Does Size Matter? The Multipolar International Landscape of Nanoscience

Luciano Levin,Pablo Kreimer,Pablo Jensen

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166914

Abstract

How do different countries tackle nanoscience research? Are all countries similar except for a trivial size effect, as science is often assumed to be universal? Or does size dictate large differences, as large countries are able to develop activities in all directions of research, while small countries have to specialize in some specific niches? Alternatively, is size irrelevant, as all countries have followed different historical paths, leading to different patterns of specialisation? Here, we develop an original method that uses a bottom-up definition of scientific subfields to map the international structure of any scientific field. Our analysis shows that nanoscience research does not show a universal pattern of specialisation, homothetic of that of a single global leader (e.g., the United States). Instead, we find a multipolar world, with four main ways of doing nanosciences.

Highlights

A basic assumption of science policies is that countries should focus on those fields in which they can be more competitive, for whatever reason
How do different countries tackle nanoscience research? Are all countries similar except for a trivial size effect, as science is often assumed to be universal? Or does size dictate large differences, as large countries are able to develop activities in all directions of research, while small countries have to specialize in some specific niches? Alternatively, is size irrelevant, as all countries have followed different historical paths, leading to different patterns of specialisation? Here, we develop an original method that uses a bottom-up definition of scientific subfields to map the international structure of any scientific field
This assumption is probably inspired on the idea of comparative advantages through specialisation, that was initially conceived in trade theory [1,2]

Summary

Introduction

A basic (and generally implicit) assumption of science policies is that countries should focus on those fields in which they can be more competitive, for whatever reason. The main originality of the present study lies in the description of the international landscape of nanoscience through a bottom-up partition of the field based on single articles.

Results

Conclusion