Interdisciplinary Research Group 2:

Innovation

The goal of this group has been to understand the impact of the current US innovation system on nanoscale research. We have been working towards an integrated understanding of the institutional, social and cultural factors that affect nanoscale innovation. At the end of year 5, the Innovation Group will have completed its survey of nanoscale collaboration practices, its study of patents in nanoscale quantum structures, its interviews about technology transfer at the nanoscale, its related studies of intellectual property incentives and innovation policy, and its publications on developing enhanced, qualitative innovation indicators.

The Innovation Group has sought to offer unique perspectives in four ways: by integrating qualitative and quantitative methods; by linking the micro, meso, and macro levels of this system; by comparing the US system to selected systems abroad; and by incorporating a further level that we call innovation culture into our analysis of the innovation system in the US. Our research integrates insights about innovation from the humanities as well as from the social sciences; conversely, some of our publishing brings research on nanoscale innovation to humanities audiences that are beyond the normal range of the NSF. Group activities have also included particularly intensive mentoring of a cross-disciplinary group of graduate students in 2006-07, and the successful conversion of two undergraduate summer interns into long-term researchers. Since IRG group leader Christopher Newfield began a two-year administrative post for the University of California in France (2008-2010), he has established a CNS foothold in the European Union, and in Years 4-5 is constructing a Nanoscale Innovation Research Network there, to be launched with a one-day conference scheduled for October 2009. Since 2006, IRG 2 members have published or submitted 13 articles, chapters, and reviews and given 44 talks and invited lectures.

IRG 2 comprises: Chris Newfield , Leader, English/American Studies, UC Santa Barbara; Gerald Barnett, Technology Enterprise, Univ of Washington; John Mohr , Sociology, UCSB; David Mowery , Economics, UC Berkeley; Suzanne Scotchmer , Economics, UC Berkeley; as well as 5 grad students, 3 undergrads, and 1 inter.

There are several research groups within IRG 2:

IRG 2-1: Collaboration in the Nanoscale Innovation System (Newfield, Mohr, Alimahomed, Macala, Stoltzfus)

On the micro level, our overarching research question has been whether nanoscale researchers were increasing and/or redefining collaboration within and across laboratories. We investigate this question through two surveys keyed to these debates. The first survey was administered at one research university to a wide cross-section of science disciplines (n=420). Our principal findings from this survey were as follows:

• Nanotechnology currently functions less as a professional identity and more as a set of research practices at the nanoscale.
• Nanotechnologists do engage in more interdisciplinary collaboration than other scientists, in the sense of being more likely to work with more than one laboratory at a time.
• Nanoscale researchers do not show levels of subjective interest in collaboration outside of their home discipline that are greater than those of researchers from established disciplines.

The national survey, to be implemented and analyzed in 2009-10 (Mohr, Newfield), takes off from our current conclusion that nanoscale collaboration operates more as an expected prerequisite than as positive practice with elevated intellectual expectations. It will specify the forms of collaboration that are most common and will differentiate their effects.

IRG 2-2: Nanoscale research and intellectual property (Alimahomed, Glennon, Macala, Newfield)

On the meso level, we asked whether “Bayh-Dole” structured intellectual property rights were effectively linking selected nanoscale research results to applications. We selected quantum dots/ nanocrystals as our nanomaterials case for analysis because of their long research history, scientific importance, and potential for breakthrough medical and energy applications. Having evaluated several proprietary data basis and customized software, we obtained our data directly from the USPTO database, wrote a PHP script for downloading data, obtained close to 90% intact formatting, hand-cleaned the data, and organized quantum dot and, later, nanocrystal patents by subcategories. We then reviewed our final set of 619 patents one at a time, reading from two directions: from the patents themselves, starting with the earliest, and from existing commercial firms holding such patents. We identified developmental patterns and specific pathways in which patents were acquired for development and use. Our principal findings:

• In this sub-domain, some specialized product-oriented portfolios have emerged, but industryforming technology platforms have not. Uses for biological tagging are most advanced; energy application research is promising but shows few signs of pre-product convergence.
• Nanocrystal and quantum dot patents identify inventions over a period of twenty years but the notable increase in rates of patenting in this area is not matched by a similar increase in the incorporation of patents into advanced development projects.
• The previous finding suggests that patent counts are incomplete and in some cases misleading index of the emergence of new applications.

IRG 2-3: Changing Practices in Technology Transfer

At the macro level of technology transfer policy, we asked whether technology transfer personnel are changing their practices in response to changing in nanoscale policy or funding. This stream rested on several methods: semi-structured 13 interviews (18 through April 2009) (Barnett and Newfield), patent analysis, contract analysis, and funding analysis (Mowery, Newfield), and intellectual property analysis (Scotchmer). Primary outcomes are as follows:

• Technology transfer officers are not changing their practice to adapt to nanoscale research, nor do they anticipate a need to do so (Barnett and Newfield); nor are technology transfer officers or principal investigators concerned about patent “thickets” in the selected nanoscale domains we discussed with them.
• Econometric work suggests that when good ideas are scarce, the granting of broad patents may accelerate the rate of innovation (Scotchmer). This suggests in turn that if good ideas remain relatively scarce in some key areas of nanscale research (inferred from delays in filling market niches), the current breadth of nanoscale patents may be appropriate.
• Since earmarks do not in themselves appear to damage the peer-review allocation process (Mowery), peer-review could support – rather than be impaired by – deployment of national economic recovery funding that ties nanoscale research to solving “grand challenges” of direct interest to the public.
• Studies of the impact of the National Nanotechnology Initiative measure productivity primarily in terms of patent and publication output, but do not provide integrated progress narratives that would help the public understand the process by which investment leads to research and new applications. This may impair public appreciation of nanoscale innovation.

IRG 2-4: Innovation Culture and Nanotechnology (Newfield)

This project asks whether U.S. innovation culture is supporting nanoscale research, as evidenced in problems like stagnating public funding for R&D and public disinterest in funding and investment strategy. Although US culture prizes for-profit entrepreneurship, it has shown declining respect for two other crucial ingredients to innovation: public funding for research and development, and everyday non-expert inventive practice. These latter elements have been undermined by long-term attacks on cultural disciplines like history, anthropology, and literary studies that analyze common life, describe how ordinary people create workarounds to major impediments, and explain the contributions of a diverse population to social progress. We theorize that nanoscale innovation will be accelerated by new partnerships between cultural, social, and technical domains that will allow reciprocal engagement between the nanoscale research system and the general public.