What’s In A Word?

One of the oddest arguments of the molecular manufacturing community (the bunch that believe that nanofactories will lead to eternal life. personal freedom, and do away with the need for money, government, clothes and apparently, good manners or common sense) is their possessiveness of the term nanotechnology.This extract from a recent tirade is typical:

By appropriating the term nanotechnology for what it was they were doing, the scientists had pulled a neat rhetorical trick: they were associating themselves with the wonderful promises of Drexler’s vision without having explicitly promised anything themselves. And they reaped the benefits of billion-dollar funding levels worldwide, interest from investors and the media, the cream of the students, and all the rest.

What always mystified me about the Foresight Institute(and associated groups) is that they simultaneously wanted to keep nanotechnology to themselves but put no effort whatsoever into doing any science that make make their dreams come true. As soon as the scientific community begins to investigate nanotech they start prancing wildly around waving sticks and accusing all kinds of people of stealing it. Now, as a recipient of the Foresight Communications Prize in 2003 I recall that the molecular manufacturing community did all that they could to reap the benefits, it’s just that sitting in front of a computer all day speculating about what a nano enabled Utopia would be like wasn’t felt by government or industry to be an any more worthy recipient of funding than sitting in front of a computer all day speculating on what it would be like to be a potato.

It’s a real shame. The early work by Drexler was uniquely visionary,and I can’t help thinking that his adoption by a bunch of silicon valley nerds rather than exploring the ideas within the scientific community is a mistake of tragic proportions. Certainly demanding that scientists do what they were unwilling or incapable of doing and then getting all bitter and twisted over a word, and a poorly defined one at that, isn’t going to advance their cause.

July 2001 Nanotech Makes The Cover of Red Herring

July 2001: Nanotech Makes The Cover of Red Herring

Some years ago, the Gartner Group developed a concept known as the “Hype Cycle” that followed five steps and went something like this:

1. “Technology Trigger”

The first phase of a Hype Cycle is the “technology trigger” or breakthrough, product launch or other event that generates significant press and interest.

2. “Peak of Inflated Expectations”

In the next phase, a frenzy of publicity typically generates over-enthusiasm and unrealistic expectations. There may be some successful applications of a technology, but there are typically more failures.

3. “Trough of Disillusionment”

Technologies enter the “trough of disillusionment” because they fail to meet expectations and quickly become unfashionable. Consequently, the press usually abandons the topic and the technology.

4. “Slope of Enlightenment”

Although the press may have stopped covering the technology, some businesses continue through the “slope of enlightenment” and experiment to understand the benefits and practical application of the technology.

5. “Plateau of Productivity”

A technology reaches the “plateau of productivity” as the benefits of it become widely demonstrated and accepted. The technology becomes increasingly stable and evolves in second and third generations. The final height of the plateau varies according to whether the technology is broadly applicable or benefits only a niche market.

It is pretty clear back in 2001-2002 when the National Nanotechnology Initiative was launched that we were at the peak of nanotech hype, or the “Peak of Inflated Expectations”. One of the authors of a report on nanotechnology, which was intended for “investors” and published during those heady times, became somewhat infamous for a shameless marketing piece that included this:

“So please, get in on the nanotech revolution now. You stand to make a fortune.” – also “The nanotech revolution and the obscene profits it will bring astute investors who get in early – will carry on without you.” – Josh Wolfe

Meanwhile, while some were appealing to people’s greed and ignorance, we here at Cientifica were appealing to people’s intelligence and sensibility when we launched the first edition of the Nanotechnology Opportunity Report™ (NOR) in 2001. While it managed to receive accolades such as, “The N.O.R. will become the defining report in the field of nanotechnology”, it did so without any predictions of vast fortunes to be made or even speculations on its value in market sectors beyond timelines for when its impact will be felt.

A characterization of the first NOR that seemed fair to us at the time said, “Its sheer comprehensiveness and conservative nature is its strongest suit and may help to reset an industry that has suffered, like the rest of tech, from too much hype.” Small Times.

Well, seven years have passed since the launching of the NNI and the first publishing of the NOR, and times have certainly changed. While our competitors slowly came around to adopting (or co-opting) our basic ideas, such as “There is not, nor will there ever be a nanotechnology industry” during this time, now that we are in the midst of the “Trough of Disillusionment” they have abandoned nanotech almost entirely and moved on to the next area they can hype with impunity: Clean tech.

Cientifica has made its reputation from being sensible, and often sensible behavior requires that you not follow the herd mentality.

With that in mind, after a five-year absence, we have just completed our 3rd edition of the NOR, in which we recognize that now is the time that nanotechnology is beginning to make its presence felt in the economics of market sectors like textiles, electronics and drug delivery.

As a result, after developing an economic model that we felt could measure the market impact of nanotechnology and predict rates of growth into the future, the new NOR provides what it avoided before: market sizes and growth rates for all of the key market sectors nanotech is impacting.

We expect that the launching of this report will herald the point at which nanotech moves out of the “Trough of Disillusionment” and into the “Slope of Enlightment”.

We always knew that it would get there, one just needed a little patience to see it come to fruition.

 

 

While researching the new edition of the Nanotechnology Opportunity Report™ I was shocked by the amount of cash that had been poured down the drain by venture capital, almost a billion dollars over the last seven years. At the same time, I have been involved in nanotech related deals  totalling close to a billion dollars in the last eighteen months, and I don’t recall seeing any technology VCs at the table, so what’s going on?

Looking back at the early days of nanotech, many VCs who had been weaned on a diet of quick returns in the late 90’s had just been badly burned by the tech crash. Realising that the Johnny-come-lately’s always suffer while those who get ahead of the curve the combination of fear and greed pushed a number of investors into pouring cash into a number of companies whose business models and methods they did not understand. I have find memories of watching VC’s struggle to explain phenomena such as Van der Waaal’s Forces and watching one prominent cheerleader for nanotechnology get hopelessly muddled over the distinction between an atom and a molecule.

Seven years on, most of those investments have resulted in fire sales and acquisitions in the range of ‘not disclosed’ to “just take it and get it off our books.” The entire IP of one of the brightest nanotech start ups ended up being sold for just $1000 a few years ago, and many companies that are still staggering along are heading for a similar fate.

I think that this exposed a fundamental weakness in the technology VC model, a model which is almost forty years old, and a model which needs to be updated. In order to be a successful VC you have to return money to your investors in an agreed time, usually seven or eight years, and this colours the way that businesses are operated. On the other hand, we can see from numerous examples in biotech, nanotech and just about any other kind of ‘tech including the Internet that seven years is far too short a period to extract any value from a technology. Sure you can charge around attempting to make a fast buck from the most promising application as companies from Nanosys to various nanomaterialscompanies have done. Now I’m a pretty good sailor, but the sight of seeing the management of these companies lurching from one application to another as doors open and shut just to please their investors makes me feel distinctly queasy.

All of the companies were based on pushing a ‘platform technology’ into various market segments, meaning that the management needed to have channels into markets from drug delivery to aerospace, and from cosmetics to sporting goods, and that diversity sealed the fate of  many ‘nanotech companies’ as soon as they were funded. Within a few years  investors were looking for big exits and finding the doors slammed in the their faces, and the business developers of the same companies were finding that no one was clamouring for their ‘nanotech’ – a perfect storm of disinterest by the markets.

To some extent it’s a mess of their own making, but on the other hand it is hard to feel much sympathy for an industry that has spent the past twenty years telling everyone else to be innovative while refusing to change their own models.

So what this tells us is that the technology VC model is inherently unsuitable for investing in early stage companies. Fortunately that model is changing, and the investors seeing better returns are the ones who are not afraid to get their hands dirty in helping start a company, and the ones who are willing to invest in a product, not a technology. However they are still a minority, and for investors who started in the dot.com age where making money was as easy as turning up for work early stage technologies will still be a money pit – and that includes much of “Cleantech!”

Tagged with: