Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Attention has increasingly shifted towards the long-run perspective on technological innovation, which suggests that progress comes in waves, each one originating with a major breakthrough or general purpose technology (GPT). This paper seeks to assess whether nanotechnology is likely to be (or become) a GPT, a characteristic that other researchers have sometimes assumed though not necessarily documented. Based on a survey of existing literature, this paper will explore the extent to which nanotechnology addresses three primary characteristics of a GPT: pervasiveness, innovation spawning, and scope for improvement. The paper draws on patent and patent citation databases to highlight the types of quantitative and qualitative information that would be necessary, and in some instances is still lacking, to characterize fully the nature of nanotechnology.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The disciplinary convergence hypothesis is not without its detractors (See for example, Khushf, 2004).

  2. These plots are subject to substantial right-side truncation due to the data being collected from the granted patents—these figures do not include information available in the US since 2001 on published applications.

  3. These scores (built from USPTO classes) for computer patents 1975–1979 were 0.63, 0.65, 0.66, 0.68, and 0.67, respectively, and are significantly higher than the scores for all patenting in those years (0.49 in each year).

  4. Another problem for any such analysis would arise if the placement of citations by examiners was driven by some internal USPTO job incentive.

References

  • Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcacer, J., & Gittleman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 774–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, W. (1995). The SIA lithography roadmap. Microlithography World, Winter, 7–11.

  • Bresnahan, T. J., & Trajtenberg, M. (1995). General purpose technologies: ‘Engines of Growth’? NBER Working Paper No. 4148, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Crichton, M. (2002). Prey. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P. (1990). The dynamo and the computer: An historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox. The American Economic Review, 80(2), 355–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexler, E. (1986). Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. J. H. (2006). The determinants of patentees’ use of ‘continuation’ applications in the United States patent and trademark office, 1980–99. In Andersen (Ed.), Intellectual property rights: Innovation, governance and the institutional environment. Edward Elgar Publishers.

  • Graham, S. J. H., & Mowery, D. C. (2003). Intellectual property protection in the software industry, with David C. Mowery. In Wesley Cohen & Steven Merrill (Eds.), Patents in the knowledge-based economy: Proceedings of the science, technology and economic policy board. National Academies Press.

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper No. 8498. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Hall, B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2004). Uncovering GPTS with patent data. NBER Working Paper No. 10901. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Harriott, L. (2000). Limits of lithography. Working Paper, Bell Labs-Lucent Technologies.

  • Helpman, E., & Trajtenberg, M. (1994). A time to sow and a time to reap: Growth based on general purpose technologies. NBER Working Paper No. 4854. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Huang, Z., Hsinchun, C., Yip, A., Ng, G., Guo, F., Chen, Z., & Roco, M. (2003). Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering: Country, institution, and technology field. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 5, 333–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, D. A., & Klenow, P. J. (1994). High tech R&D subsidies: Estimating the effects of sematech. NBER Working Paper No. 4974. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Jovanovic, J., & Rousseau, P. (2005). General purpose technologies. Working Paper 11093. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Kanellos, M. (2005). AMD’s 65 nano question solved: It’s a second half thing. CNET News.com, November 2, http://news.com.com/2061-10791_3-5929097.html?tag=nl.

  • Kanellos, M. (2006). Intel shows test chips made on future processes. CNET News.com, January 25, http://news.com.com/Intel+shows+test+chips+made+on+future+processes/2100-1006_3-6030489.html.

  • Khushf, G. (2004). A hierarchical architecture for nano-scale science and technology: Taking stock of the claims about science made by advocates of NBIC convergence. In Baird, D., Nordmann, A., & Schummer, J. (Eds.), Discovering the nanoscale (pp. 21–33). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostoff, R., Stump, J., Johnson, D., Murday, J., Lau, C., & Tolles, W. (2006). The structure and infrastructure of global nanotechnology literature. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8(3–4), 301–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, R. G., Bekar, C., & Carlaw, K. (1998). What requires explanation? In Helpman, E. (Ed.), General purpose technologies and economic growth (pp. 14–54). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lux Research (2006). The nanotech report: 4th edition, volume 1. New York: Lux Research.

  • Meyer, M. (2006). What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Paper presented at the 2006 Technology Transfer Society Conference, September 27–29, Atlanta, Georgia.

  • Moser, P., & Nicholas, T. (2004). Was electricity a general purpose technology? The American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 94(2), 388–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmberg, C., & Nikulainen, T. (2006). Industrial renewal and growth through nanotechnology? Helsinki: ETLA, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.

  • Porter, A., Shapira, P., & Youtie, J. (2006). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Briefing paper, prepared for presentation at national science foundation, first year review for the center for nanotechnology in society (CNS-ASU), Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.

  • Roco, M. (2004). Nanoscale science and engineering: Unifying and transforming tools. AIChE Journal, 50(5), 890–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M. (2005). International perspective on government nanotechnology funding in 2005. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 707–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M., & Bainbridge, W. (Eds.) (2003). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technical change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, C. (2005). Future management research directions in nanotechnology: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22, 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, R. (2005). Advances in materials and self-assembly. In Advanced Technology and the Future of Manufacturing, Proceedings. Atlanta, Georgia: Georgia Institute of Technology.

  • US National Science Foundation (2005). New grants are awarded to inform the public and explore the implications of nanotechnology, Press Release 05-179, http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=104505&org=olpa&from=news.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors contributed equally to this work. This research was undertaken at Georgia Tech through the Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS-ASU), supported by the National Science Foundation under NSF NSEC CNS SES #0531194, in collaboration with research sponsored under NSF NSEC CNS SES #0531146. We gratefully acknowledge helpful comments we received from Philip Shapira and participants at the Technology Transfer Society Annual Conference, September 27, 2006, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0640, USA

    Jan Youtie

  2. School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0615, USA

    Maurizio Iacopetta

  3. College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0520, USA

    Stuart Graham

Authors
  1. Jan Youtie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maurizio Iacopetta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stuart Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Youtie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Youtie, J., Iacopetta, M. & Graham, S. Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?. J Technol Transfer 33, 315–329 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9030-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9030-6

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Search

Navigation