I mentioned nanotech getting the blame for things earlier, but if you take a pinch of ray Kurzweil’s Singularity, a smidgeon of nanotech, a bunch of conspiracy theories and cook in an over active imagination for a decade or two and we arrive at…
On January 27, 2010,
in Ridiculous,
by Tim
"En Route To The Nanotech Debate"
It’s always odd how nanotechnology gets blamed for a lot of the world’s ills
A common accusation is that nanotech will lead to a loss of privacy, although this is surely more due to the proliferation of databases and processing power to enable facial or car number plate recognition. It is ironic that some of the most vocal protesters use Facebook & Twitter.
Chemistry World has been reporting on the protests at French nanotechnology debates, which seem to have degenerated into attempts to disrupt any public engagement. Perhaps they are mindful of the UK engagement exercises, which usually ended up with the general public being generally in favour of nanotechnology, or perhaps just carrying on an old French tradition of angry mobs of peasants/farmers/students smashing things up. But it raises wider questions about the understanding of the consequences of technology, both good and bad.
GMO’s are a case in point, and a perfect example of how, despite having the technology to address some of the worlds major problems with food production and nutrition, the fear of someone making any money out of just one aspect of the technology has condemned millions to a rather more dismal existence then they may have had. While opposition to GMOs has been softening of late, many other emerging technologies from geoengineering to synthetic biology are facing similar hype driven backlashes.
The nightmare scenario is that we have the ability to address, solve or mitigate a major problem, but that a decision has already been made not to use that technology. Synthetic biology may, for instance, be able to provide some shortcuts to the production of sustainable fuels and vaccines for H1N1 and other flu variants, but what if it winds up like GMOs and is unable to be used?
Can anything be done about it? Perhaps. Information and education are the key. Pitchfork wielding mobs descending on universities, or its modern French equivalent doesn’t get us very far, and as usual it comes down to information , as Mark Twain noted in 1869
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.
The same is true for most single issue groups, whether anti capitalist, environmental or even pro business!
All technologies have pros and cons, but the trick is to manage them in such a way that you encourage the positive aspects while keeping tight rein over any potential downside. There is nothing new here, we have been doing it with drugs for decades.
Nanotechnology - According to the Soil Association
The UK’s well known and respected science magazine The Daily Mail has an article by Peter Melchet, Policy Director of the Soil Association who seems to need his head examined for equating nanotechnology with “Turkey Twizzlers,” but I suppose you have to do these things if you write for the tabloids.
It’s the usual Daily Mail journalism, take a few bits of fact and then extrapolate them into a nightmarish vision of scientists turning cats inside out for fun and then relaxing by forcing toxic substances down babies throats for profit.
Now I know the Soil Association is committed to organic farming, and that’s fine, but prancing around attempting to ban things that no one is planning to use seems a bit silly to me. If people want to eat food that is brewed in vats using biotech that’s fine, even organic beer and wine is brewed in vats and the waste products are then turned into a quintessentially British food, Marmite!
A "nightmare food" - brewed in vats
Here are a few of the choice bits of (dis)information from the article for you to enjoy:
Of the £5.5billion invested in nanotechnology globally each year, much goes into the development of cosmetics and health products.
Five years ago, when top scientists advised in the strongest possible terms to avoid the use of nanoparticles, the Government acknowledged the risk but took no action.
Nanotech food was part of a nightmarish vision for the future of global farming and food. Some thought that GM and nanotechnology were the keys to overcoming the multiple problems of falling yields from artificial fertiliser and pesticide-laden crops, continuing hunger and starvation, obesity and an increasing scarcity of the raw materials, such as oil, on which nonorganic food depends.
Food would be brewed in vast vats using GM ingredients, with added nanotech nutrients and vitamins. Scientists believed that the world could continue dramatic increases in dairy and meat consumption, even if the milk and steaks of the future actually came from laboratories, not cows.
When it comes to spending decent sums on R&D and translating that into a direct economic impact, South Korea has been a shining example. While we struggle with budgets, the People’s Daily reports on South Koreas spending plans for emerging technologies:
The South Korean government said Thursday it will increase the amount of investment in developing technology to enhance the nation’s competitiveness.
According to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, it will spend up to 354.9 billion won (316.0 million U.S. dollars) this year, up 18 percent from the 2009 expenditure, which will be focused on nano tech, biotech, technology convergence and energy.
Of the total amount, 80 billion won (71.4 million U.S. dollars) will be used for new investments, surging 43 percent from the previous year, the ministry said.
The increase in fund comes as part of South Korea’s national plan to advance in the basic technology research and development areas by 2021, local media said, quoting a ministry official.
The ministry, in particular, is supposing domestic technology creation will benefit the country by curtailing patent lawsuits and royalty payments, according to media reports.
The new report “Nanotechnology: a UK Industry View” finally surfaced, and its recommendations are to spend more money, develop more skills, have more dialogue and..sorry, I must have nodded off, but it’s pretty standard stuff, and the recommendations are exactly the same as every other nanotech report produced over the past ten years.
I have to question why we go through this process again and again and again, with each report calling for the same things and nothing ever changing. We need to establish a few ground rules if UK nanotechnology is ever going to break out of it’s post Oxonica rut:
- Stop calling for more government money to be spent on stuff, it is as effective as wring a letter to Santa Claus. Unless you have been living in a cave (or an ivory tower) for the past year you will know that the UK government doesn’t have any, and the little it has left will go on ring fencing politically significant projects such as the National Health Service. Forking over huge sums to an ‘industry’ that has been characterised by hype followed by spectacular crashes simply isn’t going to happen, no matter how many reports get written.
- Stop calling for The Government to do something – in this case “assisting the banking and insurance companies in understanding nanotechnology to enable sound investments to be made.” The Government won’t exist after May, and until then no one will have much interest in nanotechnology compared to saving their careers. If you want the Government to do something useful, ask them to make sure that a business and innovation friendly climate exists.
- Stop expecting anyone to do take any action as a result of educating and informing people about nanotechnology. No banker or investor is interested in being educated about nanotechnology, but we all love good business ideas.
- Get out of the ghetto. The UK nanotechnology industry only exists in the mind of people who produce reports like this. Creating an artificial entity just so that targets can be set and measured is pointless and there are far more effective ways of measuring the impact of a technology on an economy.
- Make the best use of existing resources – we have a variety of nanotech facilities already up and running (although I’m still not quite sure Nanoforce is supposed to do, something with the creative industries?) so it should be possible to leverage entrepreneurial expertise and external cash to make sure that these can create the economic impact that was undoubtedly promised in their initial funding applications.
Anyway, here’s their version….
POLICY AND REGULATION
1. Nanotechnology innovation and exploitation is business driven.The department responsible for leading and coordinating nanotechnology activities across Government should be the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to ensure investment provides added value for the UK.
2. TheTechnology Strategy Board must implement its NanoscaleTechnologies Strategy with specific funded calls to deliver commercialisation of value adding nanotechnology based products.
3. Government should address the need for responsible development of all emerging technologies, including nanotechnologies, by putting in place a framework through which product risk assessments can be carried out alongside industry’s need to focus on innovation.
4. Defra, other Government Departments, relevant KTNs and trade associations should engage with industry to ensure the effective operation of a simplified Voluntary Reporting Scheme in the UK for nanomaterials and to work with EU regulators to ensure ongoing REACh regulations take account of nanotechnology fully and effectively.
SKILLS
1. Develop world class professional education programmes at all levels covering all aspects of nanotechnology.
2. Improve and promote vocational training in nanotechnology from technician level to develop individuals with the skills and expertise to support commercialisation of nanotechnology in the UK.
FUNDING
1. Provide more accessible and commercially focussed funding for SMEs as well as larger companies engaged in the development of nanotechnology based products to support innovation in the UK.
2. Invest in key establishments and organisations to build world class capability in nanotechnology product development.
3. Provide funding for cross-sectoral initiatives to apply developments achieved in one sector to other sectors and applications.
4. Continue to invest in standardisation activities to maintain UK leadership in creating international standards for nanotechnology and National Measurement System facilities.
5. Continue to support knowledge transfer activities to deliver innovation in nanotechnology and pull through academic research into commercial applications.
ENGAGEMENT
1. Ensure that the general public is informed of product developments based on nanotechnology.
2. Industry and Government should engage in an evidence based dialogue with the Unions and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).
3. Provide support for two-way international collaboration to gather and share information on nanotechnology.
4. Government and industry should assist banking and insurance companies in understanding nanotechnology to enable sound investments to be made.
On January 16, 2010,
in Europe,
by Tim
I’m still confused by the new UK KTN report on nanotech – perhaps if someone could actually produce a copy it would help! Typical of the mixed or garbled messages is
I can’t tell whether this is calling for industry or Government to lead things. Is the KTN confused or just the reporter? The report also claims that
the sector is highly fragmented, with few large companies and many SMEs. In addition, there is supply chain complexity, and it is difficult to transfer intellectual property from academia to industry.
As I noted yesterday, I think they may be barking up the wrong tree.
On January 15, 2010,
in Nanotech,
by Tim
The Economist takes a look at the new industrial policy being proposed by the UK government and concludes that they should stick to providing basic services.
Labour’s new industrial policy is more realistic about what the government can accomplish than the version that prevailed in the 1960s and 1970s. For that reason, it should avoid its predecessor’s fate, which led to the government supporting lame ducks rather than winners. But it still suffers from the illusion that ministers can behave like impresarios, conducting economic development from their podium in Whitehall. And it is the wrong priority.
What business wants the state to concentrate on is providing essential public services such as decent education at an affordable cost. It wants less meddling through burdensome regulations. Above all it is crying out for a credible plan to sort out the battered public finances, so that firms do not buckle under the burden of higher taxation and a surge in interest rates caused by excessive public borrowing. That might not amount to a new industrial policy but it would work a lot better.
Of course if we want to reforge the economy using the whit heat of technology, having properly funded Universities doing properly funded research would be a good place to start.
On January 15, 2010,
in VC2.0,
by Tim
That’s the question posed by Charley Polachi at Private Equity Hub.
The results of a survey of over 1,000 VCs seem to indicate that it is, and the industry as a whole is in need of a ‘reset’ – both in terms of the number and type of companies involved, and in terms of their attitude to ‘innovation.’
Although in one conversation, one of the partners shared with me an ironic observation – he works in an industry that preaches innovation and it is all about creating new businesses and investing in new ideas, but the venture industry itself – doesn’t want to change! It is barely a 30 year old industry but slow to change, almost institutional in its view of itself as it relates to structure, fees, compensation, succession planning, etc.
Here’s an interesting snippet from an FT report about a forthcoming report by the UK Knowledge Transfer Network on nanotechnologies
The report found that UK investment in nanotechnology was low. Per capita public funding was $1.96 (£1.20) in 2008, compared with $5.06 for the US and $6.07 for Germany.
As we all know, getting reliable funding numbers is very tricky, and the recent devaluation of the pound against the Euro will have distorted numbers by 20-30%, but it does seem from this that the UK is losing its way in nanotechnology.
Perhaps a more reliable indicator of progress would be the number of new companies turning up, but unfortunately every UK Nanotech event seems to draw the same crowd. Some of them are great companies and good friends, but it does seem to qualitatively indicate a degree of stagnation, at least among what would be classed as ‘nanotech companies.’
This mirrors, to a large extent, the picture worldwide. The last few years have seen a shift from nanotechnology being used as a reason to found a company to it becoming just another piece of the toolkit. As a result the number of companies calling themselves ‘nano’ has not really increased even as the penetration of the technology has.
Getting rid of the obsession with a ‘nanotechnology industry’ would help get a real sense of the impact of nanotechnologies.
The UK’s House of Lords is to publish its long awaited report on “Nanotechnologies and Food” this week, but it’s all top secret until a minute past midnight on Friday. We’re curious to see whether the report contains some of oft quoted but wildly inaccurate numbers and/or calls for the usual ‘further public consultation’ or indeed whether there are any actionable conclusions at all, something sadly lacking in UK government science and technology publications of late.
Reports from some of the folks interviewed suggest that the committee wasn’t the stereotypical bunch of old buffers put out to grass and that there was some real knowledge involved. You can see the evidence given here, and a bit about how the UK Government views nanotechnology and food here.
Welcome to TNTlog
Who Is Tim Harper?
"Bleeding-edge investor, nanotechnology guru and prolific blogger" Tim Harper is a former European Space Agency engineer turned serial technology entrepreneur, founding among others London based Cientifica Ltd, Salisbury based nanoparticle visualisation and sizing company Nanosight Ltd., and is one of the worlds foremost experts on commercialisation of technologies.
View Tim Harper's profile