Some Figures About Nanotechnology R&D and Beyond, 2005

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
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.
2
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
3
4
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.
5
Figure 1: Absolute worldwide public expenditure in 2004
(Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) corrected)
PPP Corrected by Country/Region

1,300 20 0.3
Figure 2: Worldwide per capita public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)
Capita2004 PPP by Country/Region

10 5 0
6
Figure 3: Absolute European public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)
PPP Corrected by Country/Region

1,300 20 0.3
Figure 4: European per capita public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)
Capita2004 PPP by Country/Region

10 5 0
7
Figure 5: Absolute world public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)
Public Funding (million Euro)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
United States 1.239,4

Japan 624,2
China 377,1
Germany 320,3
South Korea 259,3
France 246,7
Taiwan 155,3
Australia 137,6
United Kingdom 130,1
Italy 74,6
Belgium 67,4
Indonesia 66,1
Israel 55,1
Canada 46,5
Netherlands 46,1
Ireland 37,7
India 20,3
Spain 16,2
Brazil 16,1
Finland 14,7
Switzerland 14,6
Austria 14,5
Mexico 14,4
Thailand 14,2
Sweden 13,9
New Zealand 12,6
Romania 9,8
Singapore 9,6
Malaysia 8,9
Denmark 7,9
South Africa 6,9
Norway 6,1
Lithuania 2,5
Poland 2,1
Greece 1,8
Argentina 1,2
Czech Republic 0,9
Luxembourg 0,8
Slovenia 0,8
Portugal 0,8
Latvia 0,4
Figure 6: World per capita public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)

Per Capita Investment (EUR)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Ireland 9,6
Israel 9,0
Australia 7,0
Taiwan 6,9
Belgium 6,5
South Korea 5,4
Japan 4,9
United 4,3
France 4,1
Germany 3,9
New Zealand 3,2
Netherlands 2,8
Finland 2,8
United 2,2
Singapore 2,1
Switzerland 2,0
Luxembourg 1,8
Austria 1,8
Sweden 1,5
Denmark 1,5
Canada 1,4
Norway 1,3
Italy 1,3
Lithuania 0,7
Romania 0,4
Slovenia 0,4
Spain 0,4
Malaysia 0,4
China 0,3
Indonesia 0,3
Thailand 0,2
Greece 0,2
Latvia 0,2
South Africa 0,2
Mexico 0,1
Czech 0,1
Brazil 0,1
Portugal 0,1
Poland 0,1
Argentina 0,0
India 0,0
8
Figure 7: EU absolute public expenditure in 2004
(PPP corrected and including Countries associated to the EU Framework Programme)
Public Funding (EUR)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Germany 320,3
France 246,7
Italy 74,6
Belgium 67,4
Israel 55,1
Netherlands 46,1
Ireland 37,7
Spain 16,2
Finland 14,7
Switzerland 14,6
Austria 14,5
Sweden 13,9
New Zealand 12,6
Romania 9,8
Denmark 7,9
Norway 6,1
Lithuania 2,5
Poland 2,1
Greece 1,8
Argentina 1,2
Czech Republic 0,9
Luxembourg 0,8
Slovenia 0,8
Portugal 0,8
Latvia 0,4
Figure 8: EU per capita public expenditure in 2004

(PPP corrected and including Countries associated to the EU Framework Programme)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Ireland 9,6
Israel 9,0
Belgium 6,5
France 4,1
Germany 3,9
Netherlands 2,8
Finland 2,8
United Kingdom 2,2
Switzerland 2,0
Luxembourg 1,8
Austria 1,8
Sweden 1,5
Denmark 1,5
Norway 1,3
Italy 1,3
Lithuania 0,7
Romania 0,4
Slovenia 0,4
Spain 0,4
Greece 0,2
Latvia 0,2
Czech Republic 0,1
Portugal 0,1
Poland 0,1
9
Figure 9: Evolution of worldwide public expenditure
(1€=1$ to avoid distortions due to exchange rate variations)
5000
4500
4000
Public R&D Investment (1€ = 1$)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500 Others
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
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)
3.000
Private
R&D Investment (million €)
2.000 1700
Private
580 Private
1540
States
Member 333
1.000
States +
Associated Private
990 370
Federal
910 Public
750 Public
EC 500
370
0
Europe US Japan Others
10
Figure 11: Division of worldwide public expenditure in 2004
Others
14% Europe
Japan 35%
19%
US
32%
Figure 12: Division of worldwide private expenditure in 2004
Others Europe
9% 14%
Japan
37% US
40%
Figure 13: Division of overall (public + private) expenditure in 2004
Others Europe
11% 24%
Japan
28%
US
37%
11
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)
500
450
FP4
FP5
400
FP6
350
Public Funding (million €)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
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)
800
700 Leveraged Funding
FP4
600 FP5
FP6
500
400
300
200
100
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
12
Figure 16: Integrated FP funding devoted to nanotechnology R&D
(2005 data are a to-date estimate and subject to change)
1.800
1.600 Leveraged Funding

Direct Funding
1.400
1.200
1.000
800
600
400
200
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Figure 17: Nanotechnology R&D areas supported by successive FPs

100%
90%
80%
70%
Health / Environment
60% Research Training
Nanotools
50% Nanoelectronics
Nanobio / Nanomedicine
40% Nanomaterials
Frontier Research
30%
20%
10%
0%
FP4 FP5 FP6
13
Figure 18: The FP6 support to nanotechnology R&D in 2004 (in millions of Euro)
SMEs, 0.91
ERA-NET, 3.20
NEST, 5.06
Marie Curie, 50.73
NMP, 211.61
IST, 99.57
Figure 19: To-date FP6 support to nanotechnology R&D in 2005 (in millions of Euro)
ERA-NET, 2.20
Infrastructure, 16.46
Science SMEs, 8.14
and Society, 1.09
NEST, 8.15
Marie Curie, 39.73
NMP, 209.01
IST, 175.11
14
Figure 20: Some examples of projects funded via the FP6
NMP FP6 projects, 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 - Wuppertal
Institute for Climate, Energy and the Environment GmbH (DE)
Figure 21: Some projects addressing nano(eco)toxicology
Projects in EU Framework
Programmes for RTD
z NANOSAFE
z NANODERM
z NANOPATHOLOGY ~2.5M€
z MAAPHRI
z NANOFORUM
z NANOTOX
z IMPART >8M€
+ 12 M€?
z NANOSAFE2
z 6 new projects to be negotiated
+ NANOCARE funded by the F.R.Germany
15
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
3500
EU (No FP7)
3000
EU (FP7 = FP6)
EU (FP7 = 2x FP6)
EU (FP7 = 3x FP6)
2500
EU (FP7 = 4x FP6)
USA
R&D Funding (€)
Japan
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
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
10
9
EU (No FP7)
EU (FP7 = FP6)
8
EU (FP7 = 2x FP6)
EU (FP7 = 3x FP6)
Per Capita R&D Funding (€)
7
EU (FP7 = 4x FP6)
USA
6
Japan
0
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
16
APPENDIX: Data reported in absolute figures
not considering the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)
Figure A1: Absolute worldwide public expenditure in 2004
InvestEur2004 by Country/Region
1,300 20 0.3
17
Figure A2: Absolute European public expenditure in 2004
InvestEur2004 by Country/Region
1,300 11 0.1
Figure A3: European per capita public expenditure in 2004
Capita2004Euro by Country/Region
9 5 0
18
Figure A4: Absolute world public expenditure in 2004
Public Funding (EUR)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
United States 1.243,3

Japan 750,0
EC 373,0
Germany 293,1
France 223,9
South Korea 173,3
Australia 105,0
China 83,3
Taiwan 75,9
Italy 60,0
Belgium 60,0
Israel 46,0
Netherlands 42,4
Canada 37,9
Ireland 33,0
Switzerland 18,5
Indonesia 16,7
Sweden 15,0
Finland 14,5
Austria 13,1
Spain 12,5
Mexico 10,0
New Zealand 9,2
Denmark 8,6
Singapore 8,4
Norway 7,0
Brazil 5,8
Thailand 4,2
Malaysia 3,8
India 3,8
Romania 3,1
South Africa 1,9
Greece 1,2
Lithuania 1,0
Poland 1,0
Luxembourg 0,8
Portugal 0,5
Slovenia 0,5
Argentina 0,4
Czech Republic 0,4
Latvia 0,2
Figure A5: World per capita public expenditure in 2004

