Nanotechnology qualifies for holding a major impact on the universe economic system, because nanotechnological applications will be used in virtually all sectors. Scientists, research workers, directors, investors and policy shapers worldwide acknowledge this immense potency and have started the nano-race.

2. Prospects of Market Volumes and Shares

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

A universe market of $ 1 trillion by 2015 for nanotechnological merchandises has been estimated by the NSF ( NSF, 2001 )[ 1 ]. Many other prognosiss vary between moderate $ 150 bn in 2010 ( MRI,2002 )[ 2 ]and $ 2.6trillion in 2014 ( Lux Research, 2004 )[ 3 ]based on the definition of nanotechnology, religion in its part to value of the merchandises every bit good as the sum of optimism associated with it. The best estimations are that it will excel the information and communicating engineering ICT market, and leap in front of the biotech market by a factor of 10. Even though the prognosiss vary widely but they predict an extended rush in the nanotech merchandise markets, in the current decennary. The above estimations are directional indexs but may non be sufficient for an in depth analysis of the developing nanotech market. The NSF and Lux research in an analysis crossing 1999-2003 have broken down the estimations into subareas of nanotechnology. The NSF guess that nanobiotechnology and nanodevices would account for $ 415mn and $ 420 manganese of the predicted $ 1 trillion nanotech market by 2015. The old prognosiss are set to well increase, nanoelectronics to $ 300 bn, nanomaterials from $ 145 manganese to $ 340 bn, as besides for chemical processing, aerospace and pharmaceuticals.

Prognosiss from some surveies ( including Lux Research, NSF, and Fecht et Al. ) have been compiled at Table A1 at extension ( under typing ) . The information presents an penetration in to market sections which can be the leaders. The information nevertheless varies well because of changing mention points of each survey.

Nano enabled merchandises are expected to be accountable for the largest portion in this digest of different nanotechnological subareas, applications and markets. The gamut of nanoelectronics covering extremist capacitances, semiconducting materials, nanosensors and nanostorage has been estimated for about $ 300 bn by 2015, The market for nanomaterials estimations can be broken down to some more or less of import subareas, amongst which nanocoatings, nanoparticles, and sidelong nanostructures account for more than 300 bn Euro in all stuffs around 2010. Which is besides about the NSF estimation of $ 340 bn by 2015.

The Lux survey has predicted three phase theoretical account of developments in the nanotechnology market. Incidentally Lux survey Idaho said to be the most sophisticated and comprehensive survey on chances of marketable nanotechnology merchandises. The theoretical account predicted that in the first stage up to 2004, Nanotech would be used in a few hitech merchandises. Inventions would bloom upto 2009, specially in nanoelectronics. There after beyond 2010, nanotech would be used more and more in in health care, life scientific discipline merchandises ( medical devices, pharmaceuticals ) and manufactured goods. Nanobiotechnology will lend significantly to the developments in the pharmaceutical industry. Market portion of Nanomaterials per Se may get down dunking at this clip. Lux Research ( 2004 ) has estimated a market portion of 4 % ; of general manufactured merchandises in 2014 ; for nanotechnology merchandises, with 21 % nanotech in cars 23 % in pharmaceuticals,85 % in consumer electronics, and 100 % in PCs. Thus nanotechnology is likely to hold a portion of approximately 15 % by 2014 of the planetary fabrication end product. Estimates for nano-enabled drug bringing market besides support the above projections as per an analysis of the drug bringing market.

Figure 1: The volume and portion of the enabled drug bringing market compared to the world-wide drug bringing market.

An one-year addition of 50 % between 2005 and 2012 is expected in the market for nano-enabled drug bringing. The market portion follows a similar but lower rate addition tendency. With a market portion of 5.2 % hostel 2012, approximately $ 4.8 bn are likely to be earned by nanotech drug bringing market. This market portion is likely to increase to 7 % in 2015 and 10 % by 2020.

Public Acceptance of Nanotechnology

None of the above presented projections include scopes of scenarios that are related to the public credence of nanotechnology, though lessons should be learnt from former emerging engineerings such as atomic power engineering or Genetically Modified Organisms ( GMO ) . Public positions about perceptual experiences of hazards and concerns sing nanoproducts have to be factored in, as it has direct impact on credence or otherwise of credence in the market. The on-going arguments on nanotechnology show that some contentions exist and that market success could be jeopardised if public sentiment feels that it is non being addressed and accordingly takes over a critical position approximately nanotechnology as such, due e.g. to wellness and environmental hazards of nanoparticles or ethical concerns about privateness ( Hullman, 2006 )[ 4 ]. When speaking about economic potencies of nanotechnology, these arguments have ever to be addressed and must be taken earnestly.

These facets can besides hold a significant impact on the planetary distribution of gross revenues and economic returns of nanotechnology merchandises. While some universe parts might be more inclined to accept the hazards related to nanotechnology, even if they are non to the full known or quantified yet, others can be more critical and more loath in their credence. The difference between the credence of genetically modified harvests between the European and the American public illustrates this instance adequately. Stricter ordinances and less expressed selling of the nanotech component in the merchandises can be the effect for the more critical parts. Mugwump of these facets, Lux Research ( 2004 ) has broken down the figures of their prognosiss ( $ 2.6 bn in 2014 ) by part ( Figure 2 ) .

Most interestingly, the most of import part for the gross revenues of nanotechnology merchandises is Asia and the Pacific part, followed by the USA and Europe on similar degrees. While Europe is predicted to hold a little but uninterrupted addition of its portion, the US is diminishing until 2008 and increasing afterwards, Asia and the Pacific undergo the opposite development. The grounds Lux Research gives for these developments are related to the three stage theoretical account of the nanotechnological development: in the nearest hereafter, merchandises will rule the universe market that chiefly originate from strong Asiatic companies, such as Personal computers, nomadic devices or vehicles. After 2008, pharmaceuticals will go stronger and these are dominated by US companies.

3. Public and Private Funding

The National Nanotechnology Initiative ( NNI ) in the United States, launched by the former president Clinton and come ining into force in 2001, can be seen as the get downing point of a planetary race for the universe taking economic systems in nanotechnology research programmes. However, funding for nanoscience was already established in many parts of the universe by this clip, with Europe already being strong in nanomaterials by the mid- eightiess. Up to now, many other states and the European Union have dedicated considerable sums of money to nanotechnology research and development. Table 1 gives public support activities in 2005. It is in 1000 euro for nanotechnology R & A ; D in 2004, ( *data is from 2003 ) , beginning EU committee 2005 ( EC,2005 )[ 5 ].

The European Commission is the largest support administration of nanotechnology research in Europe and as an single bureau even worldwide. In the Research and Technological Development Framework Programme for Europe ( FP6 ) , nanotechnology has been defined, together with stuffs and production engineerings ( NMP ) , as a precedence for European research. It is estimated that 1.3 bn Euro have been dedicated to nanotechnology undertakings between 2004 and 2006 ( 2004: 370 manganese Euro, 2005: 470 manganese Euro, 2006: 500 manganeses Euro ) , besides in other precedences than NMP such as the information society engineerings, substructures, or research and preparation activities. Already, from 1994 to 2002, nanotechnology related undertakings were funded which amounted to 300 manganeses Euro in entire. In the approaching FP7 ( 2007-2013 ) , nanotechnology will go on as a precedence within the NMP subject and is expected to at least dual the budget, In add-on, some accent will be put on nanoelectronics and nanomedicine as subjects of European Technology Platforms and on safety, environmental and wellness facets, nanometrology, meeting engineerings and international cooperation.

Sing the EU Member States, which are accounting together for a much larger portion of European public outgo in nanotechnology than the European Commission, Germany is the top Spender, followed by France and the UK. Japan and South Korea are on a comparable degree. In add-on, taking into consideration that the figures are non reflected in purchase power paras, China ‘s attempts must be considered as significant and more than important in a worldwide comparing. All states are outdone by the United States, which is with the entire outgos of more than 1.2 bn Euros in 2004 and 1.7 bn Euros in 2005 by the federal authorities bureaus and the federal provinces the largest public disbursement state worldwide. However, as a whole, and merely taking into history the public support of nanotechnology, Europe would be on a similar degree as the United States ( Figure 3 ) .

Figure 3: Estimated public and private support for nanotechnology R & A ; D in 2005 by universe parts in million euros ( 1 euro~1 $ ) . Source European Commission 2005


Adding the private support figures, the image looks different: In Europe, merely one tierce of the entire support root from private beginnings. In the United States, the private beginnings are about 54 % and in Japan they account for about two tierces. For all other, chiefly emerging Asiatic states, the portion is about 36 % . In absolute Numberss, the US research community can pass more than 3.5 billion Euros for nanotechnology, while it is 2.7 billion in Japan and less than 2.5billion in Europe. This shows the difference between Europe and its rivals in nanotechnological research: The public support degree is competitory, but European industry is dawdling behind.

4. Venture capital support of Nanotechnology

Which technological countries are already particularly dynamic and therefore attractive for investors? A closer expression at the hazard capital market up to 2002 gives an indicant. Figure 4 shows nanobiotechnology as the most attractive market for Venture Capitalists, followed by nanodevices, while nanomaterials and nanotools play merely a fringy function.

Figure 4: VC funding worldwide by application ( left ) and by twelvemonth, in $ manganese ( right ) . Beginning: Paull et Al. 2003.

Proportions have changed well ; nanobiotechnology ‘s dominant function remains, but decreases. Fig 5 shows the overall Venture Capital ( VC ) support increased from $ 63 manganese in 1999 to more than $ 400 manganese in 2002, therefore an addition of more than 500 % within 3 old ages. But here once more, the lessening from 2000 to 2002, chiefly in nanobiotechnology, shows that the VC market might still be in the wait-and-see manner.

Figure 5: VC support universe broad in nanotech in absolute nos. and as portion. Beginnings Anquetil ( 2005 ) , 2005/2005: Lux Research, 2006, PWC 2006.

The figures show a stagnancy of the entire VC support development in 2002 and a moderate but steady addition afterwards. On the other manus, some experts believe that a big investing in nanotechnology could take to merchandises that society does non necessitate ( Nanologue, 2005 ) .

5. Jobs and Companies in Nanotechnology

The creative activity of companies is an of import index for the development and economic significance of a new engineering. New companies are typically start ups with one chief plus: the patent on a new engineering which they can work themselves or licence to other companies which are more capable in footings of production or distribution. Venture Capital is a major beginning of funding in this high tech and therefore high hazard sector. When it comes to the creative activity of new occupations, start ups and little and average sized endeavors ( SMEs ) contribute most. The NSF estimates that about 2 million nanotechnology workers will be needed worldwide by 2015. They would be distributed across the universe parts as follows: 0.8-0.9 million in the US, 0.5-0.6 million in Japan, 0.3-0.4 million in Europe, about 0.2 million in the Asia- Pacific part excepting Japan and 0.1 million in other parts. Additionally, 5 million related back uping occupations, or at mean 2.5 occupations per nanotech worker, would be created ( Roco, 2003A )[ 6 ]. Even more optimistic, Lux Research expects a figure of 10 million fabrication occupations related to nanotechnology by 2014.

Figure 6: No. of nanotechnology occupations in million and the portion of these occupations as % of all fabrication occupations. Beginning: Lux Research 2004.

Figure 6 shows the entire figure of occupations in nanotechnology and its portion of all fabrication occupations. Many of these occupations will be created in SMEs, but non entirely. In the past few old ages, many already good established companies expanded their engineering portfolio to nanotechnology in order to keep their fight. This explains why companies were identified as being nanotech oriented that sometimes even existed 100 old ages ago or even longer. Typical illustrations are large companies in chemical and pharmaceutical industry, optics and electronics ( Philips, Bayer, General Electrics, Carl Zeiss, BASF, Agfa-Gevaert, established before 1900 ) , though these established companies form a minority in the list of all bing nanotech companies.

Figure 7: Nanotech companies worldwide: Decades and old ages ( 1981-2005 ) of creative activity. Beginning: NanoinvestorNews database of 8 May 2005 on their web site ( NIN, 2005 )[ 7 ].

Figure 7 shows nanotechnology companies by their old ages and decennaries of creative activity, worldwide and by universe part. The informations root from the publically available database of nanotech companies provided by NanoInvestorNews. For 522 companies out of the sum of 1000 companies in this database the twelvemonth of creative activity was provided. The universe parts are composed chiefly by Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom for Europe, the United States and Canada for the Americas and Japan, South Korea and China for Asia. Merely a few of the today ‘s active nanotech companies had been created in the first eight decennaries of the twentieth century, with an norm of 10 companies each decennary. In the 1980s, the figure increased significantly but the return off did non take topographic point before 1996, in which about 30 nanotech companies were created – and up to 50 companies in 2000. This continues with increasing inclination, which is non reflected in the Numberss due to incomplete informations sets for the most recent old ages. It is of import to observe that all companies exist at the clip of mention ( May 2005 ) , therefore companies, which got insolvents were acquired or got merged before, are non included in the statistics.

Figure 8 shows the consequence from a study by Fecht et Al ( Fecht et al, 2003 )[ 8 ], which covered 357 companies.

Worldwide to analyze in which nanotechnology sections, nanotech companies active One tierce of the companies observed are active in nanomaterials, another 3rd in nanobiotechnology. Nanotools and nanodevices play a smaller function. But there are important differences between the four most active states in the universe: while the United States are reasonably much norm, Germany is stronger in nanotools, the United Kingdom in nanobiotechnology and Japan every bit strong in nanomaterials and nanotools, above norm in nanodevices and really weak in nanobiotechnology.

Figure 8: Companies universe broad in different nanotech sections ( left ) and in most active states ( right ) . Sample study of 357 companies by Fecht et al. , 2003

Research organisations

Private companies are non the lone administrations active in nanotechnology. The figure of all administrations that do research or bring forth nanotechnology reflects all nanotechnology R & A ; D activities and helps to place forms of activity in footings of scientific and applied research. Figure 9 shows the figure of administrations active in nanotechnology by institutional type, by most active states and by universe part. The dataset comprises around 1100 administrations, of which 460 are SMEs or start-ups, 390 research institutes, 120 big companies and 80 subordinates or joint ventures ( Scientifica, 2003 )[ 9 ]. But there are differences between the universe parts: While SMEs and get down ups have the by far largest portion in the United States, universities and research Centres play a bigger function in Europe and Asia. Grouped together in two groups – all companies ( including SMEs,

Figure 9: Nanotechnological establishments by state ( left ) and by type of organisation ( right ) . The overall no. is 1198 ( left ) and 1050 ( right ) resp. Source Cientifica, 2003

large companies and subordinates ) on the one side and research institutes ( universities and research Centres ) on the other side, interesting differences between the states can be observed. The portion of research institutes of all administrations is really high in Japan, the United Kingdom, China, France, Australia and Sweden. In Austria, Spain, Italy and Poland, they even outnumber the companies. The proportion is different in the United States, Germany, Switzerland, Israel and Taiwan every bit good as in South Korea and Finland, where the figure of companies doubles or more the research institutes.

From the informations it can be concluded that the most important developments in the creative activity and activity of nanotech companies and nanotech related occupations can be observed in the United States. In Europe, Germany plays the most important function, but on a instead moderate degree when compared to the United States. Japan is the United States ‘ most of import rival. When it comes to competitiveness and occupation creative activity, the significance of companies being built on nanotechnological innovations or using nanotechnology within their technological portfolio will increase.

The emerging nanotech states China, India and Russia are prepared to takeoff and to near Europe. Although none of them appear conspicuously in the company statistics, it can be assumed that they will demo important kineticss in the following decennaries and can go serious rivals on the universe market for merchandises and for research and production sites.

6. Patent Applications

Durable economic success would non be possible without a strong scientific and technological footing. On the other manus, scientific and technological excellence does non automatically ease economic success and discovery. Therefore it is advisable to analyze the two chief quantifiable indexs of scientific and technological excellence: patents and publications.

Patents reflect the ability of reassigning scientific consequences into technological applications. Patents are besides a requirement for economic development of research consequences and are therefore cardinal for any analysis which deals with economic potencies of a engineering and the designation of most promising Fieldss and histrions in footings of individuals, administrations, or states ( Hullman, 2006 )[ 10 ]. The European Patent Office ( EPO ) has developed a methodological analysis in order to place and sort nanotechnology patents and patent households at most of import patent offices worldwide. It has the clear advantage that nanotech patents can be identified more adequately and that world-wide comparings are more dependable because no universe part is favoured. Figure 10 shows the development of the figure of patent households from 1995 to 2003 and the portions in the different nanotechnology subfields.

Figure 10: nanotech patents universe broad harmonizing to EPO ticket Y01N. Line graph: Entire no. of patent households in Y01N. Pie: Distribution of ticket categories Y01N2-Y01N12 in 2003. Source EPO, 2006.

The figure of patent households increases continuously but with every bit yet no existent take-off. Two little extremums in 1999 and in 2002 pointed to an exponential growing way, but in each instance in the undermentioned twelvemonth it had to endure a slow-down which affects the overall growing rates in the period regarded. In 2003, the largest group of nanotechnology patents is related to nanoelectronics. Nanomaterials are on 2nd topographic point, followed with distance by nanomagnetics and nanooptics.

The overall growing rate of nanotechnology patents between 1995 and 2003 is at 14 % yearly with lower rates in the 2nd period compared to the first period. However, immense differences occur between the Fieldss. Nanoelectronics, nanomaterials, nanodevices and nanomagnetics had the highest growing rates in the 1990ies but lower 1s ( to even negative growing in instance of nanodevices ) between 1999 and 2003. On the other manus, nanobiotech and nanooptics had to undergo negative growing in the late 1990ies, but increased to around 20 % per twelvemonth in the old ages 2000. However, in absolute footings both are on a much lower degree than nanoelectronics and nanomaterials. Therefore, this addition can non be seen as an early indicant of the turning significance of nanobiotechnology for the market of nanotechnology merchandises.

Figure 11: Patents worldwide harmonizing to applier ( left ) and discoverer ( right ) . Source EPO, 2006.

Figure 10 ( EPO, 2006 )[ 11 ]shows the figure of nanotechnology patents worldwide, broken down to appliers and discoverers from the Americas ( chiefly the US and Canada ) , Asia ( chiefly Japan and South Korea ) and Europe ( chiefly Germany, the UK, France and the Netherlands ) . It is obvious that America is the by far most active universe part for registering patents in nanotechnology. For each twelvemonth in inquiry they count for half of the patents for which the state of applier could be identified. Interestingly, this taking place is somewhat weaker when it comes to the state of discoverer, where Asia improves its place. The difference between state of applicant and state of discoverer is – by and large spoken – due to the difference between location of a company and populating topographic point of the research worker which occur in instances of research visits and of transposing between states in boundary line parts. In the instance of nanotechnology, a important figure of discoverers registered Asiatic place references and worked for American applier companies. Because of the immense figure of instances, mobility of research workers might non be a sufficient account. It might be just to presume that this difference is besides due to the fact that their Asiatic research Centre, owned by an American company, did non use for the patent itself but left it to the American headquarter. Interestingly, the differences lessening in 2002 and 2003. This is an indicant either for a alteration of wonts in patenting or an increasing activity of Asiatic applier companies. The American incline shows besides that the extremums in universe broad nanotechnology patenting ( see Figure 10 ) has been caused chiefly by an unusual big figure of American appliers in 1999 and in 2002. The United States is the most active patenting state, both for appliers and for discoverers. Germany, France and Canada rank higher for nanobiotechnology, the Netherlands and Sweden come up in nanoelectronics, while Belgium and Taiwan rank high in nanomaterials. Switzerland is in peculiar strong in nanodevices, and the UK in nanooptics.

Figure 12: Average one-year growing rates of nanotech patents in 2003 for top 8 states as per EPO ticket Y01N. Beginning: EPO, 2006.

The one-year growing rates of nanotechnology patents in each of the top eight applicant states in 2003 are displayed in Figure 12. The growing of the figure of nanotechnology patents arising from the United States is really similar to the overall development of all nanotechnology patents, which is marked by larger additions in the late ninetiess and smaller 1s in the early 2000s. With 50 % of all nanotechnology patents it is rather natural that the development in the United States besides shapes the worldwide development. The opposite image can be observed for all other states: little additions or even lessenings ( France, the Netherlands ) in the 1990s and important growing in the old ages 2000. Germany, Canada, the UK and in peculiar the Netherlands and South Korea have shown a much more dynamic development in the last period regarded.

7. Scientific Publications and Citations

Scientific publications are the most appropriate index for mensurating scientific excellence by quantifying the end product. However, the pure end product figure could be deceptive ; other indexs such as commendations do reflect the quality of a scientific paper and its impact on the scientific community. Comparing the universe parts, Figure 13 shows Europe in the lead in the figure of scientific publications in nanotechnology.

Figure 13: Scientific publications in Nanotechnology in SCI database per universe region1992-1995 and 1998-2001. Beginning: Glanzel et al.2003

In the 1990s, the European portion still somewhat increased, while the figure of scientific publication arising from the USA and Canada decreased and particularly ‘other Asia ‘ , i.e. China, gained significance ( Glanzel et al, 2003 )[ 12 ]. Therefore, it can be concluded that Europe has a big scientific footing in nanotechnology, comparable with its chief rivals. ‘Other Asia ‘ is the most dynamic universe part. A closer expression at the different states will cast some visible radiation at the beginnings of the nanoscientific publications.

Figure 14: Scientific publications in nanoscience per state and subfield, 1999-2004 SCI database. Beginnings: Igami 2006, Science Citation Index 1999-2004. Analysis by NISTEP,2006[ 13 ]

Figure 14 shows more recent information on the figure of publications by state and by scientific subjects. Not surprisingly, the United States is most active with in sum more than 18000 nanoscientific publications from 1999 to 2004. Japan and China follow, but with a big difference. The largest European states are in place four to seven. South Korea, Canada, and Spain complete the top 10. The image alteration somewhat when one distinguishes between the three nanoscientific subfields chemical synthesis, superconductivity and quantum computer science, and nanomaterials. In the first two Fieldss, Germany is much stronger than China, on a similar degree with Japan, and the UK and France are on a similar degree with China. China is really strong in nanomaterials, it takes over the 2nd place from Japan and reduces the spread to the United States. The top cited diaries for nanoscientific documents are the European ‘Nature ‘ and the US ‘Science ‘ ( Popescu, 2001 )[ 14 ].Both diaries are multidisciplinary, which is really appropriate for nanoscientific publications. The huge bulk of the nanoscientific high impact diaries are in the Fieldss of chemical science and natural philosophies, some are on stuffs research. Out of the top list, merely ‘Nanostructured Materials ‘ is explicitly dedicated to nanoscience – with a comparatively low impact rate and at the same clip 2nd highest figure of nanoscientific articles. These observations do back up the interdisciplinary character of nanosciences.

8. Decisions

The information presented are sufficiently dependable because they are consistent and anticipate

different gaits in different nanotechnology Fieldss and different of import nanotech states. A bright nanotechnology hereafter can therefore be predicted. Because of its cross film editing character and its peculiar significance for the pharmaceutical and electronics industry, it has the possible easy to catch the traditional biotechnology and even reach the degree of the current state of affairs with information and communicating engineerings. These developments will hold besides a enormous impact on the figure of occupations in the fabrication industries. Nanotech companies have been created in the yesteryear and much more are expected to emerge in the hereafter. Many of these companies will transport out work in marketing production or research and development ( R & A ; D ) , in sectors where size of the company is non critical for operations. Large and transnational companies are already committed to nanotechnology and pass a significant sum of money for nanotech related research. In add-on, hazard capital for nanotech start up companies is available. Venture Capitalists have discovered nanotechnology as the following large thing and follow the developments in the nanotech sector. Sing the funding of nanotech research, some differences between the universe regions become obvious. In Europe, the private investors are dawdling behind the public support bureaus. While the United States and Japan have a more balanced divider of private and public support, the European nanotech research has to endure from lower private support beginnings. Knowledge and rational belongings are created in research undertakings which are to a great extent publically funded. However, the successful technological execution and the interlingual rendition into commercially successful merchandises depend besides on the integrating of industry in these undertakings ( Hullman, 2006 )[ 15 ]. In this connexion it relevant that Europe is concentrating on civil applications of nanotechnology, whereas. the United States spends a great portion of its public support of nanotechnology for military research.