European Commission
Community Research
Preparing for FP6
Report on the Analysis of Expressions of Interest 2002
1.1.3
Nanotechnology and nanosciences, knowledge-based multi-functional materials and new production processes and devices Call identifier EOI.FP6.2002
Expressions of Interest Analysis Report – 1.1.3 – September 2002
1
1.
1.1
Introduction
Objectives and scope
The overall aim of the Expression of Interest (EoI) exercise was - to carry out a survey of the readiness, understanding and interest of the RTD community to submit proposals under the third Thematic Priority “Nanotechnology and nanosciences, Knowledge-based Multi-functional Materials and New Production Processes and Devices” of the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6); - to give input towards the preparation of the Work Programme and content of the first calls, in line with the Specific Programme objectives, in particular for using the new instruments – Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence. 1.2 Statistical overview
The final number of Expressions of Interest allocated to Priority 3, after the elimination of duplicates and the re-assignment of EoI to and from other Priorities, was 16701. Of these, 914 (54,7 %) were Integrated Projects, 622 (37,3 %) were Networks of Excellence, with roughly 134 (8 %) for which the IP or NoE status was not clear. Of the 1670 EoI assessed 392 (23,5%) were considered as out of scope largely because they did not show evidence of any consortium building, being submissions from individual organisations searching for partners. The retained EoI (76.5%) were then assessed into two groups: Group 1: Group 2: 396 EoI (24%) which may be considered “mature and promising”. 882 EoI (52.5%), clearly relevant for Priority 3, but not demonstrating sufficient breakthrough research, neither understanding completely the new instruments.
An analysis of the type of co-ordinators (University, Research Institutes, Industry) of EoI was made on the basis of a sample of 200 EoI submitted to Priority 3. This showed that: · · · · 48 % had a university as co-ordinator while around 36 % were presented by co-ordinators from other research institutions co-ordinators from industry accounted for some 13 % while the "other" category made up the remaining 3 %.
The analysis of mature and promising EoI shows that the subdivision of the co-ordinators by type of organisation is rather different from the analysis of the sample of the 200 EoI. In fact, the IPs, representing 51% of all mature EoI have a higher (although still low)
1
In annex 2, Expressions of Interest received in response to the invitation published on 20 March 2002 with a deadline of 7 June 2002 (Identifier EOI.FP6.2002) are analysed by thematic priority for type of instrument, type of country and type of submitter.
Expressions of Interest Analysis Report – 1.1.3 – September 2002
2
industrial participation as co-ordinator, 16.3%, compared to 6.1% for the NoE. The coordinators from university accounted for some 47%, quite similar to the 48% of the received proposals. The wide participation of Research Centres (47%) should be highlighted, showing a quite high level of sectoral interest. Industry % IP NoE Total 16.3 6.1 11.4 University % 45.0 37.8 41.7 RC % 38.6 56.1 47.0 Total % 51 49 100 Table 1 It is important to note that these data only relate to declared co-ordinators of EoI. Within the whole partnership there usually is a range of partners from the different categories. As regards the country of origin of the EoI, the breakdown for priority 3 is the following: Austria Belgium Bulgaria Czech Rep. Denmark Finland France Germany 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 3% 9% 17% Greece Israel Italy Lithuania Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal 2% 1% 8% 1% 4% 1% 9% 1% Romania Slovak Rep. Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Utd. Kingdom Turkey 1% 1% 1% 7% 4% 1% 12% 4% Table 2
The mature EoI have been analysed with regard to their relevance to SMEs. There was SME involvement in over half of them (51%) as opposed to 20% where there was no clear SME involvement. The situation was unclear for only 29%. The mature EoI were also analyzed in terms of their international dimension. In the case of 27% of EoI, there was an international dimension to the consortium, while for 36% there was none. For about the same number (37%) the situation was unclear. It should be noticed that only 27 EoI in total mention EUREKA. Of these, only 5, i.e. a little more than 1% of mature EoI, have been included in the detailed « mature » analysis.
2.
2.1
Results of the Assessment of the Expressions of Interest
Priority subjects / topics: global overview
Predictably under this Priority, the assessment of the EoI allowed a check to be made:
Expressions of Interest Analysis Report – 1.1.3 – September 2002
3
· · ·
The understanding of the instruments, The potential critical mass of research teams around research topics, and The strategic research areas allowing integrated and breakthrough approaches.
The overall “quality” of the EoI in terms of the objectives of the exercise (understanding of NoE, IP, readiness, etc) is highly variable. It is stressed that individual EoI may vary considerably from the average, and that the impression given here represents a strong simplification. The around 1600 EoI received could be taken to represent the order of magnitude of research capacity in industrial research in Europe. Over half of the high quality EoI were directed at materials topics. Other areas that showed a high level of interest, and a relatively good comprehension of the FP6 instruments, were in new, more sustainable, flexible and intelligent production routes and the medical engineering/health sector. Finally, a high proportion also was identified with nanotechnology and nanosciences. Not all research topics however demonstrated clearly the focus and the need for multidisciplinary and integrated approaches required by the specific programme. Areas of interest for such integrated approaches range from “sustainable chemistry and sustainable production”, “nanomanufacturing equipment” or “new generation of textiles”, to “new control systems”, “robotics” and “industrial technologies for health”. Overall, there appears to be little or no cross-correlation between the “level of maturity” – relating to the understanding of the instrument, and the “level of promise” – relating to the breakthrough nature of the science. 2.2 Classification into Sub-Priorities of positively considered EoI Below, there follows a more detailed overview of the EoI received under each of the subpriorities under thematic Priority 3 and which were, following a pre-analysis, considered to be high and rather high quality. 2.2.1 EoI covering the Nanotechnology and nanosciences sub-area In this sub-area 98 EoI have been considered of which 62 are NoE and 37 are IPs. This shows the need for long-term and fundamental research. The quality of the EoI appears to be very variable with several EoI addressing the same research topic. It is expected that the publication of the EoI will be beneficial to allow a “self-assembly” and rationalisation of the future proposals.
Nano-science
Nano-technology
Nano-materials
Expressions of Interest Analysis Report – 1.1.3 – September 2002
4
Principles, including hybrid systems
Equipt for Nanomanufacturing / nanoprocessing / nano-powders Nano-devices / nano-probes
Nano structured material, functional nanomaterials
Basic research on Nanobiotechnology
Nano-powders, nano-crystal, Nano-tubes, nano-films
Instrumentation and metrology
Table 3 2.2.2 EoI covering the “Knowledge-based Multi-functional Materials” sub-area In this sub-area 171 EoI have been considered of which 92 concern NoE and 79 are IPs (table below for the sub-areas). Materials Sciences
Supra- and macromolecular engineering (incl. Soft materials, biomaterials, selfassembling systems)
Materials Design
Knowledge-based support to materials engineering, incl. molecular modelling, simulation, computer aided design of materials Eco-materials and eco-design (incl. life cycle aspects, renewable materials resources)
Materials Processing
disrupting and sustainable materials processing concepts (catalysis, separation, combinatorial approaches, clean technologies, bio) surface and interface engineering (thin film technologies, coatings, tribology) Complex materials and composites for structural applications
Multifunctional materials engineering (incl. Materials for optics, electronics, magnetics, superconductors) Smart materials for ambient technologies (sensors, actuators, etc.)
New materials for energy systems, transport, building, space, infrastructures
Table 4 2.2.3 EoI covering the “New Production Processes and Devices” area In this domain 126 EOI have been considered of which 46 concern NoE and 80 are IPs (table below). Two clustered research areas have been identified, with several sub-areas, showing the relative high industrial interest in the IP instrument.
Intelligent Production Systems and devices / health systems
Factory of the future / Virtual / rapid manufacturing / efficient processes / shop floor organisation Monitoring / reliability / sensors Collaborative business Supply Chain
Sustainable Production / Life Cycle Analysis & Product Service Systems
New & Clean Processes
Safety & Monitoring Resources & Waste
Expressions of Interest Analysis Report – 1.1.3 – September 2002
5
Mechatronics / Robotics / Machining / machinery /autonomous flexible integrated production systems Health related topics
Chemicals toxicity / OSH / Ergonomics / Human factors Life Cycle Analysis & Product Service Systems
Table 5 2.3 Overall comments / Priority topics 2.3.1 Global analysis of subjects / topics in the 3 sub-areas / gaps Materials Sustainable Nano-material 76 55
Processing Production / Life Cycle Analysis & Product Service Systems Nano-technology
31
Intelligent production systems / health systems Materials Science
69
39
Nano-sciences
28
61
Materials design
33 Table 6
Among the different sub-areas “Materials Processing” is the area which has received most responses for the 2 instruments. However its scope is also the widest and might need further focusing. Another area needing focusing is “intelligent production systems (IPS)”. The following table give some indication of the mass of EOI presented under various topics, by instrument. (Note : 3= 1-10 EOI on this thematic sub-area received : 33 11-20 on this thematic sub-area
received)
Thematic sub-areas Nano-Manufacturing Nano-Biotechnology Nano-Devices Tissue Engineering Health related devices Chemical toxicity Complex Materials Robotics / Machinery Life Cycle Analysis / Waste / Product Service Systems Nano-Material Nano-Metrology New materials for energy / Transport Smart Materials Nano-Powders Eco-Materials & Eco-Design Supra- & Macromolecular Engineering Clean Processes Safety / Reliability / Sensors
Number of Number of NoE IPs
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 33 3 3 3 3 33 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 33 33
Expressions of Interest Analysis Report – 1.1.3 – September 2002
6
Factory of the Future Nano-Science Surface & interfaces engineering Multifunctional Materials Sustainable Materials Processing
3 33 33 33 33
33 3 3 33 33
Table 7 · No gaps have been identified within the possible research areas. However, there is a lower number than expected of “mature” EoI in the field of biotechnologies. There is also some degree of overlap between the domains “new clean processes” and “sustainable materials processing”. Most sub-areas represent an integrative approach between various disciplines, from nano to materials and information society. It should be noted however that the domain of metrology is rather absent from this analysis, whereas its importance is clear to support sustainable competitiveness. It should be noticed that the total number of EoI within each sub-priority may not be representative of the interest in the research community. In many sectors (i.e. machine tools, textile, pulp and paper…) efforts of clustering and grouping have been done previously to the submission of EoI. Also this table represents the distribution of research needs for the entities that participated in the EoI exercise, and should not be confused with the status of research at present, nor with the real needs of industry and society, although these are presumably rather similar. The relative ratio between IPs and NoE can be considered as representative of the degree of EU maturity within each research strategic area. From domain to domain, the support of activities might be deduced in order to find this equilibrium. For example, “intelligent production systems” has attracted the lowest amount of NoE, whereas this is certainly the area with most needs at EU level for increased coordination. Reciprocally, even if both instruments will be used to help the transition towards a knowledge industry, IPs remain the priority instrument of support to objective-driven research, to face challenges arising from a competitive world dominated by rapidly changing demands from customers.
·
·
·
·
·
Expressions of Interest Analysis Report – 1.1.3 – September 2002
7
3.
Overall impression of the EoI exercise
Main conclusions General · · · · · · The large number of EoI received demonstrates the interest of the RTD community in cooperating at European level through the modalities provided by the EC; a real critical mass of industrial research capacities has been demonstrated. The “mature” EoI are well balanced between IPs and NoE (51% / 49%). The EoI provide a good and complete coverage of all areas related to Priority 3, with a majority (43%) in the field of materials research. The number of EoI indicates, however, the need to address fragmentation and to structure EU research capacities in the different areas. The large number of EoI received calls also for a further focusing of research priorities to avoid oversubscription. The large number of EoI confirms the need for identifying clear topics on which calls should be focused, to avoid oversubscription and further frustration.
Industrial participation · The rather low participation of Industry as co-ordinator is evident and should give rise to some caution in the analysis of this exercise.
Scientific quality · · There is no evidence of any correlation between the S&T quality of the proposed work on the one hand, and the understanding of the new instruments on the other. The quality of the EoI appears to be somewhat better in certain high technology sectors, which are more ready to implement Priority 3 through long-term research using the new instruments. Other less research-intensive sectors are also making a substantial effort of transformation (into a knowledge-based sustainable industry). The EoI analysis carried out demonstrated the relatively high degree of integration between nanosciences, materials and processes, although in some areas the interest on integration was only partly clear. The specific programme and its priority 3 “nanotechnology and nanosciences, knowledge-based multifunctional materials and new production processes and devices” calls for the identification of Strategic Areas (SAs) aiming at favouring concentration of RTD around industrial and societal strategic objectives.
· ·
Expressions of Interest Analysis Report – 1.1.3 – September 2002
8