Nanotechnology involves the understanding, controlling and engineering of matter at the atomic and molecular scale of 1 to 100 nm in at least one dimension. Using structures designed at this extremely small scale, there are opportunities to build materials, devices and systems with properties that can not only enhance existing technologies but also offer novel features with potentially far-reaching technical, economic, and societal implications (Roco et al. 2011). Encompassing multiple disciplines—including physics, chemistry, biology, materials science, and engineering, nanotechnology is a platform technology with widespread applications in construction, consumer products, defense, electronics, energy, medicine, process industries, and many other sectors. The transformative and general purpose prospects associated with nanotechnology have stimulated more than 60 countries to invest in national nanotechnology research and development programs. Although early R&D on nanotechnology stretches back to the 1980s, the massive expansion of funding invested in this domain began in the early 2000s. In the US—the largest performer of nanotechnology R&D—more than $14 billion in public funds have been expended over a 10 year period after the formation of the federally-coordinated National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in 2000. Following the announcement of the NNI, major nanotechnology R&D programs were initiated throughout the world, including in China, the European Union and its member states, Japan, and Korea (Shapira and Wang 2010).

A decade of large-scale nanotechnology R&D investment has resulted in many discoveries and a huge expansion in published papers. There has also been attention (although some say not enough) on nanotechnology’s environmental, health and safety implications and on its broader societal consequences (Bennett and Sarewitz 2006; Besley et al. 2008). In this special symposium issue, we focus on nanotechnology’s commercialization accomplishments, strategies and trajectories. We suggest that it is timely and appropriate to consider these aspects. After a decade of sustained public funding, the point has been reached—at least in the US, if not elsewhere—where further public investments in nanotechnology are increasingly scrutinized based on progress in commercialization (PCAST 2010). Earlier predictions suggested that, by 2015, about one-tenth of the world’s manufacturing output would be associated with nanotechnology (Roco and Bainbridge 2001; Lux Research 2004). However, the 2007–2008 global financial crisis and the subsequent downturns experienced in many of the world’s economies have lowered the tempo of nanotechnology’s growth (Lux Research 2009). Moreover, although towards the end of the last decade, the Woodrow Wilson International Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies inventoried more than 1,000 nanotechnology-enabled products (PEN 2009), many of these are incremental improvements to existing products rather than transformative innovations. Questions thus remain about the scale and character of nanotechnology commercialization. What is the status of commercialization in this domain? Will current nanotechnology development strategies and trajectories result in the far-reaching applications that policymakers envision? And, what factors are likely to facilitate or inhibit commercial applications?

The symposium issue addresses these questions in a collection of seven articles. The first, by Philip Shapira, Jan Youtie and Luciano Kay, examines, from a global perspective, where and how corporations are entering into nanotechnology innovation. They examine the influence of national innovation system characteristics, international invention linkages, attributes of corporate entry (such as timing and size of the enterprise), and sectoral specialization in particular areas of nanotechnology. As observed by Shapira and colleagues, there is evidence that a shift has been underway in nanotechnology corporate activity. The paper uses the ratio of patent applications to publications by corporations to demonstrate that nanotechnology has shown evidence of transitioning from discovery, prior to 2000, to commercialization after 2003. This shift to commercial nanotechnology applications provides the backdrop for the exploration of different aspects of the commercialization discussion. The results show that both national and international factors are significant, highlighting the need for national policies that include an open and international orientation. The second article, by Jerry Thursby and Marie Thursby, compares university-industry collaboration in biotechnology and nanotechnology through various means such as sponsored research, consulting, co-authorship of publications and patents. Their analysis identifies considerable differences by type of field, with biotechnology associated with greater collaborative research with industry and nanotechnology associated with more joint industry-university co-authoring. Ismael Rafols, Patrick van Zwanenberg, Molly Morgan, Paul Nightingale and Adrian Smith then explore approaches to responsible governance of nanotechnology in comparison with strategies promoting innovation. This paper points out the issues that international value chains raise in the implementation of responsible governance policies and suggests points of action for policy in upstream (i.e., early stage R&D) and downstream (i.e., innovation) areas. The article by Vincent Mangematin, Khalid Errabi and Caroline Gauthier focuses on large incumbent enterprises and their subsidiaries involved in nanotechnology publications and patenting. Their results address the role of specialization versus diversity, geographic clustering, and the relationship between enterprise R&D and subsidiary activities. Catherine Beaudry and Andrea Schiffauerova examine nanotechnology patenting in Canada and the extent to which inventive activity stays or leaves the country. The paper provides insights into the role of foreign-owned enterprises and differing approaches to collaborations with productive nanotechnology scientists in the Toronto and Montreal regions. Maj Munch Andersen’s contribution focuses on industry-driven strategies for nanotechnology commercialization. This paper presents case studies of Danish companies involved in the window supply chain and the strategies employed by large multi-nationals and small startups engaged with nanotechnology R&D. The final article, by David Mowery, puts nanotechnology R&D policies in the context of previous technological waves. Mowery argues that many aspects of nanotechnology R&D policies are similar to those of previous waves. His paper also highlights the distinctive influence of the current pro-patent era on nanotechnology’s transition to commercial applications.

The articles in this symposium issue raise a range of aspects and themes related to strategies and trajectories of nanotechnology commercialization. One set of considerations revolves around how nanotechnology is characterized, and how nanotechnology is understood (and its presence made visible) as the emphasis moves toward commercialization. The articles differ in regards to the role of company size and strategy, type of industry, and the influence of local, national, and international factors. Many of the contributions have explicit or implicit implications for public policy, including a reminder of the importance of learning from previous technological transitions from research to commercialization and distinguishing what is different about how nanotechnology R&D is being applied in the marketplace.

In discussion of nanotechnology commercialization, there are divergent approaches to definition and characterization. Although various official bodies have put forward similar definitions of nanotechnology for research purposes and even for policy (for example: NSET 2007; HM Government 2010), this special issue illustrates that there are diverse conceptualizations of how nanotechnology’s boundaries are delineated when considering commercialization. One method is to use specific definitional terms based on scientific and engineering terms used in nanotechnology applied to large-scale databases covering all economic sectors. Representative of this approach is the Shapira et al. paper, which uses a bibliometric definition of nanotechnology centered on a multi-stage Boolean search strategy comprised of keywords, journals, and patent classes/cross classes. Similarly, the Mangematin et al. paper employs a keyword-based bibliometric definition of nanotechnology. The Thursby and Thursby and Beaudry and Schifferova articles also draw from data that incorporate explicit nanotechnology definitions.

Andersen offers a contrasting method. Her paper examines nanotechnology through the lens of a particular sector—window suppliers and customers—and analyzes examples of nano-enabled offerings such as glass coatings to depict the dynamics of nanotechnology commercialization. The Mowery contribution puts forth yet another perspective on nanotechnology as a broad technological wave. Between these two poles is the Rafols et al. paper, which focuses on “manufactured nanomaterials.” These perspectives suggest that there remains a difference in the characterization of nanotechnology commercialization. It is seen both as a broad enabling-wave of technological and economic development and as sets of specific products and processes each with unique features, industry structures, and economic drivers. This raises the question of how nanotechnology commercialization should be anticipated, governed and regulated—as a new wide-ranging technological and economic phenomenon or at the specific product-enabling level.

The introduction of new technologies can be driven by large incumbent or small startup companies—or by combinations of both types of firms. The articles in this special issue present a mixed picture at this juncture in nanotechnologies development. The Shapira et al. paper does not find that large incumbents dominate the shift to nanotechnology commercialization, as measured by patenting, but rather that both small and large companies are relevant. In contrast, the Mangematin et al. paper discuss the importance of large firm enterprise and subsidiary relationships to how nanotechnology commercializes, with the general involvement of the enterprise group in nanotechnology influencing the participation of the subsidiary. Subsidiaries also seem to specialize in nanotechnology patenting while also developing patents that connect nanotechnology with other types of unrelated technologies. These diverse patterns of large and small companies can be seen at the level of the individual company in the Andersen paper. One major player is a large Danish window manufacturer, with two R&D departments which have ongoing nanotechnology projects rather than a specialty unit focused solely on nanotechnology. A contrasting strategy is illustrated in the same sector by a spinoff from a Danish startup company, which specialized in the development of nanoscale photocatalytic self-cleaning glass products.

Emerging technologies are typically associated with the development of high technology industries. However, as the Mangematin et al. article suggests, nanotechnology also integrates with existing products. In addition, the Thursby and Thursby work observes that nanotechnology has spillovers across a large range of patent classes. Andersen explores the impact of nanotechnology on the mature window and glass industry sector. She finds that this emerging technology is incorporated across the value chain from large incumbent firms to small startups.

One factor in the ongoing development of nanotechnology innovations is the extent of supportive framework conditions. David Mowery’s paper argues that the framework for nanotechnology development is characterized by taking place in a pro-patent era. In the US context, especially since the enactment of the Bayh-Dole Act, patenting has with the breadth of patenting emerging as an issue that has the potential to limit innovation. However, some nanotechnology companies still do not patent their technology, but rather rely on tacit knowledge of the employees, as exemplified in the startup companies examined in the Andersen paper and raised in the Thursby and Thursby paper. The Andersen paper also points toward diverging roles with respect to responsible governance. One of the companies examined in the paper publicly participates in nanotechnology standards setting. Another company adopts a low-profile approach, seen for example in the lack of use of the term nanotechnology in marketing its nano-coated glass products.

Another issue in the commercialization of emerging technologies concerns dealing with risk and failure. Emerging technology efforts sometimes are associated with high risk probabilities because they have the potential to fail as well as to succeed. The Shapira et al. article restates disadvantages, as well as advantages, to early entry in emerging technology-driven markets, with challenges including high failure rates in start-up firms. Governance as well as marketing factors can cause failure in emerging technologies. This is illustrated in Andersen’s paper, where a company acknowledges that self-cleaning nano-coated glass has failed to draw high levels of demand, due in part to the lack of regulation that could stimulate this demand.

The Rafols et al. paper asserts that international value chains must be taken into consideration in defining the framework for innovation and responsible governance. Because innovation is highly distributed in these value chains and marked by flexibility in applications, this distributed structure suggests the need for a policy framework to intervene both upstream, in terms of responsible development of nanotechnology R&D through environmental, health, and safety measures, and downstream to generate applications that address societal grand challenges such as in energy.

One of the most prominent themes across the papers is the influence of international versus local effects. While the role of international value chains suggest the importance of global influences on nanotechnology commercialization, public investments in nanotechnology occur at the national level such as the US NNI or at the supra-regional level such as through the European framework programs. Thus it is a question as to the extent of influence of national and international innovation system factors on nanotechnology commercialization. The Shapira et al. paper finds that both are significant. National characteristics such as status as a high-income country and R&D expenditures are important but so are international linkages with inventors outside the country. With the exception of China, few developing countries have developed any significant standing in nanotechnology research or commercialization. The development of improved international linkages between developing and developed countries may offer one avenue through which participation in nanotechnology commercialization may be more broadly diffused. We are further reminded, in the Shapira et al. article, of the born-global phenomenon in which small start-up companies rapidly internationalize and seek foreign customers for highly niched products. The Rafols et al. article illustrates the importance of born-global strategies for a UK start-up company, which since its inception has provided quantum dots-based materials to customers worldwide for use in diverse types of innovative products.

In another perspective on the national-international debate, Beaudry and Schiffauerova’s contribution observes that although Canada has substantial inventive activity, as measured by patenting in the nanotechnology domain, it is not able to capture this activity which becomes owned by assignee companies headquartered outside the country. However, this overall finding differs across regional clusters, with Toronto-based nanotechnology firms having more international ties, and Montreal-based nanotechnology firms having more joint activity with universities. In contrast, Mangematin et al. do not find strong support for geographical spillovers within localized clusters.

Perspectives on how nanotechnology will commercialize are often filtered through the lens of prior rounds of technologies. In this vein, one question is whether nanotechnology will develop in a similar manner to biotechnology, with an important role for university startup firms, or will it follow a different path. Mangematin et al. find that large incumbent firms are dominating nanotechnology innovation. These firms set up medium-sized subsidiaries to engage in nanotechnology R&D research though these subsidiaries are not central to the companies’ innovation strategies and result in incremental combinations of nanotechnology and existing products. In contrast Thursby and Thursby’s article hypothesizes similarities between nanotechnology and biotechnology in their industry collaboration, patenting, and federal funding characteristics. However, nanotechnology is found to have diverse and sometimes distinctive industrial collaboration patterns, more diverse forward citation patterns, and stronger associations with federal funding. The Mowery contribution further weighs in on the nanotechnology versus biotechnology comparison by pointing toward the importance of learning from previous eras. Policymakers in nanotechnology should review the practices used in biotechnology to reduce intellectual property impediments and accelerate the flow of science toward commercial applications.

At times, the view presented by industry and policy analysts appears as one of rapid and straightforward growth of nanotechnology production and commercialization (Lux Research 2007). Yet, as the papers in this special issue demonstrate, there are diverse and non-linear pathways to nanotechnology commercialization, with considerable uncertainty and risk and much experimentation in strategies for transferring research knowledge into usable and marketable applications. This Journal of Technology Transfer special issue brings together a significant body of new research in understanding these patterns of nanotechnology commercialization, yet it must be admitted that further work needs to be undertaken to probe both the general and specific features of nanotechnology commercialization and to assess its implications. We do anticipate, and hope, that future research will be both spurred and aided by the foundations of concepts, methods and findings presented by the papers in this special issue.