The Potential of Nanotechnology for Equitable Economic Development: The Case of Brazil

  • Luciano Kay
  • Philip Shapira
Part of the Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society book series (YNTS, volume 2)


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.


Latin American Country Agenda Setting Nanotechnology Research International Patent Classification Risk Awareness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



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.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbier, Edward B. 2005. Natural resources and economic development. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bound, Kirsten. 2008. Brazil. The natural knowledge economy. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  5. 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).Google Scholar
  6. Cozzens, Susan. E. 2007. Distributive justice in science and technology policy. Science and Public Policy 34(2): 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Fields, Gary. S. 2001. Distribution and development: A new look at the developing world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fleming, Lee, and Olav Sorenson. 2004. Science as a map in technological search, Strategic Management Journal 25(8–9): 909–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glänzel, Wolfgang, Jacqueline Leta, and Bart Thijs. 2006. Science in Brazil. Part 1: A macro-level comparative study. Scientometrics 67(1): 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. IBGE. 2007. IBGE divulga as contas regionais 2002–2005. (retrieved November 2, 2008).
  14. Invernizzi, Noela. 2007. Los científicos brasileños legitiman las nanotecnologías. Red Latinoamericana de Nanotecnología y Sociedad—ReLANS. (retrieved December 12, 2007).
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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. (retrieved December 13, 2009).
  17. Kay, Luciano, and Philip Shapira. 2009. Developing nanotechnology in Latin America. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 11: 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knobel, Marcelo. 2002. Nanoredes. (retrieved October 20, 2008).
  19. Lux. 2007. The nanotech report. Investment overview and market research for nanotechnology. 5th Ed. New York: Lux Research Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Maynard, Andrew. D. 2006. Nanotechnology: assessing the risks. Nano Today 1: 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mazzoleni, Roberto, and Richard R. Nelson. 2007. Public research institutions and economic catch-up. Research Policy 36(10): 1512–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MCT. 2003. Programa de desenvolvimento da nanociência e da nanotecnologia. Proposta do Grupo de Trabalho criado pela Portaria MCT nº 252 como subsídio ao Programa de Desenvolvimento da Nanociência e da Nanotecnologia do PPA 2004–2007. (retrieved June 18, 2009).
  23. MCT. 2006. Relatório nanotecnologia investimentos, resultados e demandas. Secretaria de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico e Inovação (SETEC)—Coordenação-Geral de Micro e Nanotecnologias (CGNT). Brasília: Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia.Google Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. OSEC. 2005. Brazil: Nanotechnology overview. São Paulo, Swiss Business Hub Brazil, Business Network Switzerland. (retrieved January 23, 2010).
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Porter, Alan L., Jan Youtie, Philip Shapira, and David J. Schoeneck. 2008. Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10: 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. PEN. 2009. Inventory of nanotechnology-based consumer products currently on the market. Project on emerging nanotechnologies. (retrieved October 23, 2009).
  30. Rediguieri, Carolina F. 2009. Study on the development of nanotechnology in advanced countries and in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 45: 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Renn, Ortwin, and Mihail C. Roco. 2006. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8: 153–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roco, Mihail C. 2003. Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 5: 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roco, Mihail C. 2005. International perspective on government nanotechnology funding in 2005. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7: 707–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scarano, Fabio. R. 2007. Perspectives on biodiversity science in Brazil. Scientia Agricola 64: 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shea, Christine M. 2005. Future management research directions in nanotechnology: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 22: 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stern, Stephan T., and Scott E. McNeil. 2008. Nanotechnology safety concerns revisited. Toxicological Sciences 101: 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. UNESCO. 2005. UNESCO science report 2005. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vinkler, Peter. 2008. Correlation between the structure of scientific research, scientometric indicators and GDP in EU and non-EU countries. Scientometrics 74: 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilsdon, James. 2004. The politics of small things: Nanotechnology, risk, and uncertainty. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Winter 2004.Google Scholar
  41. Woodhouse, Edward, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2007. Science policies for reducing societal inequities. Science and Public Policy 34: 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. World Bank. 2005. World development report 2006: Equity and development. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. World Bank. 2007. World development report 2008: Agriculture for development. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Youtie, Jan, Philip Shapira, and Alan L. Porter. 2008a. National nanotechnology publications and citations. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10: 981–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business School, University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations