Good question!

Technology Review, besides being a great magazine edited by Jason Pontin, who I have known since the heyday of Red Herring, also puts on some great conferences. So I was excited and honoured to be invited to EmTech Spain, a two day conference in Malaga focussing on emerging technologies.

Along with my World Economic Forum colleague Javier García Martínez of Rive Technology and the University of Alicante,  we were discussing what nanotechnology is, how to build a business out of it, and where it will take us.

Normally at these kind of conferences, discussing everything from the future of cities to social media, nanotech is one of the most futuristic and least understood technologies on the agenda – making me feel like a cuckoo in the nest when most peoples idea of emerging technology is something that they can have on their iPhone next week. However the “imagine a world where…” speech was given by Richard Kivel this time, discussing regenerative medicine, while Javier and I discussed existing and future applications of nanotechnologies.

So what use is nanotechnology? Simple, I think is makes a key contribution to addressing issues such as energy and health, allowing us to support today’s 7 billion and tomorrow’s 10 billion people in an increasingly sustainable manner. You can read my thoughts in the original Spanish, or as a rougher and less polished Q&A in English below.

While working on our report on Using Emerging Technologies to Address Global Risks, one of my favourite SciFi authors, Neal Stephenson, popped up with an essay on Innovation Starvation.

It echoes Tyler Cowen‘s arguments that all the easy big stuff has been done,  and that all we have left to look forward to are incremental improvements rather than world changing technologies.

Stephenson, being a science fiction writer, looks at space as an example where a culture of risk avoidance, cost cutting and politics combine to stifle innovation. As he points out, even China’s space program is merely copying what the USA and Soviet Union were doing 50 years ago rather than doing anything innovative.

It is undoubtedly a problem that plagues the world.  Whether it is large ambitious space programs, or providing a government stimulus for technology companies, the emphasis is always on avoiding failure, which involves avoiding anything innovative.  The million lost by a failed company always generates more headlines for governments than the hundred million successfully leveraged as we can see with the furore over Solyndra – although governments have a poor track record of picking winners.

So how can we kick start global innovation? As I argue in Using Emerging Technologies to Address Global Risks we need to focus on the big issues that we can all agree on. Water might be a good start.

Over the past five years I have come across numerous innovative approaches to water scarcity, from desalination plants that double as greenhouses to nanostructured membranes that dramatically cut the energy needed for desalination, but I cant remember a single one of them attracting significant investment. That wasn’t because the technology is poor, it is simply because of the costs involved in getting it to market put it outside the risk which any early stage investor would be comfortable with. Raising $50 million for social networking is relatively simple, but for water remediation it is a stretch too far. Development times in excess of 3 years and uncertainty about who will pay for the technology combine to make it almost unfundable.

For a small fraction of the current cost of dealing with drought – something that will only increase in the future – we could develop a suite of technologies to mitigate the shortage of potable water. But we won’t.

I’m not convinced by the innovation starvation argument, I think we have plenty of innovation but we lack the political will to deploy them.  The challenge isn’t so much stimulating innovation as effectively making the case for governments and international institutions to use it.

(Foreword to Using Emerging Technologies to Address Global Risks , October 2011)

This is a question that often comes up in our dealings with global policy makers who spend huge sums on scientific research while simultaneously being fearful of its consequences. Many believe that it is somehow important for the economy in an undefined and non-quantifiable manner, or that it is some kind of logical next step along the path that starts with scientific curiosity. Perhaps a better way of viewing technology would be as a mechanism through which science is applied to meet the needs of society, and that holds true whether the needs of society are getting rich quick, curing cancer, or both.

But there is another less beneficial view of technology. The idea that technology is responsible for environmental degradation, especially when coupled with population growth, is a powerful one that has held true since the industrial revolution. It is human nature to fondly imagine an agrarian pre-industrial utopia, while forgetting the regular plagues and famines that resulted in an average life expectancy of 35 years in pre-industrial Britain.  The idea that technology is a bad thing is a situation that has existed for much of the 20th century and persists into the 21st, partly as a result of confusion between technology itself and those individuals and corporations who control and exploit it.

But it is time for a change. In fact a change is inevitable. Human history is littered with technological advances that have changed everything, and much faster than anyone could have imagined.  The agricultural, industrial and information revolutions have resulted in massive changes to the economy, society and the way in which we interact with the environment.

