The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 78–97 | Cite as

Nanotechnology documentary standards

  • David P. Leech
  • John T. Scott


This paper adds to the nascent economics literature about nanotechnology by estimating industry’s benefits and costs for the early investments in documentary standards that support the commercialization of nanotechnology, by identifying barriers to the successful development and use of the nanotechnology documentary standards, and by providing public policy recommendations to overcome the barriers.


Nanotechnology Documentary standards Innovation Barriers to technology University-industry partnerships 

JEL Classification

O320 O330 O380 



For their help with Leech and Scott (2015), the report on which this paper is based, we are grateful to many individuals. We thank the respondents to the survey. Also, for their support with the process of carrying out the survey, we thank Heather Benko of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Mike Leibowitz of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), Debra Kaiser of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Vincent Caprio of the NanoBusiness Commercialization Association (NanoBCA), and Jessica Adamick of the National Nanomanufacturing Network. We also thank Ajit Jillavenkatesa, of NIST’s Standards Coordination Office, who provided guidance about the organizations and people involved in the nanotechnology standards community, and Andrew Salamon of PerkinElmer, who provided understanding about the structure and nature of the burgeoning nanotechnology industries. We thank Gary Anderson, of NIST’s Economic Analysis Office, for his questions that helped shape the analysis of the different classes of beneficiaries and Erik Puskar, of NIST’s Standards Coordination Office, who selected early stage nanotechnology documentary standards for study in Leech and Scott (2015) and then guided the project to completion.


  1. Bozeman, B., Hardin, J., & Link, A. N. (2008). Barriers to the diffusion of nanotechnology. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17(7–8), 749–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breitenberg, M. A. (2009). The ABC’s of standards activities (NISTIR 7614). Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coccia, M., Finardi, U., & Margon, D. (2012). Current trends in nanotechnology research across worldwide geo-economic players. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), 777–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Foster Associates, Inc. (1978). A survey on net rates of return on innovations. Report to the National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Hackley, V. A., Fritts, M., Kelly, J. F., Patri, A. K., & Rawle, A. F. (2009). Enabling standards for nanomaterial characterization. In Infosim informative bulletin of the interamerican metrology system (pp. 24–29).Google Scholar
  6. ISO/IEC Guide 2:2004, Standardization and related activities—General vocabulary,
  7. Jillavenkatesa, A., Evans, H., & Wixon, H. (2012). Patents and intellectual property management in nanotechnology standardization: A NIST perspective. National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, presented at Symposium on Intellectual Property in Standard-Setting Processes, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy, National Academies.Google Scholar
  8. Leech, D. P., & Scott, J. T. (2015). The economic impacts of early stage consensus standards development: A case study of nanotechnology documentary standards. Report to the Standards Coordination Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce,
  9. Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (1999). Federal laboratories as research partners. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 17(4), 572–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Libaers, D., Meyer, M., & Geuna, A. (2006). The role of university spinout companies in an emerging technology: The case of nanotechnology. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Link, A. N. (1996). Economic impact assessments: guidelines for conducting and interpreting assessment studies (NIST Planning Report 96-1).Google Scholar
  12. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (1998). Public accountability: Evaluating technology-based public institutions. Boston, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2011). Public goods, public gains: Calculating the social benefits of public R&D. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2012). The theory and practice of public-sector R&D economic impact analysis. NIST Planning Report #11-1. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce,
  15. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2013). The theory and practice of public-sector R&D economic impact analysis, chapter 2. In A. N. Link & N. S. Vonortas (Eds.), Handbook on the theory and practice of program evaluation (pp. 15–55). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  16. Mansfield, E., Rapoport, J., Romeo, A., Wagner, S., & Beardsley, G. (1977). Social and private rates of return from industrial innovations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(2), 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mowery, D. C. (2011). Nanotechnology and the US national innovation system: continuity and change. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(6), 697–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. National Center for Manufacturing Sciences. (2010). 2009 Study of Nanotechnology in the U.S. Manufacturing Industry. Final Report to the National Science Foundation.
  19. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (1992). Circular no. A-94: Guidelines and Discount Rates for Cost-Benefits Analyses of Federal Programs.Google Scholar
  20. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2003). Circular no. A-4: Regulatory Analysis.Google Scholar
  21. Ponomariov, B. (2013). Government-sponsored university-industry collaboration and the production of nanotechnology patents in US universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(6), 749–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rashba, E., & Gamota, D. (2003). Anticipatory standards and the commercialization of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 5(3–4), 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robert R. Nathan and Associates, Inc. (1978) Net rates of return on innovations, Report to the National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. Salamon, A. W. (2013). The current world of nanomaterial characterization: Discussion of analytical instruments for nanomaterial characterization. Environmental Engineering Science, 30(3), 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Salamon, A. W., Courtney, P., & Shuttler, I. (2010). Nanotechnology and engineered nanomaterials: A primer. Waltham: PerkinElmer.Google Scholar
  26. Scherer, F. M., & Link, A. N. (Eds.). (2005). Essays in honor of Edwin Mansfield. Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Scott, J. T. (1993). Purposive diversification and economic performance. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott, T. J., & Scott, J. T. (2015). Standards and innovation: US public/private partnerships to support technology-based economic growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 24(5), 457–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Kay, L. (2011). National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(6), 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tassey, G. (2015). The economic nature of knowledge embodied in standards for technology-based industries, chapter 12. In C. Antonelli & A. N. Link (Eds.), Routledge handbook of the economics of knowledge (pp. 189–208). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2011). University-industry linkages in nanotechnology and biotechnology: Evidence on collaborative patterns for new methods of inventing. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(6), 605–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Youtie, J., Iacopetta, M., & Graham, S. (2008). Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Mapping the nanotechnology enterprise: A multi-indicator analysis of emerging nanodistricts in the US South. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(2), 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic Analysis & Evaluation, LLCWestminsterUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations