Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Institute for Science Study, RAS
Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
July, 2011, Vancouver, Canada
Russian Node Report
July 2011
DR. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Head of Department, Institute of Science Development
Study under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of
Sciences
Director, Russian Node of the Millennium Project
Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Moscow, Obrutcheva str. 30A, 117485
foresightr@mail.ru
Millennium
Millennium Project
ProjectPlanning
Planning Committee
Committee Meeting,
Meeting, July,
July, 2011
2011
Activity 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
Millennium Project
ProjectPlanning
Planning Committee
Committee Meeting,
Meeting, July,
July, 2011
2011
NANORUCER


Fraunhofer ISI &
ISS 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
Millennium
Millennium Project
ProjectPlanning
Planning Committee
Committee Meeting,
Meeting, July,
July, 2011
2011
Advisory Board

CNRS, Moscow office
 ROSNANO Corporation
 RAS
Millennium
Millennium Project
ProjectPlanning
Planning Committee
Committee Meeting,
Meeting, July,
July, 2011
2011
R&D organizations in NN
database

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
Millennium
Millennium Project
ProjectPlanning
Planning Committee
Committee Meeting,
Meeting, July,
July, 2011
2011
SIS Assessment

Institutional Approach
– Institutional capacity
– Institutional gaps
– Networking capacity and gaps

Evolutionary Approach
 Workshops
 Conference
Future
NSF – special study in NN in
Russia, memorandum of
understanding
 Skolkovo
 Korea – memorandum of
understanding
 Finland

Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Institute for Science Study, RAS
Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Sources of
information
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

Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Moscow, Obrutcheva str. 30A, 117485
foresightr@mail.ru
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Institute for Science Study, RAS
Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Specific Characteristics of
SIS 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
Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Moscow, Obrutcheva str. 30A, 117485
foresightr@mail.ru
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Institute for Science Study, RAS
Dr. Nadezhda Gapnenko
Specific Characteristics of
SIS in Nanotechnology

Knowledge base
– interdisciplinary
– cross-sectoral
– not coherent science
field characterized
by enormous
thematic breadth
Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Moscow, Obrutcheva str. 30A, 117485
foresightr@mail.ru

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
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Institute for Science Study, RAS
Dr. Nadezhda Gapnenko
Specific Characteristics of
SIS in Nanotechnology
 Nano-market
–
emerging
&
fragmented
– emerging
–
fast
developing
– disruptive
– Key actors are SMEs and
– science-based
spinoffs

Technology
technology
Networks
–interdisciplinary
–overlapping
Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Moscow, Obrutcheva str. 30A, 117485
foresightr@mail.ru
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Institute for Science Study, RAS
Dr. Nadezhda Gapnenko
Building Balanced
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
Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Moscow, Obrutcheva str. 30A, 117485
foresightr@mail.ru
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Institute for Science Study, RAS
Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Building Balanced and
Adoptive SIS
(regions’ specific measures)

USA
– Orientation on
dual
technologies
and high share
of defense
sector
– Orientation on
molecular
technologies
Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Moscow, Obrutcheva str. 30A, 117485
foresightr@mail.ru

European
Union
– Development of
Pan-European
Nano – area
– Building nanotech
platforms
– Public-private
partnership
– Supporting spinoffs
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Institute for Science Study, RAS
Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Building Balanced and
Adoptive SIS
(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)
Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Moscow, Obrutcheva str. 30A, 117485
foresightr@mail.ru

Latin America
– Millennium centers
supported by World
Bank (Brazil)
– Partnership with
Lucent Technology
(USA) for
commercialization
(Argentina)
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011

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
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Dr. Nadezhda Gapnenko
Russian SIS in Nanotech:
institutional set up
President of the RF
State Duma
Com. for Modern. and
Technol. Develop. of
Economy (2009)
Public Council for
Nanotech, Committee for
S& high tech. (2008)
Interdepartmental S&T Council for the Development
Nanotechnology &Nanomaterials (2005)
MES
Council of Federation
Governmental Commission
for High Tech & Innov. (2008)
Min.
of
Helth&
Min. of Def.
Min. of Ind. & Trade Min. of ICT
Soc. Dev.
Min. of Fin.
Coordinating Council
for Nanotech Dev.,
Committee for Ed.&
Science (2005)
Government
Min. of Ec. Affairs Min. of Energy
ROSATOM Corp
RAS
RAMS
RUSNANO
Fed. Space
Agency.
RAAS
Regional Authorities
Public funds
Foundation for
Supporting Russian
science (4)
International funds
International S&T
center
Venture Funds
Invested in Nanotech
(14- 200)
7 Venture RUSNANO
Funds
Russian Foundation
for Promotion
of SMEs in S&T
Funding agencies (72)
Venture and investment foundations (79)
Center for technology
Transfer
(102)
Networks
NNN
About 10 regional
EU-206 networks
Technoparks
Special economic zones
Dr. Nadezhda Gaponenko
Moscow, Obrutcheva str. 30A, 117485
foresightr@mail.ru
RUSNANO
Nanocenters- 19
Knowledge transfer&
commercialization
Incubators (33 -300)
EU- 943 SMEs &
214 major
Comp. Total -1157
Scientific infrastructure
CCFU (128)
EU-241
18- EU
Germany -57
Sectoral product
production
417 company
RUSNANO
94 companies
EU-903
Germany - 311
Knowledge production
Public R&D
organizations
Academic research institute (201 329)
Universities (279 574)
Departmental R&D organizations (165)
Private R&D
Organizations (60)
Financial Infrastructure
Russian Foundation
for Basic Research
Private funds
Science, Innovation &
General Policy making Technology Policy Formulation
and Financing
Council for Science high
tech& Innov. under the
Speaker (2008)
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
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
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
SISn Governance
Coordinating 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)

Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
SIS Governance
Problems

Departmental barriers &
interests
 Corruption
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Efficiency of NN
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
31,0%
17,9%
20,2%
7,1%
23,8%
FTP "R&D in Priority Directions of S&T Complex for 20072012"
10,7%
27,4%
31,0%
13,1%
17,9%
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanotech Investments
Global Trends
Total Nanotech Spending
mill. $U.S.
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
2003
2005
Government Funding

2007
Corporate R&D
Phenomena of R&D expenditure trends in nano
– Nanotech has attracted more funding than any S&T field
– budget R&D expenditures on nanotech grows faster than
budget appropriations on R&D
– Although nano-market is at the initial stage as far as both
basic and applied research are concentrated in public sector,
corporate R&D expenditures grows faster than the public
ones
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanotech Investment
How RF looked before
Presidential Initiatives
Budjet Investment in NN in 2004 - 2005
Budjet Investment in NN in 2004 2005,
mil.euro
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Greece
India
About 7% of global budget
nanotech investment
Tailand
Brazil
Singapur
Mexico
Finland
Kanada
The Netherlans
Italy
Belgium
Australia
China
UK
South Korea
France
Germany
Russia
Japan
USA

EU-25
0
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanotech Investments
After Presidential
Initiatives - Cientifica
Countries Share in Global R&D
Budget Investments in NN: Leading
Countries, mil. Doll.
Expenditures, in %
EU-25
Finland
USA
Russia
Japan
Russia
China
China
Germany
Germany
South Korea
USA
UK
0
India

2008
10
2008-PPP
About 20% of Global Budget
Nanotech Investments (PPP)
20
30
40
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanotech Investments
After Presidential Initiatives
- Cientifica
2009 (US$)
2004
USA
EU
Japan
Rest of the world
USA
EU
2009 (PPP)
USA
EU
Japan
Russia
China
Rest of the world
Japan
Russia
China
Rest of the world
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Program of Nanotech
Development 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)
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
R&D expenditures
Statistics






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 %
R&D expenditures in Priority S&T Fields in 2009,
in %
60
50
40
30
20
10
transport,
aircraft and
energy
federal budget
environment
life systems
NN
total
ICT
0
regional budget
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Sectoral R&D system
Mapping organizations by experience
and competences in NN research
Mapping organizations by NN R&D
starting year (in %)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
19461960
19611970
19711980
19812000
20012005
2006
2007
2008
Mapping organizations by
significance NN R&D in organization's
activity (in %)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
75%-100%
50%-74%
25%-49%
less than 25% hard to answer
For majority organizations NN activity is in interval
75-25% of activity
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Sectoral R&D System
Human Capacity
R&D staff trends (th.)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
total staff num ber

2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
0
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
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Sectoral R&D System
Human Capacity
R&D s taff aging
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
up to 29
ye ars
30-39
ye ars
1994





40-49
ye ars
2000
5059ye ars
2006
60-69
ye ars
e lde r70
ye ars
2008
Average age of researchers – 47,8
years
Threat for fast developing S&T
domains
Brain drain (Perm)
Outsourcing
global race for talents
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Sectoral R&D System
Human
Capacity
Staffs development over the last 5
years (in%)
private sector
organizations
of ministries
and agencies
staffs number
increased
universities
staffs number
decreased
staffs number
remained constant
academic
sector
0


20
40
60
80
100
120
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% (EU6.0%) - finding
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Sectoral R&D System
Human Capacity
Average age of researchers in NN
on an
min
max
average
SISn n an averageВ
31
56
45,3
Academic sector
37
56
47,2
Universities
31
52
42,9
Organizations of
ministries and
41
55
47,5
agencies
Private sector
36
55
41,9
Some young centers are emerging - finding
Promising weak signal
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Sectoral R&D System
Human Capacity
Students development over the last 5 years
(in% )
private sector
students number
increased
organizations
of ministries
and agencies
students number
remained constant
students number
decreased
universities
difficult to estimate
academic
sector
0

20
40
60
80
100
120
Students number increase –
promising trend
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Mapping Knowledge Using
Bibliographic Information
Number of NN Publications
(1991-2000)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
EU-25
China
Italy
India
Israel
Brazil

USA
France
Spane
Korea
Sweden
Japan
Russia
Swiserland
The Netherland
Australia
Germany
UK
Kanada
Belgium
Poland
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
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Mapping Knowledge Using
Bibliographic Information
Cites per paper for 25 cited countries
Cites per paper for 25 top cited countries (19912000)
12,00
10,00
8,00
6,00
4,00
2,00
0,00
Korea
China
Russia
Poland
India
Australia
Sweden
Italy
Brazil
Israel
Spaine
Germany
Japan
France
EU-25
UK
Belgium
Kanada
USA
The Nitherlands
Switzerland
Russia, China and South Korea complete the
picture
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Mapping Knowledge Using
Bibliographic Information
25 top ranked institutions during the 90-s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNIV CALIF BERKELEY
MIT
RICE University
IBM CORP
NEC CORP LTD
HARVARD UNIV
TOHOKU UNIV
UNIV ILLINOIS
ECOLE POLYTECH FED
LAUSANNE
USN
GEORGIA INST TECHNOL
NORTHWESTERN UNIV
AT&T BELL LABS
ACAD SINICA (Republic of China)
ARGONNE NATL LAB
CALTECH
UNIV PARIS 11
UNIV CALIF SANTA BARBARA
UNIV TOKYO
OSAKA UNIV
CNRS
RUSSIAN ACADEMY of
SCIENCES
PENN STATE UNIV
CORNELL UNIV
UNIV PENN
393
366
156
282
140
155
485
289
16.77
14.67
27.75
15.27
28.69
21.15
6.69
10.7
212
14.58
302
236
200
89
540
199
154
234
150
324
422
366
10.08
11.96
13.01
28.92
4.72
12.22
14.49
9.5
14.77
6.74
4.99
5.72
813
2.47
233
172
86
8.38
11.15
22.24
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Mapping Knowledge Using
Bibliographic Information
NN Publications number in 1994-2004
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1994-2000
USA
Russia
Kanada
Israel


