evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

SLINTEC — Sri Lanka's Public–Private Nanotechnology Institute

Sri Lanka · Homagama · See the Sri Lanka profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 89% 48/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Sri Lanka's public–private SLINTEC lost over 80 scientists to funding strain by 2022, then commercialised 8 patents in 12 months under new leadership — more than in its previous 16 years combined — while its graphene spin-off exports to Japan, the US and India.

11
Patents filed (as of 2021)
8
Patents/innovations commercialised (12 months to Dec 2024) (2023-2024)
7
Patents/innovations commercialised (prior 16-year history) (2008-2022)
80+
Scientists lost to funding strain (2018-2022)
SLINTEC — Sri Lanka's Public–Private Nanotechnology Institute

Details

Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
Sri Lanka Institute of Nanotechnology (SLINTEC)
Period
2008–present
Keywords
nanotechnology, R&D commercialisation, public-private partnership, advanced materials

Context

SLINTEC, a public-private nanotechnology institute founded in 2008 between Sri Lanka's National Science Foundation and a consortium of private corporates, commercialises applied nanotech research.

Activities

As of 2021 SLINTEC had filed 11 patents and sold three to India's Nagarjuna Corporation, while its majority-owned spin-off Ceylon Graphene Technologies exports to Japan, the US and India.

Results

Under new leadership from September 2022, SLINTEC commercialised 8 patents and innovations within 12 months to December 2024, compared with just 7 across its entire prior 16-year history.

Conclusions

That turnaround followed a documented setback: SLINTEC lost more than 80 scientists over the four years to 2022 amid financial constraints before the change in leadership reversed the decline.

Implementation
Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
PhD-holding expatriate scientists (11 attracted back), new leadership from Sept 2022

Conditions for success

  • public-private consortium co-funding

Common failure modes

  • lost 80+ scientists over 4 years to 2022 amid financial constraints before turnaround

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful