“Something Should Be Done” – Nanotechnology: a UK Industry View

On January 17, 2010, in Europe, Nanotech, Publications, by Tim

The new report “Nanotechnology: a UK Industry View” finally surfaced, and its recommendations are to spend more money, develop more skills, have more dialogue and..sorry, I must have nodded off, but it’s pretty standard stuff, and the recommendations are exactly the same as every other nanotech report produced over the past ten years.

I have to question why we go through this process again and again and again, with each report calling for the same things and nothing ever changing. We need to establish a few ground rules if UK nanotechnology is ever going to break out of it’s post Oxonica rut:

  1. Stop calling for more government money to be spent on stuff, it is as effective as wring a letter to Santa Claus. Unless you have been living in a cave (or an ivory tower) for the past year you will know that the UK government doesn’t have any, and the little it has left will go on ring fencing politically significant projects such as the National Health Service.  Forking over huge sums to an ‘industry’ that has been characterised by hype followed by spectacular crashes simply isn’t going to happen, no matter how many reports get written.
  2. Stop calling for The Government to do something – in this case “assisting the banking and insurance companies in understanding nanotechnology to enable sound investments to be made.” The Government won’t exist after May, and until then no one will have much interest in nanotechnology compared to saving their careers. If you want the Government to do something useful, ask them to make sure that a business and innovation friendly climate exists.
  3. Stop expecting anyone to do take any action as a result of educating and informing people about nanotechnology. No banker or investor is interested in being educated about nanotechnology, but we all love good business ideas.
  4. Get out of the ghetto. The UK nanotechnology industry only exists in the mind of people who produce reports like this. Creating an artificial entity just so that targets can be set and measured is pointless and there are far more effective ways of measuring the impact of a technology on an economy.
  5. Make the best use of existing resources – we have a variety of nanotech facilities already up and running (although I’m still not quite sure Nanoforce is supposed to do, something with the creative industries?) so it should be possible to  leverage entrepreneurial expertise and external cash to make sure that these can create the economic impact that was undoubtedly promised in their initial funding applications.

Anyway, here’s their version….

POLICY AND REGULATION

1. Nanotechnology innovation and exploitation is business driven.The department responsible for leading and coordinating nanotechnology activities across Government should be the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to ensure investment provides added value for the UK.

2. TheTechnology Strategy Board must implement its NanoscaleTechnologies Strategy with specific funded calls to deliver commercialisation of value adding nanotechnology based products.

3. Government should address the need for responsible development of all emerging technologies, including nanotechnologies, by putting in place a framework through which product risk assessments can be carried out alongside industry’s need to focus on innovation.

4. Defra, other Government Departments, relevant KTNs and trade associations should engage with industry to ensure the effective operation of a simplified Voluntary Reporting Scheme in the UK for nanomaterials and to work with EU regulators to ensure ongoing REACh regulations take account of nanotechnology fully and effectively.

SKILLS

1. Develop world class professional education programmes at all levels covering all aspects of nanotechnology.

2. Improve and promote vocational training in nanotechnology from technician level to develop individuals with the skills and expertise to support commercialisation of nanotechnology in the UK.

FUNDING

1. Provide more accessible and commercially focussed funding for SMEs as well as larger companies engaged in the development of nanotechnology based products to support innovation in the UK.

2. Invest in key establishments and organisations to build world class capability in nanotechnology product development.

3. Provide funding for cross-sectoral initiatives to apply developments achieved in one sector to other sectors and applications.

4. Continue to invest in standardisation activities to maintain UK leadership in creating international standards for nanotechnology and National Measurement System facilities.

5. Continue to support knowledge transfer activities to deliver innovation in nanotechnology and pull through academic research into commercial applications.

ENGAGEMENT

1. Ensure that the general public is informed of product developments based on nanotechnology.

2. Industry and Government should engage in an evidence based dialogue with the Unions and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).

3. Provide support for two-way international collaboration to gather and share information on nanotechnology.

4. Government and industry should assist banking and insurance companies in understanding nanotechnology to enable sound investments to be made.

Tagged with:
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

UK Nanotech Stagnates?

On January 15, 2010, in Europe, Nanotech, Publications, by Tim

Here’s an interesting snippet from an FT report about a forthcoming report by the UK Knowledge Transfer Network on nanotechnologies

The report found that UK investment in nanotechnology was low. Per capita public funding was $1.96 (£1.20) in 2008, compared with $5.06 for the US and $6.07 for Germany.

As we all know, getting reliable funding numbers is very tricky, and the recent devaluation of the pound against the Euro will have distorted numbers by 20-30%, but it does seem from this that the UK is losing its way in nanotechnology.

Perhaps a more reliable indicator of progress would be the number of new companies turning up, but unfortunately every UK Nanotech event seems to draw the same crowd. Some of them are great companies and good friends, but it does seem to qualitatively indicate a degree of stagnation, at least among what would be classed as ‘nanotech companies.’

This mirrors, to a large extent, the picture worldwide. The last few years have seen a shift from nanotechnology being used as a reason to found a company to it becoming just another piece of the toolkit. As a result the number of companies calling themselves ‘nano’ has not really increased even as the penetration of the technology has.

Getting rid of the obsession with a ‘nanotechnology industry’ would help get a real sense of the impact of nanotechnologies.

Tagged with:
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Why Government Nanotechnology Policy is Ineffective

On October 17, 2009, in Economy 2.0, Europe, Nanotech, credit crunched, by Tim

We Do Not Know This Biscuit Of Which You Speak

Browsing through various Twitter feeds this morning a couple of seemingly unrelated items caught my attention. The first was that the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was unable or unwilling to name his favourite biscuit, despite the questions being posed twelve times, thus exposing himself to understandable ridicule. His handlers later clarified the situation once they had seen this mornings front pages, claiming that he had “missed the question”, twelve times in all, and is partial to ”anything with a bit of chocolate” but is ”trying very hard to cut down.”

It still beggars belief that the person running the country is either so terrified up upsetting anyone that he would refuse to name a biscuit, or perhaps doesn’t know anything about biscuits. There’s a definite whiff of “It Came From Outer Space” here, and despite “monitoring radio transmissions from your planet for many years, we know not of this biscuit of which you speak.”

The second items was a new FAQ (frequently asked questions) about nanotechnology from the European Commission which alleges that by 2014, 10% of all manufacturing jobs worldwide will be related to nanotechnology. Hmmm, I wonder of the Chinese garment industry knows about that?

What these two snippets reveal is that when it comes to Government decision making there is something badly wrong. For the European Commission to be spending over a billion euros a year on nanotechnology based on a few five year old report summaries and press releases that it scraped from the web is quite staggering, although admittedly some of the recent credit crunch was created by bankers doing similarly sloppy due diligence into things they didn’t understand. Similarly, for questions about biscuits to be deflected until a pool of advisers and focus groups can cook up an answer calculated to appeal to the most voters raises huge questions over the competence of people in charge of the budgets.

To some extent it confirms what many people have suspected all along. While government funding of nanotechnology at an academic level is very welcome, the diffusion of technologies into the economy is usually despite government decisions rather than as a result of them .

PS I’m quite partial to Garibaldis (or squashed fly biscuits as we used to call them), but as I’ll be in Amsterdam again soon I may temporarily switch my allegiance to pepernoten.

Tagged with: • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Paid By The Word?

On October 15, 2009, in Europe, Nanotech, Publications, by Tim

I’m slightly puzzled by this announcement from the TSB with the headline “Investment of just over GBP80m in innovative technologies announced at Innovate09″

Did a committee of people deliberate whether “just over £80m” sounded better and clearer than a simple “£82.5 million” or were they just getting paid by the word?

Tagged with: •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Nanoscale Technology Strategy 2009-12

On October 15, 2009, in Nanotech, by Tim

The UK’s Technology Strategy Board (TSB) has launched a new four year plan for nanoscale technologies.  Google can’t seem to find it, but you can download the NanoscaleTechnologiesStrategy file here.

The strategy aims to achieve the following objectives: – Further develop knowledge transfer and collaboration in the emerging field of nanoscale technologies between academia and industry – Encourage collaboration with Research Councils – Work to promote responsible commercialisation of nanotechnologies – Further develop appropriate approaches to working with Europe for UK benefit – Working towards a common  UK Government strategy for nanotechnology. Following on from the publication of the strategy, the Technology Strategy Board hopes to discuss priority areas of focus with the business community and establish where we can offer help and advice through our activities.

There’s plenty of the usual stuff about engaging industry and some rather shaky looking predictions for markets, but while setting up web sites and engaging industry and leveraging European money is all fine, there’s little in there to tackle the fundamental problem facing the UK, the lack of nanotechnology industry! So here’s our strategy for 2009-12

  1. Support basic research. While we know a lot more than we used to about nanotechnologies we are still at an early stage. It has taken biotech thirty years to get this far, and nanotech will face a similar long haul.
  2. Create more spin outs. There is no point in supporting something that doesn’t exist. The cash will be sucked up by the usual bunch who haven’t moved nanotech forward one iota. A system of small, no strings attached grants for technology based start ups would encourage university spin outs and support them through that difficult first year of product development.
  3. Address the issues of process and manufacturing. The UK trumpets about a wide range of open access facilities, but how many of them actually do what is needed by business? The key to getting to market is moving a lab based process to an industrial process, meaning not just scale up, but quality control and reproducibility. Leveraging the UKs strengths in pharma and chemicals is an obvious place to start.
  4. Cut regulation for start ups – employers national insurance contributions, corporation tax and demands for information from the Office of National Statistics dissuade companies from expanding. Funding start ups to employ people is surely better than funding people to be idle.
  5. Fire 90% of university tech transfer people and replace them with people who understand how small businesses and science based innovation actually works.
  6. Stop forcing organisations such as the TSB to add conditions such as “invest only in those activities that recognise the need for sustainable development” to their funding criteria. It is a meaningless condition, simple to circumvent and wastes everyone’s time.

OK chaps, let’s get on with it.


Tagged with: • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Building Britains Future – But Will It Be On Science?

On June 10, 2009, in Economy 2.0, credit crunched, by Tim
The Most Powerful Man in British Science

The Most Powerful Man in British Science?

As British Politics seems to be mainly concerned with lies & deceit these days it was refreshing to to see Science Minister Lord Drayson popping up on Twitter yesterday to address the concerns of the scientific community. Most of the science community were as shocked to be tweeting with a government minister as they would be to wake up next to Britney Spears/ Tom Cruise.

Drayson’s message echoed that of his boss, that the science budget is safe, and has been ‘ring fenced’ despite the recent government reshuffle having removed the full time post of a minister for science, and merged the Department of Innovation Universities and Skills into Peter Mandelson’s new super ministry of Business, Innovation and Skills.

There are still worries though. The science budget has been raided before to bail out Rover and British Energy, and the currently over optimistic forecasts for UK growth will punch ever bigger holes in the UK budget.

OK that’s the science tweeps pacified, but now lets get down to business. While scientists are happy just to be funded, my major focus is doing something with that science. In Austria, for example, we have deployed over sixty million euros since 2005 across a variety of nanotechnology projects, and managed to nudge them inexorably in the direction of commercial applications. Can we do that in the UK?

Drayson tweeted to me that “We absolutely recognise the strategic value of science. The global challenges we face demand it” and set himself a challenge with “I really believe science agenda is stronger now in govt than ever. It’s up to me to prove it though in the future.”

While we agreed that future prosperity will be built on the combination of science and entrepreneurship (and occasionally scientific entrepreneurs) there are still a number of pieces of the puzzle missing – bridging the early stage funding gap for instance.

The conclusion of all of this tweeting is that we have a part time science minister who recognises the value of science and entrepreneurship, and will be fighting his corner. Whether anything will come out of this is a different matter.

The FT reveals that the latest government relaunch will be branded “Building Britain’s Future.” It will be interesting to see what part science plays in the that future.

Tagged with: •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Anti-Science and Politics

On June 2, 2009, in Asia, Economy 2.0, Europe, Health & Safety, Publications, education, by Tim

I’ve mentioned the negative views of science expressed by the ‘green’ movement, but according to the Guardian most politicians feel the same, with hardly any thought given to science other than the usual lip service of creating dynamic knowledge based economies, although unfortunately the result we ended up with was less like the Google campus and more like this:

I suppose it says a lot about the quality of our politicians.  When the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister) is caught with his fingers in the till, and needs an accountant to work out his own tax should we really be surprised that many of them don’t have a clue about science?

It’s probably because of the lack of political interference that British science is relatively robust – funding levels are pretty good and research quality is still excellent. Compare that to an area where politicians have been constantly poking their noses in, such as schools, and perhaps we should be grateful that most politicians know more about Cicero than Chemistry.

The other side of this coin, however, is that politicams view science as a political quagmire – a word out of place about stem cells could alienate the Catholic vote etc – and so tend to stay well clear unless a kneejerk reaction is required in which case they start burning cows and blaming scientists.

Tagged with:
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

A Fool & His Money Are Soon Parted

On March 17, 2009, in Economy 2.0, Europe, venture capital, by Tim

It’s nice to see the UK Department of Innovation, Universities & Skills (DIUS) lobbying for a billion pounds to be spent on scientific research, but it’s worrying that, as with most of these ’stimulus’ packages, little time has been spent figuring out what really needs to be done and the majority of the package is focussed on quick wins and headline grabbing – or as the BBC puts it “funding bodies have been asked for a “shopping list” of ideas that would strengthen British science and boost the economy quickly.”

Now boosting the economy quickly through spending an extra billion pounds on science simply isn’t going to happen – at least not in time for the next election in mid 2010, and as I mentioned a couple of years ago:

The timetables of science (which operates in a framework of decades or longer) are completely out of sync with the timetables of public policy (which operates in a framework of months and years)

Despite this, according to the BBC “many research leaders are determined to ensure highly trained scientists and engineers don’t get lost during the downturn.” Get lost? Where are they going to go, investment banks, hedge funds, venture capital or simply sublime? Who in their right mind would give up a nice secure government funded science post at the moment? Losing scientists to other industries is the least of the problems.

Showing how out of touch policy is with the real world, the BBC also reports that DIUS “is also considering proposals to create two funds to encourage venture capitalists to invest in small high-tech companies by matching their investment with public funding.” I hope that they give up this idea pretty quickly, or at least only open it to VCs who have shown a decent return over the last ten years. Compounding one problem with another is hardly a solution.

Yes, a billion pounds invested in UK science would make a difference, but its not the kind of quick fix that politicians are looking for, and unless it is a well thought out strategy, and one that connects to the overall economic stimulus plan then it will be more yet money swirling down the drain.

Tagged with: •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

The Nanotech Taliban Claim “Dexter Johnson is an ignoramus whose ignorance leads him to view optimists with contempt.”

On February 28, 2009, in Nanotech, US & Canada, Unmitigated Hype, education, by Tim

jsh

My estwhile colleague Dexter Johnson who also blogs for IEEE Spectrum received a number of plaudits from readers of the Foresight Institutes Nanodot blog after daring to suggest that the sunny optimism of current President J Storrs Hall might be rather displaced and that the assertion nanobots will save us may be rather missing the point.

Illustrating the difficullty of contrsuctive engament with fanatics, the discussion consited of

Pessimists like Dexter get a pyschological kick out of declaring that “things are bad man, get real”, much like the fundamentalist christians who claim that we are living in “the last days, the most awful phase in human history”, when in fact (for Europe at least) the 14th century is probably the best example if you want war, death and misery in abundance. Did armageddon happen? No it did not.

Dexter Johnson’s bad attitude is borne of ignorance.

and

“Dexter Johnson is an ignoramus whose ignorance leads him to view optimists with contempt.”

and even J Storrs Hall who waded into the debate with a comment that is simultaneously naive and hare brained

@Dexter: Saying “just some people who made some bad investments” is a very incorrect characterization of what I said. The bad investments are the effect: the cause is the widespread coordinated incorrect beliefs. There were lots of them, ranging from fund managers who thought they could use Li’s Gaussian copula without understanding its assumptions and applicability, to investors who thought they could trust the managers.

Nano-hype — the overpromising of near-term nanoscale bulk technologies — was clearly a very minor part of the problem, but it was real. I’ve been amazed how many people asked me for investment advice once they heard I’d written a book on nanotech. (My stock answer: “Buy land.”)

So that’s another argument settled. The various nutcases, fruitcases, burned out hippies and galactic megalomaniacs that orbit the Foresight Institute are always right, and scientists, governments, investors and anyone else who disagrees with them is an ignoramus.Whatever next? Crucifixians, gas chambers, or plagues of nanobots to root out any dissenting thought? It rather looks like “the leading think tank and public interest institute on nanotechnology” has been taken over by the nanotech equivalent of the Taliban, or at least some kind of set of nerds that have been driven to the brink of insanity by the thwarting of their plans for global domination and the inability to get a real live girlfriend.

Dexter got off lightly – the last time I questioned anything from this bunch a number of people wished various diseases on me. I wonder what Richard Jones’ postbag looks like?

Tagged with: • • • •
 
4 Comments
Leave A Response

Nanotech – the Sucessor to GMO’s?

On February 9, 2009, in Europe, Nanotech, Sustainability, by Tim

I spent the weekend in Paris enjoying delicacies such as “os a moelle” and eating couscous at Au Rendezvous, a Tunisian restaurant so fashionable that Jacques Chirac was at the next table, but came home to find a great deal of tweeting and blogging about nanotechnology & food (again).

It struck me as odd that in Paris cracking open a couple of beef shin bones and spreading the marrow on a bit of toast (os a moelle) is a perfectly normal thing to do, whereas most people in the UK wouldn’t dream of eating such a thing. On the other hand, many people in the UK are quite happy to eat at McDonalds and KFC but won’t touch GMO’s. There’s obviously nothing rational about attitudes to food.

Strangely, we now have government environment ministers hyping up the possibilities of the use of nanotechnologies in food, although I was a little concerned to see that the Observer summed up nanotechnology thus:

Nanotechnology is increasingly being seen as a successor to genetically modified (GM) techniques in food production, with GM trials meeting consumer resistance and sabotage by activists.

Tagged with: • • • •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Page 1 of 212
Go To Top »