Japan
UK
India
Sw eden
1994-2004
Germany
Italy
South Korea
Australia
China
Spane
The Netherland
Poland
Russia is still the 6
Share of Russia in world NN
publications - 5%
France
Sw itserland
Belgium
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Mapping Knowledge Using
Bibliographic Information
Number of Publications of most Productive
Organizations
Number of Publications of most Productive
Organizations in NN 1976-2004
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
CNR (Italy)
Harvard univer
Kioto Univer.
Университет Тсинг Хуа (Китай)
Texac univer.
CSIC (Spain)
University of S&T (China)
Cambridge
Tokio inst. Of Technology
MIT
Berkeley univer.
Illinois univer.
Osaka univer.
Paris univer.
CNRS
Tokio Univer.
RAS
Chinese Academy of Science
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Mapping Knowledge Using
Bibliographic Information
Most Productive Organizations
Rank Top 7 Institutions in NN paper
Publication in Russia
Russian Academy of Sciences
1
Ioffe Phys Tech Institute of the
2
RAS
3
Moscow Lomonosov State Univ
4
St Petersburg State University
5
Ufa State Aviat Tech University
Joint Institute of Nuclear
6
Research
7
Novosibirsk State University
# in 2000
# in 2007 # in 1976–2007
526
67
1072
53
6,773
649
78
23
10
225
73
18
1,421
397
194
5
30
140
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
Bibliographic Information
Where most citated papers were
published?
Rank Journal
1
Physical Review B
2
Physics of the Solid
State
3
Semiconductors
4
Technical Physics
Letters
Journal
# in
Subject categories
country
2000
United Physics, Condensed
22
States Matter
Physics, Condensed
Russia
29
Matter
Physics, Condensed
Russia
42
Matter
63
43
Physics, Applied
19
56
21
33
14
28
5
JETP Letters
Russia
6
Applied Physics
Letters
United
States
Physics, Applied
7
Physics of Metals and
Metallography
Russia
8
Inorganic Materials
Russia
9
Journal of
Experimental and
Theoretical Physics
10
83
Russia
Physics,
Multidisciplinary
Physics of Lowdimensional Structures
#in
2007
Metallurgy and
Metallurgical
10
Engineering
Materials Science,
10
Multidisciplinary
Russia
Physics,
Multidisciplinary
United
States
Physics, Applied;
Physics, Condensed 7
Matter
11
22
30
32
0
In 2008, Russian scholars published 1,4 more papers that in 2007,
Russia's share was reduced to 3,25
Russia took the
th
9
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
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Mapping NN using
patent 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.
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Mapping NN using
patent information
Rank
Patent office
(repository)
2000
2008
1
2
3
4
5
6 (7)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
USA
PRC
Japan
South Korea
Canada
Russian Federation
Germany
Australia
Mexico
UK
France
Brazil
Ukraine
New Zealand
405
105
328
74
41
45
62
76
0
14
8
0
0
11
3,729
5,030
1,744
1,249
255
162
70
136
88
68
38
103
83
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
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Bottlenecks
R&D multidisciplinarity and lack of
multidisciplinary networks
Lack of required facilities
Lack of qualified personnel
Insufficiant funding
Low demand at the home market
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
slight problem
moderate problem strong problem
extrime problem
hard to answer
100%
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)
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Commercialization
spin-offs

Effective research commercialisation requires:
–
–

The most common financial needs for universities in research
commercialisation are:
–
–

a sufficient portfolio of research;
a healthy ecosystem;
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?
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Commercialization
spinoofs
On an average
per one org.
Type of organization
min
max
Total
1
27
3,2
Academic research institutes
1
5
1,9
Universities
1
27
5,1
1
1
1,0
1
2
1,3
Organizations of ministries and
agencies
Private R&D organizations
There is considerable variability in performance
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Commercialization
problems
lack of interest of researchers to apply for
patent
lack of interest of researchers to
commercialise their R&D
lack of experience of researchers to
commercialise their R&D
lack of incubators and venture funds
insufficient defence of IP right
administrative barriers to enter the home
market
lack of funding for R&D
commercialization
lack of information about R&D
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
slight problem
moderate problem
extrime problem
hard to answer
strong problem
Lack of funding
Administrative barriers to enter market
Lack of experience of researchers to commercialize
R&D
100
%
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
What could change trends in
Commercialization
cooperation with EU institutes, which
will provide equipment and know how
new generation of scholars, which will
be more mobile and entrepreneurial
business incubators program
venture investment growth
RUSNANO initiatives
public support for R&D
commercialization
growing competition at home and world
market
growing demand at home market
0%
20%
40%
slightly effective
moderately 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
60%
80% 100%
very effective
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanomarket
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.
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanomarket
Distribution of nanocompanies by
size, in %
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