Since the second world war, science and technology have moved faster and had a more profound impact on human society than at any other point in human history. We have moved from black and white television exploding onto the market in the early 1950s to more than 800 million people using Facebook within 60 years. While television took 3 decades to diffuse around the world, Facebook did it in 3 years. Technology has driven economic growth around the world and led to vast improvements in the quality of life for much of the global population, but it has come at a price: the rise of consumerism has resulted in environmental degradation on an unprecedented scale.

It is time to reappraise our relationship with technology and take control of its direction. With an increasing global population becoming ever more affluent, the pressure on resources coupled with climate change will inevitably lead to more wars, water shortages, famines and mass migration. Or will it?

If profound economic, societal and environmental changes are inevitable then why do we still address them in the same way we have for millennia, by being helplessly reactive? In the 21st century, science and technology has advanced to a stage where we can start taking control of the fruits of scientific progress rather than being powerless in the face of their development and exploitation.

We already have many of the technologies we need to address major global problems such as water shortages and disease, and there is no reason why inevitable environmental disasters such as oil spills still have to be tackled using antiquated technology when a hundred million dollars could give us the technologies to reduce the impact of oil spills to almost zero. Many other emerging technologies are being developed that would allow the world to support 10 billion people without compromising the tremendous growth in quality of life that has taken place over the last century.

At Cientifica we establish  how we can harness technologies for the global good. While we still lack the political will and necessary international institutions, we now have the knowledge and the tools to make the transition from being mere consumers of, and in some respect slaves to technology, to making use of  the new scientific revolution to mitigate and minimise global risks.

While it would be foolish to claim that the wise use of science and technology will usher in a utopian age, there is little doubt that we now have the tools to create a sustainable and responsible world where human suffering and environmental degradation can be alleviated while maintaining economic growth.

Medical applications of nanotechnologies are shaping up to be one of the most significant and game changing areas we study.  We thought it time to have a quick gallop through some of the reasons that makes nanotechnology an enabling and disruptive science with such a huge potential for applications in medicine and biomedicine.

Biological processes

Most biological processes occur at the nanoscale. Each living cell is composed of elementary components such as DNA that perform all their biological processes at nanoscale. You could argue that living organisms, including humans, are, in fact, composed of biological nanomachines built by Mother Nature from the bottom up. Even the processes occurring at structures that are not alive but behave like living organisms (viruses, for example) occur at the nanoscale.

The Laws of Quantum Physics

Matter, in general, can exhibit unusual physical, chemical, and biological properties at the nanoscale, differing deeply from the properties that usually show at the macro scale. Melting point, fluorescence, electrical conductivity, magnetic permeability, and chemical reactivity (just to mention a few examples) change on the nanoscale. The behaviour of matter at the macro scale is explained by Newtonian classical laws of physics but the behaviour of matter at nanoscale can be explained more readily by the laws of quantum physics.

The Relationship Between Volume and Available Surface Area

At the nanoscale, the relationship between volume and available surface area determines the behaviour of atoms, molecules and molecular nanostructures. When the size decreases towards the nanoscale, the available surface area per mass of a material increases dramatically. As a consequence, a greater amount of the material can be into contact with the surroundings, increasing reactivity.

Nanotechnology in Diagnostics

The tools developed to allow us to measure on the nanoscale allows scientists to study and manipulate molecules at nanoscale during the earliest stages of cancer development. This gives the potential to provide rapid, sensitive and affordable detection of cancer-related molecules, enabling scientists to detect molecular changes even in a small number of cells. Nanotechnology also has the potential to develop new methods of diagnostics, more accurate, more precautious, more affordable, portable in many cases, and personalized.

Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery

It is now possible to design new molecular nanostructures on a computer. It is also possible predict and simulate by computer (with high precision) how molecular nanostructures are going to look, behave, interact and react. This combination of  computing power and nanoscience is enabling researchers to design molecular nanostructures and customize them, utilizing their unique behaviours, for a variety of purposes.

As an example, the concept of the nano carrier plays a central role in this new approach giving us the potential to generate entirely novel and highly effective drugs of the future.

Nanotechnology in Regenerative Medicine and Tissue Engineering

Regeneration of wounded or damaged tissues, establishing de novo synapses between wounded or damaged neurons, skin protection and repair are just a few examples of objects of study and intense work by nanoscientists.

For example, scaffolding can already make use of highly functionalised new nanomaterials. Scaffolds made with nano-engineered polymers and self-fitting are improving the repair of wounded or damaged tissue or cells.

Nanotechnology can also be applied to wound dressings, for detection, control and treatment of infections of conjunctive, skeletal, vascular, muscular and nerve tissues, for example.

