IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rif/dpaper/1086.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modes, Challenges and Outcomes of Nanotechnology Transfer - A Comparative Analysis University and Company Researchers

Author

Listed:
  • Palmberg, Christopher

Abstract

Nanotechnology has been proposed as the next general purpose technology and engine for growth for the 21th century. Increasing public R&D investments are foremost reflected in the growth of scientific publications, while nanotechnology still is in an uncertain phase of development with various directions of commercialization pending. This paper focuses on the challenge, modes and outcomes of nanotechnology as an emerging science-based field in Finland. The paper contributes by interrogating how challenges and modes of nanotechnology transfer differ across universities and companies and determine outcomes broadly defined. It uses an extensive survey data covering university and company researchers in the Finnish nanotechnology community. The results show significant differences in the perceptions of researchers across these organisations, and highlight specific challenges and modes as determinants of outcomes. The specificities of nanotechnology are also assessed in this context.

Suggested Citation

  • Palmberg, Christopher, 2007. "Modes, Challenges and Outcomes of Nanotechnology Transfer - A Comparative Analysis University and Company Researchers," Discussion Papers 1086, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
  • Handle: RePEc:rif:dpaper:1086
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dp1086.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Palmberg, Christopher & Nikulainen, Tuomo, 2006. "Industrial Renewal and Growth through Nanotechnology ? - An Overview with Focus on Finland," Discussion Papers 1020, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    2. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters,in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Jan Youtie & Maurizio Iacopetta & Stuart Graham, 2008. "Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 315-329, June.
    4. Lipsey, Richard G. & Carlaw, Kenneth I. & Bekar, Clifford T., 2005. "Economic Transformations: General Purpose Technologies and Long-Term Economic Growth," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199290895.
    5. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier.
    6. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Grid Thoma, 2005. "Scientific and Technological Regimes in Nanotechnology: Combinatorial Inventors and Performance," LEM Papers Series 2005/13, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    7. Schartinger, Doris & Rammer, Christian & Fischer, Manfred M. & Frohlich, Josef, 2002. "Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 303-328, March.
    8. Chiara Franzoni, 2009. "Do scientists get fundamental research ideas by solving practical problems?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 671-699, August.
    9. Palmberg, Christopher & Pajarinen, Mika & Nikulainen, Tuomo, 2007. "Transferring Science-based Technologies to Industry - Does Nanotechnology Make a Difference?," Discussion Papers 1064, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    10. Joanna Poyago-Theotoky & John Beath & Donald S. Siegel, 2002. "Universities and Fundamental Research: Reflections on the Growth of University--Industry Partnerships," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 10-21, Spring.
    11. Audretsch, David B. & Bozeman, Barry & Combs, Kathryn L. & Feldman, Maryann & Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Stephan, Paula, 2002. "The Economics of Science and Technology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 155-203, April.
    12. Pekka Ylä-Anttila & Christopher Palmberg, 2007. "Economic and Industrial Policy Transformations in Finland," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 169-187, December.
    13. D'Este, P. & Patel, P., 2007. "University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1295-1313, November.
    14. Reginald Brennenraedts & Rudi Bekkers & Bart Verspagen, 2006. "The different channels of university-industry knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence from Biomedical Engineering," Working Papers 06-04, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2006.
    15. Ajay Agrawal & Rebecca Henderson, 2002. "Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 44-60, January.
    16. Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
    17. Schartinger, Doris & Schibany, Andras & Gassler, Helmut, 2001. "Interactive Relations between Universities and Firms: Empirical Evidence for Austria," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 255-268, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    nanotechnology; technology transfer; Finland; survey data;

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rif:dpaper:1086. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Kaija Hyvönen-Rajecki). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/etlaafi.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.