About 80%- SMEs
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanomarket
Mapping nanocompanies by
nanoenabled product production
strarting year
Mapping nanocompanies by
nanoenabled product production
starting year (in %)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1980- 2001- 2007 2008 2009 2010
2000 2006
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanomarket
Mapping companies by nanoproduct
(in %)
final nanoenabled
product
intermediate
product
primary product
0

20
40
60
80
Majority produce primary and
intermediate product
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanomarket
safety
Users of Nanoproduct (in %)
food production
manufacturing
energy
ICT & consumer
electronics
transport
construction
aerospace
metallurgy
chemical industry
pharmaceutics
0

20
40
60
health care,
medical devices
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%)
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanomarket
Competitors
Main competitors (in %)
foreign
companies
Russian SMEs
Russian big
corporations
0


50
100
Foreign companies occupied
market
No regulations
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanomarket
Export share in output (in %)
do not export
more than
75%
51% -75%
2015
26% -50%
2009
6% -15%
0

20
40
up to 5%
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%
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanomarket
Nanoproduct export (in %)
Africa
Latin America
NIC
Asia
U.S.+Kanada
EU
0


20
40
Nanocompanies are mainly
oriented on EU market (more than
30%)
Asia on the second place
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanomarket
Public support for nanocompanies
(in %)
decreased
remained
constant
increased
0


20
40
60
28% of companies had public
support during the last 5 years
6% - had venture investments
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanomarket
Nanocompanies' staffs
(in %)
decreased
remained
constant
increased
0

20
40
60
Growing companies
80
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanomarket
Mapping Nanocompanies R&D by
Nanofields, in %
Mapping R&D Organizations by
Nanofields, in %
90
80
70
nanomaterials
60
70
nanomaterials
nanoelectronics
nanoelectronics
50
60
nanobio
50
nanobio
40
basic research
40
nanomagnetics
30
metrology
30
nanomechanics
20
optics
20
energy
10
10
other
0


optics
0
91,8% of companies provide R&D
83,7% collaborative R&D projects
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanomarket
Innovations used to advance the
product (in %)
0





50
100
developed by
other
companies,
changes in your
company were
required
developed by
other
companies;
changes in your
company were
not required
developed by
your company
Innovations used to advance
technologies (in %)
0
50
100
developed by
other
companies,
changes in your
company were
required
developed by
other
companies;
changes in your
company were
not required
developed by
your 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
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Problems hampering nanoproduct
production increase
Problems, hampering nanoproduct production increase
monopolization of home market
lack of qualified personal
high credit interest
high compatition w ith foreign
companies
insufficient defence of IP
administrative barriers
high risk and uncertainties
low market demand
slight problem



moderate problem
strong problem
Low market demand
High risk and uncertainties
Administrative barriers
– High credit interests
– Lack of qualified personnel
extreme problem
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Problems hampering nanoproduct
export increase
Problems, hampering nanoproduct export increase
lack of experience
lack of qualified personal
lack of information about foreign
markets
ecological standards at foreign
markets
insufficient defence of IP
lack of funding for export activity
support
discrimination at the foreign
markets
high competition
slight problem


moderate problem
strong problem
extreme problem
Lack of funding for export activity
support
Lack of experience
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Business incubators
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Venture funds and management
companies
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
R&D organizations of
different type
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Nanocompanies
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
CCFU
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
TTC
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
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
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Conclusions

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
Millennium Project Planning Committee Meeting, July, 2011
Conclusions

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