Atlanta Conference on Science, Technology, and Innovation

�

Atlanta Conference on Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy 2007

October 19-20 :: Atlanta, U.S.A.

Georgia Institute of Technology

�

GREETINGS!

Welcome to the Atlanta Conference on Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy �007. For the next two days,

we will explore Challenges and Opportunities for Innovation in the Changing in the Global Economy.

Today and tomorrow, we will examine emerging issues of science, technology, and innovation in global economy

and society, including:

• Innovation in new forms and formats; markets, organizations, and industries in transition

• Emerging global networks of scientific communication

• Work forces and workplaces of science and technology; career opportunities for scientists and engineers

• Government policies for encouraging knowledge-based and learning economies, North and South

• Intellectual property regimes for supporting innovation in different national contexts

• Globalization of research and development and the changing roles of government policies

• Impacts of China and India in the global innovation ecology

• Innovation to address global energy and environmental challenges

• Localization and globalization of careers for scientists and engineers

• Emerging technologies and emerging societal responses

In the next two days, we hope you will find the answers to these questions:

• How is the landscape of global innovation shifting?

• What strategies can national governments follow in this new landscape?

• What works, what doesn’t, and under what circumstances in today’s global economy and society?

Special thanks to go our speakers, panelists, and sponsors, whose generous support has made this event

possible. Enjoy the conference and Atlanta while you are here. You will find a list of our more popular sites in

addition to local restaurants near Technology Square in this program.

Now, let’s get busy exploring Challenges and Opportunities for Innovation in the Changing in the Global Economy.

Best regards,

Susan Cozzens

Professor of Public Policy

Georgia Institute of Technology

School of Public Policy

Atlanta Conference on Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy �007

�

�

SCHEDULE AT A GLANCE

Friday, Oct. 19

8:30 a.m. Registration

9-10 a.m. Session 1: State of the Field : U.S., Europe, Latin America, Room 236

10:15-11:45 a.m. Session 2: Parallel Contributed Paper Sessions, Rooms 323, 324, 328, 330, 331, and 334

Noon-1:30 p.m. Session 3: Luncheon plenary: State of the Field–China and India, Georgia Tech Hotel Salon III

1:45-3:15 p.m. Session 4: Parallel Contributed Paper Sessions, Rooms 323, 324, 328, 330, 331, and 334

3:30-5 p.m. Session 5: Parallel Contributed Paper Sessions, Rooms 323, 324, 328, 330, 331, and 334

5-6:30 p.m. Session 6: Poster session and reception, Atrium

Saturday, Oct. 20

8 a.m. Registration

8:30-10 a.m. Session 7: Keynotes: Emerging Concepts of Innovation, Room 236

10:15-11:45 a.m. Session 8: Parallel Contributed Paper Sessions, Rooms 323, 324, 330, 331, and 334

Noon-1 p.m. Lunch break

1:15-2:45 p.m. Session 9: Parallel Contributed Paper Sessions, Rooms 323, 324, 330, 331, and 334

3-4:30p.m. Session 10: Parallel Contributed Paper Sessions, Rooms 323, 324, 330, 331, and 334

4:30-6 p.m. Session 11: Closing plenary: The usefulness of STI policy research, Room 236

�

�

CONFERENCE AGENDAFriday, Oct. 19 9- 9:15 a.m. Welcome

9:15-10 a.m. Session 1: Plenary on the State of the Field, Room 236

• United States: Kaye Husbands Fealing, National Science Foundation

• Europe: Philippe Larédo, Manchester Business School and ENPC, Paris

• Latin America: Eduardo Viotti, Brazil

10:15-11:45 a.m. Session 2: Parallel Contributed Paper Sessions

2.1 Basic Concepts I, Room 323 Chair: Diana Hicks, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy• The Myth of the National Innovation System.

Caroline Wagner, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., and SRI International By considering innovation as the result of national decisions about investments in research and infrastructural

capacities, the national innovation system, or NIS, concept threatens to undermine the health of science & technology policies, particularly for developing countries. Since knowledge and people are mobile and do not honor political borders, it is clear from studying their mobility that innovation has little relation to national systems. Innovation is indeed influenced by system dynamics, but these systems and subsystems operate at a number of levels, including locally, regionally, globally, and within disciplines. Explore a new model of the knowledge-creating system, exploring the policy implications of a changed understanding of innovation.

• Cross-Cultural Challenges in Thinking about Innovation and Creativity: The Case of Asian/United States University Partnerships in S&T. Tom Gieryn, David Hakken, and Heidi Ross, Indiana University, Bloomington

Examine a challenge that must be faced by any broadly conceived study of innovation in the contemporary world: How to conceptualize innovation in ways that are valid cross-culturally. Should “innovation” or “creativity” be defined in a “universalistic” manner, or can such definitions exist only from within identifiable networks and cultures, which are likely to vary from group to group? We argue it is possible to operationalize for research workable concepts of innovation and creativity by grounding them in relevant historical and cultural discourses. This preferred approach is illustrated by reference to the Partnerships across the Pacific, or PxP, Project, a study of U.S./Asia bilateral university linkages.

• Hidden Normativity of Innovation Theories. Jan Schmidt, Georgia Institute of Technology Develop an approach to the phenomena and concepts of innovation from the perspective of philosophy of

technology. Until now, philosophers have remained reluctant to address issues of innovation—even though both innovation research and philosophy of technology share the same objective: the intersection of science, technology, and society/policy. I propose a classification scheme of normative issues in innovation theories. I identify five related types of normative assumptions in (and consequences of) innovation theories—in particular, I focus on normativity of “innovation” in relation to theory of society, disciplinary hegemony, the process of innovation, ethics, and the object of innovation (artifacts, processes, knowledge, problems).


�

�

2.2 Emerging Technologies: Nanotechnology I, Room324 Chair: Patrick Hamlett, North Carolina State University• Putting Emerging Technologies in Place: Leading Nanodistricts in America.

Jan Youtie , Philip Shapira, and Pratik Mehta, Georgia Institute of Technology We probe nanotechnology research and commercialization at a regional level. By examining the top �0

“nanodistricts” or metropolitan areas in the United States with more than �,000 nanopublications in the �990-�006 timeframe, we explore the factors underlying the emergence of these metropolitan areas into this top class through exploratory cluster analysis. While most of the leading nanodistricts are similar to top cities in previous rounds of emerging technologies, there is also the surfacing of new geographic concentrations of nanotechnology research. We suggest concentrated investments in nanotechnology R&D into a single institution can elevate the profile of a region that has lacked previous technological prominence.

• Innovation Networks in Nanotechnology: A Framework. Mercy Escalante Ludeña, Adalberto Fischman, José de J Pérez A, and Ary Plonski, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil

Examine the partial results of an ongoing research about the proposal of a framework for analyzing the status of innovation networks in nanotechnology in terms of its strong and weak points. We want to close that gap somehow, within the framework of a systemic, dynamic, flexible and transparent approach. The proposal values the existing contributions, from which new elements have been added. The framework was applied in the nano-biotechnology network in Brazil. Based on this study, we obtained a picture of its strong and weak points. The method was bibliographic, documental, and exploratory, and it is also a case study.

• A.Q. Khan........ Probing Models to Address the Potential International Security Threats of Nanotechnology. Margaret E. Kosal, Georgia Institute of Technology

The scientific pursuit of the minutely small–nanotechnology–is thriving in academia and in the private sector. To date, three broad topics have dominated discussion regarding nanotechnology risk: health and environmental consequences, privacy and legal implications, and uncontrolled self-replication and artificial intelligence. Security implications, both for traditional nonproliferation regimes and for potential misuse by nonstate actors, have not received commensurate attention. Recognizing and developing technically robust analyses of the potential for malfeasant use or co-option of this emerging technology is an unexplored, cutting-edge research area for international security at the ��st century. Alternatively, the future may grapple with a nanotechnology A.Q. Khan.

2.3 Innovation Indicators, Room 330 Chair: John Walsh, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy• Innovation Indicators and Policy: Some Reflections on Limitations and Potentialities of Innovation

Surveys. Eduardo Viotti, University of Brasilia, and Regina Gusmao, Center for Strategic Management and Studies–CGEE, Ministry of Science and Technology, Brazil

One of the reasons for the poor ability of surveys of innovation to contribute for innovation policies resides on the way they are carried out. We argue that ability could be significantly enhanced by the introduction of some improvements in their methodology. Better definitions of the different scopes of innovation (“innovation for the enterprise” and “innovation for the market”), for instance, could be helpful in differentiating simple technology diffusion from innovation strict sense. The confusion of these two different phenomena could lead to wrong interpretations about the nature and dynamics of the technical change process taking place and, consequently, to improper policy propositions.

Conference Agenda, Friday, Oct. �9

�

6

• Challenges and Opportunities in Accessing Business Microdata to Study Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Stephanie Shipp, Stephen Campbell, and Robert Sienkiewicz, Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Julia Lane and Timothy Mulcahy, University of Chicago

The Advanced Technology Program has collected longitudinal data on the innovation process since �99�, which provide a unique source to study the technology innovation process and entrepreneurship. ATP funded the development of a Data Enclave at NORC/University of Chicago to provide external researchers with secured remote access to ATP data. NORC’s activities include archiving, curating, and indexing the data, providing researchers with remote and onsite secure access to ATP data and statistically protecting confidential information. NORC has an extensive education program and collaboratory approach to build a community of users.

• Effects of Public Policies on Firm Strategies for Innovation: Evidence from Thailand R&D/Innovation Surveys. Anupit Supnithadnaporn, Georgia Institute of Technology.

As a latecomer country, Thailand National Innovation System, or NIS, has been characterized as weak, fragmented, and slow in learning. Recently, policies and practices have been initiated under the Thaksin Administration. However, it is unclear whether firms have reacted to this significant shift of public policies. For this reason, this study investigates the changes in firm strategies for innovation in response to this new set of public policies. Using data from the Thailand R&D and Innovation Survey in �000 and �00�, the study focuses on the knowledge enhancing activities and strategies, including research and development, innovation other than R&D, and human resource development.

2.4 National Systems: Concepts, Room 331 Chair: M. Zachary Taylor, Georgia Institute of Technology, Sam Nunn School of International Affairs• Challenges of Globalization: Strategic Choices for Systems of Innovation. Susana Borrás, Copenhagen

Business School, Denmark, and Cristina Chaminade and Charles Edquist, Lund University, Sweden Examine a set of challenges that the process of globalization has been posing to systems of innovation in

industrialized and developing countries, past and present. Then, approach the problem about strategic choices for systems of innovation and reviews succinctly the policy-related literature in the field, pointing at the missing elements and uncovered issues. Delve into the issue of uncertainty and selectivity. Finally, deal with systemic problems under the globalization context and addresses the critical issue of designing a method to help public actors spelling out objectives and instruments unfolding their specific strategic choices for systems of innovation.

• Assessing the Knowledge Dynamics of New Innovation Strategies. Philip Shapira, Jan Youtie, and Andrea Fernandez-Ribas, Georgia Institute of Technology

This paper seeks to enhance the base of information and analysis to understand the dynamics of knowledge development, including knowledge linkages and spillovers, and relationships with new innovation strategies. We assess inter-sectoral knowledge cooperation. We also model relationships between patterns of knowledge flows and varied types of innovation outcomes. The data source for this analysis is the �007 Malaysian Knowledge Content Survey administered by the Malaysian Department of Statistics to manufacturing and service establishments in �0 private sector industries. The paper supplements analyses that look at aggregate knowledge content within sectors by exploring sectoral knowledge networks, spillovers across sectors, and the balance of knowledge inputs and outputs.


�

7

• Co-Evolution of Science and Technology and Innovation: a Three-Stage Model of Policies Based on the Mexican Case. Gabriela Dutrénit, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, Mexico, and Martín Puchet Anyul, Luis Sanz-Menendez, Morris Teubal, and Alexandre O. Vera-Cruz

Although the co-evolution of S&T and Innovation is crucial for developing countries, it has been limited by: conditions for generating variation, selection and retention, VSR, processes in both arenas are still incipient, and even though there are links between the agents and functioning structures, they hardly generate bidirectional causal mechanisms. Drawing on the Systems-Evolutionary Perspective, and based on a comprehensive assessment of the Mexican STI policy �000-�006, this paper discusses the failures to build virtuous co-evolutionary processes of S&T and Innovation and suggests a three-phase STI policy design to strengthen the VSR processes and the bidirectional causal mechanisms that contribute to such co-evolutive processes.

2.5 Regions and the Innovation Process, Room 334 Chair: James Dietz, National Science Foundation• Exploring R&D Evolution in the Forestry Industry: The Cases of Chile and Finland.

Pablo Catalán, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Carlos Moreno Falcón, Universidad de Concepcion, Chile Natural resources-based economies follow diverging paths either by consolidating their raw-material

industries by improving technological competitiveness or by falling in wasteful rent-seeking processes leading to stagnant situations. Explore the R&D evolution in the forestry industry by focusing on Chile’s and Finland’s cases. By setting two datasets of 7,7�� (Finland) and �,�07 (Chile) forestry publications covering the �970-�006 period, analyze the trends followed by each R&D community regarding timing, institution, autor, and research areas patterns. Collaboration and multidisciplinarity are distinctive features of Finland’s R&D Forestry system, applied at a smaller scale by Chile’s.

• Central-Eastern Regions of Colombia in a Transformed World: Opportunities for Foreign Scientists and Engineers. Juan Pablo Isaza, University of Tolima, Colombia

Focus on the question of how R&D outcomes, especially the lack thereof, have been related to regional economic events and to science and technology policy shortages in central eastern and western regions of Colombia. There is evidence that, in Colombia, the market-friendly policy shift has been systematically associated with an abrupt and important deterioration in R&D allocation, and GDP investment in science and technology awareness. Analyze how four central research regions have been able to take advantage of it, and central-eastern and western regions are far behind in comparison to their peers when R&D indicators are shown in overall annual reports.

• Improving the Research Capacity of EPSCoR States: Research Collaboration and Outcomes in the National Science Foundation EPSCoR program. Julia Melkers, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Yonghong Wu, University of Illinois at Chicago

Examine the research capacity and collaborative patterns among scientists in EPSCoR states. This paper investigates whether there is significant and positive impact of EPSCoR on research capacity and competitiveness of individual EPSCoR participants; how scientific collaborations and productivity differ between EPSCoR and non-EPSCoR states. We hypothesize that the participation in EPSCoR program helps to enhance the participants’ research capacity and competitiveness. Using data drawn from a �007 survey of academic scientists and engineers in Research I universities, we develop an empirical model to regress the measures of individual research capacity or competitiveness on a number of explanatory factors deemed relevant.


6

�

2.6 Global Collaboration, Room 328 Chair: Bhavya Lal, Science and Technology Policy Institute• Embodied Technology Diffusion: An International Perspective.

Bernhard Dachs, Austrian Research Centers, and Brian Wixted, Simon Fraser University, Canada Examine the diffusion of technology embodied in imports of investment and intermediate goods. Our

analysis is based on the idea that interdependencies of industries between countries originating from supplier-userrelationships can be traced with input-output data. Flows of technology are constructed by weighting cross-border trade flows with sectoral R&D data. Our results show acquired technology has a considerable higher importance than R&D efforts for the technological competences a number of sectors, in particular in services. This is not adequately reflected in science and technology policies, which focus on R&D and the generation of knowledge rather than its diffusion and adaptation.

• Return Migration and the Internationalization of China’s Plant Molecular Biological Research System. Koen Jonkers, European University Institute

This study aims to contribute to the debate on the relationship between scientific mobility and international collaboration by exploring the effect of social scientific capital. The sample used consists of returned Chinese plant molecular life scientists working in elite research organizations. A correlation analysis of mobility history and international (co-) publication data, shows the relationships between levels of international collaboration of returned researchers. The outcomes suggest that while host countries may loose human capital when Chinese scientists return home they may also gain in terms of scientific linkages with China.

• From Growth in Services to an Emerging Manufacturing Industry: Dynamics of the Growth of the Indian Telecommunications Industry, 1991- 2006. Sunil Mani, Center for Development Studies, India

There is a spectacular growth of telecommunications in India. An important facet has been the phenomenal increase in the number of telephones in the country. Such a huge growth in telecom services have spillover effects for rest of the economy, One of the more important effects is its potential to create a major manufacturing hub in the country for the manufacture of telecom equipments and indeed for downstream industries such as semiconductor devices that are required for the manufacture of these equipments. The Indian telecom industry is thus a fine example of the service sector acting as a fillip to the growth of the manufacturing sector.

Noon-1:30 p.m. Session 3: Luncheon Plenary, Georgia Tech Hotel Salon III State of the Field: China and India Chair: Philippe Larédo, Manchester Business School and ENPC China: Xue Lan, Tsinghua University, Beijing India: Venni Venkata Krishna, Jawharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Ticket required for lunch. Free seating will be provided for the talks.

1:45-3:15 p.m. Session 4: Parallel Contributed Paper Sessions4.1 Basic Concepts II, Room 323 Chair: Kaye Husbands Fealing, National Science Foundation• Gaps in Knowledge in the Science of Science and Innovation Policy: Suggested Fundamental Questions.

Gretchen Jordan, Sandia National Laboratories, and Jerald Hage and Jonathan Mote, University of Maryland An important element of the National Science Foundation’s “Science of Science and Innovation Policy” initiative


7

9

is the development of theoretical and conceptual models. We develop a framework that provides a broad understanding of the knowledge production and innovation system at micro, meso, and macro levels, drawing on social science and innovation theories from multiple disciplines, as well as the tools of theory construction and logic models. We then offer �� key questions that are fundamental knowledge gaps in a science of science and innovation policy, just as physicists have done for fundamental questions about the universe.

• Ignoring Our Knowledge: Reviving the Role of “Social Knowledge” as a Blind Spot in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy and Practice. Ali Maleki, SPRU University of Sussex

Focus on the ignored but important and critical role of “social knowledge” in the academic literature of science, technology, and innovation policy studies, as well as in the practical works of policy spheres and consultancy activities. Using an analogy between “natural” and “social” knowledge to clarify the concepts of “science”, “technology”, “innovation”, “scientific knowledge”, and “technological knowledge,” aimed at differentiating between the “natural” and “social” kinds of knowledge. I present an analytical framework exploring the different and complementary role of social knowledge in comparison with natural knowledge. Empirical evidence of some developed and developing countries shows a changing perspective toward higher role and position for social knowledge in these countries.

• Should Innovation Policy Be Innovative? Guy Ben-Ari Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., and Nicholas S. Vonortas, George Washington University

Examine whether innovation policy should itself be innovative, based on the premise that in today’s global economy, where continuous innovation is a core requirement for economic success, an innovative private sector depends heavily on innovative public policy. However, innovation has traditionally not been a strong point of public organizations. Four examples of innovative innovation policies will be described to study this issue: the United States and innovation in defense technologies, Israel and risk-financing for knowledge-based enterprises, the Netherlands and knowledge transfer to small companies, and Denmark’s program on user-driven innovation.

4.2 Emerging Technologies: Nanotechnology II, Room 324 Chair: Jan Schmidt, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy• Networks of Research Collaboration in China: Evidence from Nanotechnology Publication Activities,

1990-2006. Li Tang, Georgia Institute of Technology The last two decades have witnessed China’s dramatic growth in nanotechnology research. Although recent

studies have consistently shown that China is becoming a leading nation in terms of its share of world’s publication, some key questions are unanswered. Using a unique nano-related publication dataset, this paper combines bibliometrics analysis to visualize the “invisible college” of China’s nano field and profile research collaboration pattern across national borders. Statistical tests are also applied to examine the impact of international collaboration on the research quality of China’s nano research.

• Nanotechnology in China: Research, Development, and Commercialization. Jue Wang, Georgia Institute of Technology

China has emerged as a global leader in nanotechnology and now ranks second (after the United States) in the total number of scientific publications produced annually. Yet, Chinese performance in nanotechnology patenting and product development is weak relative to its research strength, suggesting that a significant gap exists between the research base and industrial development. Drawing on bibliometric research and field


�

�0

interviews with Chinese nanotechnology policymakers, researchers, and business representatives, we analyze this gap and explore the policy, institutional, economic, social and cultural factors contributing to it. We also examine current discussion and action about the challenges of nanotechnology commercialization in China and assess future commercialization trajectories.

• The Emergence of Novel Science-Related Fields: Regional or Technological Patterns? Exploration and Exploitation in U.K. Nanotechnology. Martin Meyer, SPRU, University of Sussex, and Dirk Libaers, Georgia Institute of Technology

This study draws on a multimethod approach to explore the emergence of nanotechnology in the U.K. We analyzed bibliometric, patent, and firm-level data. Bibliometric analysis of British publications in nanoscience pointed to co-publication activity between British universities and mostly multinational companies. Key players were identified, including the London-based institutions, Cambridge and Oxford as well as a number of other universities in the regions. Our results indicate local patterns of collaboration and exchange seem to prevail over technological. While one can track beginnings of an ‘agglomeration’ of nanotech firms around major centers of U.K. science activities, it would be far too early to speak of emerging nanotech clusters.

4.3 Issues in Innovation Policy, Room 330 Chair: Robert Knotts, Georgia Institute of Technology, Office of Federal Relations• Competing on Standards? Entrepreneurship, Intellectual Property, and the Platform Paradox.

Stuart Graham, Georgia Institute of Technology and Universrity of California-Berkeley; Timothy Simcoe, University of Toronto, and Maryann Feldman, University of Georgia

Examine the strategic choices of entrepreneurial firms that contribute innovation to technology platforms in standard setting organizations, or SSOs. While firms joining SSOs commit to openly disclosing their intellectual property, smaller entrepreneurial firms, lacking complementary assets, are relatively disadvantaged in competing in downsteam product markets, and thus have incentives to aggressively enforce their intellectual property rights on proprietary technologies. Using data on patents disclosed at �� SSOs over a ��-year period, this paper examines the enforcement (litigation) by firms of their disclosed patents as well as firm-level trends in disclosure.

• Towards the Framing of Venture Capital Policies. Morris Teubal, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Gil Avnimelech, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheba, Israel, and Alessandro Rosiello, University of Edinburgh

Focus on the co-evolution of venture capital and high-tech sectors. We contend policy measures can play a catalytic role and argue that systems evolutionary perspectives can be used for analyzing the ‘positive’ side of the real world as well defining ‘normative’ principles. A central ‘normative’ point concerns the need to create a strategic level of policy, with a view of identifying and gradually specifying a set of strategic priorities for science & technology, higher education and innovation. The paper discusses a set of systems evolutionary principles. These principles are then examined in relation to the framing of policies in the context of the Great Britian/Scotland and Israel.

• Selecting Technological Paradigms: Beyond Push-Pull Dynamics. The Case of the Artificial Disc. David Barberá and E. de los Reyes, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain

Giovanni Dosi’s technological paradigm theory was developed in part to correct the then dominant practice to focus on either “demand-pull” or “technology push” when explaining technical change. In Dosi’s view, demand can act as a ‘focusing device’ for the supply side to select among the available technological


9

��

paradigms for development. We study a specific case, the technological evolution of a surgical implant (an artificial disc in the spinal column), to analyse this selection dynamics. We conclude Dosi’s theory can be extended by adding some technological signals interacting with demand forces in this premarket selection process, which helps to explain the historical supply side choices in the evolution of the artificial disc.

4.4 National Systems: Asia, Room 331 Chair: Caroline Wagner, George Washington University and SRI• Governance Made in Asia: Technology, Development and Security in Emerging Economies.

Virginia Watson, Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, Honolulu This paper argues national technological choices framed in diverse and new approaches to development

produce distinct patterns and structures of relationships defining national innovation systems. Transition Asian economies face the dual challenge of overcoming enormous socio-economic problems while trying to catch up with more advanced economies. Technology and innovation challenges require a combination of needs-based and strategic responses. The diversity of these responses across the region, an Asian style of regional integration, globalization, and the increasing significance of comprehensive transnational security issues are analytic determinants that inform the development and institutionalization of regional governance structures and emerging technologies.

• An Assessment of China’s Evolving Science and Technology Policy and Administration. Deh-I Hsiung, National Science Foundation; Darrell Meadows, Kentucky Historical Society; and George Guttman, Government Accountability Office

Efforts by the Chinese government to reform its science and technology sector during the last �� years have resulted in a major realignment of its research priorities and how its research institutes operate. Numerous tax and financial incentives have been provided for private sector investments in S&T. Both are means to strengthen and more closely tie S&T to the nation’s economic priorities. This paper examines the significant changes in China’s S&T management and funding policy, its increased investment and reform in higher education, and identifies the challenges that lie ahead as China continues to strengthen its S&T capabilities.

• Innovation Policies in Less Successful Developing Countries: A System of Innovation Approach. Patarapong Intarakumnerd, NSTDA, Thailand, and Cristina Chaminade and Charles Edquist, Lund University, Sweden

This paper analyses the innovation policy of Thailand. It presents the systemic problems of the Thai system of innovation and discusses the rationales for public policy intervention under the system of innovation approach, in the context of a less successful developing country and provides a modified framework to adequately discuss innovation policies in developing countries. We suggest that while IS has been officially adopted by several governments, the practice follows old innovation paradigms and hardly addresses systemic problems.

4.5 Changing Institutions, Room 334 Chair: Irwin Feller, American Association for the Advancement of Science• Universities, Innovation and Development Processes in the Changing Global Economy.

Rodrigo Arocena and Judith Sutz, Universidad de la República, Uruguay All over the world—including developing countries, universities are undergoing a process of remaking. The

importance of universities for development purposes is nowadays consensual; how to direct universities


�0

��

reforms to attain developmental goals remains, though, highly controversial. We focus on the ongoing debate about reforms in the public university in Uruguay. The idea of a developmental university is put forward, pointing to the notion of building a learning nation—a strategy for the south to avoid having the emergence of the knowledge society in the north fostering a new international division of labor that consolidates underdevelopment.

• Who is Complementing Public Funding of Academic Research? Different Sources with Different Strategies. Andrea Bonaccorsi and Cinzia Daraio, University of Pisa, Italy, and Aldo Geuna, SPRU University of Sussex, U.K.

We examine the sources of funding for research across all United Kingdom universities with an original and detailed dataset, disaggregated by disciplines. Using a novel methodology (conditional robust nonparametric efficiency analysis) we show a number of nonconventional effects of public funding (Research Council) and private funding (donations from foundations; contract research from industry).

• Assessing the Role of Public-Private Partnerships for Enhancing the Quality of Technical Education: A Case Study of an Indian Experiment. Debabrata Ghosh, Deepak Bhatnagar, Jancy A., Neeraj Saxena, and S.K. Muneshwar, Technology Information, Forecasting & Assessment Council, Department of Science & Technology, Government of India

This paper examines an experiment using a Public Private Partnership approach to address the problems of ‘relevance gap’ and ‘supply gap’ of higher technical education so that it can respond quickly and effectively to the rapidly changing technology and business environment. The impact of this program under way for about seven years is assessed in terms of resource generation, output (students, patents, etc.) and interest of stakeholders. The paper further looks at challenges of scaling up and sustainability of such approaches.

4.6 Networks and Knowledge Flows, Room 328 Chair: Mary Frank Fox, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy,• Mobility of Researchers and Knowledge Flows: Reflections on the Theoretical Foundations of Some Policy

Inconsistencies. Carolina Cañibano, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Spain This paper digs into the economic theoretical foundations of the policy discourse related to the mobility

of researchers, particularly in the context of European research policy. It arises from the author’s concern for a possible lack of coherence in the said discourse. The exploration of theoretical foundations leads us to contrast the implications of the underlying assumptions of both the neoclassical and the evolutionary economic frameworks for the analysis of researchers’ mobility. The paper argues how the analytical and explanatory potential that can be drawn from recent evolutionary developments greatly exceeds that of neoclassical human capital theory.

• Effects of Network Participation and Access on Career Outcomes for Women Scientists: A National Social Network Analysis. Julia Melkers, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Eric Welch, University of Illinois at Chicago

This paper moves beyond earlier work by examining the extent to which the barriers that women academics face are attributable to structural aspects of the individual’s networks and to the individual’s position in the network. It addresses the gaps in the literature by comparing and contrasting network size and production of men and women in five fields of science. We briefly assess gender differences in formal collaborative networks, informal advice networks, and across a variety of different measures of productivity.


��

��

• Network Effects on the Ethnic Compositions of Science and Engineering Research Laboratories in the United States. Zeynep Esra Tanyildiz, Georgia State University

This study aims at understanding the relation between foreign student networks and the ethnic composition of science and engineering research laboratories at U.S universities. We hypothesize the percentage of foreign students from a country of origin is higher in research labs that are directed by a faculty member who is from that country of origin, compared to research labs where such an association does not exist. We conduct a Web search of science and engineering laboratory Web pages, and select a random sample of research labs to analyze. We find a strong relationship between the origin of the lab directors and the composition of their labs.

3:30-5 p.m. Session 5: Parallel Contributed Paper Session5.1 Creative Environments I, Room 323 Chair: Cheryl Leggon, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy• Networks, Organizations, and Innovation: A General Theory and Research Program.

Jonathon Mote and Jerry Hage, University of Maryland, and Gretchen Jordan Sandia National Laboratories We begin to develop a general theory and research program for conceptualizing the interaction between

networks and organizational design as it relates to the process of innovation. First, we frame the issue with a discussion of the literature on the interrelationship between networks and organizations. Second, we develop a tentative framework for assessing the fit between network and task with regard to innovation. Third, we discuss the research profiles framework to characterize the alignment of organizational structure with the type of innovation pursued. We suggest further work needed in developing and operationalizing propositions for research.

• Science and Technology Policy and the Role of R&D Laboratories in Innovation Networks: A Comparison Between Canada and Mexico. Claudia Díaz-Pérez and Ricardo Arechavala-Vargas, Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico

The purpose of this study is to analyze those institutional arrangements that support the development of knowledge and innovation networks, particularly those that surround industrial R&D laboratories. In Mexico, these processes are beginning to develop, mostly through trial and error, without a consistent strategy and a long-range policy at the federal level, although regional level policies are beginning to emerge. The empirical evidence shows that regional initiatives tend to be more effective than federal level policies. Implications for further research and for policy design and implementation are discussed, along the aforementioned axes: the role of R&D labs, policy implementation and evaluation mechanisms, institutional arrangements and relevant economic environment variables.

• Research Creativity. An Exploration of Path-Breaking Science. Thomas Heinze, University of Twente, Netherlands; Philip Shapira and Juan Rogers, Georgia Institute of Technology; and Jacqueline Senker, SPRU, University of Sussex, Great Britain

This paper synthesizes key results from an international research project that examined organizational and institutional aspects of creative scientific research. A typology and methodology is presented for identifying creative scientific research accomplishments, combining expert nominations and scientific prize awards. Using this method, a set of highly-creative researchers is identified in two fields of science (in nanoscience, nanotechnology, and human genetics) in Europe and the United States. The paper reports on case studies of �0 of these highly creative research accomplishments, focusing on findings at the research group, organizational, and institutional levels. Implications for research management policy are considered.


��

��

5.2 Emerging Technologies: Biotechnologies, Room 324 Chair: Aaron Levine, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy• Emerging Technologies, Emerging Societal Responses: Varied Responses to Genetically Modified Maize

in Mexico. Ricardo Arechavala-Vargas, Claudia Díaz-Pérez, and Juan Pablo Huerta-Ruvalcaba, Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico

This paper assesses the outlook corn producers have about the eventual use of genetically modified seed on their farms, on the basis of a project that aims to characterize agricultural production units in different regions of the country. Fieldwork was done through semistructured interviews in which farmers’ opinions and economic data were gathered. Interviews with producer associations’ representatives associations were also conducted, for a total of �� cases. Results point toward sharply stratified patterns of knowledge and opinion about GMOs that follow social and economic differences that are deepening.

• Intention Vis-a-Vis Outcome: The Role of Policy in Fostering Learning and Innovation in the South African Biopharmaceutical Sector. Marion Motari, United Nations University/MERIT

This paper focuses on learning and innovation capacity development in the South African biopharmaceutical sector, by examining the centrality of innovation as a source of competitiveness and conceptualizes the innovation process as the application of biomedical knowledge in the production of biopharmaceuticals, thus linking learning to innovation. The paper applies systemic, interactive, and evolutionary approaches and uses firm survey data to understand how and why learning and innovation take place in the South African biopharmaceutical sector. The paper identifies the main drivers of learning and innovation in this sector as market demand and the response by firms to new technological opportunities.

• Issues of Intellectual and Cultural Property Rights in Bio-Diversity Management and Protecting Indigenous Innovation: Case Study of Tribes in Bastar. R. N. Pati and Alekh Padhiary, IK Foundation of India

Our paper is based on anthropological study of indigenous knowledge system of ethno-medicinal practices prevalent among Halba and Raj Gond tribal communities living in �� forest-based mountain villages of Antagarh Block in Kanker district, Bastar region of Chhattisgarh. The authors administered individual focus group discussions with Lineage elders, herbalists, herbal plant merchants, expecting mothers, TBAs, and Shamans.

5.3 Small Firms and Innovation Systems, Room 330 Chair: Maurizio Iacopetta, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Economics• Impact of S&T Policies on SME Innovation: The Turkish Case.

Elif Bascavusoglu-Moreau, The Open University, Great Britain This paper explores the determinants of innovative capabilities in Turkish SMEs, with a particular emphasis on

the impact of recent changes in science and technology policy. Two analyses are conducted to evaluate both the decision to innovate and the propensity to innovate, using a unique firm-level survey realized among �0.000 SMEs. Our results suggest S&T policies did not manage to address the whole issues that are preventing Turkish SMEs to achieve a higher innovative capabilities and growth.

• Innovation and Firm Growth: The Pharmaceutical Industry. Pelin Demirel and Mariana Mazzucato, The Open University, Great Britain

This paper looks into the stylized facts underlying firm level innovation and how innovation dynamics interact with the firm growth dynamics in pharmaceutical industry. Our findings reveal innovation is a determinant of


��

��

firm growth but the type of firm (small-large, innovative-noninnovative) determines whether this relationship exists and whether it is a positive or negative relationship. We also find environmental conditions tend to affect the innovation-firm growth relationship because innovation affects growth differently under different periods that reflect different stages of the industry lifecycle. The results shed light on the structure and the division of labor in this industry.

5.4 Meet the Editors, Room 331 • Venni Venkata Krishna, Science, Technology, and Society • Susan Cozzens, Research Evaluation • Bill Page, Beech Tree Publishers

5.5 No session

5.6 Career Pathways, Room 328 Chair: Paula Stephan, Georgia State University• Social Networks and Cognitive Determinants of Academic Entrepreneurship in Science and Engineering

Fields. Megan Haller and Eric Welch, University of Illinois at Chicago To what extent does academic entrepreneurship determine outcomes such as proposal development and

funding? This paper presents a model of academic entrepreneurship that synthesizes the extant literature on social network and social cognitive determinants of entrepreneurial behavior and empirically tests this model using a recently completed, National Science Foundation sponsored online survey of nearly �,000 men and women doctorates in six fields of science and engineering. Egocentric network structures and social cognitive characteristics of university scientists are analyzed. Findings help characterize academic entrepreneurship and clarify the effect of social networks and cognitive biases on entrepreneurial outcomes in academia.

• Tenure, Mobility and Research Production along Individual Careers in Science and Academia. Laura Cruz-Castro and Luis Sanz-Menéndez. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Spain

The paper approaches some dynamics of research careers by analyzing the relationship among tenure, mobility, and scientific production. We answer whether there are differences in the publications profile along individual careers before and after getting a tenure position at universities and public research centers. Additionally, to test the links between institutional inbreeding and scientific production, we analyze the relationship between openness of recruitment dynamics within organizations and the publications’ profile of researchers before and after the tenure, paying attention to singular patterns in particular disciplines, and conducting specific tests to analyze differences by gender.

• The Evolutions of Scientist’s Collaboration Networks: Differences in Gender, Rank, and Field. Benoy Jacob, Branco Ponomariov, and Eric Welch, University of Illinois at Chicago

This paper assesses the changes in the size and composition of scientists’ collaborations as a function of their career stage and circumstances. We hypothesize at different career stages, scientists face different constraints and thus, employ different strategies for scientific production. These differences are reflected in the size and stability of their collaborative networks. For example, while early in their careers, scientists may seek as many collaborations as possible, later on (e.g. after they achieve tenure), they may shift their strategies toward collaborating with smaller and more stable set of collaborators. These hypotheses are tested using a unique panel data set of scientists at Research I universities in three scholarly fields over time.


��

�6

5-6:30 p.m. Session 6: Poster Session and Reception, Atrium• Exploring Collaborative Research Networks: The Added Value of Affiliation with a University-Based

Research Center. Özgü Akçakır. University of Illinois at Chicago This study’s purpose is to understand the added value of affiliation with a university-based research center.

Specifically, this research addresses the formation and evolution of collaborative relationships among researchers, and resulting research outcomes. Data are drawn from a multiyear evaluation of the Mid-America Earthquake Center, a National Science Foundation-funded Engineering Research Center.

• Institutional Environments and Agro-Biotechnology Capabilities in Costa Rica, New Zealand, and Uruguay. Isabel Bortagaray, Georgia Institute of Technology

This paper focuses on the role of the institutional environment on the building of agro-biotechnological capabilities in small countries. The institutional environment is analyzed through the web of related organizations, institutions, and policies while technological capabilities are characterized by the set of existing and gained abilities both at the firm and/or sectoral levels, which require a wide range of skills, processes, and resources for their enhancement and development, along a scale of increasingly complex tasks (productive and associational) demanding different orders of involvement, commitment, appropriation and mastering throughout various dimensions that are considered relevant for agro-biotechnology.

• Nano Research Profiling On Demand. Stephen Carley and Alan L. Porter, Georgia Institute of Technology The Georgia Tech Nano Group has compiled a substantial dataset of “nano” (nanoscience and

nanotechnology) research publication and patent abstract records spanning global R&D activity for �990-�006 (part year). We have scripted programs to search and retrieve records semi-automatically on topics of interest. This is particularly helpful for the million-plus publication records, enabling us to profile R&D activity quickly to address policy questions posed. We illustrate for the Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area.

• The Need and Relevance for Additionality in Emerging Economies: The Case for Turkey. Abdullah Gok. The University of Manchester, Great Britain

The focus of this study is additionality—the change in the innovative company’s innovation inputs, outputs, and persistent behaviors that is exclusively attributable to public support, without which the change in these factors would not occur. By analyzing quantitative data, the study investigates input, output, and behavioral additionality of Turkish R&D support program. Carrying this case further, the research derives policy lessons for emerging economies.

• Investigation of Emerging Technology’s Characteristics on the National Level through Quantitative Study of Diffusion: The Case of Fuel Cell Technology. Jong Seok Kang, Hyuck Jai Lee, and Young Ho Moon, Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information, South Korea

In this study, fuel cell technologies were regarded as model case of “emerging technology” and their diffusion co-efficient were calculated through simple mathematical approaches in which various factors representing characteristics of “emerging technology” were simplified as the preferential adoption parameter (k) of technology. By using bibliometric information like Web of Science (�9�7-�00�) and Derwent World Patent Index (�960~�00�), we investigated the shape and rate of diffusion coefficient of five types of fuel cell technologies as SPFC, DMFC, PAFC, SOFC, and MCFC on the national level, respectively. This result will give a help for understanding the characteristics of emerging technologies.


��

�7

• Constellations of Mentors for Women in STEM Careers. Agrita Kiopa and Mona Noriega. University of Illinois at Chicago

This research examines the different mentoring exchanges that occur between a primary mentor and mentee and the constellation of mentors for women and men in STEM careers. Psycho-social and tangible/resource exchanges are examined and linked to career-related stress, productivity, and satisfaction. Data for this research are drawn from a large national study of women and men academic scientists in research intensive universities in the United States (NETWISE �007) representing six STEM fields.

• Scientific Mobility and the Internationalization of China’s Life Science Research System. Koen Jonkers, European University Institute, Italy

This poster explores to which extent three factors can help explain observed differences in the average preference of Chinese authors to co-publish with different partner countries. The factors under consideration include geographical proximity, productivity/visibility of the partner systems, and the relative size of the contribution of the overseas Chinese communities in the partner countries. The analysis presented is limited to biophysics, cell biology, and the plant molecular life sciences.

• Explaining the Effects of New STI Rationales on Our Understanding of Foresight. Ebrahim Souzanchi Kashani, Sharif University of Technology, Iran

Foresight is becoming popular as a policy tool for its claim about the ability to shape and construct the future. Tools as human constructs, in a realistic view, have many potential capacities to change incrementally and respond to new needs. Therefore, the capability of foresight as a powerful policy tool to respond to the new needs as a result of new STI policy rationales will be discussed. I argue it could respond to the most of these new needs that should be considered in designing foresight projects.

• Public Preferences for Science Occupations in the U.S. The Influence of Public Perception of Scientists and Science. Hyung Hoon Kim, Georgia Institute of Technology

This study addresses what factors influence Americans’ preferences for science occupations by analyzing the NSF-sponsored Survey of Public Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology in �00�. People’s positive perception of scientists and science tend to strengthen the preference. Females are more likely than males to be sensitive to the danger of scientific work. People who choose biology as their field are more likely to value the occupations than those with other fields. Negative influences of being scientists and engineers with advanced degrees on the preference remains to be seen.

• Business Models Trajectories in National Innovation Systems: Origins and Motives of Indigenous Innovation in China and India. Xinxin Kong and Joel Ruet, National Research Center for S&T for Development, China

We focus on the trajectories of both Chinese and Indian industries toward to indigenous innovation to understand how different industrial evolutionary paths and national specialization form, based on different economic structure and institutional set up, even with same governmental targets at the initial stage. We detail how the firms’ strategies evolve to adapt to the market dynamics and try to answer where and under what kind of situations or environments innovation could origin, who are the main innovation players and facilitators, what are innovation motives, and innovation performances.


�6

��


• Science and Technology Advice in Public Policy and Decision-Making Process. Mwananyanda Mbikusita Lewanika, National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research, Lusaka, Zambia

Strategies and mechanisms for providing science and technology advice must be differentiated from the work of participants in the making decisions and implementing decisions such as presidents, ministers and public-service employees. However, these strategies and mechanisms must allow for automatic and ready access to persons in authority who need to benefit from the advice. In addition, these strategies and mechanisms must ensure science advisers work independently, free from prejudice and unfettered by financial interests or monetary rewards.

• The Duality of Innovation: Implications for the Role of the University in Industrial Upgrading and Economic Development. Carlos Martinez-Vela, MIT Industrial Performance Center

The paper examines the role of local universities in the industrial upgrading of two sectors within two local innovation systems: the machinery industry cluster in Tampere, Finland, and the NASCAR motor sports industry around Charlotte, N.C. My doctoral research took place in the context of the Local Innovation Systems Project, an international research partnership based at the MIT Industrial Performance Center.

• Issues on Inventions, Research and Development Outcomes and Patent Generation in Nigerian Universities. W.O. Siyanbola, A.D. Dada, and A.A. Oyewale, Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria

The Nigerian Universities Research and Development Fair was instituted to enable universities showcase their inventions. Surveys of the first two fairs showed radical and incremental product and/or process industrial, agro and information, and communications technologies were displayed. About �7 percent of the inventions had been commercialized. Inadequate publicity and nonpatenting among others were blamed for the noncommercialization of other inventions. Furthermore, most inventions could only satisfy local needs. The study concluded there was inadequate knowledge about patent matters in Nigerian universities and recommends the establishment of institutional framework to promote generation and patenting of the inventions.

• The Impact of ICT on Chinese Women’s Performance in Science. Yu Meng, Georgia Institute of Technology I evaluate the impact of ICT on Chinese women’s performance in science from two aspects: �) resource

acquisition—it is expected to find ICT broadens the access to funding information, research related knowledge, and social capital resource, which would help women improve their performance; �) evaluation system—as ICT brings more standardized criteria for scientific productivity evaluation (e.g. publication), evidence is expected to be seen on both improving and deteriorating women’s performance in science.

• Non Co-Operative Games in Science Policy. Walter Valdivia, Arizona State University This paper models the problem of delegation in science policy using game theory. The principal-agent

contracts known as ‘blind delegation’ and ‘delegation by incentives’ are modeled as non co-operative games. Under standard functional forms for the utility functions of the funding agency and the research grantees, an incentive compatible contract is specified such that the outcome of entering the contract is Pareto optimal.

• Technology to Policy (T2P): A Method for Assessing Policy Impacts of Emerging Technologies. Marlit Hayslett, Georgia Tech Research Institute

The Technology to Policy research project is developing a method for forecasting public policy implications of an emerging technology. Phase � focused on development of the T�P framework. Conclusions were derived from in-depth analysis of physical and behavioral properties of the emerging technology in comparison with existing technologies. Phase � “tested” the T�P Framework on existing (vs. emerging) technologies such as the computer, telephone, and airplane to see if the framework performs as intended and delivers known public policy outcomes. In Phase �, activities center on synthesizing findings to move the framework to the next level.

�7

�9

Saturday, Oct. 208:30-10 a.m. Session 7 Keynote Addresses: Emerging Concepts of Innovation, Room 236

Chair: Susan Cozzens, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy

Sheila Jasanoff, Harvard University, “Imagining the New: Barriers and Opportunities”

Luc Soete, UNU-MERIT, University of Maastricht, “Science, Technology and

Development: Emerging concepts and visions”

10:15-11:45 a.m. Session 8: Parallel Contributed Paper Sessions

8.1 Clusters, Room 323

Chair: Judith Sutz, Universidad de la Replublica, Uruguay

• Serial Innovator Firms, Industrial Clusters, and Export Performance: An Organizational Ecology Approach.

Dirk Libares, Georgia Institute of Technology This paper provides empirical evidence indicating serial innovator firms are more likely to be located in a

technology cluster than their peers of similar size operating in the same industry. Furthermore, using the theory of organizational ecology, I demonstrate technology clusters serve as mechanisms that facilitate the internationalization efforts of serial innovator firms. Finally, serial innovator firms benefit proportionately more from industrial clustering than a peer firm of similar size operating in the same industry, once again illustrating that all small technology-based firms (after controlling for size and industry) are not alike.

• Innovation Modes and the Economic Performance of European Firms. Anthony Arundel, Hugo Hollanders, and Can Huang, United Nations University-MERIT, The Netherlands

We use the results of the third European Community Innovation Survey for �� countries to identify different groups of firms by how they innovate. We explore the relationships between how firms innovate (or innovation modes) and different performance measures. The approach builds on the seminal work by Pavitt on differences in how firms innovate across sectors, but provides results at the firm level rather than the sector level. We then determine the economic performance of each innovation mode, after controlling for industry sector characteristics.

• Upgrading through Innovation in a Small Network Economy: Insights from Taiwan’s IT industry. Dieter Ernst, East-West Center, Honolulu

Using illustrative examples from Taiwan’s IT industry, this paper explores how internationalization of R&D affects government policies for developing knowledge economies. Taiwan’s success in the IT industry demonstrates the important role played by knowledge diffusion through integration into global production and informal global knowledge networks. I emphasize unique features of Taiwan’s network integration. “Industrial upgrading” links specialization with firm-level and industry-level upgrading and high integration into global networks. This concept is used to discuss specific innovative capabilities needed to upgrade Taiwan’s IT industry. I argue “technology leadership strategies” are not the only option. “Technology diversification” can serve as a complementary and arguably less costly option.

8.2 No session

Conference Agenda, Saturday, Oct. �0

��

�0


8.3 University Patents, Room 330

Chair: Mary Ellen Mogee, SRI

• The Knowledge Production Function for University Patenting. Paula Stephan, Georgia State University; Grant

Black, Indiana University-South Bend; and Shiferaw Gurmu, Georgia State University We estimate a knowledge production function for university patenting using an individual effects negative

binomial model. We control for R&D expenditures, research field, and the presence of a TTO office. We distinguish three kinds of researchers who staff labs: faculty, postdoctoral students, and Ph.D. students. We also examine whether Ph.D.s and postdoctoral scholars contribute equally to patent activity or whether there is a differential effect depending upon visa status. We find patent counts relate positively and significantly to the number of faculty members, Ph.D. students, postdocs. Our results suggest not all graduate students and postdocs contribute equally to patenting but that contribution is mediated by visa status.

• The Impact of Academic Patenting on University Research Outputs and Its Transfer. Oluwatosin Babalola, National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure; Gustavo Crespi, International Development Research Centre; and Pablo D’Este Cukierman and Aldo Geuna, SPRU-University of Sussex

This paper is twofold. First, our econometric results suggest academic patenting is complementary to publishing at least up to a certain level of patenting output after which we found some evidence of a substitution effect. Second, our analysis of the potential impact of patenting on the other channels of knowledge transfer, though limited by the small number of observation, seems to indicate that patenting does not have a negative impact on the other channels of knowledge exchange. On the contrary, we have found some positive correlation between the stock of patents and the frequency of interaction especially in the case of joint research and contract research.

• Intellectual Property and the Commons in Synthetic Biology: Strategies to Facilitate an Emerging

Technology. Rachel Wellhausen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline that uses engineering principles to design and assemble biological

components. Potential applications in medicine, energy, and elsewhere are endless. But ambiguous intellectual property rights claims have created an “anti-commons” problem in which legal hassle deters innovation and challenges researchers’ fervent open-source ethos. This paper discusses IPR conflicts in basic research and commercialization as applied to synthetic biology, in the United States and abroad. It goes on to evaluate strategies for enabling the discipline’s progress. Throughout, synthetic biology is considered in context of the wider issue of balancing innovation, diffusion, and commitments to openness in emerging technologies.

8.4 National Systems: Europe, Room 331

Chair: Luis Sanz-Menéndez, CSIC, Spain

• Do R&D Programs of Different Government Levels Overlap? The Case of the European Union.

Andrea Fernández-Ribas, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Isabel Busom, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Our contribution is a first step in understanding potential complementarities across R&D programs and the

complex nature of public support. Specifically, we study the determinants of firms’ participation in national and European research programs and test for differences across programs, using a sample of manufacturing firms from the Community Innovation Survey. Participation in national programs is more likely when a firm has in-house R&D capabilities and experience in patenting at the international level. Participation in European programs does not appear to be related to higher in-house R&D capabilities, but to a high exporting capacity.

�9

��

We interpret these results as suggesting that, ex-post, there is no overlap of R&D policies between these two government levels.

• A New Model of Technological Learning for Russia.

Tatyana Soubbotina, World Bank, Washington, D.C., and Charles Weiss, Georgetown University We distinguish six alternative models of technological learning: ‘traditional’, ‘active’ and ‘passive’ dependence

on foreign investment, ‘autonomous’, ‘creative-isolated’, and (the most advanced and advantageous) ‘creative-collaborative’. Russia needs to make the transition to the creative-collaborative model so as to integrate with the global knowledge economy, both in its own interest and to help prevent the undesirable scenario of militarization and dependence on energy exports. The experiences of the most developed and the fast-learning developing countries in ‘creative-cooperative’ and ‘autonomous’ technological learning from foreign sources provide useful precedents.

• Catching Up or Falling Behind? Central & Eastern European Development in 1990-2005. Marek Tiits, Institute

of Baltic Studies; Rainer Kattel, Tallinn University of Technology; Tarmo Kalvet, PRAXIS Center for Policy Studies; and

Dorel Tamm, Department of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Narva, Estonia This paper aims at assessing the economic development and development policies in the Central and East

European countries in �990-�00�—from the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to enlargement of the European Union. Our analysis concludes the specific approach to transition that the Central and Eastern European countries employed came at a rather high cost. Relative neglect and weakness of a set of policies crucial to longer term development, such as science, technology, and innovation policies, has brought in last decade about primitivization rather than strengthening of the competitive advantages of Central and Eastern European economies.

8.5 Collaborative Structures in Universities, Room 334

Chair: Richard Barke, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy

• Who Will Join and Who Will Decline: An Analysis of Factors Influencing a Firm’s Fecisions to Join Co-

Operative Research Centers.

Denis Gray and D. Rivers, North Carolina State University, Department of Psychology High level of industrial support is key to the survival of co-operative research centers, or CRC. However, the

literature is almost silent on the effectiveness of various firm recruitment strategies and the decision-making processes and evaluation criteria firms use when deciding whether to join or decline participation in a CRC. We report finding from a multistage project that has involved surveying center directors about marketing practices and qualitative interviews and a questionnaire-based multivariate predictive study (in progress) of firms that recently made the decision to join or decline participation. Implications for center managers, policy makers, and future research are discussed.

• The Effects of Disciplinary Context on University Scientists’ Interactions with the Private Sector.

Branco Ponomariov, University of Illinois at Chicago This paper examines the effect of three discipline level contextual variables on the propensity of university

scientists to interact with private sector companies. Discipline-level characteristics, such as proportion of R&D spending from federal sources and total amount of R&D expenditures in discipline, negatively affect the propensity to interact with the private sector, while industry demand for the skill base of the discipline (as


�0

��


approximated by number of bachelor’s degrees awarded in a discipline) has positive effect. Implications for policy and theory are discussed.

• Toward Disciplinary Systems of Data and Information Commons for Science.

Yarime Masaru, University of Tokyo, Japan This paper examines technical, economic, legal, and institutional conditions for establishing and maintaining

information commons and to discuss how to utilize it for stimulating collaboration and innovation. The characteristics of different types of information commons in various sectors will be identified and examined, including the mechanisms of creating and maintaining information commons, incentive structures of relevant actors, speed of information and knowledge creation, fragmentation of information and knowledge, and scope and opportunities for combination of information. It will be important to establish sectoral systems of information commons for science for policy making and institutional design.

1:15-2:45 p.m. Session 9: Parallel Contributed Paper Sessions

9.1 Energy Research, Room 323

Chair: Marilyn Brown, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy

• Bioethanol and Technological Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis between the U.S. and Brazil.

Elena Harari, Georgia Institute of Technology The U.S. and Brazil share 70 percent of bioethanol world production. While Brazil remains the most competitive

producer in the world, the U.S. bioethanol cannot compete with gasoline, despite federal programs on biofuels developed in the last decades. By using the concept of functions of innovation systems, this paper suggests that differences in how functions of innovation operate within each system explain different performances of ethanol development over time. It argues that a narrow research agenda and low strategic commitment toward the appropriate technology in the past has prevented the American ethanol technological system to generate the necessary knowledge to achieve levels of competitiveness that would allow it to displace gasoline and reach a virtuous cycle of development.

• Barriers to Transnational Policy Learning: German and U.S. Policy for Renewable Energy.

Frank N. Laird, University of Denver, and Christoph Stefes, University of Colorado at Denver Policies to commercialize new technologies are important parts of innovation policies. Germany has used feed-

in tariffs as the principal policy for supporting renewable energy deployment which resulted in making it the global leader in this field. Most European countries are now using this policy model for renewable energy, in contrast to the Renewable Portfolio Standard regulations (a quota model) that is rapidly spreading throughout the United States. We argue different institutional structures pose serious barriers to the transnational learning of such models and suggest ways in which such barriers might be overcome.

• A Supply-Side Program for Encouraging U.S. Innovation in Energy Technology.

Charles Weiss, Georgetown University, and William Bonvillian, Massachusetts Institute of Technology A major program of federal support to the entire innovation cycle for energy technology, going well beyond

research and development, is both justifiable and essential, regardless of whether a carbon tax or other macro policy is adopted to discourage energy use and carbon emissions. This program should be technology neutral insofar as possible. There is no need to wait for demand-side measures, and the political barriers to a supply-side program are not as high. We review promising energy technologies and classify them according to their likely launch paths. Based on this analysis, we identify major gaps in the innovation system for energy, and

��

��

propose the establishment of a DARPA-E for energy, a government corporation to finance manufacturing scale-up and carefully monitored engineering demonstrations, and an energy think-tank to “road map” promising technologies to deployment.

9.2 Comparative Studies in Intellectual Property, Room 324

Chair: Stuart Graham, Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Management

• Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation Activities in China: Evidence from Patents and Publications.

Rainer Frietsch, Fraunhofer Institute for System and Innovation Research, Germany, and Jue Wang, Georgia

Institute of Technology The Chinese innovation system is one of the most dynamic in the world. This paper tries to track the technology

development in China in the past �0 years, particularly innovation activity, which is measured with patent indicators. The legal cornerstones and the actual effects of the patent system are discussed to give a proper and sophisticated interpretation of the outcome of the patent analysis. The findings suggest Chinese inventors are not yet ready for international competition, though impressive dynamics can be found both in China and abroad. The study uses desk research, database analyses, and interviews with several experts.

• The Value of Triadic Patent Families. Cross-Country and Cross-Technology Differences.

Taehyun Jung, Georgia Institute of Technology We examine the factors affecting the patent renewal in both European Patent Office and the United States

Patent and Trademark Office. After controlling the technological significance and other characteristics of the patent, a patent assigned to or invented by German and French firm or inventor is expected to live shorter than the patent assigned to or invented by a U.S. firm or inventor in both the Europe and the United States. The Japanese patent lives longer than the U.S. patent in the Europe but not in the United States. Technological significance as measured by the forward citation count is a significant predictor of the propensity of patent renewal.

• Comparison of US, EPO, and PCT Patent Citations for Citation Analysis. Mary Ellen Mogee, SRI International Patent citation analysis in the United States has traditionally used the citations on U.S. patents as the data source.

Recently, however, it has been suggested that referencing practices in the European Patent Office and the Patent Cooperation Treaty may make citations on those documents more useful as indicators. This presentation will summarize the results of a statistical comparison of citations on patent documents from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the EPO, and the PCT to determine whether more information could be extracted from EPO and/or PCT citations than from using U.S. citations alone.

9.3 National Systems: Tigers, Room 330

Chair: Hyun Jung Park, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy

• The Innovation Policy and Administration Structure in the Post Catch-Up Innovation System. The Korea

Case. Ji Eun Seong and Wichin Song, Science and Technology Policy Institute, South Korea Korea’s innovation policy seems to face a turning point as the scope of Korea’s innovation policy is ever

expanding and its position is being further elevated within policy hierarchy. Korea recognizes the need for change and thus tries to achieve a system transition and build a new vision for change. As the catch-up strategy based largely on imitation begins to reveal its limitations and weaknesses, a sense of crisis that the old way of doing things would not work any more has been generated, thus creating a stimulus for a search for new development path.


��

��


• After Korea’s Transition to Innovation: The National Certification System for the Management of Public R&D Funds in Universities and National Research Institutes. Jin-Hyo Joseph Yun, Daegu Gyeongbuk Institute of Science and Technology ; Korea; Byung-Tae Kim, Korea Institute of Science & Technology Evaluation and Planning, Seoul, Korea; Dominik F. Schlossstein, European Business School, International University, Frankfurt, Germany

This study analyzes and compares the government-funded research institutes and major universities, applying for the certification of R&D accounts. It shows research institutes boast comparatively better systems for the self-audit, the pre-control of R&D accounts, the R&D management organization, the perfection of R&D management manuals, and the items of trial production cost and travel expenditures. On the contrary, universities are better organized in such aspects as the computerization of R&D management and the database maintenance of R&D accounts.

• Dynamics of S&T Catch Up by East Asian Economies: A Composite Analysis Combining Scientific Publications and Patenting Data. Poh Kam Wong and Yuen-Ping Ho, National University of Singapore

This paper develops international comparative indicators on national technological output quantity and quality. While prior work (e.g. Khan and Dernis (�006)) have tracked the changing share of nations in world total patenting output quantity, we track the growth trend of both the quantity and quality of patenting activities of East Asian economies. In particular, we address the issue of whether these late-comer economies emphasized quantity growth first, and only paid attention to quality later, or that patent quantity and quality grow in tandem. Secondly, we combine the above measures of scientific and technological output quantity and quality to analyze the temporal dynamics of S&T catch up by the East Asian economies

9.4 Innovation and Security, Room 331

Chair: Margaret Kosal, Georgia Institute of Technology, Sam Nunn School of International Affairs

• Impact of the Patriot and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Acts on the Microbiological

Research Groups.

Leonardo Reyes-Gonzalez, Carnegie Mellon University, and Bea Dias, Elizabeth Casman and Francisco Veloso We ask whether there are measurable impacts in this community, their norms, the way they conduct research,

the configuration of the research groups, and how these research groups interact with outsiders (other groups, individuals, and institutions). We use patterns of collaboration and the specific body of knowledge that these collaborations entail to identify the frontiers of the focal units. Specifically, we use the notion of Cohesive Groups (a method used in Network Analysis for subgroup identification) to identify the relevant research groups; and use the backward citations of a group (found in their published work) to define its “knowledge footprint” and establish the structural similarity between different groups.

• Innovation Dynamics of Large, Complex, Technological Products in a Monopsony Market Structure: The Case of ESA science missions. Zoe Szajnfarber and Annalisa L. Weigel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The roles of actors in a particular class of complex technological system—the ESA Science Mission—are mapped onto a competitive functional framework to identify key differences imposed by the market structure. Three general results are observed: there is no clear separation between “buyers” and “sellers,” the governing driver is an explicitly defined need-based “pull,” and a high level of technological maturity is required before a new capability can be incorporated into the product development process. They are explained in terms of the incremental impacts of the complexity of the system, in a monopsony market structure with the government as monopsonist. A preliminary model is proposed and policy implications discussed.

��

��

9.5 Issues in Graduate Education, Room 334

Chair: Kamau Bobb, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy

• Navel Gazing: Academic Inbreeding and Scientific Productivity.

Hugo Horta, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal; Francisco Veloso, Carnegie Mellon University; and Rocio

Grediaga, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico We show that academic inbreeding can be damaging to scholarly quality and output. Our estimates suggest

that academically inbred faculty generate on average �� percent less peer-reviewed publications than their non-inbred counterparts. Second, academically inbred faculty members are more centered in their institution and less open to the rest of the scientific world. In particular, we estimate they are about �0 percent less likely to exchange information of critical relevance to their scholarly work with external colleagues. Third, academic inbreeding is detrimental to scientific output both at research and teaching universities. Overall, our analysis implies that universities striving to develop indigenous research capabilities should seriously consider mechanisms to limit this practice.

• Multiple Pathways to Science and Engineering Employment: Characteristics of the U.S. S&E Work Force. Nirmala Kannankutty, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.

The United States is unique among major industrialized nations in that it has directly invested in collecting detailed data from a variety of sources on the entire science and engineering workforce. Each data source came about from U.S. federal administrative needs and have evolved in to important elements of the study of higher education and the workforce. These data sources are described and then used to show long-term trends in U.S. science and engineering degree production, as well as to highlight some major characteristics of the U.S. science and engineering workforce.

• International Graduate Application and Admissions in Science and Technology: The Role of Graduate Education in Supporting Innovation. Patricia McAllister and Kenneth Redd, Council of Graduate Schools

The United States faces increasing competition for international graduate students, which has potential long-term consequences for our continued economic leadership in the ��st century global economy. This paper examines the links between international graduate student trends in sciences and engineering and American economic competitiveness. The report summarizes recent changes in international student graduate applications and admissions to American graduate programs; reviews the best practices in graduate education in science, technology and other disciplines; and summarizes relevant parts of the America COMPETES Act, which recognizes the important role graduate education plays in American competitiveness.

3-4:30 p.m. Session 10: Parallel Contributed Paper Sessions

10.1 Creative Environments II, Room 323

Chair: Jan Youtie, Georgia Institute of Technology, Enterprise Innovation Institute

• The Economics of Ideas: Causes and consequences of technological distance.

Jared S. Franz, University of Illinois at Chicago This paper investigates the reason for increasing inventor team size in the U.S. patent data. On the one hand,

Jones (�00�) finds that greater specialization over time by R&D workers reduces their breadth of expertise which requires larger teams to implement any new ideas. However, team size can increase because R&D workers are getting larger ideas over time too. To measure the size of ideas, this paper uses the Olsson model to create technological distance measures which proxy for idea size. This paper finds technological distances are increasing and that specialization may only partially explain the increases in team size.


��

�6


• Transformational Organizations and Bursts of Innovation: French Lessons from the Institut Pasteur. Jerald Hage and Jonathon Mote, University of Maryland

A methodology for identifying research organizations with consistent high performance in making scientific breakthroughs in biomedicine found that Institut Pasteur had �.� radical innovations in a �0-year period more than any other in a quasi-census across a century of time. Defining this as a transformational organization, we identified four characteristics that appear to facilitate the formation of complex research teams: broad scope charter, visionary team leadership, diverse recruitment patterns, and multiple sources of funding. We also uncovered a number of mechanisms for creating cross-fertilization of ideas despite Nooteboom’s (�999) dilemma about cognitive distance.

• Local Public Grants, Mediation Mechanism to Global Knowledge Network. Bernardo Herrera, Universidad de los Andea, and Alexis De Grieff, Colciencias, Colombia

This paper analyzes the various roles played around the project cycle, focusing on the peer review role in local public grants. The question we want to answer is in what cases the evaluation project process contextualizes the local research relation or its global scientific discourse. Based on recently scientiometrics indicators framework (Garcia et Sanz-Menendez, �00�), we choose the “competitive researchers” case studies of public and privat universities at Bogotá. The study cases focus on natural and exact and social and human sciences. Using the Actor Network Theory, we build the scientific and political relations within the grants evaluation process.

10.2 No session.

10.3 Foreign Direct Investment and Technological Strategies, Room 330

Chair: Usha Nair-Reichert, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Economics

• Government Strategies to Attract R&D-intensive FDI: The Link Between Technology Policy and Inward FDI

Promotion. Jose Guimon, Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain Competition among countries to attract R&D-intensive FDI has increased significantly, but the strategies used

by governments in this competition remain largely unexplored. This paper proposes a taxonomy of the main policy instruments available to stimulate inward R&D intensive FDI and presents the results of a case-study of two European Union countries: Spain and Ireland. The study concludes an efficient promotion of R&D intensive FDI requires a closer connection between innovation policy and inward investment promotion. Another key proposition is that investment promotion agencies targeting R&D-intensive FDI should change the scope of the services they provide and place more emphasis on after-care.

• Technological Emergence and Adaptation: The Case of Earth-Orbiting Satellites. Matthew G. Richards, Daniel E. Hastings, and Dava J. Newman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

It is only through experience with technology that users and developers discover its emergent consequences. This paper provides an interdisciplinary view of adaptation, surveys the evolution and emergent consequences of Earth-orbiting satellites, and examines how the space industry adapted to new information on its impacts. General conclusions regarding technological adaptation are that adaptations are frequently driven by disruptive events, the pace of adaptation is correlated with technology accessibility and the size of the installed user base, and the integration of a technology with a society may be viewed as a process of stakeholder alignment.

��

�7

• Knowledge Spillovers, Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth in Asia: Theory and Empirical evidence. Lakhwinder Singh, Punjabi University, India

Foreign direct investment has increased substantially in Asia in the recent past. Countries are striving to attract foreign investment for enhancing growth and technological capabilities. This paper has explored both from theoretical and empirical literature the direction of knowledge spillovers from foreign direct investment. Domestic technological capabilities of the Asian countries have been analyzed to show the preference for the location of FDI and international R&D. The policy implications, which has emerged form the study, are loud and clear that until a country generates critical minimum level of domestic technological capabilities cannot derive benefits from the presence of foreign direct investment.

10.4 Patterns in the Global Knowledge Economy, Room 331

Chair: Andrea Fernandez-Ribas, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy

• Governing the Global Knowledge Economy: Mind the Gap!

Dieter Ernst, East-West Center, and David M. Hart, George Mason University This paper asserts the existence of a widening gap between the rapidly growing global knowledge economy

and the woefully inadequate institutional framework that supports and regulates it. This gap threatens to undermine the potential gains and could slow or even stop the growth of the global knowledge economy in its tracks. In addition to describing key features of the emerging global knowledge economy, the paper highlights the asymmetric relationship between corporate strategy and government policy that results in the governance gap. We conclude with a preliminary discussion of design principles for bridging the governance gap and generic policy suggestions.

• The U.S. Research Enterprise in a Changing Global Science System. Diana Hicks, Georgia Institute of Technology The global scientific landscape has changed. Governments sought to strengthen national research, swiftly

building capability and fostering a sharper competitive culture. As a result, foreign scientific communities have become more competitive. From within the fast-paced U.S. research community these changes may be little noticed, their significance obscure. These effects of these changes have been easy to underestimate because the size of the U.S. scientific enterprise still dwarfs that of any other country. This paper explores the trajectory of the U.S. research enterprise in an international context to highlight some surprising consequences that strengthening of foreign R&D systems can have for trends in U.S. research output.

• Internationalization of R&D and Global Nature of Innovation: Emerging Trends in India. V.V. Krishna, and Sujit Bhattacharya, Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawharlal Nehru University, India

The last decade witnessed two increasing trends in the pattern of internationalisation of R&D and the emerging global nature of innovation. The latter is a trend concerning globally dispersed innovation networks. India is host to some �00 global companies that have opened R&D centers. This paper explores three main issues in the Indian context. First, to briefly review and trace developments in the Research and Development related FD. Second, to explore the structure of internationalization of R&D. Third, to explore the emerging global nature of innovation.


�6

��


10.5 Science, Technology, and Indian Development, Room 334

Chair: Michael Best, Georgia Institute of Technology, Sam Nunn School of International Affairs

• Innovation Support Mechanisms for SMEs in India.

Jancy.A, Neeraj Saxena, and S.K. Goel, Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council, Department

of Science and Technology, Government of India The small and medium enterprises sector is an important sector for both wealth and job creation for India.

However, the SME sector often lags in terms of product and process technology, and a majority of the SMEs do not have much access to state-of-the-art knowledge and R&D infrastructure. This paper examines the linkage between innovation and technology absorption for some select SME clusters. An assessment is also done of select programs that target technology infusion/upgradation. The paper concludes with discussion of approaches to achieve technology upgradation.

• Water Quality, Biodiversity and Livelihood Issues: A Case Study of Chilika Lake, India. Jaya Krushna Panigrahi, Choudwar College, Choudwar, India

The water quality and ecosystem characteristics of Chilika Lake of India deteriorated drastically consequent to diverse human-induced and natural phenomena affecting severely the species composition and fish landing. The series of ecorestoration measures undertaken to mitigate hydro-biological challenges and restore sustainable fishery has enhanced the fish yield considerably and culminated in exclusion of this highly productive ‘Wetland of International Importance’ from the Montreux Record (sites in danger). Enforcement of a holistic and effective scientific management strategy would further enrich water quality, conserve biodiversity and provide sustainable livelihood to the fisher folks of this largest brackish water lagoon of Asia in future years.

• Wealth Creation from Knowledge in India: Opportunities and Challenges. Akshay Anand, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, and Vinod Srivastava, Family Service of Rhode Island, Providence

The rise of global economy and information technology is fast transforming the entire gamut of the intellectual property and technology commercialization in the developing world, particularly India. With a new patent law, India is poised to overcome most of these social and cultural challenges that have hindered exploitation of protected and traditional knowledge products for national growth. India has become TRIPS compliant and has initiated several technology commercialization projects and is fast venturing into this area of development. Several government policies have taken shape that provide incentives and encourage science entrepreneurships and global collaborations in order to create platforms for sharing of resources and profit making.

10.6 Innovation and New Public Management, Room 324

Chair: Gordon Kingsley, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy

• New Public Management Effects on Research Practices in English and Dutch Universities.

Liudvika Leisyte, University of Twente, the Netherlands This paper presents the preliminary findings of an international comparative study of higher education and

research policy influence on the basic units of knowledge production in medieval history and biotechnology at public research universities. The paper seeks to find out how research policies partly inspired by new public management in England and the Netherlands have influenced research practices of certain basic research units in the two fields of research. The paper uses the interview data collected in �00�, supplemented with

�7

�9

the document and secondary literature analysis. We explore four dimensions of research practices: choice of research problems, mainstream and risky research, output preferences, and teaching-research nexus.

• New Public Management for Science, Technology, and Innovation. Gouk Tae Kim, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

I examine the changes of STI management and their influence on NPM. Based on the findings of this research, several criteria for developing an appropriate role of NPM for STI emerge; emphasizing interpretative and a partnership-based STI system; achieving knowledge development; strengthening customer participation as a leader in STI process instead of a follower, encouraging private sector technology innovation; empowering scientific citizens; developing paradigm; and implementing a strategy to enable actors to have the capability to achieve innovation.

• Evaluation System for Russian Academy of Sciences: Clarification Tools. Igor Zatsman and Olga Kozhunova, Institute for Informatics Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences

A method and clarification tools for coordination of the performance indicators’ meanings are considered. The essence of the principal method lies in a classification of the performance indicators. One of the primary clarification tools is suggested to be a semantic dictionary. The process of indicators’ meaning coordination includes two stages. At the first stage, the positioning of every approved indicator within the classification scheme is carried out., allowing a coordination of a preliminary insight of indicator’s meaning. At the second stage, the clarification of indicators’ meaning at the expense of the dictionary entries, linked with normative, information and algorithmic components of the evaluation system is conducted.

4:30-6 p.m. Session 11: Closing Plenary: The Usefulness of STI Policy Research, Room 236

Chair: Howard Gobstein, National Association of State Universities and

Land Grant Colleges

• William Bonvillian, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Washington Office

• David Goldston, Princeton University

• Marvin Parnes, Associate Vice President for Research and Executive Director of

Research Administration, University of Michigan


��

30

Sponsors

SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS

Co-sponsors

Collaborating Organizations

29

��

Conference Committee

SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

Chair: Susan Cozzens, Professor of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy

Washington Co-Chair: Howard Gobstein, Vice President for Science Policy, National Association of State

Universities and Land Grant Colleges

Ann Bostrom, Georgia Tech School of Public Policy

Bryan Norton, Georgia Tech School of Public Policy

Caroline Wagner, George Washington University and SRI

John Krige, Georgia Tech School of History, Technology, and Society

John Walsh, Georgia Tech School of Public Policy

Judith Sutz, University of the Republic, Uruguay

Kamau Bobb, National Academy of Engineering

Luis Sanz-Menendez, Consejo Superiore de Investigaciones Científicas, Spain

Marie Thursby, Georgia Tech College of Management

Marilyn Brown, Georgia Tech School of Public Policy

Mary Frank Fox, Georgia Tech School of Public Policy

Michael Best, Georgia Tech School of International Affairs

Patarapong Intarakumnerd, National Science, Technology, and Development Agency, Thailand

Patrick Hamlett, North Carolina State University

Paula Stephan, Georgia State University

Rasigan Maharaj, Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa

Scott Frickel, Tulane University

Shelia Slaughter, University of Georgia

Usha Nair-Reichert, Georgia Tech School of Economics

�0

��

Georgia Tech Global Learning Center

152154 150 149

130

115129

Atrium

FIRST FLOOR

236235 233 225 222

SECOND FLOOR

335 334 331 330 324 323

328 327

315 317

318

319

THIRD FLOOR

��

Our business concierge staff provides the support you need to stay connected while you are away from the office.

Working SpacesThe Georgia Tech Global Learning Center includes convenient working spaces to charge your laptop, take a phone call, and keep connected to the day’s business. Throughout the facility, you will find comfortable chairs and sofas to meet informally during breaks.

Wireless EnvironmentThe Center offers an �0�.��B Wireless Network by Biltmore Communications FAST PASS. As long as your laptop is wireless ready, you can purchase a FAST PASS from our concierge desk for only $�0 for the entire day.

Concierge StaffThe Center’s concierge staff is ready to provide you with superior customer service. Upon your arrival, we will connect you with your event’s planning team that includes an event manager and an audio-visual technician.

Through our concierge staff, we offer traditional fax and copy services and free local calls. In addition, the concierge staff can help your meeting’s attendees by providing information about area restaurants and shopping, ordering tickets to local sporting and cultural events, reserving tee times at area golf courses, and much more.

��

Restaurants�th Street Ribs n BluesBarbeque ribs, chicken, and pork�6 Fifth St. NW Atlanta, GA �0�0� �0�-��9-��0�www.ribsnblues.com/�th Street/info.htm

The GlobeUrban bistro7� Fifth St. N.W.Atlanta, Ga �0�0��0�.��.��7 www.globeatlanta.com/

Lexington ChocolatierOriginal chocolate treats, cookies, and homemade ice cream6� Fifth St. N.W.Atlanta, GA �0�0�-�0�� 0�-�7�-0��

Marble Slab Creamery Gourmet ice cream and frozen yogurt �� Fifth St. N.W., Suite BAtlanta, GA �0�0��0�-�79-�000www.marbleslab.com

Moe’s Southwestern Grill Southwestern burritos, tacos, nachos, etc. with “atmosphere”�� Fifth St. N.W., Suite CAtlanta, GA �0�0��0�-��-99�0http://www.moes.com/

Ray’s Pizza/Cedar’s MediterraneanPizzas, salads, and calzones�6 Fifth St. N.W. Atlanta, GA �0�0��0�-��-99��

St. Charles Deli Deli-style sandwiches, salads, and burgers �� Fifth St. N.W.Atlanta, GA �0�0� �0�-��9-77��www.stcharlesdeli.com

Starbucks �� Fifth St N.W. Atlanta GA, �0�0��0�-�9�-��

Tin Drum Asia Cafe Thai and Vietnamese �� Fifth StAtlanta, GA �0�0��0�-��-��6�

The Varsity6� North Ave. Atlanta, GA �0�0��0�-��-�706

ATMS AND BANKS

RBC Centura BankCorner of Fifth and Spring streetsAtlanta, GA �0�0�

Barnes & Noble@Georgia Tech BookstoreCorner of Spring and Fifth streetsAtlanta, GA �0�0�

SunTrust (ATM)Biltmore Hotel��7 W. Peachtree St.Alanta, GA �0�0�

SunTrust (Branch & ATM)West Peachtree Branch760 West Peachtree StreetAlanta, GA �0�0��0�-�70-��0

NEARBY BANKS:

Bank of America ATM (walk-up only)Georgia Tech Student Center��0 Ferst DriveAtlanta, GA �0��

Bank of America (Branch & ATM)Midtown Operations Center7�� Peachtree St.Atlanta, GA �0�0�

SouthTrustOne Georgia Center600 W. Peachtree St.Atlanta, GA �0�0�

SunTrust (Branch & ATM)West Peachtree Branch760 W. Peachtree St.Alanta, GA �0�0��0�-�70-��0

Wachovia (Branch & ATM)Midtown Office (corner of �0th & Peachtree streets)999 Peachtree St.Suite �00Atlanta, GA �0�09�0�-�6�-�0�0 and �0�-�6�-�0��

Wachovia (Branch & ATM)Tech Parkway Office (across from Georgia Tech campus)6�� State St. N.W.Atlanta, GA �0��0�-��-�960 & �0�-��-�97�

NEAREST GROCERY STORE

PublixThe Plaza Midtown 9�0 W. Peachtree St. NW Atlanta, GA �0�09-��6Main: �0�-��-��Pharmacy: �0�-��-��7

NEAREST DRUG STORES

CVS�� Peachtree St. N.E.Atlanta, GA �0�0�Phone: �0�-��-�60�Pharmacy: �0�-�9�-��6�

Walgreens�9� Piedmont Ave. (at North Avenue)Atlanta, GA �0�0�-��0Phone: �0�-��7-9997Pharmacy: �0�-6��-966�

NEAREST HOSPITAL

Emory Crawford Long Hospital��0 Peachtree St. N.E.Atlanta, GA �0�0��0�-77�-7777�-�00-7��-6679

��

Things to Do Near Technology Square

��

Things to Do Within �0 Minutes of Technology Square

Short Walks

Federal Reserve Bankof AtlantaAtlanta Fed’s Visitors Center and Monetary MuseumSelf-guided tours�000 Peachtree St. N.E.Atlanta, GA �0�09-��70�0�-�9�-�777

Fox Theatre 660 Peachtree St. N.E.Atlanta, Georgia �0�0��0�-��-��00www.foxtheatre.org

High Museum of Art��0 Peachtree St. N.E. Atlanta, GA �0�09�0�-7��-HIGHwww.high.org

Margaret Mitchell House & Museum 990 Peachtree St.Atlanta, GA �0�09�0�-��9-70��www.gwtw.org

Woodruff Arts Center��0 Peachtree St. N.E.Atlanta, GA �0�09�0�-7��-��00http://www.woodruffcenter.org/wac/index�.asp

Longer Walks

Centennial Olympic Park �6� Park Ave. West N.W.Atlanta, GA �0��-��9� www.centennialpark.com

Center for Puppetry Arts ��0� Spring St. N.W. at ��th StreetAtlanta, GA �0�09-��0www.puppet.org

CNN CenterOne CNN CenterAtlanta, GA �0��0�-��7-��00 or �77-�CNNTOURwww.cnn.com/StudioTour/

Georgia Aquarium�� Baker St.Atlanta, GA �0��0�-��-�000www.georgiaaquarium.org

Imagine It! The Children’s Museum of Atlanta�7� Centennial Olympic Park Drive N.W.Atlanta, GA �0��-��7�0�-6�9-KIDS (��7)www.imagineit-cma.org

World Of Coke �� Baker St.Atlanta, GA �0��-�00-676-COKE (�6��) or �0�-676-��http://www.woccatlanta.com/

Short DrivesAtlanta Botanical Garden �� Piedmont Ave. N.E. Atlanta, GA �0�09 �0�-�76-��9www.atlantabotanicalgarden.org/home.do

Atlanta History Center ��0 W. Paces Ferry Road N.W.Atlanta, GA �0�0�-��66�0�-��-�00www.atlhist.org

Jimmy Carter Library and Museum �� Freedom ParkwayAtlanta, GA �0�07-��9��0�-�6�-7�[email protected]

Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site ��0 Auburn Ave. N.E.Atlanta, GA �0��0�-��-69��

The King Center ��9 Auburn Ave. N.E.Atlanta, GA �0��0�-��6-�9��

Piedmont Park �07� Piedmont Ave. Atlanta, GA �0�09 �0�-�76-�0��www.piedmontpark.org

��

��

Map of Technology Square

N

S

W E

��

�6


��

�7

Notes

�6

��

Notes

�7

�9

�007 Papers CD

��

40

Documents

Atlanta Conference on Science, Technology, and Innovation