Leila Tahmooresnejad_Impact of public funding on the development of nanotechnology a comparison of quebec, canada and the us

Impact of Public Funding on the
Development of Nanotechnology
A Comparison of Quebec,
Canada and the US
Leila Tahmooresnejad – Polytechnique Montréal
Catherine Beaudry – Polytechnique Montréal
Andrea Schiffauerova – Concordia University

1st International Conference of Ne3LS Network
November 2012

Outline of the presentation
 Motivation
 Theoretical Framework
 Data and Methodology
 Network
 Hypotheses

 Econometric models

 Regression results
 Conclusion
Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
1 November 2012 2
Andrea Schiffauerova

Motivation
 Public funding for research facilitates the
production of knowledge and is a key element for
innovation in high technologies

 Facilitate the diffusion of knowledge
 Develop new technologies

 Universities and their affiliated centers play a
vital role in National innovation systems (Hall et al.,
2003; Link & Scott, 2004; Zucker, Darby & Armstrong, 2002)

1 November 2012 3

Nanotechnology (I/II)
 Emergence of nanotechnology over recent years
was the starting point for many changes in a vast
number of industries.
 High competitive advantage for companies (Canton, 1999)
 Creation of new companies (Porter et al., 2007)
 Nano-enabled products with optimal features (Armstrong,
2008; Vokhidov and Dobrovol’skii, 2010)
 Potential markets (Knol, 2004; Roco, 2007; Malanowski and
Zweck, 2007)
 Nano-related jobs (Freeman and Shukla, 2008)
1 November 2012 4

Nanotechnology (II/II)
 Nanotechnology requires considerable
investment

 Most of countries are following the US in
initiating nanotechnology programs and
increasing the allocated funds (Sargent, 2008)

 Canada lags behind in the race of
nanotechnology
1 November 2012 5

Theoretical Framework (I/II)
 Positive correlation between federal research
funding and scientific outputs (Adams and Griliches,
1998; Payne and Siow, 2003; Blume-Kogut et al. 2009).

 More government research funding results
more papers (Payne and Siow , 2003)
 More government research funding results
more patents with a lower rate (Payne and Siow,
2003)

1 November 2012 6

Theoretical Framework (II/II)
 High quality research should obtain more
citations (Raan et al., 2003)
 Citations are 'proxy' (Cronin, 2005)
 Papers and Patents of researchers, who
received funding, may receive more citations
 e.g. Patents of researchers, who received NSF
funding, received more citations compared with
those of other researchers in Nanoscale Science
and Engineering (Huang et al., 2005).
1 November 2012 7

Objectives
 Measure the impact of grants and contracts on
the outputs of academic researchers
 Papers ( quantity and quality)
 Patents ( quantity and quality)
 Measure the impact of scientific and
technological networks ( co-publication and
co-invention networks)
 Compare these impacts in Quebec, Canada and
the US

1 November 2012 8

Data (I/II)
 Scopus
 Extraction of nanotechnology scientific papers by using
specific keywords in the title, abstract and keywords
 Selection the articles where there is at least one Canadian
author

 United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
 Extraction of nanotechnology scientific patents by using
specific keywords in the title, abstract and keywords
 Selection the patents where there is at least one Canadian
inventor

1 November 2012 10

Data (II/II)
 Systèmes d’information de la recherche universitaire (SIRU) for
Quebec
 Amounts of grants and contracts received by researchers in Quebec

 Database of three granting councils (CIHR(Canadian Institute for
Health Research), NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council), SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada))
 Amount of grants received by Canadian researchers

 Nanobank
 Papers of the researchers in the US
 Patents of the researchers in the US
 Amount of grants( NIH (National Institutes of Health) and NSF(National
Science Foundation) received by researchers in the US

1 November 2012 11

Methodology
 Matching databases
 Creating a unique identifier for each individual
researcher
 Data cleaning
 Creating co-publication and co-invention
networks
 Calculating network characteristics and the
position of researchers
1 November 2012 12

