The news that Iran and Venezuela have signed a nanotechnology cooperation agreement seems to have raised a few eyebrows, which is probably what was intended. Or to put it in the evil dictator language beloved by the press “This news is a thorn in the eye of our enemies. Ha!”

Far from being the creation of a new ‘axis of evil,’ formed with the intention of flooding the United States with malevolent nanobots, it is more a reflection of the lack of options that Iran has when it comes to choosing cooperation partners.

One of the topics debated heavily during my last visit to Tehran was the effect of sanctions on Iranian science. While it access to advanced equipment is embargoes, many Iranian universities have responded by building their own equipment. While this means that advanced semiconductor fabrication tools cannot be used, there are sufficient national suppliers of research tools such as SEMs and AFMs that are perfectly adequate for Iranian nanotech.

An interview with Dr. Abdolreza Simchi of Sharif University published in Scientific American sees a benefit to the sanctions. In much of the world the best researchers pack their bags and head for the top universities, primarily in the US and Europe, which results in a brain drain fir most of the rest of the world. However as this route is not open to Iranian scientists, the talent can be harnessed at home to boost the local economy, or perhaps now Venezuela’s.

While Iranian, and Venezuelan researchers would love to be able to replicate some of the cutting edge work performed at IBM or MIT, much of the nanotechnology work is application focused, and more importantly appropriate for the local economy. It’s easy to get sniffy about levels of science in Iran if you compare it with the US, but most of the world is in a different league, looking to use nanotechnology to boost fairly basic extractive industries or reduce food spoilage, and in that respect Iran is doing pretty well.

Much of the past decade has been spent worrying about the potential toxicity of nanomaterials. We have had numerous government-funded projects, scores of publications by environmental groups, intense lobbying demanding the labelling of nanomaterials, and even a law suit. But while the developed world agonises over the use of nanomaterials, much of the rest of the world is simply getting on with using them.

As I’ve travelled the world over the last year I’ve seen numerous applications of nanomaterials that would allow them to come into direct contact with the environment – whether through ingestion or release into watercourses – with applications ranging from coatings on fruit to building materials and textiles. In addition there are numerous catalytic applications, such as removing ethylene in fruit storage facilities in order to prevent ripening. Nobody I spoke to had any idea of what would happen to these materials over the course of their lifetime, and probably didn’t much care either. Many of these applications would and could never be used in Europe or the US, but in other parts of the world where economic need takes precedence over human or environmental  issues, they are being increasingly applied.

So while much of the ire of environmental groups has been directed at the potential use of nanomaterials by large corporations, Kraft, L’Oreal and the like, their use by small companies in the developing world has gone largely unnoticed. And the use of nanomaterials is virtually undetectable, the technologies to screen large amounts of fruit and vegetables for traces of nanomaterials doesn’t exist.

The real threat to the environment doesn’t come from “greedy multinationals trying to ram untested materials with unknown effects” down people’s throats, but from small companies from Africa to China trying to make an extra shilling, rupee or yuan.

Iran has always been a source of fascination, a place of ancient culture and history and now a country making a lot of noise about science and technology, so I was pleased to be invited by the Iran Nanotechnology Initiative Council to attend the Iran Nano 2011 exhibition in Tehran.

As I’d spent the previous few days in Taiwan at the Taiwan Nano 2011 exhibition, it was a good opportunity to contrast the two events and try to judge whether there was any truth to the claims that Iran is becoming a world-class player in nanotechnology.

The unique aspect of Iranian nanotechnology is that because of the various international sanctions over the past thirty years it’s not the kind of place where you can just order an AFM or an electron microscope from a major US or Japanese supplier. As a result there was lots of home made kit on display, from sputtering systems, through surface analysis to atomic force microscopes. Looking at the results, the home grown kit was certainly more than adequate, with the main difference being the red LED displays and 20 turn potentiometers, things that have been long since replaced by digital control in the rest of the world. Does that stop an AFM from producing decent results though? Probably not. There was also a lot of discussion about selling this very low cost instrumentation outside Iran, although I suspect that IP issues may then become a concern.

So, Iranian scientists have engineered their way around the embargo on selling high tech equipment of Iran – and there was no shortage of high-end laptops on display either – but so often science is not about how much stuff you have in your lab, but what you can do with it.

The human resource development programs in Iran were also impressive. Iran has no shortage of universities, and it is also a big country with a significant population. There was mention of the country producing over 800 nanotechnology PhDs a year which is a huge number when compared with the rest of the region. A major part of one of the ceremonies I attended was the award of cash prizes to research students and small businesses, and that is always a great motivator.

There is plenty going on, much more than one would expect, so how has Iran managed to achieve this? It’s a combination of political support (and well done to the various scientists who managed to achieve this) and coordination. INIC runs the whole show, something describes as “Supreme supervision in realization of goals and programs.” This ranges from involving school children in nanotechnology to commercialisation and international development of technologies, and having a single coordinated and focussed vision rather than a set of squabbling and overlapping agencies seems to be something we all can learn from.

One of the other impressive parts of the program is the creation of the Tech-Market Services Institute, which specifically focuses on commercialisation of nanotechnologies and shows what good coordination can achieve.  Not so much an incubator as a collection of third party experts whose services are subsidised by INIC, the goal is to make the transition from basic research to commercial products as smooth and painless as possible, leaving academics to worry about the technology rather than legal or financial issues. This provides a pathway from assessing the level of technology readiness through assistance with patenting, documentation, market surveys, business plan writing, standards & certification, financial aid and venture capital and finally international marketing. Nice touches such as paying 80% of patenting costs seem to really encourage commercial development, with the remaining 20% paid for through the program if the patent application proves successful.

So what of the claims that Iran is becoming a world player in nanotechnology, ranking fourth in the world in terms of publications? Certainly the amount of papers published in international journals is rapidly increasing, and using this as raw data to justify being a world power is no more than many academics departments do. Discussing this with senior editors at some of the higher impact journals indicates that although the volume is high the quality is not, but it is improving. One would not expect Iran to be at the level of Germany, but it is among the best of the developing economies.

In terms of commercial products there were many on display. Agriculture was well represented, with fertilisers, pesticides, coatings to reduce fruit spoilage and even catalytic systems to remove ethylene from fruit storage facilities. Construction materials were another large area, with a wide range of building materials on display. Absent were areas such as semiconductors and medical devices, but once again their absence illustrates that INIC is focussing much more on the solutions demanded by Iranian industry rather than trying to compete with more advanced economies. There is also substantial work going n the the field of renewable energy with some large investments taking place.

Simon Brown, who also attended the exhibition, was similarly impressed, and raises questions about the proliferation of nanomaterials and whether adequate safety testing is being performed before they are deployed.

So Iranian nanotechnology seems to be in rude health. It has plenty of funding, political support at high level and most importantly, plenty of smart people involved. It is also developing stronger international links, hosting the meeting of the Asia Nano Forum and attracting exhibitors from companies and organisations based in Europe and Asia. I don’t think that Iran will be challenging the US and Germany as the best places to commercialise nanotechnologies anytime soon, but I suspect that the aim is more to support domestic industry and in that respect things seem to be working out rather well.

Some pictures from Taiwan Nano 2011 – including the now inevitable nanotech toilet!

Today we release our 2011 report on global nanotechnology funding and impact.

It’s something we do every year, undertaking one of the world’s most exhaustive searches into the global funding of nanotechnologies in order to identify not only where the dollars, euros and yen are being spent, but also to gain an unique insight into the trends shaping tomorrow’s applications.

The major change for this year has been to develop a method of determining how effective government investment in emerging technologies is likely to be, using data from the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Competitiveness Report among other sources.

While countries such as the UK have academic excellence, the service based economy means that there is little outlet for the fruits of nanotechnology research, unlike for example Germany which has a large and vibrant manufacturing sector that is hungry for new technologies to stay competitive.

A white paper giving an overview of the key numbers, which we believe to be the most accurate available anywhere, can be downloaded here.

Key findings are:

• With US government funding of nanotechnology receding slightly in 2011, Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimates indicate that for the first time, China will spend more than the US to fund nanotechnology.
• In the last 11 years, governments around the world have invested  more than US$67.5 billion in nanotechnology funding. When corporate research and various other forms of private funding are taken into account, nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars will have been invested in nanotechnology by 2015.
• Corporate research and private funding were thought to have surpassed government funding figures as far back as 2004. But this year, according to Cientifica’s estimates, in PPP terms China will spend US$2.25 billion in nanotechnology research while the US will spend US$2.18 billion. In real dollar terms, adjusted for currency exchange rates, China is only spending about US$1.3 billion to the US’s $2.18 billion.
• This appears to be a temporary hiccup in US dominance in public funding of nanotechnology with the US again taking the lead next year even in PPP terms, spending $2.46 billion with China allotting $2.2 billion.
• Cientifica’s index of countries’ ability to take advantage of emerging technologies indicates the US, Germany, Taiwan and Japan have the combination of academic excellence, technology-hungry companies, skilled workforces and the availability of early stage capital to ensure effective technology transfer.
• When combined with levels of nanotechnology funding, the US is still the place to be, although China and Russia are increasingly attractive. The UK and India struggle at the bottom of the league.

]]> http://cientifica.eu/blog/2011/07/the-2011-report-on-global-nanotechnology-funding-and-impact/feed/ 0 http://cientifica.eu/blog/2011/06/the-russians-are-coming/ http://cientifica.eu/blog/2011/06/the-russians-are-coming/#comments Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:35:33 +0000 Tim http://cientifica.eu/blog/?p=2360 TNTlog from Cientifica:

Or rather everyone involved in nanotech is beating a path to Russia and their new high tech cluster at Skolkovo. Not letting the grass grow under feet after splashing out a billion dollars on deals for Magnetic Random Access Memory (MRAM) from Crocus Technology and $700 million on organic electronics with Plastic Logic,  to coincide with [...]

Anyone hoping that China’s near monopoly over Lanthanides will be broken may be disappointed to see that the recent news about artificial palladium being created in a Japanese lab is a long way from being much use. It doesn’t stop magazines like Fast Company (whom I thought folded years ago along with Red Herring) getting a little over excited and digging out some pictures of carbon to illustrate the story.

The basic technique seems to be to mix nano particles of the two elements on either side on the periodic table to the one of interest, in this case Rhodium and Silver which have 47 and 45 electrons respectively.  Prof Kitagawa who came up with the technique explains that “the orbits of the electrons in the rhodium and silver atoms probably got jumbled up and formed the same orbits as those of palladium.”

While silver is relatively cheap, Rhodium trades at around three times the price of Palladium, and given the uncertainties surrounding the technique and its potential yield, it’s economic benefits look to be marginal for the foreseeable future compared with digging up more Palladium.

His team created a solution containing equal quantities of rhodium and silver, turned the solution into a mist and mixed it little by little with heated alcohol to produce particles of the new alloy. Each particle is 10 nanometres in diameter and atoms of the two metals are equally mixed.

It’s a good bit of nanoscience, nonetheless, but in order to move towards a more sustainable future, the thinking has to get away from merely replacing parts of the system, and think about whole new systems.

One of the biggest problems facing nanoscience is moving from pottering around in a lab doing something fascinating to translational research, i.e. taking that process or material and moving it in the direction of something that may be of use to someone for reasons other than writing publications. In the early days of nanotech, with investors fired up be the ‘new industrial revolution’ and mixing up nanoscience with the more far flung ideas about nanobots and terrforming Mars, starting up companies to cash in on the coming boom was relatively easy.

In 2010, given the current economic climate, it is much harder to raise any funding, and almost impossible to winkle scientists out of a lab job into the risky world of start up companies. As a result, much of the potential of nanotech risks either going unexploited for a while, or getting transferred only into large well funded companies, which is a shame.

There are ways around this, and Taiwan’s ITRI has just launched a Global Nano Innovation Contest to try to

• Develop nanotechnology prototyping capability for practical applications with universal appeal.
• Emphasize higher, system-level integration of prototypes, to spur the creation of a wider diversity of high-value nanotechnology applications.
• Establish an international platform promoting collaboration on nanotechnology.

The top prize is US$15,000, and full details are here.

One word of caution, I’m one of the judges!

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.

While Iran continues to attract international attention for the wrong reasons, spare a thought for the Iranian science community who are battling with embargoes meaning that they can’t even buy basic equipment, but are still managing to develop a nanotech research community.

If you are curious you can download their latest quarterly bulletin here, or visit the web page of the Iran Nanotechnology Initiative

I just received a Christmas/New Years card from the Iranian Nanotechnology Initiative Council, a timely seasonal reminder that science is international and cuts across religious, cultural and political boundaries.

The recent news about the debt problems in Dubai contrast with the glitzy no expense spared hotels and conference centres where I spent last weekend with the World Economic Forum, but probably do more to highlight the importance of a diverse technology enabled economy than any amount of lobbying we could do.

While Dubai has led the way for the emergence of the Gulf as a major economic centre, most of my technology work has been done in the neighbouring states, Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Saudi Arabia who, while perhaps being slightly envious of Dubai’s dash to pre eminence in the region with the worlds tallest tower and an indoor ski slope have been taking a more measured approach to development. Most of these countries have been playing the property game too, but also backing this up with major investments in science and technology, and that doesn’t just mean taking stakes in AMD or IBM but making sure that technology fits into the local economy.

The reasons to do this are all the more obvious this week, and in a region with tiny but fast expending populations, ensuring that jobs are created for locals rather than overseas labourers is of increasing importance. It is estimated that Saudi Arabia has 25% youth unemployment, and in a country where 40% of the population is under 15 the petrochemical industry isn’t going to provide all the jobs that will be needed to prevent social unrest.

What is? Increasing the size of the manufacturing sector is a key policy goal in many states, and Mubadala, one of Abu Dhabi’s investment agencies has already announced plans to build an AMD fab in the emirate but this is only the start. The longer term goal, and the financial and political situation in many of the the Gulf states allows the luxury of long term planning, is to develop new technology based industries in materials, aerospace, semiconductors, renewable energy and pharmaceuticals but based on a whole host of new and emerging technologies such as nanotech, industrial biotech and regenerative medicine.

While Dubai may in the eye of a storm right now, the longer term prospects for the region look as bright as the desert sun.

Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away”.

I’ve mentioned the negative views of science expressed by the ‘green’ movement, but according to the Guardian most politicians feel the same, with hardly any thought given to science other than the usual lip service of creating dynamic knowledge based economies, although unfortunately the result we ended up with was less like the Google campus and more like this:

I suppose it says a lot about the quality of our politicians.  When the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) is caught with his fingers in the till, and needs an accountant to work out his own tax should we really be surprised that many of them don’t have a clue about science?

It’s probably because of the lack of political interference that British science is relatively robust – funding levels are pretty good and research quality is still excellent. Compare that to an area where politicians have been constantly poking their noses in, such as schools, and perhaps we should be grateful that most politicians know more about Cicero than Chemistry.

The other side of this coin, however, is that politicams view science as a political quagmire – a word out of place about stem cells could alienate the Catholic vote etc – and so tend to stay well clear unless a kneejerk reaction is required in which case they start burning cows and blaming scientists.

A few years ago I spent a long time explaining to journalists that it didn’t actually matter whether Europe, the US or Japan was spending the most on nanotechnology R&D, it was how they spent it that mattered. But of course numbers and league tables make good copy.

Looking at the 2009 numbers, which you can see on the left or download directly here, things have changed a bit. It’s now a top five rather than a top three, and once we correct the numbers for purchasing power parity (PPP) which takes into account the fact that scientists are a lot cheaper in China than the US (although an electron microscope will cost about the same) the US has slipped from being undisputed world champion in 2001 to racing neck & neck with China for a bronze medal in 2009, while Russia and the EU are racing ahead.

But how much money you have to spend on anything is no indication of success, it’s what you do with it that matters, and that is the real story behind the numbers. Money can be wisely invested, stashed under the bed or frittered away in the pub, and we see all three strategies being deployed in the world of nanotechnologies.

Perhaps the most remarkable change is that from curiousity driven science to attempting to tackle some major issues. We’ll probably see that in the forthcoming Technology Strategy Board nanotechnology policies, and the US, India and China have already started thinking of nanotech as a tool to tackle some real and urgent issues rather than just something that goes on in a lab.

Some bizarre statistics about nanotechnology market growth are being bandied around followimg the “Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) along with Department of Science & Technology, (DST), Government of India, Gwangju Institute of Science & Technology (GIST) and Tamil Nadu Technology Development Promotion Council” fourth Nanotechnology Conclave 2009.

This looks like a perfect storm of the longest and most complex conference name (you certainly couldn’t tweet that!) and the least informative piece of information so far in 2009.

The fastest growing segments of the market are scanning probe microscopes, with a CAGR of 19.4% between 2007 and 2012, and charged particle microscopes with a CAGR from 2007 to 2012 of 9.0%. Optical microscopes are projected to have the lowest growth rate of any major market segment (5.6% CAGR). As a result, charged particle microscopes, which have the largest market share of any product segment, are projected to increase their market share further, from 52% in 2006 to 52.1% in 2012. Optical microscopes are projected to lose market share, from 26.2% in 2006 to 21.9% in 2012. In 2006, semiconductor manufacturing was the dominant end-user market for microscopes, with 31% of the total market, followed by life sciences (27%) and materials (24%), and nanotechnology (10%). Nanotechnology and semiconductor manufacturing are the fastest-growing end-user markets with CAGRs of 19.4% and 10.2% respectively.

The chart below shows nanotechnology R&D spending in the US and China corrected for purchasing power parity – i.e things are cheaper in China so $1 gets you more minutes of a researcher or a bigger bowl of noodles in Wuhan than in San Francisco (and parking is probably cheaper too).

Click to enlarge