Some forecasts have predicted the nanotechnology market to reach close to a trillion dollars by 2015, presenting investors with unique opportunities. However, the market for applications of nanotechnology is complex, multidisciplinary and highly segmented – to put it mildly!

The healthcare market is poised to see some of the earliest benefits of nanotechnology. While early ideas about the impact on nanotechnology on healthcare focussed on fanciful ideas involving small submarines and cancer zapping robots, much of the current advances have been enabled by advances in imaging, control over materials and an increased understanding of how biology works at the nanoscale.

Over the next decade, healthcare will be one of nanotech’s highest growth sectors with drug delivery in the vanguard, but to date specific and rational information about markets has been lacking. We’ve been working over the past year to understand what the impact of nanotechnologies will be on healthcare, and also to understand where that impact will be felt. At the same time we have had to temper the “cure for cancer” hyperbole that accompanies every new breakthrough with the reality of the long and expensive slog to get new drugs and delivery systems through the regulatory process.

The white paper “Market Opportunities In Nanotechnology Drug Delivery” highlights some of our recent findings.

We forecast the total market size in 2021 to be US$ 136Bn,with a 60/40 split in favour of drug nanocrystals although developing new delivery mechanisms may allow more value to be created for companies and entrepreneurs. The combination of social need coupled with willingness to pay will also see the introduction of highly targeted therapies in some areas being much quicker than in others. To some extent the findings mirror the global economy and demographics, but some of the areas of highest produced growth are surprising.

You can download ”Market Opportunities In Nanotechnology Drug Delivery” from the link, or for more detailed a comprehensive information, Nanotechnology for Drug Delivery 2021, gives a comprehensive analysis and geographic breakdown of the current nanotechnology drug delivery market and its key technologies.

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.

A fascinating statistic is contained in a Guardian piece about investment in science,

“The UK’s own Technology Strategy Board helps the commercialisation of everything from low-carbon energy to more efficient ways of producing drugs, and already generates a return nearly £7 for every £1 invested from the public purse – but it receives just £300m of funding per year.”

It makes it even more strange that in these straightened economic times, the best that politicians can come up with is spending on infrastructure projects that create no long term economic benefit, instead of investing in something which gives a 700% return on investment with the potential to enable new industries. There is no guarantee that increasing funding to the TSB would scale the economic benefits – it may be that UK innovators can only absorb £300 million and the rest would be squandered on Herman Miller chairs – but compared with the billions wasted on health service IT systems and identity cards it would be worth a punt.

However, anyone who has had dealings with governments knows all about the inherent inertia in the system, and the fear of political fall out from the slightest bit of bad news – opponents will seize upon the wasted million rather than hundreds of millions generated in the same way that staying in a five-star hotel on government business provokes popular outrage that drowns out the economic benefit of the deals done.

‘Survival time for all cancer types 40 years ago was just one year, now it is predicted to be nearly six years. This improvement is testament to the improvements in surgery, diagnosis, radiotherapy, and new drugs.’

-       Ciarán Devane, – Chief Executive of Macmillan Cancer Support

There has been plenty of discussion from all quarters about how the UK failed to grasp the significance of nanotechnology, and instead spent years fretting over heath and safety implications. Without any real nanotechnology related activity in UK industry, worrying about the potential downside is like spending all your time planning what you will do if you win the lottery. But you have to be in it to win it.

The UKs Nanotechnology knowledge Transfer Network, the body charged with”accelerating innovation in nanoscale technologies” has contributed an article to Nanotechnology Nowlooking at responsible nanotechnology. There’s nothing wrong with it per se, it’s a good round up, but after ten years of dealing with every part of the UK government that touches on nanotechnology, from the Treasury to DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) I can’t remember anyone extolling the potential economic benefits of nanotechnology, and it’s a real tragedy.

The UK has thousands of word class scientists beavering away on everything from graphene to cancer treatment and instead of being encouraged and aided to spin out their research into world-class companies, the government attitude is solely concerned with what might happen if someone “accidentally” inhaled a kilo of carbon nanotubes or managed to munch their way through a family sized bucket of fried chicken laced with quantum dots. It is probably why our rankings indicate that there is not too much difference between India and the UK as a place to commercialise nanotech.

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!

Every now and then a bit of news comes along which makes you want to bury your head in your hands and scream. For the past month most of that kind of news has been emanating from Europe, and today is no exception.

Not one, but two EU funded programs have come to the independent conclusion that for nanotechnology based businesses to succeed, they should concentrate on solving a customers problem rather than pushing a technology, and celebrated by issuing a press release  which concludes incoherently that “Communication, coherently, should emphasize the added value rather than innovation per se.”

The depressing thing is that it took 26 consortium partners three years and several million euros to come up with something so blindingly obvious, as a two minute call to any investor or business school professor would have revealed. Whatever next, an even bigger project to investigate why it’s lighter during the day than at night?

There are two different approaches to Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery,  making drug crystals smaller to increase solubility and bioavailability, or using some form of carrier to deliver them in a more effective manner.

If we look at the total market size in 2021, it is a 60/40 split in favour of drug nano crystals although we feel that developing new delivery mechanisms may allow more value to be created.

The best performing nano carriers are shaping up to be:

1. Liposomes  (28%);
2. Gold Nanocarriers (17%);
3. Dendrimers  (17%);
4. Micelles (11%);
5. Polymer-based Nanocarriers (5%);
6. Nanoshells  (2%);
7. Ceramic Nanocarriers (<1%);
8. Calcium phosphate Nanocarriers (<1%).

So by now we are all familiar with the statement that nanotechnology will be a trillion, three trillion or even a zero trillion dollar market, but who’s going to buy all that tiny stuff, and where? Will be be Africa, the US or China?

As always, it all depends on what flavour of nanotech you are trying to sell. In the case of drug delivery,  the biggest markets right now are

1. North America (304 US$ Million Dollars), (30%);
2. Asia (268 US$ Million Dollars), (26%);
3. EU (27), (234 US$ Million Dollars), (23%);

Across Asia we see a large and growing market in China

1. China (111 US$ Million Dollars), (42%);
2. India (73 US$ Million Dollars), (27%);
3. South Korea (39 US$ Million Dollars), (15%);

We’re seeing some huge growth potential too, but not spread evenly. The combination of social need coupled with willingness to pay will see the introduction of highly targeted therapies in some areas being much quicker than in others. For the full picture see Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery 2011.

I’ve spent the last year trying to find a way of organising and making sense of the information that comes through Twitter, Facebook and Google+

TweetDeck is useful to organise things by category, keyword or people despite being prone to crashing on the iPad, as is Paper.li (here’s my version) although the choice of content isn’t as customisable as I would like. I quite like Flipboard for the iPad as unlike most Twitter clients it reveals the content behind the link which makes browsing so much easier and efficient .

Recently David Bradley (@Sciencebase) altered me to a new solution, Twylah. What I like about this is the ability to sort tweets by category, which means that I can separate out different subjects rather than having them all muddled up in one stream. It’s also a great way to catch up on things you missed while you were doing other things.

You can find my feed by clicking on the ‘Trending Tweets” button on the top right, or by clicking here. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best so far.

One of the biggest barriers to innovation is often the lack of early stage funds available. I recently had a bizarre conversation with a manager at an n early stage technology fund who told me that “we don’t invest in anything more than 12 months away from profitability.”

Now I know that early stage investment is risk and scary for a lot of people (despite the potential returns) but 12 months from profitability? That would have cut out Google, Hotmail, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and just about any company giving the returns that VCs slaver over.

Any business that close to profitability would surely be able to factorise orders, get a loan, negotiate advance payments from customers in exchange for a discount or engage an investment bank to raise funds. The last thing you would do in that position would be to give up equity in exchange for funding.  I wonder what they do invest in?

Cientifica Ltd published Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery 2011  on 2 November 2011. Here’s a few of the key findings.

MARKET ANALYSIS BY KEY TECHNOLOGY

Of All Key Technologies Studied…

An analysis of the Total Addressable Market (TAM) in 2010, for nanotechnology in drug delivery (NDD), all key technologies studied shows the following values in 2010 (by descending order):

1. Drug Nanocrystals (596 US$ Million Dollars), (45%);
2. Total Nanocarriers (434 US$ Million Dollars), (32%);
3. Targeted Delivery (178 US$ Million Dollars), (13%);
4. Solubility + Bioavailability (139 US$ Million Dollars), (10%).

Nanocarriers as a Whole…

An analysis of the TAM in 2010, for NDD, nanocarriers as a whole shows the top 5 nanocarriers TAM values in 2010 as follows (by descending order):

1. Liposomes (118 US$ Million Dollars), (28%);
2. Dendrimers (84 US$ Million Dollars), (19%);
3. Micelles (63 US$ Million Dollars), (15%);
4. Gold Nanocarriers (56 US$ Million Dollars), (13%);
5. CNTs (56 US$ Million Dollars), (13%).

Nanocarriers Versus Drug Nanocrystals…

Regarding total nanocarriers versus drug nanocrystals, drug nanocrystals show a higher TAM value in 2010, when compared with total nanocarriers:

• Drug Nanocrystals (596 US$ Million Dollars), (58%);
• Total Nanocarriers (434 US$ Million Dollars), (42%).

So, how advanced is NDD now? Which trends are being designed to 2021? Where will be opportunities for investment? Reading Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery 2011 will answer to these questions and many more and explain why?

Envisioning technology is a work in progress by London-based technologist/designer Michell Zappa

Many have tried, but Michell Zappa‘s visualisation of the next 25 years is one of the best and clearest I’ve seen. Now if only there was a way to adjust the due dates and play with the cumulative societal impact I could lose myself in this for weeks!