Upload
ne3lsnetwork
View
176
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Parallel session 3
Citation preview
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
1 November 2012 2 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
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
Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry Andrea Schiffauerova
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 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
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
Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry Andrea Schiffauerova
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 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
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
Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry Andrea Schiffauerova
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 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
Data and Methodology
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 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
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 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
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
Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry Andrea Schiffauerova
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 article or are the inventors of a patent
C and D have published an article or are the inventors of a patent
Degree of a node Number of links that are directly
connected
A, B and C have 3 connections
E has 2 connections
D has 1 connection
C
A B
D
E
1 November 2012 13 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
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 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
Network (III/III)
Clustering coefficient
if two 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.
C
A B
D
1 November 2012 15 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
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
Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry Andrea Schiffauerova
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
Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry Andrea Schiffauerova
Econometric Models (I/II) nbArtit / nbPatit
nbCitit
nbClaimit
é
ë
êêê
ù
û
úúú
=a + bS1TotSubvMoy3it-l + bS2 TotSubvMoy3it-l[ ]2
+bC1TotContMoy3it-l + bC2 TotContMoy3it-l[ ]2+ bP1nbPat3it-1 + bP2nbPat3it-1
2
+gbBtwCentXit-2 +gc1CliqnessXit-2 +gc2 CliqnessXit-2[ ]2
+gbp[BtwCentXit-2 ´nbPat3it-1]+gbc[BtwCentXit-2 ´CliqnessXit-2 ]
+dt dtt
å +n i +eit
The amount of average grants / contracts that are received in 3 years preceding the patent application / paper publication with one year lag
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
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
TotSubvMoy3it-l TotContMoy3it-l
BtwCentXit-2
CliqnessXit-2
1 November 2012 18 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
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
Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry Andrea Schiffauerova
Econometric Models (II/II)
ln totSubvMoyXit-1( ) = a1 +x Ait-ii=2
4
å + lA1Ageit-1 + lA2Age2
it-1 + lChChairi + lanbArtMoy3
+Variables1stStage+ n1i +e1it( )
nbArtit / nbPatit
nbCitit
nbClaimit
é
ë
êêê
ù
û
úúú
= a2 + bG1 ln TotSubvMoy3it-1( ) + bG2 ln TotSubvMoy3it-1( )éë ùû2
+ n1i +e1it[ ]
+bC1 ln TotContMoy3it-1( ) + bC2 ln TotContMoy3it-1( )éë ùû2
+gbBtwCentXit-2 +gc1CliqnessXit-2 +gc2 CliqnessXit-2[ ]2
+gbp[BtwCentXit-2 ´ nbPat3it-1]+gbc[BtwCentXit-2 ´CliqnessXit-2 ]
+ dtdtt
å +n2i +e2it
1 November 2012 20 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
Regression results
1 November 2012 21 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
Comparison
Quebec
Rest of Canada
The US
1 November 2012 22 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
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
Quebec (contracts and grants)
The number of citation
Negative impact of grants before threshold (right
graph)
Positive impact of contracts (left graph)
Positive impact of network characteristics
Positive impact of having patents
1 November 2012 25
Quebec (only grants)
The number of papers (left) and citations (right)
Positive impact of grants until reach the
threshold
Positive impact of network characteristics
Positive impact of having patents
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
Positive impact of network characteristics
Positive impact of having patents
1 November 2012 27
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 grants until reach the threshold
Positive impact of network characteristics (only
citations)
1 November 2012 28
The Impact of Public Funding
on Patents
Quebec (contracts and grants)
The number of patents
Positive impacts of contracts after pass the
threshold
No effect of grants
Positive impact of network characteristics (only
cliquishness)
1 November 2012 30
Quebec (contracts and grants) The number of citation
Positive impact of contracts after a certain threshold (
left graph)
Positive impact of grants until reach the threshold
(right graph)
Positive impact of network characteristics
1 November 2012 31
Quebec (contracts and grants)
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)
1 November 2012 32
Rest of Canada
The number of patents
No effect of grants
Positive impact of network characteristics (only
cliquishness)
1 November 2012 33 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
Rest of Canada
The number of citations (left) and the
number of claims (right)
Positive impact of grants until reach the threshold
Positive impact of network characteristics (only
cliquishness has effect on citation)
1 November 2012 34
The US
The number of patents
Positive linear impact of grants
Positive impact of network characteristics (only
cliquishness)
1 November 2012 35 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
The US
The number of citation (left) and the
number of claims (right)
Positive impact of grants
Positive impact of network characteristics (only
cliquishness)
1 November 2012 36
Conclusion
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 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
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 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova
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
Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry Andrea Schiffauerova
40
Thank you
1 November 2012 41 Leila Tahmooresnejad - Catherine Beaudry
Andrea Schiffauerova