Introduction

Scientific and technological novelties havealways been challenging for mankind. Newtechnology brings with it numerous opportu-nities and great apprehension. In this context,there is a natural interest in emerging tech-nologies, such as biotech, cognitech and nano-

tech. If, on the one hand, new technologicalapplications normally offer increased oppor-tunities, higher living standards, and lead tothe redefinition of social and cultural para-digms, on the other hand, as they lead to thebreakdown of previous social rules, they alwayscreate a sensation of discomfort and insecu-rity.

Research SectionTechnological trajectories and multidimensio-nal impacts: further remarks on the nanotech-nology industry

Paulo Antônio Zawislak*, Luis FernandoMarques**,Priscila Esteves*** and Fernanda Rublescki****

The article discusses various views on the emergence and impacts of nanotechno-logy. It proposes a multidimensional framework for analyzing the different tech-nological, economical, environmental and social dimensions of nanotechnology.The researchmethod consists of a three step investigation of both the positive andnegative impacts of nanoscience and nanotechnology on different Brazilian sta-keholders. From the insights providedbyagroupof experts itwaspossible to designa survey instrument thatwasapplied to 59Braziliannanobiotechnology researchers.The survey results show that, on the onehand,nanotechnology is expected to leadto economic development,product development,business competitiveness,greaterjob specialization, less pollution, improvements to the health system and exten-ded life expectancy. On the other hand, however, nanotechnologymay cause spe-cific forms of contamination due to nanotechnological manipulation, more lay-offs, massive industrial restructuring, and other potential risks. Both perspectiveswould suggest the need for a regulatory framework to deal with the uncertaintyand ensure a regular pathway for the stakeholders to be able to exploit this tech-nology to its full potential.

* Graduate Center on Business Administration, School of Management, Federal University of RioGrande do Sul, PPGA/EA/UFRGS, RuaWashington Luiz, 855, Porto Alegre, RS, 90.010-000, Brazil,paz@ea.ufrgs.br

** Graduate Center on Business Administration, School of Management, Federal University of RioGrande do Sul, PPGA/EA/UFRGS, RuaWashington Luiz, 855, Porto Alegre, RS, 90.010-000, Brazil,lmarques@redemeta.com.br

*** Graduate Center on Business Administration, School of Management, Federal University of RioGrande do Sul, PPGA/EA/UFRGS, RuaWashington Luiz, 855 , Porto Alegre, RS, 90.010-000, Brazil,priesteves@gmail.com

**** Graduate Center on Business Administration, School of Management, Federal University of RioGrande do Sul, PPGA/EA/UFRGS, RuaWashington Luiz, 855, Porto Alegre, RS, 90.010-000, Brazil,fernandarbraga@hotmail.com

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1) © 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Technological trajectories and multidimensional impacts: further remarks on thenanotechnology industry

47

It is essential to prepare the scientific com-munity so that it can provide up-to-date infor-mation and new insights to facilitate the dis-semination of any new technology, reducingthe risk of misunderstanding either the bene-fits or the negative impacts. As an example,Shellenberger & Nordhaus (2004) have shownthat environmental research failed to forecastnegative impacts (such as global warming).Another example was the alarming delay bet-ween the onset of the social and economicimpacts of GMOs (genetically modified organ-isms) and the initiation of the scientific deba-te on the subject.

The last five years have seen a significantgrowth in nanoscience and nanotechnologydevelopments from academic publications andpatents to multiple industrial and economicapplications. The benefits are extendedthrough new applications in chemistry,mate-rials, electronics, computing, medicine andpharmaceuticals, among others. Due to itsoverall and horizontal range of applications,nanotechnology has already become inevita-ble.

The expected positive impacts of nanotech-nology range from a technological revolutionin the manufacturing process, new employ-ment skills, and the emergence of new indus-tries, to a variety of economic opportunities.However, many of the expected impacts arenot exactly clear to the different stakeholders.Moreover, doubts still remain regarding thesafety of the nanotechnology for human healthand the ecological system. It is claimed thatthe nanometric size of newmolecular structu-res in itself represents a threat due to the easewith which their action mechanism can spre-ad within life systems, causing contaminati-on and toxicity.

Given this, there is an urgent need to dis-cuss the ways in which social, environmentaland economic certainty can be increased. It isour belief that such changes could be bettermonitored and harmful effects better predictedand controlled, if an enhanced concept of Free-man & Perez´s (1988) techno-economic para-digm, based on the multidimensional inter-linking of agents and different outcomes, isused.

Evolutionary Economics (Dosi, 1991; Pavitt,1992) suggests that any on-going technologyis dependent on a path, in which it is possibleto foresee its future development. In the caseof a new technology it is harder to predict theirdevelopment path as their path is unknown.The lack of knowledge and the inherent uncer-

tainty of any new venture certainly enhancedoubt and create fear. Any new technologywill obviously engender both positive andnegative impacts. To better understand thisissue, it is necessary to understand the entirephenomenon from a technical/economic per-spective, while it is also imperative to incor-porate new dimensional sights, such as thesocial and the environmental perspectives.

This paper proposes to identify, throughextensive research carried out within the Bra-zilian nanobiotechnology research network,the potential benefits and threats to the eco-nomy, society and environment offered by theemergence of nanoscience and nanotechno-logy.

This paper includes five more sections: Thenext, section two, will address the emergen-ce of new technologies in general. Section threefocuses on the path of nanotechnology and itspositive and negative impacts. Sections fourand five are dedicated, respectively, to themethodology and the results obtained fromthe research effort made during 2004 and 2008.The final remarks are in section six.

The Emergence of New Technologiesand Development

The Schumpeterian tradition suggests thatthe successful spread of innovation throug-hout the economy and society will generate anew cycle, value creation and wealth. Freemanand Perez (1988) defined any major new tech-nological breakthrough as a new techno-eco-nomic paradigm.

This kind of analysis, in which differentrevolutionary periods are perceived primari-ly from a techno-economical perspective, hasproven to be of limited use when dealing withthe complexity of the real world (Perez, 1993).That is why, for example, it was hard for envi-ronmentalists to predict impending events,such as global warming and biotech hazar-dous products, of recent industrial innovati-ons. Ignoring precise test validation, compa-nies violated ethical principles and only con-sidered economic returns (Shellenberger andNordhaus, 2004; ETC Group, 2004).

In order to deal with a complex world, sig-nificant changes are required to the definiti-on of development when attempting to under-stand an emerging new technology. The cur-rent debate, which is actually contributingtowards broadening that definition, is prima-rily focused on research into sustainable deve-lopment (Asheim, Buchholz and Tungodden,

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1)© 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Paulo Antônio Zawislak, Luis Fernando Marques, Priscila Esteves and FernandaRublescki

48

2001; Banerjee, 2003; Bansal, 2003; Borron andMurray, 2004; Greaker, 2003; Spangenberg,2004).

In fact, depending on the intensity of theinnovation cycle, both positive and negativeimpacts are felt over a multitude of dimensi-ons. If it is intense, as in the case of revolutio-nary technologies, the impacts are not res-tricted only to the economic dimension, butwill certainly extend to other dimensions, suchas the social and environmental ones.

In order to copewith these nonlinear impactflows, it is important to provide a general con-cept to incorporate them. Since the classicaldefinition of the techno-economic paradigmonly partially fulfils the task, Zawislak et al(2006, p.4) have enlarged the concept of deve-lopment as to be:

“a set of actions that can ensure the bestconditions for mankind’s survival, which canbe deployed into different dimensions, suchas better tools and techniques to solve pro-blems (technological dimension), an increasein wealth generation (economic dimension),wide comprehensive welfare for the society

(social dimension), and natural resource con-servation (environmental dimension).”

This multidimensional approach (i.e. tech-nological and economic dimensions plus soci-al and environmental ones) better reflects thecomplexity of the contemporary technologyscenario.

This approach emphasizes the role of dif-ferent relevant agents, such as the individual,organizations, or groups of organizations, asengines for and/or the consequence of change.This situation suggests that the scope of ana-lysis that explains the existence and the sys-temic role of any individual or organizationshould be enlarged to consider their differentinterlinkages (Nielsen, 2001). If, on the onehand, these actors may fulfil a more signifi-cant role in a certain dimension, on the otherhand, they can also play simultaneous rolesin different dimensions. The major stakehol-ders are universities and public research cen-tres, companies, the State, consumers, citizensand non-governmental organizations (NGOs)(Marques, 2008).

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1) © 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Technological trajectories and multidimensional impacts: further remarks on thenanotechnology industry

Figure 1 Multidimensional model for the analysis of the impacts of new technology

→

→→ → →→ →→ →→ →→ →→ →→ →→→→→ →

→

→

→

→→

→→

→→ →→ →→TechnologicalDimension

EconomicDimension

SocialDimension

EnvironmentalDimension

Universities andPublic Research

CentresState Companies Consumers Citizens NGO’s

→→ →Cross-dimensionalinteraction

Influence Scopeof na Actor

Technologytrajectory

49

This complex system is better understoodby considering the cross impacts of the diffe-rent dimensions and their respective interlin-ked stakeholders, who undergo possible gene-ral effects (both positive and negative) of anew technological trajectory. Figure 1 showshow the multidimensional model for the ana-lysis of new technology impacts works.

Since we are dealing with technologicalimpacts, technology itself is the primary driverin the achievement of economic development.From this multidimensional perspective andconsidering that new technology is increa-singly general purpose in nature, its diffusi-on throughout society normally leads to (Bres-naham & Trajtemberg, 1995; Carlaw & Lipsey,2002; Carlaw et. al, 2005):

1) more complex forms, with undeniableincreases in productivity;

2) a new range of applications;3) a wide range variety of economic results;4) and the emergence of a diversity of new

products and technological processes.

However, many different paths can be fol-lowed. First, the use of new technology impliespositive effects in the economic dimension,by establishing productivity growth andwealth creation (Schumpeter, 1934; Solow, 1957;Nelson &Winter, 1982). Second, it also impliesnegative effects like, the disappearance of eco-nomic sectors, increases in new investments,the exclusion of existing businesses in themarket, as well as more difficulty on distribu-ting wealth, generating employment and stan-dards of competence (Tobin, 1989; Furtado,2001).

In order to fully comprehend the phenome-non, besides understanding the impacts ofnew technology on the economic dimension,it is also necessary to understand how it affectsthe social and the environmental dimensions.

Normally, the mainstream society continu-es to follow as old concept of development thatadheres to a different pattern of generatingsocial benefits and exploiting natural resour-ces. But as new industries and products emer-ge, a new social structure is needed. New cul-tural behaviour and attitudes change expecta-tions and profiles. It is as if a new kind of socie-ty emerges within the old as a result of newtechno-economic trends. New behaviour alsoleads to new environmental impacts.

Martinet and Reynaud (2004) have shown,for example, that deforestation for commer-cial use has impacted on water resources, soil

and world climate; in some regions, the loo-ming desertification has caused soil erosionand infertility, the extinction of species, andshrinkage of the agricultural area. In fact, theimpacts are all interlinked, and generate sig-nificant direct and indirect technological costs,and the emergence of new sub-patterns andthe search for new technical solutions.

In the opinion of experts, nanotechnologyis an emerging general purpose technology.The forthcoming nanorevolution needs to bebetter understood (Carlaw et al. 2005; Elsi,2005; Roco & Bainbridge, 2006).

Nanotechnology: Trajectories andImpacts

Nanotechnology is the group of technolo-gies resulting from scientific discoveries madein different fields of knowledge, such as che-mistry, physics, biology, material and compu-tational engineering, where the dimension ofmanipulation is nanometric (Nanologue, 2006).In essence, nanotechnology consists in the abi-lity to manipulate matter at an atomic scale,in order to create structures with a differen-tiated molecular organization and differentproperties (Crandall, 1997).

Regarding that material property, nano-technology has the potential of creating seve-ral technical applications with impacts inmany different economic sectors. One exam-ple is the carbon nanotube that promise toenable lighter, stronger materials that can beused in civil construction, heavy machinery,car manufacturing, electronics industry andso many others (Nanologue, 2006). This varie-ty of applications makes it difficult to evalua-te and measure the impacts of nanotechnolo-gy using the traditional linear view (NIST, 1999;Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering,2004).

NNaannootteecchhnnoollooggyy aass aann EEmmeerrggiinngg TTeecchhnnoollooggii--ccaall TTrraajjeeccttoorryy

When analyzing the development of nano-technology and its various spill-overs, publi-shing (articles) and patenting (number ofpatents) are interesting ways of measuringthe timelag that occurs between the publica-tion of scientific findings to the patenting oftechnological applications (Zucker & Darby,2005).

This timelag can be clearly seen by compa-ring the number of articles and patents invol-ving nanotechnology vis a vis biotechnology

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1)© 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Paulo Antônio Zawislak, Luis Fernando Marques, Priscila Esteves and FernandaRublescki

50

(of which Genetically Modified Organisms isa significant example), as shown in Figure 2below.

Between 1983 and 1990, the number of arti-cles dealing with nanoscience and nanotech-nology grew exponentially, doubling roughlyevery 7.3 years. Between 1991 and 2005, howe-ver, the rate of new publications increasedconsiderably, doubling every 3.3 years (Zuckerand Darby, 2005; Kaiser, 2006). With biotech-nology research and applications, the resultsare almost the same: exponential growth.Observing the biotech time lag pattern, it isinteresting to note that there was an increa-se in number of related patents several yearsafter the expansion in the number of newpapers.

By following the trends shown in Figure 2,the same pattern can be expected to take placewith nanotechnology.

This idea is reinforced by Zanetti-Ramosand Creczynski-Pasa (2007) for whom the gro-wing number of articles published suggestssignificant investments in research. Conse-quently, Fishbine (2002) claims that researchstimulates investments in nanotechnologiesreaching figures that surpass billions of dol-lars.

Research leads to new investment and sti-mulates new entrants in the business of nanos-cience and nanotechnology. According to Kin-gon et al. (2004), in 1999 the number of newentrants whose main products or services werebased on nanotechnology was around 100.However, this figure has now surpassed 1,000in only 3 years. Moreover, according to Alves(2004), 15 years from now, the estimated annu-al production of products based on nanotech-nology will be in the range of 1 trillion dollars,a value that will require the employment ofat least 2 million workers in this sector.

These figures are sufficiently important todraw attention to the debate on the predicta-bility of nanotechnology. It is particularlyimportant since the expected negative impactsof nanotechnology include applications thatwould be potentially harmful to mankind, suchas the capacity to build mass destructionweapons (Marques, 2008). These potentialnegative impacts cast doubt on the safety ofnanotechnology in terms of human health andvarious biological chains (Nanologue, 2006).

MMuullttiiddiimmeennssiioonnaall IImmppaaccttss

The problem with nanotechnology is not

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1) © 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Figure 2 Comparison of indicators (biotechnology versus nanotechnology) Source: Zucker and Darby (2005)

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Percen

t of S&E Articles o

r Paten

ts

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Years from Base Year (1986 for Nanotech, 1973 for Biotech)

nano articles

nano patents

biotech articles

biotech patents

Technological trajectories and multidimensional impacts: further remarks on thenanotechnology industry

51

just related to size but, instead, whether it issafe and controllable. This has led to a newdebate, which addresses the consequences ofthe nanotechnology. This debate covers thetechnological, economic, social and environ-mental dimensions of the impacts of nano-technology.

Regarding the technological dimension, itis necessary to asses the impact on the paceof progress in nanoscience and the diversityof its technological applications. This evoluti-on will raise the level of professional skills andenhance scientific discoveries and future sce-narios for the nanotechnology trajectory.

Regarding the possible variables involvedin the economic impact of nanotechnology onthe various agents it is necessary to considerthe level of economic development, the ave-rage level of profitability, the degree of opti-mization of the use of inputs, the average pri-ces of new products in relation to those of aprevious technological generation, the levelof manual labour required to establish the newparadigm, as well as the cost of living and inco-me distribution.

The social dimension involves the impactof nanotechnology on the level of employmentin various economic sectors, the level of wel-fare created, and the progress made with itsapplication in human health.

Finally, the environmental dimension con-cerns the degree of environmental pollution,the degree of contamination, the destructionof different existing biomes and the conser-vation of natural resources.

This complex scenario demands a new regu-latory framework to control the pace of nano-technological development in a fair manner.If such a regulatory framework is delayed,nanotechnology could come to be seen in anegative light. It is necessary to stress that aregulatory framework may lose its capacity toguide the development of the technology, thusbecoming incapable of controlling its spreadand that of its associated dangers.

To prevent such an “unstoppable” trend, itis worth carrying out a cross study of the majorevents that have characterized the emergen-ce of previous revolutionary technologies. Theopinions of experts and the perceptions of theactors involved are useful in identifying themost relevant impacts of nanotechnology andrepresent an important guideline for a futu-re regulatory framework.

Important questions are raised within thisdebate such as: what are the major impactsemerging from nanotechnology? When will

they occur? What is the right timing for regu-lation?

Methodology

In an effort to analyze the technologicaltrajectory of nanotechnology and its possibleimpacts a two-fold, in-depth study and a sur-vey were carried out. The research was con-ducted in three different stages between Octo-ber 2004 and May 2008. In the first stage,experts in nanotechnology, from various ana-lytical perspectives, were asked to identify thepotential impacts of nanotechnology. In thesecond stage, a survey was conducted amongthe researchers belonging to the BrazilianNanobiotechnology Network. The third stageconsisted in an effort at reconfirming the databy interviewing businessmen involved in andaffected by the application of nanotechnolo-gy.

SSttaaggee 11:: IInntteerrvviieewwss wwiitthh EExxppeerrttss iinn NNaannootteecchh--nnoollooggyy

Sixteen experts from diverse fields ofknowledge and experience were interviewed.They were selected in a non-probabilistic wayfrom the areas of basic sciences, engineering,social sciences, ethics, politics, and represen-tatives of non-governmental and commercialorganizations. The experts were: 6 researchers(Biotechnology, Physics, Chemistry, Materials,Pharmacology, Sociology); 1 catholic priest whois a federal congressman; 1 federal judge; 1international NGO representative; 6 Braziliangovernment representatives (from CNPq, FINEP,2 MCT, MMA and Embrapa); and 1 business-man.

They were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire dealing with thepotential impacts of nanotechnology that, intheir opinion, may actually occur.

From the collected data, a set of impactswas listed showing the potential generaleffects from nanotechnology on the techno-logical, economic, social and environmentaldimensions. This list gave rise to 35 statementsthat were used in the survey instrument.

SSttaaggee 22:: SSuurrvveeyy

The focus of this survey was the Nanobio-technology Network, which operated between2003 and 2005, with members from 18 natio-nal and state institutions from eight Brazili-an states

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1)© 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Paulo Antônio Zawislak, Luis Fernando Marques, Priscila Esteves and FernandaRublescki

52

In an effort to facilitate the understandingthe interlinked effects, the statements rela-ting to the application of nanoscience andnanotechnology were limited to the field ofnanobiotechnology, and two specific econo-mic sectors: cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.Both sectors have a high level of R&D invest-ment (around 10% of sales) and also, due tothe already mastered scientific capability ofdesigning new molecular structures, are acce-lerating the launch of new products.

The sample consisted of members of theBrazilian Nanobiotechnological Network (aninstitutional research and development net-work formed by the Brazilian National Coun-cil for Scientific and Technological Develop-ment – CNPq – of the Ministry of Science andTechnology – MCT). The Network consists of92 PhD researchers; 59 of whom returned thequestionnaire (64% return rate). They werecontacted by telephone and e-mail in order toreduce time and costs involved.

The sample profile shows that 93.2% of sur-veyed researchers are primarily related topublic institutions, and the remaining 6.8%related to private institutions.

Regarding the type of institution, 86.4% arefrom universities, 11.9% from technology cen-tres and 1.7% from foundations. By using theLattes-CNPq database it was possible to iden-tify each professor’s areas of knowledge inrelation to nanotechnology (Lattes, 2006). Thus,researchers with recognised expertise in phy-sics constitute 25.4% of respondents, chemis-try 22%, biology 33.9% and pharmacology 18.6%.

Using the data collected in stage I, a sur-vey instrument (questionnaire) was elabora-ted which included a four-step Likert scale,where the level of agreement of the respon-dent varied from a lower limit, represented bythe number one (1) –meaning “I totally dis-agree” – to an upper limit, represented by thenumber four (4) – meaning “I totally agree”.The use of this scale required the researcherto position himself in relation to a determin-ed aspect of the subject. Appendix shows thegeneral results (percantage) for all statements.Furthermore, the results will be presented asmeans (m) and standards-deviation (s) of thetotal of responses to the four-step Likert scale.

The statements followed the order of themultidimensional model, where the first partdealt with the technological dimension, follo-wed, in sequence, by the economic, social andenvironmental dimensions.

SSttaaggee 33:: IInntteerrvviieewwss wwiitthh BBuussiinneessssmmeenn

The second exploratory in-depth study wasconducted with five representatives from com-panies within the cosmetic and pharmaceu-tical industries. It was decided to restrict theresearch to companies geographically estab-lished in Brazil.

This phase consisted on comparing the out-comes from the survey (scientific and techno-logical-based study) with the points of viewoffered by the companies (profit-orientedimpression) in order to deal with real possi-ble effects and impacts of nanotechnology onthe dimensions under consideration.

In order to identify companies with in-house R&D into nanotechnology that couldprovide representatives for interviews the Bra-zilian Innovation Agency (FINEP) was consul-ted. As a result, five companies were selectedand their respective representatives were inter-viewed using a semi-structured questionnai-re.

Analysis of the Results

The analysis of the results is divided intothree sections. First, the impacts, as perceivedby the experts in the interviews are presen-ted and then divided into seven domains. Inthe second section, the survey statistics aredescribed following the order of the four nano-technology impact dimensions, the impactson stakeholders, and the need for a regulato-ry framework for nanotechnology. The finalsection shows the perceptions of entrepre-neurs in relation to potential impacts of nano-technology.

IImmppaaccttss DDeetteerrmmiinneedd ffrroomm IInntteerrvviieewwss wwiitthhEExxppeerrttss

The research findings shows that nanotech-nology affects the stakeholders involved bothpositively and negatively. However, althoughit is impossible to identify the full consequen-ces, it is possible to outline a set of doubleimpacts that may be used to establish a futu-re regulatory framework.

The following section contains a summa-ry of the foreseen impacts. As can be seen, newbusinesses, new products and new materialswill certainly lead to new productions systemsand yet unknown social impacts.

Integration and substitution of technologyNanotechnology will provide a wide range

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1) © 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Technological trajectories and multidimensional impacts: further remarks on thenanotechnology industry

53

of new applications, based on either in-usetechnology or completely new applications.As a general purpose technology, nanotech-nology is fully able to create or to enhancenovelty within almost every scientific domain.

New scientific research areas, new kinds ofraw materials, new products and new indus-tries, will lead to a new individual, organiza-tional and collective behaviour.

The replacement of existing principles andtechniques is, perhaps, the most importantimpact. Obsolescence will affect business com-petiveness, employment perspectives and soci-al wealth. Since it is almost impossible tomechanically replace obsolete technologicaland competence structures for new ones, out-dated knowledge and practices will be erasedfrom different communities. It is unlikely, forexample, that the workers from the traditio-nal metal-casting industry will simply beemployed by new steel injection companies.

The cost of the shift to a new educationaland professional paradigm will change Stateand university institutional structures. Once-valued skills may not necessarily be applica-ble to new technology.

New products and businessThe new technological standards will cer-

tainly change the way in which matter is mani-pulated. Since nanotechnology deals with phy-sical structures at the molecular level, a wholerange of new products can be imagined anddeveloped. As a consequence of this techno-logical innovation, a variety of new busines-ses will emerge.

Not only new companies with, as yetunknown, new product alternatives, but alsoexisting businesses will profit from the oppor-tunities provided. R&D capabilities will reachnew levels, both in terms of the specific skillsof personnel and in terms of laboratory structu-res, thus requiring greater expenditure on R&D.Sectors and companies with less investmentcapability will tend to fall behind in this newtechnological trajectory.

Since nanoscience and nanotechnology arenew fields, companies will certainly need toestablish new patterns of open innovationwith universities and technocentres. Equally,to avoid the misuse of principles and techni-ques, research and laboratory procedures willneed to be redesigned.

New products will lead to new patterns ofconsumer behaviour. It is expected that newproducts will appear with significant advan-tages in terms of quality, reliability and price.

However, major doubts have emerged in rela-tion to the issue of consumption. Since parti-cle manipulation is the very essence of nano-technology, consumers may be exposed to dif-ferent and unknown forms of contaminationand environmental change. The risk to healthis greater the more invasive is the product,such as food, drugs or cosmetics.

State agencies, NGOs and citizen’s organi-zations will face new challenges to under-stand, prevent and avoid any possible negati-ve impacts.

Extraction of raw material One of the most important positive impacts

is the complete change in the supply of rawmaterials. Nanotechnology has the potentialto replace traditional extraction by syntheticproduction and, thus, to effectively reduce envi-ronmental impacts. This touches on one of thebasic pillars of capitalism, i.e. the exacerbateduse of natural sources of inputs.

According to the experts, this major shiftwill completely change the structure of valuechains. Reductions in raw material and logis-tics costs, as well as in other transaction costswill to lead to a reorientation of business stra-tegies. There will be a shift from supply todemand oriented strategies, where new pro-ducts, with new price relations, will becomeeasier to obtain, not only because they maybecome cheaper, but also due to the reducti-on in procurement and sales.

New materials, new logistic and operatio-nal structures, new products and new consu-mer behaviour will give rise to new industri-al production chains, where productivity, effi-ciency, quality and cost will reach new stan-dards.

However, as with any new production pro-cess, the extraction of the raw material deman-ded by nanotechnology will require new safetyand hazard-free structures. As yet there are nostandardized technical procedures to ensuresafety with nanomanipulation; therefore nano-production is certainly one of the major chal-lenges to be overcome. Universities, researchcentres, industrial organizations and NGOshave a key role to play in this quest.

Changes in the mode of production of com-mon products

Nanoproduction, as stated above, is one of– if not - the major challenge for business ven-tures seeking to take advantage of nanotech-nology. While new materials, new applicati-ons and new products are perfectly imagina-

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1)© 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Paulo Antônio Zawislak, Luis Fernando Marques, Priscila Esteves and FernandaRublescki

54

ble, the problem remains as to how to use,apply and produce them.

It is not merely a question of quality or pro-ductivity. It is more a question of how to con-cretely produce stable nanometric structures.Size has not yet been fully mastered and manynanoproducts are still micrometric products.Moreover, there is still a knowledge gap in rela-tion to inert and active matter. While newnanoelectronic devices have already been suc-cessfully produced in the semiconductor indus-try, there remains a problem in bionanotech-nology sectors, such as chemicals.

University-based scientific research, espe-cially in engineering, will face great challen-ges in the next ten years. Society, as a whole,is still waiting for new nanoproduction tech-nologies. Until then, traditional productionprocess will be adapted to new nanotechno-logy products. And here lies a high risk of crea-ting a negative impact, as traditional producti-on processes may not be fully adequate to dealwith nanometric structures. In the cosmeticindustry, the unstable scale of the nanometricliposome in dermocosmetics can be expensi-ve for costumers or harmful for human health,since if they are too big they may be useless,while, if too small, they may reach the blood-stream and produce undesirable side effects.

It will be difficult for State regulatory agen-cies to deal with such uncertainties.

Impact of automation on employmentAs a result of the challenges that come with

nanoproduction, automation seems to be abso-lutely necessary to achieve competitive pro-ductivity and high quality standards in nano-metric products. Since it is almost impossibleto use traditional manufacturing procedures,labour tasks will certainly change.

Even highly trained personnel will proba-bly find themselves out of the work. On theone hand, the above-mentioned gap betweenscientific knowledge and technical practice ishard to be filled using their existing skills. Onthe other hand, there is still a lack of peoplewith sufficient experience in the new techno-logy to efficiently work in nanoproduction.

Because of the rapid pace at which nano-technology is being adopted in many sectors,new investment will probably be much moreequipment oriented then competence orient-ed. Therefore, nanotechnology is likely to redu-ce job generation and so affect welfare andundermine social relations.

Here, government and NGOs seem to havean important role; in developed countries, to

avoid high rates of unemployment and, inemerging economies, to guarantee balancedinvestments in new technology and new indus-trial sectors.

Generation of hazardous particlesThis is, perhaps, the classic negative impact.

The “nanofear” effect is based much more onignorance than on reality. The popular ideathat nanostructures will invade human bodiesand then dominate the world is science ficti-on, but there are hazards involved.

Since people lack of information, consumerbehaviour will remain sceptical. This certain-ly affects the demand for new products and,thus, the success of the new companies basedon nanoproduction. In fact, the ease with whichnanoparticles could penetrate living systems,both human and natural resources, couldeffectively cause damage to health, contami-nation, pollution and degradation. However,the extent to which this can happen is not fullymeasurable. For example, as has happenedwith agro-toxins, cumulative and chroniceffects may only come to light many yearslater.

Once again, in this area regulatory agen-cies and NGOs have a major role to play. TheState should increase expenditure on research,prevention and control, while NGOs shoulddedicate themselves to gathering relevantinformation and increasing public awareness.This is why a new regulatory framework isurgent.

Until further information is available, thecare taken by civil society will prevail overblind confidence in this new technology.

Impact on health systemsHere, once again, there is an evident dou-

ble effect. The discovery of new medical pro-cedures and drugs are the most valuable deve-lopments of nanoscience, though, at the sametime, the risk of contamination remains high.

On the one hand, medical research is poin-ting to a whole new world of possibilities. Newtreatments, new cures, new devices, new tech-niques can and will make use of new nanos-cience and nanotechnology-based develop-ments and devices. Moreover, further exten-ding the human life span is a long-held dreamof mankind. Improved human health and lifequality are without doubt the most hoped out-comes of nanotechnology.

On the other hand, if this is achieved, socie-ty as a whole and the State will benefit. Publichealth services will enhance quality and redu-

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1) © 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Technological trajectories and multidimensional impacts: further remarks on thenanotechnology industry

55

ce expenditure, since new upcoming nano-based treatments are expected to be more accu-rate than existing procedures. That is why mostR&D expenditure made by private companiesis still being cantered on the medical, phar-maceutical and cosmetic industries.

TThhee SSuurrvveeyy

In this stage of the study, 35 statements –that were based on the experts opinions, refer-ring to both the positive and negative impactsof nanotechnology, and that were formulatedinto a survey instrument which was sent tothe Brazilian nanobiotechnology networkresearchers – are presented one by one accor-ding to their specific dimensions.1

Technological DimensionFrom the data collected, for example, the

mean of the responses to the first statementshows that the researchers tend to believe (m= 2.6) that nanotechnology can provide unli-mited solutions to many of the problems facedby society, and almost all (m = 3.9) believe thatresearch in nanotechnology will open newfrontiers for knowledge and new scientific dis-coveries (see Table 1).

Regarding the impact of nanotechnologyon the process of product development, mostof the researchers (m = 2.93) believe that thetime between a product’s development and itslaunch will be reduced.

Yet, the analysis of the standard deviationshows that there is wide variance in theresponses to the majority of the statementsconcerning the technological dimension, whichmay suggest a certain level of doubt in relati-on to the real potential of nanotechnology,notably in terms of what products will looklike.

Economic DimensionMost of the researchers strongly believe

that nanotechnology will stimulate the growthof new industries and the disappearance ofold ones, it will also require investment in pro-fessional training for future employees, andwill increase R&D expenditure (see the resultsin Table 2)

Moreover, they believe that nanotechnolo-gy could increase the level of employment inthe economy, since most of the researchersdisagree that nanotechnology will be a factorleading to the exclusion of the low-income-population (m = 1.85).

Another aspect pointed out by theresearchers was that the expense involved intreating waste from nanotechnology will belower when compared to other technologies(m = 1.94). It may also lead to a rise in spen-ding on health care, as nanotechnological pro-ducts will be more expensive than conventio-nal products.

In contrast, the researchers strongly belie-ve in the need for investments in nanotech-

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1)© 2010 Institute of Business Administration

1) Statistical tests were applied to cross-reference data. The first set of statistical tests used was intended to verify whether the sample was subject to a normal distribution. Thus,the homogeneity test and the Kolgomorov-Smirnov test showed that in all the research questions the answers did not show normal distribution. Hence, the nonparametric Krus-kal-Wallis test was applied, because statistical techniques are best suited for use with small samples in the absence of normal distribution (MENDENHALL, 1990). The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed the existence of statistically significant differences in the responses from the surveyed researchers due to their different fields of knowledge. The test show-ed that all the questions received answers of little statistical significance (p> 0.01), concluding that there are differences in responses between the knowledge areas surveyed inall dimensions.

Table 1 Technological Dimension

ImpactsMean (m)from 1 to 4

StandardDeviation (s)

Offers unlimited solutions to many of the society’s problems. 2.60 0.89

Nurtures technological integration at levels previously unimaginable. 3.50 0.68

Opens new research and knowledge frontiers. 3.90 0.31

Requires the creation of new laboratory procedures. 3.36 0.70

Creates a path for the raw material synthesis. 3.19 0.61

May reduce the development time of a new product. 2.93 0.70

Paulo Antônio Zawislak, Luis Fernando Marques, Priscila Esteves and FernandaRublescki

56

nology-qualified-labour (m = 3.65). In the in-depth interviews (stage 1), labour representa-tives mentioned that such investment will notbe only operational but also technological, thatis, the workers performing routine activitiesin the production process will be affected aswell as higher ranking staff, and the techni-cal positions will have to hold the necessaryknowledge in nanotechnology.

The economic dimension also revealed awide range of responses to most of the state-ments. This demonstrates the difficulty invol-ved in forming a position about the potentialof a new technology. This happens because ofthe certainty that nanotechnology demandshigher investments in professional qualifica-tion (m = 3.67), due to the variation in the phy-sical properties of matter, which leads to aneed for greater knowledge specialization.

Environmental DimensionThere is considerable doubt regarding the

possible environmental impacts (see Table 3).The interviewed researchers believe in reducti-on of pollution in general (m = 2.88). Moreo-ver, they disagree that nanotechnology isharmful to the human race and to the envi-ronment (m = 1.79), and with a high level ofuncertainty (s = 0.88) they tend to disagreethat nanotechnology will induce higher envi-ronmental consciousness and researcher ethics(m = 2.25).

The standard deviation among the envi-ronmental issues is high, which demonstra-tes a certain degree of uncertainty about thepotential benefits of the new technology forthe environment.

Social DimensionThe social impact is influenced by other

impacts, in both positive and negative ways.However, most of the researchers believe thatnanotechnology will be able to improve thequality of life among the population and that

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1) © 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Table 2 Economic Dimension

ImpactsMean (m)from 1 to 4

StandardDeviation (s)

Will facilitate the emergence of new industries. 3.64 0.51

May increase employment levels in the economy. 3.00 0.63

Will require investment in professional training for future employees. 3.67 0.47

May cause the disappearance of industries that do not apply nanotechnology. 1.91 0.80

May increase the spending level on measures to prevent the problems caused by nano-technology waste.

1.94 0.74

May provide lower cost raw materials for industry. 2.78 0.78

Offers the possibility of unlimited scale of production of consumer goods. 2.27 0.85

Requires increased investment in research and development by enterprises. 3.65 0.51

May lead to more expensive health insurance plans. 1.98 0.83

The treatment of waste from nanotechnology will cost more than any other. 1.94 0.74

The nanotechnology-based products will be more expensive than other products. 2.20 0.73

Will be a factor leading to the exclusion of the low-income population. 1.85 0.79

Table 3 Environmental Dimension

ImpactsMean (m)from 1 to 4

StandardDeviation (s)

Will assist in reducing pollution in general. 2.88 0.74

It is pollutant to humans and to the environment. 1.79 0.73

Will increase environmental awareness and researcher ethics. 2.25 0.88

Technological trajectories and multidimensional impacts: further remarks on thenanotechnology industry

57

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1)© 2010 Institute of Business Administration

it might lead to further extension of the humanlife span (respectively, m = 3.58 and m = 3.13).But they disagree that, currently, nanotech-nology has a negative image among the popu-lation (m = 1.69) and that it may cause harmto human health (m = 2.02).

The expectation that nanotechnology willbring benefits to the population is, thus, gene-rally confirmed. The interviewed researchersseem to expect a great deal from the nano-technological revolution, reflecting the trans-forming role of the scientific discoveries in thesociety (see Table 4).

Implications for the Regulatory FrameworkThe interviewed researchers agree (m = 3.37)

that the laws and rules should help preventany potential negative impact from nanotech-nology. However, they are not fully in accor-dance that the standards of ethical conduct ofresearchers should be stricter with nanotech-nology (m = 2.54 and s = 1.00). This may indi-cate a certain fear within the academic com-munity regarding the risks of misusing theexpected potential of nanotechnology (seeTable 5). This is, perhaps, better explained ifone considers the fact that they are also doubt-ful over the standardization of laboratory pro-cedures and health care researchers should bestricter with nanotechnology (m = 2.66 and s

= 0.95). However, respondents agree withtightening control of the manipulation ofnanotechnology by lab workers in order to pre-vent health risks. This shows some concernabout the possibility of contamination bynanotechnology, with a similar proportionwho agree that nanotechnology could pollu-te the biological chain and cause harm tohuman health.

Here, once again, the standard deviation ishigh, reinforcing the perception of uncertain-ty.

Impact on the StakeholdersIn the course of introducing a new techno-

economic paradigm several stakeholders influ-ence and are influenced by the technologicalinnovation process.

Questioned as to whether nanotechnologywill negatively impact the stakeholders, thesurveyed researchers strongly disagree (m =1.12 and s = 0.37) that this could happen to thescientific community, industry and compa-nies, consumers, the population, governments,and NGOs (see Table 6).

Moreover, in almost all the statementsregarding the impacts on the stakeholders thestandard-deviation tends to be low, which sug-gests the scientific community has a positiveconcept of nanotechnology.

Table 4 Social Dimension

ImpactsMean (m)from 1 to 4

StandardDeviation (s)

May improve the population’s quality of life. 3.58 0.56

Nowadays, nanotechnology has a negative image among the population. 1.69 0.89

May extend the human life span. 3.13 0.69

May cause damage to human health. 2.02 0.68

ImpactsMean (m)from 1 to 4

StandardDeviation (s)

Laws and rules should prevent any potential negative impact from nanotechnology. 3.37 0.85

Regulation may restrain private investment in nanotechnology. 2.43 0.91

The ethical principles governing researchers should be stricter with nanotechnology. 2.54 1.00

The laboratory procedures and health care standards for researchers should bestricter with nanotechnology.

2.66 0.95

Table 5 Implications for the Regulatory Framework

Paulo Antônio Zawislak, Luis Fernando Marques, Priscila Esteves and FernandaRublescki

58

Yet the highest standard deviation (s=0.77)is related to the impacts of nanotechnologyon non-governmental organizations (NGOs),which may reflect a certain fear on the partof the scientific communities related to theactions of more critical NGOs that emphasi-zed the negative aspects of Genetically Modi-fied Food technology.

IImmppaaccttss AAccccoorrddiinngg BBuussiinneessssmmeenn

While R&D expenditures on nanotechno-logy is steadily growing in developed coun-tries, in Brazil, the number of companies thathave initiated a nanotechnological trajectoryis still very low. In our research, only five repre-sentatives of such companies were intervie-wed. Even with the small sample of the repre-sentatives from the business world, the impactof nanotechnology outlined in the interviewscorresponds with the expectations identifiedby the experts interviewed in the previousstep in this study.

Technological impactsThe technological impacts of nanotechno-

logy are (and will) be significant in severalindustrial sectors, particularly in the pharma-ceutical industry, as shown by the four res-pondents from this sector.

Nanotechnology is expected to reduce therisks involved in product development to helpchange the paradigm within the pharmaceu-tical industry from a process of trial and errorto one which is planned, and focused on spe-cific uses of the new active ingredient. In thisindustry, nanotechnology research is motivat-ed by the special features it appears to offer.On-going research can be divided into twotypes: the scientific and technological.

The scientific search for new compounds,whether synthetic, vegetable or animal, cangenerate new drugs. Despite the tremendousadvances in biotechnology, the fine chemicalsindustry still employs the traditional synthe-sis of substances technique. Nanotechnologyoffers the opportunity to synthesize the mole-cules from which substances are made.

The technological research involves thesearch for new forms of administration andabsorption, and longer lasting action of thedrug in the body and seeking ways to enhan-ce and restrict the action of the drug at anexact point in the body in order to increasethe chances of effective action and reduce sideeffects. The first discoveries involving the appli-cation of nanotechnology are taking place wit-hin technological research.

In this section, applications are brokendown into the categories of drug action con-trol process, the extent of treatment by syn-thetic drugs, enhancement of active healingand disinfecting systems, the scope and effecti-veness of external (equipment and techniques)and internal (in vivo) diagnosis, new synthe-sis production processes, new techniques forcontrolling the dimension of the productionprocess, among others.

The Brazilian cosmetics industry has onlytwo companies capable of designing nano-technology-based products. A representativeof one of these companies asserted thatresearch into nanotechnology offers a num-ber of technological benefits such as increa-sed productivity during the release of the acti-ve cosmetics on human skin, increasing theeffectiveness of the cosmetic effect on the sur-face of human epidermis, slowing the agingof human epidermis, increasing the efficien-cy and effectiveness of the cosmetic action of

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1) © 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Table 6 Impact on the Stakeholders

ImpactsMean (m)from 1 to 4

StandardDeviation (s)

Will negatively impact on the scientific community. 1.12 0.37

Will negatively impact on industry and companies. 1.26 0.57

Will negatively impact on the population. 1.19 0.40

Will negatively impact on consumers. 1.19 0.40

Will have more negative than positive impacts on governments. 1.20 0.40

Will negatively impact on non-governmental organizations 1.50 0.77

Technological trajectories and multidimensional impacts: further remarks on thenanotechnology industry

59

sunscreen achieved by the combination offunctional properties in the cosmetic product(in addition to maintaining the quality of theskin, the cosmetic can change the colour itselfin accordance with changes in indicators ofthe environment such as temperature), amongother impacts.

In addition to the impacts on specific tech-nological industries, impacts of greater mag-nitude were indirectly mentioned, such as unli-mited solutions, technology integration, newprocedures, creation of new materials and cut-ting the time required for product develop-ment.

Economic ImpactsFor both industries, respondents foresee

that nanotechnology will save the active ingre-dient per unit of output, enable faster deve-lopment of new and efficient products, crea-te jobs for highly qualified professionals (PhDsand researchers), increase competition bet-ween companies in different sectors, requirehigher levels of initial investment for R & D,permit the development of more productiveprocesses, among other impacts.

Social and Environmental Impacts2

The reasons given by the interviewees forthis were: ignorance of the matter, difficultyanticipating uncertain events (since at thetime of the interviews, all the potential pro-ducts were in the early or intermediate stagesof development), and fear that an opinionmight impede the path of some innovationstrategies.

Unlike the experts, the company represen-tatives do not have clear opinions aboutimpacts on social and environmental dimen-sions. In general, the consideration of environ-mental and social concerns in the develop-ment of new technologies is relatively new inBrazilian companies, which means that theydo not create adequate condition for furthernanotechnological innovation.

Regarding this issue, the most plausibleconclusion is that the initial investment innanotechnology, as estimated by these com-panies, may be significantly increased by theignoring/exclusion of the social and environ-mental impacts. Business decisions are increa-

singly influenced by other types of stakehol-ders (such as unions, NGOs, etc.) in technolo-gically innovative projects, in addition to tra-ditional stakeholders (employees, customers,suppliers and government). This tends to leadto a lack of a close quality control during theprocess of developing a new technology or pro-duct.

Discussion: Towards a New Regulato-ry Framework

The present study examined the technolo-gical, economic, environmental and socialdimensions of nanotechnology. In order to per-ceive the different interlinked effects and rela-tions, a three-fold study was conduced withindifferent communities. Experts representingdifferent social stakeholders, nanobiotechresearchers and some businessmen were con-sulted in an attempt to shed light on uncer-tainty surrounding the possible impacts ofnanotechnology.

It is our belief that the different insightsindicate the possibilities that nanotechnolo-gy may provide. The experts seem to be morecautious regarding which impacts are positi-ve and which are negative. Although theresearchers are much more optimistic, it seemsthat their views are based much more on“wishful thinking” than on conviction. Theresearchers, being directly involved in newscientific and technological discovery, natu-rally stress the theoretical benefits of any upco-ming technology. Finally, the businessmen aremuch more concerned with the short term rat-her than the long term results.3

However, they all seem to agree with someconclusions. Nanotechnology will certainlylead to the growth of new industrial sectors,requiring increased spending in R&D and newprofessional skills. Moreover, the new drugs,new treatments and new materials resultingfrom the nanotechnological revolution willchange quality of life for mankind. New pro-ducts seem to offer a whole new range of valueperception and profitability.

Negative impacts were also commonly per-ceived, especially in terms of the impacts onhuman health and the growth in unemploy-ment. These two drivers fall within the soci-

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1)© 2010 Institute of Business Administration

2) These impacts were included together in this section because none of the respondents identified any positive or negative social or environmental impacts arising from nano-technology.

3) It is noteworthy that the type of field research influences the results. It is our belief that, an important limitation of this study was the use of different investigative methodsfor each community. And, thus, two limitations emerged: the researchers were too optimistic about the application of nanotechnology; and five company representatives is toosmall a sample to draw generalizations and consistent comparisons. However, even with these limitations, the results show that the impacts identified in the field study are inline with observations made in the literature in relation to nanotechnology.

Paulo Antônio Zawislak, Luis Fernando Marques, Priscila Esteves and FernandaRublescki

60

al dimension, since they affect public expen-diture on maintaining health and social secu-rity systems.

Like any other new technology, it is abso-lutely necessary to have a regulatory frame-work that ensures the control of any possibleharmful impacts. This new framework shouldconsider the commitment of different stake-holders, and the use of and the results fromnanotechnology R&D.

Considering the possible impacts listed forNanotechnology, one can say that universi-ties, in particular, as well as companies andtechnological centres demonstrate a "commit-ment" to the new emerging techno-economicparadigm.

There are some significant points thatshould guide the development of applicationsand products that relay on nanotechnology,such as: (a) the benefits of nanotechnologymust outweigh the highlighted risks in orderto reach a wide range of people, both in termsof its use and advantages; and (b) regulationshould not overstate the severity of risk, inorder not to inhibit investments in the R&Dof nanotechnological applications, such as wasseen in the case of stem-cell research debate.

A new mode of regulation must, above all,safeguard the rights of consumers and indi-vidual citizens. With nanotechnology it shouldnot be different, so that appropriate methodsof testing the reliability and safety of productsin terms of their effects on human and envi-ronmental health need to be developed andintroduced. Any product that incorporatesnanotechnology should be identified as suchand if the advantages, for example, reliabili-ty and safety, of such a product are alreadyestablished they should have preference (e.g.government may subsidize their R&D and pro-duction) over products devoid of such techno-logy.

Any regulatory framework should be builtwithin the context of a debate involving allthe stakeholders, informed by the technicalopinion of scientists, where relations are basedon mutual trust and communication is clearand open. All new products should be asses-sed, considering factors such as the potentialrisks, interactions with other particles or sub-stances and toxicity, among others. The prio-rity is to evaluate new materials, determinetheir risk levels and add basic information toestablish the regulatory clauses.

References

Alves, O. L. (2004): Atividade prospectiva em nanotecnolo-gia: desenvolvimento científico da nanociência e nano-tecnologia nos últimos 10 anos (janeiro1994 - julho 2004).Relatório Parcial. Unicamp, 2004.

Asheim, G. B. ; Buchholz, W. ; TUNGODDEN, B. (2001): Justify-ing sustainability. Journal of Environmental Economicsand Management, Elsevier, vol. 4411(3), pages 252-268.

Banerjee, S. B. (2003): Who sustains whose development?sustainable development and the reinvention of nature.Organization Studies. v. 24, p. 143-180.

Bansal, P. (2003): From issues to actions: The importance ofindividual concerns and organizational values in respon-ding to natural environmental issues. Organization Sci-ence, v. 1144, n.5, 510-527.

Boron, S. ; Murray, K. (2004): Bridging unsustainability Gap:A framework for sustainable development. SustainableDevelopment, v. 1122, p.65-73.

Bresnahan, T. F.; Trajtenberg, M. (1995): General purposestechnology: engines of growth? Journal of Econome-trics, v. 6655, pp. 83-108.

Carlaw, K. I.; Lipsey, R.G. (2002): Externalities, technologicalcomplementarities and sustainable economic growth.Research Policy, v. 3311, pp. 1305-1315.

Carlaw, K; Lipsey, R. G.; Bekar, C. T. (2005): Economic transfor-mations: general purpose technologies and long termeconomic growth. Oxford University Press.

Crandall, B.C. (1997): Nanotechnology. London: MIT Press.Dosi, G. (1991): "Perspectives on evolutionary theory". Science

and Public Policy, 1188(6):353-61, dezembro.Elsi. (2005): Benefits, risks, ethical, legal and social aspects

of nanotechnology. 4 º Nanoforum Report.ETC Group (2004): Down on the farm. The impact of nano-

scale technologies on food and agriculture. Ottawa.FINEP (2003): Editais. Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos.

Available in http://www.finep.gov.br, researched inAugust, 1st.

Fishbine, G (2002): The investor's guide to nanotechnologyand micromachines. Wiley Finance Series n.107, v.11.

Freeman, C. (1982): The economics of industrial innovation.The MIT press.

Freeman, C.; Perez, C. (1988): Structural crises of adjustment:business cycles and investment behavior. in: DOSI, G. etal. (eds.). Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pin-ter, London.

Furtado, C. (2001): Raízes do desenvolvimento. Rio de Janeiro,Civilização Brasileira.

Greaker, M. (2003): Strategic environmental policy; eco-dum-ping or a green strategy? Journal of Environmental Eco-nomics and Management. v. 4455, p.692-707.

Kaiser, D. (2006): Notes toward a Nanotech Timeline. OSTIWorking Paper 6-06-001.

Kingon, A. I.; Collins, M. J.; Gentry, S. T.; Bean, A. S.; Wolff, M. F.(2004): Corporate responses to nanoscience and nano-technology. Research Technology Management. v. 4477,pp. 6-8, May/June.

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1) © 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Technological trajectories and multidimensional impacts: further remarks on thenanotechnology industry

61

Lattes (2006): Lattes Cientific Curriculum Database. Consel-ho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnoló-gico. Brasil, 2006. Available in: < http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual /busca.do?metodo=apresentar>,researched in August 10.

Marques, L. F. M. (2008): Modelo de Análise Mutidimensio-nal para Impactos de Novas Tecnologias: nanotecnolo-gia, economia, sociedade e meio-ambiente. Doctoral dis-sertation. Escola de Administração, Universidade Fede-ral do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.

Martinet, A.; Reynaud, E. (2004):Stratégies d’Entreprise etÉcologie. Paris: Econômica, 165p.

NANOFORUM. 4th Nanoforum report: benefits, risks, ethi-cal, legal and social aspects of nanotechnology. Nano-forum.org, June, 2004. Available in: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm, on November, 3rd, 2008.

Nanologue (2006): Opinions on the ethical, legal and soci-al aspects of nanotechnologies - results from a consul-tation with representatives from research, business andcivil society. (www.nanologue.net)

Nelson, R. R.; Winter, S. (1982): An Evolutionary Theory of Eco-nomic Change. The Belknap Press of Harvard Universi-ty Press, Cambridge (MA).

Nielsen, K. (2001): Institutionalist approaches in the socialsciences: typology, dialogue, and future challenges. Jour-nal of Economic Issues, 35, 2.

NIST (1999): Nanotechnology Research Directions: Visionfor Nanotechnology R & D in the Next Decade. Natio-nal Science and Technology Council, Interagency Wor-king Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technolo-gy, September.

Pavitt, K. (1992): “Some foundations for a theory of largeinnovating firm”. In: DOSI, G. et al. (Eds.). Technology andEnterprise in a Historical Perspective. Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press.

Perez, C. (1983): Structural change and assimilation of newtechnologies in the economic and social systems. Futu-res, 1155, 357-375.

Perez, C. (2004): Finance and technical change: a neo-schum-peterian perspective. In: Hanusch, H.; Pyka, A. (eds.). TheElgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics,Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Roco, M.; Bainbridge, W. S. (2006): Nanotechnology: societalimplications. Nanotoday, 493 p.

Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering (2004): Nanos-cience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncer-tainties. Report of the Royal Society/Royal Academy ofEngineering Working Group.

Shellenberger, M; Nordhaus, T. The death of environmenta-lism: global warming politics in a post-environmentalworld, 36p. 2004. Available in: http:// www. thebreak-through.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf- read in July 10, 2005.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934): The theory of economic develop-ment. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.

Spangenberg, J. H (2004): Reconciling sustainability andgrowth: criteria, indicators, policies. Sustainable Deve-

lopment. v.1122, p.74-86.Solow, R. M. (1957): Technical change and the aggregate pro-

duction function. The Review of Economics and Statis-tics, 3399, 3, pp. 312-320.

Tobin, J (1989): Policies for Prosperity: Essays in a Keynesianmode. 528 p.

Zanetti-Ramos, B. G.; Creczynski-Pasa, T. B. (2008): Nanotech-nology development: world-wide and national invest-ments. Brazilian Journal of Pharmacy. 8899 (2), pp. 95 - 101

Zawislak, P. A.; Andrade, A. M.; Larentis, F.; Machado, C. B.(2008): Inovação, Curva-S e as Ações da Firma: impres-sões e avanços a partir do setor de videogames no Japão.In: Proc. XXV Simpósio da Gestão da Inovação Tecnoló-gica. Brasília.

Zawislak, P. A.; Marques, L. F. M.; Cruz, L. B. (2006): Nanotech-nology and the need for a regulatory agenda: towardsa broader approach for the technological paradigm lea-ding concepts. In: Proceedings of 16 IAMOT, Pequim.

Zucker, L. G.; Darby, M. R. (2005): Socio-economic Impact ofNanoscale Science: Initial Results and Nanobank. NBERworking paper series.

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1)© 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Paulo Antônio Zawislak, Luis Fernando Marques, Priscila Esteves and FernandaRublescki

62

AAppppeennddiixx

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1) © 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Technological trajectories and multidimensional impacts: further remarks on thenanotechnology industry

FFiinnddiinnggss

Impacts Totallydisagree Disagree Agree Totally

agree

Valid percentage

Technological Dimension

Offers unlimited solutions to solve many of the society’s problems. 15.5 20.7 51.7 12.1

Nurtures the technological integration in not imagined level before. 0 10.5 28.1 61.4

Allows the research to be opened to new knowledge frontiers. 0 0 10.5 89.5

Requires the creation of new laboratorial procedures for experi-ment’s handling. 1.8 7.1 44.6 46.4

Path for the new raw materials creation for industry. 1.8 5.4 64.3 28.6

May reduce the development time of a new product. 1.8 22.8 56.1 19.3

Economic Dimension

Will provide the appearance of new industries. 0 1.8 31.6 66.7

May increase the employment level in the economy. 0 20 60 20

Will require investment in professional training for future employe-es. 0 0 32.8 67.2

May cause the disappearance of industries that do not use the nano-technology applications. 34.5 41.4 22.4 1.7

May increase the spending level on measures to prevent the pro-blems caused by nanotechnology residue. 7.4 50 29.6 13

May provide lower cost raw material for industry. 3.6 32.7 45.5 18.2

Offers unlimited scale possibility of production of consumer goods. 18.2 43.6 30.9 7.3

Requires increased investment in research and development byenterprises. 0 1.7 31 67.2

May increase the population expenditures with health plans. 29.1 49.1 16.4 5.5

The treatment of nanotechnology waste will cost more than anyother. 28.3 50.9 18.9 1.9

The nanotechnological products will be more expensive than otherproducts. 14.8 53.7 27.8 3.7

Will be an exclusion factor for the low-income population. 35.2 48.1 13 3.7

63

Journal of Business Chemistry 2010, 7 (1)© 2010 Institute of Business Administration

Paulo Antônio Zawislak, Luis Fernando Marques, Priscila Esteves and FernandaRublescki

Environmental Dimension

Will assist in reducing pollution in general. 3.6 23.2 55.4 17.9

It is pollutant to humans and to the environment. 39.3 42.9 17.9 0

Will increase environmental awareness and researchers´ ethics. 21.4 39.3 32.1 7.1

Social Dimension

May improve the population’s life quality. 0 3.5 35.1 61.4

Nowadays, nanotechnology has a negative image to the population. 50.9 32.7 12.7 3.6

May extend human life. 0 18.2 50.9 30.9

May cause damage to human health. 21.8 54.5 23.6 0

Implications in the Regulation

Laws and rules should prevent potential nanotechnology’s negativeimpacts. 0 3.5 35.1 61.4

The specific regulation may restrain private investments in nano-technology. 50.9 32.7 12.7 3.6

The standardization of researcher’s ethical conduct should be stricterwith nanotechnology. 0 18.2 50.9 30.9

The standardization of laboratory procedures and researchers healthcare should be stricter with nanotechnology. 21.8 54.5 23.6 0

Impact on the actors

Will negatively impact on the scientific community. 89.7 8.6 1.7 0

Will negatively impact on the industry and it’s companies. 79.3 17.2 1.7 1.7

Will negatively impact on the population. 81 19 0 0

Will negatively impact on the consumers. 80.7 19.3 0 0

Will have more negative impacts on governments than positives. 80.4 19.6 0 0

Will negatively impact on non-governmental organizations 64.8 22.2 11.1 1.9

64