The Big Four: comparing nanotechnology trajectories of Russia, China, Brazil and the United States

Evgeny Klochikhin, PhD Candidate,Manchester Business School, UK

The Altanta Conference of Science and Innovation Policy, Atlanta, GA, USA, 15-17 September 2011

Nanotechnology

• Understanding and control of matter and processes at the nanoscale, typically, but not exclusively, below 100 nonametres in one or more dimensions where the onset of size-dependent phenomena usually enables novel applications,

• Utilizing the properties of nanoscale materials that differ from the properties of individual atoms, molecules, and bulk matter, to create improved materials, devices, and systems that exploit these new properties.

(ISO Technical Committee 229)

Nanotechnology

• First area of science and technology that embraces so many disciplines

• Unprecedented complexity of phenomena• More than sixty countries have established national

nanotechnology programs since 2000 (Sargent, 2008; Shapira and Wang, 2010)

• BUT! at the critical point today: increasing number of pessimist attitudes; weak commercialization; dubious economic output data; scarce benchmarking studies; lack of comparative policy analysis

Academic debates

• Is nanotechnology an interdisciplinary field?• Are nanoscience and nanotechnology closely

interlinked?• Is nanotechnology development path

dependent? • Who is winning the global nanorace?

(Huang et al., 2011)

Practical concerns

• When will the huge public investment in nanotechnology start paying back and what will be the rate of return on investment?

(U.S. House, U.S. Senate, 2011)

Answers…

• Economic input, non-economic output BUT! no data on economic output (Sargent, 2008; Gokhberg et al., 2011)

• Forecasts range from $150 bn for 2010 to $2,4 tln for 2014 (Hullmann, 2007)

• Following forecasts by Roco (2011), we have to reach about 10,000% (!) return on investment in nanotech by 2015

• More and more people from the Office of Management and Budget start attending nanotechnology-related meetings in the U.S. government and Congress (Todd Kuiken, personal communication)

Why now?

• When the NNI was launched the U.S. enjoyed unprecedented budget surplus and was agitated to invest into most advanced science and technology projects: Human Genome Project, ICTs, nanotechnology

• Today economic recession has dramatically changed the situation causing significant cuts and influencing attitudes towards which technological areas should be considered most promising.

What next?

• The U.S. NNI is at the crossroads now – nanotechnology development has reached the point when it will be rapidly commercializing suggesting breakthrough innovation in a wide variety of different sectors

• Although the earlier projections are unlikely to realize by 2015, it is obvious that we will witness enormous economic impact in the next 5 years

• Any substantial cuts in the NNI today will lead to significant slow-down and will have negative impact on the U.S. competitiveness

• Many other policy initiatives introduced around the world are in direct correlation with the U.S. NNI and are likely to follow the United States example whichever decision it takes.

Major objectives

• Retain the momentum for nanotechnology development today and justify continued investment into the area

• Develop a broader framework to study the positive impacts of nano science and technology on the society in general to ensure public engagement and persistent support of the project

Hypotheses

• Nanotechnology is capable of breaking institutionally (and culturally) the development lock-in and supporting trends towards self-sustained growth To what extent does nanotech create new vs. existing institutional

arrangements? What is the role of public policy in this process? How does policy design/objectives correspond with policy

implementation/impacts?

• Nanotechnology promotes socioeconomic/sociotechnical (and political) development across the board and in the context of the entire national innovation system What are the specific impacts of nanotech on the society? Does nanotech change the structure of the economy?

Broader socioeconomic approach

• Apart from assessing primarily economic impacts of nanotechnology, it is important to look at other spheres where it can serve the goals of broader socioeconomic development:efficiency and output of the key social, political and economic

institutions and networks that are involved in the national innovation systems (and beyond);

research and education capabilities; industrial and enterprise development; regional spread;cluster and network development; anddevelopment of direct technological applications/product

innovation.

Comparative case studies

• Russia: lost much of its science and technology might after the collapse of USSR; has to re-build national innovation capabilities today using ample financial resources from oil and

gas• China:

chose a route of ‘soft’ transition from communism to market economy; manufacturing power of the world; took decision to develop endogenous innovation capabilities (MOST 973)

• Brazil: unstable growth but ample resources; turbulent political situation; successful biotechnology development; emerging innovation power

• United States: first country to introduce national nanotechnology initiative; No.2 in public funding after the EU today ($2,1 bn vs. $2,5 bn); supports NST across the board; one of few nano-powers to pursue nanotech-related social science research

Major economic and nano-related indicators of RU, CN, BR and US in 2009

Population

GDP

GDP per cap

itaGER

D

Nano-re

lated

GERD

High-te

ch ex

ports

Patent a

pplications

Res per

mln population

Nanopubs

RussiaChinaBrazilUSA

Russia China Brazil USA

Launch of the national nano program

2007 2001 2004 2000

Significance of nano component in STI policy

Highly important One of the areas to support (Appelbaum et al., 2011)

One of the areas to support

Important

Policy design Highly centralized Dispersed among diverse programs and institutions, center and regions (Brez.&Mur., 2011; App. et al, 2011)

Balanced: national and state programs plus autonomous policy objects

Balanced: centralized coordination plus much autonomy left for the agencies

Scale Several fields (mostly nanomaterials)

‘Across the board’ (with primary focus on chemistry – NNSF)

Focused ‘Across the board’

Regional spread Across the country

Concentrated with autonomy for regions (Breznitz and Murphree, 2011)

Several university centers and most developed cities

Concentrated in major clusters (Shapira and Youtie, 2008)

Commercialization mechanism

Rusnano MOST Nanotech Industrialization Base

Nanotech is included in the Industrial, Technology and Trade Policy (2004)

Issue left to policy objects (so far)

Regular evaluations Annual, carried out by MES

N/A N/A Triannual, independent evaluations

ELSI component No Vague No Yes

Future?

• The United States is likely to be surpassed by its competitors in certain sectors of nanotechnology, where they specialize

• Experts see the major threat coming from China, while practitioners point at other competitors such as Japan, Germany and Korea.

• The United States tries to establish cooperation with major nanopowers by signing S&T framework agreements, conducting regular meetings, supporting bottom-up collaborations

• One of the key goals of these interactions is to promote ‘responsible nanotechnology’ by helping other countries develop environmental, health and safety (EHS) programmes so that the potential competitors do not taint nanotechnology by the spread of dangerous and harmful products (such as NanoMagic in Germany)

• EHS is gaining increased attention in the United States itself where policy makers see underdevelopment of this area as one of the major shortfalls of the NNI in the recent decade, and inefficient risk regulations impeding business growth

• Countries that established national nanotechnology initiatives are unlikely to drop out completely in the near future but their policies may go through certain structural adjustments putting nanotechnology under other umbrella disciplines

(Various interviews, USA, May 2011)