Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T19:39:18.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge Diversity in the Emerging Global Bio-Nano Sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2012

Elicia Maine ,
Martin Bliemel ,
Armstrong Murira  and
James Utterback
Elicia Maine
Affiliation:
Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Martin Bliemel
Affiliation:
Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia
Armstrong Murira
Affiliation:
Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
James Utterback
Affiliation:
Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
Get access

Astract

As scientists are able to understand and manipulate ever smaller scales of matter, research in the fields of biotechnology and nanotechnology has converged to enable such radical innovations as lab-on-a-chip devices, targeted drug delivery, and other forms of minimally invasive therapy and diagnostics. This paper provides a descriptive overview of the emerging bio-nano sector, identifying what types of firms are entering, from what knowledge base, where they are located, and their strategic choices in terms of technological diversity and R&D strategy. The firms engaged in bio-nano research and development span the range from start-up firm to multinational pharmaceutical, biotech, chemical, and electronics firms: two thirds of bio-nano firms are relatively young and relatively small. The United States dominates this sector, with more than half of all bio-nano firms located in the USA. Even within this sector which epitomizes the convergence of technology, there is a broad range of technological diversity, with the most diverse firms overall coming from a base in electronics, the most diverse start-up firms coming from a base in nanomaterials, and the most narrowly focused firms coming from a biotechnology/pharmaceutical base. We find that hybridization has been the dominant knowledge diversity strategy, with 93% of the bio-nano firms with nano-patents holding multiclass patents.

Keywords

nanoscalebiomedicalcommerce
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1466: Symposium TT – Interfaces in Materials, Biology and Physiology , 2012 , mrss12-1466-tt02-03
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Avenel, E., Favier, A., Ma, S., Mangematin, V., Rieu, C., (2007). “Diversification and Hybridization in Firm Knowledge Bases in Nanotechnologies,” Research Policy, 36(6), 864–870.10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.002Google Scholar
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V., De Massis, A., and Frattini, F., (2008). “The knowledge-bridging role of Technical and Scientific Services in knowledge-intensive industries,” International Journal of Technology Management, 41(3/4), 249–272.10.1504/IJTM.2008.016783Google Scholar
Huang, Y-F., and Chen, C-J., (2010). “The impact of Technological Diversity and Organizational Slack on Innovation,” Technovation, 30(7/8), 420–428.10.1016/j.technovation.2010.01.004Google Scholar
Lux Research, (2008). The Nanotech Report: 5th Edition.Google Scholar
Lysaght, M. and Hazlehurst, S. (2004) “Tissue Engineering: The End of the Beginning” Tissue Engineering, 10(1/2), 309–319.10.1089/107632704322791943Google Scholar
Research, Plunkett, (2008). Plunkett’s Nanotechnology and MEMS Industry Almanac.Google Scholar
Rafols, I., (2007). “Strategies for knowledge acquisition in bionanotechnology: Why are interdisciplinary practices less widespread than expected?” Innovation, 20(4), 395–412.Google Scholar
Rothaermel, F., Thursby, M., (2007). “The Nanotech versus the Biotech Revolution: Sources of Productivity in Incumbent Firm Research,” Research Policy, 36(6), 832–849.10.1016/j.respol.2007.02.008Google Scholar
Suzuki, J., and Kodama, F., (2004). ““Technological Diversity of Persistent Innovators in Japan: Two Case Studies of Large Japanese Firms,” Research Policy, 33(3), 531–549.10.1016/j.respol.2003.10.005Google Scholar
UK Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, (2007). 2007 R&D Scoreboard.Google Scholar