Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 13, Issue 12, pp 7303–7312 | Cite as

An evaluation scheme for nanotechnology policies

  • Ali M. SoltaniEmail author
  • Seyed H. Tabatabaeian
  • Payam Hanafizadeh
  • Jahanyar Bamdad Soofi
Technology and Applications


Dozens of countries are executing national nanotechnology plans. No rigorous evaluation scheme for these plans exists, although stakeholders—especially policy makers, top-level agencies and councils, as well as the society at large—are eager to learn the outcome of these policies. In this article, we recommend an evaluation scheme for national nanotechnology policies that would be used to review the whole or any component part of a national nanotechnology plan. In this scheme, a component at any level of aggregation is evaluated. The component may be part of the plan’s overarching policy goal, which for most countries is to create wealth and improve the quality of life of their nation with nanotechnology. Alternatively, the component may be a programme or an activity related to a programme. The evaluation could be executed at different times in the policy’s life cycle, i.e., before the policy is formulated, during its execution or after its completion. The three criteria for policy evaluation are appropriateness, efficiency and effectiveness. The evaluator should select the appropriate qualitative or quantitative methods to evaluate the various components of national nanotechnology plans.


National nanotechnology plan Policy evaluation Evaluation scheme 


  1. Appelquist J (2004) The new agenda for evaluation of innovation and growth policies: methods for a process-oriented and systemic approach. Public research and innovation policy for the good of society: how to assess the way forward? StockholmGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold E (2004) Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations. Res Eval 13(1):3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold E, Guy K (1997) Technology diffusion programmes and the challenge for evaluation. In: OECD conference on policy evaluation practices in innovation and technology, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassecoulard E, Lelu A et al (2007) Mapping nanosciences by citation flows: a preliminary analysis. Scientometrics 70(3):859–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker HA and Vanclay F (2006) The international handbook of social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  6. BIS (2010) Impact assessment toolkit; a guide to undertaking an impact assessment and completing the IA template. Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bogart L (1972) Polls and the awareness of public opinion. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  8. Bovens M, Hart Pt et al (2006) The politics of policy evaluation. The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Capron H, de la Potterie BVP (1999) Public support to R&D programmes: an integrated assessment scheme. Policy evaluation in innovation and technology: towards best practices, pp 35–47Google Scholar
  10. Compano R, Hullmann A (2002) Forecasting the development of nanotechnology with the help of science and technology indicators. Nanotechnology 13:243–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunion KM (1995) UK government departments experience of RT&D programme evaluation and methodology. Scientometrics 34(3):363–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EATON DL (2008) Review of federal strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health, and safety research. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. EC (2008) Commission Recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research, Commission of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahrenkrog G, Polt W et al (2002) RTD evaluation toolbox. European Commission, SevilleGoogle Scholar
  15. Georghiou L (1998) Issues in the evaluation of innovation and technology policy. Int J Theor Res Pract 4:37–52Google Scholar
  16. Georghiou L, Keenan M (2006) Evaluation of national foresight activities: assessing rationale, process and impact. Technol Forecast Soc Change 73(7):761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Georghiou L, Roessner D (2000) Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods. Res Policy 29(4–5):657–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang C and Wu Y (2010) Sure bet or scientometric mirage? An assessment of Chinese progress in nanotechnology. United Nations University-MERIT Working Paper. MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  19. Hullmann A (2006) The economic development of nanotechnology—an indicators based analysis. EU reportGoogle Scholar
  20. Hullmann A (2007) Measuring and assessing the development of nanotechnology. Scientometrics 70(3):739–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hullmann A, Meyer M (2003) Publications and patents in nanotechnology. Scientometrics 58(3):507–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. INIC (2005) The future strategy: The Islamic Republic of Iran’s ten-year nanotechnology development plan 2006–2015 from
  23. INIC (2008) The future strategy 2: The Islamic Republic of Iran’s ten-year nanotechnology development plan 2009–2015 from
  24. ISO (2007) ISO/TC 229 business plan, international organization for standardization (ISO)Google Scholar
  25. ISO (2008) Nanotechnologies—terminology and definitions for nano-objects—nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate, ISO/TC229. TS27687Google Scholar
  26. Kay L, Shapira P (2009) Developing nanotechnology in Latin America. J Nanopart Res 11(2):259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lengrand L (2006) Smart innovation: a practical guide to evaluating innovation programmes. European Commission, European Communitoes, Brussels-LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  28. Li X, Lin Y et al (2007) Worldwide nanotechnology development: a comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976–2004). J Nanopart Res 9(6):977–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lipsey R, Carlaw K (2002) Conceptual basis of technology policy. Simon Fraser University, BurnabyGoogle Scholar
  30. Marchant GE, White A (2011) An international nanoscience advisory board to improve and harmonize nanotechnology oversight. J Nanopart Res 13(4):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marinova D, McAleer M (2003) Nanotechnology strength indicators. Nanotechnology 14(1):R1–R7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB (1999) Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story. Eval Prog Plan 22(1):65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mehta MD (2002) Nanoscience and nanotechnology: assessing the nature of innovation in these fields. Bull Sci Technol Soc 22(4):269–273Google Scholar
  34. 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):779–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miyazaki K, Nazrulislam (2007) Nanotechnology systems of innovation—an analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation 27(11):661–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Momaya K (2008) Evaluating country competitiveness in emerging industries: learning from a case of nanotechnology. J Int Bus Econ 9(1):37–58Google Scholar
  37. MOSTI-Malaysia (2010) National nanotechnology statement. Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  38. NNI (2007) The national nanotechnology initiative strategic plan. National Science and Technology Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. NNI (2011) The national nanotechnology initiative strategic plan. N. S. a. T. CouncilGoogle Scholar
  40. Pagaconstantantinov G, Polt W (1997) Policy evaluation in innovation and technology: an overview. In: OECD Conference on Policy EvaluationGoogle Scholar
  41. Patton MQ (1996) Evaluation use: both challenge and mandateGoogle Scholar
  42. Peterson J (1993) Assessing the performance of European collaborative R&D policy: the case of Eureka. Res Policy 22(3):243–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ruegg R, Feller I et al (2003) A toolkit for evaluating public R & D investment: models, methods, and findings from ATP’s first decade. US Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  44. Russ-Eft D, Preskill H (2005) In search of the holy grail: return on investment evaluation in human resource development. Adv Dev Hum Resour 7(1):71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sanderson I (2002) Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Adm 80(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shadish WR Jr, Cook TD et al (1991) Foundations of program evaluation: theories of practice. Sage Publications, Inc, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  47. STPI (2009) Yearbook of science and technology Taiwan, Taiwan National Applied Research LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  48. Stupp SI (2002) Small wonders, endless frontiers: a review of the national nanotechnology initiative. National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Su HN, Lee PC et al (2007) Current situation and industrialization of Taiwan nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 9(6):965–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sutton R (1999) The policy process: an overview. Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. TERI (2010) Nanotechnology development in India: building capability and governing the technology. TERI Briefing Paper, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  52. UK (2010) UK nanotechnologies strategy; small technologies, great opportunities. UK Government, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Vedung E (2000) Public policy and program evaluation. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams JC (2006) A matter of size: triennial review of the national nanotechnology initiative. National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali M. Soltani
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Seyed H. Tabatabaeian
    • 1
  • Payam Hanafizadeh
    • 1
  • Jahanyar Bamdad Soofi
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Management and AccountingAllameh Tabataba’i UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Iran Nanotechnology Initiative CouncilTehranIran

Personalised recommendations