Network (I/III)
 A, B and C have published an
article or are the inventors of a
patent
 A, B and E have published an A B
patent
 C and D have published an
patent
 Degree of a node E C
 Number of links that are directly
connected
 A, B and C have 3 connections D
 E has 2 connections
 D has 1 connection

1 November 2012 13

Network (II/III)
 Centrality degree
 indicates the number of actors that are connected to a
specific actor
 Geodesic distance
 Distance (shortest path) between two nodes
 Betweenness centrality of a node
 is defined as the proportion of all geodesic distances
between two nodes that includes this node.
 It makes the node more powerful since it can control the
knowledge flow between the other pair of actors

1 November 2012 14

Network (III/III)
 Clustering coefficient
 iftwo nodes are connected to the specific third
node, they may also be connected to each other.
 It is computed as the fraction of pairs of neighbors
of an actor that are directly connected each other.
A B

D C
1 November 2012 15

Hypotheses (I/II)
 Hypothesis 1a: Nanotechnology scientists/
academic inventors who receive more public
funding contribute to more publications/patents
compared with scientists/ academic inventors who
receive less or no public funding.

 Hypothesis 1b: Nanotechnology scientists/
academic inventors who receive more public
funding contribute to higher quality
publications/patents compared with scientists/
academic inventors who receive less or no public
funding.
1 November 2012
16

Hypotheses (II/II)
 Hypothesis 2a: A better network position of
scientists/ academic inventors has a positive effect
on the number of papers/patents to which a
scientist/ academic inventor contributes.

 Hypothesis 2b: A better network position of
scientists/ academic inventors has a positive effect
on the quality of papers/patents to which a
scientist/ academic inventor contributes.
1 November 2012 17

Econometric Models (I/II)
énbArtit / nbPatit ù
ê ú
= a + bS1TotSubvMoy3it-l + bS 2 [TotSubvMoy3it-l ]
2
ê nbCitit ú
ênbClaimit
ë ú
û
+bC1TotContMoy3it-l + bC 2 [TotContMoy3it-l ] + b P1nbPat3it-1 + b P 2 nbPat3it-1
2 2

+g b BtwCentXit-2 + g c1CliqnessXit-2 + g c2 [CliqnessXit-2 ]
2

+g bp [BtwCentXit-2 ´ nbPat3it-1 ]+ g bc [BtwCentXit-2 ´ CliqnessXit-2 ]
+dt å dt + n i + eit
t
TotSubvMoy3it-l TotContMoy3it-l
 The amount of average grants / contracts that are received in 3 years preceding the patent application
/ paper publication with one year lag
BtwCentXit-2
 The betweenness centrality of academic –inventors /scientists in the co –invention/ co –publication
network over 3 years preceding the patent application/ paper publication with 2 years lag
CliqnessXit-2
 The cliquishness centrality of academic –inventors / scientists in the co –invention / co –publication
network over 3 years preceding the patent application /paper publication with 2 years lag
1 November 2012 18

Endogeneity Problem
 The explanatory variables are linked together since one
can explain the other.
 The number of papers/patents is explained by the total
grants/contracts received
 Two–Stage Residual Inclusion (2RSI) and Two –Stage
–Least –Squares (2SLS)
 Instrumental variables
 Age :the number of years since the beginning of the career
of researcher in nanotechnology
 Chair :value 0 if a researcher has no chair, 1 if he has an
industrial chair, 2 for being a chair from two councils of the
Canadian federal granting, 3 for a scientist who is a Canada
Research chair
1 November 2012 19

Econometric Models (II/II)
4
ln ( totSubvMoyXit-1 ) = a1 + x å Ait-i + l A1 Ageit-1 + lA2 Ageit-1 + lChChairi + la nbArtMoy3
2

i=2

+Variables1st Stage + (n1i + e1it )

énbArtit / nbPatit ù
ê ú
= a 2 + bG1 ln (TotSubvMoy3it-1 ) + bG 2 éln (TotSubvMoy3it-1 )ù + [n1i + e1it ]
2
ê nbCitit ú ë û
ênbClaimit
ë ú
û
+bC1 ln (TotContMoy3it-1 ) + bC 2 éln (TotContMoy3it-1 )ù
2
ë û
+g b BtwCentXit-2 + g c1CliqnessXit-2 + g c2 [CliqnessXit-2 ]
2

