Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Love dynamics between science and technology: some evidences in nanoscience and nanotechnology

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper borrows Strogatz’s dynamic model for love affair between Romeo and Juliet and extends this model to nonlinear simultaneous differential equations model in order that we can characterize the dynamic interaction mechanisms and styles between science and technology (S&T). Then we further apply the proposed new model to the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology (N&N) for the purpose of analyzing the reciprocal dependence between S&T. The empirical results provide an understanding of the relationship between S&T and their dynamic potential of interdependence in the selected 20 leading universities in the field of N&N. We find that at present nanotechnology depends mainly on the scientific-push rather than the technology-pull and nanotechnology is science-based field. In contrast, a parallel development of the technology is not visible. Policy implications are at last put forward based on the several interesting findings for the interaction mechanisms between S&T in the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html.

References

  • Applebaum, R. P., & Parker, R. (2008). China’s bid to become a global nanotech leader: advancing nanotechnology through state-led programs and international collaboration. Science and Public Policy, 35, 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D. (1992). Patenting as an indicator of technological innovation: a review. Science and Public Policy, 19, 357–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asche, F., Bjorndal, T., & Gordon, D. V. (2005). Demand structure for fish. SNF Working Paper No 37/05. Institute for Research in Economics and Business Administration. Bergen, p 43.

  • Audretsch, D. B., et al. (2002). The economics of science and technology. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 155–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barley, K., & Cherif, A. (2011). Stochastic nonlinear dynamics of interpersonal and romantic relationships. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 217(13), 6273–6281.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bettis, R., & Hitt, M. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, S., & Meyer, M. (2003). Large firms and the science–technology interface—patents, patent citations, and scientific output of multinational corporations in thin films. Scientometrics, 58(2), 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., & Thoma, G. (2007). Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology. Research Policy, 36(6), 813–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., Schubert, A., & Zsindely, S. (1997). Nanoscience and nanotechnology on the balance. Scientometrics, 38(2), 321–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., Glanzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2009). Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research. Research Policy, 38(1), 26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durham, C., & Eales, J. (2006). Demand elasticities for fresh fruit at the retail level. Oregon State University, Food Innovation Section and Purdue University.

  • Eom, B. Y., & Lee, K. (2010). Determinants of industry–academy linkages and, their impact on firm performance: the case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization. Research Policy, 39, 625–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of university–industry–government relations. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 1661–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., & He, Y. (2007). Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science–technology linkages. Scientometrics, 72(3), 403–425.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., & Ma, N. (2007). China’s emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: a comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience ‘giants’. Research Policy, 36(6), 880–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., & Wang, G. B. (2010). A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers. Scientometrics, 84, 331–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic econometrics (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy, 39, 662–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hullmann, A., & Meyer, M. (2003). Publications and patents in nanotechnology: an overview of previous studies and the state of the art. Scientometrics, 58(3), 507–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, Y., Kim, S., Byun, B, Lee, G., & Lee, H. (2003). Strategies of promoting industry-academia-research institute R&D partnerships to cooperation with new technologies: focusing on industry-research institute interfirm R&D partnerships. Science & Technology Policy Institute (in Korean).

  • Judge, G. G., Hill, R. C., & Griffiths, W. E. (1988). Introduction to the theory and practice of econometrics. USA: Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lenoir, T., & Herron, P. (2009). Tracking the current rise of Chinese pharmaceutical bionanotechnology. Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration, 4, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2007). Nanotechnology as a field of science: its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics, 70(3), 693–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luenberger, D. G. (1979). Introduction to dynamic systems. New York: Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Magerman, T. (2011). Impact and consequences of science-intensive patenting: in search of anti-commons evidence using latent semantic analysis (LSA) text mining techniques. PhD dissertation Tom Magerman. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/320209/1/PHD.

  • Marques, J., Caraca, J., & Diz, H. (2006). How can university–industry–government interactions change the innovation scenario in Portugal? The case of the University of Coimbra. Technovation, 26(4), 534–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2000). Patent citation analysis as a policy planning tool. The IPTS Report, Issue 49.

  • Meyer, M. (2002). Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems. Scientometrics, 54(2), 193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor–authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Research Policy, 35(10), 1646–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2007). What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Scientometrics, 70(3), 779–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mogoutov, A., & Kahane, B. (2007). Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: a scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking. Research Policy, 36(6), 893–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. In R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis (pp. 3–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale, P. (1998). A cognitive model of innovation. Research Policy, 27, 689–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberdorfer, D. (2002). The two Koreas: A contemporary history. London: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1994). The measurement of scientific and technological activities: Using patent data as science and technology indicators. Patent Manual 1994, Paris.

