A Concerted Effort To Save British Science

On March 9, 2010, in Nanotech, Sustainability, credit crunched, by Tim

The past week has seen some strong and effective lobbying from the scientific community, naturally worried about some rather dim politician seeing the science budget as being available to plunder, with the next government having to deal with any consequences. It’s therefore good to see various former science ministers, and the Royal Society making high profile interventions and spelling out the link between science and prosperity.

I’m not convinced that the science budget can be ring fenced. Despite what politicians are saying now, the huge black hole in the UK budget needs to be plugged, and for most people science is a very remote and irrelevant thing when compared to rubbish collection or heath care.

But a crisis can also be an opportunity, and as spelled out in last week’s ‘Vision for UK Research‘ report there is also a need to start thinking about science in a different way. In fact we really need to look at the whole process of scientific innovation from primary education to technology funding. Long term, sustained and focussed funding is required, but getting the message across to the non science community is very difficult.

Perhaps the most frightening chart in the Royal Society report is this one. If we don’t have any qualified maths and science teachers then where are the researchers of the future to come from?

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Geoengineering – Engineering an All Purpose Political Smokescreen?

On March 8, 2010, in Nanotech, Sustainability, geoengineering, by Tim

There’s nothing like the mention of Geoengineering to get environmental groups even madder than putting a wasps nest down their trousers and beating them with a cricket bat, and for good reason. The idea that we could do something about climate change that didn’t involve re-engineering the political system would mean that we don’t have to live in caves, grow beards and ride bicycles. More annoyingly, some kind of techno fix would deprive some groups of a platform for the various other anti capitalist/globalisation/consumer agendas that have somehow got mixed up with sustainability.

Our old friends the ETC group, who spent the last ten years objecting to nanotechnology on rather questionable grounds, have reactivated their global network to write an open letter to “the upcoming privately organized meeting on geoengineering in Asilomar, California” which aims to look at a voluntary code “for the least harmful and lowest risk conduct of research and testing of proposed climate intervention and geoengineering technologies.”

What really gives the game away is their objection, or rather their outrage on behalf of a number of Philippines farmers groups, to the “almost exclusively white male scientists from industrialized countries” who will be at the conference.

Come on guys, why don’t you just come out and say that you are outraged by the lack of ethnic diversity in science, peeved about people making money out of it and hopping mad about not being seen as being important enough to be invited? What’s geoengineering, synthetic biology, nanotechnology or biotech got to do with it? Apparently absolutely nothing.

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

The Enforced Idleness of Nanoparticle Toxicologists

On March 5, 2010, in Health & Safety, Nanotech, by Tim

My esteemed (and allegedly cute) colleague Dexter Johnson comments on a number of recent nanoparticle toxicity projects and wonders what is the point of them. I’ve often asked the same question (and been asked to leave the room as a result), but there does seem to be a weird academic bias towards reviews and public consultation and I think I know why.

On several occasions when I’ve been in a bar with eminent toxicologists they have admitted that there is absolutely no way that we could ever understand the toxicology of every kind of nanoparticle, and there is no point in trying. What you can do is draw broad conclusions, so that if we have a high aspect ratio structure such as a long carbon nanotube we know that it won’t be cleared by an alveolar macrophage etc, and then we usually get into a discussion about whether anyone is ever likely to inhale enough of the stuff to have a problem, given that we treat most nanomaterials with rather more caution than we did asbestos.

So for most toxicologists the choice is clear. Get paid to do some science or sit about for a bit?

When toxicologists ask for a global well funded long term study to allow the modelling of the interaction of various categories of nanomaterials with the environment, the funding agencies can only manage rustle up a few hundred thousand euros for a two or three year project. That gets you nowhere in understanding a new and rapidly emerging class of materials, so we just end up paying great scientists to sit on their backsides and browse the web for a few years.

Tagged with: • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Strategic Geopolitical Trends – From Spooks to Nanotech

On March 5, 2010, in Economy 2.0, Nanotech, Renewable Energy, Social and Ethical, Sustainability, by Tim

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?

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

Save The Children

On March 4, 2010, in Economy 2.0, by Tim

Today’s ‘Vision for UK Research‘ document sets out the recommendations for the future of research in the UK. More worrying is the report that the raw material that will be turned into those researchers, a fifth of primary school pupils are failing in English & Maths.

The Vision for UK Research document goes to great lengths to compare the UK to China, but if you look at primary education , and I have first hand experience, the UK SATS test only requires a level of knowledge that many Chinese children would be expected to have by the age of eight.

If the UK is to be serious about science, it needs a coherent science strategy covering the entire chain from primary school to grown up entrepreneurs. No amount of grand schemes will work if a growing proportion of the population is illiterate and innumerate.

Tagged with:
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

A Long Term Vision for Research

On March 4, 2010, in Nanotech, by Tim

The UK Council for Science and Technology released its ‘Vision for UK Research‘ document today. It’s all interesting stuff, looking at how to position the UK in a changing world and doesn’t shy away from making some recommendations that will rattle a few cages) four year PhDs for example).

I particularly liked the clarity of this report, being written in such a way that even our current crop of rather dim politicians (Lord Drayson excepted) might be able to understand it. Who knows, if it could be rewritten in the style of the Daily Mail there might be a chance of someone other than the scientific community actually reading it.

A couple of issues stand out for me.

Firstly is the section on terminology, and the report suggests moving away from the divisive terms of pure and applied research, and looking at it in terms of upstream and downstream research.

Research should be about asking important questions. Existing terminology – in particular the attempts to distinguish between pure (or basic or blue skies) and applied (or directed) research – causes problems and division amongst the research community. At the same time, some descriptors such as curiosity-driven research are both misleading and damaging.

Most current terminologies get in the way of understanding the relationship between research and social and economic benefits. We should think in terms of excellence which carries the potential for impact and harvesting the products of the research base to maximise impacts.

The other idea is the creation of Large Technology Platforms, i.e market driven approaches to solving major problems and strengthening UK industrial competitiveness.

Suggested criteria for Large Technology Platforms

New technologies often need to be further developed by substantial teams for a number of years before they are commercial. These teams need to be larger than the research teams which first made the discovery. They often need expensive production equipment to make the research industrially useful. This requires a dedicated environment with a clear focus for a period of 5 to 10 years.

This can only be achieved through a major partnership between universities, government and industry for those very few exceptional opportunities that meet the following criteria:

• Large (£multi-billion) market

• Verified global UK technical leadership

• Defensible technology position (patents, know-how)

• UK absorptive capacity for the developed platform (skill base, sector companies)

• The opportunity to create a platform technology with wide applicability

Funding

Funding should come from various public sources (TSB, EPSRC, European Framework Programme, RDAs, Universities etc) but should have a substantial industrial component, possibly starting at 25% in the beginning and expanding to 70% over time.

To make a difference in a global context we suspect that each of these platform technologies will need between £50 to £100m over a 5 to 10 year period to become the basis of numerous start-ups and licensed projects to large companies. This will lead to clusters of expertise in these sectors that feed off each other in a virtuous circle enabling the UK to retain global leadership in large markets. The particular amount required will need to be specifically justified in each case.

The problem with this approach is that the last few decades have seen plenty of similar attempts to recreate ‘The Cambridge Effect’, Silicon Valley or to create new industries, and in almost all cases they have been a total waste of  money, and not just in the public sector. Plastic Logic for example, have already burnt through over £100m, only to launch a monochrome e-book reader ten days before apple announce their iPad!

I’m all in favour of research excellence, but any large scale long term ambitions will need to be both properly funded, and properly thought out.

This report does help to mover the agenda in the right direction.

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Where Did All Our Nanotech Companies Go?

On February 17, 2010, in Economy 2.0, Finance, Nanotech, Unmitigated Hype, by Tim

Where did they all go?

My colleague Dexter Johnson (aka the Nanoclast) highlights a forthcoming report about the decline in the number of Australian nanotech companies, but it’s hardly surprising. Before anyone heralds the death of anything consider this:

  • The global economy has resulted in a reduction of the number of companies in just about every sector of the economy. High streets where a third of the shops have closed are now common outside London, and everyone from estate agents to Starbucks have been rationalising, downsizing or going bust.
  • As I mentioned back in 2001, most nanomaterials companies will go bust, some sooner, some later, but there is almost no way that anyone apart from large diversified chemical and materials companies can create a sustainable business in that sector. Of course if you told your VCs that nanotubes were the new gold you probably got closed down five years ago.
  • Nanotech has been subject to a large amount of M&A activity, Singular ID being snapped up by Bilicare for example, thereby disappearing from the Singapore register of nanotech companies and joining the Indian pharmaceutical industry.
  • Most nanotech companies were start ups, and most start ups don’t survive too long, whatever the sector.
  • I can think of plenty of companies making use of nanotechnologies that no one would consider being nanotech companies, so how a nanotech company is defined is also part of the problem.

Of course I’m pre judging the report, and there may be more granularity and methodology than in this brief report. However what isn’t in doubt is the stupid and irresponsible nanotech market numbers that Lux Research keep repeating and which keeps finding its way into business plans and foresight documents. Any business plan that starts waffling on about the ‘nanotech market’ gets binned straight away. In our investment business we interested in tangible and quantifiable numbers not abstract, artificial and absurd concepts.

Now if I was working in a government agency which was being judged on the number of nanotechnology companies created/attracted/sustained I’d be looking trying to figure out how far and how fast I could move the goalposts.

Tagged with: •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Nailing The Innovation Myths

On February 16, 2010, in Economy 2.0, Publications, Sustainability, VC2.0, venture capital, by Tim

Good to see a new report from the Judge Business School in Cambridge highlighting some of the myths about how high tech firms are created. Much of Europe tends to focus on large multi partner research schemes such as Framework 7 whereas much of business wold prefer something like the SBIR and DARPA contracts common in the US.

The report found little enthusiasm amongst successful, fast growing high-tech firms for the kinds of multi-partner research grants involving university-industry collaboration that are favoured by UK policy makers and, in contrast to the US, a dearth of R&D contracts with public sector customers. It argues that for decades UK Government policy has been based on three fundamental myths about how new hi-tech firms are created:

-       that university research is the key source of technology and innovation for new hi-tech firms

-       that venture capital is the primary source of finance

-       and that the best way for Government to support technology development in companies is by funding multi-partner research collaborations between universities and private sector firms

While the first two points may be true (to some extent) in Silicon Valley (at certain times),  countless billions have been frittered away trying to create new Silicon Valleys in various parts of the world.

The report also calls “for the establishment of “Intermediate R&D Institutes”, similar in some respects to the Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany, to provide a more mission orientated environment than is possible in universities to develop and commercialise technologies with long lead times.”

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Gold for Good

On February 11, 2010, in Finance, Nanotech, Products, by Tim

Gold for Good

I first came across the World Gold Council back in 2002 at a nanotechnology conference in Ireland. While most gold goes into jewellery, and doesn’t require too much marketing, a growing amount goes into high technology applications, everything from microelectronics to drug delivery.

Today we can publish the fruits of our recent collaboration with the World Gold Council, a white paper called “Gold for Good” which looks at the history of gold and nanotechnology.

One of the most fascinating parts of working on this publication was the realisation that gold nanoparticles have been used for several millennia, from the Romans to Michael Faraday, but it is only recently that we have been able to understand why they have the properties that they do, which has led to a host of other applications.

While the World Gold Council is often seen as a marketing organisation, they do actually invest in companies making use of gold – for example Nanostellar who use gold nanoparticles in catalysts to reduce diesel emissions.

Good for Gold!

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Prepare For a New Streamlined and Efficient Research Environment

On February 10, 2010, in Economy 2.0, by Tim

Science is becoming a major election battleground with scientists mobilising in support of the budget ring fencing Labour Party while the Conservatives are suspected of planning ‘deep cuts.’

Or is it?

One of the debates that has been taking place recently is over the nature of science and how to stimulate its value to the economy. Should it be driven by economic or strategic need or do we take a chance on basic research coming up with the goods? Obviously we need both, and in the right proportion.

However science isn’t very important to politicians unless you are the science minister, and is even less important to ordinary voters. If you ask non scientists questions such as What is more important, a free at point of care health service or science? Should public sector pay be cut to improve science funding? Should we spend money on foreign aid or science?  then you soon see the magnitude of the problem.

While science ministers from all parties will be pledging increased funding and talking up the importance of science to the economy, the reality is that science is invisible to most people and in an almost bankrupt UK it can and probably will have its budget hacked to bits without anyone noticing (for a few years anyway).

UK politicians are not as enlightened as their Korean counterparts, and the political battleground is to do with ordinary people in marginal constituencies, not the minority that toil in laboratories, nor the majority that will benefit from their toil in ten years time.

Smart science administrators will be preparing a new streamlined and efficient research environment, whoever wins the next election.

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Page 1 of 5912345678910203040...Last »
Go To Top »