Abstract
Luciano Kay and Philip Shapira take a more detailed look at the consequences of Brazilian nanotechnology, using publication and patent data. Brazil is the powerhouse of Latin America in terms of research output in nanotechnology, and national policy tries hard to link that output to innovation outcomes. However, as with most Brazilian science, the regional distribution is highly uneven, and nanotechnology shows no signs of equalizing it. Kay and Shapira examine Brazil’s performance on four criteria of equitable economic development: agenda setting; R&D investment; R&D outcomes; and risk awareness and allocation.
This chapter was peer reviewed. It was originally presented at the Workshop on Nanotechnology, Equity, and Equality at Arizona State University on November 22, 2008.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson, Jon, Charles Benjamin, Bruce Campbell, and Daniel Tiveau. 2006. Forests, poverty and equity in Africa: New perspectives on policy and practice. International Forestry Review 8(1): 44–53.
Barbier, Edward B. 2005. Natural resources and economic development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Besley, John C., Victoria L. Kramer and Susanna H. Priest. 2008. Expert opinion on nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and regulation. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10(4): 549–558.
Bound, Kirsten. 2008. Brazil. The natural knowledge economy. London: Demos.
CGEE. 2007. Analise da pesquisa nacional por amostra de domicilios PNAD 2005. Livro 3: pobraza e desigualdade. Brasilia, DF: Centro de Gestao e Estudos Estrategicos (CGEE).
Cozzens, Susan. E. 2007. Distributive justice in science and technology policy. Science and Public Policy 34(2): 85–94.
Cozzens, Susan. E., Rob Hagendijk, Peter Healey, and Tiago Santos Pereira. 2007. A framework for analyzing science, technology and inequalities: Preliminary observations. ResIST: Researching Inequality through Science and Technology. Working Paper 3. Oxford: James Martin Institute.
de Almeida, Alexandra, O. 2003. Responses to questionnaire on nanotechnology: Brazil. Evidence to the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering study on nanoscience and nanotechnologies. São Paulo: British Consulate General.
Fields, Gary. S. 2001. Distribution and development: A new look at the developing world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fleming, Lee, and Olav Sorenson. 2004. Science as a map in technological search, Strategic Management Journal 25(8–9): 909–928.
Glänzel, Wolfgang, Jacqueline Leta, and Bart Thijs. 2006. Science in Brazil. Part 1: A macro-level comparative study. Scientometrics 67(1): 67–86.
Glänzel, Wolfgang, Martin Meyer, M. Du Plessis, Bart Thijs, Tom Magerman, and Balazs Schlemmer. 2003. Nanotechnology, analysis of an emerging domain of scientific and technological endeavor. Leuven: O&O Statistieken.
IBGE. 2007. IBGE divulga as contas regionais 2002–2005. http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=1039&id_pagina=1 (retrieved November 2, 2008).
Invernizzi, Noela. 2007. Los cientÃficos brasileños legitiman las nanotecnologÃas. Red Latinoamericana de NanotecnologÃa y Sociedad—ReLANS. http://estudiosdeldesarrollo.net/relans/documentos/Noela-Visiones-esp.pdf. (retrieved December 12, 2007).
Invernizzi, Noela, and Guillermo Foladori. 2005. Nanotechnology and the developing world: Will nanotechnology overcome poverty or widen disparities? Nanotechnology Law & Business Journal 2: 1–10.
Kay, Luciano, Noela Invernizzi, and Philip Shapira. 2009. The role of Brazilian firms in nanotechnology development. Paper presented at Atlanta Conference on Science and Technology, October 2009. http://www.cherry.gatech.edu/PUBS/09/Kay-Invernizzi-Shapira-09atlanta%20conf.pdf. (retrieved December 13, 2009).
Kay, Luciano, and Philip Shapira. 2009. Developing nanotechnology in Latin America. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 11: 259–278.
Knobel, Marcelo. 2002. Nanoredes. http://www.comciencia.br/reportagens/nanotecnologia/nano11.htm. (retrieved October 20, 2008).
Lux. 2007. The nanotech report. Investment overview and market research for nanotechnology. 5th Ed. New York: Lux Research Inc.
Maynard, Andrew. D. 2006. Nanotechnology: assessing the risks. Nano Today 1: 22–33.
Mazzoleni, Roberto, and Richard R. Nelson. 2007. Public research institutions and economic catch-up. Research Policy 36(10): 1512–1528.
MCT. 2003. Programa de desenvolvimento da nanociência e da nanotecnologia. Proposta do Grupo de Trabalho criado pela Portaria MCT nº 252 como subsÃdio ao Programa de Desenvolvimento da Nanociência e da Nanotecnologia do PPA 2004–2007. http://www.mct.gov.br/upd_blob/0002/2361.pdf. (retrieved June 18, 2009).
MCT. 2006. Relatório nanotecnologia investimentos, resultados e demandas. Secretaria de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico e Inovação (SETEC)—Coordenação-Geral de Micro e Nanotecnologias (CGNT). BrasÃlia: Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia.
Novak, Joseph D., and Alberto J Cañas. 2008. The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Pensacola, FL: Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.
NTSC. 2007. The national nanotechnology initiative: Strategic plan. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee.
OSEC. 2005. Brazil: Nanotechnology overview. São Paulo, Swiss Business Hub Brazil, Business Network Switzerland. http://www.osec.ch. (retrieved January 23, 2010).
Packer, Abel L., and Rogerio Meneghini. 2006. Articles with authors affiliated to Brazilian institutions published from 1994 to 2003 with 100 or more citations: I—The weight of international collaboration and the role of the networks. Anais Da Academia Brasileira De Ciencias 78: 841–853.
Porter, Alan L., Jan Youtie, Philip Shapira, and David J. Schoeneck. 2008. Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10: 715–728.
PEN. 2009. Inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market. Project on emerging nanotechnologies. http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/. (retrieved October 23, 2009).
Rediguieri, Carolina F. 2009. Study on the development of nanotechnology in advanced countries and in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 45: 189–200.
Renn, Ortwin, and Mihail C. Roco. 2006. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8: 153–191.
Roco, Mihail C. 2003. Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 5: 181–189.
Roco, Mihail C. 2005. International perspective on government nanotechnology funding in 2005. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7: 707–712.
Scarano, Fabio. R. 2007. Perspectives on biodiversity science in Brazil. Scientia Agricola 64: 439–447.
Shea, Christine M. 2005. Future management research directions in nanotechnology: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 22: 185–200.
Stern, Stephan T., and Scott E. McNeil. 2008. Nanotechnology safety concerns revisited. Toxicological Sciences 101: 4–21.
UNESCO. 2005. UNESCO science report 2005. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Van Looy, Bart, Koenraad Debackere, Julie Callaert, Robert Tijssen and Thed van Leeuwen. 2006. Scientific capabilities and technological performance of national innovation systems: An exploration of emerging industrial relevant research domains. Scientometrics 66: 295–310.
Vinkler, Peter. 2008. Correlation between the structure of scientific research, scientometric indicators and GDP in EU and non-EU countries. Scientometrics 74: 237–254.
Wilsdon, James. 2004. The politics of small things: Nanotechnology, risk, and uncertainty. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Winter 2004.
Woodhouse, Edward, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2007. Science policies for reducing societal inequities. Science and Public Policy 34: 139–150.
World Bank. 2005. World development report 2006: Equity and development. New York: Oxford University Press.
World Bank. 2007. World development report 2008: Agriculture for development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Youtie, Jan, Philip Shapira, and Alan L. Porter. 2008a. National nanotechnology publications and citations. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10: 981–986.
Youtie, Jan, Maurizio Iacopetta, and Stuart J.H. Graham. 2008b. Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? Journal of Technology Transfer 33: 315–329.
Acknowledgements
This study uses data from the large-scale global nanotechnology publication and patent datasets developed by the group on Nanotechnology Research and Innovation Systems at Georgia Institute of Technology – a component of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS-ASU). Support for the research was provided through CNS-ASU with sponsorship from the National Science Foundation (Award No. 0531194). The findings and observations contained in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kay, L., Shapira, P. (2010). The Potential of Nanotechnology for Equitable Economic Development: The Case of Brazil. In: Cozzens, S., Wetmore, J. (eds) Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development. Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9614-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9615-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)