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ireland 8,4
Israel 7,5
Japan 5,9
Belgium 5,8
Australia 5,3
United 4,3
France 3,7
South Korea 3,6
Germany 3,6
Taiwan 3,4
EU-25 3,0
Finland 2,8
Netherlands 2,6
Switzerland 2,5
New Zealand 2,3
United 2,2
Luxembourg 1,8
Singapore 1,8
Sweden 1,7
Austria 1,6
Denmark 1,6
Norway 1,5
Canada 1,2
Italy 1,0
Spain 0,3
Lithuania 0,3
Slovenia 0,3
Malaysia 0,2
Romania 0,1
Greece 0,1
Mexico 0,1
Latvia 0,1
Indonesia 0,1
Thailand 0,1
China 0,1
Portugal 0,0
South Africa 0,0
Czech 0,0
Brazil 0,0
Poland 0,0
Argentina 0,0
India 0,0
19
Figure A6: EU absolute public expenditure in 2004
Public Funding (million EUR)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
EC 373
Germany 293,1
France 223,9
United Kingdom 133
Italy 60
Belgium 60
Israel 46
Netherlands 42,35
Ireland 33
Switzerland 18,48
Sweden 15
Finland 14,5
Austria 13,1
Spain 12,5
Denmark 8,6
Norway 7
Romania 3,1
Greece 1,219
Lithuania 1
Poland 1
Luxembourg 0,84
Portugal 0,5
Slovenia 0,5
Czech Republic 0,415
Latvia 0,17
Figure A7: EU per capita public expenditure in 2004

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ireland 8,4
Israel 7,5
Belgium 5,8
France 3,7
Germany 3,6
EU-25 3,0
Finland 2,8
Netherlands 2,6
Switzerland 2,5
United Kingdom 2,2
Luxembourg 1,8
Sweden 1,7
Austria 1,6
Denmark 1,6
Norway 1,5
Italy 1,0
Spain 0,3
Lithuania 0,3
Slovenia 0,3
Romania 0,1
Greece 0,1
Latvia 0,1
Portugal 0,0
Czech Republic 0,0
Poland 0,0
20
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_04
0812.pdf
iii
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
Council of the European Union (response from the Czech Republic).
vi
Information (2004)
0812.pdf
vii
Council of the European Union (response from Denmark).
viii
Information (2004)
0812.pdf
ix
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
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
21
Information (2004)
0812.pdf
xvii
Irish Council for Science, Technology & Innovation Statement on Nanotechnology,
July 2004 (http://www.forfas.ie/icsti/statements/icsti040714/).
xviii
xix
Private Communication, R. Cingolani, INFM Research Unit, Department of
Innovation Engineering, University of Lecce,, Italy.
xx
Information (2004)
0812.pdf
xxi
Nanoforum, Survey of New Member States (2003) www.nanoforum.org.
xxii
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
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
Information (2004)
0812.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
22
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
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
23

Some Figures About Nanotechnology R&D and Beyond, 2005

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Some Figures About Nanotechnology R&D and Beyond, 2005

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Some Figures about

Nanotechnology R&D in Europe

Compiled by Unit G4 Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies

Version: 8 December 2005

Candidate Countries and Associated States

PPP Corrected by Country/Region

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

Capita2004 PPP by Country/Region

PPP Corrected by Country/Region

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

Capita2004 PPP by Country/Region

United States 1.239,4

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

Figure 8: EU per capita public expenditure in 2004

Figure 12: Division of worldwide private expenditure in 2004

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

Figure 14: Evolution of EU Framework Programmes (FP) funding devoted to

Figure 15: Evolution of FP funding devoted to nanotechnology R&D including

700 Leveraged Funding

1.600 Leveraged Funding

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

NMP FP6 projects, e.g.

Figure 21: Some projects addressing nano(eco)toxicology

Figure A3: European per capita public expenditure in 2004

Public Funding (EUR)

United States 1.243,3

Figure A5: World per capita public expenditure in 2004

Per Capita Investment (EUR)

Public Funding (million EUR)

Figure A7: EU per capita public expenditure in 2004

Per Capita Investment (EUR)

Compiled by Unit G4 Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies

Version: 8 December 2005

Anda mungkin juga menyukai