Economy 2.0 | TNTlog

Strategic Geopolitical Trends – From Spooks to Nanotech

On March 5, 2010, in Economy 2.0, Nanotech, Renewable Energy, Social and Ethical, Sustainability, by Tim

Stop that talk of nanobots, this is getting silly!

The UK Ministry of Defence released its latest ‘Global Strategic Trends – Out to 2040‘ study last month, and it’s a good read (even for non spooks) covering everything from terrorism to to climate change and their impact on geopolitics.

The report identifies four key issues, Globalisation, Climate Change, Global Inequality & Innovation which will dominate the next thirty years. The first three are fairly obvious, but I liked the rather rational approach to innovation which seems to put the military at odds with much of the ‘Cleantech industry.’

Innovation and technology will continue to facilitate change. Energy efficient technologies will become available, although a breakthrough in alternative forms of energy that reduces dependency on hydrocarbons is unlikely. The most significant innovations are likely to involve sensors, electro-optics and materials. Application of nano-technologies, whether through materials or devices, will become pervasive and diverse, particularly in synthetic reproduction, novel power sources, and health care. Improvements in health care, for those who can afford it, are likely to significantly enhance longevity and quality of life.

For those interested in how the military see nanotechnologies, there is a specific mention:

Nanotechnology focuses on manipulating matter at the atomic and molecular scale, generally at less than 100 nanometres in size. At this size, and using other scientific disciplines, the characteristics of matter can be changed. This will create new and unique properties with profound and diverse applications. Advances in nanotechnology, at the interdisciplinary frontier where physics, chemistry and biology meet, will be a key enabler of technological advance, involving: new additives and coatings; materials and sensor development; and medical treatments and heath diagnosis. Products will be smaller and more energy efficient. They will be designed and manufactured with atomic precision and less production waste. Out to 2020, defence applications, in convergence with other disciplines, are likely to be predominantly in sensors, electro-optics and materials, including biologically active agents and surface- engineered materials. Additionally, integrated nano-devices will lead to the emergence of small, swarmed and autonomous systems. The application of nanotechnologies, whether through materials or devices, will become pervasive and diverse, particularly in manufacturing (strong lightweight materials for transportation applications), synthetic reproduction, novel power (battery) sources and health care (targeted drug delivery and augmented medical treatments).

Much of it is sensible, but the term ’synthetic reproduction’ pops up a few times, perhaps a hangover from the old nanobot days when planners envisaged hordes of nanobots devouring enemy tanks?

Tagged with: china • clean-tech • long term trends • military nanotechnology • Nanotech • nanotechnologies • Sustainability

Save The Children

On March 4, 2010, in Economy 2.0, by Tim

Today’s ‘Vision for UK Research‘ document sets out the recommendations for the future of research in the UK. More worrying is the report that the raw material that will be turned into those researchers, a fifth of primary school pupils are failing in English & Maths.

The Vision for UK Research document goes to great lengths to compare the UK to China, but if you look at primary education , and I have first hand experience, the UK SATS test only requires a level of knowledge that many Chinese children would be expected to have by the age of eight.

If the UK is to be serious about science, it needs a coherent science strategy covering the entire chain from primary school to grown up entrepreneurs. No amount of grand schemes will work if a growing proportion of the population is illiterate and innumerate.

Tagged with: education

Where Did All Our Nanotech Companies Go?

On February 17, 2010, in Economy 2.0, Finance, Nanotech, Unmitigated Hype, by Tim

Where did they all go?

My colleague Dexter Johnson (aka the Nanoclast) highlights a forthcoming report about the decline in the number of Australian nanotech companies, but it’s hardly surprising. Before anyone heralds the death of anything consider this:

The global economy has resulted in a reduction of the number of companies in just about every sector of the economy. High streets where a third of the shops have closed are now common outside London, and everyone from estate agents to Starbucks have been rationalising, downsizing or going bust.
As I mentioned back in 2001, most nanomaterials companies will go bust, some sooner, some later, but there is almost no way that anyone apart from large diversified chemical and materials companies can create a sustainable business in that sector. Of course if you told your VCs that nanotubes were the new gold you probably got closed down five years ago.
Nanotech has been subject to a large amount of M&A activity, Singular ID being snapped up by Bilicare for example, thereby disappearing from the Singapore register of nanotech companies and joining the Indian pharmaceutical industry.
Most nanotech companies were start ups, and most start ups don’t survive too long, whatever the sector.
I can think of plenty of companies making use of nanotechnologies that no one would consider being nanotech companies, so how a nanotech company is defined is also part of the problem.

Of course I’m pre judging the report, and there may be more granularity and methodology than in this brief report. However what isn’t in doubt is the stupid and irresponsible nanotech market numbers that Lux Research keep repeating and which keeps finding its way into business plans and foresight documents. Any business plan that starts waffling on about the ‘nanotech market’ gets binned straight away. In our investment business we interested in tangible and quantifiable numbers not abstract, artificial and absurd concepts.

Now if I was working in a government agency which was being judged on the number of nanotechnology companies created/attracted/sustained I’d be looking trying to figure out how far and how fast I could move the goalposts.

Tagged with: nanotechnologies • statistics

Nailing The Innovation Myths

On February 16, 2010, in Economy 2.0, Publications, Sustainability, VC2.0, venture capital, by Tim

Good to see a new report from the Judge Business School in Cambridge highlighting some of the myths about how high tech firms are created. Much of Europe tends to focus on large multi partner research schemes such as Framework 7 whereas much of business wold prefer something like the SBIR and DARPA contracts common in the US.

The report found little enthusiasm amongst successful, fast growing high-tech firms for the kinds of multi-partner research grants involving university-industry collaboration that are favoured by UK policy makers and, in contrast to the US, a dearth of R&D contracts with public sector customers. It argues that for decades UK Government policy has been based on three fundamental myths about how new hi-tech firms are created:

-       that university research is the key source of technology and innovation for new hi-tech firms

-       that venture capital is the primary source of finance

-       and that the best way for Government to support technology development in companies is by funding multi-partner research collaborations between universities and private sector firms

While the first two points may be true (to some extent) in Silicon Valley (at certain times), countless billions have been frittered away trying to create new Silicon Valleys in various parts of the world.

The report also calls “for the establishment of “Intermediate R&D Institutes”, similar in some respects to the Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany, to provide a more mission orientated environment than is possible in universities to develop and commercialise technologies with long lead times.”

Prepare For a New Streamlined and Efficient Research Environment

On February 10, 2010, in Economy 2.0, by Tim

Science is becoming a major election battleground with scientists mobilising in support of the budget ring fencing Labour Party while the Conservatives are suspected of planning ‘deep cuts.’

Or is it?

One of the debates that has been taking place recently is over the nature of science and how to stimulate its value to the economy. Should it be driven by economic or strategic need or do we take a chance on basic research coming up with the goods? Obviously we need both, and in the right proportion.

However science isn’t very important to politicians unless you are the science minister, and is even less important to ordinary voters. If you ask non scientists questions such as What is more important, a free at point of care health service or science? Should public sector pay be cut to improve science funding? Should we spend money on foreign aid or science? then you soon see the magnitude of the problem.

While science ministers from all parties will be pledging increased funding and talking up the importance of science to the economy, the reality is that science is invisible to most people and in an almost bankrupt UK it can and probably will have its budget hacked to bits without anyone noticing (for a few years anyway).

UK politicians are not as enlightened as their Korean counterparts, and the political battleground is to do with ordinary people in marginal constituencies, not the minority that toil in laboratories, nor the majority that will benefit from their toil in ten years time.

Smart science administrators will be preparing a new streamlined and efficient research environment, whoever wins the next election.

Support R&D, Create Wealth!

On January 18, 2010, in Asia, Economy 2.0, Nanotech, by Tim

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.

Got Dem Old European Innovation Blues Again

On December 28, 2009, in Economy 2.0, Europe, VC2.0, by Tim

Lets hope the "innovation economy" works better than the "knowledge economy"

The European Union is getting increasingly interested in innovation, and convened a Business Panel on EU Innovation Policy to help it. The report is here, and a blogged summary by Diogo Vasconcelos is here.

While it’s all good stuff, and the recommendations about broadening the concept of innovation and creating new infrastructure and financing models are sensible, much of this, and other similar reports tend to ignore the elephant in the room, the question of whether governments can do anything at all abut innovation?

Of course chucking plenty of money around will result in some of it sticking to to something useful, but most of it won’t and of course if huge wads of money are available for innovation then there will be plenty of companies rebranded as innovative that were clean tech the week desperately sticking their paws in the honey pot.

A better suggestion from the Panel is to improve infrastructure, making sure that everyone has access to fast broadband is a step, but one has to wonder whether we are already approaching the stage where everyone who wants superfast broadband internet access already gas it, and piping it into households who have no need or interest in technology will only stimulate innovation in the online gambling and pornography industries.

Rather than building new institutions and putting in soon to be obsolete wiring, Europe should look at what it already has and try to make that more efficient. There s no shortage of decent universities, or of scientific talent. If I were to start throwing taxpayers money around chasing an nebulous concept like innovation, Universities would be a good place to start.

It’s Up To Scientists To Save The World, Not Politicians – Or Maybe The Cat In The Hat

On December 21, 2009, in Development Issues, Economy 2.0, Nanotech, geoengineering, by Tim

Time For Plans B, C and D?

The vehemence with which Nigel Lawson has been attacked following todays article in the Wall Street Journal is hardly surprising, but I found the attacks from the scientific community surprisingly short sighted and naive.

The thrust of Lawson’s article, that adaptation may be a better strategy than the futile search for a global agreement has enraged many, but the human race has been so successful precisely because it is adaptable – from Kalahari Bushmen to Eskimos there are few environments where our race hasn’t been able to scratch out some kind of existence. However it also seems clear that the world pins its hopes on getting the major global governments to agree on anything then we are doomed anyway.

Finding a mechanism to limit the emissions of greenhouse gasses must be a priority, but in the absence of a global agreement then its up to the scientific community to come up with the solutions, something even Lawson acknowledges.

And beyond adaptation, plan B should involve a relatively modest increased government investment in technological research and development—in energy, in adaptation and in geoengineering.

I think the Cat in the Hat got it right, when clearing up the snow he tried little cats A to Y, but little cat Z was the one with the VOOOM under his hat that cleared up the mess. The greatest danger is that we stick to some kind of idealistic and utopian dream of a low carbon world without considering any other options, and then we one day find that it is too late. I’m a little concerned that many in the scientific community are so unworldly as to believe that the worlds major economies will hobble their economic growth and fork over a big chunk of GDP to various dodgy and corrupt regimes in order to attempt to maintain the climate in its current state – something the planet can’t even do in the absence of humans.

Given the track record of the UN over the last sixty years it’s hard to pin any hope of Copenhagen, Mexico or wherever the next jamboree will be. It is only sensible we should also look at the alternatives, adaptation and geoengineering as prominent among them as being boiled alive. I’d fork over a more than modest chunk of GDP towards science, and not only in the hope of averting environmental disaster, but in the hope of making sure that we have the economic growth to be able to do something about an ever growing list of global problems.

Issues as important as this are far too important to be left to politicians.

UK Government Announces £1Billion Innovation Fund (for the fourth time)

On December 3, 2009, in Economy 2.0, Europe, VC2.0, venture capital, by Tim

UK Announces £1Bn Innovation Fund and Outstanding Achievements at No.3 Tractor Factory in Hartlepool

The UK Government’s £1Bn Innovation Fund was announced for the fourth time this week (although I’m still waiting for the promised explanation from Lord Drayson). I wasn’t too impressed last time it was announced, or this time, and Mark Littlewood at Business Leaders Network is also sceptical

It may well be that the money will be raised and will be used to do something imaginative like backing successful angels and entrepreneurs through side-car funds or some similar mechanism. There are some interesting possibilities here that could make sure that the money is spent to ‘kick start British Technology investment’. But putting it into established funds, particularly ones without decent track records, will just create fund managers who are doing it for the management fees, won’t take the kind of risks that are needed and don’t have the experience to make success happen. Oh and it could create a false market.

It might be better if the government could wean itself off the addiction to announcing half baked ideas involving big numbers and actually implement something. It is hard to see the value in constantly re announcing something and the latest news about the fund rings as hollow as a set of Soviet era tractor production statistics.

Dodgy Statistics and Seasonal Cheer (hic!)

On December 2, 2009, in Economy 2.0, Europe, Finance, Nanotech, Publications, by Tim

It seems to be the season for dodgy statistics as well as good cheer – though perhaps overdoing the good cheer has an impact on the statistics (hic!).

Firstly the UK Governmemt’s £1Bn innovation fund is accused of shaky maths by Richard Tyler in the Telegraph who also questions the wisdom of the Government setting up its own fund rather than giving the private sector tax incentives to do it.

The weirdest statistic comes from the normally excellent UK Trade and Investment who claim that the town of Lowestoft is the ‘Enterprise Capital of Britain’ on the basis of having set up 50,000 new businesses. Given that the town’s population is only 60,000, it’s ether even more impressive or total and utter rubbish (unless of course that the numbers are calculated for businesses set up in ‘Greater Lowestoft’ over the last three millennia).

More serious is dodgy numbers in the business plan I was reviewing earlier for a nanomaterials company. All of the market numbers came from a rather infamous report which predicted nanotech markets in the trillions of dollars with phenomenal growth rates across the board, which led the company to expect fantastic revenues in half a dozen diverse and unrelated market segments. I usually suggest that any business plan which relies entirely on third party market research, and in this case the sunniest and most optimistic research imaginable, goes straight in the bin.

Most of the market research we perform at Cientifica helps validate data acquired elsewhere by our clients, and helps to build an overall picture of the oppotunities and inform discussions about strategy. Clients are sometimes disappointed that our numbers are not as big as other forms would predict, but in a long tern business such as nanotechnology it’s better to spend more time worrying about the accuracy of the numbers than their magnitude.