Skip to main content

Bridgework ahead! Innovation ecosystems vis-à-vis responsible innovation

Journal of Nanoparticle Research volume 19, Article number: 83 (2017) Cite this article

Abstract

Public funding agencies largely support academic research as an effort to stimulate future product commercialization and foster broader societal benefits. Yet, translating research nurtured in academic settings into such outcomes is complex and demands functional interactions between government, academic, and industry, i.e., “triple helix,” organizations within an innovation ecosystem. This article argues that in the spirit of responsible innovation, research funding should build bridges that extend beyond the triple helix stakeholders to connect to peripheral organizations. To support that argument, evidence from agent network analysis gathered from two case studies reveals strong and weak connections, as well as gaps within innovation ecosystems in Switzerland and metropolitan Phoenix, USA. This article offers insights on how innovation ecosystems are aligned or misaligned with responsible innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

£ 29.95

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. For a more complete history of the NSF-ERC program, refer to an interview with Bloch (Bozeman and Boardman 2004).

  2. The three ERCs include (1) Engineering Research Center for Bio-mediated and Bio-inspired Geotechnics (CBBG) award number: 1449501; principal investigator: Edward Kavazanjian; organization: Arizona State University; award amount: $3,250,000.00; (2) Incorporating the Center for Advanced Control of Energy and Systems at Arizona State University into the Power Systems Engineering Research Center (PSerc) award number: 0001880; principal investigator: Gerald Heydt; organization: Arizona State University;award amount: $1,890,508.00; and (3) NSF Engineering Research Center for Quantum Energy and Sustainable Solar Technologies (QESST) award number: 1041895; principal investigator: Christiana Honsberg; organization: Arizona State University; award amount: $18,507,359.00.

References

  • Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plan Assoc 35(4):216–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch DB, Bozeman B, Combs KL, Feldman M, Link AN, Siegel DS, Stephen P, Tassey G, Wessner C (2002) The economics of science and technology. J Technol Transf 27(2):155–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avnimlech G, Feldman MP (2010) Regional corporate spawning and the role of homegrown companies. Rev Policy Res 27(4):475–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C, Guston DH (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 979–1000

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry C, Kananian R (2013) Impact of science networks and industry-to-university contracts on academic patenting in nanotechnology and biotechnology. Ind Innov 20(3):241–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm D, Hogan T (2013) ‘A jack of all trades’––the role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. J Technol Transfer 39(1):134–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman B, Boardman C (2004) The NSF engineering research centers and the university–industry research revolution: a brief history featuring an interview with Erich Bloch. J Technol Transfer 29(3–4):365–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun D, Benninghoff M (2003) Policy learning in Swiss research policy—the case of the National Centres of Competence in Research. Res Policy 32:1849–1863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer G (2007) Inventing the future: scenarios, dillimagination, mastery and control. Sustain Sci 2:159–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee JS (2013) Natural Resource Defense Council, Petitioner, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, respondent. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. San Francisco. Docket No. 12–70268

  • Chaminade C, Edquist C (2010) Rationales for public policy interventions in the innovation process: systems of innovation approach. In: Smits RE, Kuhlmann S, Shapira P (eds) The theory and practice of innovation policy: an international research handbook. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 95–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers J (2007) Deliberating competence: theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Sci Technol Human Values 33:155–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chilvers (2013) Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on science and technology. Sci Commun 35(3):283–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark WC, Tomich TP et al (2011) Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proc Natl Acad Sci. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900231108

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse B, Wright M, Bruneel J, Mahajan A (2014) Creating value in ecosystems: crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Res Policy 43(7):1164–1176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conseil Suisse de la Science (CCS) (1994) Evaluation des Schwerpunktprogramme des Bundes. Schlussbericht einer internationalen Expertengruppe zuhanden des Schweizerischen Wissenschaftsrates. Forschungspolitik FOP 16/1994, Conseil suisse de la Science, Bern

  • Conti A, Gaule P (2011) Is the US potperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European paradox. Res Policy 40:123–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Credit Suisse (2005) Global investor focus 2005: Nanotechnology. Zurich, SW

  • Crow MM (2011) Time to rethink the NIH. Nature 471:569–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham J, O’Reilly P, O’Kane C, Mangematin V (2014) The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research projects. J Technol Transfer 39(1):93–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dando M (2009) Biologists napping while work militarized. Nature 460(7258):950–951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis G (1996) The significance of board interlocks for corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review 4(3):154–159

  • Decker M, Fleischer T (2012) Participation in ‘Big Style’: first observations at the German citizens’ dialogue on future technologies. Poiesis Prax 9:81–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Office of Statistics (2016) Population. Available at: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bevoelkerung.html

  • Feldman MP, Audretsch DB (1999) Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization, and localized competition. Eur Econ Rev 43(2):409–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher E, Mahajan RL, Mitcham C (2006) Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within. Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(6):485–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley RW, Wiek A (2013) Patterns of nanotechnology innovation and governance within a metropolitan area. Technol Soc 35(4):233–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley RW, Bernstein MJ, Wiek A (2016) Towards an alignment of activities, aspirations and stakeholders for responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation. doi:10.1080/23299460.2016.1257380

    Google Scholar 

  • GAO (2014) Office of Personnel Management: agency needs to improve outcome measures to demonstrate the value of its innovation lab. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/662805.txt

  • Geuna A, Muscio A (2009) The governance of university knowledge transfer: a critical review of the literature. Minerva 47:93–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gober P (2005) Metropolitan Phoenix: place making and community building in the desert. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman ME, Werhane PH, Swami N (2009) Moral imagination, trading zones, and the role of the ethicist in nanotechnology. Nanoethics 3:185–195

  • Granovetter MS (1983) The strength of weak ties: a theory revisited. Sociol Theory 1:201–233

  • Guntherodt HJ (2012) Interview with Professor Guntherodt. Available at: http://download.nccr-nano.org/about_us/interview_gue/interview_gue.pdf

  • Guston DH (1996) Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy. Sci Public Policy 23(4):229–240

  • Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26:399–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston DH (2013) The pumpkin or the tiger? Michael Polanyi, Frederick Soddy, and anticipating emerging technologies. Minerva. doi:10.1007/s11024-012-9204-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24(1–2):93–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilts PJ (2003) Protecting America’s health: the FDA, business, and one hundred years of regulation. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells J (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res Policy 35:715–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbut B (2015) Remembering the future: science, law and the legacy of Asilomar. In: Jasanoff S, Kim S (eds) Dreamscapes of modernity: sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 126–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson DJ (2011) What is an innovation ecosystem?. National Science Foundation. Available at: http://erc-assoc.org/sites/default/files/topics/policy_studies/DJackson_Innovation%20Ecosystem_03-15-11.pdf

  • Kearnes M, Stilgoe J (2007) Nanodialogues report: report of an experiment in upstream public engagement. Demos, London

  • Kemp R, Rotmans J (2009) Transitioning policy: co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Science. doi:10.1007/s11077-009-9105-3

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp R, Parto S, Gibson RB (2005) Governance for sustainable development : moving from theory to practice. Int J Sustain Dev 8(1/2):12–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krabbenborg L (2013) DuPont and environmental defense fund co-constructing a risk framework for nanoscale materials: an occasion to reflect on interaction processes in a joint inquiry. NanoEthics 7(1):45–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt D, Hanson J (1993) Informal networks: the company behind the charts. Harv Bus Rev 71:104–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Lal B, Boardman C (2013) International practice in cooperative research centers programs: summary of an exploratory study of engineering-focused cooperative research centers worldwide. In: Boardman C, Gray DO, Rivers D (eds) Cooperative research centers and technical innovation: government policies, industry strategies, and organizational dynamics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 293–307

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Larson KL, Casagrande D, Harlan SL, Yabiku ST (2009) Residents’ yard choices and rationales in a desert city: social priorities, ecological impacts, and decision tradeoffs. Environ Manag 44:921–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H (1998) The triple helix of innovation. Sci Public Policy 25:358–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Loorbach D (2007) Transition management: new mode of governance for sustainable development. Utrecht, NL

  • Luck M, Marik V, Stepankova O, Trappel R (eds) (2001) Multi-agent systems and applications. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckingham B (1989) Phoenix: the history of a southwest metropolis. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten P, Davies S, Kearnes M (2010) Narrative and public engagement: some findings from the DEEPEN project. In: von Schomberg R, Davies S (eds) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp 13–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore J (1996) The death of competition: leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nanoscale Science Institute (NSI) (2012) Spin offs. Available at: http://www.nanoscience.ch/nccr/about_us/sni_network/spin_offs

  • NCCR (2014) The National Centres of Competence in Research NCCRs: Research in Networks Available at: http://www.snf.ch/SiteCollectionDocuments/nccr_brochure_e.pdf

  • Nelson RR, Rosenberg N (1993) Technical innovation in national systems. In: Nelson RR (ed) National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–21

    Google Scholar 

  • NNIN (2015) ASU NanoFab. Available at: http://www.nnin.org/research-support/nnin-sites/arizona-state-university

  • NSF (2016) GEN-3 Engineering Research Center program solicitation. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2015/nsf15589/nsf15589.pdf

  • ObservatoryNANO (2012) Guide to responsible nano-business: how to use nanotechnologies for the benefit of business, customers, and society. Available at: http://www.visbdev.net/visbdev/fe/Docs/GuideResponsibleNano_ObservatoryNANO_ti.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2012

  • OECD (2012) Science and innovation: Switzerland Chapter IV.10. In Science, Technology and industry Outlook 2012. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/switzerland/sti-outlook-2012-switzerland.pdf

  • Ordinance 813.112.1 (2005) Ordinance on Good Laboratory Practice (OGLP). Available at: https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/20031589/201212010000/813.112.1.pdf

  • Ordinance 814.81 (2005) Ordinance on the reduction of risks relating to the use of certain particularly dangerous substances, preparations and articles (Chemical Risk Reduction Ordinance, ORRChem) Available at: https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/20021520/index.html

  • Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Owen R, Goldberg N (2010) Responsible innovation: a pilot study with the U.K. engineering and physical sciences research council. Risk Anal 30(11):1699–1707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen R, Baxter D, Maynard T (2009) Beyond regulation: risk pricing and responsible innovation. Environ Sci Technol 43:6902–6906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy 39:751–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen R, Stilgoe J, Macnaghten P, Gorman M, Fisher E, Guston DH (2013) A framework for responsible innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible Innovation. Wiley, New York, pp 27–50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2004) Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organ Sci 15(1):5–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell WW, Packalen K, Whittington K (2012) Organizational and institutional genesis: the emergence of high-tech in the life sciences. In: Padgett JF, Powell WW (eds) The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 434–465

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasiah RKX-X, Lin Y, Song J (2012) Explaining variations in semiconductor catch-up strategies in China, Korea, Malaysia and Taiwan. In: Malerba F, Nelson RR (eds) Economic development as a learning process: variation across sectoral systems. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 113–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8(2):153–191

  • Rex TR (2000) Development of metropolitan Phoenix: historical, current, and future trends. Morrison Institute for Public Policy: Tempe, AZ

  • Rip A (2004) Strategic research, post-modern universities and research training. Higher Educ Policy 17:153–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip A, van Lente H (2013) Bridging the gap between innovation and ELSA: the TA program in the Dutch nano-R&D program NanoNed. NanoEthics 7:7–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins PT (2007) The reflexive engineer: perceptions of integrated development. J Int Dev 19:99–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson DKR (2009) Co-evolutionary scenarios: an application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 76:1222–1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson DKR (2011) Value chains as a linking-pin framework for exploring governance and innovation in nano-involved sectors: illustrated for nanotechnologies and the food packaging sector. European Journal of Law and Technology 2:3

  • Russell MG, Huhtamaki J, Still K, Rubens N, Basole RC (2011) Relational capital for shared vision in innovation ecosystems. Triple Helix 2(8):1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell MG, Huhtamäki J, Still K, Rubens N, Basole RC (2015) Relational capital for shared vision in innovation ecosystems. Triple Helix 2:8. doi:10.1186/s40604-015-0017-2

  • Sampat BN (2006) Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: the world before and after Bayh-Dole. Res Policy 35(6):772–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie CEH, Conti J, Harthorm BH (2009) Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:752–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxenian A (1994) Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih T-J, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2:732–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker PJH (1995) Scenario planning: a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review 36(2):25–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Selin C (2007) Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(2):196–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard S, Shaw A, Flanders D, Burch S, Wiek A, Carmichael J, Robinson J, Cohen S (2011) Future visioning of local climate change: a framework for community engagement and planning with scenarios and visualization. Futures 43:400–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shilton K (2014) This is an intervention: foregrounding and operationalizing ethics during technology design. In: Pimple KD (ed) Emerging Pervasive Information and Communication Technologies (PICT). Springer, New York, pp 177–192

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007a) Laypeople’s and expert’s perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27(1):59–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Wiek A, Helland A, Kastenholz H (2007b) Risks and nanotechnology: the public is more concerned than experts and industry. Nat Nanotechnol 2:67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen M (2015) Upon opening the black box and finding it full: exploring the ethics in design practices. Science, Technology, and Human Values 40(3):389–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42:1568–1580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) (1999) National Centres of Competence in Research (NCCR). Programme Call. SNF, Bern

  • U.S. Census (2012) Population distribution and change: 2000–2010. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf. Accessed May 2012

  • Van Asselt MBA (2000) Perspectives on uncertainty and risk. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Asselt MBA, van’t Klooster S, van Notten P, Smits L (2010) Foresight in action: developing policy-oriented scenarios. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellman B (1988) Structural analysis: from method and metaphor to theory and substance. In: Berkowitz S, Wellman B (eds) Social structure: a network approach. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 19–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Westeren KI (2012) Innovation: from Schumpeter to the knowledge economy. In: Westeren KI (ed) Foundations of the knowledge economy: innovation, learning, and clusters. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 57–74

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Zemp S, Siegrist M, Walter AI (2007) Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology. Technol Soc 29:388–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Lang D, Siegrist M (2008) Qualitative system analysis as a means for sustainable governance of emerging technologies: the case of nanotechnology. J Clean Prod 16(2008):988–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Gasser L, Siegrist M (2009) Systemic scenarios of nanotechnology—sustainable governance of emerging technologies. Futures 41(2009):284–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek A, Foley RW, Guston DH (2012) Nanotechnology for sustainability—what does nanotechnology offer to address complex sustainability problems? J Nanopart Res 14:1093–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1993) Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Underst Sci 2(4):321–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: cultures of risk and ethics in expert discourses on GMOs. Science as Culture 10(4):445–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. This research was undertaken with support by CNS-ASU, funded by the National Science Foundation (cooperative agreement nos. 0531194 and 0937591). This research was initially presented at the AAAS conference in Boston, MA, and the authors would like to thank the judges, fellow scholars, and visitors that strengthened this work with their comments and critiques. The findings and observations contained in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Engineering and Society, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Rider Foley

  2. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Rider Foley & Arnim Wiek

  3. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Arnim Wiek

Authors
  1. Rider Foley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arnim Wiek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rider Foley.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Foley, R., Wiek, A. Bridgework ahead! Innovation ecosystems vis-à-vis responsible innovation. J Nanopart Res 19, 83 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-017-3770-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-017-3770-5

Keywords

  • Responsible innovation
  • Shared learning
  • Innovation ecosystem
  • Boundary spanning
  • Emerging technologies
  • Nanotechnology