Conclusion

Nanotechnology is beginning to revolutionize a wide range of medical and biomedical tools, procedures, approaches and processes: more precise, directed and targeted, effective, personalized, portable, less expensive, safer, easier to administer and causing less adverse side-effects.

I will confine this text to just a few factors that are key drivers for the adoption of nanotechnology and materials science in medicine and biomedicine, grouped by categories.

Public Health

A significant number of diseases considered today the cause of high mortality rates will find, on the forthcoming years, a cure and / or an effective precocious diagnostic ready to be included in the processes chain of health care practice.

This progress will stand, in part, on the discoveries in several fields of nanotechnology and materials science.

At the same time, new emerging diseases will appear, calling to action many scientists from diverse fields (including nanoscientists and materials scientists).

Social and Economical Key Drivers

The economical crisis that affects all countries nowadays triggered several other crises. One of those is a social crisis. The majority of wealth is concentrated into a minority of individuals and organizations while the majority of individuals live their lives on a remedied situation, on poverty or even on extreme poverty.

Thus, there is a minority of individuals capable of affording fortunes for their own treatment, while a majority of individuals don’t visit even the dentist and dye precociously.

This very sad phenomenon is intimately related with the price policy, prices practised to end users (patients and citizens in general) and health policy practised by governments.

One factor that will make all the difference will be the reduction of costs to end users in production and supporting services.

Nanotechnology and materials science has demonstrated trough numerous studies that as scientific and technological achievements are being published and then passed to commercialization channels, the costs of production will be reduced. In some cases, this reduction will be tremendous. Consequently, the value chain of medical and biomedical industry as well as supporting services will be improved.

Meanwhile, among the decision makers and top executives from medical and biomedical industry and supporting services whose value chain was enhanced by nanotechnology and materials science, a few ones will have wisdom and good sense enough to be visionary. They will discover a new strategy that will allow their organizations to be more competitive: through decreasing the final prices to end users, while maintaining the profit level or, in some cases, even increase it..

The majority of patients and citizens in general will have opportunities of accessing to the same level of quality in health care.

Social Responsibility, Commercial Competitive Positioning, and Completive Advantage

The organizations implementing strong programs of social responsibility have a much better competitive positioning on their markets and a stronger competitive advantage, when compared with the ones in the same market, implementing a weak social responsibility program or even none.

Social responsibility enhances the image of organizations; increases brand awareness, places organizations more close of leadership or reinforce the leadership position.

Social responsibility is today a highly crucial and a determinant factor for success of organizations. This will be highly enhanced a near future.

The forthcoming social responsibility will include the reduction of costs to end users. Nanotechnology will allow the decrease of costs of production and consequently the costs to end users and, in some cases, will even allow industries and supporting services to increase their profit.

The first visionary decision makers and top executives from medical and biomedical industries as well as supporting services that understand this rule of the thumb will certainly drive their organizations to a better positioning on their markets. Those organizations will gain more competitive advantage and in some cases, a leadership position.

To get to grips with nanotechnology, you need to start with this!

I always count myself lucky that I have never had a standard job. From my first job with VG Ionex testing and tweaking a wide variety of ion guns (but try getting one through an airport without saying ‘gun!’) to my current bipolar technology/fashion enterprises I’ve rarely done the same thing two days in a row. So far this week I’ve been sorting through fashion photographs as a result of a recent fashion shoot, had an email conversation with a scientist/entrepreneur so well known and respected that even I felt humbled, and spent a morning discussing issues facing aviation and mass tourism with a senior figure from a FTSE 100 quoted travel firm.

What has this got to do with nanotechnology and other emerging technologies? Quite a lot as it turns out.

A key part of what we have done at Cientifica over the past ten years has been to make accurate predictions bout the direction technology will take, and between myself and ‘The Nanoclast‘ we’ve done a pretty good job or predicting the future while avoiding the worst of the pitfalls.One of the reasons for this is that we haven’t limited ourselves to technology, but spend a huge amount of time getting to grips with the issues facing a wide range of industries, as well as global macroeconomic trends, all of which help us make better decisions on what technologies our clients should back, or steer well clear of.

A typical example of how technology predictions can be totally wrong is in the aerospace industry. For almost ten years a variety of pundits have been claiming that the use of nanotube based composites can make aircraft lighter and more fuel efficient, but it just hasn’t happened. The reason is (at least) twofold, driven by two different factors, the supply chain and regulation.

A problem faced by a a number of emerging technologies is the lack of supply chain maturity. For a material to be considered usable most industries a prerequisite would be to have three or four financially stable producers with decent quality control in place so that the same material is guaranteed every time, whether a few grammes or tonnes. A cluster of start ups and students working part time won’t impress Airbus Industrie or Boeing.

Qualification of materials to comply with regulation is something I spent years on at the European Space Agency. The problem is that you can’t just slap any old material into a satellite or airframe and hope it works – the consequences of failure are far too high to consider risking. So all new materials have to go through extensive testing before they can be flown, and this takes time and money. Boeings switch to composites for the 787 is already years behind schedule, and compared with the kind of materials becoming available now the 787 construction is not particularly advanced. The best data recorder for satellites was magnetic tape well into the 90′s for the same reason, a stray proton flipping a call in a solid state memory could wipe out an entire mission, but even tape jams could be fixed with a bit of jiggling about.

So, if you want to really understand nanotechnology, and do something useful with it, you have to spend as much time hanging around coffee houses and hotel bars as you do in the lab, and get through the Economist, Spectator and visit a gallery or museum every week just to put it all in context.

Variety may be the spice of life, but its just as important to nanotechnology.

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

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.

No worries!

Twenty Four hours ago my colleague Dexter Johnson asked my opinion about what nanotechnology could do to help clean up the huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and I reluctantly said “not much.”

But this doesn’t have to be the answer, we probably have access to most of the technologies that we would need to make a big dent in the environmental mess that is unfolding, but why haven’t they been used?

The answer, as Andrew Maynard and I found out through our work with the World Economic Forum, is that most governments are reactive rather than proactive. The emphasis is on regulating risk rather than developing technologies that would help us deal more effectively with risk, and this disaster illustrates how, when something goes wrong, governments want to be able to pluck fully formed technologies from a tree. Unfortunately the branches are bare.

So what should we be doing to help us deal with inevitable disasters? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but with a bill estimated at $15 billion for this incident alone, shouldn’t we be spending a few hundred million on making sure that we have the right technologies?

Between nanotechnology, industrial biotech and perhaps even synthetic biology, and not forgetting traditional chemistry I’d bet that we already have 90% of the technology we need. Light, strong, resistant materials for plugging leaks and corralling slicks, enzymes to transform oil into something more manageable, and dispersants to break up the slicks.

It is a certainty that somewhere in the world we will have another oil spill. What is less certain that by then we will have developed the technologies to stop an accident becoming a catastrophe.

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?

An early Christmas present? A late Eid or Diwali one? Our latest white paper looks at investing in emerging technologies from a variety of perspectives.

At Cientifica we have been working with emerging technologies for fifteen years, whether developing field emission displays in the mid 90’s, or advising governments, companies and the World Economic Forum in recent years. Over this period money has been made and lost in everything from medical devices to scientific instrumentation and carbon nanotubes, and this hands-on approach has left us with a wealth of practical experience.

As we approach the end of the first decade of a new millennium, science and technology are advancing faster than ever, with a wide range of new and emerging technologies ready to change the world and take investors for a ride.

As a sane and rational voice in a sea of hype, and one of the few companies whose clients have consistently been on the winning team in technology investment, we present a brief guide to making money out of emerging technologies for governments companies and investors.

Image by United Nations Photo via Flickr

The next couple of weeks will be dominated by the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change, and probably some nasty brutish debate with science caught somewhere in the middle. While the negotiators fumble towards a compromise that keeps all the vested interests happy while appearing to be taking tough action, I’ll be busy pushing the idea that we should actually do something about it.

Unfortunately the political response to climate change so far has been simply to set targets and impose taxes. While every politician knows that the only way to reduce energy consumption would be to double prices, as the recent oil price spike showed, that would be political suicide, so the response has been ‘green taxes’, adding a few pence here, a pound on air passenger duty there, that no one will notice too much.

However, merely taxing and punishing people doesn’t provide a solution and the only way to make a difference is to make sure that we are applying the fruits of four thousand years of science and technology more effectively than we do at present. That means governments supporting science with the fruits of the eco taxes, rather than simply shovelling them into the black holes of the banking system, and NGO’s stopping their knee-jerk anti science reactions and working with the scientific community to find acceptable sustainable solutions.

The most important thing to emerge from Copenhagen will not be a new round of targets, but a real commitment to ensure that the technologies we need to tackle climate change (and this involves nanotech, industrial biotech, geoengineering, synthetic biology and a whole range of other technologies that are currently unpalatable to the huge swathers of the ‘stop climate change’ lobby) can be effectively developed and deployed, and pronto!

Today’s Times has four writers explaining their ‘Eureka Moments’ with science, and proving that a lifetime in the arts is no barrier to getting to grips with science.

I’ve spent the past couple of months going the other way, and getting involved in fashion! I’ve long been fascinated by the creative arts, but my enthusiasm has been unmatched by my skill with a paintbrush or even a soldering iron, both of which have in the past raised gasps of astonishment. However, I recently found a way to reconcile nanotechnology with fashion by opening a boutique, Foxbat, in one of London’s hippest districts, Spitalfields.

The idea came about last year when the Victoria and Albert Museum organised an exhibition called ‘China Design Now‘ which illustrated how art, design and fashion was undergoing a renaissance in China.

China is huge. China is becoming topical. Yet China remains mystery to most people in the West. ‘Made in China’ has become a familiar tag, but the spectacular creative energy in modern China is barely known. During the last twenty years, the Chinese have rediscovered their pre-socialist past and begun to combine their own traditions with global influences to produce a cultural rebirth. At the heart of this lies a new culture of design.

Spending time in China last year I was struck by the new home grown brands of fashion & jewellery that were emerging to stand alongside the more well known European brands and the ubiquitous (in Asia) Burberry, and the idea was born to import the best of Chinese and Korean design to Europe. The quality is outstanding, and given the disparity between consumer buying power in London and Shanghai, some thing that would cost the equivalent of a thousand pounds in China can be retailed in London for two hundred! So it’s high fashion at high street prices, a credit crunch business model that appealed to me.

We finally opened Foxbat last week, on Brushfield St in Old Spitalfields Market after six months of negotiating leases, dealing with builders, plumbers, electricians, window cleaners. A week before we were due to open our interior designers flounced out in a huff after we criticised their tiny fitting room mirrors, leaving us to source everything ourselves at short notice.

So what about the nanotechnology? We have one of the largest collections of NeoGlory crystal jewellery outside China. NeoGlory also make all the crystals for a well known Austrian brand, but have now moved into producing their own designs, which are equally stunning but at a fraction of the usual prices. As some people may know, the days of mining crystal from the Austrian Alps ended a long time ago, and most crystal used in jewellery is lead crystal, often coated with a few nanometers of metal film to add colour and enhance sparkle.

So moving from nanotechnology to a boutique full of shiny sparkly girly stuff isn’t such a great leap after all!

In my predictions over the last year I mentioned that Clean Tech would have a rocky time in 2009 for four reasons

1. Renewable energy interest tends to lag oil prices by 6-12 months and with oil almost back to 2006 levels a lot of transient interest will evaporate
2. Lot’s of clean tech companies based their business models on sustained high oil and commodity prices – so a recalculation will reveal that they don’t stand a cats chance in hell of being profitable
3. The stampede by Venture Capital into every clean tech deal going for the last two years has inflated valuations to levels that will never return any cash to investors – and that was before anyone took into account  recessions & pestilence
4. As a result, VCs would find themselves locked into very expensive deals and have trouble shaking down their limited partners for the funds necessary to keep in the hunt

Don’t say you weren’t warned. It must be getting serious when even VCs are getting contrite – according to the New York Times:

David J. Prend, managing general partner at RockPort Capital in Boston and Menlo Park, Calif., said that the promise of big returns prompted too much “me-too investing,” when venture capitalists put money into start-ups that do the same work as other companies.

“There was probably some stuff that shouldn’t have been funded,” he said. “It’s kind of good for some of that to get washed out.” For clean tech to be a viable industry, investment should not return to recent highs, he said.

Mr. Vassallo blamed the credit crunch for the decline in clean-tech investing. More than half of clean-tech investments have been in alternative energy like solar and biofuels, which typically require building big factories. These projects depend on capital like project finance loans as well as tax equity investments, whereby corporations back green energy projects and reap the tax credits. These have been “frozen or completely disintegrated,” he said.

This is weird & spooky. Didn’t the same folks say the same thing about dot com investing, about nanotech and now clean tech? Are these the people we see rooted to spot, continually banging their heads against a wall crying “I know there was an exit here somewhere!”

Mark G. Heesen, president of the National Venture Capital Association, prefers to call the clean-tech investment cycle “an education curve.”
Still, he said, “if the industry has gotten one criticism year after year, it’s that we have a lemming mentality, and solar probably represents that in the clean-tech space.”

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.