The Politics of Neglect:Path Selection and Development in

Nanotechnology Innovation

Michael Lounsbury, U of Alberta

Tyler Wry, U of Alberta

P. Devereaux Jennings, U of Alberta

Motivation

• While path dependence has become a well researched topic (e.g., Arthur, 1989; David, 1986), the study of path creation is less explored (Garud & Karnoe, 2001)

• Path creation often entails political contestation and struggle (e.g. Frickel & Moore, 2006; Kleinman, 1995; Lounsbury, Ventresca & Hirsch, 2003)

• We argue that an adequate explanation of path creation requires attention to how one direction gets selected over alternatives (Granovetter & Swedberg, 1992)

• We suggest that the process of path selection may often involve the “politics of neglect” (Frieden & Kaplan, 1975)

1 nm = one-billionth of a meter; 1/75,000th the width of human hairNanotechnology involves the precision placement, measurement, manipulation and modeling of sub-100 nm scale matter (between 4 and 400 individual atoms); need special tools.At this scale, materials have unique properties (smaller, stronger, tougher, lighter, more resilient, more conductivity…)It is a techno-scientific frontier where fundamental science is important as well as the fundamental-applied interface; crosses many disciplines (e.g., engineering (electrical, chemical etc.), computer science, life sciences, chemistry, biology, physics, materials science)Nanotechnology funding is strongly commercially oriented

The Case of Nanotechnology

10-15 years out…Improving the computer speed and efficiency of minuscule transistors and memory chips by factors of millionsUsing gene and drug delivery to detect cancerous cells by nanoengineered MRI contrast agents or target organs in the human bodyRemoving the finest contaminants from water and air to promote a cleaner environment and potable waterDoubling the energy efficiency of solar cells

Grand Challenges - NNI

Commercial applications resulting from nanotechnology have included more durable tennis balls, lighter and stronger tennis rackets and golf clubs, stain resistant clothing, wear-resistant tires, cosmetics and sunscreens. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Center

for Scholars has catalogued over 500 manufacturer-identified nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market.

But Nano Commercialization Has

Already Arrived…

* Graph courtesy of Heinze, Nanotechnology Law and Business, 2004

Worldwide Growth of Nanotechnology

Patents and Publications

Nano Publications:

University Driven

Nano Patents:Corporate

Driven

A Tale of Two Institutional Worlds

* Graphs courtesy of The Center for Nanotechnology in Society, ASU 2007

How toBridge?

Empirical Context: Nanotubes

• Nano-sized cylinders that are extremely small, strong, and have unique thermal and conductive properties

• One of the most well developed areas of nanotechnology

• Three approaches in nanotube technology:– Different types of nanotubes and different potential

technological applications• Inorganic chemistry

• Organic chemistry

• Polymer chemistry

Empirical Puzzle

• Initially, inorganic, organic, and polymer streams of nanotube development followed like trajectories

• With field emergence, path creation focused on inorganic technology

• Extant explanations fail to explain this:

Path ‘lock-in’ Actor Status Functional Utility

Coded all CNT patents in the USPTO database—for each patent, we recorded title, issue year, inventors, assignees, kind of assignee (e.g., corporation, university, government), country of assignee, patent classWe also created a co-citation database of which patents cite each otherSearched in title, abstract and claims for “carbon and nanotube” and related terms such as “buckyball” and “fullerene”—resulted in 880 patents through 2004, the first issued in 1992DV: Number of new patents assigned in a calendar year to a particular patent categoryNbreg count analysis of 364 patent category year observations

Data and Methods

Carbon Nanotube Patents Created

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

0

50

100

150

200

250

Carbon Nanotube Patent Assignees by Country

0

20

40

60

80

100

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

U.S. Japan Korea Rest of World

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Corporate University Government

Carbon Nanotube Patent Assignees

By Organizational Form

Negative Binomial Analysis of Patent Creation, 1994-2004

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 New Patent Category .936***

(.106) .937*** (.106)

.806*** (.107)

.139 (.104)

.139 (.101)

.135 (.101)

Avg. Issue Days x100 .018 (.020)

.015 (.020)

.017 (.020)

-.013 (.018)

-.015 (.018)

-.012 (.018)

% U.S. .268** (.137)

.296** (.140)

.231* (.137)

.088 (.124)

.117 (.124)

.096 (.125)

% Japanese .194 (.190)

.201 (.190)

.179 (.186)

.108 (.168)

.121 (.168)

.143 (.168)

% MA, CA and TX .261* (.201)

.182 (.197)

.137 (.185)

.113 (.190)

.101 (.188)

% Corporate .045 (.133)

.078 (.131)

.121 (.118)

.120 (.119)

.118 (.119)

% University .075 (.215)

.025 (.212)

-.057 (.199)

-.143 (.200)

-.129 (.199)

Importance .858*** (.196)

-.405** (.199)

-.435** (.195)

-.417** (.194)

Generality -.088* (.047)

-.067 (.043)

-.068 (.044)

-.066 (.043)

Density .076*** (.006)

.066*** (.006)

.071*** (.007)

Density2 x100 -.050*** (.007)

-.041*** (.007)

-.045*** (.007)

Centrality .016*** (.004)

.012*** (.004)

Density X Centrality x100 .061** (.033)

Loglikelihood -646.42 -645.44 -634.35 -552.60 -543.88 -542.18 Likelihood chi2 ratio 1.96 24.14 187.64 205.08 208.48 Pseudo-R2 .10 .11 .12 .23 .25 .25

Carbon Nanotube Patent Spread

Carbon Nanotube Product Applications

Next Gen TVs

ExtendingMoore’s Law

Electronic & Semiconductor Categories (257, 313, 315, 427, 428, 438 & 445)

The Seeds of Path Selection

– Key inorganic scientists worked to frame the discovery of CNTs as a new scientific identity and sought patents on discoveries

• A ‘new carbon science’ identity frame

• Initially, over 80% of star scientist patents went into classes 204 (chemistry) and 423 (inorganic chemistry)

– Organic and polymer paths were paved by large corps – Did not resonate in the field of scientific scholarship and

comprised a small proportion of corporate IP portfolios

Building the Identity Core

• Meanings, such as those that underpin identities, arise out of patterns of linkage among cultural elements (eg. Bourdieu, 1992)

• An unambiguous core is essential to identity formation because boundaries can be vague (Hampton, 2007)

• Analysis of ‘prior art’ linkages among early star scientist patents shows a coherent core emerging – Heavy patenting and cross-citation linkages among patents in

classes 204 (chemistry) and 423 (inorganic chemistry)

• Similar dynamics absent in organic and polymer areas

ID Core

Prior Art Citations 1992-1997

Maintaining a Resilient Core

• Core aspects of a nascent path/identity can be lost with broad mobilization (Stryker, 1980)

• However, the core meanings in the inorganic nanotube path served as a generative hub – Signaled appropriate lines of development but not

others where CNTs have potential applications (eg. biotechnology, pharma, sensors)

• Star scientists also knit disparate classes back to the identity core through prior art cites and this pattern was mirrored by other actors

Prior Art Cites Among Inorganic Classes, 2005

Discussion

• Our argument is not that carbon nanotubes were necessarily superior, but that mobilization occurred via the efforts of star scientists (e.g., Smalley)

• Alternative paths quickly withered—a politics of neglect as scientific mobilization and interaction with industry never occurred as robustly– Development of inorganic carbon-based chemistry

processes and applications led to a decline in effort in developing organic nanotube technologies (for medical applications such as hip implants, drug delivery, chemicals etc.). Firms like Hoechst, Dow Chemical, DuPont etc. left field by 2000.

• Echoes concerns about IP/private commercial orientation inhibiting the science commons (Heller & Eisenberg, 1998; but see Walsh, Cho & Cohen, 2005)

• Commercial focus also can limit efforts directed to high social value but less commercial potential (e.g., diseases among marginalized peoples; low cost technologies) –see Rhoten & Powell (2007)

• We need more research on how the rise of commercial logics reshaping the development of knowledge? Will a commercial emphasis in science also redirect the direction of inquiry in science itself toward questions of direct, practical relevance?

• What is the role of funders—do they exhibit independent judgment or do they follow the herd?

• What kind of oversight (if any) might be needed to ensure best directions for scientific inquiry? Use of scientific talent?

Discussion

T H E

E N D