(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)"> (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)">
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/12231.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology

In: Contributions in Memory of Zvi Griliches

Author

Listed:
  • Michael L. Darby
  • Lynne G. Zucker
Abstract
Metamorphic progress (productivity growth much faster than average) is often driven by Grilichesian inventions of methods of inventing. For hybrid seed corn, the enabling invention was double-cross hybridization yielding highly productive seed corn that was not self-propagating. Biotechnology stemmed from recombinant DNA. Scanning probe microscopy is a key enabling discovery for nanotechnology. Nanotech publishing and patenting has grown phenomenally. Over half of nanotech authors are in the U.S. and 58 percent of those are in ten metropolitan areas. Like biotechnology, we find that firms enter nanotechnology where and when scientists are publishing breakthrough academic articles. A high average education level is also important, but the past level of venture-capital activity in a region is not. Breakthroughs in nanoscale science and engineering appear frequently to be transferred to industrial application with the active participation of discovering academic scientists. The need for top scientists' involvement provided important appropriability for biotechnology inventions, and a similar process appears to have started in nanotechnology.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Michael L. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 2010. "Grilichesian Breakthroughs: Inventions of Methods of Inventing and Firm Entry in Nanotechnology," NBER Chapters, in: Contributions in Memory of Zvi Griliches, pages 143-164, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:12231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Jensen & Marie Thursby, 1998. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Tale of University Licensing," NBER Working Papers 6698, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Agrawal, Ajay & Cockburn, Iain, 2003. "The anchor tenant hypothesis: exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1227-1253, November.
    2. Goldfarb, Brent & Henrekson, Magnus, 2001. "Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down Policies towards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 463, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 26 May 2002.
    3. Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker & Andrew Wang, 2003. "Universities, Joint Ventures, and Success in the Advanced Technology Program," NBER Working Papers 9463, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Antonio Della Malva & Francesco Lissoni & Patrick Llerena, 2013. "Institutional change and academic patenting: French universities and the Innovation Act of 1999," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 211-239, January.
    5. Gustavo Da Cruz & Danilo Moreira Jabur & Franklin Mendonça Goês Junior, 2017. "How Much Am I Selling It for? Approaches and Methods of Patents Valuation in Technology Transfer," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(4), pages 69-76, April.
    6. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 2005. "Socio-economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and NanoBank," NBER Working Papers 11181, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 2003. "Growing by leaps and inches: creative destruction, real cost reduction, and inching up," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Sep, pages 13-42.
    8. Borje Johansson & Hans Loof, 2008. "Innovation Activities Explained By Firm Attributes And Location," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(6), pages 533-552.
    9. Michael S. Lawlor, 2003. "Biotechnology and government funding: economic motivation and policy models," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Sep, pages 131-146.
    10. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 2009. "Star Scientists, Innovation and Regional and National Immigration," Chapters, in: David B. Audretsch & Robert E. Litan & Robert Strom (ed.), Entrepreneurship and Openness, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Réjean Landry & Nabil Amara & Mathieu Ouimet, 2007. "Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 561-592, December.
    12. Donald Siegel & David Waldman & Albert Link, 1999. "Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices: An Exploratory Study," NBER Working Papers 7256, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Jeff S. Armstrong & Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 2003. "Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture and firm performance in biotechnology," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Sep, pages 149-170.
    14. Malcolm Gillis, 2003. "Harnessing new technologies for the 21st century," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Sep, pages 63-75.
    15. Jaffe, Adam B., 2000. "The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 531-557, April.
    16. Gelves, Juan Alejandro & Heywood, John S., 2016. "How does a mixed ownership firm license a patent?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 278-284.
    17. Djordje Djokovic & Vangelis Souitaris, 2008. "Spinouts from academic institutions: a literature review with suggestions for further research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 225-247, June.
    18. Clarysse, Bart & Wright, Mike & Lockett, Andy & Van de Velde, Els & Vohora, Ajay, 2005. "Spinning out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 183-216, March.
    19. Rebecca S. Eisenberg, 2003. "Reaching through the genome," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Sep, pages 105-115.
    20. John V. Duca & Mine K. Yücel, 2003. "Science and Cents: Exploring the economics of biotechnology: an overview," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Sep, pages 3-10.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • L63 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Microelectronics; Computers; Communications Equipment

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberch:12231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.