Leila Tahmooresnejad_Impact of public funding on the development of nanotechnology a comparison of quebec, canada and the us

  • 146 views
Uploaded on

Parallel session 3

Parallel session 3

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
146
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Impact of Public Funding on theDevelopment of NanotechnologyA Comparison of Quebec,Canada and the US Leila Tahmooresnejad – Polytechnique Montréal Catherine Beaudry – Polytechnique Montréal Andrea Schiffauerova – Concordia University 1st International Conference of Ne3LS Network November 2012
  • 2. Outline of the presentation Motivation Theoretical Framework Data and Methodology  Network  Hypotheses  Econometric models Regression results Conclusion Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 2 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 3. Motivation Public funding for research facilitates the production of knowledge and is a key element for innovation in high technologies  Facilitate the diffusion of knowledge  Develop new technologies Universities and their affiliated centers play a vital role in National innovation systems (Hall et al., 2003; Link & Scott, 2004; Zucker, Darby & Armstrong, 2002) Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 3 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 4. Nanotechnology (I/II) Emergence of nanotechnology over recent years was the starting point for many changes in a vast number of industries.  High competitive advantage for companies (Canton, 1999)  Creation of new companies (Porter et al., 2007)  Nano-enabled products with optimal features (Armstrong, 2008; Vokhidov and Dobrovol’skii, 2010)  Potential markets (Knol, 2004; Roco, 2007; Malanowski and Zweck, 2007)  Nano-related jobs (Freeman and Shukla, 2008) Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 4 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 5. Nanotechnology (II/II) Nanotechnology requires considerable investment Most of countries are following the US in initiating nanotechnology programs and increasing the allocated funds (Sargent, 2008) Canada lags behind in the race of nanotechnology Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 5 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 6. Theoretical Framework (I/II) Positive correlation between federal research funding and scientific outputs (Adams and Griliches, 1998; Payne and Siow, 2003; Blume-Kogut et al. 2009). More government research funding results more papers (Payne and Siow , 2003) More government research funding results more patents with a lower rate (Payne and Siow, 2003) Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 6 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 7. Theoretical Framework (II/II) High quality research should obtain more citations (Raan et al., 2003) Citations are proxy (Cronin, 2005) Papers and Patents of researchers, who received funding, may receive more citations  e.g. Patents of researchers, who received NSF funding, received more citations compared with those of other researchers in Nanoscale Science and Engineering (Huang et al., 2005). Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 7 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 8. Objectives Measure the impact of grants and contracts on the outputs of academic researchers  Papers ( quantity and quality)  Patents ( quantity and quality) Measure the impact of scientific and technological networks ( co-publication and co-invention networks) Compare these impacts in Quebec, Canada and the US Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 8 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 9. Data and Methodology
  • 10. Data (I/II) Scopus  Extraction of nanotechnology scientific papers by using specific keywords in the title, abstract and keywords  Selection the articles where there is at least one Canadian author United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)  Extraction of nanotechnology scientific patents by using specific keywords in the title, abstract and keywords  Selection the patents where there is at least one Canadian inventor Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 10 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 11. Data (II/II) Systèmes d’information de la recherche universitaire (SIRU) for Quebec  Amounts of grants and contracts received by researchers in Quebec Database of three granting councils (CIHR(Canadian Institute for Health Research), NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council), SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada))  Amount of grants received by Canadian researchers Nanobank  Papers of the researchers in the US  Patents of the researchers in the US  Amount of grants( NIH (National Institutes of Health) and NSF(National Science Foundation) received by researchers in the US Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 11 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 12. Methodology Matching databases Creating a unique identifier for each individual researcher Data cleaning Creating co-publication and co-invention networks Calculating network characteristics and the position of researchers Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 12 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 13. Network (I/III) A, B and C have published an article or are the inventors of a patent A, B and E have published an A B article or are the inventors of a patent C and D have published an article or are the inventors of a patent Degree of a node E C  Number of links that are directly connected  A, B and C have 3 connections D  E has 2 connections  D has 1 connection Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 13 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 14. Network (II/III) Centrality degree  indicates the number of actors that are connected to a specific actor Geodesic distance  Distance (shortest path) between two nodes Betweenness centrality of a node  is defined as the proportion of all geodesic distances between two nodes that includes this node.  It makes the node more powerful since it can control the knowledge flow between the other pair of actors Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 14 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 15. Network (III/III) Clustering coefficient  iftwo nodes are connected to the specific third node, they may also be connected to each other.  It is computed as the fraction of pairs of neighbors of an actor that are directly connected each other. A B D C Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 15 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 16. Hypotheses (I/II) Hypothesis 1a: Nanotechnology scientists/ academic inventors who receive more public funding contribute to more publications/patents compared with scientists/ academic inventors who receive less or no public funding. Hypothesis 1b: Nanotechnology scientists/ academic inventors who receive more public funding contribute to higher quality publications/patents compared with scientists/ academic inventors who receive less or no public funding.1 November 2012 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry Andrea Schiffauerova 16
  • 17. Hypotheses (II/II) Hypothesis 2a: A better network position of scientists/ academic inventors has a positive effect on the number of papers/patents to which a scientist/ academic inventor contributes. Hypothesis 2b: A better network position of scientists/ academic inventors has a positive effect on the quality of papers/patents to which a scientist/ academic inventor contributes. Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 17 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 18. Econometric Models (I/II)énbArtit / nbPatit ùê ú = a + bS1TotSubvMoy3it-l + bS 2 [TotSubvMoy3it-l ] 2ê nbCitit úênbClaimitë ú û +bC1TotContMoy3it-l + bC 2 [TotContMoy3it-l ] + b P1nbPat3it-1 + b P 2 nbPat3it-1 2 2 +g b BtwCentXit-2 + g c1CliqnessXit-2 + g c2 [CliqnessXit-2 ] 2 +g bp [BtwCentXit-2 ´ nbPat3it-1 ]+ g bc [BtwCentXit-2 ´ CliqnessXit-2 ] +dt å dt + n i + eit tTotSubvMoy3it-l TotContMoy3it-l  The amount of average grants / contracts that are received in 3 years preceding the patent application / paper publication with one year lag BtwCentXit-2  The betweenness centrality of academic –inventors /scientists in the co –invention/ co –publication network over 3 years preceding the patent application/ paper publication with 2 years lag CliqnessXit-2  The cliquishness centrality of academic –inventors / scientists in the co –invention / co –publication network over 3 years preceding the patent application /paper publication with 2 years lag Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry 1 November 2012 18 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 19. Endogeneity Problem The explanatory variables are linked together since one can explain the other.  The number of papers/patents is explained by the total grants/contracts received Two–Stage Residual Inclusion (2RSI) and Two –Stage –Least –Squares (2SLS) Instrumental variables  Age :the number of years since the beginning of the career of researcher in nanotechnology  Chair :value 0 if a researcher has no chair, 1 if he has an industrial chair, 2 for being a chair from two councils of the Canadian federal granting, 3 for a scientist who is a Canada Research chair Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 19 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 20. Econometric Models (II/II) 4ln ( totSubvMoyXit-1 ) = a1 + x å Ait-i + l A1 Ageit-1 + lA2 Ageit-1 + lChChairi + la nbArtMoy3 2 i=2 +Variables1st Stage + (n1i + e1it ) énbArtit / nbPatit ù ê ú = a 2 + bG1 ln (TotSubvMoy3it-1 ) + bG 2 éln (TotSubvMoy3it-1 )ù + [n1i + e1it ] 2 ê nbCitit ú ë û ênbClaimit ë ú û +bC1 ln (TotContMoy3it-1 ) + bC 2 éln (TotContMoy3it-1 )ù 2 ë û +g b BtwCentXit-2 + g c1CliqnessXit-2 + g c2 [CliqnessXit-2 ] 2 +g bp [BtwCentXit-2 ´ nbPat3it-1 ]+ g bc [BtwCentXit-2 ´ CliqnessXit-2 ] +ådt dt + n 2i + e 2it t Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 20 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 21. Regression results Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 21 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 22. Comparison Quebec Rest of Canada The US Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 22 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 23. The Impact of Public Fundingon Papers
  • 24. Quebec (contracts and grants) The number of papers  Positive impact of grants after threshold (right graph)  Negative impact of contracts (left graph)  Positive impact of network characteristics  Positive impact of having patents 1 November 2012 24
  • 25. Quebec (contracts and grants)  The number of citation  Negative impact of grants before threshold (right graph)  Positive impact of contracts (left graph)  Positive impact of network characteristics  Positive impact of having patents 251 November 2012
  • 26. Quebec (only grants) The number of papers (left) and citations (right)  Positive impact of grants until reach the threshold  Positive impact of network characteristics  Positive impact of having patentsThe Impact of Public Funding on the number of papers (left graph), and on the number of citations (right graph) 1 November 2012 26
  • 27. Rest of Canada  The number of papers (left) and the number of citations (right)  Positive impact of grants until reach the threshold  Positive impact of network characteristics  Positive impact of having patents 271 November 2012
  • 28. The US  The number of papers (left) and the number of citations (right)  Positive impact of grants on the number of papers  Positive impact of grants until reach the threshold  Positive impact of network characteristics (only citations) 281 November 2012
  • 29. The Impact of Public Fundingon Patents
  • 30. Quebec (contracts and grants) The number of patents  Positive impacts of contracts after pass the threshold  No effect of grants  Positive impact of network characteristics (only cliquishness)1 November 2012 30
  • 31. Quebec (contracts and grants)  The number of citation  Positive impact of contracts after a certain threshold ( left graph)  Positive impact of grants until reach the threshold (right graph)  Positive impact of network characteristics 311 November 2012
  • 32. Quebec (contracts and grants) The number of claims  Positive impact of contracts after pass the threshold (left graph)  Positive impact of grants after pass the threshold (right graph)  Positive impact of network characteristics (cliquishness) 321 November 2012
  • 33. Rest of Canada The number of patents  No effect of grants  Positive impact of network characteristics (only cliquishness) Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 33 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 34. Rest of Canada  The number of citations (left) and the number of claims (right)  Positive impact of grants until reach the threshold  Positive impact of network characteristics (only cliquishness has effect on citation) 341 November 2012
  • 35. The US The number of patents  Positive linear impact of grants  Positive impact of network characteristics (only cliquishness) Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 35 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 36. The US The number of citation (left) and the number of claims (right)  Positive impact of grants  Positive impact of network characteristics (only cliquishness)1 November 2012 36
  • 37. Conclusion
  • 38. Conclusion (I/III) Scientists work in bigger teams, but inventors are in smaller groups Scientific network is more interconnected compared with technological networks which are fragmented Having central positions in scientific networks has more positive impact on the papers compared with technological networks Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 38 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 39. Conclusion (II/III) Positive impact of grants on scientific productions and their quality but there is a threshold for this impact in Canada Positive impact of grants on scientific productions and their quality in the US, the threshold only for the citation No impact of grants in Canada on the number of patents , but positive impact of grants in the US on the number of patents Positive impact of grants on quality of patents, but there is the threshold in Canada Positive impact of grants on quality of patents with no threshold in the US Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 39 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 40. Conclusion (III/III) Negative impact of contracts on the number of papers Positive impact of contracts on the quality of papers Positive impact of contracts on the number of patents after passing the threshold Positive impact of contracts on the quality of patents considering the threshold Contracts are more crucial for patents, but we could not measure this impact for the rest of Canada and the US Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 40 Andrea Schiffauerova
  • 41. Thank you Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 41 Andrea Schiffauerova