1. NH-mgv - 1 NCP 23/10/02 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, and new production processes and devices Assessment of Expressions of Interest Attributed to Priority 3 NCP, 23rd October 2002

2. NH-mgv - 2 NCP 23/10/02 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, and new production processes and devices Data and statistical results

3. NH-mgv - 3 NCP 23/10/02 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, and new production processes and devices Data and statistical results Of the 1670 EoIs received, 3 groups: l 396 (24%) are clearly relevant for Priority 3; è Demonstrate clear or potential breakthrough; è Instrument is adequate and well understood l 882 EoIs (52.5%) are considered “not mature” l The final group of 392 EoIs (23.5%) contains proposals which were not relevant for Priority 3 (out of scope) or EoI exercise was not understood

4. NH-mgv - 4 NCP 23/10/02 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, and new production processes and devices The 396 relevant EoIs (24%) may be considered “mature and promising”, but... è Weak participation of Industry (11 %) as co-ordinator è The number of IP is almost the same as NoE (51 % IP, 49 % NoE) è As far the country of origin of the EoIs, Germany scored the highest value (20%), followed by UK (15%), France (13%), Italy (8%), Spain (7%), …, Poland (3%). è SME participation (mentioned in EoIs): 51% è INCO participation (mentioned in EoIs): 27% Data and statistical results

5. NH-mgv - 5 NCP 23/10/02 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, and new production processes and devices General comments on statistical results è There is a high level of dispersion among research topics è The opportunities of the new IP and NoE instruments were not well exploited, especially : – the integrating aspect of IP (SME technology transfer, Spin-off, benchmarking, risk analysis, policy awareness, market studies…) – the structuring necessity of NoE (lasting integration of researchers for joint research programs…) è Only 1/4 of EoIs refer to overall costs. The average costs are: 25 M€ for IP (range from 8 to 80 M€); 34 M€ for NoE (range from 15 to 60 M€)

6. NH-mgv - 6 NCP 23/10/02 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, and new production processes and devices Technological Clustering

7. NH-mgv - 7 NCP 23/10/02 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, and new production processes and devices Qualitative approach All research topics should address the following: –knowledge-based economy (competitiveness) –sustainable development –stimulating of paradigm shift We can use the criteria of Policy awareness (Societal/Economic needs) in order to regroup research topics. In this case, 6 families of strategic topics can be found: –Health –Security, safety, quality of Life –New concepts of production: factory of the future. –Sustainable development Nano-science/technology and new materials might be considered as generic technology areas.

8. NH-mgv - 8 NCP 23/10/02 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, and new production processes and devices Societal Clustering Competitiveness Structuring ERA Societal/Economic needs Towards Nano-world Safety / Security Quality of life Health Factory of the future Eco-Design / sustainable processes Enabling Material Technology

9. NH-mgv - 9 NCP 23/10/02 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, and new production processes and devices Conclusions (I) l Large response, good coverage of research topics l Fragmentation of research topics l Lack of industry leadership l Long-term and breakthrough research quite well understood (for IPs) l Objectives for “lasting integration” in NoEs often lacking

10. NH-mgv - 10 NCP 23/10/02 Nanotechnologies and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials, and new production processes and devices Conclusions (II) l Technical (“vertical”) integration well covered, but issues on standardisation, environmental impact, science-society often lacking l Co-ordination with other funding sources appears not to have been taken up by proposers yet l Societal problems and gender issues are very rarely addressed l Need to better target research objectives: the “societal approach” seems a good way to focus on strategic R & D topics