Institute for Science Study, RAS Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko Moscow, Obrutcheva str. 30A, 117485...

Institute for Science Study, RAS

Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko

Dr. Nadezhda GaponenkoMoscow, Obrutcheva str. 30A, [email protected]

July, 2011, Vancouver, Canada

Russian Node Report

July 2011

DR. Nadezhda GaponenkoHead of Department, Institute of Science

Development Study under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Director, Russian Node of the Millennium Project

Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011

Activity 2010-2011Activity 2010-2011 State of the Future 2011 Future of Media Sectoral Innovation System:

Theoretical foundations Nanotechnology : Global Trends and

Regional Strategies Nanotechnology in the Russian

Academy of Sciences Climate Change and Food Security

for OSCE with European Environmental Agency

Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011

NANORUCERNANORUCERFraunhofer ISI & Fraunhofer ISI &

ISS RASISS RAS Methodology Building Knowledge Base

– 10 databases of key Russian institutions in SISn (R&D organizations (more than 700), incubators (more than 30), nanocompanies (more than 400), venture funds, TTCs (more than 100), research infrastructure centers (more than 100),ect.

– Two survey – R&D organizations & nanocompanies

– 200 interviews – VF and BI– Mapping NN Activity

SIS Assessment Roadmaps of collaborative Projects –

3 workshops


Advisory BoardAdvisory Board

CNRS, Moscow officeROSNANO CorporationRAS


R&D organizations in NN R&D organizations in NN databasedatabase

Technology for information scanning, verification, filtering, and mapping was developed– Contact information– Location– Technological fields– Type of organization– Founding Year– R&D staffs– Facilities

Database opportunities


SIS Assessment SIS Assessment

Institutional Approach– Institutional capacity– Institutional gaps– Networking capacity and gaps

Evolutionary ApproachWorkshops Conference


Future Future

NSF – special study in NN in Russia, memorandum of understanding

SkolkovoKorea – memorandum of

understandingFinland

Sources of Sources of informationinformation

Data bases of Russian “nano” R&D organizations, nanocompanies, venture funds, incubators, CCFU, TTC

Survey of R&D organizations and nanocompanies More than 200 interviews with BI managers and

VF&MC managers Statistical data of Russian State Committee for

Statistics Departmental statistics of MES of the RF and

Corporation RUSNANO Lux research, Cienifica U.S. NSF Nanoforum European Nanotechnology Gateway





Specific Characteristics of Specific Characteristics of SIS in NanotechnologySIS in Nanotechnology

Emerging, fragmented at the initial stage With potential huge impact on NIS, structural

shifts in economy, national competitiveness Marked by the institutional gaps, setting up

of new institutions and transformation of traditional ones, emergence of networks, learning regime and consolidation of technologies

Knowledge dynamic is an engine of SIS formation






Knowledge base

– interdisciplinary– cross-sectoral– not coherent science

field characterized by enormous thematic breadth

Sectoral R&D system

– setting up of interdisciplinary nanotechnology centers and centers of excellence around the world

– expensive scientific infrastructure

– consequences of knowledge commercialization (both positive and negative) are not well explored

Dr. Nadezhda Gapnenko





Technology– emerging– disruptive– science-based

technology

Nano-market– emerging & fragmented– fast developing– Key actors are SMEs and

spinoffs

Networks

–interdisciplinary

–overlapping





Building Balanced Building Balanced and Adoptive SIS and Adoptive SIS

Common measures implemented around the world

– Orientation on institutional gaps– Setting up interdisciplinary research centers– Supporting information infrastructure– Investment in scientific infrastructure– Supporting networks building– Investment in human capacity building (training

courses)– Coordination of actions between different

departments – building system of governance– Nanotechnology safety for consumers– Standards for SISn – Measures implemented by RF are on line with

measures implemented in other programs





Building Balanced and Building Balanced and Adoptive SISAdoptive SIS

(regions’ specific measures)(regions’ specific measures)

USA– Orientation on

dual technologies and high share of defense sector

– Orientation on molecular technologies

European Union

– Development of Pan-European Nano – area

– Building nanotech platforms

– Public-private partnership

– Supporting spin-offs





Building Balanced and Building Balanced and Adoptive SISAdoptive SIS

(regions’ specific measures)(regions’ specific measures) Asia Pacific

– Nano-standardization initiatives (China)