+g bp [BtwCentXit-2 ´ nbPat3it-1 ]+ g bc [BtwCentXit-2 ´ CliqnessXit-2 ]
+ådt dt + n 2i + e 2it
t

1 November 2012 20

Regression results

1 November 2012 21

Comparison
 Quebec
 Rest of Canada
 The US

1 November 2012 22

The Impact of Public Funding
on Papers

Quebec (contracts and grants)
 The number of papers
 Positive impact of grants after threshold (right graph)
 Negative impact of contracts (left graph)
 Positive impact of network characteristics
 Positive impact of having patents

1 November 2012 24

 The number of citation
 Negative impact of grants before threshold (right
graph)
 Positive impact of contracts (left graph)

25
1 November 2012

Quebec (only grants)
The number of papers (left) and citations (right)
 Positive impact of grants until reach the
threshold

The Impact of Public Funding on the number of papers (left graph), and on the number of citations (right graph)
1 November 2012 26

Rest of Canada
 The number of papers (left) and the number
of citations (right)
 Positive impact of grants until reach the threshold

27
1 November 2012

The US
 The number of papers (left) and the number of
citations (right)
 Positive impact of grants on the number of papers
 Positive impact of network characteristics (only
citations)

28
1 November 2012

The Impact of Public Funding
on Patents

 The number of patents
 Positive impacts of contracts after pass the
threshold
 No effect of grants
cliquishness)

1 November 2012 30

 The number of citation
 Positive impact of contracts after a certain threshold (
left graph)
(right graph)

31
1 November 2012

 The number of claims
 Positive impact of contracts after pass the threshold (left
graph)
 Positive impact of grants after pass the threshold (right
graph)
 Positive impact of network characteristics (cliquishness)

32
1 November 2012

Rest of Canada

 No effect of grants
cliquishness)

1 November 2012 33

Rest of Canada
 The number of citations (left) and the
number of claims (right)
cliquishness has effect on citation)

34
1 November 2012

The US
 Positive linear impact of grants
cliquishness)

1 November 2012 35

The US
 The number of citation (left) and the
number of claims (right)
 Positive impact of grants
cliquishness)

1 November 2012 36

Conclusion (I/III)
 Scientists work in bigger teams, but inventors
are in smaller groups
 Scientific network is more interconnected
compared with technological networks which
are fragmented
 Having central positions in scientific networks
has more positive impact on the papers
compared with technological networks

1 November 2012 38

Conclusion (II/III)
 Positive impact of grants on scientific productions and their
quality but there is a threshold for this impact in Canada

 Positive impact of grants on scientific productions and their
quality in the US, the threshold only for the citation

 No impact of grants in Canada on the number of patents , but
positive impact of grants in the US on the number of patents

 Positive impact of grants on quality of patents, but there is the
threshold in Canada

 Positive impact of grants on quality of patents with no
threshold in the US
1 November 2012 39

Conclusion (III/III)
 Negative impact of contracts on the number of papers

 Positive impact of contracts on the quality of papers

 Positive impact of contracts on the number of patents
after passing the threshold

 Positive impact of contracts on the quality of patents
considering the threshold

 Contracts are more crucial for patents, but we could not
measure this impact for the rest of Canada and the US
1 November 2012 40

Thank you

1 November 2012 41

Leila Tahmooresnejad_Impact of public funding on the development of nanotechnology a comparison of quebec, canada and the us

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Leila Tahmooresnejad_Impact of public funding on the development of nanotechnology a comparison of quebec, canada and the us

Ähnlich wie Leila Tahmooresnejad_Impact of public funding on the development of nanotechnology a comparison of quebec, canada and the us (20)

Mehr von Ne3LS_Network

Mehr von Ne3LS_Network (20)

Leila Tahmooresnejad_Impact of public funding on the development of nanotechnology a comparison of quebec, canada and the us