"This nanotech industry is dead" - No it's not, it's just resting!
The best barometer of the health of the economy is often taxi drivers, but if you want to know the health of the UK Nanotechnology ‘Industry’ an event in London this month probably tells you all you need to know.
This exciting FREE one-day event is targeted at senior representatives from: companies involved in nanotechnology; or looking to develop new high tech products; regulators and other interested parties. This seminar will help you understand the challenges facing commercialisation. The day will cover all aspects of commercialisation from innovation, to regulation and other requirements for success of nanotechnology in the UK.
The problem is that the conference program has plenty of finger wagging about challenges, REACH, health and safety, insurance and consumer resistance but the organisers seem to have failed to find that elusive success story, or indeed anything innovative at all.
The best they could come up with is a ‘speaker tbc’ from Intrinsiq (formerly QinetiQ) Materials who have spent the last ten years valiantly trying to commercialise nanomaterials long beyond the point where any sane company would have given it up as a bad job.
One often suspects that there are more people paid to worry about nanotechnology in the UK than there are actually doing it.
Nanomaterials Producers React To Criticism Of Their Business Models
I don’t like nanomaterials companies very much. In fact they are usually nothing but trouble. If they are not squandering huge amounts of investors money chasing non existent markets then they are having messy legal spats with competitors and suppliers, or even prancing around bringing hugely expensive but ultimately pointless libel suits against anyone who questions their business model. Anyway, not to worry, most of them have either gone bust or found something more useful to do with their nanotech expertise than trying to put carts before horses and good riddance.
I’ll be doing my best to avoid a lynching at tomorrow’s Nanomaterials 2010 conference where I will be talking about “Trends and opportunities in the nanomaterials marketplace” – something I’m pretty sure that I will be able to manage without jumping up and down yelling “nanomaterials are the new gold so give me all your money” (actually as we and the World Gold Council proved a while ago, Gold is the new Gold).
However we do need to make use of nanomaterials to address a number of pressing issues caused by rising populations and declining resources unless we all want to go back to the Dark Ages, and this is where I think the opportunities lie, and perhaps this time it won’t be just large chemical producers who can take advantage.
If we look at most of our current crop of ‘sustainable’ technologies, from hybrid vehicles to wind turbines and solar arrays they are rubbish. There is absolutely no comparison with the elegance of nature’s solutions, almost all of which are built from the bottom up and which I often refer to as ‘materials by design’, a subject of eternal debate with my nanoclastic colleague Dexter Johnson. We need to start thinking seriously about how we can use our new found control over the properties of materials to address resource issues, create clean water and of course double food production in the next forty years, not producing tons of stuff that no one will ever want just because we can.
I spent last weekend in a rather hot Doha (Qatar), surrounded by Emirs, Queens, Princes and Prime Ministers at the World Economic Forums Global Redesign Initiative meeting. It’s an organization I have been involved with for the past six years, through both the Technology Pioneers program and the Global Redesign Initiative.
As the world changes at an ever increasing pace, with new challenges from the financial, technology and natural worlds coming thick and fast, there have been questions over whether international institutions, from the United Nationals to the International Monetary Fund are able to cope.
“Today’s institutions are organized to solve yesterday’s problems” – Mark Malloch Brown, World Economic Forum Global Redesign Meeting, Doha, May 2010
A large part of the change, from the time when most institutions were set up in the aftermath of the second word war has been the explosive growth in communication. When the UN was founded television was only available to a very few people, whereas in 2010 almost five billion people have access to the Internet. The proliferation of Internet enabled devices from iPhones to sensors and the expanding use of social networking such as Twitter and Facebook would have been unimaginable even thirty years ago when the Internet was still an emerging technology.
But technology can present a hazard as well as a risk. While presenting many opportunities that benefit the planet such as raising awareness of global issues and encouraging international cooperation, the Internet can also be used for identity theft and spreading pornography, or even challenging the legitimacy and authority of governments.
With all emerging technologies to date, from the Internet to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the understanding of the implications by governments and international institutions has lagged way behind the deployment of the technology.
The same is true for the emerging technologies of the 21st Century. Nanotechnologies, synthetic biology and geoengineering have undoubted potential for good, especially in proactively addressing the issues which will inevitably arise in a world where nine billion people face increasing competition for resources, from food and water to power and natural resources. But equally inevitable is the potential for misuse, from home brew bioterrorism to environmental pollution, and in the case of geoengineering the potential for global disaster even though technologies may have been deployed with the best of intentions.
These emerging technologies, and their inter-linkages with civil society have the potential to shape and reshape our world even more profoundly than the Internet, and the ease of access to information and computing power means that in the 21st century world changing breakthroughs are as likely to come from the mind of student as from a large multinational corporation.
The reactive nature of institutions is inherent in their nature, and we are proposing the creation of a mechanism to support faster, more fact based decision-making, and to provide the knowledge which would enable a proactive approach to be taken to both the risks and the opportunities arising from 21st Century emerging technologies.
The full proposal for the Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence is contained in the WEFs Global Redesign Initiative report, and you can also download a copy here.
I’m happy to say that the idea is receiving increasingly strong support from both Governments and companies who are increasingly realizing that in today’s world, taking a passive and reactive approach to global issues will be always more expensive than developing risk avoidance technologies in advance.
You can see (and hear) more about the WEF Global Redesign Initiative below
According to JP Morgan, flying to 21186 miles to Melbourne and back for a clean tech conference generated 5.63 tonnes of carbon dioxide, but unlike most conferences on this subject the hot air emissions were negligible.
The Sir Mark Oliphant Cleantech: Mainstream and at the Edge conference was refreshing for the positive outlook on cleantech rather than the self flagellation that usually goes along with this kind of event. While there were a few graphs showing frightening population statistics, with dire predictions of resource and energy use, they were mostly used to illustrate how a combination of human ingenuity and technology could be used to solve problems. None of the speakers even suggested smashing the corrupt capitalist system as happens so often at green events.
Megatrends
From my perspective, as hopefully a purveyor or at least enabler of technology based sustainability, the advantage of this kind of event is to see what the real drivers are, the market for the technology, and then try to find the science and engineering to solve the problem. This probably explains my rapt attention to talks like Stefan Hajkowicz’s excellent overview of Megatrends (the full report is available here), which looked at the “trends, patterns of economic, social or environmental activity that will change the way people live and the science and technology products they demand.”
I wasn’t too happy about the use of data from a rather flawed WEF risk report which identified nanotechnology as a risk on a par with an asset price collapse, a slowing Chinese economy, oil and gas price spikes, extreme climate change related weather, pandemic, biodiversity loss and terrorism. We seem to keep finding echoes of the grey goo fears of ten years ago in these kind of documents, something for the science communication experts to ponder.
Also fascinating was Ellen Sandell’s talk on her work with the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, a mobilisation of 50,000 young people who just couldn’t wait for Copenhagen, Davos or Canberra to reach an agreement, or for the Friends of the Earth or Greenpeace to stop politicking and decided to get things moving themselves.
So given that we know what to expect, and we have no lack of youthful enthusiasm to push us along, there’s no real excuse not to act. We should be demanding of our politicians that we develop new technologies not new taxes, and that we use our scientific knowledge of the natural world to make it a better place.
The news gets even better, as many of the speakers mentioned, in that you can make the world a better place and make money.
The Sir Mark Olifant Cleantech conference has been a lot of fun so far, from Eric Isaac’s opening overview of the the issues (and solutions) to Stefan Hajkowicz’s analysis of megatrends that will shape our future technology development.
I’m still struck by how much cleantech seems to be focused in a few rather obvious areas, something which effectively prices a lot of technologies out of the market, and the excessive valuations thus generated tend to make it almost impossible to get a return for most investors. Sometimes meeting the problem head on isn’t the best strategy, and it is better to wait until a problem has been cracked and then capitalise on the myriad opportunities that spin out – as with mobile phones you don’t have to invent the device to make money from it.
My focus is more on how nanotechnology, by its nature is more akin to what nature does. As Eric Isaacs mentioned this morning, we are almost at the stage where we can create materials by design, or in his his words ‘we can almost taste it’ – something that opens up a whole new world of sustainable everything.
A preview of my presentation is available here – with the caveat that it works better if you hear me tell the story behind it!
I spent a chunk of yesterday at the TSB’s Collaboration Nation event (you can follow today’s action live here) which was not only well organised but quite inspiring. The event centred around the winners of the TSBs last funding competition, which gave grants of up to £25,000 for feasibility studies, and the results have been quite spectacular.
I have always argued that what small technology businesses need is small amounts of funding without too many strings attached, rather than huge but rigid projects, and by providing this, the TSB seems to have produced quite a crop of good ideas. By giving small grants, many SME’s are inspired to do that bit of development or research that they have been meaning to do for years, but never had the time or the resources to do. While large programs such as FP7 tend to take on a life of their own and can distract companies from their core business, these little grants provide a useful boost to support core activities.
So while other parts of the government blunder around trying to come up with grand visions and overarching innovation strategies, the TSB has given back the power to the people who know most about innovation – small businesses!
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.
The Summit on the Global Agenda will take place from 20 to 22 November 2009 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, in partnership with the Government of Dubai. The Summit will bring together over 700 Global Agenda Council Members, representing some of the most innovative and influential thinkers from over 90 countries – including 300 business leaders, 240 academics, 100 leaders from civil society, NGOs and think tanks, over 50 leaders from international organizations and 30 public figures. Together they will address key issues on the global agenda.
I’ll be back in Dubai next week for what is describes as the “World’s Largest Brainstorming”
The Summit on the Global Agenda will take place from 20 to 22 November 2009 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, in partnership with the Government of Dubai. The Summit will bring together over 700 Global Agenda Council Members, representing some of the most innovative and influential thinkers from over 90 countries – including 300 business leaders, 240 academics, 100 leaders from civil society, NGOs and think tanks, over 50 leaders from international organizations and 30 public figures. Together they will address key issues on the global agenda.
It is an interesting project, to bring together people from across business and society and break them into over seventy different councils looking at everything from Emerging Technologies (my council) to Illegal Trade and everything in between. The overall aim is to bring together “the world’s foremost thought leaders” (blush) to develop an agenda for what is happening in their own area of expertise, and then interact with all the other councils to see how the big picture fits together.
Last year (see the reports here) we discussed nanotechnologies in some detail, but came to the conclusion that the structural issues surrounding it (public acceptance, funding mechanisms, safety, long term R&D strategies etc.) were not unique to nanotech and were indeed common to most emerging technologies, whether synthetic biology or even geoengineering. One challenge this year will be to see how this fits into the bigger picture, and interacts with the issues being discussed by other councils such as Innovation, Strategic Foresight, Corporate Governance, and Sustainable Energy.
However the major challenge will be moving from discussing issues to taking action to address them. In our case, how can we effectively deploy science and technology to address some of the worlds major problems? In ten days we should at least have an action plan!
The long awaited video from the DEEPEN Project meeting in February is finally out. I mentioned at the time that I didn’t find it particularity useful in terms of fostering wider understanding of science, but it certainly made me much more aware of the need for better public engagement.
The problem with many of these projects is that a bunch of people who know nothing about nanotechnology, geographers or philosophers for example, start off with a preconceived notion that nanotechnology is something that the public should be worried about (I know that these studies always claim to be impartial, but you don;t need to be a psychologist to spot which way things are skewed). What then happens is that as the lay people learn more about nanotechnology they conclude that it is quite cool and useful and the geographers and philosophers have to apply for some more funding to run another study until people come up with the ‘right answer’ – a bit like referendums in the EU.
But isn’t it all really a waste of time and effort compared with simply improving science teaching? If people had some basic scientific literacy they could make their own mind up without prompting. Then we wouldn’t be side tracked into debates attempting to link nanotechnology with wealth inequality and privacy, both of which have nothing to do with our particular branch of science.
Euractiv reports that Robert Madelin, director-general at the European Commission’s health and consumer affairs directorate “has hit out at lobby groups who stoke fear of nanotechnology” and said it was “irresponsible” to use panic in order to attract attention.
It is an interesting step forward, as anti nano lobby groups in Brussels have been very vocal in calling for all manner of moratoria and bans, and have previously had a larger influence on the debate than scientists and toxicologists.
Here is a selection of the reported anti-nano viewpoints
Dr Jennifer Sass, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defence Council, said she does not subscribe to the definition of nanotechnology which limits its scope to substances smaller than 100 nanometres.
Hmmm, let’s just chuck any definitions out of the window and see if that moves the debate along?
Caroline Cairns, programme leader for product safety at the Consumers Union in the US said there are lessons to be drawn for nanotechnology regulation from the financial services meltdown of 2008.
Referring to the complex financial products being sold by banks and insurers, Cairns said “if you don’t understand a product, don’t invest in it”.
You could also argue that if you don’t understand a technology don’t lobby against it!
We've been taking a critical and business focussed look at emerging technologies since December 2000. You can follow us on Twitter, via the RSS feed or have TNT Weekly delivered via email by clicking here
Who Is Tim Harper?
"Tim Harper is a rare breed - a well credentialled scientist with a proven track record in taking a laboratory idea into real world applications AND who has the ability to explain in a straight forward, and dare I suggest humble way, what he does and where the nanotechnology industry is 'at'."
Good day with the Research Council in Oslo- impressive stuff. Back to London then... (@ Oslo Airport Gardermoen (OSL) w/ 3 others) 2010/09/01
Norwegian nanotech program appears in rude health & now planning for the next ten years - easy when you have a strong economy! 2010/09/01
Off to Oslo to speak at a research council meeting - Nanotech/Sustainability seems to be this years hot topic. http://4sq.com/clh5sJ2010/08/31
RT @FreshPlastic: Facebook appears to be down. Expect thousands of RTs of a pointless @mashable article from all the dull people you follow. 2010/08/31
RT @kejames: +1 RT @giagia Dear World, moving house is balls. That is all. 2010/08/31
Faint strains of the Dambusters March blowing on the wind across Ilkley - it's the last night of the Ilkley Proms 2010/08/28
The annual birthday pizza in Ilkey's most metropolitan restaurant ;) (@ Pizza Express ilkley) http://4sq.com/9Kto6O2010/08/28
Having an outdoor pool in Ilkley always strikes mr as over optimistic... (@ Ilkley Lido) http://4sq.com/c7OG7a2010/08/26
New Spitalfields pizzaria featuring the vilest pizzas ever devised - Koh Samui has everything but a bat turd garnish http://bit.ly/b7pWhr2010/08/26
Back in Yorkshire for a bit - covering for these 10 week Spanish school holidays can be exhausting 2010/08/25
View Tim Harper's profile