K., 1994. Case study research: design and methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks.