Nanotechnology in Ibero-America. Current situation and trends

Transcription

1 Nanotechnology in Ibero-America Current situation and trends 1

2 The present report was written by the Ibero-American Observatory of Science, Technology, Society and Innovation of the OIS Centre of Higher University Studies by a work team coordinated by the Argentinian Centre of Scientific and Technological Information (CAICYT-CONICET, Centro Argentino de Información Científica y Tecnológica). The team was coordinated by Rodolfo Barrere (CAICYT) with the external collaboration of María Guillermina D Onofrio, Lautaro Matas (CAICYT) and Gerardo Marcotrigiano (REDES). Scientific consulting was provided by Dr. Roberto Salvarezza of the Institute of Theoretical and Applied Physicochemical Research (INIFTA-CONICET, Instituto de Investigaciones Fisicoquímicas Teóricas y Aplicadas) and the Argentinian- Brazilian Centre of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (CABN, Centro Argentino-Brasileño de Nanociencia y Nanotecnología), and Dr. Fernando Briones Fernández-Pola of the Madrid Institute of Microelectronics (Instituto de Microelectrónica de Madrid), Upper Council of Scientific Research (IMM-CSIC, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas) and the Spanish Nanotechnology Network (NANOSPAIN, Red Española de Nanotecnología). This report received the support of the Spanish International Cooperation for Development Agency (AECID, Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo). 2

3 Abstract This report, written at the request of the Ibero-American Science and Technology Observatory of the OIS Centre of Higher University Studies, offers an overview of nanotechnology R&D at Ibero-American level and its introduction into the international community in this area. The report was written by taking and analysing information available in the databases of scientific publications and invention patents, under the supervision and consultancy of regional experts in this field. From the evidence obtained, there has been a notable growth of research in this area in Ibero-America, reflected in the increase in scientific publications at international level. Another clear feature is the consolidation of networks among Ibero-American countries, offering a fertile space for the growth of research groups, especially in countries of medium development in the region. The report identifies the countries with greater nanotechnology activity, as well as key relationships and institutes. The panorama is less encouraging in terms of patenting. The dynamic of Ibero- American countries, gauged from the registers of main world patent offices, with the exception of Spain, lags fare behind that of more industrialized countries. This may to some extent be because research is disconnected from the business sector in Ibero-America, which is more oriented towards primary products than products of greater technological content. However, a far greater presence of Ibero-Americans is observed among inventors than among patent owners, showing that there are capacities in the training of human resources but certain weaknesses in the business and institutional fabric to convert these capacities into developments which lead to the industrial exploitation of knowledge. The report first offers an overview of the potential of nanotechnology R&D for the development of new products and processes of high economic and social impact, as well as the work being done in Ibero-America to strengthen this field at regional level. There then follows a presentation of data regarding scientific production in nanotechnology in the world as a whole and in the Ibero-American region in particular, the dynamics of international collaboration, the thematic structure of research in this field and a regional institutional map. After this, details are given of the current nanotechnology patenting situation in the world and Ibero-America, reviewing its evolution, the relationship between patent owners and inventors in different cases studied, the fields of technological application involved and the interrelationships between these, as well as the main institutional ties present in terms of technological development in this field. The main evidence of nanotechnology development is captured from the main tangible results of science and technology activity in this field. 3

4 Main Statements 1. Nanotechnology, as gauged from scientific publications, doubled in volume at world level between 2000 and 2007, accounting for 2.5% of total SCI publications in 2000 and 4.2% of total registers in The presence of Ibero-America in the SCI during the period was 19,904 documents. While the base total grew 25%, in the same period articles on nanotechnology increased 100%. This accounts for 3.5% of total Ibero- American publications registered in the international database during this period. 3. In Ibero-America, Spain and Brazil are pioneers and currently lead the way in scientific production and technological development in nanotechnology. Portugal, Mexico and Argentina form a second block, with the three countries sharing similar features. The remaining countries have markedly lower production. Spain s performance can be seen especially in its strong presence, as it was responsible for 45% of scientific production in Ibero-American nanotechnology over this period. 4. The leading countries of Ibero-America have implemented active policies, which constitute ad-hoc institutions and instruments for supporting nanotechnology, including the NANOSPAIN network, the Brazilian Initiative in Nanotechnology (Iniciativa Brasileira em Nanotecnología) and the Argentinian Nanotechnology Foundation (FAN, Fundación Argentina de Nanotecnología). 5. The analysis of publications written in collaboration between researchers from different Ibero-American countries shows that regional knowledge networks have been formed in the nanotechnology field, networks which are becoming progressively consolidated, a very important aspect for countries in the region with intermediate science and technology development. 6. In the networks that are being formed, Spain has a clearly dominant role, surpassing Brazil both in the number of publications and in the intensity and diversity of relationships with the rest of Ibero-American countries. Spain and Mexico have maintained stable percentages of regional collaboration (9% and 15% respectively), Brazil has grown from 8% in 2000 to 11% in Portugal has decreased to 11% having reached 15% in The most marked case of an increase in Ibero-American integration is that of Argentina, which has gone from 19% of nanotechnology publications in collaboration with other countries in the region in 2000, to 27% in The Ibero-American institution with the greatest presence in the SCI is the High Council of Scientific Research (CSIC, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas) in Spain. In addition to its notable total volume, 11.8% of Ibero- American nanotechnology production, it has shown a pronounced 100% increase between 2000 and It is followed by CONICET of Argentina and the University of São Paulo, Brazil. 8. Given the relatively small size of the scientific community and the financial resources of each separate Ibero-American country, only intense regional collaboration can provide the critical mass necessary to give nanotechnology 4

5 R&D the sustainability it needs. In this respect, the Ibero-American knowledge space is seen to be increasingly productive. 9. Aside from the increase in production volume, the region s countries are increasingly interconnected, as can be seen in the analysis of networks from jointly-signed scientific articles. Ibero-American collaboration is of greater importance for countries of medium development in the region, which have been able to increase their scientific output, to a good extent, due to collaboration with countries of greater relative development. 10. Nanotechnology, gauged from internationally registered patents in the WIPO s PCT agreement, showed an increase at world level of 183% between 2000 and Ibero-America possesses only 0.74% of nanotechnology patents registered in the PCT database between 2000 and 2007, with 560 registers, although with accelerated growth, going from 13 to 133 between 2000 and The leading countries in patents at Ibero-American level are the same as for scientific production, although Spain s share is much higher. 13. A relationship can be seen in the number of patents and inventors in one country, over the number of patents with local inventors. There are 12.7 patents by inventors with Argentinian nationality for each patent with an Argentinian patent-owner. This relationship is by far the highest in the region, despite being the third highest country in terms of patent ownership. This suggests a strong projection of Argentina-educated nanotechnologists abroad and a weak performance by enterprises in inventions and patenting in this field. 14. The main nanotechnology patent-owners at world level are both academic institutions and enterprises, demonstrating the high importance of R&D in this field s development. In Ibero-America, the main patent-owner is the CSIC, with over three times more patents than the chemical enterprise that follows in second place. 15. The consolidation of research institutions in the nanotechnology field, and their greater coordination in collaboration networks, is also very important in encouraging processes that transfer knowledge to institutions in the productive sector. In the nanotechnology field there is rapid transfer of basic research results to industrial application. The strong presence observed at world level of prestigious academic institutions among patent-owners is evidence of this. 16. In Ibero-America, ties between R&D and its industrial application are still scarce. Although they are increasingly rapidly in Spain and Portugal, in practice the industrial relevance of scientific research is relative and there are relatively few invention patents in most Ibero-American countries. 17. The main challenge facing Ibero-America knowledge in this strategic field lies in boosting connections between academia and production. This would permit joint research and development projects that focus on the creation of products which allow small and medium-sized national enterprises to become consolidated and access new regional and international markets, as well as the generation of technology-based microenterprises which take advantage of the opportunities offered by nanotechnology. 5

6 1. Ibero-American nanotechnology in the world Nanotechnology refers to the creation of functional materials, devices and systems through the control of material at atomic and molecular level. It is a strongly interdisciplinary activity involving, among others, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine and engineering. From a formal point of view, nanotechnology refers to the understanding and control of material in length scales below 100nm (1nm = 1x10-7 cm). In this scale, known as the mesoscopic scale, unique phenomena appear, originating in the quantum nature of the material, which can be used for new applications. It is normal practice to talk of nanosciences and nanotechnologies without specifying a difference between the two concepts. However, there is a consensus among specialists that nanosciences generate basic knowledge of this specific phenomenology of the mesoscopic scale, from the perspective of physics, chemistry and biology, while nanotechnologies refer to the techniques of observation, handling and manufacture of nanostructures and devices on this scale. Therefore, nanotechnologies are strictly considered as new 21 st century forms of engineering, based on knowledges provided by research into nanosciences. The problem is that for these advanced technologies, the distances separating research laboratories and experimental development laboratories, and even the industrial production chain, are so small that it is not easy to establish clear borders. Thus, it is very common in this field for a new commercial product, capable of revolutionizing an entire market, to be based on a very recent scientific discovery 1. Consequently, in the present study of the situation and the main trends in this field in the Ibero-American context, no analytical distinction has been made between nanosciences and nanotechnologies, adopting instead the broader usage of nanotechnology. The distinction indicated above is complex but possible and could be of use for analysing the social and economic impact that these discoveries and new technologies may have on difficult countries in the region. Nanotechnology is a field in which it is important to be especially careful with basic results and publications which even their authors, in their often limited research area, might not believe to be of industrial importance, but which could be a gift of much potential for large supranational enterprises, which have a broader vision and are closer to new product markets. The rapid growth of nanotechnology registered globally since the 1980s is based on the invention of new microscopies, which not only allow matter to be observed on atomic scales but also allow the manipulation of atoms and molecules, in the phenomenal growth of computational capacities along with the development of new theoretical calculus methods and in advances in synthetic chemistry and supramolecular chemistry. This development has been influenced by leading scientists vision of the capacity of nanotechnology to have a significant impact on society. All this has led to the incorporation of nanotechnology as a central question in science, technology and innovation systems in more-industrialized countries, which are 1 An example of this is that between the basic discovery of spin valves and their application to the reading heads of high-density memory hard disks in personal computers and the subsequent commercial impact, only a few years passed. Another example, in this case in the area of nanobiotechnology, is the few months that pass between the discovery of a new molecular recognition reaction between proteins and their introduction into the biochip market. 6

7 investing increasingly larger sums in public and private research and development activities in this area. However, nanotechnology does not constitute a well-defined field in technological activity, but is rather a group of technologies evolving at different speeds and with different characteristics. Specialists indicate that nanotechnology is having an impact and will have an even greater impact, whether directly or indirectly, on different industries, especially in manufacturing, electronics, pharmaceuticals and textiles, among others. They also indicate that nanotechnology is impacting progressively, and will continue to do so, in such different areas as health, cosmetics, energy, transport, environment and safety. This illustrative but in no way exhaustive list is growing permanently and producing incremental changes in existent markets and in the creation of new markets barely imaginable at the present time. By way of example, one might mention that as early as the 1980s development began on the first nanodevices, based on the extraordinary properties of semiconductor quantum wells with nanometric dimensions: the laser diodes invented by Russian physicist (and 2001 Nobel Prize winner) Zhores Alferov in the 1970s. The socioeconomic impact of these devices is at present enormous and is a small sample of what appears to be around the corner. The reader heads present in any CD or DVD player or recorder are miniature optic systems incorporating a quantum well laser, with hundreds of millions manufactured annually. But there is more: the development with greatest social impact in this century, the internet, is fundamentally possible thanks to the extraordinary efficiency of these devices to emit infra-red light and modulate it at over 40Gbits per second. At this moment, all of the enormous flow of information circulating around the internet via optic fibres, at the speed of light and in a global network of over 500 million users on all the continents of the planet, is being transmitted by these diodes. Nanotechnology has already made a huge entrance in contemporary society, the society of technologies and information, of communication and knowledge. At the same time, the rapid development of nanotechnology has brought about an inevitable debate on certain ethical questions. These include issues such as equality (the increase in the gap between more and less industrialized countries), the environment (nanomaterials as possible pollutants), privacy and security (faced with non-detectable devices and new weapons), and the modification of living organisms. The regulations under development and to be developed aim to prevent destructive uses or accidents following the work that has been done in genomics and biotechnology. The need to be more than mere spectators in this potential new industrial revolution has led some Ibero-American countries to develop programs aimed specifically at the promotion of nanotechnology. The authorities of these countries have a growing belief that nanotechnology may have a positive impact on energy (through new catalysers for fuel cells and new hydrogen storage systems), health (with new, cheaper and more efficient medicines), the environment (through sensors and biosensors for environmental checks, and methods to reverse the effects of pollution), foods (with particular reference to quality control) and agriculture (providing cheaper methods for filtering and desalinising water), among other issues of particular interest to the region. From a broader point of view, nanotechnology is increasingly perceived by the authorities and specialists as an opportunity to shorten the gap with more industrialized countries, given the disruptive nature it will have on some current technologies. Spain and Brazil are pioneers and currently the leading countries in Ibero-America in terms of scientific production and technological development in nanotechnology. 7

8 In 2004, Spain started to formally encourage nanotechnology through the creation of the Spanish Nanotechnology Network (NANOSPAIN) and the publication of the Strategic Plan in Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. NANOSPAIN has 250 associated groups and enterprises, including 1,200 doctors with scientific activity in this field. A large number of its most active members come from the disciplines of materials (nanostructured materials), chemistry and physics, with little participation from biology. Much work has been done in the creation of research centres dedicated fundamentally or exclusively to nanosciences and nanotechnology. These include the recentlycreated International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory (INL) as a joint initiative between Spain and Portugal. As can be seen throughout this report, scientific nanotechnology production from Spanish research (and to a lesser degree from Portuguese research) is highly abundant and in many cases the results are of a high international level. However, although increasing rapidly in both countries, the industrial relevance of this research is still scarce and relatively few patents are being exploited. In 2001, Brazil launched the Brazilian Initiative in Nanotechnology, culminating in the 2003 Program for Development of Nanotechnology and Nanoscience of the Multiannual Plan (2003), of the Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT, Ministério de Ciência e Tecnología) with a large budget (the highest in Latin America). It includes advanced research facilities, such as the National Synchrotron Light Laboratory (the only synchrotron available in the southern hemisphere), the recently formed Institute of Industrial Metrology, Standardization and Quality (Instituto de Metrologia, Normalizao e Qualidade Industrial), the Brazilian Physics Research Centre (Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas em Física) and the Centre of Excellence in Electronic Technology (Centro de Excelencia em Tecnologia Electrónica). The Brazilian nanotechnology program brings together 1,000 scientists grouped into ten work networks currently executing various projects. The rest of the Ibero-American countries have different levels of development in this field. Argentina started its nanotechnology activities later that Brazil. In 2004 it requested the presentation of nanotechnology projects in a program oriented at vacant areas in the National Agency for Scientific and Technological Promotion (ANPCYT, Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica). In 2005 four nanoscience and nanotechnology networks were approved, bringing together around 250 scientists. The networks were eventually financed in In 2005 the Argentinian-Brazilian Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Centre (CABN, Centro Argentino-Brasilero de Nanociencia y Nanotecnología) was created, aimed at coordinating human resources through schools and workshops, and organizing conferences. The same year saw the creation of the Argentinian Nanotechnology Foundation (FAN, Fundación Argentina de Nanotecnología) with the purpose of encouraging the innovative potential of nanotechnology, in this case through the financing of projects by enterprises or institutions leading to technological products or patents. In addition, in 2007 the creation of the Interdisciplinary Centre of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Centro (CINN, Interdisciplinario de Nanociencia y Nanotecnología) was approved, taking in around 100 researchers distributed in the four public centres with the greatest research activity in this field. In addition, there is currently a large equipment program underway, with the objective of permitting the acquisition of new techniques and the replacement of obsolete units. In the short term, work will also begin on improving institutions infrastructure. Nanotechnology thus makes up one of the three main areas (along with biotechnology and information and communication technologies) which are being promoted by the recently created Ministry of Science, Technology and Productive Innovation (MINCYT, Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva). 8

9 In Mexico nanotechnology has also taken on an important role. 20 research centres and universities throughout the country participate in this activity, involving around 250 researchers. Research networks have been created in which national and international institutions participate, and in particular there is notable collaboration with the USA and the European Communication. Although there is no national program in Mexico dedicated to nanotechnology, there are various projects in the nanomaterials area. Mexico also participates in the design and development of Micro/Nano- Electromechanic Systems (MEMS-NEMS), used in the electric, automobile, telecommunications and health industries. In Chile there is a growing interest among the scientific community in nanosciences and nanotechnologies. Various universities and centres are performing research projects, particularly in the area of nanomaterials and in physics in nanoscale systems. With the support of the national government, an international nanotechnology workshop was held in early 2008, bringing together an important group of researchers from Chile and abroad. The meeting was used to analyse possible models for promoting basic and applied research in Chile in this field. Activity in other Ibero-American countries is currently scarce, although there is evidence of growing interest in nanotechnology. All countries have, to a greater or lesser degree, scientific groups involved in research in this field, which is translated, among other aspects, into the formation of regional knowledge networks. An overview is given below, based mainly on quantitative indicators, of the evolution of nanotechnology R&D in the region. This analysis brings to light some indications of the impact of promotion policies mentioned here, but also offers some clues as to some aspects which it would be necessary to improve further to achieve a complete participation of Ibero-America in a field with revolutionary potential for global production and economy. 2. Evidence of Ibero-American R&D in nanotechnology In the context of the interest that nanotechnology has roused globally in those who design science, technology and innovation policies and strategies, with the objective of strengthening the field and facilitating the incorporation of knowledge into the R&D system and the industry, information is a factor of critical importance. In this regard, the analysis of the information contained in bibliographical databases and invention patents, as tangible evidence of the production of knowledge, is of particular importance, with the former offering a focus more oriented at research and the latter at industrial application. To carry out this report, a complementary approach of both information domains was chosen, using on the one hand the main international bibliographical database, the Science Citation Index, and on the other hand the patent database of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which brings together the select group of documents that are presented simultaneously in various countries via this agreement. The initial challenge in this type of study is the precise selection of documents that provide information on the field to be analysed, and which could then be processed with different information and statistics techniques. This work was done around a bibliographical review and with the guidance of experts in this area. The methodologies followed in the processing of information on publications and patents presented in the report are detailed in the next paragraph. 9

10 For the bibliographical analysis, the Web of Science version of the SCI was used, the most prestigious and widespread database in the world. The SCI includes a collection of over 6,000 first-level scientific journals, compiled with strict quality and coverage criteria, giving evidence of research in the international scientific community. In addition, this database has extensive coverage of both natural and exact sciences, making it perfect for observing a field as strongly interdisciplinary as nanotechnology. However, the definition of the corpus of data is a complex task which, given that nanotechnology is a transversal discipline, can only be done effectively if based on a group of key words representative of the object of study. There are various studies that contain alternative strategies for selecting publications with nanotechnology content in bibliographical databases. For this study two of these were reviewed, included in the studies Refining Search Terms for Nanotechnology Research (Porter et al, 2008) and The Seminal Literature of Nanotechnology (Kostoff et al, 2005). Although both strategies recovered similar numbers of registers, the intersection between both groups was only around 70%. After submitting both possibilities to the nanotechnologies assessed in writing this report, the decision was taken to include the work of Porter, as it is more representative of current issues in the field of global nanotechnology. This is a broad strategy, which seeks to include all fields of nanotechnology, applied to a database with strict quality standards such as the SCI. The details of the strategy used can be found in Appendix 1 of this report. Furthermore, invention patents are a valuable source of information on the development of science, technology and innovation. Each of the component parts (title, abstract, description, claims, owner, inventor, date of application, date patent was granted, country where the patent was granted and citations of previous works) allow us to see one aspect in particular of this result of legally protected research, whether it is a product, a process or a new usage in the case of countries who include it in their intellectual property model. The characteristics of an invention patent take on greater relevance when we attempt to make a closer approach to the state of the art in new areas of applied science, such as nanotechnology, developed to a great extent by private enterprises which do not regularly publish their advances in innovation in the way that public institutions do. Like publications, patents have two different uses, aside from the intellectual property protection they provide. On the one hand, as this is an immense accumulation of information (at present there are over 47 million patents in the world), the extraction of specific information from the documents is useful for promoting the transference of technology and for facilitating innovation in the productive sector. European Union studies show that in recent years approximately 20 billion euros have been lost in R&D investments in technologies that are already patented, instead of taking this existing knowledge and starting from the point reached by previous researchers in a determined knowledge area. Furthermore, the construction of indicators from patent documents makes it possible to observe trends in technological development in different fields, making use of the information structured in these documents, allowing the focus to be placed on different aspects, from fields of application to the geographic distribution of patent owners and inventors. The fact that the structure of this type of documents is globally standardised greatly eases the joint processing of data from different national patent offices. There are different information sources habitually used for the construction of patent indicators. According to the interests of each study, the industrial property offices of one or various countries can be selected simultaneously. In this case we have chosen 10

11 the database of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which contains documents registered through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). This agreement is in place in over 100 countries, including Brazil and Mexico in Latin America. The PCT treaty makes it possible to apply for an invention patent simultaneously in different treaty member countries, which inventors can choose according to their discretion. Although the decision to grant or not the patent is down to each country, this mechanism facilitates enormously the registration procedure in multiple offices, as applications made through the PCT agreement cannot be rejected for questions of form in member countries. In addition, before the application is made each country carries out an international search similar to that of the examiners of each office. This document is of use both to the owner in evaluating the patentability of the invention and the national examiners whose workload is decreased. The application for and maintenance of international patents registered through the PCT treaty are expensive in economic and administrative terms, hence it only tends to be used for registering inventions with considerable economic or strategic potential. The selection of this source was based on quality criteria, with a view to precisely surveying high-tech advances at world level. Furthermore, using a database of these characteristics eases international comparability, which would be extremely different if any national source were taken. As with the analysis of publications, the delimitation of the field is a central issue given the complexity, span and diversity of technological developments which apply concepts arising from nanotechnology. For this, a bibliographical review was made of studies that have recently tackled the analysis of patents in this field and which use greatly differing search strategies with different levels of depth and/or accuracy. Following expert advice, the decision was taken to use the strategy included in the study Mapping Excellence in Science and Technology across Europe. Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (Noyons et al, 2003), written by the University of Leiden and the Fraunhofer Institute. This is a highly-detailed search strategy made up of over thirty combined individual consultations, based on key words and International Patent Classification (IPC) codes. There is also a broad remit here, including developments that apply nanotechnology from diverse areas of research in this discipline, and which was applied to a database in which only high-potential inventions are registered. Details of the strategy used are available in Appendix 2 of this report. 3. Nanotechnology research International bibliographical databases, such as the SCI, SCOPUS and Pascal, among others, show scientific production measured through articles published in journals with the greatest international recognition. Their assessments make it possible to evaluate aspects regarding scientific capacity in determined fields and their evolution over time. This form of evaluation presents certain difficulties in some fields of science in which disciplinary cultures to a greater extent favour diffusion on a local scale, but in the field of nanotechnology, due to its advanced nature, the use of this resource makes it possible to calibrate the significance of Ibero-American R&D in the global nanotechnology field. The analysis presented in this report allows an overview of changes in production volume, patterns of international collaboration, interaction networks and the disciplines predominant in the region and its main countries. 11

12 3.1. The evolution of scientific production The bibliographical search recovered 300,270 publications on nanotechnology between the years 2000 and These documents represent 3.4% of total scientific production registered in the SCI in this period, a proportion that may be seen as small but with marked and sustained growth throughout the period, as in 2000 there were 25,349 documents and in 2007 over double this number: 50,769 publications, far above the general average (Graph 1). Graph 1: Total Nanotechnology publications ( ) Source: Author s graph from SCI-WOS data. The presence of Ibero-America in the SCI was, for the period , 19,904 documents. This was 3.5% of total Ibero-American publications registered on this international database during the period in question, a proportion similar to that observed for the world total. However, as Graph 2 shows, the continuous growth was relatively stronger in Ibero-America than in the rest of the world: from 1,544 documents registered in 2000 to 3,504 publications in 2007, surpassing the twice the number at the start of the period (an increase of 127%, against 100% growth in world nanotechnology scientific production). Graph 2. Total Ibero-American nanotechnology publications ( )

13 Source: Author s graph from SCI-WOS data. Scientific production in the field of world nanotechnology grew, furthermore, at a rate far superior to that presented by the total scientific production registered in the SCI in the period (graph 3). While the base total increased 25%, in the dame period nanotechnology articles increased 100%. Having accounted for 2.5% of total publications in 2000, these articles accounted for 4.1% of total registers in In the Ibero-American region as a whole, the base total grew 56% while their nanotechnology documents increased 127%. A similar phenomenon occurred with Ibero-American publications, where nanotechnology accounted for 2.7% of articles in 2000 and 4% in Graph 3. World and Ibero-American total nanotechnology publications IBERO NANO IBERO TOTAL TOTAL NANO TOTAL SCI Source: Author s graph from SCI-WOS data. Note: Base 2000=100 The USA, with 7,206 articles in 2000 and 12,701 in 2007, maintained a presence of around 27% of the total for the period. In second place in 2007 was China, which stood out especially in growing far faster than the rest of the world, more than quadrupling its production over this period (from 1,995 to 8,964 registers), moving up from fourth place in The other three most important countries in this field are Japan, Germany and France, with moderate growth (Graph 4). Graph 4. Publications by leading world countries in nanotechnology 13

14 ESTADOS UNIDOS CHINA JAPÓN ALEMANIA FRANCIA Source: Author s graph from SCI-WOS data. Note: In this case the methodology used is counting by wholes, i.e. a complete register has been counted for each of the countries participating in the register. As duplications are generated by international collaboration, the total production of these countries is higher than the world total. The five countries with greatest presence in nanotechnology production in Ibero-America are Spain, Brazil, Mexico, Portugal and Argentina (Graph 5). Spain s performance is particularly outstanding, participating in 45% of scientific production in Ibero-American nanotechnology over the period. Spain also enjoys sustained growth, rising from 683 articles in 2000 to 1,689 in 2007 (an increase of 147%). In second place over this period is Brazil, with this Latin American country responsible for over a fourth of Ibero-American nanotechnology scientific production. Brazil s output has also enjoyed sustained growth, more than doubling its participation (a 115% increase) in the SCI in this area. Slightly lower growth was registered over this period by Mexico and Argentina (in third and fifth place in the region respectively), with increases in nanotechnology scientific production of 90% and 113%), although neither attained so much as half the volume of articles produced by Brazil. Portugal occupies fourth place in the region (around 10% of total production in this field), and the country has experienced the greatest relative growth (231%) over the period. 14

15 Graph 5. Nanotechnology publications of main Ibero-American countries ESPAÑA BRASIL MÉXICO PORTUGAL ARGENTINA Source: Author s graph from SCI-WOS data. Graph 6 shows the participation of each country in nanotechnology scientific production in Ibero-America as a whole over the period. Spain is notable for its large volume of articles published in the field during this period, with documents. In second place is Brazil with 5,254 specialist publications. Mexico is in third place with 2,261 SCI article. Portugal is in fourth place with 1869 documents, and Argentina fifth with 1,376 nanotechnology articles. The five leading countries are followed in order of size by Chile (581 publications), Colombia (311), Cuba (296), Venezuela (291), Uruguay (83) and Peru (50). Lastly, with a scarce number of articles (most below twenty for the whole period) are eight other countries: Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras, Dominican Republic and Paraguay. Graph 6. Nanotechnology publications by Ibero-American countries ESPAÑA BRASIL MÉXICO PORTUGAL ARGENTINA CHILE COLOMBIA CUBA VENEZUELA URUGUAY PERÚ COSTA RICA ECUADOR PANAMÁ BOLIVIA GUATEMALA HONDURAS REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA PARAGUAY Source: Author s graph from SCI-WOS data. Note: Total

16 According to the evolution of the percentage of scientific production in nanotechnology over in relation to the total production registered in the SCI, the five main Ibero-American countries in the field according to their volumes of publications (Spain, Brazil, Mexico, Portugal and Argentina) are ordered differently. Graph 7. Percentage of nanotechnology publications in relation to the total 7,0% 6,0% 5,0% 4,0% 3,0% 2,0% 1,0% ESPAÑA BRASIL MÉXICO PORTUGAL ARGENTINA 0,0% Source: Author s graph from SCI-WOS data. As Graph 7 shows, Mexico is the leading Ibero-American country in terms of proportion of scientific production in nanotechnology in the SCI throughout the period, with a value greater than 2000 (3.8%) and sustained growth up to 2007, when it attained the highest value in the region (5.5%). Portugal is the second country according to its 2007 percentage (around 5%) and also the country with the most fluctuations over the period. Spain and Argentina, in third and fifth place respectively, both saw continuous and considerable growth: Spain went from 2.7% in 2000 to 4.2% in 2007, while Argentina went from 2.2% in 2000 to 3.8% in Brazil slipped from second place in 2000 with a proportion of 3% to fifth place in 2007 with 3.7%, although it should be noted that, after Portugal, Brazil is the second country of the five leading Ibero-American countries in terms of the relative growth of its total volume of articles in SCI international databases during the same period International collaboration Work in collaboration with researchers from other countries is a growing trend globally and present in all disciplines. It is also a factor frequently approached in science, technology and innovation policies. It is also of particular importance in a field like nanotechnology, in which the availability of large teams is vital and therefore, especially in developing countries, further encourages collaboration. Graph 8 shows that, considering the scientific production in nanotechnology registered in the SCI from Ibero-America in aggregate form, three simultaneous 16

17 trends can be noted. Firstly, the weight of nanotechnology publications written by Ibero-American authors without international collaboration is quantitatively higher and has increased constantly in the last eight years (increasing by around 130% between 2000 and 2007). Secondly, the presence of international collaboration has increased in Ibero-America, i.e. collaboration between an Ibero-American country and one or more non-ibero-american countries. In this regard, as will be analysed below, the countries with which the regions countries have collaborated in this field is a key factor. Lastly, the third trend observed is a weak presence of Ibero-international collaboration (between two or more countries in the region and one or more extra-regional countries), which nonetheless grew from 19 articles in 2000 to 77 documents in There is also a weak presence of Ibero-American collaboration (between authors from two or more Ibero-American countries) which has increased the least over the period analysed. The three trends observed will be accounted for below, based on relative compositions of production in collaboration by Spain and Brazil, the main drivers of Ibero-American growth in this field. Graph 8. Ibero-American publications by international collaboration Sin colaboración Colaboración iberoamericana Colaboración internacional Colaboración ibero-internacional Source: Author s graph from SCI-WOS data. Graph 9 shows the composition of nanotechnology scientific production as a whole by the five main Ibero-American countries accumulated between 2000 and International collaboration is of no less importance in the form of nanotechnology scientific knowledge production by these countries, but with different distinctions. Spain and Portugal, the two European countries of Ibero-America, show a very similar pattern: a little less than half their production is done in collaboration, generally with non-ibero-american countries (around 43% in both cases) and to a lesser extent with other Ibero-American countries (7% and 9% respectively). Argentina also shows a notable scientific production in collaboration, but with a notably different composition: of the five leading countries, it has the greatest relative presence in Ibero-American nanotechnology co-publications, almost a fifth of its production (18.3%), or a quarter if we add the Ibero-international co- 17

18 publications registered. The latter type of collaboration, which entails copublication between authors from three or more countries, is a more significant factor as it shows the weight of international research networks in knowledge generation processes. Brazil and Mexico, the two Latin American countries that make up the group of five leading countries, have the lowest proportion of scientific publications in nanotechnology in collaboration (almost two thirds of Brazilian production and over half of Mexico s production is done without international collaboration). Likewise, they collaborate little with other Ibero- American countries. Graph 9. Publications by international collaboration 100% 90% 80% 27,9% 26,6% 42,6% 34,1% 42,9% 70% 60% 50% 40% 6,8% 18,3% 2,0% 7,2% 2,6% 6,7% 3,7% 9,6% 3,8% 9,0% Colaboración internacional Colaboración ibero-internacional Colaboración iberoamericana Sin colaboración 30% 20% 46,9% 64,3% 48,1% 52,6% 44,3% 10% 0% Argentina Brasil España México Portugal Source: Author s graph from SCI-WOS data. Graph 10 allows us to compare the relative weight of Ibero-American copublication in nanotechnology scientific production in the countries of the region between 2000 and This is a very important aspect for most of the countries in the region with small science and technology systems and with low nanotechnology scientific production available in the SCI s international databases. It is also of much importance for countries of medium development, such as Chile, Colombia and Venezuela. Graph 10. Percentage of publications with Ibero-American collaboration 18

19 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CUBA URUGUAY PERU COLOMBIA CHILE VENEZUELA ARGENTINA PANAMA ECUADOR COSTA RICA MEXICO PORTUGAL ESPAÑA BRASIL Source: Author s graph from SCI-WOS data. Note: total In this group of countries it can be observed that the intra-ibero-american international dimension is a significant element for publishing in mainstream SCI journals. Specifically this is the case of Cuba (with 70% of publications in collaboration with Ibero-America), Uruguay (59%), Peru (40%), Colombia (39%), Chile (36%) and Venezuela (27%). Of the other countries in the region with small science and technology systems (such as Paraguay, with only one publication, or Bolivia, which has only ten articles) it is not possible to draw trends due to the scarce number of articles registered during the period in question. The series of graphs presented below shows the evolution of nanotechnology scientific production in collaboration of the five main Ibero-American countries in this field. The Spanish case (Graph 11), given the volume of its production, reflects very similar trends to those observed for the Ibero-American region in aggregate form, with strong and continuous growth in nanotechnology scientific production without collaboration (with only a slight drop in 2003) and international copublication. Nor are Ibero-American or Ibero-international collaborations significant for the country that clearly leads Ibero-American nanotechnology production and registers a few small fluctuations during the period in question. 19

20 Graph 11. Spanish publications by international collaboration Sin colaboración Colaboración iberoamericana Colaboración internacional Colaboración ibero-internacional Source: Author s own graph from SCI-WOS data. Note: total The Brazilian case (Graph 12), the second leader in the Ibero-American region in nanotechnology scientific production, shows a fundamentally rising trajectory, although with a drop during 2003 and 2004, in the creation of articles without collaboration, its main form of production. International collaboration increased constantly between 2000 and 2007, while both Ibero-American collaboration and Ibero-international collaboration are less significant, showing slow growth with some fluctuations. Graph 12. Brazilian publications by international collaboration Sin colaboración Colaboración iberoamericana Colaboración internacional Colaboración ibero-internacional Source: Author s graph from SCI-WOS data. The case of Mexico (Graph 13) shows growing nanotechnology scientific production without collaboration (which, as mentioned above, is the main form of knowledge generation in Mexico in this field during the period in question), moderate growth with fluctuations between 2002 and 2004 in production with 20

21 international collaboration (the second most important form of creation of scientific documents in this field in Mexico) and a very low presence with a slightly growing trend of collaboration with other Ibero-American countries and in Ibero-international collaboration. Graph 13. Mexican publications by international collaboration Sin colaboración Colaboración iberoamericana Colaboración internacional Colaboración ibero-internacional Source: Author s graph from SCI-WOS data. The case of Portugal (Graph 14) is the only one of the five main Ibero-American countries in nanotechnology scientific production whose trajectory of knowledge generation without collaboration and with international collaboration are notably close. At times in the period the country registered growth in its production with international collaboration which was greater than growth in scientific production without collaboration (in 2001 and ). Production with Ibero-American and Ibero-international collaboration is very small, but grew with various fluctuations during most of the period in question. It should be noted that the four forms of production of nanotechnology scientific articles in Portugal registered slight decreases in the last year of the period. Graph 14. Portuguese publications by international collaboration 21