  • Pavitt, K. (2001). Public policies to support basic research: what can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (and what they should not learn). Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 761–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponomariov, B. L., & Boardman, P. C. (2010). Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: university research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 39, 613–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2008). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(5), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, D. J. D. (1965). Is technology historically independent of science—a study in statistical historiography. Technology and Culture, 6(4), 553–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinaldi, S. (1998). Love dynamics: the case of linear couples. Appl. Math. Comp., 95, 181–192.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rinaldi, S., & Gragnani, A. (1998). Love dynamics between secure individuals: a modeling approach. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 2, 283–301.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (1992). Science and technology as dancing partners. In P. Kroes & M. Bakker (Eds.), Technological development and science in the industrial age (pp. 231–270). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, D. (2001). Advanced macroeconomics (pp. 5–17). Shanghai: Shanghai University of Finance & Economics Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research (with their money)? Research Policy, 19, 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salerno, M., Landoni, P., & Verganti, R. (2008). Designing foresight studies for nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) future developments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75, 1202–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U. (1997). Indicators and the relations between science and technology. Scientometrics, 38(1), 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U. (2007). Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull. Research Policy, 36, 1000–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1986). Relative indicators and relational charts for comparative assessment of publication output and citation impact. Scientometrics, 9(5/6), 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. (2004). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 59(3), 425–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2009). From lab to market? Strategies and issues in the commercialization of nanotechnology in China. Asian Business & Management, 8(4), 461–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprott, J. C. (2004). Dynamical models of love. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 8, 303–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternitzke, C. (2010). Knowledge sources, patent protection, and commercialization of pharmaceutical innovations. Research Policy, 39(6), 810–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, D., Hall, J., Taylor, B., & Moser, R. (2008). The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 35(1), 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strogatz, S. H. (1988). Love affairs and differential equations. Mathematics Magazine, 61, 35.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Strogatz, S. H. (1994). Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: With applications to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, R. (2001). Global and domestic utilization of industrial relevant science: patent citation analysis of science–technology interactions and knowledge flows. Research Policy, 30, 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., Magerman, T., & Debackere, K. (2007). Developing technology in the vicinity of science: an examination of the relationship between science intensity (of patents) and technological productivity within the field of biotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(2), 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., et al. (2003). Do science technology interactions pay off when developing technology? An exploratory investigation of 10 science-intensive technology domains. Scientometrics, 57(3), 355–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., & Luwel, M. (2002). Linking science to technology: using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes. Scientometrics, 54(3), 399–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G. B., & Guan, J. C. (2010). The role of patenting activity for scientific research: a study of academic inventors from China’s nanotechnology. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 338–350.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G. B., & Guan, J. C. (2011). Measuring science–technology interactions using patent citations and author–inventor links: an exploration analysis from Chinese nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 13, 6245–6262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X. W., Zhang, X., & Xu, S. M. (2011). Patent co-citation networks of Fortune 500 companies. Scientometrics, 88, 761–770.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wauer, J., et al. (2007). Dynamical models of love with time-varying fluctuations. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 188, 1535–1548.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, C. Y., & Goh, K. L. (2009). Modeling the dynamics of science and technology diffusion of selected Asian countries using a logistic growth function. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 17(1), 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, C. Y., & Goh, K. L. (2010). Modeling the behaviour of science and technology: self-propagating growth in the diffusion process. Scientometrics, 84(3), 669–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S., Jones, R., & Geldart, A. (2003). The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. Report to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Swindon, UK. http://www.esrc.ac.uk/esrccontent/DownloadDocs/Nanotechnology.pdf.

  • Yang, P. Y., & Chang, Y. C. (2010). Academic research commercialization and knowledge production and diffusion: the moderating effects of entrepreneurial commitment. Scientometrics, 83, 403–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Q. J., & Guan, J. C. (2011). International collaboration of three ‘giants’ with the G7 countries in emerging nanobiopharmaceuticals. Scientometrics, 87(1), 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Q. J., & Guan, J. C. (2012). Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in the field of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 90(2), 561–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (2006). Delineating complex scientific fields by an hybrid lexical-citation method: an application to nanosciences. Information Processing and Management, 42(6), 1513–1531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The paper is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. 70932001), Key discipline excellent doctoral research funded projects in Fudan University and Project in Chongqing University of Arts and Sciences (Project No. 20011ST560). The authors are grateful for the editor’s and the reviewers' valuable comments and suggestions that have led to the significant improvement of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Fudan University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

    Qingjun Zhao

  2. School of Management, Graduate University, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Jiancheng Guan

Authors
  1. Qingjun Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiancheng Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiancheng Guan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhao, Q., Guan, J. Love dynamics between science and technology: some evidences in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 94, 113–132 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0785-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0785-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation