Some Figures about Nanotechnology R&D in Europe and Beyond

Compiled by Unit G4 Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies European Commission, Research DG Version: 8 December 2005

http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology

The present publication is based on the information that was available at the time and cannot be guaranteed to be complete or accurate. The views expressed in this document are entirely those of the Authors and do not engage or commit the European Commission in any way.

2

Introduction

With its two Communications on nanotechnology, a Strategy and an Action Plan, the European Commission has presented the vision and a set of actions for the useful, safe, responsible and profitable development and application of nanosciences and nanotechnologies in Europe. The Council of the European Union has endorsed the integrated and responsible strategy proposed by the Commission. In our day-to-day work, we have collected and we are steadily continuing to collect data on the many indicators associated with nanotechnology research, technological development and their applications. Many stakeholders have repeatedly asked us to share some of these data; hence the publication of theses pages, as a service to all those interested. Europe is one of the leading actors in nanosciences and nanotechnologies both in research as well as in technological development, thanks to the creativity of European researchers, the initiatives of industry, academia and research organisations, to the quality of the infrastructures and the commitment of public authorities. Nevertheless, some worrying signals emerge, which call for appropriate initiatives, as the European Commission pointed out in its Action Plan. For instance, Figure 10 documents the apparently low level of private funding for research on nanotechnology, which is more broadly addressed by the European Commission with its 3% initiative. Moreover, Figures 22 and 23 present some possible scenarios for funding under the EU 7th framework programme for research and technological development. These simulated scenarios suggest concentrating future available resources to maximise efficiency and effectiveness. The present figures are based on the information to which we had access; they should not be deemed to be complete and in no way do they engage the European Commission. I thank my colleague Dr. Raymond Monk for the energy and attention that he put in this compilation. We hope that you find this to be a useful initiative and would welcome all comments and suggestions on the figures presented, so to be able to realise a more comprehensive documents in the future. More information is available -amongst others- on: http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology, http://cordis.europa.eu.int/en/home.html and www.nanoforum.org.

Renzo Tomellini Head of the Unit Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies renzo.tomellini@cec.eu.int

3

4

A) Funding for nanotechnology R&D in Europe and worldwide
Table 1: Estimated worldwide public funding for nanotechnology R&D in 2004
Country European Union Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU-25 Total 13,1i 60,0*iii 0,4v 8,6vii 14,5ix 223,9xi 293,1xiii 1,2*xv 33,0xvii 60,0*xix 0,2*xxi 1,0xxiii 0,8xxv 42,3xxvii 1,0*xxix 0,5*xxxi 0,5*xxxiii 12,5xxxv 15,0xxxvii 133,0xxxviii 915 Funding (€) Country Third Countries Argentina Australia Brazil Canada China India Indonesia Japan Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Singapore South Africa South Korea Taiwan Thailand USA (Federal) USA (States) Third Countries Total 0.4ii 62iv 5.8vi 37.9viii 83.3x 3.8xii 16.7xiv 750xvi 3.8xviii 10xx 9.2xxii 8.4xxiv 1.9xxvi 173.3xxviii 75.9xxx 4.2xxxii 910xxxiv 333.3xxxvi 2,490 Funding (€)

EC

370

Candidate Countries and Associated States Israel Norway Romania Switzerland CC & AS Total 46xxxix 7xl 3.1xli 18.5xlii 75 Total EU Total EU + CC + AS World Total 1,285 1,360 3,850

Source: European Commission, 2005 and various sources indicated by superscripted references. Data are unavailable for Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Slovakia and Turkey. Data indicated with * are taken from 2003. 5

Figure 1: Absolute worldwide public expenditure in 2004 (Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) corrected)

1,300

20

0.3

PPP Corrected by Country/Region

Figure 2: Worldwide per capita public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)

10

5

0

Capita2004 PPP by Country/Region

6

Figure 3: Absolute European public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)

1,300

20

0.3

PPP Corrected by Country/Region

Figure 4: European per capita public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)

10

5

0

Capita2004 PPP by Country/Region

7

Figure 5: Absolute world public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)
Public Funding (million Euro) 0 United States Japan China Germany South Korea France Taiwan Australia United Kingdom Italy Belgium Indonesia Israel Canada Netherlands Ireland India Spain Brazil Finland Switzerland Austria Mexico Thailand Sweden New Zealand Romania Singapore Malaysia Denmark South Africa Norway Lithuania Poland Greece Argentina Czech Republic Luxembourg Slovenia Portugal Latvia 200 400 600 624,2 377,1 320,3 259,3 246,7 155,3 137,6 130,1 74,6 67,4 66,1 55,1 46,5 46,1 37,7 20,3 16,2 16,1 14,7 14,6 14,5 14,4 14,2 13,9 12,6 9,8 9,6 8,9 7,9 6,9 6,1 2,5 2,1 1,8 1,2 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,4 800 1000 1200 1.239,4 1400

Figure 6: World per capita public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected)
Per Capita Investment (EUR) 0 Ireland Israel Australia Taiwan Belgium South Korea Japan United France Germany New Zealand Netherlands Finland United Singapore Switzerland Luxembourg Austria Sweden Denmark Canada Norway Italy Lithuania Romania Slovenia Spain Malaysia China Indonesia Thailand Greece Latvia South Africa Mexico Czech Brazil Portugal Poland Argentina India 2 4 6 8 9,6 9,0 7,0 6,9 6,5 5,4 4,9 4,3 4,1 3,9 3,2 2,8 2,8 2,2 2,1 2,0 1,8 1,8 1,5 1,5 1,4 1,3 1,3 0,7 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 10 12

8

Figure 7: EU absolute public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected and including Countries associated to the EU Framework Programme)
Public Funding (EUR) 0 Germany France United Kingdom Italy Belgium Israel Netherlands Ireland Spain Finland Switzerland Austria Sweden New Zealand Romania Denmark Norway Lithuania Poland Greece Argentina Czech Republic Luxembourg Slovenia Portugal Latvia 16,2 14,7 14,6 14,5 13,9 12,6 9,8 7,9 6,1 2,5 2,1 1,8 1,2 0,9 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,4 37,7 55,1 46,1 74,6 67,4 130,1 246,7 50 100 150 200 250 300 320,3 350

Figure 8: EU per capita public expenditure in 2004 (PPP corrected and including Countries associated to the EU Framework Programme)
Per Capita Investment (EUR) 0 Ireland Israel Belgium France Germany Netherlands Finland United Kingdom Switzerland Luxembourg Austria Sweden Denmark Norway Italy Lithuania Romania Slovenia Spain Greece Latvia Czech Republic Portugal Poland 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,7 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,8 1,5 1,5 1,3 1,3 2,8 2,8 4,1 3,9 6,5 9,0 2 4 6 8 9,6 10 12

9

Figure 9: Evolution of worldwide public expenditure (1€=1$ to avoid distortions due to exchange rate variations)
5000 4500 4000 Public R&D Investment (1€ = 1$) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1997
Others

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Figure 10: Worldwide public and private expenditure in 2004 (private figures taken from average of Lux Researchxliii and Technology Reviewxliv, US States figures taken from Lux Researchxlv)
3.000

R&D Investment (million €)

2.000 Private 580

Private 1700

Private 1540 States 333 Private 370 Federal 910 Public 750 Public 500 Others

1.000

Member States + Associated 990

EC 370 0 Europe US

Japan

10

Figure 11: Division of worldwide public expenditure in 2004

Others 14% Japan 19% US 32%

Europe 35%

Figure 12: Division of worldwide private expenditure in 2004

Others 9% Japan 37%

Europe 14% US 40%

Figure 13: Division of overall (public + private) expenditure in 2004

Others 11% Japan 28%

Europe 24% US 37%

11

B) Evolution of funding for nanotechnology in the EU Framework Programmes
Figure 14: Evolution of EU Framework Programmes (FP) funding devoted to nanotechnology R&D (2005 data are a to-date estimate and subject to change)
500 450 400 Public Funding (million €) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

FP4 FP5 FP6

Figure 15: Evolution of FP funding devoted to nanotechnology R&D including known funding leveraged by full-cost participants (2005 data are a to-date estimate and subject to change)
800

700

Leveraged Funding FP4

600 Public Funding (million €)

FP5 FP6

500

400

300

200

100

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

12

Figure 16: Integrated FP funding devoted to nanotechnology R&D (2005 data are a to-date estimate and subject to change)
1.800 1.600 1.400
Public Funding (million €)
Leveraged Funding Direct Funding

1.200 1.000 800 600 400 200 0 1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Figure 17: Nanotechnology R&D areas supported by successive FPs
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FP4 FP5 FP6 Health / Environment Research Training Nanotools Nanoelectronics Nanobio / Nanomedicine Nanomaterials Frontier Research

13

Figure 18: The FP6 support to nanotechnology R&D in 2004 (in millions of Euro)
ERA-NET, 3.20 NEST, 5.06 Marie Curie, 50.73 SMEs, 0.91

IST, 99.57

NMP, 211.61

Figure 19: To-date FP6 support to nanotechnology R&D in 2005 (in millions of Euro)
Infrastructure, 16.46 ERA-NET, 2.20 SMEs, 8.14

Science and Society, 1.09

NEST, 8.15 Marie Curie, 39.73

NMP, 209.01

IST, 175.11

14

Figure 20: Some examples of projects funded via the FP6
•CANAPE: Carbon Nanotubes for Applications in Electronics, Catalysis, Composites and Nano-Biology – University of Cambridge (UK) •NAIMO: Nanoscale Integrated processing of self-organizing Multifunctional Organic Materials - Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE) •NANOFUN-POLY: Nanostructured and functional polymer-based materials and nanocomposites - Consorzio Interuniversitario Scienza e Tecnologia dei Materiali (IT) •RADSAS: Rational Design and Characterisation of Supramolecular Architectures on Surfaces - Eidgenössische Materialprüfungs- und Forschungsanstalt (CH) •BIOMACH: Molecular Machines - Design and Nano-Scale Handling of Biological Antetypes and Artificial Mimics - Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH (DE) •Cornea engineering: Three-dimensional reconstruction of human corneas by tissue engineering” - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / Rhône Alpes (FR) •Ambio: Advanced nanostructured surfaces for the control of biofouling - University of Birmingham (UK) •ANVOC: Application of nanotechnologies for separation and recovery of volatile organic compounds from waste air streams – S&T Research Council of Turkey (TU) •NANOSAFE2: Safe production and use of nanomaterials - Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique (FR) •Nanologue: Facilitating the dialogue between research, business and the civil society to improve the quality of life, create wealth and reduce impacts to society - Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Energy and the Environment GmbH (DE)

NMP FP6 projects, e.g.

Figure 21: Some projects addressing nano(eco)toxicology

Projects in EU Framework Programmes for RTD
NANOSAFE NANODERM NANOPATHOLOGY MAAPHRI NANOFORUM NANOTOX IMPART NANOSAFE2
6 new projects to be negotiated

~2.5M€

>8M€
+ 12 M€?

+ NANOCARE funded by the F.R.Germany

15

C) Examples of funding projections
Figure 22: Projection of absolute EU public expenditure compared to the USA and Japan under different possible FP7 scenarios of funding
Absolute Public Funding Projection

3500

3000

EU (No FP7) EU (FP7 = FP6) EU (FP7 = 2x FP6) EU (FP7 = 3x FP6) EU (FP7 = 4x FP6) USA Japan

2500 R&D Funding (€)

2000

1500

1000

500

0 1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Figure 23: Projection of per capita EU public expenditure compared to the USA and Japan under different possible FP7 scenarios of funding
Per Capita Public Funding Projection

10 9
EU (No FP7)

8 Per Capita R&D Funding (€) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1997

EU (FP7 = FP6) EU (FP7 = 2x FP6) EU (FP7 = 3x FP6) EU (FP7 = 4x FP6) USA Japan

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

16

APPENDIX: Data reported in absolute figures not considering the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)
Figure A1: Absolute worldwide public expenditure in 2004

1,300

20

0.3

InvestEur2004 by Country/Region

17

Figure A2: Absolute European public expenditure in 2004

1,300

11

0.1

InvestEur2004 by Country/Region

Figure A3: European per capita public expenditure in 2004

9

5

0

Capita2004Euro by Country/Region

18

Figure A4: Absolute world public expenditure in 2004
Public Funding (EUR) 0 United States Japan EC Germany France South Korea United Kingdom Australia China Taiwan Italy Belgium Israel Netherlands Canada Ireland Switzerland Indonesia Sweden Finland Austria Spain Mexico New Zealand Denmark Singapore Norway Brazil Thailand Malaysia India Romania South Africa Greece Lithuania Poland Luxembourg Portugal Slovenia Argentina Czech Republic Latvia 200 400 600 800 750,0 1000 1200 1.243,3 1400

223,9 173,3 133,0 105,0 83,3 75,9 60,0 60,0 46,0 42,4 37,9 33,0 18,5 16,7 15,0 14,5 13,1 12,5 10,0 9,2 8,6 8,4 7,0 5,8 4,2 3,8 3,8 3,1 1,9 1,2 1,0 1,0 0,8 0,5 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,2

293,1

373,0

Figure A5: World per capita public expenditure in 2004
Per Capita Investment (EUR) 0 Ireland Israel Japan Belgium Australia United France South Korea Germany Taiwan EU-25 Finland Netherlands Switzerland New Zealand United Luxembourg Singapore Sweden Austria Denmark Norway Canada Italy Spain Lithuania Slovenia Malaysia Romania Greece Mexico Latvia Indonesia Thailand China Portugal South Africa Czech Brazil Poland Argentina India 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7,5 8 8,4 9

0,3 0,3 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0

1,2 1,0

1,8 1,8 1,7 1,6 1,6 1,5

2,8 2,6 2,5 2,3 2,2

3,0

3,4

3,7 3,6 3,6

4,3

5,3

5,9 5,8

19

Figure A6: EU absolute public expenditure in 2004
Public Funding (million EUR) 0 EC Germany France United Kingdom Italy Belgium Israel Netherlands Ireland Switzerland Sweden Finland Austria Spain Denmark Norway Romania Greece Lithuania Poland Luxembourg Portugal Slovenia Czech Republic Latvia 33 18,48 15 14,5 13,1 12,5 8,6 7 3,1 1,219 1 1 0,84 0,5 0,5 0,415 0,17 46 42,35 60 60 133 223,9 293,1 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 373 400

Figure A7: EU per capita public expenditure in 2004
Per Capita Investment (EUR) 0 Ireland Israel Belgium France Germany EU-25 Finland Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom Luxembourg Sweden Austria Denmark Norway Italy Spain Lithuania Slovenia Romania Greece Latvia Portugal Czech Republic Poland 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,1 0,1 0,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 1,8 1,7 1,6 1,6 1,5 2,2 2,8 2,6 2,5 3,0 3,7 3,6 5,8 7,5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8,4 9

20

References
i

Survey of EU Member States R&D funding for nanotechnology carried out in the Council of the European Union (response from Austria). ii Final Report of the International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, Questionnaire Responses and Background Information (2004) http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/Attachment_F_Responses_and_Background_Info_04 0812.pdf iii Survey of EU Member States R&D funding for nanotechnology carried out in the Council of the European Union (response from Belgium). iv Australian Nanotechnology: Capability and Commercial Potential, Invest Australia Report (2005) http://www.investaustralia.gov.au/ v Survey of EU Member States R&D funding for nanotechnology carried out in the Council of the European Union (response from the Czech Republic). vi Final Report of the International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, Questionnaire Responses and Background Information (2004) http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/Attachment_F_Responses_and_Background_Info_04 0812.pdf vii Survey of EU Member States R&D funding for nanotechnology carried out in the Council of the European Union (response from Denmark). viii Final Report of the International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, Questionnaire Responses and Background Information (2004) http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/Attachment_F_Responses_and_Background_Info_04 0812.pdf ix Survey of EU Member States R&D funding for nanotechnology carried out in the Council of the European Union (response from Finland). x Le financement des nanotechnologies et des nanosciences : L'effort des pouvoirs publics en France, comparaisons internationales, A. Billon, J-L Dupont, G Ghys, Inspection générale de l'administration de l'éducation nationale et de la recherche, January 2005 (http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/brp/notices/044000118.shtml) xi Le financement des nanotechnologies et des nanosciences : L'effort des pouvoirs publics en France, comparaisons internationales, A. Billon, J-L Dupont, G Ghys, Inspection générale de l'administration de l'éducation nationale et de la recherche, January 2005 (http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/brp/notices/044000118.shtml) xii India, China front-runners in nanotech research, A. Vaidya, The Times of India, January 24 2005 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/999932.cms. xiii Nanotechnologie erobert Märkte: Deutsche Zukunftsoffensive für Nanotechnologie, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), 2004. xiv Presentation of Training Initiatives within Asia-Pacific Programmes, L. Liu, Nanotechnology Research Institute (AIST), Japan, Workshop on Research Training in Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: Current Status and Future Needs, April 2005, Brussels http://www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology/src/educationworkshop.htm. xv Private Communication, L. Giannakopoulou, General Secretariat for Research and Technology, Greece xvi Final Report of the International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, Questionnaire Responses and Background 21

Information (2004) http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/Attachment_F_Responses_and_Background_Info_04 0812.pdf xvii Irish Council for Science, Technology & Innovation Statement on Nanotechnology, July 2004 (http://www.forfas.ie/icsti/statements/icsti040714/). xviii Presentation of Training Initiatives within Asia-Pacific Programmes, L. Liu, Nanotechnology Research Institute (AIST), Japan, Workshop on Research Training in Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: Current Status and Future Needs, April 2005, Brussels http://www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology/src/educationworkshop.htm. xix Private Communication, R. Cingolani, INFM Research Unit, Department of Innovation Engineering, University of Lecce,, Italy. xx Final Report of the International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, Questionnaire Responses and Background Information (2004) http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/Attachment_F_Responses_and_Background_Info_04 0812.pdf xxi Nanoforum, Survey of New Member States (2003) www.nanoforum.org. xxii Presentation of Training Initiatives within Asia-Pacific Programmes, L. Liu, Nanotechnology Research Institute (AIST), Japan, Workshop on Research Training in Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: Current Status and Future Needs, April 2005, Brussels http://www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology/src/educationworkshop.htm. xxiii Estimate based upon Nanotechnology in Lithuania, V. Snitka, MNT Bulletin, Edited by IMT-Bucharest, Vol. 5, No. 3 (2004). xxiv Nanotechnology in Asia 2003, Asian Technology Information Programme (AITP) April 2003 http://www.atip.org/. xxv Communiqué Présentation des premiers résultats du Fonds national de la recherche, http://www.gouvernement.lu/salle_presse/communiques/2003/07/08fnr/. xxvi Nanotechnology and the Poor: Opportunities and Risks, Meridian Institute, January 2005 http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/paper.php. xxvii Survey of EU Member States R&D funding for nanotechnology carried out in the Council of the European Union (response from the Netherlands). xxviii Nanotech business entering Singapore too (report on a presentation of H-G Lee of LG Electronics), L. Liu, Asia Pacific Nanotech Weekly (2004/11/ 2 #40) http://www.nanoworld.jp/apnw/articles/2-40.php. xxix Response to questionnaire on nanotechnology (for the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering study on nanotechnology), A. Pacholak, British Embassy Warsaw (2003) http://www.nanotec.org.uk/evidence/Poland.htm. xxx Final Report of the International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, Questionnaire Responses and Background Information (2004) http://www.nanoandthepoor.org/Attachment_F_Responses_and_Background_Info_04 0812.pdf xxxi European Commission, Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology, COM(2004) 338. xxxii Nanotechnology in Asia 2003, Asian Technology Information Programme (AITP) April 2003 http://www.atip.org/. xxxiii Nanoforum, Survey of New Member States (2003) www.nanoforum.org. xxxiv The National Nanotechnology Initiative and an International Perspective, M.C. Roco, Presentation at the 3rd International Workshop to Develop a Global

22

Nanotechnology Network, May 2003, Saarbrücken, Germany www.globalnanotechnologynetwork.org/. xxxv Informe sobre la Situación de la Nanociencia y de la Nanotechnologia en España y Propuesta de Accion Estrategica dentro del Plan Nacional de I+D+I (2004-2007), Red Española de Nanotecnologia (Nanospain) http://www.nanospain.org/files/Informe.pdf xxxvi Lux Research Press Release “U.S. States Turn To Nanotechnology For Jobs, Investment” January 25 2005. xxxvii European Commission, Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology, COM(2004) 338. xxxviii House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Too little too late? Government Investment in Nanotechnology, Fifth Report of Session 2003–04, March 2004, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/56/56.pdf xxxix Le financement des nanotechnologies et des nanosciences : L'effort des pouvoirs publics en France, comparaisons internationales, A. Billon, J-L Dupont, G Ghys, Inspection générale de l'administration de l'éducation nationale et de la recherche, January 2005 (http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/brp/notices/044000118.shtml) xl Information presented at Nanotech 2003 meeting, San Francisco, USA, by Norwegian Trade Council, February 2003. xli Information presented on the MATNANTECH initiative at NANO 2003 meeting, Japan (2003). xlii Presentation at EuroNanoForum 2003 meeting, Nanotechnology in Switzerland: The Results of promoting Science, Technology and Innovation over more than ten years, K. Höhener, Temas AG, Switzerland (2003). xliii Press Release by Lux Research « Nanotechnology Spending to Hit $8.6bn » August 2004 xliv « Data Mine : Nanotech Grows Up » Technology Review (June 2005) xlv Press Release by Lux Research « U.S. States turn to Nanotechnology for Jobs, Investment » January 2004

Compiled by Unit G4 Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies European Commission, Research DG Version: 8 December 2005

http://cordis.europa.eu.int/nanotechnology

23

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful