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

Technovation

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 3-11

  Nikulainen, Tuomo ^a   Palmberg, Christopher ^a  

^a Elinkeinoelaman Tutkimuslaitos   (Finland)

Author keywords

Nanotechnology; Science based technologies; Technology transfer

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC GROWTHS; FINNISH; GENERAL PURPOSE TECHNOLOGIES; SCIENCE-BASED TECHNOLOGIES; SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE; SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS; SURVEY DATA; UNIVERSITY RESEARCHERS;

MOTIVATION; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 71549132491     PISSN: 01664972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2009.07.008     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Agrawal A., and Henderson R. Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science 48 1 (2000) 44-60
2. Andersen, M.-M., 2005. Path creation in the making-the case of nanotechnology. in: Proceedings (online) of the DRUID 10th Anniversary Summer Conference 2005 on Dynamics of Industry and Innovation: Organizations, Networks and Systems, Copenhagen, DK, 27-29 June 2005.
3. Bhat J.S.A. Concerns of new technology based industries-the case of nanotechnology. Technovation 25 5 (2005) 457-462
4. Boardman C.P., and Ponomariov B.L. University researchers working with private companies. Technovation 29 2 (2009) 142-153
5. Bonaccorsi A., and Piccaluga A. A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university-industry relationships. R&D Management 24 3 (1994)
6. Bonaccorsi A., and Thoma G. Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology. Research Policy 36 6 (2007) 813-831
7. Bozeman B. Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy 29 4-5 (2000) 627-655
8. Brennenraedts, R., Bekkers, R., Verspagen, B., 2006. The different channels of university-industry knowledge transfer: empirical evidence from Biomedical Engineering. ECIS Working Paper.
9. Darby, M.R., Zucker, L.G., 2003. Grilichesian breakthroughs: inventions of methods of inventing and firm entry in nanotechnology. NBER Working Paper Series no. 9825.
10. D'Este P., and Patel P. University-industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?. Research Policy 36 9 (2007) 1295-1313
11. FhG-ISI, 2002. Search methodology for mapping nanotechnology patents. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems-Innovations Research, Karlsruhe, Germany.
12. Gorman M.E. Types of knowledge and their roles in technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 27 3 (2002) 219-231
13. Grodal S., and Thoma G. Cross-pollination in science and technology: concept mobility in nanobiotechnology. Annales d'Economie et Statistique 93 (2009)
14. Hall J. Nanofuture-What's Next for Nanotechnology? (2005), Promethus Books, New York
15. Heinze T. Nanoscience and nanotechnology in Europe: analysis of publications and patent applications including comparisons with the United States. Nanotechnology, Law and Business 1 4 (2004)
16. Huang H., Chen C., and Roco M. International nanotechnology development in 2003: country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO Patent Database. Journal of Nanoparticale Research 6 4 (2004) 325-354
17. Hullman, A., 2006. The economic development of nanotechnology-an indicators based analysis. EU Report.
18. Hullmann A., and Meyer M. Publications and patents in nanotechnology-an overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics 58 3 (2003) 507-527
19. Landry R., Amara N., and Ouimet M. Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. The Journal of Technology Transfer 32 6 (2007) 561-592
20. Lee Y.S. Technology transfer and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Research Policy 25 6 (1996) 843-863
21. Lipsey R.G., Carlaw K.I., and Bekar C.T. Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long-Term Economic Growth (2005), Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York
22. Louis K., Jones L., Anderson D., Blumenthal D., and Campbell E. Entrepreneurship, secrecy, and productivity: a comparison of clinical and non-clinical faculty. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 3 (2001) 233-246
23. Meyer M. Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy 29 3 (2000) 409-434
24. Meyer, M., 2000b. Hurdles on the way to commercialising novel technologies-the case of nanotechnology. Working Paper Series 2000:1, Helsinki University of Technology, Institute of Strategy and International Business.
25. Meyer M. Knowledge integrators or weak links? An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nanoscience and technology. Scientometrics 68 3 (2005) 545-560
26. Meyer M. Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nanoscience and technology. Research Policy 35 10 (2006) 1646-1662
27. Meyer M. What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Scientometrics 70 (2007)
28. Miyazaki K., and Islam N. Nanotechnology systems of innovation-An analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation 27 11 (2007) 661-675
29. Nicolau D. Challenges and opportunities for nanotechnology policies: an Australian perspective. Nanotechnology Law & Business 1 4 (2004)
30. Nikulainen, T., 2007a. Identifying nanotechnological linkages in the Finnish economy-an explorative study. ETLA Discussion Paper no. 1101 (forthcoming in Technology Analysis & Strategic Management).
31. Nikulainen, T., 2007b. What makes a gatekeeper? Insights from the Finnish nanocommunity. Druid Working Paper no. 07-03.
32. Noyons, E., Buter, R., van der Raan, R., Schmoch, U., Heinze, T., 2003. Mapping excellence in science and technology across Europe-nanoscience and nanotechnology. Draft report of project EC-PPN CT-2002-0002 to the European Commission, Universiteit Leiden.
33. Palmberg C. The transfer and commercialisation of nanotechnology: a comparative analysis of university and company researchers. Journal of Technology Transfer 33 6 (2008) 631-652
34. Palmberg, C., Nikulainen, T., 2006. Industrial renewal and growth through nanotechnology? An overview with focus on Finland. ETLA Discussion Paper no. 1020.
35. Palmberg, C., Pajarinen, M., Nikulainen, T., 2007. Transferring science-based technologies to industry-Does nanotechnology make a difference? ETLA Discussion Paper no. 1064.
36. Rafols I., and Meyer M. How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors. Scientometrics 70 3 (2007) 633-650
37. Ratner M., and Ratner D. Nanotechnology-A Gentle Introduction to the Next Big Idea (2003), Prentice Hill, New Jersey
38. Rothaermel F.T., and Boeker W. Old technology meets new technology: complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal 29 1 (2008) 47-77
39. Rothaermel F.T., and Thursby M. The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: sources of productivity in incumbent firm research. Research Policy 36 6 (2007) 832-849
40. Schartinger D., Schibany A., and Gassler H. Interactive relations between universities and firms: empirical evidence for Austria. Journal of Technology Transfer 26 3 (2001) 255-268
41. Schummer J. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59 3 (2004) 425-465
42. Shea C. Future management research directions in nanotechnology: a case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 22 (2005) 185-200
43. Valentin, E., 2000. University-industry cooperation: a framework of benefits and obstacles. Industry and Higher Education (June).
44. Wood, S., Jones, R., Geldart, A., 2003. The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. Report to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Swindon, UK.
45. Ylä-Anttila P., and Palmberg C. Economic and industrial policy transformation in Finland. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 7 3-4 (2007) 169-187
46. Youtie J., Iacopetta M., and Graham S. Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?. Journal of Technology Transfer 33 3 (2008) 315-329
47. Zucker L., Darby M., and Torero M. Labor mobility from academe to commerce. Journal of Labour Economics 20 3 (2002) 629-660