Category Archives: economy

Economic impacts (2002 – 2022) and the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)

Leave a reply

Lynn L. Bergeron’s and Carla Hutton’s December 27, 2023 posting on The National Law Review announced a new report from the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), Note: A link has been removed,

On December 5, 2023, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) released a report analyzing the economic impact of federal investment in nanotechnology from 2002 to 2022 [emphasis mine]. The report states that NNI selected this timeframe because it was codified by the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act in 2003, and thus the range covers its entire existence. The report examines the impact of public investment, growth and trends of the market, and the evolving understanding and application of nanotechnology in the United States. It also provides key data for evaluating NNI’s ability to fulfill its mission and illustrates NNI’s successes to date.

NNI notes that in 2022, the U.S. Census Bureau released data from its 2017 Economic Census, and data in the classification code of Nanotechnology Research and Development (R&D) revealed that more than 3,700 companies, employing more than 171,000 people, reported $42 billion in annual revenue and $20 billion in employee salaries. According to NNI, these numbers “suffered from a limited scope, as the Bureau only included companies that self-identified as primarily being in the business of nanotechnology R&D.” To understand better the complete picture, NNI commissioned the Parnin Group to conduct a more complete economic impact analysis. [all emphases mine]

…

You can find the more conservative claim of a $42 billion impact on the US economy in this November 28, 2022 NNI post by Mike Kiley. This year’s December 5, 2023 NNI post by Mike Kiley updates the numbers based on a new report,

An independent study focusing on the aggregated revenues of a select list of nanotechnology companies has estimated that the 2022 economic impact of nanotechnology on the U.S. economy was between $67 billion and $83 billion and close to a trillion dollars over the past two decades . This dwarfs the U.S. Government’s investment of around $40 billion over that same timeframe, which corresponds to the nation’s prioritization of the field through the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).

The NNI investment has been used to explore the potential of nanoscale science, to capture societal benefits of nanotechnology, and to establish and sustain U.S. leadership in this critical field, both scientifically and economically. While it is difficult to fully capture the economic impact of the NNI’s sustained focus, these numbers hint at the tremendous multiplier effect that nanotechnology investments have had on the economy and the Nation.

As impressive as these numbers are, they only represent a relatively small number of companies that are clearly classified as nanotechnology. This limited approach ignores the field’s critical supporting role in several large commercial sectors. Therefore, the study also explored the impact of one closely related industry – microelectronics and semiconductors – to provide anecdotal evidence of the full magnitude of nanotechnology on the nation’s economy.

Examining the impact of the addition of the microelectronics and semiconductor industry to the study resulted in an estimate of $268 – 297 billion in 2022 alone. While significantly higher than the initial analysis, the authors recognized that this estimate still does not capture the full scope of the nano-economy, since microelectronics and semiconductors are only one of many commercial areas that substantially benefited from the nation’s leadership in the field.

Zooming in on the Not-So-Nano Numbers

In late 2022, the U.S. Census Bureau released data from its 2017 Economic Census. In the classification code of Nanotechnology Research and Development (R&D), the data revealed that over 3,700 companies, employing more than 171,000 people, reported $42 billion in annual revenue and $20 billion in employee salaries. As noted in a previous NNCO blog post , released on Nov. 28, 2022, these numbers also suffered from a limited scope, as the Bureau only included companies that self-identified as primarily being in the business of nanotechnology R&D. This limited scope led to a desire to better understand the full picture.

In early 2023, the NNI commissioned the Parnin Group (Alexandria, VA) to conduct a more complete economic impact analysis of nanotechnology to the U.S. economy . To conduct this analysis, the report identified a variety of nanotechnology products, including nanomaterials, intermediate nanotechnology products, and finished products in the marketplace. These products were organized into four categories: (1) core nano (e.g., carbon nanotubes), (2) nano tools (e.g., nanoscale etching tools), (3) integrated nano (e.g., mRNA vaccines), and (4) nano-enabled (e.g., pharmaceuticals). Once products and their parent companies were identified, Parnin examined Bureau of Labor Statistics data, value-chain analysis, product categories, public companies’ Securities and Exchange Commission filings, and patent filings to establish the collective economic value produced by these companies.

Clearly, capturing the economic impact of nanotechnology is not trivial. Products used every day are enabled by nanotechnology, but “nanotechnology” is not seen in the packaging of some of the most ubiquitous items in our lives, like a smartphone, e-reader, or television. Companies and products seldom draw attention to nanomaterials used to make them, for various reasons, including protecting proprietary formulations and practices. As a result, many large companies and related commercial areas – including microelectronics and semiconductors, healthcare, pharmaceutical production, oil and gas refining, and cosmetic products – that have operations and products in the nanotechnology space, but not exclusively so, were excluded from this economic analysis, leading to conservative estimates of the economic impact of nanotechnology.

The report explored the omission of these major areas through an analysis of nanotechnology’s contribution in one of these sectors: microelectronics and semiconductors. While it represents one of the clearest examples of how nanotechnology is used to drive the U.S. economy, the microelectronics industry was mostly excluded in the initial analysis since, historically, it has been unclear what percentage of companies’ portfolios were related to nanotechnology. However, by 2022 every competitive product in the sector features nanoscale dimensions created through nanotechnology tools, creating confidence that this area can defensibly be included in an analysis of the nano-economy.

As indicated earlier, when the microelectronics and semiconductor segments were included, the estimated impact jumped to between $268 billion and $297 billion annually. While other sectors are not as clearly connected to the field of nanotechnology, they are a part of the story and this exploration provides a glimpse into how sizeable the field’s impact might be.

Caveats and nuances abound, because seeing the impact of nanotechnology to the U.S. economy would be like seeing a 10-nanometer object in the palm of your hand; it is there, but you need special tools to see it! And regardless of the exact number, the message is clear: The United States’ leadership in the field has certainly paid off.

Report: Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology in the United States

The report (title page: Economic Impact Analysis: 20 Years of Nanotechnology Investments) covering 2002-2022 is relatively short, 56 pp. in the print version or 57 pp. in the PDF.

Eye-opening to me, was that the NNI never included semi-conductors and micro-elecronics in its previous economic analyses. Pretty significant omission.

I have no background in economics and so, much of the report flew over my head. However, I am a long time (and experienced skeptic) and can’t help suspecting that everyone (especially the client, in this case, the US government) is much happier with these new numbers. Lest we forget, the NNI was signed into existence by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton and the administration is now led by another Democratic president, Joe Biden. As well, this report was released just in time for 2024, an election year.

While I think there might have been a little over enthusiasm in the estimates, the report seems to bear out the notion that nanotechnology is increasingly a foundational element of modern technology and products.

Canada’s ‘Smart Cities’ will need new technology (5G wireless) and, maybe, graphene

Leave a reply

I recently published [March 20, 2018] a piece on ‘smart cities’ both an art/science event in Toronto and a Canadian government initiative without mentioning the necessity of new technology to support all of the grand plans. On that note, it seems the Canadian federal government and two provincial (Québec and Ontario) governments are prepared to invest in one of the necessary ‘new’ technologies, 5G wireless. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) Shawn Benjamin reports about Canada’s 5G plans in suitably breathless (even in text only) tones of excitement in a March 19, 2018 article,

The federal, Ontario and Quebec governments say they will spend $200 million to help fund research into 5G wireless technology, the next-generation networks with download speeds 100 times faster than current ones can handle.

The so-called “5G corridor,” known as ENCQOR, will see tech companies such as Ericsson, Ciena Canada, Thales Canada, IBM and CGI kick in another $200 million to develop facilities to get the project up and running.

The idea is to set up a network of linked research facilities and laboratories that these companies — and as many as 1,000 more across Canada — will be able to use to test products and services that run on 5G networks.

Benjamin’s description of 5G is focused on what it will make possible in the future,

If you think things are moving too fast, buckle up, because a new 5G cellular network is just around the corner and it promises to transform our lives by connecting nearly everything to a new, much faster, reliable wireless network.

The first networks won’t be operational for at least a few years, but technology and telecom companies around the world are already planning to spend billions to make sure they aren’t left behind, says Lawrence Surtees, a communications analyst with the research firm IDC.

The new 5G is no tentative baby step toward the future. Rather, as Surtees puts it, “the move from 4G to 5G is a quantum leap.”

…

In a downtown Toronto soundstage, Alan Smithson recently demonstrated a few virtual reality and augmented reality projects that his company MetaVRse is working on.

The potential for VR and AR technology is endless, he said, in large part for its potential to help hurdle some of the walls we are already seeing with current networks.

Virtual Reality technology on the market today is continually increasing things like frame rates and screen resolutions in a constant quest to make their devices even more lifelike.

…

… They [current 4G networks] can’t handle the load. But 5G can do so easily, Smithson said, so much so that the current era of bulky augmented reality headsets could be replaced buy a pair of normal looking glasses.

…

In a 5G world, those internet-connected glasses will automatically recognize everyone you meet, and possibly be able to overlay their name in your field of vision, along with a link to their online profile. …

Benjamin also mentions ‘smart cities’,

In a University of Toronto laboratory, Professor Alberto Leon-Garcia researches connected vehicles and smart power grids. “My passion right now is enabling smart cities — making smart cities a reality — and that means having much more immediate and detailed sense of the environment,” he said.

Faster 5G networks will assist his projects in many ways, by giving planners more, instant data on things like traffic patterns, energy consumption, variou carbon footprints and much more.

…

Leon-Garcia points to a brightly lit map of Toronto [image embedded in Benjamin’s article] in his office, and explains that every dot of light represents a sensor transmitting real time data.

Currently, the network is hooked up to things like city buses, traffic cameras and the city-owned fleet of shared bicycles. He currently has thousands of data points feeding him info on his map, but in a 5G world, the network will support about a million sensors per square kilometre.

…

Very exciting but where is all this data going? What computers will be processing the information? Where are these sensors located? Benjamin does not venture into those waters nor does The Economist in a February 13, 2018 article about 5G, the Olympic Games in Pyeonchang, South Korea, but the magazine does note another barrier to 5G implementation,

“FASTER, higher, stronger,” goes the Olympic motto. So it is only appropriate that the next generation of wireless technology, “5G” for short, should get its first showcase at the Winter Olympics  under way in Pyeongchang, South Korea. Once fully developed, it is supposed to offer download speeds of at least 20 gigabits per second (4G manages about half that at best) and response times (“latency”) of below 1 millisecond. So the new networks will be able to transfer a high-resolution movie in two seconds and respond to requests in less than a hundredth of the time it takes to blink an eye. But 5G is not just about faster and swifter wireless connections.

The technology is meant to enable all sorts of new services. One such would offer virtual- or augmented-reality experiences. At the Olympics, for example, many contestants are being followed by 360-degree video cameras. At special venues sports fans can don virtual-reality goggles to put themselves right into the action. But 5G is also supposed to become the connective tissue for the internet of things, to link anything from smartphones to wireless sensors and industrial robots to self-driving cars. This will be made possible by a technique called “network slicing”, which allows operators quickly to create bespoke networks that give each set of devices exactly the connectivity they need.

…

Despite its versatility, it is not clear how quickly 5G will take off. The biggest brake will be economic. [emphasis mine] When the GSMA, an industry group, last year asked 750 telecoms bosses about the most salient impediment to delivering 5G, more than half cited the lack of a clear business case. People may want more bandwidth, but they are not willing to pay for it—an attitude even the lure of the fanciest virtual-reality applications may not change. …

That may not be the only brake, Dexter Johnson in a March 19, 2018 posting on his Nanoclast blog (on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] website), covers some of the others (Note: Links have been removed),

Graphene has been heralded as a “wonder material” for well over a decade now, and 5G has been marketed as the next big thing for at least the past five years. Analysts have suggested that 5G could be the golden ticket to virtual reality and artificial intelligence, and promised that graphene could improve technologies within electronics and optoelectronics.

But proponents of both graphene and 5G have also been accused of stirring up hype. There now seems to be a rising sense within industry circles that these glowing technological prospects will not come anytime soon.

At Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona last month [February 2018], some misgivings for these long promised technologies may have been put to rest, though, thanks in large part to each other.

…

In a meeting at MWC with Jari Kinaret, a professor at Chalmers University in Sweden and director of the Graphene Flagship, I took a guided tour around the Pavilion to see some of the technologies poised to have an impact on the development of 5G.

Being invited back to the MWC for three years is a pretty clear indication of how important graphene is to those who are trying to raise the fortunes of 5G. But just how important became more obvious to me in an interview with Frank Koppens, the leader of the quantum nano-optoelectronic group at Institute of Photonic Sciences (ICFO) just outside of Barcelona, last year.

He said: “5G cannot just scale. Some new technology is needed. And that’s why we have several companies in the Graphene Flagship that are putting a lot of pressure on us to address this issue.”

…

In a collaboration led by CNIT—a consortium of Italian universities and national laboratories focused on communication technologies—researchers from AMO GmbH, Ericsson, Nokia Bell Labs, and Imec have developed graphene-based photodetectors and modulators capable of receiving and transmitting optical data faster than ever before.

The aim of all this speed for transmitting data is to support the ultrafast data streams with extreme bandwidth that will be part of 5G. In fact, at another section during MWC, Ericsson was presenting the switching of a 100 Gigabits per second (Gbps) channel based on the technology.

“The fact that Ericsson is demonstrating another version of this technology demonstrates that from Ericsson’s point of view, this is no longer just research” said Kinaret.

It’s no mystery why the big mobile companies are jumping on this technology. Not only does it provide high-speed data transmission, but it also does it 10 times more efficiently than silicon or doped silicon devices, and will eventually do it more cheaply than those devices, according to Vito Sorianello, senior researcher at CNIT.

…

Interestingly, Ericsson is one of the tech companies mentioned with regard to Canada’s 5G project, ENCQOR and Sweden’s Chalmers University, as Dexter Johnson notes, is the lead institution for the Graphene Flagship.. One other fact to note, Canada’s resources include graphite mines with ‘premium’ flakes for producing graphene. Canada’s graphite mines are located (as far as I know) in only two Canadian provinces, Ontario and Québec, which also happen to be pitching money into ENCQOR. My March 21, 2018 posting describes the latest entry into the Canadian graphite mining stakes.

As for the questions I posed about processing power, etc. It seems the South Koreans have found answers of some kind but it’s hard to evaluate as I haven’t found any additional information about 5G and its implementation in South Korea. If anyone has answers, please feel free to leave them in the ‘comments’. Thank you.

Building a regulatory framework for nanotechnology in India

Leave a reply

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

Leave a reply

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

Leave a reply

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?

Leave a reply

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

Leave a reply

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

Leave a reply

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.