Impact of Public Funding on theDevelopment of NanotechnologyA Comparison of Quebec,Canada and the US            Leila Tahm...
Outline of the presentation   Motivation   Theoretical Framework   Data and Methodology       Network       Hypothese...
Motivation   Public funding for research facilitates the    production of knowledge and is a key element for    innovatio...
Nanotechnology (I/II)   Emergence of nanotechnology over recent years    was the starting point for many changes in a vas...
Nanotechnology (II/II)   Nanotechnology requires considerable    investment   Most of countries are following the US in ...
Theoretical Framework (I/II) Positive correlation between federal research  funding and scientific outputs (Adams and Gri...
Theoretical Framework (II/II) High quality research should obtain more  citations (Raan et al., 2003) Citations are prox...
Objectives   Measure the impact of grants and contracts on    the outputs of academic researchers       Papers ( quantit...
Data and Methodology
Data (I/II)   Scopus         Extraction of nanotechnology scientific papers by using          specific keywords in the t...
Data (II/II)   Systèmes d’information de la recherche universitaire (SIRU) for    Quebec         Amounts of grants and c...
Methodology Matching databases Creating a unique identifier for each individual  researcher Data cleaning Creating co-...
Network (I/III)   A, B and C have published an    article or are the inventors of a    patent   A, B and E have publishe...
Network (II/III)   Centrality degree         indicates the number of actors that are connected to a          specific ac...
Network (III/III)   Clustering coefficient       iftwo nodes are connected to the specific third       node, they may al...
Hypotheses (I/II)   Hypothesis 1a: Nanotechnology scientists/    academic inventors who receive more public    funding co...
Hypotheses (II/II)   Hypothesis 2a: A better network position of    scientists/ academic inventors has a positive effect ...
Econometric Models (I/II)énbArtit / nbPatit ùê                  ú                     = a + bS1TotSubvMoy3it-l + bS 2 [Tot...
Endogeneity Problem   The explanatory variables are linked together since one    can explain the other.         The numb...
Econometric Models (II/II)                                  4ln ( totSubvMoyXit-1 ) = a1 + x å Ait-i + l A1 Ageit-1 + lA2 ...
Regression results                  Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012                               ...
Comparison   Quebec   Rest of Canada   The US                     Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 20...
The Impact of Public Fundingon Papers
Quebec (contracts and grants)    The number of papers       Positive impact of grants after threshold (right graph)     ...
Quebec (contracts and grants)    The number of citation        Negative   impact of grants before threshold (right      ...
Quebec (only grants) The number of papers (left) and citations (right)  Positive impact of grants until reach the   thres...
Rest of Canada         The number of papers (left) and the number          of citations (right)             Positive imp...
The US     The number of papers (left) and the number of      citations (right)         Positive impact of grants on the...
The Impact of Public Fundingon Patents
Quebec (contracts and grants)   The number of patents       Positive impacts of contracts after pass the        threshol...
Quebec (contracts and grants)     The number of citation        Positive impact of contracts after a certain threshold (...
Quebec (contracts and grants)   The number of claims       Positive   impact of contracts after pass the threshold (left...
Rest of Canada   The number of patents       No  effect of grants       Positive impact of network characteristics (onl...
Rest of Canada         The number of citations (left) and the          number of claims (right)             Positive imp...
The US   The number of patents       Positive linear impact of grants       Positive impact of network characteristics ...
The US   The number of citation (left) and the    number of claims (right)       Positive impact of grants       Positi...
Conclusion
Conclusion (I/III) Scientists work in bigger teams, but inventors  are in smaller groups Scientific network is more inte...
Conclusion (II/III)   Positive impact of grants on scientific productions and their    quality but there is a threshold f...
Conclusion (III/III)   Negative impact of contracts on the number of papers   Positive impact of contracts on the qualit...
Thank you                     Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012                                     ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

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

515 views

Published on

Parallel session 3

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9. Data and Methodology
  10. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 21. Regression results Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 21 Andrea Schiffauerova
  22. 22. Comparison Quebec Rest of Canada The US Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 22 Andrea Schiffauerova
  23. 23. The Impact of Public Fundingon Papers
  24. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 29. The Impact of Public Fundingon Patents
  30. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 37. Conclusion
  38. 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. 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. 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. 41. Thank you Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry1 November 2012 41 Andrea Schiffauerova

×