In the same spirit, a team of researchers have determined in the words of New Scientist that “Antibacterial socks may boost greenhouse emissions” the lead reseracher seems to have a bit of an issue with nanom aterials anyway, stating that “These particles are developed with the express purpose of killing things.” Hmmm.

As one commenter points out the tub dosed with 55 micrograms of silver nanoparticles per gram of sludge, which is allegedly a concentration of silver similar to levels often found in waste water, is some 35 micrograms above the level where silver recovery is economically viable.

However, the results are inclusive, leading the researchers to conclude

a) that further experiments are necessary, “including the setting up of a complete wetland ecosystem to measure how it might be affected by waste water containing silver nanoparticles” and

b) that if the results were replicated on a large scale, it could “further contribute to concerns about global changes in climate”.

This all leads me to conclude that New Scientist is becoming less scientific and more like the Daiy Mail.

IBM have been fiddling about with nanoscale images for years, from spelling out the letters IBM in Xenon atoms to the latest nanoscale world map. I once asked the late Hans Coufal, head of nanotechnology at IBM’s Almadan research centre whether it was science or marketing, and he indicted the latter. Ever since then, making nanoscale sculptures has been a sure way of getting publicity, whereas researching new methods of circuit manufacture or data storage is far less sexy.

While this bit of work was widely reported, for example here in Forbes, the Foresight Institutes take on it made me chuckle. Apparently

IBM’s researchers hope that it could someday be used to craft circuit boards at smaller sizes than e-beam lithography is used to etch them today, or even build tiny nanobots or other tiny mechanical structures that could travel inside the human body or other nanoscale environments.

Even after 15 years, there a people still clinging to their belief in nanobots, just as some still believe the world is as flat as IBMs version.

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!

You may have seen the BBC reporting below.  As far as I am concerned this relates to news that is over a year old that is being presented with a particular skew to suit the current news agenda.

Following the MNT centres review last year, the TSB concluded that we wanted the MNT centres to be self-sustaining after their grants and that we would not be providing follow-on grants.  There is no change to this or the way we are working together at the moment.

So is it politicians manipulating the news again? It seems to be part of a general softening up process to pave the way for bigger cuts in October while allowing the Government to boast about how much has already been saved. Most of the centres already know that there will be no follow on funding, so the worst that can happen is that the closure of the ones which were unable to secure external funding will be somewhat accelerated.

I mentioned last week the odd way that some of the centres were set up, and before the politicians and civil servants get too smug, let’s not forget that some of centres faces with closure were set up under conditions which prevented them from taking on external work,and were therefore doomed from the outset.

I was lucky to have been involved in the set up of several of the centres, and while there is some great work going on, one has to agree with the opinion that most of them are simply too small to do anything useful, but the problem was always one of politics rather than one of science.

Unlike France,where a decision was made to create an innovation cluster in Grenoble, the UK nanotech strategy was always at the mercy of the various regional development agencies (RDAs), so instead of  three or four large and well funded facilities, which is what you would expect in the country the size of the UK, we ended up with a patchwork of poorly funded centres, under capitalised with no clear vision other than to put a tick in a box for a RDA official. That’s why the UK plastic electronics centre is in a former pit village in County Durham rather than the outskirts of Cambridge.

As such the strategy was always doomed to failure, and we made this quite clear at the time, but it gives me no pleasure to have been proved right.

But its not all bad news. Some centres, such as the one at Cambridge was very successful in leveraging industrial funding from companies such as Nokia, while some in the North East have had strong regional support and made it to critical mass.

For many of the other centres, closure will be no huge loss to the UK economy, or to British science. One which shall remain nameless still has only half a dozen mainly administrative staff, no clear agenda and no prospect of future funding.

In the end, successful nanotech centres will be able to attract additional funding, those simply relying on government hand outs won’t. It’s time that the UK Government admitted that it got the strategy horribly wrong, and ensure that the lessons of the UK nanotech debacle are learnt.

"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.

But nanotechnology was a tough field to break into, especially since Outside competitors already had a head start in the study of ultra-tiny circuits and microchips. An early director of the office, Pramod Karulkar, expressed enthusiasm for the program’s potential in a 2004 UAF press release while admitting that “this endeavor is unusual for Alaska and appears risky.”

“It was a challenge from the start, because there were always competitors in this field, and we were kind of starting from ground zero,” Grimes said.

The Office of Electronic Miniaturization, which was established in 2001, was envisioned as a hub for creating products in the emerging field of microscopic technology. But instead of producing commercially viable inventions, the OEM migrated toward basic research.

Its a sad story and not confined to nanotechnology – many science parks have suffered the same fate, with constructing shiny new office buildings taking precedence over evaluating whether there is any demand. As one researcher told me over a beer in Spain almost ten years ago “nobody wants or needs this new science park, but the regional government wants to build it instead of new academic buildings. After a few years we’ll be able to use it as new offices and lab space anyway.”

According to The Australian Fenner said that climate change is only at its beginning, but is likely to be the cause of our extinction. “We’ll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island,” he said. More people means fewer resources, and Fenner predicts “there will be a lot more wars over food.”

When people look at graphs like the one below, the inevitable conclusion is that we are doomed, but someone in 1000AD looking at this type of prediction and the steepness of the curve would have assumed that it would be even worse.

Are We Doomed? It Depends Where You Start

Throughout history technological advances have staved off the end of the world, and enabled the planet to support ever more people with ever increasing standards of living. Thomas Matlhus wouldn’t have believed it possible, but anyone who assumed that computers would remain the size of 1950′s mainframes could not have envisaged the iPhone, and hands up anyone who envisaged Facebook & Twitter even five years ago?

What always happens in the doom laden scenarios is an assumption that the progress of technology is linear. I see it with looking at businesses too, that everything continues in an predictable straight line that at some point crosses an axis that indicates that no further progress can be made (or unless it is a dreaded asymptotic exponential curve but nobody bases anything on those do they?). But that never happens. Faced with climate change, will farmers carry on growing the same stuff that fails year after year until they starve to death? Of course not, you don’t get to be the dominant species without being adaptable.

We saw that with microprocessors the limits imposed by heat dissipation were neatly sidestepped by the introduction of multi core devices, and in the 20th Century saw numerous green revolutions which vastly increased food production and eliminated the starving masses of countries like India.

It might be tough to create Utopia, but I think that technology can and will be used to mitigate the worst effects of human beings. In the meantime, if you want to be a doom monger, at least be witty. Here’s one of my favourites from the late Quentin Crisp.

“I have been to restaurants in Soho whose denizens have crossed social and geographical barriers to reach them.

“In one I have seen a girl sitting amid musical pandemonium with a book open on her knees and her little finger entwined with that of her true love. Of course, she was not really listening, not really reading and not communicating with her friend in any way that required effort or style.

“It would be hard to say whether the jukebox caused the death of human speech, or whether music came to fill an already widening void. But, unless the music is stopped now, the human race, mumbling, snapping its fingers and twitching its hips, will sink back into an amoebic state where it will take a coagulation of hundreds of teenagers to make up a single unit of vital force, which, once formed, will only live on sedatives, consume itself on the terraces of football stadia, and die.”

What's In Your Underwear?

I bet you were expecting these to be stain resistant too, but the key application of nanotech underwear is medical sensing according to Business Week.

The tight elastic waistband of underwear “has tight contact and direct exposure with the skin and it allows for direct sweat monitoring via the chemical-sensing electrodes. And it seems elastic is a hardy textile. Engineers at the University of California, San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering discovered that even after aggressive testing by stretching, folding and pulling, the chemical sensors printed on the elastic still retained their sensing ability and could detect hydrogen peroxide and NADH — two compounds that sensors in “smart’ systems will need to recognize.”

According to Professor Joseph Wang, from the Department of NanoEngineering at the University of California,

If, for example, an injured soldier went into shock, enzymes on the electrode would sense rising levels of the biomarkers lactate, glucose and norepinephrine. This would cause the concentrations of products generated by the enzymes to change — higher hydrogen peroxide, lower norepi-quinone, higher NADH and lower NAD+. This would cause the built-in logic structure to output the signal “1,0,1,0″ which indicates shock and could trigger a pre-determined treatment response.

The obvious problem seems to be how to transmit the data back to base without constantly bathing ones reproductive parts in microwave radiation, and of course keeping any medical supplies fresh in what is a notoriously warm and humid part of the anatomy.

Still, it should make an interesting and amusing change after sitting though years of conference speakers demonstrating the stain resistant properties of nanotech textiles using a glass of red wine (and sometimes ruining a carpet in the process).

The Future of Science Funding?

I was chuckling at The Nanoclasts take on the new US proposals around the new “Golden Triangle” of nanotech, biotech and IT – they must have seen once of my presentations!

What the President’s Innovation and Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) wants to know is

What are the critical infrastructures that only government can help provide that are needed to enable creation of new biotechnology, nanotechnology, and information technology products and innovations that will lead to new jobs and greater GDP?

One has to wonder what the point is of convening a committee of experts, only to have them ask the general public? But in these dark days of science budget cuts, the Simon Cowell business model is beginning to look attractive. While Andrew Maynard is tied up in I’m A Scientist Get Me Out Of Here, answering questions about his salary and sex life, it’s far too tame for us. He should be made to eat kangaroo anuses washed down with a beaker of foaming green liquid, while running around yelling “Ah-Ha” if we want to be innovative about science funding.

It seems that everyone wants to do public engagement these days, holding meetings, setting up web sites, convening multi stakeholder dialogues, but they have it all back to front. It’s not the scientists who desperately want to communicate, it’s Joe Bloggs who wants to be heard, and if he’s perfectly well prepared to blow a pound on voting on Big Brother/Britain’s Got Talent/American Idol/Strictly Come Dancing etc then I’m pretty sure he’d be willing to shell out again to give his opinion on nanotechnology, synthetic biology or any other -ology that I could think of.

Understanding anything about the subject isn’t a prerequisite for having an opinion, as PITAC seem to have demonstrated.

Just think how much extra research funding could be generated if scientists had to compete for research funding on live TV, with the audience voting by SMS or phone lines? 19 Entertainment, the company behind American Idol made $233 last year, and that would fund a lot of science. Imagine if EPSRC started doing it, we’d have nanotech labs and synchotrons on every street corner by the end of the decade.

So there’s the solution to the science budget. More public engagement, more wild hair, lots of foaming liquids, and no need to bother the hard pressed Government.

An MEP attempts to inhale some carbon nanotubes

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are an odd and under worked bunch. In order to fill their time they built a second parliament building in Brussels and spend every fourth week shuttling between Brussels and Strasbourg while submitting expense claims.

The Devil makes work for idle hands, and according to Chemistry World the latest scheme from Brussels is to require labelling of any electronic device containing nanomaterials (all of them!). Oh, and while they are at it, how about banning nanosilver and multiwall nanotubes “in electrical and electronic products” for good measure?

It’s a bizarre and badly thought out proposal, and as Chemistry World points out

It remains unclear precisely what the MEPs deem to be nanomaterials. If they follow the definition used in the Novel Foods directive, then it would mean any material engineered or manufactured to be of the order of 100nm in at least one dimension. This, however, would lead to every electronic product requiring labelling…The sense behind banning long multiwalled carbon nanotubes is more apparent; for example, there is some evidence that they may behave like asbestos when inhaled. But even then, the nanotubes have to be free for inhalation, which would not be the case if they were bound up in an electrical product.

But who knows how MEPs think. Do they think that computers work as a result of large crystal bowls filled with carbon nanotubes being left in draughty places, or is inhaling finely ground iPhones through a rolled up €500 note all the rage in the toilets of the European Parliament?

It seems to be a clear case of make laws first, worry about the facts later.

1. No one involved in it could explain why they were doing it or explain
2. why the EU taxpayers were being billed to try to put other EU taxpayers who were trying to make a living from European nanotech information out of business) and
3. a project officer admitted it was pointless rubbish but refused to kill it and
4. I simply couldn’t stomach the idea of producing meaningless irrelevant drivel and having my name associated with it.

That aside, it does raise the issue of the barrage of documentation where roadmap after roadmap is produced with no reference to the preceding version and with no attempt to measure progress, something a number of people have been grumbling about. As Berger notes:

In case of the EC, if this roadmap fails (which would require to have someone check in a few years time how it has done) nobody will be blamed or even fired. A new group, or the same group, of bureaucrats will then spend a few million euros in taxpayer money to conduct surveys and workshops and seminars and just write a new one.

It’s not just an European Commission problem,  the UK has got so good at this that one speaker from a government department at a conference last week boasted that the UK is a world leader in talking about health and safety aspects of nanotechnologies.

Talking about risk and communication is obviously less hazardous than doing anything, but blowing the entire budget on paperwork is not a particularly brilliant long term plan!

But I’m always happy to see companies doing well, even if I’m not involved. It’s good for nanotechnology, and good for me to know that my instincts were right.

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 21^st 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 21^st 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 21^st 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