Patterns of nanotechnology innovation and governance within a metropolitan area

Technology in Society

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 233-247

  Foley, Rider W ^a   Wiek, Arnim ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Governance; Nanotechnology innovation system; Urban innovation

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; GOVERNANCE; GOVERNMENT FUNDING; METROPOLITAN AREA; NANOTECHNOLOGY INNOVATION SYSTEMS; NANOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS; NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES; RESEARCH QUESTIONS;

EDUCATION; TECHNOLOGY;

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; CIVIL SOCIETY; ENTREPRENEUR; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; GOVERNMENT; INDUSTRY; INNOVATION; METROPOLITAN AREA; NANOTECHNOLOGY;

ARIZONA; PHOENIX; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84887625948     PISSN: 0160791X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.10.004     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Wiek A., Foley R.W., Guston D.H. Nanotechnology for sustainability - what does nanotechnology offer to solve complex sustainability problems?. J Nanopart Res 2012, 14:1093.
2. Abernathy W.J., Townsend P.L. Technology, productivity and process change. Technol Forecast Soc 1975, 7:379-396.
3. Nelson R.R. National innovation systems: a comparative analysis 1993, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
4. Cooke P., Morgan K. The associational economy: firms, regions, and innovation 2011, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
5. Jaffe A. The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process. Res Policy 2000, 29(2):531-537.
6. Fisher E. Ethnographic invention: probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 2007, 1(2):155-165.
7. Feldman M., Massard N. Institutions and systems in the geography of innovation 2002, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
8. Guston D.H., Sarewitz D. Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 2002, 24(1-2):93-109.
9. Robinson D.K.R. Co-evolutionary scenarios: an application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2009, 76(9):1222-1239.
10. Wiek A., Guston D.H., van der Leeuw S., Selin C., Shapira P. Nanotechnology in the city: sustainability challenges and anticipatory governance. J Urban Technol 2013, 20(2):45-62.
11. Graedel T.E., Allenby B.R. Industrial ecology and sustainable engineering 2010, Prentiss Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
12. Grieger K.D., Baun A., Owen R. Redefining risk research priorities for nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 2010, 12(2):383-392.
13. Kline S.J., Rosenberg N. An overview of innovation. The positive sum strategy: harnessing technology for economic growth 1986, 275-305. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. R. Landau, N. Rosenberg (Eds.).
14. Ostrom E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325:419-422.
15. Wiek A., Larson K.L. Water, people, and sustainability - a systems framework for analyzing and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resour Manag 2012, 26(11):3153-3171.
16. Kotkin J. The city: a global history 2005, Random House Inc., New York.
17. Porter M. The competitive advantage of nations 1990, Free Press, New York.
18. Markard J., Truffer B. Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: towards an integrated framework. Res Policy 2008, 37(4):596-615.
19. Dunning J.H., Lundan S.M. The internationalization of corporate R&D: a review of the evidence and some policy implication for home countries. Rev Policy Res 2009, 26(1-2):13-33.
20. Link A.N. From seed to harvest: the early history of the Research Triangle Park 2002, The Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina, Research Triangle Park, NC.
21. Felbinger C.L., Rohey J.E. Globalization's impact on state and local policy: the rise of regional cluster-based economic development strategies. Rev Policy Res 2001, 18(3):63-79.
22. Avnimelech G., Feldman M.P. Regional corporate spawning and the role of homegrown companies. Rev Policy Res 2010, 27(4):475-489.
23. Florida R. Who's your city? How the creative economy is making where to live the most important decision of your life 2008, Basic Books, New York.
24. Clinton WJ. Presidential Address at the California Institute of Technology. [accessed May 2012]. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/osi/nanopotusspeech.html.
25. Bawa R., Bawa S.R., Maebius S.B. The nanotechnology patent 'gold rush'. J Intellect Prop Rig 2005, 10:426-433.
26. Porter A.L., Youtie J., Shapira P., Schoeneck D.J. Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 2008, 10(5):715-728.
27. Youtie J., Shapira P. Metropolitan development of nanotechnology: concentration or dispersion. The challenges of equity, equality, and development 2011, vol. II:165-180. Springer, New York, NY. S. Cozzens, J.M. Wetmore (Eds.).
28. Rothwell J., Lobo J., Strumsky D., Muro M. Patenting prosperity: invention and economic performance in the United States and its Metropolitan Areas 2013, Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program.
29. Crow M.M. Organizing teaching and research to address the grand challenges of sustainable development. BioScience 2010, 60(7):488-489.
30. Gober P. Metropolitan Phoenix: place making and community building in the desert 2006, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
31. US Census. Population distribution and change: 2000-2010. [accessed May 2012]. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf.
32. Beard B. Corner stones of Arizona's future 2012; February 11, The Arizona Republic.
33. Luckingham B. Phoenix: the history of a southwest metropolis 1989, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
34. Lindsay S.M. Introduction to nanoscience 2010, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
35. Site overview: Motorola, Inc. 52nd street plant 2011, Environ Prot Agency, [accessed March 2012]. http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/3dec8ba3252368428825742600743733/22ac34863a99a86388257007005e9409!OpenDocument.
36. Lobo J., Strumsky D. How green is my nano? Evidence from USPTO patents 7-10 November 2011, 3rd Annual S.Net Conference, Tempe, AZ.
37. Wiek A., Zemp S., Siegrist M., Walter A. Sustainable governance of emerging technologies-critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology. Technol Soc 2007, 29(4):388-406.
38. Arizona biotechnology roadmap. [accessed May 2013]. http://www.flinn.org/bio-roadmap.
39. Greater Phoenix Economic Council. Key Industries. [accessed March 2013]. http://www.gpec.org/key-industries.
40. Felt U., Wynne B., Callon M., Gonçalves M.E., Jasanoff S., Jepsen M., et al. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance 2007, 97. European Commission, Brussels.
41. Boettiger S., Wright B.D. Open source in biotechnology: open questions. Innov Technol Govern Globalization 2006, 1(4):45-57.
42. Gorman M.E. Mind in the world: cognition and practice in the invention of the telephone. Soc Stud Sci 1999, 27(4):583-624.
43. von Hippel E. Sources of innovation 1988, Oxford University Press, New York.
44. Siegel D.S., Wright M., Lockett A. The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: organizational and societal implications. Ind Corp Change 2007, 16(4):489-504.
45. The national nanotechnology initiative: research and development leading to a revolution in technology and industry. Retrieved from: [accessed April 2012]. http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_2012_budget_supplement.pdf.
46. Arizona Board of Regents. Policy No. 6-908. [accessed February 2013]. http://www.azte.com/download.php/DownloadableFiles/user_file_1.
47. Rosenberg N., Nelson R.R. American universities and technical advance in industry. Res Policy 1994, 23:323-348.
48. Florida R. The role of the university: leveraging talent, not technology. [accessed June 2012]. http://www.nap.edu/issues/15.4/florida.htm.
49. Governing uncertainty: environmental regulation in the age of nanotechnology 2010, EarthScan, London. C. Bosso (Ed.).
50. Koolage J.W., Hall R. Chemical action: what is it, and why does it really matter?. J Nanopart Res 2011, 13:1401-1417.
51. Huesemann M.H. The limits of technological solutions to sustainability development. Clean Technol Envir 2003, 5:21-34.
52. Krenik V. No one can serve two masters: a separation of powers solution for conflicts of interest within the Department of Health and Human Services. Texas Wesleyan Law Rev 2005, 12:585-630.
53. Brewer J. Executive order 2011-05: state regulatory rule making review and moratorium to promote job creation and retention 2011, 3. Office of the Governor, Phoenix, AZ.
54. Satterfield T., Kandlikar M., Beaudries C.E.H., Conti J., Harthorn B. Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nano 2009, 4:752-758.
55. Scheufele D.A., Corley E.A., Dunwoody S., Shih T.J., Hillback E., Guston D.H. Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2007, 2(12):732-734.
56. Leydesdorff L., Etzkowitz H. Triple helix innovation: introduction. Sci Public Policy 1998, 25(6):358-364.
57. Almirall E., Casadesus-Masanell R. Open versus closed innovation: a model of discovery and divergence. Acad Manage Rev 2000, 35(1):27-47.
58. Schot J. Towards new forms of participatory technology. Technol Anal Strateg 2001, 13:39-52.
59. Renn O., Roco M.C. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 2006, 8:153-191.
60. te Kulve H., Rip A. Constructing productive engagement: pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Sci Eng Ethics 2011, 17:699-714.
61. Kuhlmann S. Governance of innovation: practice, policy, and theory as dancing partners. [accessed April 2012]. http://doc.utwente.nl/59649/1/rede_S_Kuhlman.pdf.
62. Guston D.H. Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 2008, 454:940-941.
63. Jacobs J. The economy of cities 1969, Random House, New York.
64. Kemp R., Parto S., Gibson R.B. Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice. Int J Sus Dev 2005, 8(1/2):12-30.
65. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Public workshop on state and federal nanomaterials activities. [accessed July 2012]. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/TechnologyDevelopment/Nanotechnology/ArchivedSymposium.cfm.
66. Pytlik Zillig L.M., Tomkins A.J. Public engagement for informing science and technology policy: what do we know, what do we need to know, and how will we get there?. Rev Policy Res 2011, 28(2):197-217.
67. Daly H.E., Cobb J.B. For the common good: redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future 1994, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
68. Maclurcan D., Radywyl N. Nanotechnology and global sustainability 2012, CRC Press., Boca Raton, Fl.
69. Kimbrell G.A. Governance of nanotechnology and nanomaterials: principles, regulation, and renegotiating the social contract. J Law Med Ethics 2009, 37(4):706-723.
70. Etzkowitz, H. Silicon valley: the sustainability of an innovation region. [accessed June 2012]. http://www.triplehelixassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Silicon-Valley-The-Sustainability-of-an-Innovative-Region.pdf.
71. Wiek A, Fisher E, Foley RW, Bernstein M. From participant observation and reflection to engagement and transformational change - Combining socio-technical integration research with transformational sustainability research. Working Paper. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University.