Category Archives: economy

Building a regulatory framework for nanotechnology in India

For the second time in less than six weeks (the first time is described in my June 13, 2016 posting on India’s draft guidelines for the safe handling of nanomaterials) I’ve stumbled across an article about the need for more nanotechnology safety measures in India. From a June 23, 2016 article by Prateek Sibal for The Wire (Note: Links have been removed),

India ranks third in the number of research publications in nanotechnology, only after China and the US. This significant share in global nanotech research is a result of sharp focus by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) to research in the field in the country. The unprecedented funding of Rs 1,000 crore for the Nano Mission was clearly dictated by the fact that India had missed the bus on the micro-electronic revolution of the 1970s and its attendant economic benefits that countries like China, Taiwan and South Korea continue to enjoy to this day.

At the same time, the success of the Nano Mission is not limited to research but also involves training the required human resource for further advancement in the field. An ASSOCHAM and TechSci Research study reported in 2014: “From 2015 onwards, global nanotechnology industry would require about two million professionals and India is expected to contribute about 25% professionals in the coming years.”

A missing element in India’s march towards becoming a nanotechnology powerhouse is the lack of focus on risk analysis and regulation. A survey of Indian practitioners working in the area of nano-science and nanotechnology research showed that 95% of the practitioners recognised ethical issues in nanotech research. Some of these concerns relate to the possibly adverse effects of nanotechnology on the environment and humans, their use as undetectable weapon in warfare, and the incorporation of nano-devices as performance enhancers in human beings.

One reason for lack of debate around ethical, and public-health and -safety, concerns around new technologies could be the exalted status that science and its practitioners enjoy in the country. A very successful space program and a largely indigenous nuclear program has ensured that policymakers spend much of their time feting achievements of Indian science than discussing the risks associated with new technologies or improving regulation.

After describing some of the studies raising health concerns, Sibal describes the issue for policymakers (Note: Links have been removed),

The challenge that remains in front of policymakers is that of regulating a field where vast areas of knowledge are still being investigated and are unknown. In this situation, over-regulation may end up stifling further development while under-regulation could expose the public to adverse health effects. Further, India’s lack of investment in risk studies only sustains the lull in the policy establishment when it comes to nanotech regulations.

The Energy and Resources Institute has extensively studied regulatory challenges posed by nanotechnology and advocates that an “incremental approach holds out some promise and offers a reconciliation between the two schools- one advocating no regulation at present given the uncertainty and the other propounding a stand-alone regulation for nanotechnology.”

Kesineni Srinivas, the Member of Parliament from Vijayawada, has taken cognisance of the need for incremental regulation in nanotechnology from the view point of public health and safety. (Disclosure: The author worked with the Vijayawada MP on drafting the legislation on nanotechnology regulation, introduced in the winter session of Parliament, 2015.)

In December 2015, Srinivas introduced the Insecticides (Amendment) Bill in the Lok Sabha to grant only a provisional registration to insecticides containing nanoparticles with a condition that “it shall be mandatory for the manufacturer or importer to report any adverse impact of the insecticide on humans and environment in a manner specified by the Registration Committee.” This is an improvement over the earlier process of granting permanent registration to insecticides. However, the fate of the bill remains uncertain as only 14 private member bills have been passed in Parliament since the first Lok Sabha in 1952.

Prateek Sibal will be joining Sciences Po (the Paris Institute of Political Sciences), Paris, as a Charpak Scholar in 2016.

I always appreciate these pieces as they help me to adjust my Canada-, US-, Commonwealth- and European-centric views.

International nano news bits: Belarus and Vietnam

I have two nano news bits, one concerning Belarus and the other concerning Vietnam.

Belarus

From a June 21, 2016 news item on Belarus News,

In the current five-year term Belarus will put efforts into developing robot technology, nano and biotechnologies, medical industry and a number of other branches of the national economy that can make innovative products, BelTA learned from Belarusian Economy Minister Vladimir Zinovsky on 21 June [2016].

The Minister underlined that the creation of new kinds of products, the development of conventional industries will produce their own results in economy and will allow securing a GDP growth rate as high as 112-115% in the current five-year term.

The last time Belarus was mentioned here was in a June 24, 2014 posting (scroll down about 25% of the way to see Belarus mentioned) about the European Union’s Graphene Flagship programme and new partners in the project. There was also a March 6, 2013 posting about Belarus and a nanotechnology partnership with Indonesia. (There are other mentions but those are the most recent.)

Vietnam

Vietnam has put into operation its first bio-nano production plant. From a June 21, 2016 news item on vietnamnet,

The Vietlife biological nano-plant was officially put into operation on June 20 [2016] at the North Thang Long Industrial Park in Hanoi.

It is the first plant producing biological nano-products developed entirely by Vietnamese scientists with a successful combination of traditional medicine, nanotechnology and modern drugs.

At the inauguration, Professor, Academician Nguyen Van Hieu, former president of Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, who is the first to bring nanotechnology to Vietnam, reviewed the milestones of nanotechnology around the world and in the country.

In 2000, former US President Bill Clinton proposed American scientists research and develop nanotechnology for the first time.

Japan and the Republic of Korea then began developing the new technology.

Just two years later, in 2002, Vietnamese scientists also recommended research on nanotechnology and got the approval from the Party and State.

Academician Hieu said that Vietnam does not currently use nanotechnology to manufacture flat-screen TVs or smartphones. However, in Southeast Asia Vietnam has pioneered the research and successful applications of nanotechnology in production of probiotics combined with traditional medicine in health care, opening up a new potential science research in Vietnam.

Cam Ha JSC and scientists at the Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology have co-operated with a number of laboratories in the US, Australia and Japan to study and successfully develop a bio-nano production line in sync with diverse technologies.

Vietlife is the first plant to combine traditional medicine with nanotechnology and modern medicine. It consists of three technological lines: NANO MICELLE No. 1, 2 and 3; a NANO SOL-GEL chain; a packaging line, and a bio-nano research centre.

Nghia [Prof. Dr. Nguyen Duc Nghia, former deputy director of the Chemistry Institute under the Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology] said the factory has successfully produced some typical bio products, including Nanocurcumin NDN22+ from Vietnamese turmeric by nano micelle and Nano Sol-Gel methods. Preclinical experiment results indicate that at a concentration of about 40ppm, NDN22+ solution can kill 100% of rectum cancer tumors and prostate tumor cells within 72 hours. [emphasis mine]

In addition, it also manufactures other bio-nano products like Nanorutin from luscious trees and Nanolycopen from gac (Momordica cochinchinensis) oil.

Unfortunately, this news item does not include links to the research supporting the claims regarding nanocurcumin NDN22+. Hopefully, I will stumble across it soon.

University of Manchester’s National Graphene Institute opens—officially

A little over two years after the announcement of a National Graphene Institute at the UK’s University of Manchester in my Jan. 14, 2013 post, Azonano provides a March 24, 2015 news item which describes the opening,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, was invited to open the recently completed £61m National Graphene Institute (NGI) at the University of Manchester on Friday 20th March [2015].

Mr Osbourne was accompanied by Nobel Laureate Professor Sir Kostya Novoselov as he visited the institute’s sophisticated cleanrooms and laboratories.

For anyone unfamiliar with the story, the University of Manchester was the site where two scientists, Kostya (Konstantin) Novoselof and Andre Geim, first isolated graphene. In 2010, both scientists received a Nobel prize for this work. As well, the European Union devoted 1B Euros to be paid out over 10 years for research on graphene and the UK has enthusiastically embraced graphene research. (For more details: my Oct. 7, 2010 post covers graphene and the newly awarded Nobel prizes; my Jan. 28, 2013 post covers the 1B Euros research announcements.)

A March 20, 2015 University of Manchester press release, which originated the news item, gives more detail,

The NGI is the national centre for graphene research and will enable academics and industry to work side-by-side on the graphene applications of the future.

More than 35 companies from across the world have already chosen to partner with The University of Manchester working on graphene-related projects.

The Government provided £38m for the construction of the Institute via the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), with the remaining £23m provided by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

Mr Osborne said: “Backing science and innovation is a key part of building a Northern Powerhouse. The new National Graphene Institute at The University of Manchester will bring together leading academics, scientists and business leaders to help develop the applications of tomorrow, putting the UK in pole position to lead the world in graphene technology.”

One-atom thick graphene was first isolated and explored in 2004 at The University of Manchester. Its potential uses are vast but one of the first areas in which products are likely to be seen is in electronics.

