The knowledge base: publications

Scientific publications are the most appropriate indicator for measuring scientific activity or output. Data from the Science Citation Index, which is compiled by Thomson, show that researchers in the United States publish many more papers on nanoscience and nanotechnology than researchers from any other country. Indeed, during the period 1999–2004, US scientists published more than 18,000 nano papers, compared with just over 8,000 papers from Japan, and around 7,000 papers each from China and Germany. The UK is in fifth place, followed by France, Italy, South Korea, Canada and Spain (Fig. 1). These rankings change when nanoscience is broken into different subfields. Within the subfield of nanomaterials, for instance, China leapfrogs Japan to take second place behind the US.

Figure 1: Number of scientific publications in nanoscience by country, 1999–2004.

Full size image (20 KB)

However, some scientific papers have a bigger impact than others (as measured by the number of times they are cited by other papers), and when nations are ranked by 'impact factor', two small European countries are in the lead: Switzerland is first, followed by the Netherlands and then the US. Canada moves up to fourth place, followed by Belgium, Ireland, the UK, Denmark, France and Japan. Germany comes a surprising eleventh place in this ranking.

The technology base: patent applications

Patents reflect the ability of companies and nations to transfer scientific results into technological applications and economic development. By analysing data from patent offices around the world, it is therefore possible to identify those areas of nanotechnology that are most likely to have a economic or commercial impact, and those individuals, organizations and nations that are going to benefit most.

The European Patent Office (EPO) has developed a methodology to identify and classify ('tag') nanotechnology patents and patent families. Figure 2 shows how the number of nanotechnology patents changed between 1995 and 2003, the last year for which reliable data are available. It also shows that nanoelectronics and nanomaterials were the two most active areas in terms of patents, accounting for more than half the total number of patent applications. The other four areas in the EPO classification scheme are nanomagnetics, nano-optics, nanobiotechnology and nanodevices.

Figure 2: a, Total number of patent applications in nanotechnology between 1995 and 2003, and (inset) the proportion of applications in 2003 in six subfields defined by the European Patent Office. b, Number of patent applications from the Americas, Asia and Europe. (EPO, ref. 4 and own calculations)

Full size image (27 KB)

The number of nanotechnology patents more than doubled between 1995 and 2003, but the growth has not been as spectacular as one might expect, with the peak of 1999 being followed by a fall in numbers, and a year of zero growth following the peak of 2002. Growth has been strongest in the Americas (mainly the US and Canada), but there have been occasional year-on-year decreases. Growth has been slower but more consistent in Asia (mainly Japan and South Korea) and Europe (mainly Germany, the UK, France and the Netherlands) as shown in Fig. 2b.

It is obvious that the Americas is by far the most active region in the world for registering patents in nanotechnology, accounting for half the patent applications each year during the period covered, and also being responsible for the peaks in global patent applications witnessed in 1999 and 2002. In the same time period, Europe's share never exceeded 20%. When the data is analysed by nation, rather than region, the US comes out top overall, and also in each of the six subfields, followed by Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. Within nanobiotechnology, Germany, France and Canada are the strongest after the US, while the Netherlands and Sweden do well in nanoelectronics. Elsewhere, Belgium and Taiwan rank high in nanomaterials, Switzerland is strong in nanodevices, and the UK performs well in nano-optics.

The number of patent applications increased, on average, by 14% per year between 1995 and 2003, with the growth being faster in the first half of this period. There were, however, huge differences between the six different subfields. Nanoelectronics, nanomaterials, nanodevices and nanomagnetics had the highest growth rates in the 1990s, but growth slowed down between 1999 and 2003 — and even became negative for nanodevices. In contrast, nanobiotechnology and nano-optics both experienced negative growth in the late 1990s, but the rate increased to around 20% per year after 2000. However, in absolute terms, both these areas remain much smaller than nanoelectronics and nanomaterials (Fig. 2a).

The funding base: public and private sources

The launch of the National Nanotechnology Initiative in the US in 1999 is generally seen as the start of the global race to exploit all the possibilities offered by nanotechnology. However, funding for nanoscience was already established in many regions of the world by this time, with Europe already being strong in nanomaterials by the mid-1980s. Table 1 gives a snap shot of public funding activities in 2004.

Table 1: Nations ranked by estimated public funding (in million) for nanotechnology research and development in 2004. *Data are for 2003.

Full table

As with patents and publications, the US leads the way in public spending on nanotechnology, with the federal government investing 910 million in 2004, followed by Japan, the European Commission (EC), the individual states in the US, and Germany (see Table 1). Although China is ninth on this list, if purchasing power was taken into account, it would rank much higher. And when spending by the EC and the EU member states are added together, the total exceeds that of the federal and state governments in the US.

Indeed, it is not well known that the EC funds more nanotechnology research than any other funding organization in the world. The Sixth European Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development contains seven activity areas, one of which is "Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new production processes and devices" or NMP for short. Nanotechnology projects are also funded under other activity areas, such as information society technologies, and by various infrastructure and training programmes. It is estimated that the EC will spend some 500 million on nanotechnology projects this year, surpassing the 460 million spent last year and 370 million in 2004². And in the next Framework Programme, which covers the period 2007–2013, the NMP activity area is expected to have a total budget of 3.5 billion, with further support for nanotechnology from a variety of other activity areas and programmes⁵. This money is used to fund research and networking activities at universities, research centres and industial research labs, and related activities such as infrastructure, mobility and education of scientists, standardization and communication.

However, when funding by industry is added, the picture is different. In the US the figure for the total spending on nanotechnology research rises to almost 3 billion when industry sources are included, followed by 2.3 billion for Japan and less than 2 billion for Europe (Fig. 3). In other words, whereas industry sources account for around 60% of total nanotechnology spending in the US, in Europe the corresponding figure is only one-third. European industry clearly has some catching up to do.

Figure 3: Estimated public (blue and orange) and private (yellow) funding ( million) for nanotechnology research and development in 2004 for Europe, the US, Japan and the rest of the world.

Full size image (12 KB)

Outlook

The relatively high level of public funding for nanotechnology in Europe does, however, have an advantage in that it gives the public — in the form of consumers, pressure groups, regulatory agencies, and both European and national funding agencies — some influence in setting priorities for nanotechnology research. This means that research into environmental, health and safety issues will not be overlooked⁶ and, if done properly, it should have a positive impact on the development of nanotechnology in terms of meeting the expectations of society and, consequently, achieving a higher level of public acceptance. Europe's position in the 'global nanorace' is promising, but much will depend on its ability to provide an adequate framework for the social and economic exploitation of the potential that nanotechnology offers. Appropriate infrastructure and education programmes, coordinated activities in metrology, standardization and regulation, as well as the integration of nanotechnology into small- and medium-sized enterprises, will all contribute decisively to the development of nanotechnology in Europe.

Disclaimer

The views expressed here are not necessarily the official position of the EC. For more information about nanotechnology at the EC, please visit cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology.