This is my presentation at the Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy 2011 comparing nanotechnology trajectories in Russia, China, Brazil, and the United States. Evgeny Klochikhin

1. 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

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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)

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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?

11. 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; and
 development of direct technological applications/product
innovation.

12. 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

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

14. Russia
China
Brazil
USA
Population GDP GDP per capita GERD Nano-related High-tech Patent Res per mln Nanopubs
GERD exports applications population

15. Russia China Brazil USA
Launch of the national 2007 2001 2004 2000
nano program
Significance of nano Highly important One of the areas to One of the areas to Important
component in STI support (Appelbaum et support
policy al., 2011)
Policy design Highly centralized Dispersed among Balanced: national Balanced:
diverse programs and and state programs centralized
institutions, center and plus autonomous coordination plus
regions (Brez.&Mur., policy objects much autonomy left
2011; App. et al, 2011) for the agencies
Scale Several fields ‘Across the board’ (with Focused ‘Across the board’
(mostly primary focus on
nanomaterials) chemistry – NNSF)
Regional spread Across the Concentrated with Several university Concentrated in
country autonomy for regions centers and most major clusters
(Breznitz and developed cities (Shapira and Youtie,
Murphree, 2011) 2008)
Commercialization Rusnano MOST Nanotech Nanotech is Issue left to policy
mechanism Industrialization Base included in the objects (so far)
Industrial,
Technology and
Trade Policy (2004)
Regular evaluations Annual, carried N/A N/A Triannual,
out by MES independent
evaluations
ELSI component No Vague No Yes

16. 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)