Some Figures about Nanotechnology R&D in Europe

and Beyond

Compiled by Unit G4 Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies European Commission, Research DG

Version: 8 December 2005

http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology

2

The present publication is based on the information that was available at the time and cannot be guaranteed to be complete or accurate.

The views expressed in this document are entirely those of the Authors and do not engage or commit the European Commission in any way.

3

Introduction

With its two Communications on nanotechnology, a Strategy and an Action Plan, the European Commission has presented the vision and a set of actions for the useful, safe, responsible and profitable development and application of nanosciences and nanotechnologies in Europe. The Council of the European Union has endorsed the integrated and responsible strategy proposed by the Commission.

In our day-to-day work, we have collected and we are steadily continuing to collect data on the many indicators associated with nanotechnology research, technological development and their applications. Many stakeholders have repeatedly asked us to share some of these data; hence the publication of theses pages, as a service to all those interested.

Europe is one of the leading actors in nanosciences and nanotechnologies both in research as well as in technological development, thanks to the creativity of European researchers, the initiatives of industry, academia and research organisations, to the quality of the infrastructures and the commitment of public authorities.

Nevertheless, some worrying signals emerge, which call for appropriate initiatives, as the European Commission pointed out in its Action Plan. For instance, Figure 10 documents the apparently low level of private funding for research on nanotechnology, which is more broadly addressed by the European Commission with its 3% initiative.

Moreover, Figures 22 and 23 present some possible scenarios for funding under the EU 7th framework programme for research and technological development. These simulated scenarios suggest concentrating future available resources to maximise efficiency and effectiveness.

The present figures are based on the information to which we had access; they should not be deemed to be complete and in no way do they engage the European Commission. I thank my colleague Dr. Raymond Monk for the energy and attention that he put in this compilation.

We hope that you find this to be a useful initiative and would welcome all comments and suggestions on the figures presented, so to be able to realise a more comprehensive documents in the future.

More information is available -amongst others- on: http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology, http://cordis.europa.eu.int/en/home.html and www.nanoforum.org.

Renzo Tomellini Head of the Unit

Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies renzo.tomellini@cec.eu.int

4

5

A) Funding for nanotechnology R&D in Europe and worldwide

Table 1: Estimated worldwide public funding for nanotechnology R&D in 2004 Country Funding (€) Country Funding (€)

European Union Third Countries

Austria 13,1i Argentina 0.4ii

Belgium 60,0*iii Australia 62iv

Czech Republic 0,4v Brazil 5.8vi

Denmark 8,6vii Canada 37.9viii

Finland 14,5ix China 83.3x

France 223,9xi India 3.8xii

Germany 293,1xiii Indonesia 16.7xiv

Greece 1,2*xv Japan 750xvi

Ireland 33,0xvii Malaysia 3.8xviii

Italy 60,0*xix Mexico 10xx

Latvia 0,2*xxi New Zealand 9.2xxii

Lithuania 1,0xxiii Singapore 8.4xxiv

Luxembourg 0,8xxv South Africa 1.9xxvi

Netherlands 42,3xxvii South Korea 173.3xxviii

Poland 1,0*xxix Taiwan 75.9xxx

Portugal 0,5*xxxi Thailand 4.2xxxii

Slovenia 0,5*xxxiii USA (Federal) 910xxxiv

Spain 12,5xxxv USA (States) 333.3xxxvi

Sweden 15,0xxxvii Third Countries Total 2,490

United Kingdom 133,0xxxviii

EU-25 Total 915

EC 370

Candidate Countries and Associated States

Israel 46xxxix

Norway 7xl Total EU 1,285

Romania 3.1xli Total EU + CC + AS 1,360

Switzerland 18.5xlii World Total 3,850

CC & AS Total 75

Source: European Commission, 2005 and various sources indicated by superscripted references. Data are unavailable for Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Slovakia and Turkey. Data indicated with * are taken from 2003.

6

PPP Corrected by Country/Region

Capita2004 PPP by Country/Region

1,300 20 0.3

10 5 0

Figure 1: Absolute worldwide public expenditure in 2004

(Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) corrected)

Figure 2: Worldwide per capita public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)

7

PPP Corrected by Country/Region

Capita2004 PPP by Country/Region

1,300 20 0.3

10 5 0

Figure 3: Absolute European public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)

Figure 4: European per capita public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)

8

Figure 5: Absolute world public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)

1.239,4 624,2

377,1 320,3

259,3 246,7

155,3 137,6

130,1 74,6

67,4 66,1

55,1 46,5 46,1

37,7 20,3 16,2 16,1 14,7 14,6 14,5 14,4 14,2 13,9 12,6 9,8 9,6 8,9 7,9 6,9 6,1 2,5 2,1 1,8 1,2 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,4

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

United StatesJapanChina

GermanySouth Korea

FranceTaiwan

AustraliaUnited Kingdom

ItalyBelgium

IndonesiaIsrael

CanadaNetherlands

IrelandIndia

SpainBrazil

FinlandSwitzerland

AustriaMexico

ThailandSweden

New ZealandRomania

SingaporeMalaysiaDenmark

South AfricaNorway

LithuaniaPolandGreece

ArgentinaCzech Republic

LuxembourgSloveniaPortugal

Latvia

Public Funding (million Euro)

Figure 6: World per capita public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)

9,6 9,0

7,0 6,9

6,5 5,4

4,9 4,3

4,1 3,9

3,2 2,8 2,8

2,2 2,1

2,0 1,8 1,8

1,5 1,5 1,4

1,3 1,3

0,7 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4

0,3 0,3

0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,1

0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

IrelandIsrael

AustraliaTaiwan

BelgiumSouth Korea

JapanUnitedFrance

GermanyNew ZealandNetherlands

FinlandUnited

SingaporeSwitzerland

LuxembourgAustria

SwedenDenmarkCanadaNorway

ItalyLithuaniaRomaniaSlovenia

SpainMalaysia

ChinaIndonesiaThailand

GreeceLatvia

South AfricaMexicoCzechBrazil

PortugalPoland

ArgentinaIndia

Per Capita Investment (EUR)

9

Figure 7: EU absolute public expenditure in 2004

(PPP corrected and including Countries associated to the EU Framework Programme)

320,3

246,7

130,1

74,6

67,4

55,1

46,1

37,7

16,2

14,7

14,6

14,5

13,9

12,6

9,8

7,9

6,1

2,5

2,1

1,8

1,2

0,9

0,8

0,8

0,8

0,4

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Germany

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Belgium

Israel

Netherlands

Ireland

Spain

Finland

Switzerland

Austria

Sweden

New Zealand

Romania

Denmark

Norway

Lithuania

Poland

Greece

Argentina

Czech Republic

Luxembourg

Slovenia

Portugal

Latvia

Public Funding (EUR)

Figure 8: EU per capita public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected and including Countries associated to the EU Framework Programme)

9,6

9,0

6,5

4,1

3,9

2,8

2,8

2,2

2,0

1,8

1,8

1,5

1,5

1,3

1,3

0,7

0,4

0,4

0,4

0,2

0,2

0,1

0,1

0,1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Ireland

Israel

Belgium

France

Germany

Netherlands

Finland

United Kingdom

Switzerland

Luxembourg

Austria

Sweden

Denmark

Norway

Italy

Lithuania

Romania

Slovenia

Spain

Greece

Latvia

Czech Republic

Portugal

Poland

Per Capita Investment (EUR)

10

Figure 9: Evolution of worldwide public expenditure

(1€=1$ to avoid distortions due to exchange rate variations)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Publ

ic R

&D

Inve

stm

ent (

1€ =

1$)

Others

Figure 10: Worldwide public and private expenditure in 2004 (private figures taken from average of Lux Researchxliii and Technology Reviewxliv, US States figures taken

from Lux Researchxlv)

Public500

Public750

Federal910

EC370

States333Member

States + Associated

990Private

370

Private1540

Private1700

Private580

0

1.000

2.000

3.000

Europe US Japan Others

R&

D In

vest

men

t (m

illio

n €)

11

Figure 11: Division of worldwide public expenditure in 2004

Europe35%

US32%

Japan19%

Others14%

Figure 12: Division of worldwide private expenditure in 2004

Europe14%

Others9%

Japan37% US

40%

Figure 13: Division of overall (public + private) expenditure in 2004

Europe24%

Others11%

Japan28%

US37%

12

B) Evolution of funding for nanotechnology in the EU Framework Programmes

Figure 14: Evolution of EU Framework Programmes (FP) funding devoted to nanotechnology R&D (2005 data are a to-date estimate and subject to change)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Publ

ic F

undi

ng (m

illio

n €)

FP4

FP5

FP6

Figure 15: Evolution of FP funding devoted to nanotechnology R&D including known funding leveraged by full-cost participants

(2005 data are a to-date estimate and subject to change)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Publ

ic F

undi

ng (m

illio

n €)

Leveraged Funding

FP4

FP5

FP6

13

Figure 16: Integrated FP funding devoted to nanotechnology R&D

(2005 data are a to-date estimate and subject to change)

0

200

400

600

800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Publ

ic F

undi

ng (m

illio

n €)

Leveraged FundingDirect Funding

Figure 17: Nanotechnology R&D areas supported by successive FPs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FP4 FP5 FP6

Health / EnvironmentResearch TrainingNanotoolsNanoelectronicsNanobio / NanomedicineNanomaterialsFrontier Research

14

Figure 18: The FP6 support to nanotechnology R&D in 2004 (in millions of Euro)

Figure 19: To-date FP6 support to nanotechnology R&D in 2005 (in millions of Euro)

NMP, 209.01

IST, 175.11

Marie Curie, 39.73

NEST, 8.15

Infrastructure, 16.46 ERA-NET, 2.20

SMEs, 8.14Science and Society, 1.09

NMP, 211.61IST, 99.57

Marie Curie, 50.73

NEST, 5.06

ERA-NET, 3.20SMEs, 0.91

15

Figure 20: Some examples of projects funded via the FP6

NMP FP6 NMP FP6 projectsprojects, , e.g.e.g.•CANAPE: Carbon Nanotubes for Applications in Electronics, Catalysis, Composites and Nano-Biology – University of Cambridge (UK)•NAIMO: Nanoscale Integrated processing of self-organizing Multifunctional Organic Materials - Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)•NANOFUN-POLY: Nanostructured and functional polymer-based materials and nanocomposites - Consorzio Interuniversitario Scienza e Tecnologia dei Materiali (IT)•RADSAS: Rational Design and Characterisation of Supramolecular Architectures on Surfaces - Eidgenössische Materialprüfungs- und Forschungsanstalt (CH)•BIOMACH: Molecular Machines - Design and Nano-Scale Handling of Biological Antetypes and Artificial Mimics - Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH (DE)•Cornea engineering: Three-dimensional reconstruction of human corneas by tissue engineering” - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / Rhône Alpes (FR)•Ambio: Advanced nanostructured surfaces for the control of biofouling - University of Birmingham (UK)•ANVOC: Application of nanotechnologies for separation and recovery of volatile organic compounds from waste air streams – S&T Research Council of Turkey (TU)•NANOSAFE2: Safe production and use of nanomaterials - Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique (FR)•Nanologue: Facilitating the dialogue between research, business and the civil society to improve the quality of life, create wealth and reduce impacts to society - WuppertalInstitute for Climate, Energy and the Environment GmbH (DE)

Figure 21: Some projects addressing nano(eco)toxicology

Projects in EU Framework Projects in EU Framework Programmes for RTDProgrammes for RTD

NANOSAFENANODERMNANOPATHOLOGYMAAPHRINANOFORUMNANOTOXIMPARTNANOSAFE26 new projects to be negotiated

>8M€+ 12 M€?

~2.5M€

+ NANOCARE funded by the F.R.Germany

16

C) Examples of funding projections

Figure 22: Projection of absolute EU public expenditure compared to the USA and Japan under different possible FP7 scenarios of funding

Absolute Public Funding Projection

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

R&

D F

undi

ng (€

)

EU (No FP7)EU (FP7 = FP6)EU (FP7 = 2x FP6)EU (FP7 = 3x FP6)EU (FP7 = 4x FP6)USAJapan

Figure 23: Projection of per capita EU public expenditure compared to the USA and Japan under different possible FP7 scenarios of funding

Per Capita Public Funding Projection

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Per C

apita

R&

D F

undi

ng (€

)

EU (No FP7)EU (FP7 = FP6)EU (FP7 = 2x FP6)EU (FP7 = 3x FP6)EU (FP7 = 4x FP6)USAJapan

17

1,300 20 0.3InvestEur2004 by Country/Region

APPENDIX: Data reported in absolute figures not considering the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)

Figure A1: Absolute worldwide public expenditure in 2004

18

InvestEur2004 by Country/Region

Capita2004Euro by Country/Region

1,300 11 0.1

9 5 0

Figure A2: Absolute European public expenditure in 2004

Figure A3: European per capita public expenditure in 2004

19

Figure A4: Absolute world public expenditure in 2004

1.243,3 750,0

373,0 293,1

223,9 173,3

133,0 105,0

83,3 75,9

60,0 60,0

46,0 42,4 37,9 33,0

18,5 16,7 15,0 14,5 13,1 12,5 10,0 9,2 8,6 8,4 7,0 5,8 4,2 3,8 3,8 3,1 1,9 1,2 1,0 1,0 0,8 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,2

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

United StatesJapan

ECGermany

FranceSouth Korea

United KingdomAustralia

ChinaTaiwan

ItalyBelgium

IsraelNetherlands

CanadaIreland

SwitzerlandIndonesia

SwedenFinlandAustriaSpain

MexicoNew Zealand

DenmarkSingapore

NorwayBrazil

ThailandMalaysia

IndiaRomania

South AfricaGreece

LithuaniaPoland

LuxembourgPortugalSlovenia

ArgentinaCzech Republic

Latvia

Public Funding (EUR)

Figure A5: World per capita public expenditure in 2004

8,4 7,5

5,9 5,8

5,3 4,3

3,7 3,6 3,6

3,4 3,0

2,8 2,6

2,5 2,3

2,2 1,8 1,8

1,7 1,6 1,6

1,5 1,2

1,0 0,3 0,3 0,3

0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

IrelandIsrael

JapanBelgium

AustraliaUnitedFrance

South KoreaGermany

TaiwanEU-25

FinlandNetherlandsSwitzerland

New ZealandUnited

LuxembourgSingapore

SwedenAustria

DenmarkNorwayCanada

ItalySpain

LithuaniaSloveniaMalaysiaRomania

GreeceMexicoLatvia

IndonesiaThailand

ChinaPortugal

South AfricaCzechBrazil

PolandArgentina

India

Per Capita Investment (EUR)

20

Figure A6: EU absolute public expenditure in 2004

373

293,1

223,9

133

60

60

46

42,35

33

18,48

15

14,5

13,1

12,5

8,6

7

3,1

1,219

1

1

0,84

0,5

0,5

0,415

0,17

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

EC

Germany

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Belgium

Israel

Netherlands

Ireland

Switzerland

Sweden

Finland

Austria

Spain

Denmark

Norway

Romania

Greece

Lithuania

Poland

Luxembourg

Portugal

Slovenia

Czech Republic

Latvia

Public Funding (million EUR)

Figure A7: EU per capita public expenditure in 2004

8,4

7,5

5,8

3,7

3,6

3,0

2,8

2,6

2,5

2,2

1,8

1,7

1,6

1,6

1,5

1,0

0,3

0,3

0,3

0,1

0,1

0,1

0,0

0,0

0,0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ireland

Israel

Belgium

France

Germany

EU-25

Finland

Netherlands

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Luxembourg

Sweden

Austria

Denmark

Norway

Italy

Spain

Lithuania

Slovenia

Romania

Greece

Latvia

Portugal

Czech Republic

Poland

Per Capita Investment (EUR)

21

References i Survey of EU Member States R&D funding for nanotechnology carried out in the Council of the European Union (response from Austria). ii Final Report of the International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, Questionnaire Responses and Background Information (2004) http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/Attachment_F_Responses_and_Background_Info_040812.pdf iii Survey of EU Member States R&D funding for nanotechnology carried out in the Council of the European Union (response from Belgium). iv Australian Nanotechnology: Capability and Commercial Potential, Invest Australia Report (2005) http://www.investaustralia.gov.au/ v Survey of EU Member States R&D funding for nanotechnology carried out in the Council of the European Union (response from the Czech Republic). vi Final Report of the International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, Questionnaire Responses and Background Information (2004) http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/Attachment_F_Responses_and_Background_Info_040812.pdf vii Survey of EU Member States R&D funding for nanotechnology carried out in the Council of the European Union (response from Denmark). viii Final Report of the International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, Questionnaire Responses and Background Information (2004) http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/Attachment_F_Responses_and_Background_Info_040812.pdf ix Survey of EU Member States R&D funding for nanotechnology carried out in the Council of the European Union (response from Finland). x Le financement des nanotechnologies et des nanosciences : L'effort des pouvoirs publics en France, comparaisons internationales, A. Billon, J-L Dupont, G Ghys, Inspection générale de l'administration de l'éducation nationale et de la recherche, January 2005 (http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/brp/notices/044000118.shtml) xi Le financement des nanotechnologies et des nanosciences : L'effort des pouvoirs publics en France, comparaisons internationales, A. Billon, J-L Dupont, G Ghys, Inspection générale de l'administration de l'éducation nationale et de la recherche, January 2005 (http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/brp/notices/044000118.shtml) xii India, China front-runners in nanotech research, A. Vaidya, The Times of India, January 24 2005 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/999932.cms. xiii Nanotechnologie erobert Märkte: Deutsche Zukunftsoffensive für Nanotechnologie, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), 2004. xiv Presentation of Training Initiatives within Asia-Pacific Programmes, L. Liu, Nanotechnology Research Institute (AIST), Japan, Workshop on Research Training in Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: Current Status and Future Needs, April 2005, Brussels http://www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology/src/educationworkshop.htm. xv Private Communication, L. Giannakopoulou, General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Greece xvi Final Report of the International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, Questionnaire Responses and Background

22

Information (2004) http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/Attachment_F_Responses_and_Background_Info_040812.pdf xvii Irish Council for Science, Technology & Innovation Statement on Nanotechnology, July 2004 (http://www.forfas.ie/icsti/statements/icsti040714/). xviii Presentation of Training Initiatives within Asia-Pacific Programmes, L. Liu, Nanotechnology Research Institute (AIST), Japan, Workshop on Research Training in Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: Current Status and Future Needs, April 2005, Brussels http://www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology/src/educationworkshop.htm. xix Private Communication, R. Cingolani, INFM Research Unit, Department of Innovation Engineering, University of Lecce,, Italy. xx Final Report of the International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, Questionnaire Responses and Background Information (2004) http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/Attachment_F_Responses_and_Background_Info_040812.pdf xxi Nanoforum, Survey of New Member States (2003) www.nanoforum.org. xxii Presentation of Training Initiatives within Asia-Pacific Programmes, L. Liu, Nanotechnology Research Institute (AIST), Japan, Workshop on Research Training in Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: Current Status and Future Needs, April 2005, Brussels http://www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology/src/educationworkshop.htm. xxiii Estimate based upon Nanotechnology in Lithuania, V. Snitka, MNT Bulletin, Edited by IMT-Bucharest, Vol. 5, No. 3 (2004). xxiv Nanotechnology in Asia 2003, Asian Technology Information Programme (AITP) April 2003 http://www.atip.org/. xxv Communiqué Présentation des premiers résultats du Fonds national de la recherche, http://www.gouvernement.lu/salle_presse/communiques/2003/07/08fnr/. xxvi Nanotechnology and the Poor: Opportunities and Risks, Meridian Institute, January 2005 http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/paper.php. xxvii Survey of EU Member States R&D funding for nanotechnology carried out in the Council of the European Union (response from the Netherlands). xxviii Nanotech business entering Singapore too (report on a presentation of H-G Lee of LG Electronics), L. Liu, Asia Pacific Nanotech Weekly (2004/11/ 2 #40) http://www.nanoworld.jp/apnw/articles/2-40.php. xxix Response to questionnaire on nanotechnology (for the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering study on nanotechnology), A. Pacholak, British Embassy Warsaw (2003) http://www.nanotec.org.uk/evidence/Poland.htm. xxx Final Report of the International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, Questionnaire Responses and Background Information (2004) http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/Attachment_F_Responses_and_Background_Info_040812.pdf xxxi European Commission, Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology, COM(2004) 338. xxxii Nanotechnology in Asia 2003, Asian Technology Information Programme (AITP) April 2003 http://www.atip.org/. xxxiii Nanoforum, Survey of New Member States (2003) www.nanoforum.org. xxxiv The National Nanotechnology Initiative and an International Perspective, M.C. Roco, Presentation at the 3rd International Workshop to Develop a Global

23

Nanotechnology Network, May 2003, Saarbrücken, Germany www.globalnanotechnologynetwork.org/. xxxv Informe sobre la Situación de la Nanociencia y de la Nanotechnologia en España y Propuesta de Accion Estrategica dentro del Plan Nacional de I+D+I (2004-2007), Red Española de Nanotecnologia (Nanospain) http://www.nanospain.org/files/Informe.pdf xxxvi Lux Research Press Release “U.S. States Turn To Nanotechnology For Jobs, Investment” January 25 2005. xxxvii European Commission, Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology, COM(2004) 338. xxxviii House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Too little too late? Government Investment in Nanotechnology, Fifth Report of Session 2003–04, March 2004, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/56/56.pdf xxxix Le financement des nanotechnologies et des nanosciences : L'effort des pouvoirs publics en France, comparaisons internationales, A. Billon, J-L Dupont, G Ghys, Inspection générale de l'administration de l'éducation nationale et de la recherche, January 2005 (http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/brp/notices/044000118.shtml) xl Information presented at Nanotech 2003 meeting, San Francisco, USA, by Norwegian Trade Council, February 2003. xli Information presented on the MATNANTECH initiative at NANO 2003 meeting, Japan (2003). xlii Presentation at EuroNanoForum 2003 meeting, Nanotechnology in Switzerland: The Results of promoting Science, Technology and Innovation over more than ten years, K. Höhener, Temas AG, Switzerland (2003). xliii Press Release by Lux Research « Nanotechnology Spending to Hit $8.6bn » August 2004 xliv « Data Mine : Nanotech Grows Up » Technology Review (June 2005) xlv Press Release by Lux Research « U.S. States turn to Nanotechnology for Jobs, Investment » January 2004

Compiled by Unit G4 Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies European Commission, Research DG

Version: 8 December 2005

http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology