Elsevier

Technovation

Volume 32, Issues 3–4, March–April 2012, Pages 157-160
Technovation

Editorial
The future of nanotechnologies

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.01.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Nanotechnology is the first major worldwide research initiative of the 21st century. Nanotechnologies are applied to cross industrial problems and are a general purpose technology that acts as both a basis for technology solutions or at the convergence of other enabling technologies, like biotechnologies, computational sciences, physical sciences, communication technologies, cognitive sciences, social psychology and other social sciences. Nanotechnologies are pervasive solution vectors in our economic environment. It is necessary to develop new methods to assess nanotechnologies development to better understand nanotechnology based innovation. As general purpose and enabling technologies, nanotechnologies reveal commercialization processes, from start-ups to large firms in collaboration with public sector research, and which lead to changing patterns of industrial organization which influence public policy initiatives to foster their development.

Introduction

The aim of this introductory paper is to present a state-of-the-art synthesis of current thinking about the management of nanotechnologies. As general purpose and enabling technologies, nanotechnologies promise to make far-reaching changes in how technologies are evaluated, how they relate to industrial organization and how such on-going transformations should be understood. Anticipating the future, it seems that nanotechnologies' generalized diffusion will turn them into commodities, creating more space for dedicated, higher added value applications such as nanobiotechnologies, nanoenergy or nanomaterials.

Nanotechnology is the first major worldwide research initiative of the 21st century. Nanotechnologies are general purpose technologies that act as both the basis for technology solutions across a range of industrial problems or as a nexus for the convergence of other enabling technologies like biotechnologies, computational sciences, physical sciences, communication technologies, cognitive sciences, social psychology and other social sciences (Freitas, 2010, Hyungsub and Mody, 2009, Kautt et al., 2007, Linton and Walsh, 2004). As for sustainability (Linton et al., 2007), the cross-industry and convergent nature of nanotechnology-based solutions promises to transform nearly every aspect of life (Compano et al., 2006; Tierney, 2011, p. 10816; Loveridge et al., 2008, Malanowski and Compano, 2007)—for instance, via having opened the door to engineering at the molecular level (Drexler, 1986, Walsh, 2004). Some see nanotechnologies as a field on their own, while others see their value in enabling a general trend of miniaturization in all physical technologies: either way, it is widely assumed that they will be pervasive solution vectors in our future economic environment. Applications employing nanotechnologies promise greater and more equal access to knowledge and information; new therapeutic interventions; improved environmental monitoring; greater safety and security; expanded communication capacities and many other industrial and societal applications. The enabling cross-industrial technology base (Fynman, 1960) they provide is being increasingly incorporated into existing products or processes to optimize production processes and produce better products with enhanced characteristics. In commercial terms, customers and users are only aware of nanotechnology-enabled products via their greatly increased functionality—in physically terms, individual nanotechnologies are invisible to the human eye. Their physical characteristics vary greatly from those of their macro counterparts, significantly affecting their internal design, their manufacture and their functionalities. The commercial promise of nanotechnology – as both the general foundation for and specific enabler of new innovations – makes it likely to underpin the next Schumpeterian wave of economic development (Wonglimpiyara, 2005) and its commercial promises has been formulated around its potential for facilitating such transformations (Selin, 2007).

Section snippets

From breakthrough discoveries to general purpose technologies

This technology base was first discussed in the last half of the 20th century—technically by Fynman (1960) and commercially by Drexler (1986) and took decades to generate significant public investment. Huge public investments to support scientific and technological researches (Shapira and Youtie, 2011, Teece, 2011), the creation of technological and industrial platforms and infrastructures (mainly in the 21st century) have led to more than 2,000,000 articles related to nanotechnologies being

Understanding the future of nanotechnologies

Nine scholarly works contribute to our understanding of nanotechnology based innovation.

The paradox of nanotechnologies

Since Drexler (1986) who introduce the term nanotechnologies and the development of the first critical nanotechnology roadmaps (Bozeman et al., 2007, Walsh, 2004), the deployment of nanotechnologies has become clearer. Incumbents play the central roles (Allarakhia and Walsh, 2011, Jiang et al., 2011, Mangematin et al., 2011), with start-ups and SMEs acting as specialized suppliers while large firms and public sector research organizations form direct alliances to develop and to market

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jonathan Linton the editor in chief of Technovation for his helpful comments and suggestions on the previous versions of the paper. We are grateful to Jon Morgan for Paraphrase for having edited the paper. Usual caveats apply.

References (64)

  • J.D. Linton et al.

    A theory of innovation for process-based innovations such as nanotechnology

    Technological Forecasting and Social Change

    (2008)
  • D.K.R. Robinson et al.

    Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology

    Research Policy

    (2007)
  • F.T. Rothaermel et al.

    The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: sources of productivity in incumbent firm research

    Research Policy

    (2007)
  • S. Walsh

    Road mapping a disruptive technology: a case study—the emerging microsystems and top-down nanosystems Industry

    Technological Forecasting and Social Change

    (2004)
  • S. Allan et al.

    Framing risk: nanotechnologies in the news

    Journal of Risk Research

    (2010)
  • M. Allarakhia et al.

    Analyzing and organizing nanotechnology development: application of the institutional analysis development framework to nanotechnology consortia

    Technovation

    (2012)
  • M.M. Andersen

    Silent innovation: corporate strategizing in early nanotechnology evolution

    The Journal of Technology Transfer

    (2011)
  • E. Avenel et al.

    Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies

    Research Policy

    (2007)
  • D. Baglieri et al.

    Rejuvenating clusters with sleeping anchors: the case of nanoclusters

    Technovation

    (2012)
  • N. Battard

    Convergence and multidisciplinarity in nanotechnology: laboratories as technological hubs

    Technovation

    (2012)
  • R. Bettis et al.

    The dominant logic: retrospective and extension

    Strategic Management Journal

    (1995)
  • A. Chin cheng

    A fuzzy multiple criteria comparison of technology valuation methods for the new materials development

    Technovation

    (2012)
  • W. Chunhsien

    An empirical study of commercialization performance on nanoproducts

    Technovation

    (2012)
  • P. Cohendet et al.

    Diversity of entrepreneurs and diversity of clusters in nanotechnologies

    International Journal of Technology Management

    (2009)
  • R. Compano

    Converging applications for active ageing policy

    Foresight

    (2006)
  • K.E. Drexler

    The Engine of Creation

    (1986)
  • M. Fiedler et al.

    Commercialisation of technology innovations: an empirical study on the influence of clusters and innovation networks

    International Journal of Technology Management

    (2011)
  • R.A. Freitas

    The future of nanomedicine

    Futurist

    (2010)
  • R. Fynman

    There's plenty of room at the bottom

    Engineering and Science

    (1960)
  • A. Gambardella et al.

    Business-model innovation: general purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure

    Long Range Planning

    (2010)
  • C.E.Khalid Genet et al.

    Which model of technology transfer for nanotechnology? A comparison with biotech and microelectronics

    Technovation

    (2012)
  • C. Grimpe et al.

    Regional knowledge production in nanomaterials: a spatial filtering approach

    Annals of Regional Science

    (2011)
  • Cited by (74)

    • Neurotoxicity of nanoparticles: Insight from studies in zebrafish

      2022, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
      Citation Excerpt :

      They exhibit diversely unique chemical, physical and optical properties with their small size and large surface (Spirescu et al., 2021). NPs are widely used in many fields, including tissue engineering, drug delivery, imaging, diagnostics, surface texturing, and bio-interfaces, due to their ease of modification in shape, size, surface, and chemical properties (Chakraborty et al., 2016; Mangematin and Walsh, 2012). For example, Silver (Ag) nanoparticles are used in clothing because of their antibacterial and anti-odor properties (Kulthong et al., 2010); titanium dioxide nanoparticles are widely used in cosmetic sunscreens as a UV protector (Jacobs et al., 2010).

    • Nanomedicine: a socio-technical system

      2021, Technological Forecasting and Social Change
      Citation Excerpt :

      Early positioning papers on nanotechnology purposively aimed at ensuring that nanotechnology was not going to get the same backlash of biotechnology as it reached society (Barben et al., 2008). Nanotechnology was presented as a wider “general purpose technology” (Gambardella and McGahan, 2010), operating within a socio-technical regime, and acting as the ground for technological innovations across a range of sectors as well as a connection for other enabling technologies (Kautt et al., 2007; Linton and Walsh 2008; Mangematin and Walsh, 2012). As a result, nanotechnology has seen earlier and more significant interest and investments than biotechnology, with start-ups and SMEs positioning themselves as expert suppliers while research organizations forming coalitions with industrial partners to both develop and commercialize innovation (e.g., Mangematin et al., 2011; Rothaermel and Thursby, 2007).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text