Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nanotechnology is a promising research domain with potential and enormous economic value. It is widely acknowledged that nanotechnology, as an emerging and rapidly evolving field with the multidisciplinary nature, is perceived as proximate fields of science and technology. This study provides a further description of the relationship between science and technology at macro-level. The core objective in this paper is to qualify and assess the dynamic associations between scientific activity and technological output. We attempt to illustrate how science and technology relate one another in the case of innovation system. In this paper, we take advantage of the simultaneous equations model to analyze the reciprocal dependence between science and technology. Previous studies about the relationship between science and technology infrequently adopt this model. Our result shows that there is no significant connection between R&D expenditures and actual practices of research in terms of publications and patents for the universities in zone 1 and 2. Our results provoke questions about whether policy-makers should appropriately reallocate scientific and technological resources and other R&D expenditures so as to obtain optimal allocation for resource and achieve maximum results with little effort for scientific research and innovation performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert, M. (2003). Universities and the market economy: The differential impact on knowledge production in sociology and economics. Higher Education, 45(2), 147–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance—an international comparison. Research Policy, 39, 822–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai, C. L. (2005). Ascent of nanoscience in China. Science, 309(5731), 61–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, B., & Pain, N. (2003). What Determines Industrial R&D Expenditure in the UK? National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) discussion paper 211.

  • Bernardes, A., & Albuquerque, E. (2003). Cross-over, thresholds and interaction between science and technology: Lessons for less-developed countries. Research Policy, 32(5), 865–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 137, 85–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Schubert, A., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A., & Pavitt, K. (2001). Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 597–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L. (2003). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, M. P., Cooper, M., & Narin, F. (1980). Linkage between basic research and patents. Research Management, 23, 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaves, C. V., & Moro, S. (2007). Investigating the interaction and mutual dependence between science and technology. Research Policy, 36, 1204–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Luz, M. P., Marques-Portella, C., Mendlowicz, M., Gleiser, S., Coutinho, E. S., & Figueira, I. (2008). Institutional h-index: The performance of a new metric in the evaluation of Brazilian psychiatric post-graduation programs. Scientometrics, 77(2), 361–368. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1964-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science link. Research Policy, 34, 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 27, 1126–1171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Cassell Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evenson, R., & Kislev, Y. (1975). Agricultural research and productivity. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evenson, R., & Kislev, Y. (1976). A stochastic model of applied research. Journal of Political Economy, 84(2), 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 909–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A. (1999). The economics of knowledge production: Funding and the structure of university research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Nesta, L. J. J. (2006). University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence. Research Policy, 35(6), 790–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G., & Helpman, E. (1991). Quality ladders in the theory of growth. Review of Economic Studies, 58(1), 43–61.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Grupp, H. (1994). The dynamics of science-based innovation reconsidered: Cognitive models and statistical findings. In O. Granstrand (Ed.), Economics of technology (pp. 223–251). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grupp, H. (1996). Spillover effects and the science-based of innovations reconsidered: An empirical approach. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 6, 175–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grupp, H., & Schmoch, U. (1992). Perception of scientification of innovation as measured by referencing between patents and paper-dynamics in science-based fields of technology. In H. Grupp (Ed.), Dynamics in science-based innovation (pp. 73–128). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., & Ma, N. (2007). China’s emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience ‘giants’. Research Policy, 36(6), 880–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., & Wang, G. B. (2010). A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers. Scientometrics, 84, 331–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, M. (2005). Small things and big changes in the developing world. Science, 309(5731), 65–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J., Hall, B., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52, 909–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in nanotechnology: An overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3), 507–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, B., Rousseau, R., & Sun, X. (2005). Key labs and open labs in the Chinese scientific research system: Qualitative and quantitative evaluation indicators. Research Evaluation, 14(2), 103–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klevorick, A., Levin, R., Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1995). On the sources and significance of inter-industry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, 24, 185–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Laudan & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy, harnessing technology for economic growth (pp. 275–306). Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kondo, M. (1990). Japanese R&D in robotics and genetic engineering. In J. Sigurdson (Ed.), Measuring the dynamics of technological change (pp. 130–145). London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krahmer, M., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27, 835–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumaresan, N., & Miyazaki, K. (1999). An integrated network approach to systems of innovation: The case of robotics in Japan. Research Policy, 28, 563–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2006). The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy, 33(7), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2003). The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Scientometrics, 58(2), 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2005). Are the contribution of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science? Scientometric, 63(3), 617–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2007). Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 70(3), 693–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcmillan, S., Narin, F., & Deeds, D. (2000). An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: The case of biotechnology. Research Policy, 29, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor–authors with their non-inventing peers in nanoscience and technology. Research Policy, 35(10), 1646–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Debackere, K., & Glanzel, W. (2010). Can applied science be ‘good science’? Exploring the relationship between patent citations and citation impact in nanoscience. Scientometrics, 85(2), 527–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (1999). The regulation regarding the protection and management of intellectual properties in higher education institutions. Act 3, No. 8120.

  • Mogoutov, A., & Kahane, B. (2007). Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking. Research Policy, 36(6), 893–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C. (1983). Industrial research and firm size, survival, and growth in American manufacturing, 1921–1946: An assessment. Journal of Economic History, 43(4), 953–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., & Breitzman, A. (1995). Inventive productivity. Research Policy, 24, 507–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7, 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. (1982). The role of knowledge in R&D efficiency. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97, 453–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. In R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis (pp. 3–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale, P. (1998). A cognitive model of innovation. Research Policy, 27, 689–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmberg, C., Dernis, H., & Miguet, C. 2009 Nanotechnology: An overview based on indicators and statistics [EB/OL]. OECD Science, Technology and Industry working papers, 2009/7. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/223147043844.

  • Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. D. (1965). Is technology historically independent of science—a study in statistical historiography. Technology and Culture, 6(4), 553–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, I. K. R., & Srivastava, D. (2010). Growth of journals, articles and authors in malaria research. Journal of Informetrics, 4(3), 249–256.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (1992). Science and technology as dancing partners. In P. Kroes & M. Bakker (Eds.), Technological development and science in the industrial age (pp. 231–270). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. (1982). How exogenous is science? In N. Rosenberg (Ed.), Inside the black box: Technology and economics (pp. 141–159). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. (2004). The cost of misaligned governance in R&D alliances. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 20, 484–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53(7), 1113–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U. (1997). Indicators and the relations between science and technology. Scientometrics, 38, 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stankiewics, R. (1992). Technology as an autonomous, socio-cognitive system. In H. Grupp (Ed.), Dynamics of science based innovation (pp. 19–44). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefano, B., & Christian, C. (2010). Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists’ and inventors’ networks. Research Policy, 39, 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 791–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, F. M., Hsieh, C. H., Peng, Y. N., & Yi-Wei Chua, Y. W. (2011). Using patent data to analyze trends and the technological strategies of the amorphous silicon thin-film solar cell industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(2), 332–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanlooy, B., et al. (2003). Do science–technology interactions pay off when developing technology? An exploratory investigation of 10 science-intensive technology domains. Scientometrics, 57(3), 355–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanlooy, B., et al. (2006). Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant. Scientometrics, 66(2), 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G. B., & Guan, J. C. (2010). The role of patenting activity for scientific research: A study of academic inventors from China’s nanotechnology. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 338–350.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, C. Y., & Goh, K. L. (2009). Modeling the dynamics of science and technology diffusion of selected Asian countries using a logistic growth function. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 17(1), 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, C. Y., & Goh, K. L. (2010). Modeling the behaviour of science and technology: Self-propagating growth in the diffusion process. Scientometrics, 84, 669–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, W., & Watanabe, C. (2008). A comparison of institutional systems affecting software advancement in China and India: The role of outsourcing from Japan and the US. Technology in Society, 30, 429–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (1996). “Post-academic science”: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies, 9(1), 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (2006). Delineating complex scientific fields by an hybrid lexical-citation method: An application to nanosciences. Information Processing & Management, 42(6), 1513–1531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project no. 70773006), the National Social Science Foundation of China (Project no. 10zd&014), key discipline excellent doctoral research funded projects in Fudan University and Introduce talents project in Chongqing University of Arts and Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433, People’s Republic of China

    Qingjun Zhao

  2. School of Management, Graduate University, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, People’s Republic of China

    Jiancheng Guan

Authors
  1. Qingjun Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiancheng Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiancheng Guan.

Additional information

The authors have contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhao, Q., Guan, J. Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology. Scientometrics 90, 561–579 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0520-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0520-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation