The Big Four: comparing nanotechnology trajectories    of Russia, China, Brazil and the United States           Evgeny Klo...
Nanotechnology• Understanding and control of matter and processes at  the nanoscale, typically, but not exclusively, below...
Nanotechnology• First area of science and technology that embraces so  many disciplines• Unprecedented complexity of pheno...
Academic debates• Is nanotechnology an interdisciplinary field?• Are nanoscience and nanotechnology closely  interlinked?• ...
Practical concerns• When will the huge public investment in  nanotechnology start paying back and what  will be the rate o...
Answers…• Economic input, non-economic output BUT! no data on  economic output (Sargent, 2008; Gokhberg et al., 2011)• For...
Why now?• When the NNI was launched the U.S. enjoyed  unprecedented budget surplus and was agitated  to invest into most a...
What next?• The U.S. NNI is at the crossroads now – nanotechnology  development has reached the point when it will be rapi...
Major objectives• Retain the momentum for nanotechnology  development today and justify continued  investment into the are...
Hypotheses• Nanotechnology is capable of breaking institutionally (and  culturally) the development lock-in and supporting...
Broader socioeconomic approach• Apart from assessing primarily economic impacts of  nanotechnology, it is important to loo...
Comparative case studies•   Russia:      lost much of its science and technology might after the collapse of USSR;      ...
Major economic and nano-relatedindicators of RU, CN, BR and US in 2009
Russia                                                                                                              China ...
Russia               China                      Brazil                USALaunch of the national   2007                 200...
Future?•   The United States is likely to be surpassed by its competitors in certain sectors of    nanotechnology, where t...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Comparing nanotechnology trajectories of Russia, China, Brazil, and the United States

1,360

Published on

This is my presentation at the Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy 2011 comparing nanotechnology trajectories in Russia, China, Brazil, and the United States. Evgeny Klochikhin

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,360
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Work on hypothesis – improve them? Reformulate?
  • Breznitz & Murphree, 2011 – national center and regions – different policies;Appelbaum et al., 2011 – blurred between basic research and commercialization
  • Comparing nanotechnology trajectories of Russia, China, Brazil, and the United States

    1. 1. The Big Four: comparing nanotechnology trajectories of Russia, China, Brazil and the United States Evgeny Klochikhin, PhD Candidate, Manchester Business School, UK The Altanta Conference of Science and Innovation Policy, Atlanta, GA, USA, 15-17 September 2011
    2. 2. Nanotechnology• Understanding and control of matter and processes at the nanoscale, typically, but not exclusively, below 100 nonametres in one or more dimensions where the onset of size-dependent phenomena usually enables novel applications,• Utilizing the properties of nanoscale materials that differ from the properties of individual atoms, molecules, and bulk matter, to create improved materials, devices, and systems that exploit these new properties. (ISO Technical Committee 229)
    3. 3. Nanotechnology• First area of science and technology that embraces so many disciplines• Unprecedented complexity of phenomena• More than sixty countries have established national nanotechnology programs since 2000 (Sargent, 2008; Shapira and Wang, 2010)• BUT! at the critical point today: increasing number of pessimist attitudes; weak commercialization; dubious economic output data; scarce benchmarking studies; lack of comparative policy analysis
    4. 4. Academic debates• Is nanotechnology an interdisciplinary field?• Are nanoscience and nanotechnology closely interlinked?• Is nanotechnology development path dependent?• Who is winning the global nanorace? (Huang et al., 2011)
    5. 5. Practical concerns• When will the huge public investment in nanotechnology start paying back and what will be the rate of return on investment? (U.S. House, U.S. Senate, 2011)
    6. 6. Answers…• Economic input, non-economic output BUT! no data on economic output (Sargent, 2008; Gokhberg et al., 2011)• Forecasts range from $150 bn for 2010 to $2,4 tln for 2014 (Hullmann, 2007)• Following forecasts by Roco (2011), we have to reach about 10,000% (!) return on investment in nanotech by 2015• More and more people from the Office of Management and Budget start attending nanotechnology-related meetings in the U.S. government and Congress (Todd Kuiken, personal communication)
    7. 7. Why now?• When the NNI was launched the U.S. enjoyed unprecedented budget surplus and was agitated to invest into most advanced science and technology projects: Human Genome Project, ICTs, nanotechnology• Today economic recession has dramatically changed the situation causing significant cuts and influencing attitudes towards which technological areas should be considered most promising.
    8. 8. What next?• The U.S. NNI is at the crossroads now – nanotechnology development has reached the point when it will be rapidly commercializing suggesting breakthrough innovation in a wide variety of different sectors• Although the earlier projections are unlikely to realize by 2015, it is obvious that we will witness enormous economic impact in the next 5 years• Any substantial cuts in the NNI today will lead to significant slow- down and will have negative impact on the U.S. competitiveness• Many other policy initiatives introduced around the world are in direct correlation with the U.S. NNI and are likely to follow the United States example whichever decision it takes.
    9. 9. Major objectives• Retain the momentum for nanotechnology development today and justify continued investment into the area• Develop a broader framework to study the positive impacts of nano science and technology on the society in general to ensure public engagement and persistent support of the project
    10. 10. Hypotheses• Nanotechnology is capable of breaking institutionally (and culturally) the development lock-in and supporting trends towards self-sustained growth  To what extent does nanotech create new vs. existing institutional arrangements?  What is the role of public policy in this process?  How does policy design/objectives correspond with policy implementation/impacts?• Nanotechnology promotes socioeconomic/sociotechnical (and political) development across the board and in the context of the entire national innovation system  What are the specific impacts of nanotech on the society?  Does nanotech change the structure of the economy?
    11. 11. Broader socioeconomic approach• Apart from assessing primarily economic impacts of nanotechnology, it is important to look at other spheres where it can serve the goals of broader socioeconomic development:  efficiency and output of the key social, political and economic institutions and networks that are involved in the national innovation systems (and beyond);  research and education capabilities;  industrial and enterprise development;  regional spread;  cluster and network development; and  development of direct technological applications/product innovation.
    12. 12. Comparative case studies• Russia:  lost much of its science and technology might after the collapse of USSR;  has to re-build national innovation capabilities today using ample financial resources from oil and gas• China:  chose a route of ‘soft’ transition from communism to market economy;  manufacturing power of the world;  took decision to develop endogenous innovation capabilities (MOST 973)• Brazil:  unstable growth but ample resources;  turbulent political situation;  successful biotechnology development;  emerging innovation power• United States:  first country to introduce national nanotechnology initiative;  No.2 in public funding after the EU today ($2,1 bn vs. $2,5 bn);  supports NST across the board;  one of few nano-powers to pursue nanotech-related social science research
    13. 13. Major economic and nano-relatedindicators of RU, CN, BR and US in 2009
    14. 14. Russia China Brazil USAPopulation GDP GDP per capita GERD Nano-related High-tech Patent Res per mln Nanopubs GERD exports applications population
    15. 15. Russia China Brazil USALaunch of the national 2007 2001 2004 2000nano programSignificance of nano Highly important One of the areas to One of the areas to Importantcomponent in STI support (Appelbaum et supportpolicy al., 2011)Policy design Highly centralized Dispersed among Balanced: national Balanced: diverse programs and and state programs centralized institutions, center and plus autonomous coordination plus regions (Brez.&Mur., policy objects much autonomy left 2011; App. et al, 2011) for the agenciesScale Several fields ‘Across the board’ (with Focused ‘Across the board’ (mostly primary focus on nanomaterials) chemistry – NNSF)Regional spread Across the Concentrated with Several university Concentrated in country autonomy for regions centers and most major clusters (Breznitz and developed cities (Shapira and Youtie, Murphree, 2011) 2008)Commercialization Rusnano MOST Nanotech Nanotech is Issue left to policymechanism Industrialization Base included in the objects (so far) Industrial, Technology and Trade Policy (2004)Regular evaluations Annual, carried N/A N/A Triannual, out by MES independent evaluationsELSI component No Vague No Yes
    16. 16. Future?• The United States is likely to be surpassed by its competitors in certain sectors of nanotechnology, where they specialize• Experts see the major threat coming from China, while practitioners point at other competitors such as Japan, Germany and Korea.• The United States tries to establish cooperation with major nanopowers by signing S&T framework agreements, conducting regular meetings, supporting bottom-up collaborations• One of the key goals of these interactions is to promote ‘responsible nanotechnology’ by helping other countries develop environmental, health and safety (EHS) programmes so that the potential competitors do not taint nanotechnology by the spread of dangerous and harmful products (such as NanoMagic in Germany)• EHS is gaining increased attention in the United States itself where policy makers see underdevelopment of this area as one of the major shortfalls of the NNI in the recent decade, and inefficient risk regulations impeding business growth• Countries that established national nanotechnology initiatives are unlikely to drop out completely in the near future but their policies may go through certain structural adjustments putting nanotechnology under other umbrella disciplines (Various interviews, USA, May 2011)
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×