– High share of defense sector (China)

– Development of comprehensive actions for the building balanced SISn

– Strong accents on commercialization (Taiwan)

Latin America– Millennium centers

supported by World Bank (Brazil)

– Partnership with Lucent Technology (USA) for commercialization (Argentina)





Measures are based on specific conditions and available capacity BUT at the same time outlined common measures are conditioned by specific nature of nanotechnology and particularities of SISn development at the embryonic stage


Russian SIS in Nanotech: Russian SIS in Nanotech: institutional set upinstitutional set up

President of the RFState Duma

Government

Council of Federation

MES Min. of Helth&Soc. Dev.

Min. of Ind. & Trade Min. of ICT Min. of Fin.

General P

olicy making

Science, Innovation &

Technology P

olicy Form

ulation and F

inancing

Regional Authorities

Governmental Commission for High Tech & Innov. (2008)

Fed. Space Agency.

Min. of Ec. Affairs

Russian Foundationfor Basic Research

Russian Foundationfor Promotion

of SMEs in S&T

Venture FundsInvested in Nanotech

(14- 200)

Private fundsPublic funds

Foundation for Supporting Russian

science (4)

International funds

International S&T center

Financial Infrastructure

Public R&D organizations

Academic research institute (201 329)Universities (279 574)

Departmental R&D organizations (165)

Private R&D Organizations (60)

Scientific infrastructureCCFU (128)

EU-24118- EU

Germany -57

Know

ledge productionK

nowledge transfer&

comm

ercialization

Incubators (33 -300)

Center for technology Transfer

(102)

Interdepartmental S&T Council for the Development Nanotechnology &Nanomaterials (2005)

Sectoral product

production

417 company



Com. for Modern. and Technol. Develop. of

Economy (2009)

Council for Science high tech& Innov. under the

Speaker (2008)

Public Council for Nanotech, Committee for

S& high tech. (2008)

Coordinating Council for Nanotech Dev.,

Committee for Ed.& Science (2005)

Min. of Def.RUSNANO

ROSATOM Corp

RAS RAMS RAAS

Min. of Energy

Funding agencies (72)Venture and investment foundations (79)

Special economic zones

Technoparks

7 Venture RUSNANO Funds

EU-903Germany - 311

EU- 943 SMEs & 214 major

Comp. Total -1157

RUSNANONanocenters- 19

RUSNANO94 companies

EU-206 networksNetworks

NNNAbout 10 regional


SISn Governance SISn Governance In 2007, President Putin in NN Strategy put

forward the task to develop the system of governance for Nanoindustry

Specialized Councils were set up in State Duma, Council of Federation

Interdepartmental S&T Council for the Development NN (2005)

Subcommeettee was set up in TIC of the RF Commission of RAN for Nanotech development Coordinating Expert Council for Nanotech

development of RAMS Commission for Modernization and Technol.

Develop. of Economy under the President (2009) Governmental Commission for High Tech &

Innov. (2008) New structures are a response to multidisciplinary

and multisectoral nature of NN To provide dialogue between different

stakeholders, to develop the coordinated actions and to improve policy efficiency


SISn GovernanceSISn GovernanceCoordinating program –

Program of Nanoindustry Development until 2015 (16 ministries)

FTP Development of Infrastructure of Nanoindustry

Program - Foundation of basic research in NN ( RAS)

Program – NN in Medicine (RAMN)


Departmental barriers & interests

Corruption

SIS GovernanceSIS GovernanceProblemsProblems


Efficiency of NN Efficiency of NN Initiatives Initiatives

Initiative of the President of the RF

19% 22,6% 16,7% 23,8% 17,9%

Program of the RAS in NN

14,3% 27,4% 27,4% 8,3% 22,6%

FTP "Development of Infrustructure for NN in RF (2008-2010)

14,3% 25,0% 25,0% 14,3% 21,4%

Initiatives of RUSNANO

17,9% 31,0% 20,2% 7,1% 23,8%

FTP "R&D in Priority Directions of S&T Complex for 2007-2012"

10,7% 27,4% 31,0% 13,1% 17,9%


Nanotech InvestmentsNanotech InvestmentsGlobal TrendsGlobal Trends

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

2003 2005 2007

Total Nanotech Spendingmill. $U.S.

Government Funding Corporate R&D

Phenomena of R&D expenditure trends in nano– Nanotech has attracted more funding than any S&T field– budget R&D expenditures on nanotech grows faster than

budget appropriations on R&D – Although nano-market is at the initial stage as far as both

basic and applied research are concentrated in public sector, corporate R&D expenditures grows faster than the public ones


Nanotech InvestmentNanotech InvestmentHow RF looked before How RF looked before

Presidential InitiativesPresidential Initiatives Budjet Investment in NN in 2004 - 2005Budjet Investment in NN in 2004 - 2005

About 7% of global budget nanotech investment

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

EU

-25

US

A

Japan

Ru

ssia

Germ

any

Fran

ce

So

uth

Ko

rea

UK

Ch

ina

Au

stralia

Belg

ium

Italy

Th

e Neth

erlans

Kan

ada

Fin

land

Mexico

Sin

gap

ur

Bra

zil

Tailan

d

Ind

ia

Gre

ece

Budjet Investment in NN in 2004 - 2005, mil.euro


Nanotech InvestmentsNanotech InvestmentsAfter Presidential After Presidential

Initiatives - CientificaInitiatives - Cientifica

About 20% of Global Budget Nanotech Investments (PPP)

Budget Investments in NN: Leading Countries, mil. Doll.

India

UK

South Korea

Germany

China

Russia

Japan

USA

EU-25

2008 2008-PPP

Countries Share in Global R&D Expenditures, in %

0 10 20 30 40

USA

Germany

China

Russia

Finland


Nanotech InvestmentsNanotech InvestmentsAfter Presidential Initiatives After Presidential Initiatives

- Cientifica- Cientifica2004

USA EU Japan Rest of the world

2009 (US$)

USA EU Japan Russia China Rest of the world

2009 (PPP)

USA EU Japan

Russia China Rest of the world


Program of Nanotech Program of Nanotech Development until 2015Development until 2015

Do not reflect all NN investments– Min. of Defense– Federal Space Agency– Corporation Rosatom (Nuclear Agency)– RAS– RAMS

Budget investments in Program of Nanotech Development in 2008 – 7,7% of Global Budget nanotech investments

2008 (PPP) – 11% of Global Budget investments (2.8 times more than budget investments of Germany, 1,2 times more than Japan

2008-2015 For infrastructure development – 11% ( 2008 – 52%) For innovation projects – 56% (2008 – 2%, 2009 – 68%) Human development - 3,2% (2008 - 0,07%) R&D – 20% RAMS investments growth (16 times for 2008-2010)


R&D expendituresR&D expendituresStatisticsStatistics

Total R&D expenditures 2009 – $550.000 mil. Total 2009/2008 – 8% (5%) Federal budget 2009/2008 – 15% (12.4%) Regional budget 2009/2008 – decrease 12% (14%) Share regional budget in public funding – 2.6 Federal budget 2009

– MES of the RF - 41.5%– RAS – 34.5 %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ICT

NN

life syste

ms

en

viron

me

nt

en

erg

y

tran

spo

rt,a

ircraft a

nd

R&D expenditures in Priority S&T Fields in 2009, in %

total federal budget regional budget


Sectoral R&D system Sectoral R&D system Mapping organizations by experience Mapping organizations by experience

and competences in NN researchand competences in NN research

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1946-1960

1961-1970

1971-1980

1981-2000

2001-2005

2006 2007 2008

Mapping organizations by NN R&D starting year (in %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

75%-100% 50%-74% 25%-49% less than 25% hard to answer

Mapping organizations by significance NN R&D in organization's

activity (in %)

For majority organizations NN activity is in interval 75-25% of activity


Sectoral R&D SystemSectoral R&D SystemHuman CapacityHuman Capacity

R&D staff trends (th.)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

total staff number reseachers

system grows out of the national innovation system and inherits its problems

Key problem – R&D staff decrease EU Summit in Barcelona 2002- to increase

numbers of researcher by 500 000 (376 000) In 2000-2007 number of researchers increased 250

000


Sectoral R&D System Sectoral R&D System Human CapacityHuman Capacity

Average age of researchers – 47,8 years

Threat for fast developing S&T domains

Brain drain (Perm) Outsourcing global race for talents

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

up to 29 years

30-39years

40-49years

50-59years

60-69years

elder70years

R&D staff aging

1994 2000 2006 2008



On an average 47,5% organizations reported that the NN R&D staffs increased

Share of foreign researchers – 0.8% but in private sector – 7.7% (EU-6.0%) - finding

Staffs development over the last 5 years (in%)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

academicsector

universities

organizationsof ministriesand agencies

private sector

staffs numberincreased

staffs numberremained constant

staffs numberdecreased



Average age of researchers in NN

min maxon an

averageSISn n an averageВ 31 56 45,3Academic sector 37 56 47,2Universities 31 52 42,9Organizations of ministries and agencies

41 55 47,5

Private sector 36 55 41,9

Some young centers are emerging - finding

Promising weak signal



Students number increase – promising trend

Students development over the last 5 years (in%)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

academicsector

universities

organizationsof ministriesand agencies

private sector

students numberincreased

students numberremained constant

students numberdecreased

difficult to estimate


Mapping Knowledge Using Mapping Knowledge Using

Bibliographic InformationBibliographic Information

Overall, nanotechnology- related papers are increasing at rates that exceed those for all publications contained in the Thompson SCI database.

In 1991-2000 Russia published 1708 papers, was the 6

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Number of NN Publications (1991-2000)

EU-25 USA Japan GermanyChina France Russia UKItaly Spane Swiserland KanadaIndia Korea The Netherland BelgiumIsrael Sweden Australia PolandBrazil


Mapping Knowledge Using Mapping Knowledge Using Bibliographic InformationBibliographic Information

Cites per paper for 25 cited countriesCites per paper for 25 cited countries

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

Sw

itzerland

The Nitherlands

US

A

Kanada

Belgium

UK

EU

-25

France

Japan

Germ

any

Spaine

Israel

Brazil

Italy

Sw

eden

Australia

India

Poland

Russia

China

Korea

Cites per paper for 25 top cited countries (1991-2000)

Russia, China and South Korea complete the picture



25 top ranked institutions during the 90-s25 top ranked institutions during the 90-s

1 UNIV CALIF BERKELEY 393 16.772 MIT 366 14.673 RICE University 156 27.754 IBM CORP 282 15.275 NEC CORP LTD 140 28.696 HARVARD UNIV 155 21.157 TOHOKU UNIV 485 6.698 UNIV ILLINOIS 289 10.7

9ECOLE POLYTECH FED LAUSANNE

212 14.58

10 USN 302 10.0811 GEORGIA INST TECHNOL 236 11.9612 NORTHWESTERN UNIV 200 13.0113 AT&T BELL LABS 89 28.9214 ACAD SINICA (Republic of China) 540 4.7215 ARGONNE NATL LAB 199 12.2216 CALTECH 154 14.4917 UNIV PARIS 11 234 9.518 UNIV CALIF SANTA BARBARA 150 14.7719 UNIV TOKYO 324 6.7420 OSAKA UNIV 422 4.9921 CNRS 366 5.72

22RUSSIAN ACADEMY of SCIENCES

813 2.47

23 PENN STATE UNIV 233 8.3824 CORNELL UNIV 172 11.1525 UNIV PENN 86 22.24



Russia is still the 6 Share of Russia in world NN

publications - 5%

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1994-2000 1994-2004

NN Publications number in 1994-2004

USA Japan Germany China FranceRussia UK Italy Spane Sw itserlandKanada India South Korea The Netherland BelgiumIsrael Sw eden Australia Poland



Number of Publications of most Productive Number of Publications of most Productive OrganizationsOrganizations

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Ch

inese A

cadem

y of S

cience

RA

S

To

kio U

niver.

CN

RS

Paris u

niver.

Osaka u

niver.

Illino

is un

iver.

Berkeley u

niver.

MIT

To

kio in

st. Of T

echn

olo

gy

Cam

bridg

e

Un

iversity of S

&T

(Ch

ina)

CS

IC (S

pain

)

Texac u

niver.

Унив

ерси

тет Тси

нг Хуа (К

итай

)

Kio

to U

niver.

Harvard

un

iver

CN

R (Italy)

Number of Publications of most Productive Organizations in NN 1976-2004



Most Productive OrganizationsMost Productive Organizations

Rank Top 7 Institutions in NN paper Publication in Russia

# in 2000 # in 2007 # in 1976–2007

12

Russian Academy of Sciences Ioffe Phys Tech Institute of the RAS

52667

107253

6,773 649

3 Moscow Lomonosov State Univ 78 225 1,421 4 St Petersburg State University 23 73 397 5 Ufa State Aviat Tech University 10 18 194

6 Joint Institute of Nuclear Research

5 30 140

7 Novosibirsk State University 9 0 110

In 2007, if compare to 2000, the number of papers increased 2.2 time, and the number of authors – 2.4 times. After year 2000, the average annual growth rate for paper publications in Russia was 11,8% (in China - 31.43%, in India 33.51%)Share of Russia in global NN publications – 3.8%


Mapping Knowledge Using Mapping Knowledge Using Bibliographic InformationBibliographic InformationWhere most citated papers were Where most citated papers were

published?published?Rank Journal

Journalcountry

Subject categories # in 2000

#in 2007

1 Physical Review B United States

Physics, Condensed Matter

22 83

2 Physics of the Solid State

Russia Physics, Condensed Matter

29 63

3 Semiconductors Russia Physics, Condensed Matter

42 43

4 Technical Physics Letters

Russia Physics, Applied 19 56

5 JETP Letters Russia Physics, Multidisciplinary

21 33

6 Applied Physics Letters

United States

Physics, Applied 14 28

7 Physics of Metals and Metallography

Russia Metallurgy and Metallurgical Engineering

10 22

8 Inorganic Materials Russia Materials Science, Multidisciplinary

10 30

9 Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics

Russia Physics, Multidisciplinary

11 32

10 Physics of Low-dimensional Structures

United States

Physics, Applied; Physics, Condensed Matter

7 0

In 2008, Russian scholars published 1,4 more papers that in 2007, Russia's share was reduced to 3,25

Russia took the 9th place in the top-ranked countries

Russia passed forward UK and India

Nanoscience funding in the 2000's has increased, compared to the 1990s, but the rank of Russia and its share in global NN publications has decreased

Mapping NN using Mapping NN using patent informationpatent information

The annual rate of increase for all the patent publications is more pronounced between 2000 and 2008 (34.5%); it is higher than that of Science Citation Index’s article publication rate of 20–25% for the same period.


Mapping NN using Mapping NN using patent informationpatent information

Rank Patent office 2000 2008 (repository)

1 USA 405 3,729 2 PRC 105 5,030 3 Japan 328 1,744 4 South Korea 74 1,249 5 Canada 41 255 6 (7) Russian Federation 45 162 7 Germany 62 70 8 Australia 76 136 9 Mexico 0 88 10 UK 14 68 11 France 8 38 12 Brazil 0 103 13 Ukraine 0 83 14 New Zealand 11 18

The Rank in the table is based on the total number of nanotechnology related patent applications and on this measure the RF is on the 6th place; It is comparable with the world rank of Russian Federation in publication.

Number of patent applications to patent offices outside of RF is very small - do not plan to play globally

Motivations for patenting

Patent is not strong defense from coping

Financial issues


BottlenecksBottlenecks

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Low demand at the home market

Insufficiant funding

Lack of qualified personnel

Lack of required facilities

R&D multidisciplinarity and lack ofmultidisciplinary networks

slight problem moderate problem strong problem

extrime problem hard to answer

Key problems – low demand at the home market & lack of funding (only 4% marked it like slight problem)

The second echelon problems – lack of personnel & lack of required facility (only 12% marked like slight problem)


CommercializationCommercializationspin-offsspin-offs

Effective research commercialisation requires: – a sufficient portfolio of research; – a healthy ecosystem;

The most common financial needs for universities in research commercialisation are:

– pre-seed capital to fund prototype development – funds to support IP protection

In US – one spinoff company is generated from a research expenditure of about

US$150 million – For best performers - at US$50 million In Australia - one spinoff company is generated from a research expenditure of about

A$113 million for the research-intensive universities- for the medium and small research profile universities - A$303 In Russia one spinoff company is generated from research expenditures from about 45

mil. Rub.(about US$1.5 mil.) to 1 mil. Rub. (about US$33 thousands). – funding

One can to conclude that Russian R&D organizations look more productive in terms of setting up spinoffs companies?


CommercializationCommercializationspinoofsspinoofs

Type of organizationmin max

On an average per one org.

Total 1 27 3,2

Academic research institutes 1 5 1,9

Universities 1 27 5,1

Organizations of ministries and agencies

1 1 1,0

Private R&D organizations 1 2 1,3

There is considerable variability in performance


CommercializationCommercializationproblemsproblems

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

lack of information about R&D

lack of funding for R&Dcommercialization

administrative barriers to enter the homemarket

insufficient defence of IP right

lack of incubators and venture funds

lack of experience of researchers tocommercialise their R&D

lack of interest of researchers tocommercialise their R&D

lack of interest of researchers to apply forpatent

slight problem moderate problem strong problem

extrime problem hard to answer

Lack of funding

Administrative barriers to enter market

Lack of experience of researchers to commercialize R&D


What could change trends in What could change trends in CommercializationCommercialization

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

growing demand at home market

growing competition at home and worldmarket

public support for R&Dcommercialization

RUSNANO initiatives

venture investment growth

business incubators program

new generation of scholars, which willbe more mobile and entrepreneurial

cooperation with EU institutes, whichwill provide equipment and know how

slightly effective moderately effective very effective

extremely effective hard to answer

Growing demand at the home market

Public support of R&D commercialization

Venture investment growth

Cooperation with EU institutions


NanomarketNanomarket

CFO

NWFO

PFO

SFO

NCFO

UFO

SibFO

More than 400 companies Three subjects of federation are far ahead –

Moscow (217 companies), Moscow region (52 companies) and St. Petersburg (53 companies).

Nanoscience distribution across the regions of the Russian Federation plays a special role in nanomarket development at the embryonic stage.


NanomarketNanomarketDistribution of nanocompanies by Distribution of nanocompanies by

size, in %size, in %

About 80%- SMEs

up to 10 employees

11-50 employees

51-100 employees

101-200 employees

201-300 employees

301-500 employees

501-1000 employees

1001-1500 employees

more than 3000 employees


NanomarketNanomarketMapping nanocompanies by Mapping nanocompanies by

nanoenabled product production nanoenabled product production strarting yearstrarting year

05

1015202530

1980-2000

2001-2006

2007 2008 2009 2010

Mapping nanocompanies by nanoenabled product production

starting year (in %)



Mapping companies by nanoproduct (in %)

0 20 40 60 80

final nanoenabledproduct

intermediateproduct

primary product

Majority produce primary and intermediate product



Although nanotech are science- driven technology but to some degree are pushed by existing industry boarder, they are path dependant

– High share of aerospace (52%), energy (52%) & chemical industry (50%)

– Low share of ICT– Health care (33%) and pharmaceutics (30%)

Users of Nanoproduct (in %)

0 20 40 60

safety

food production

manufacturing

energy

ICT & consumerelectronicstransport

construction

aerospace

metallurgy

chemical industry

pharmaceutics

health care,medical devices


NanomarketNanomarketCompetitorsCompetitors

Foreign companies occupied market

No regulations

Main competitors (in %)

0 50 100

foreigncompanies

Russian SMEs

Russian bigcorporations



About 30% do not export For 36% - share of export is up to 5% of output For 27% - more than 50% Plans – ambitious; about 60% plan to have share of

export more than 50%

Export share in output (in %)

0 20 40

2009

2015

do not export

more than75%

51%-75%

26%-50%

6%-15%

up to 5%



Nanocompanies are mainly oriented on EU market (more than 30%)

Asia on the second place

Nanoproduct export (in %)

0 20 40

Africa

Latin America

NIC

Asia

U.S.+Kanada

EU



28% of companies had public support during the last 5 years

6% - had venture investments

Public support for nanocompanies (in %)

0 20 40 60

decreased

remainedconstant

increased



Growing companies

Nanocompanies' staffs (in %)

0 20 40 60 80

decreased

remainedconstant

increased



91,8% of companies provide R&D 83,7% collaborative R&D projects

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Mapping R&D Organizations by Nanofields, in %

nanomaterials

nanoelectronics

nanobio

basic research

metrology

optics

energy

other 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Mapping Nanocompanies R&D by Nanofields, in %

nanomaterials

nanoelectronics

nanobio

nanomagnetics

nanomechanics

optics



Innovations used to advance the product (in %)

0 50 100

developed byothercompanies,changes in yourcompany wererequireddeveloped byothercompanies;changes in yourcompany werenot required developed byyour company

75% of companies introduced new product in 2008-2009

96% of export –oriented companies introduced new product in 2008-2009

75% of companies introduced new technologies

90% of export oriented companies introduced novel technologies

Mainly companies use their own innovations

Innovations used to advance technologies (in %)

0 50 100

developed byothercompanies,changes in yourcompany wererequireddeveloped byothercompanies;changes in yourcompany werenot required developed byyour company


Problems hampering nanoproduct Problems hampering nanoproduct production increaseproduction increase

Low market demand High risk and uncertainties Administrative barriers

– High credit interests– Lack of qualified personnel

Problems, hampering nanoproduct production increase

low market demand

high risk and uncertainties

administrative barriers

insufficient defence of IP

high compatition with foreigncompanies

high credit interest

lack of qualified personal

monopolization of home market

slight problem moderate problem strong problem extreme problem


Problems hampering nanoproduct Problems hampering nanoproduct export increaseexport increase

Lack of funding for export activity support

Lack of experience

Problems, hampering nanoproduct export increase

high competition

discrimination at the foreignmarkets

lack of funding for export activitysupport

insufficient defence of IP

ecological standards at foreignmarkets

lack of information about foreignmarkets

lack of qualified personal

lack of experience

slight problem moderate problem strong problem extreme problem


Business incubatorsBusiness incubators


Venture funds and management Venture funds and management companiescompanies


R&D organizations of R&D organizations of different typedifferent type


Nanocompanies Nanocompanies


CCFU CCFU


TTCTTC


Conclusions Conclusions SISn is a growing system with fast

institutional changes, emerging system of governance

Geopolitically oriented mostly on EU; in R&D – EC policy

Key players – MES, RUSNANO and RAS RUSNANO – challenge

– Global player from the very beginning– With healthy ambitious– Building common Russian nanoarea– Institutional gaps– Building human capacity

Public authorities measures are oriented on the research infrastructure development, “filling” institutional gaps in SIS; they are on line with actions implemented in other countries


ConclusionsConclusions Russian SISn remains fragmented and

misbalanced The main R&D capacity is concentrated in

academic sector, some universities and in some R&D organizations of branch science

In basic research Russian science is still among the leaders although step by step it yields its positions to new leaders

Underdeveloped corporate sector of science; Lack of strong R&D organizations, which perform under the umbrella of corporations; hamper technology development and commercialization

Underdeveloped infrastructure for technology transfer and commercialization

lack of venture capital & specialized incubators

Administrative barriers and lack of experience hamper technology transfer and commercialization


ConclusionsConclusions Cultural issues impact SISn trajectory

– Russian R&D organizations do not have traditions for the commercialization of research results or for the handling of patents and other IPR

– shortage of individuals ready to combine science and business carrier

– weak entrepreneurial tradition. At the home nanomarket dominate foreign

companies Majority of Russian companies are SMEs and

spin-offs; administrative barriers, high credit interest and lack of qualified personnel hamper them to develop their business

Many Russian companies export nanoenabled product and have healthy ambitious, but lack of experience and lack of public support hamper export capacity growth

lack of networks and lack of actions to support networks

SISn is path dependent; problems formed in NIS impact SISn trajectory


Institute for Science Study, RAS Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko Moscow, Obrutcheva str. 30A, 117485...

Documents

Transcript of Institute for Science Study, RAS Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko Moscow, Obrutcheva str. 30A, 117485...