The 7,825 square metre, five-storey building features cutting-edge facilities and equipment throughout to create a world-class research hub. The NGI’s 1,500 square metres of clean room space is the largest academic space of its kind in the world for dedicated graphene research.

Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell, President and Vice-Chancellor of The University of Manchester said: “The National Graphene Institute will be the world’s leading centre of graphene research and commercialisation.

“It will be the home of graphene scientists and engineers from across The University of Manchester working in collaboration with colleagues from many other universities and from some of the world’s leading companies.

“This state-of-the-art institute is an incredible asset, not only to this University and to Manchester but also to the UK. The National Graphene Institute is fundamental to continuing the world-class graphene research which was started in Manchester.”

The NGI is a significant first step in the vision to create a Graphene City® in Manchester. Set to open in 2017 the £60m Graphene Engineering Innovation Centre (GEIC) will complement the NGI and initiate further industry-led development in graphene applications with academic collaboration.

Last year the Chancellor also announced the creation of the £235m Sir Henry Royce Institute for Advanced Materials at The University of Manchester with satellite centres in Sheffield, Leeds, Cambridge, Oxford and London.

Speaking at the opening ceremony, Professor Colin Bailey, Deputy President and Deputy Vice-Chancellor of The University of Manchester said: “The opening of the National Graphene Institute today, complemented by the Graphene Engineering Innovation Centre opening in 2017 and the future Sir Henry Royce Institute for Advanced Materials, will provide the UK with the facilities required to accelerate new materials to market.

“It will allow the UK to lead the way in the area which underpins all manufacturing sectors, resulting in significant inward investment, the stick-ability of innovation, and significant long-term job creation.”

Congratulations to everyone involved in the effort.

As I mentioned earlier today in a post about Kawasaki city (Japan), Manchester will be the European City of Science when it hosts the EuropeanScience Open Forum (ESOF) in 2016.

India to produce* one in four nanotechnology workers worldwide by 2015?

There’s a very ambitious prediction made in a June 10, 2014 news item in The Economic Times (of India), Note: Links have been removed,

Nearly one in every four nanotechnology professionals in the world is likely to be an Indian for the decade ending 2025, according to an Assocham [The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India]-TechSci Research joint study.

From 2015 onwards, global nanotechnology industry would require about twenty lakh professionals and India is expected to contribute about five lakh professionals in the coming years, noted the study. [emphasis mine]

According to its Wikipedia entry, a lakh is “a unit in the South Asian numbering system equal to one hundred thousand (100,000)” (Note: Links have been removed).

A June 10, 2014 Assocham news release, which originated the news item, goes on to provide what appears to be a roadmap for achieving this goal,

“India needs to introduce nanotechnology concept at primary school level, besides, there is also the need to introduce nano-clusters/parks in the country,” further noted the study.

In 2011, India’s share in global nanotechnology research publications had reached six per cent from a mere two per cent in the year 2000, noted the study. “With its major contributions in applied physics, material science and macromolecules, India had outpaced several countries like Brazil, Taiwan, the UK and France in terms of research publication.”

“Incentives for research and development, specifying manufacturing standards, infrastructure, cost and financing, weak industry-academia link and others are certain key barriers in commercialization of nanotechnology in India,” said Lt. Gen. Anil Chait, PVSM, AVSM, VSM, ADC, chief of Integrated Defence Staff, Ministry of Defence while inaugurating a national summit on ‘Nano India: Policy & Regulations,’ organized by The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) in New Delhi today [June 10, 2014].

“Overall it is the aversion to risk and unwillingness to explore beyond low hanging fruit (which is a significant barrier in enhancing nanotechnology),” said Lt. Gen. Chait.

“Lack of appropriate infrastructure, absence of proper skillset and expert workforce, lack of standardizations, lack of knowledge and significant brain drain are key weaknesses of nanotechnology market in India which is still at a nascent stage,” noted the ASSOCHAM-TechSci Research study.

However, the nanotechnology market in India is likely to witness strong growth on account of increasing government focus on developing and enhancing nanotechnology, the study added. “Besides, growing awareness and contribution by institutions together with increased funding, India is likely to achieve significant growth in nanotechnology.”

Though Government has been highly active in funding nanotechnology development in India, however, the operations need more focus and streamlining as technology has multi-disciplinary nature, hence proper utilization of funds is the need of the hour.

The future of nanotechnology in India is largely dependent on the scale of investment spending and ability to introduce revolutionary products in the market, further noted the study.

“Channelisation of public-private partnership and strategic partnership with international organizations can also accelerate growth and development of nanotechnology market in India,” it added. “Besides, proper policy framework needs to be a key focus point of the government to ensure rapid growth.”

Try as I might I cannot find the report which means it’s impossible to examine the data used to make the prediction that up 25% of the world’s nanotechnology force could be Indian by the year 2015. The report is not on the ASSOCHAM publications webpage nor is it on the TechSci Research website. as of June 12, 2014 at 0900 PDT.

* ‘in’ removed from headline on June 12, 2014 at 1000 hours PDT.

Competition, collaboration, and a smaller budget: the US nano community responds

Before getting to the competition, collaboration, and budget mentioned in the head for this posting, I’m supplying some background information.

Within the context of a May 20, 2014 ‘National Nanotechnology Initiative’ hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the US General Accountability Office (GAO) presented a 22 pp. précis (PDF; titled: NANOMANUFACTURING AND U.S. COMPETITIVENESS; Challenges and Opportunities) of its 125 pp. (PDF version report titled: Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health).

Having already commented on the full report itself in a Feb. 10, 2014 posting, I’m pointing you to Dexter Johnson’s May 21, 2014 post on his Nanoclast blog (on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] website) where he discusses the précis from the perspective of someone who was consulted by the US GAO when they were writing the full report (Note: Links have been removed),

I was interviewed extensively by two GAO economists for the accompanying [full] report “Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health,” where I shared background information on research I helped compile and write on global government funding of nanotechnology.

While I acknowledge that the experts who were consulted for this report are more likely the source for its views than I am, I was pleased to see the report reflect many of my own opinions. Most notable among these is bridging the funding gap in the middle stages of the manufacturing-innovation process, which is placed at the top of the report’s list of challenges.

While I am in agreement with much of the report’s findings, it suffers from a fundamental misconception in seeing nanotechnology’s development as a kind of race between countries. [emphases mine]

(I encourage you to read the full text of Dexter’s comments as he offers more than a simple comment about competition.)

Carrying on from this notion of a ‘nanotechnology race’, at least one publication focused on that aspect. From the May 20, 2014 article by Ryan Abbott for CourthouseNews.com,

Nanotech Could Keep U.S. Ahead of China

WASHINGTON (CN) – Four of the nation’s leading nanotechnology scientists told a U.S. House of Representatives panel Tuesday that a little tweaking could go a long way in keeping the United States ahead of China and others in the industry.

The hearing focused on the status of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, a federal program launched in 2001 for the advancement of nanotechnology.

As I noted earlier, the hearing was focused on the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and all of its efforts. It’s quite intriguing to see what gets emphasized in media reports and, in this case, the dearth of media reports.

I have one more tidbit, the testimony from Lloyd Whitman, Interim Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and Deputy Director of the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology. The testimony is in a May 21, 2014 news item on insurancenewsnet.com,

Testimony by Lloyd Whitman, Interim Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office and Deputy Director of the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of the Committee, it is my distinct privilege to be here with you today to discuss nanotechnology and the role of the National Nanotechnology Initiative in promoting its development for the benefit of the United States.

Highlights of the National Nanotechnology Initiative

Our current Federal research and development program in nanotechnology is strong. The NNI agencies continue to further the NNI’s goals of (1) advancing nanotechnology R&D, (2) fostering nanotechnology commercialization, (3) developing and maintaining the U.S. workforce and infrastructure, and (4) supporting the responsible and safe development of nanotechnology. …

,,,

The sustained, strategic Federal investment in nanotechnology R&D combined with strong private sector investments in the commercialization of nanotechnology-enabled products has made the United States the global leader in nanotechnology. The most recent (2012) NNAP report analyzed a wide variety of sources and metrics and concluded that “… in large part as a result of the NNI the United States is today… the global leader in this exciting and economically promising field of research and technological development.” n10 A recent report on nanomanufacturing by Congress’s own Government Accountability Office (GAO) arrived at a similar conclusion, again drawing on a wide variety of sources and stakeholder inputs. n11 As discussed in the GAO report, nanomanufacturing and commercialization are key to capturing the value of Federal R&D investments for the benefit of the U.S. economy. The United States leads the world by one important measure of commercial activity in nanotechnology: According to one estimate, n12 U.S. companies invested $4.1 billion in nanotechnology R&D in 2012, far more than investments by companies in any other country.  …

There’s cognitive dissonance at work here as Dexter notes in his own way,

… somewhat ironically, the [GAO] report suggests that one of the ways forward is more international cooperation, at least in the development of international standards. And in fact, one of the report’s key sources of information, Mihail Roco, has made it clear that international cooperation in nanotechnology research is the way forward.

It seems to me that much of the testimony and at least some of the anxiety about being left behind can be traced to a decreased 2015 budget allotment for nanotechnology (mentioned here in a March 31, 2014 posting [US National Nanotechnology Initiative’s 2015 budget request shows a decrease of $200M]).

One can also infer a certain anxiety from a recent presentation by Barbara Herr Harthorn, head of UCSB’s [University of California at Santa Barbara) Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS). She was at a February 2014 meeting of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (mentioned in parts one and two [the more substantive description of the meeting which also features a Canadian academic from the genomics community] of my recent series on “Brains, prostheses, nanotechnology, and human enhancement”). II noted in part five of the series what seems to be a shift towards brain research as a likely beneficiary of the public engagement work accomplished under NNI auspices and, in the case of the Canadian academic, the genomics effort.

The Americans are not the only ones feeling competitive as this tweet from Richard Jones, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation at Sheffield University (UK), physicist, and author of Soft Machines, suggests,

May 18

The UK has fewer than 1% of world patents on graphene, despite it being discovered here, according to the FT –

I recall reading a report a few years back which noted that experts in China were concerned about falling behind internationally in their research efforts. These anxieties are not new, CP Snow’s book and lecture The Two Cultures (1959) also referenced concerns in the UK about scientific progress and being left behind.

Competition/collaboration is an age-old conundrum and about as ancient as anxieties of being left behind. The question now is how are we all going to resolve these issues this time?

ETA May 28, 2014: The American Institute of Physics (AIP) has produced a summary of the May 20, 2014 hearing as part of their FYI: The AIP Bulletin of Science Policy News, May 27, 2014 (no. 93).

ETA Sept. 12, 2014: My first posting about the diminished budget allocation for the US NNI was this March 31, 2014 posting.

Final report on joint OECD/NNI report on assessing nanotechnology’s economic impact

In March 2012, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) held a symposium on assessing the economic impacts of nanotechnology, which was hosted by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington, DC.  Lynn Bergeson announced the release of the symposium’s final report in her Sept. 16, 2013 posting on the Nanotechnology Now website.

The title of the final report published by the OECD is Symposium on Assessing the Economic  Impact of Nanotechnology: Synthesis Report. I have excerpted some information including this introductory paragraph from the executive summary of this 81 pp report,

Governments have a fiscal and social responsibility to ensure that limited research and development resources are used wisely and cost-effectively in support of social, economic, and scientific aspirations. As a result of significant public and private investments in nanotechnology during the past decade and an expanding array of commercial applications, the field of nanotechnology has matured to the point of showing significant potential to help societies achieve the shared goal of improving efficiencies and accelerating progress in a range of economic sectors, including medicine, manufacturing, and energy. Countries that wish to promote the continued responsible development of nanotechnology will, however, need quantitative data on the economic impact of nanotechnology to guide further investment and policy decisions. Few widely accepted economic impact assessments have been conducted, however, and there are many questions regarding the best methodologies to be used. (p. 4)

The attendees considered the challenges associated with evaluating the impact of nanotechnology, some of which are common to emerging technologies in general and some or which are specific to nanotechnology (from the report),

The attendees also considered the question of a definition for nanotechnology. While operational definitions are developed at national or regional levels, e.g. for statistical or regulatory purposes, there are relatively few internationally agreed upon definitions or classifications for nanotechnology or its products and processes. Such definitions are essential for developing a methodology for an economic impact assessment and/or to facilitate data collection. Participants mentioned that definitions should be flexible so that they facilitate the development and valuation of the technology; they also noted that definitions might vary in different contexts or sectors.

Additional issues were raised:

 Its multipurpose, enabling nature makes measuring the impact of nanotechnology difficult. It can be fundamental to a product’s key functionality (e.g. battery charge time or capacity) but ancillary to the value chain (E.g. represent a small portion of the final product or process). Nanotechnology is also likely to have a range of incremental impacts on goods and services as well as existing manufacturing techniques. This requires understanding the value added at different stages of the production chain.

 Nanotechnology’s impact is often intermingled with that of many other interventions and technologies so that determining its precise role can be difficult.

 The large and varied amount of data linked to nanotechnology development may lead to difficulties in cleaning and manipulating the data meaningfully.

 Confidential business information and the proprietary nature of products and services may make it difficult to obtain information from industry. Moreover, it is not clear how a nanotechnology company or a company using nanotechnology is defined or defines itself or to what extent companies, universities and associate institutions are involved in exploiting and developing nanotechnology.

 For now, data are mainly collected through surveys. It is important to weigh the benefits against the additional workload that surveys place on administrations, research institutes and industries. Information should be obtained efficiently, focusing on the data of greatest interest for assessing the value of the technology.

 The nanotechnology policy landscape is evolving. It is important to consider non-specific, rather than nanotechnology-specific, funding strategies and policies when assessing economic impacts such as return on investment.

While certain issues may be resolved through improvements and over time, some restrict the ability to conduct valid nanotechnology impact assessments, such as the complex relationship between science, innovation and the economy; the interaction between public and private actors; the role of other factors in technology development and innovation; and the time lag between investments and their returns. (p. 8)

Of course the main issue being addressed was the development of tools/instruments to assess nanotechnology’s economic impact (from the report),

Some steps have been taken towards assessing the impact of nanotechnology. Examples mentioned during the symposium include the U.S. STAR METRICS database, which uses an input/output approach to determine the outputs of federal funding of science and technology, and Brazil’s Lattes system, in which researchers, students and institutions share information about their interests and backgrounds to facilitate information sharing and collaboration. The Lattes system is also intended to aid in the design of science, technology and innovation policies and to help understand the social and economic impacts of previous investments. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom) values a given nanotechnology product in monetary terms against an incumbent and thus calculates additional value added over current technology.

Other valuation methods mentioned included the “traditional” cost/ benefit analysis (often accompanied by scenario development for immature technologies such as nanotechnology) and life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA addresses the impact of nanotechnology along the entire product value chain. It is important to conduct LCAs as early as possible in product development to define the full value of a product using nanotechnology. Value chain assessments can also help address the challenge of determining the role of nanotechnology in a final product, where economic value is most commonly assessed. (p. 9)

Participants recognised the difficulty of developing a “one size fits all” methodology. The data collected and the indicators and the methodologies chosen need to fit the situation. Precisely defining the objectives of the impact assessment is critical: “What do we want to measure?” (e.g. the impact of a specific nanotechnology investment or the impact of a nano-enabled replacement product on environmental performance). “What outcomes do we want from the analysis?” (e.g. monetary value and GDP growth or qualitative measures of environmental and social benefits).

Input indicators (e.g. R&D investment, infrastructure) are the easiest to collect; they provide information on the development of a technology in a given region, country or globally. Output indicators, such as patents and publications, provide information on the trajectories of a technology and on key areas of innovation. The most useful for policy makers are indicators of impact, but high-quality data, especially quantitative data, are difficult to collect. Indicators of impact provide a basis for assessing direct (market share, growth of companies, new products, wealth creation) and indirect impacts (welfare gains, consumer surplus). The economic and social impact of nanotechnology goes beyond what can be measured with existing statistics and traditional surveys. A pilot survey by the Russian Federation plans to examine nanotechnology issues that are not necessarily covered by traditional statistical surveys, such as technology transfer and linkages between different segments of the national innovation system. The OECD Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators is also working on the development of a statistical framework for the measurement of emerging, enabling and general purpose technologies, which includes the notion of impact.
While quantitative measures may be preferable, impact assessments based on qualitative indicators using methods such as technology assessment scenarios and mapping of value chains can also provide valuable information.

I haven’t read the entire report yet but the material after the executive summary bears a similarity to field notes. Generally in reports like this everything is stated in an impersonal third person with the speaker being mentioned only in the header for the section  so the contents have an  authority associated with holy books. While I haven’t seen any quotes, the speakers here are noted as having said such and such, e.g., “Mr. Tassey suggested a “technology-element” model as an alternative means of driving policy and managing the R&D cycle.” (p. 15) It’s not unheard of, just unusual.

For anyone interested in the earlier reports and/or in the Canadian participation in this 2012 symposium, there’s an interview with Vanessa Clive, Industry Canada, Nanotechnology Policy Advisor in my July 23, 2012 posting where she discusses the symposium and offers links to documents used as background material for the symposium.

NanoQuébec and iNano get to the chapel while Canada Economic Development presides

ETA May 14, 2013: I changed a word the title to correct a typo: ‘wirh’ to while.

I described NanoQuébec’s iNano, an open web innovation platform,  as an industrial dating service in my Sept. 19, 2012 posting. so I thought I’d extend the metaphor by sending it to the chapel for the latest news about the project.

iNano, designed to match up the research community with industry-based nanotechnology challenges, and Canada Economic Development have now announced new funding for the platform, from the May 13, 2013 news item on Azonano,

The Honourable Denis Lebel, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, today announced that the organization NanoQuébec has been granted financial assistance for a project to translate knowledge into commercial applications, while improving the innovation capability and competitiveness of Quebec’s small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

“Our Government is today giving a real boost to innovation, and thereby economic growth, by lending its support to NanoQuébec,” said Minister Lebel.

NanoQuébec is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to support nanotechnology innovation with a view to contributing to sustainable economic growth in Quebec.

Specifically, these funds will enable NanoQuébec to implement an open innovation pilot project aimed at generating technology transfers and strengthening ties between business and the research community. The project, which will last approximately 18 months, will also allow for a second testing of the iNANO open innovation web platform.

If I understand this properly, the iNANO project has been successful with helping various companies solve their problems/challenges and now the Government of Canada is granting NanoQuébec additional monies to create a new project which is focused on commercializing the solutions (?), as well as, allowing NanoQuébec to run the original iNANO challenge project a second time.

The May 7, 2013 (?) Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions news release, which originated the news item, provides a few more details about iNano and about the funding,

 ““Since the opening of the iNANO platform, we have already posed more than 120 industrial challenges to the research community. The collaborative projects set up through the platform will foster the development of innovations that will be a major competitive advantage for our businesses,”” noted Benoit Balmana, President and CEO of NanoQuébec.

The funding from the Government of Canada will contribute toward the hiring of a staff person to ensure the platform’s management and leadership, technology development, production of promotional tools and business prospecting.

““Our Government remains focused on four priorities, as outlined by the Prime Minister, that Canadians care most about: their families, the safety of our streets and communities, their pride in being a citizen of this country, and of course, their personal financial security,”” concluded Minister Lebel.

This assistance, granted in the form of a $171,000 non-repayable contribution, has been awarded through Canada Economic Development’s Quebec Economic Development Program.

I wish them  the best of luck with the challenges and the commercialization.

Note: There appears to have been a change of spelling from I-Nano to iNANO.

Australian Academy of Science launches National Nanotechnology Research Strategy

Today, Dec. 7, 2012, Australian Senator, the Honourable Kate Lundy, announced a National Nanotechnology Research Strategy document. According to the Dec. 7, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

Outlining a bold vision for a nanotechnology enabled Australian Economy; the research strategy highlights a range of existing and emerging nanotechnology applications. … This research strategy goes on to highlight Australia’s current research strengths across a broad range of nanotechnology disciplines and subsequently identify opportunities for these strengths to be leveraged over the coming decade.

… The strategy was prepared by the [Australian] Academy [of Science] with funding received from the National Enabling Technologies Policy Section in the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.

A Dec. 7, 2012 article on the Adelaide Now website provides more details,

Scientists say if Australia wants to capture a big share and make nanotechnology an economic driver, it needs to support the entire spectrum of nanotechnology development – fundamental research to developing mechanisms to translate technology to industry in an effective and timely way.

Scientists launched on Friday [Dec. 7, 2012] a national strategy for nanotechnology development.

They say development could help parts of the manufacturing industry revolutionise its products, develop new products and address the grand challenges facing the nation such as health and ageing.

The plan’s vision statement says assessments of the impact of nanotechnology on society by 2020 suggest Australia needs to invest more.

The Australian Academy of Science website can be found here.