Nanotechnology Applications submitted to NanotechnologyA

New Dimensions for Manufacturing A UK Strategy for

Nanotechnology

Report of the UK Advisory Group onNanotechnology Applications submitted to

Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Science and Innovationby Dr John M Taylor, Chairman. June 2002

NanotechnologyReportRevise2 9/8/02 5:28 PM Page 1

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE 04 JUN 2002 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED 00-06-2002 to 00-06-2002

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE New Dimensions for Manufacturing. A UK Strategy for Nanotechnology

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Office of Force Transformation,1000 Defense Pentagon Room 3A287,Washington,DC,20301-1000

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The original document contains color images.

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

76

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18

Cover photographs used courtesy of:IBM Research, Almaden Research Centre and the University of Oxford.Unauthorized use not permitted.


3

Preface

This report offers to Government the considered views of a group

of academic and industry experts on the steps that need to be taken

if the UK is to build on its current investments in nanotechnology

research and become a world class player in nanotechnology

applications. It gives a realistic assessment of where we stand in

relation to our major industrial competitors in realising the potential

of this fundamenatally new approach to manufacturing.

I have already taken steps to encourage the Research Councils to

make significant increases in investments through the

Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations in nanotechnology and

tissue engineering and these have been backed up by the DTI

award of a university innovation centre in nanotechnology to a

consortium led by the Universities of Newcastle and Durham,

and by Foresight LINK awards for projects in nanotechnology.

This report makes it quite clear that in order to keep pace with

competitor nations we need to recast the scale and nature of our

nanotechnology activities. We need to raise awareness in industry

of the enormous potential impact that nanotechnology could have

and ensure that investment and action by Government, industry

and researchers is fully aligned to maximise the benefit for the UK.

Dr John Taylor OBE FRS FEng

Director-General of the Research Councils


Acknowledgement from theChairman, Dr John Taylor

I should like to thank the members of the AdvisoryGroup on Nanotechnology Applications and otherexperts who attended meetings and the specialistworkshop, helping to form views on futurescenarios as well as assisting with the preparationand critique of material for this report.

Thanks are also due to the various consultants whohave contributed to the report: Oakland Innovationand Information Services Ltd, the National PhysicalLaboratory, the Institute of Nanotechnology,the Centre for Research on Innovation andCompetition; The Technology Partnership; andMr Michael Kenward who has undertaken the bulkof the writing.

And finally to the officials in DTI, OST and otherDepartments who have co-ordinated these activities,particularly Gavin Costigan, Chris Hodgeand Ian Harrison.

4


Summary, findings and recommendations......................................................................6

Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................12

Nanotechnology ........................................................................................................................................................................12

Aims of Report ...........................................................................................................................................................................12

Advisory Group ..........................................................................................................................................................................12

Structure of report ..................................................................................................................................................................14

Part 1: Background ..................................................................................................................................................15

What is nanotechnology ....................................................................................................................................................16

Nanofabrication: the new manufacturing ..........................................................................................................16

Nanotechnology is multidisciplinary ......................................................................................................................17

Nanotechnology is disruptive .......................................................................................................................................17

The global picture ...................................................................................................................................................................18

Nanofabrication facilities overseas.........................................................................................................................20

Nanotechnology products & markets – where are we now ..............................................................23

Nanotechnology: the products ....................................................................................................................................23

Nanotechnology: the markets ......................................................................................................................................24

Part 2: Analysis and Findings ...............................................................................................................25

ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................................................26

Current activities in the UK ............................................................................................................................................26

Key features of the UK situation ...............................................................................................................................27

Absence of coordinated strategy, fragmentation,lack of critical mass, level playing fields.........................................................................................................................27

The role of large and small businesses: value chains and supply chains ...........................28

Clusters and regions.............................................................................................................................................................29

People: training and recruitment ...............................................................................................................................30

How to do better in the UK.............................................................................................................................................30

What would success look like in 2006? ..............................................................................................................31

Findings ............................................................................................................................................................................................32

Part 3: Recommendations .....................................................................................................................................33

Nanotechnology strategy and the NASB............................................................................................................34

National Nanotechnology Fabrication Centres ............................................................................................34

Roadmapping ..............................................................................................................................................................................36

Awareness, access portals and networking ...................................................................................................36

training and recruitment ....................................................................................................................................................37

International: promotion, inwards knowledge transfer, leverage ................................................37

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................................................................37

Annexes..........................................................................................................................................................................................39

Annex A: Nanotechnology research in the UK ...................................................................................................40

Annex B: Nanotechnology scenarios...............................................................................................................................47

Annex C: Publications, references and web sites.................................................................................................70

Advisory Group on Nanotechnology Applications.......................................72

Contents

5

A UK Strategy for Nanotechnology


Nanotechnology has become a topic of widespreaddiscussion amongst researchers, in the media, amongthe investment community and elsewhere. Whilethere is certainly a degree of hyperbole in some of this enthusiasm, it is no exaggeration to say thatnanotechnology is set to disrupt the face of muchof industry. Nanotechnology is about new ways ofmaking things. It promises more for less: smaller,cheaper, lighter and faster devices with greaterfunctionality, using less raw material and consumingless energy. Any industry that fails to investigate thepotential of nanotechnology, and to put in place itsown strategy for dealing with it, is putting itsbusiness at risk.

While the UK has excellent research credentials innanoscience and nanotechnology, it lacks the coherentand coordinated national strategy for developingand applying the technology that characterisesmany of its leading industrial competitor nations.Partly as a result of this, much of UK industry hasyet to respond to the challenge and to put in placeits own R&D for nanotechnology.

This report, of the UK Advisory Group onNanotechnology Applications, examines the growthof nanotechnology, its potential implications forindustry in the UK, and proposes the elements ofa strategy to accelerate and support the industrialapplication of nanotechnology in the UK.

What is nanotechnology?

Nanotechnology and nanoscience are concernedwith materials science and its application at, oraround, the nanometre scale (1 billionth of a metre).Manufacturing can reach the nano scale eitherfrom the top down, by ‘machining’ to ever smallerdimensions, or from the bottom up, by exploitingthe ability of molecules and biological systems to‘self-assemble’ tiny structures. It is in the conjunctionof these two approaches, in the meeting of physicaland chemical/biological manufacturing, that thepotential for revolution lies. From the top downperspective, it interfaces with the larger-scale, moremature ‘microsystems technology’ being pursuedvery actively in the UK and around the world on amore immediate timescale.

Nanotechnology is a collective term for a set oftechnologies, techniques and processes - effectivelya new way of thinking - rather than a specific areaof science or engineering. Just as electronics andbiotechnology have created their own technologicalrevolutions, nanotechnology will have a similarimpact, in some areas sooner rather than later.

Few industries will escape the influence ofnanotechnology. Faster computers, advancedpharmaceuticals, controlled drug delivery,biocompatible materials, nerve and tissue repair,surface coatings, better skin care and protection,catalysts, sensors, telecommunications, magneticmaterials and devices - these are just some areaswhere nanotechnology will have a major impact.

In effect, nanotechnology is a radically newapproach to manufacturing. It will affect so manysectors that failure to respond to the challenge will threaten the future competitiveness of much of the economy, even including companies in areas such as pharmaceuticals and chemicals wherethe UK still has a strong position.

The likely extent of the influence of nanotechn-ology makes it difficult to estimate the size of thepotential market, but it will be very large. Forecastsrange from tens of billions to trillions of dollars.

International activities

The potential for nanotechnology has promptedlarge and rapidly rising government investments inR&D in leading industrialised nations. Japanrecently committed itself to a central governmentspend of some 75 billion yen, around £400 million,for the fiscal year 2002. In the USA, the federalbudget for 2002 includes $604 million for researchand development in nanotechnology. Californiaalone is investing more than $100m a year. TheEuropean Commission has also recognised thegrowing importance of nanotechnology and hasallocated some R1.3 billion, £800 million, for thetopic under the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6)over the period from 2002 to 2006.

Government spending in the UK onnanotechnology R&D in 2002 is about £30 milliona year, although it is difficult to arrive at an

Summary, findings and recommendations

6


accurate figure for this spending. This is itself asymptom of the fragmented nature of the supportfor nanotechnology in the UK.

Nanotechnology in the UK

The UK has a strong background in nanoscienceand nanotechnology and has been active in the fieldfor two decades or more. However, factors such asthe fragmented nature of the UK’s effort, theincreasingly multidisciplinary nature of the subjectand the patchiness of mechanisms to facilitate thetransfer of science from academia to industry haveimpeded the development of industrial awarenessof, and support for, nanotechnology.

The high cost of experimenting with an unfamiliartechnology covering a very wide range of disciplinesmakes it hard for many companies, even large ones,to establish what nanotechnology can do for them.They tend to maintain a watching brief onacademic research rather than embarking on theirown exploratory and experimental developments.However, many are beginning to become aware ofthe huge potential of nanotechnology on theirbusiness and future products.

The Advisory Group study

The Advisory Group on NanotechnologyApplications was charged with reviewing the currentstate of nanotechnology applications in industry in the UK, and proposing, if appropriate, actionsto accelerate and support increased industrialinvestment in nanotechnology exploitation.(See Remit and Terms of Reference on page 72.)

To do this, we focussed on six key application areas(out of an initial list of 14) where the UK hasresearch strengths and industrial opportunities.

These were:� Electronics and communications;� Drug delivery systems;� Tissue engineering, medical implants and devices;� Nanomaterials - particularly at the

bio/medical/functional interface� Instrumentation, tooling and metrology;� Sensors and actuators.

The approach was to characterise an optimistic butfeasible vision for “Success in 2006” - how wellindustry in the UK could realistically be doing inthese areas by 2006 if practicable support measureswere put in place promptly. We did this through a series of workshops and commissioned studies,building on the wealth of other work in the area nowavailable in the UK and overseas (see bibliography).A key aspect of this was a “road-mapping” exerciseaiming to plot the likely evolution of bothtechnologies and applications over the next few years.We then characterised the main obstacles we believeexist in the UK to realising success, what interventions(if any) Government could make to support theachievement of this vision, and what performanceindicators there might be for monitoring whetherthe UK was on track for doing so.

Findings and recommendations

Our key findings on the obstacles to success in the UK

The UK’s strengths in nanoscience andnanotechnology research provide strongfoundations on which to develop nanotechnologyfor the benefit of companies in the UK. However,for the UK to develop a breadth and volume ofindustry activity which will be comparable andcompetitive with other leading nations, we need toaddress a number of key obstacles and deficiencies.

The Advisory Group has studied the manyprevious reports in this areas, commissioned its ownstudies and held wide ranging discussions andworkshops. We have concluded that the mainobstacles to achieving the success we believe ispossible over the next few years for nanotechnologyapplications in the UK are:

� The lack of a stable, visible and coordinatedstrategy for public support for nanotechnologyapplications in industry

� Fragmentation and lack of critical mass in UKR&D activities, and a mismatch between ourresearch and industrial capabilities

� Absence of a level playing field for Governmentsupport in international competition

� Lack of appropriate technology access andbusiness incubation facilities

7



� Access to skilled people - training and recruitment

Our recommendations for Governmentaction to address these issues focus on:

� National nanotechnology application strategy

� National Nanotechnology Fabrication Centres

� Nanotechnology roadmaps

� Awareness and networking

� Training and education

� International - promotion and inwards transfer

STRATEGY, AND THE NASB

The UK should develop and articulate a coherentand coordinated strategy for accelerating theapplication of nanotechnology as widely as possibleacross the economy, beginning with those areashighlighted in the report. This should be facilitatedby the DTI, through appropriate sponsorship ofindustry and academic groupings in conjunctionwith Research Councils UK. The strategy shouldbe overseen by an independent steering group fromindustry, academia, Research Councils UK andGovernment, referred to here as the UKNanotechnology Applications Strategy Board orNASB. The NASB should be set up by the autumnof 2002.

A strategy for nanotechnology in the UK mustaddress the key issues highlighted by the AdvisoryGroup and in the studies that it commissioned.These issues affect three key communities and theinteraction between them - industry, the academicresearch community and Government. To obtainthe full benefits that nanotechnology can bring, theUK strategy must:

� convince firms and investors of the need to usenanotechnology to defend and improve theircompetitive position, and ease the path forcompanies to invest in the area

� increase the number of companies developingand applying nanotechnology and its applications

� ensure that industry and academia have accessto the facilities needed to take the ideas thatcome from research and turn them into viabletechnologies, products and businesses, withexcellent routes to market

� ensure that industry has access to well trained staff

� ensure a coherent and visible strategy of sustainedpublic investment in nanotechnology applicationsthat will encourage confident investment byindustry and suppliers of private finance

� promote the maintenance and quality offundamental research, with adequate criticalmass in areas key to the applications where thestrategy is focussed

The NASB should commission and oversee furtherwork on scenarios for “Success in Nanotechnologyin 2006 and Beyond” to identify more clearly goalsand performance indicators that the UK should useto track the progress of the strategy.

NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGYFABRICATION CENTRES

The most important obstacle to more rapidapplication of nanotechnology in industry in theUK is the absence of facilities where researchers,companies and entrepreneurial thinkers can worktogether to assist established businesses in theiradoption of nanotechnology, and to create andincubate new businesses triggered by advances inthe science and technology.

Other countries provide various forms of extendedpublic support for such nanofabrication facilities.This happens via direct government support, throughdefence agencies, national R&D programmes andfocussed national initiatives, for example throughlocal/regional government support; and throughcooperation with large leading edge companies.Such facilities are not available or accessible in theUK at present; and the provision of such facilities doesnot fit comfortably with any existing DTI ‘scheme’.

The provision of equivalent facilities in the UK wasidentified by the Advisory Group as the single mostimportant action Government should take to “levelthe international playing field”. (We would still havea long way to go before it was tilted in our favour.)

A major feature of what is required is access forshort periods by individuals, SMEs and industry tolarge, expensive, multidisciplinary facilities that arestaffed with high grade technologists and engineers,

8


working close to the leading edge of what is possible.If a project begins to be successful, continuing accessis needed while the evidence is generated that it ispossible to develop a viable product and business.Only stable Government support for such a facilitycan provide access for innovative people to the rangeof multidisciplinary technologies and facilities theyneed to work up an initial idea for a nanotechnologyapplication into a viable product and business.

Accordingly, the Advisory Group recommendssetting up as soon as possible at least two NationalNanotechnology Fabrication Centres (NNFCs).

The proposed centres should develop and operateworld-class facilities where individuals and firmscan prototype and fabricate potential products,based on the research carried out in universitiesand in businesses. The main parameters of theproposed centres are:

� The centres should be focussed around particularmajor areas of nanotechnology, for example,biotechnology applications, nanoparticles orelectronics, rather than trying to cover allapplications, technologies and approaches inone centre. However, it will be important for thecentres to work together where appropriate.

� R&D engineers from other organisations can beassigned as “visiting technical staff ” to thecentres to seek help, training and support todevelop proposals for new products or processes.Such assignments could be for a few days, a fewweeks or months, or longer, and be from a widerange of sources including large companieswishing to explore new applications, throughsmall companies to academics and otherswishing to start a new business.

� The centres should have the technical facilitiesand support staff to take selected proposalsthrough feasibility and design to demonstrationsof pre-production volumes at practicable levelsof yield, quality, volume and cost. The aim is toenable the launch of a focussed new business toits initial customers and investors.

� The centres should be able to support theincubation of new ventures for large and smallcompanies (‘intrapreneurs’ as well asentrepreneurs), including networking and accessto related academic researchers, management

of intellectual property rights (IPR), businessplanning, management staffing, access toventure funding and accommodation for theinitial growth phase.

� The centres will need the capability to underpinthe incubation process for the extended periodsoften necessary in this kind of disruptive,multidisciplinary area.

� The centres should carry out baselineprogrammes of R&D in areas appropriate totheir focus, in close conjunction with recognisedacademic centres of excellence in their field.

The Advisory Group has commissioned an outlinebusiness plan for such centres. This is based oncreating two or more centres working with existingcentres of research excellence (in particular theInterdisciplinary Research Collaborations of theResearch Councils, other Research Council facilities,and the DTI funded facilities), starting this year (2002)and overseen by the NASB. The approach should beto increase funding steadily over the next few years,with management flexibility to stimulate demandand follow areas of maximum opportunity for theUK. We expect that funding for these centres shouldstart at around £25 million of capital and recurrentspend per year in 2003 and rise to £75 million ormore per year if demand justifies within five years.Public funding should be provided for the first fiveyears with the expectation of continuing for afurther five years if they are being successful.

Setting up these first two National NanotechnologyFabrication Centres should proceed as a matter ofurgency. The aim should be to secure launch fundingfrom DTI before the end of 2002 with spendingstarting by April 2003 at the latest. Funding shouldbe one of the highest priorities for the DTI. Theprocess should be managed by the DTI InnovationGroup, in close coordination with the Office ofScience and Technology, and overseen by the DTIKnowledge Transfer Steering Group

The keys steps in the process should be to:

� Develop the specification and business plantemplates for the centres, based on the list aboveand building on the business plan study alreadycommissioned by the Advisory Group. Theseshould lay out the topics to be covered in thebusiness plans of the centres being proposed.

9



� Organise a focussed competition for consortia to bid for the centres. These could includeuniversities, national laboratories and commercialcompanies.

Microsystems Technology Centres

While nanotechnology and microtechnologyoperate at different dimensions, many of thetechniques required for nanotechnology are relatedto those already deployed in work on microsystems.In some applications of nanotechnology, thetechniques of microtechnology will provide theearly stages of production. The proposal to createNational Nanotechnology Fabrication Centres(NNFCs) has to accommodate, interface with, orincorporate the existing and planned UK facilitiesfor microsystems fabrication. It is the view of theAdvisory Group that the proposals for separatemicro and nano facilities should come togetherwhere practicable. However, they should not bemerged as this will destroy the explicit focus onnanotechnology which the Advisory Group believesis essential. There are distinct differences as to howfacilities for microtechnology and nanotechnologywould interface with, and be perceived by, theirtarget customer base. However, there could besubstantial savings in co-locating the facilities andsharing common functions.

ROADMAPS - TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS

The Advisory Group strongly recommends that the National Strategy for Nanotechnology shouldbe informed by a continuing road-mapping process.The Group commissioned an initial road-mappingexercise which was very helpful. The remarkablesuccess of the International Technology Roadmapfor Semiconductors begun by the US points to thevalue of this approach in tracking andcommunicating likely developments in the fieldto the wider audience of customers and investors.Nanotechnology strategy needs to track bothtechnology and applications. The roadmappingshould be carried out as an across-the-boardprocess overseen by the NASB.

AWARENESS, ACCESS PORTALS AND NETWORKING

The National Nanotechnology Fabrication Centreswill meet a focussed need to accelerate the growthof new enterprise. To succeed, any nationalstrategy must also promote wider acceptance anduptake of the technology. This will require thepromotion of linkages between all the key parties inthe UK - academic, industrial and financial - andthe involvement of regional organisations as well

10

UK NANOTECHNOLOGY STRATEGY TIMELINES

2004New fabrication facilities on streamFirms working with researchersto trial prototype products

UK researchers winning majorcontracts in Framework 6 and with industry

Fabrication facilities in placeand providing nucleus for industrial applied R&D

2007Widespread use of nanotech-nologies in manufacturing and new product developmentUK recognised as global leader

Significant numbers of spin-out firms based on UK research

Fabrication facilities deliveringshort production runs for trials ofnew products and processes

NOWBenchmark against competitorsIdentify opportunities for newproducts and processes

Better coordinated effortBuild critical mass

Establish nanotechnologyApplications Strategy BoardBuild industrial and publicawarenessInvolve RDAs in clusterdevelopmentSupport nanotechnology through existing programmesLaunch funding and set up of fabrication facilities

RESEARCH

GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRY


as national bodies. In particular, the RegionalDevelopment Agencies (RDAs) may have animportant role to play in promoting local clusters of expertise and growth.

The NASB and the NNFCs should also provideand support ‘Access Portals’ for individuals,companies and others who wish to explore thepotential of some area of nanotechnology to meettheir needs or ideas. These portals need to behighly visible: their role is to provide easy access for people from various application areas to theR&D people who might be able to work on solving their problems or meeting their needs.For example, they would be able to connectsomeone from the food industry, or aerospace ortransport, with the right people to help them toexplore how nanotechnology could be relevant totheir likely future needs. Some form of light-touchFaraday Partnership process might be appropriatehere, together with innovative uses of Internetfacilities. It will be important to leverage the existingResearch Council technology networks and theother international groups that already exist or will develop, for example as the sixth FrameworkProgramme (FP6) of the EU starts to operate.

The UK must begin to catch up with and overtakeother countries in informing and educating thebusiness sector, universities, the media and otherson the implications and possibilities that will arisefrom nanotechnology. The need to raise publicawareness is pressing and cannot await theformation of the nanofabrication centres.Indeed, it can help to pave the way for them.

The action group recommends the immediateimplementation of an awareness programme fornanotechnology. Such a programme should involvethe learned and professional societies and coulddraw on the experience of existing publicitycampaigns within the DTI.

TRAINING AND EDUCATION

The availability of trained people will be key toachieving the rapid expansion of activityenvisioned in our success scenario. They will beneeded at a wide range of levels, from leading edgeresearchers to highly skilled technicians, production

and quality engineers, application developers andso on. A major campaign in training and educationwill be needed as part of the strategy. This campaignshould involve the NNFCs but will need to bemuch wider. The NASB should also oversee thisactivity. Effective participation in the internationalmarketplace for talent at all levels will be essential.

INTERNATIONAL - PROMOTION AND INWARD TRANSFER

The national strategy for nanotechnology in theUK should build on the growing support for thetopic within the EU and in its internationalcollaboration with such organisations as the USNational Science Foundation. The UK should usethe sixth Framework Programme (FP6) morestrategically to develop collaborations withEuropean industry and academics. Potential UKacademic collaborations for FP6 initiatives shouldbe developed by the NASB in close collaborationwith the Research Councils.

The success of industry in the UK in exploitingnanotechnology opportunities should not be limitedto research conducted by the UK science base.To be competitive, industry in the UK needs toaccess the best R&D anywhere in the world. Itshould be a key element of the nationalnanotechnology strategy that Research CouncilsUK and the DTI develop effective ways to facilitateaccess to this global technology network.

The UK should also promote its national researchcapabilities and facilities abroad to encouragecollaboration and attract inward investment,particularly from major multinational companiesneeded to rebalance the domestic R&D scene.

Conclusion

We believe that the field of nanotechnology and its applications is crucial to the futurecompetitiveness and productivity of the UKeconomy, and to the well being and prosperity ofits people. We hope that the government will takeforward these recommendations with urgency andwe are confident the research community will beready to play a full part in their implementation.

11



Nanotechnology

Faster computers, advanced pharmaceuticals,controlled drug delivery, biocompatible materials,tissue repair, surface coatings, better skin care andprotection, catalysts, sensors, opticalcommunications, magnetic materials and devices -these are just some sectors of the economy wherenanotechnology will have an impact. Indeed, thereis a growing appreciation that it is difficult to findareas of manufacturing and industry wherenanoscience and nanotechnology will not have animpact.

Aims of the report

This report examines the potential impact ofnanotechnology and nanoscience on industry inthe UK. It describes the successful outcomes thatcould happen in a number of importantapplication areas and proposes a strategy for theUK to achieve these outcomes.

Advisory Group

The report was prepared by an Advisory Group set up by the Minister for Science and Innovation,Lord Sainsbury, and chaired by the DirectorGeneral of the Research Councils, Dr John Taylor.The Advisory Group commissioned a series ofsupporting studies and organised high-levelmeetings that provided an opportunity for leadersin the field from business and academia tocontribute their views.

Research on nanoscience and nanotechnology hasbeen going on in the UK for at least 20 years andhas already achieved much, including a number ofstart up companies. There is much new technologyin the pipeline which is now ready to move towardsapplication.

The key issue seen by the Advisory Group was nothow to stimulate more basic research, but rather howto stimulate the growth of nanotechnologyapplications by industry, new and existing, in the UK.

Accordingly, the Group decided to organise itswork around:

� understanding and evaluating the currentsituation on nanotechnology take up in the UK,by using a wide range of data sources andcommissioning a survey of current research(Annex A).

� generating a vision of what the UK could achievein nanotechnology in just five years from now.

This approach of asking “What would success in the UK look like in 2006?” is intended to:

� identify achievable but “stretch” goals

� use science and technology that is already in the pipeline - not dependent on newbreakthroughs

Introduction

12

NANOCOMPANY

NanoMagnetics

NanoMagnetics started in the research laboratories atBristol University. Over the past couple of years thecompany has filed several patents, raised £6.7 million,and recruited a high powered CEO, Dr BrendanHegarty. Earlier this year Lord Sainsbury, UK Minister for Science and Innovation, cut the ribbon at its newpurpose built 10,000 sq. ft laboratories in Bristol.

Hegarty’s origins give a clue as to the company’sbusiness. He spent 20 years in the magnetic diskindustry with IBM and Seagate. That’s all aboutimproving hard disk for computer storage which comesdown to what you do with very tiny magnetic particles.

By getting these down to nano dimensions and using a common protein to coat hard-disk drives,NanoMagnetics reckons that disk makers could cram100 times as much information on to a drive.NanoMagnetics recently set a world record for the useof nanoparticles for magnetic storage.

“We have only taken the first steps with this technology,”says Dr Hegarty. “We are looking to improve theseresults by a factor of five in the next six months.”

http://www.nanomagnetics.com


� be realistic about the UK’s capacity andcapabilities to develop nanotechnology

� start from where we are and only grow as fast as is practicable

� focus on what might accelerate the process by looking at business needs

If “Success in 2006” can be visualised in outcometerms - for example, the number and size of newcompanies and new products in the market -another key step is then to see if we can identifyindicators of progress: how will we know say threeyears from now if we are on track to achieve thesuccess scenario five years from now?

For the main part of its work, the group chose to focus on six key application areas (out of aninitial list of 14):

� electronics and communications

� drug delivery systems

� tissue engineering, medical implants and devices

� nanomaterials - particularly at thebio/medical/functional interface

� instrumentation, tooling and metrology

� sensors and actuators

13


THE ADVISORY GROUP ONNANOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS

The Advisory Group was set up by Lord Sainsbury, theMinister for Science and Innovation, under thechairmanship of Dr John Taylor, Director General ofResearch Councils. Its role is to advise on the actionsneeded to improve the UK’s capability in nanotechnologyand related technologies. In particular the group wasasked to “advise on, and oversee, a study to benchmarkUK nanotechnology capability [and] advise on the supportinfrastructure for nanotechnology in the UK, and theactivities of Government (including the Research Councils)in promoting activities of a suitable nature and scale toattract industrial investment”. (Terms of reference and a list of members are on page 72.)

The Group decided to focus on major application areasrather than particular subdivisions of the technology. Outof an initial list of 14 areas it chose to analyse just six:

� Electronics and communications: quantumstructure electronic devices for memory and datastorage, displays, optoelectronics, photonic crystalstructures, (longer term) quantum informationtechnology.

� Drug delivery systems: polymer-drug conjugates;nano-particles, liposome and polymer micelles and dendrimers.

� Tissue engineering and medical devices: externaltissue implants, in-vivo testing devices, medicaldevices.

� Nanomaterials: nanostructured materials, smartcomposites, catalysis, biosensors.

� Sensors and actuators: medical diagnostics andimplants; systems integration.

� Instrumentation, tools and metrology: tools for topdown manufacture e.g. high resolution and softlithography, nanometrology.

During August and September 2001 consultantsproduced a status report for the Group on each of the six application areas, assessing the UK’s capabilityagainst that of our competitors.

In October key people from industry, academia and thepublic sector attended a workshop, considered thesereports and:

� carried out road-mapping exercises to chart thelikely future evolution of technologies andapplications

� analysed and developed a scenario for “Successin the UK in 2006”, identifying drivers and shapers

� identified the indicators that will tell us if progresstowards that scenario is on track

� identified the critical success factors and theactions needed to make them happen.

The assessment and proceedings of the workshop werepublished in parallel with this report. For a summary of the scenario developed at theworkshop for each area see Box 4 and Annex B.

Box 1


These are application areas where the UK hasparticular research strengths and industrial activity,but the Advisory Group recommends that the otherareas should also be followed up in a similar way.

To characterise the “Success in 2006” scenarios,the Advisory Group commissioned studiesconducted by the National Physical Laboratory(NPL), the Institute of Nanotechnology (IoN), andthe Centre for Research on Innovation andCompetition (CRIC, University of Manchester andUMIST). These studies were used as the basis forthe Advisory Group to conduct its own workshop

aimed at examining what actions the UK mighttake to accelerate and facilitate the achievement ofthe “Success in 2006” scenarios.

The headlines of these scenarios for the six selectedareas are summarised in Box 4 and more detailedsummaries are in Annex B.

Structure of the report

This report is in three sections, together withsupporting annexes.

Part 1: Background.

We first summarise what is meant by nanoscience,nanotechnology and nanofabrication, and look at their implications for industry and education.We then summarise the international scene,including the major public sector investments beingmade in the UK’s key competitor countries, andgive examples of the kinds of products, processesand markets that are emerging already.

Part 2: Analysis and findings

We summarise the current situation onnanotechnology-related activities in the UK, bothpublicly funded and industrial, and discuss anumber of key issues arising from the research studywe commissioned from Oakland.

We then move to consider how the UK might dobetter. We summarise the results from the workshopon “Success in 2006” scenarios in the six chosenapplication areas. This enables us then to identifythe key obstacles which we believe exist to achievingthese success scenarios for the UK.

Part 3: Recommendations

We then present a set of recommendations foractions which the UK Government needs to take todeal with these obstacles, in order to accelerate thetake up of nanotechnology applications in UK industry and improve the UK’s performance inexploiting nanotechnology over the coming decade.

14

NANOCOMPANY

Mesophotonics

The company is creating photonic devices by workingnano-scale features into silicon chips. If Mesophotonicscan stick to the timetable that it has set itself, by theend of next year it will have started production ofcomponents in small volumes. Nine months later, it will be into full production. A rapid pace for a companythat started in July 2001 with a phased investment of£2.8 million from BTG.

Photonic crystals are sophisticated devices that canperform wonders on light. Light travelling along tinyglass fibres is the basis of most moderncommunications. Photonic crystals can be the switchesand signal processors of the optical era.

Mesophotonics grew out of research by Professor GregParker in the Department of Electronics and ComputerScience at the University of Southampton. Parker, whois the company’s Technical Director while retaining hispost at the university, had the advantage of working in a major semiconductor research centre.

Mesophotonics plans to use the techniques ofmicroelectronics to to make holes in silicon. It is thearrangement of the holes that matters. And this iswhere the nano bit comes in. you have to get thearrangement right to those dimensions. “You can makelots of different devices by changing the patterning ofthe holes in the materials,” explains Parker.

The company recently increased its technical staff by50 per cent, bringing the total complement to around a dozen. By mid 2002, Mesophotonics hopes to have‘proof of principle’ devices with demonstrator devicesgoing out to potential customers about six months later.

http://www.mesophotonics.com


15

Part 1 - Background


What is nanotechnology?

In its formal sense, the ‘nano’ world is wherescience and technology reach dimensions andtolerances in the range 100 nanometres (0.1micrometres) to 0.1 nanometres. A nanometre is abillionth of a metre which is about 10 times thesize of a hydrogen atom. So nanotechnology andnanoscience are concerned with materials scienceand its application at, or around, the nanometrescale. A more useful definition of nanotechnologyis the application of science to developing newmaterials and processes by manipulating moleculesand atoms. It is a collective term for a set oftechnologies, techniques and processes rather thana specific area of science or engineering.

The potential impact of nanotechnology is so largethat it is dangerous to rely on definitions that couldrestrict thinking. In effect, nanotechnology is ageneric technology and a new way of looking atmany subjects. Just as electronics and biotechnologyhave created their own technological revolutions,many people believe that nanotechnology will havea similar disruptive impact.

Nanofabrication: the new manufacturing

Nanotechnology is about new approaches tomanufacturing - new ways of making things. Thereare two ways to approach the nanoscale; shrinkingfrom the top down, or growing from the bottomup. These two models are fundamentally different,both in the approach to creating structures and inthe underlying science that will make them possible.

The ‘top-down’ approach, entails reducing the sizeof the smallest structures towards the nanoscale.This essentially entails carving nano structures outof larger objects. Top down nanotechnology is inthe first instance more the domain ofnanoelectronics and nanoengineering. An earlyapplication of this approach could be in thedevelopment of nanophotonics, the conjunction ofelectronics and photonics at a nano scale.

It extends techniques such as electron-beamlithography, borrowed from microelectronics, tocreate microelectromechanical systems (MEMS),for example. There are, though, physical limits tothis top down approach. As dimensions reach theatomic scale, the manufacturing processes aretrying to manipulate individual molecules. Forcesand interactions between individual molecules thenbecome significant, and new paradigms have tocome into play.

‘Bottom-up’ techniques involve manipulatingindividual atoms and molecules. Bottom-up nanousually implies controlled or directed self assemblyof atoms and molecules into nano structures. Itresembles more closely the processes of biology andchemistry, where atoms and molecules cometogether to create structures such as crystals orliving cells. In effect, the creation a living cell or asnowflake is nature’s own nanotechnology at work.

The role of top-down techniques taken frommicroelectronics and adapted for nanotechnologyhas particular implications for the UK. These‘microfabrication’ techniques are more mature thannanofabrication since they use established siliconprocessing techniques, and the one blends into theother. Microfabrication is more easily understoodand may well have the earlier impacts on themarket. Any strategy for nanotechnology in theUK has to recognise both domains and allow acreative balance between them

Unlike Japan and the USA, British industry lacksin-depth manufacturing expertise in mass marketmicroelectronics, although the UK does have a £4 billion microelectronics fabrication industryconcentrated in several niche markets. A strategyfor nanotechnology will need to recognise this anddeal with any resulting gaps. The UK does havesignificant strengths in research in microelectronicsand photonics and thus has the foundations forsuccessful development of top-down nanotechnology.

The techniques of bottom-up manufacturing willhave particular implications and oportunities forthe UK's major industries, especially the possibilityof massively parallel nanofactories which coulddramatically influence, the production ofpharmaceuticals and value added chemicals.

Part 1 - Background

16


Nanotechnology isinterdisciplinary

The top-down and bottom-up nature ofnanotechnology underlines its multidisciplinarynature. Nanoscience and nanotechnology dependon contributions from, among others, chemistry,physics, the life sciences and many engineeringdisciplines. Thus the subject inevitably crosses theboundaries of many different departments intraditional universities and research institutes andinvolves the research agendas of most of the UK’sResearch Councils. It is important to recognise thisand to consider the implications for the UK’sstrategy for nanotechnology.

Despite recent progress, much education andtraining in Britain’s universities still continues alongmore or less traditional disciplinary lines.It is difficult for companies to recruit technologistsand researchers who are comfortable in severaldifferent areas of science and engineering.

The multidisciplinary nature of nanotechnologyalso poses challenges for industry. While manycompanies have always depended on their ability toharness the intellectual efforts of different areas of

science and technology, nanotechnology will takethat interdisciplinarity to a new level.

Nanotechnology is disruptive

A distinctive feature of genuinely disruptivetechnologies is that they can have very manydifferent applications. This is particularly true fornanotechnology. For example, nanoparticletechnology alone can influence a large number ofproducts and services (see Figure 1 below).

Disruptive technologies are those that displaceolder technologies and enable radically newgenerations of existing products and processes totake over. For example, optical data storage,through such devices as compact disks, has changedthe face of home entertainment and computing;digital cameras based on solid-state memory andimaging technologies are replacing photographicfilm.

Disruptive technologies can also enable whole newclasses of products and markets not previouslyfeasible, such as portable computing, mobile phonesor digital imaging. New industries and newcompanies grow, and existing companies can continue

17


Fig 1. Potential application areas for nanotechnology(Institute for New Materials, Saarbrucken).

tribological

coatingstribological

coatings

materials for low cost

housing tumor therapy

paper technology

tissue engineering

life sciences

implant surfaces

anti- microbial surfaces

gene targeting

automotive parts

core sands

textiles paper

C-fibres

AlCu

BrassMg

SS + steel

coatings on glass

lightweight boards

indoor application

hospitals

glass

sanitarytransportation industry

dairy industry

food proces-

sing deodoration

antigraffiti

holograms

ceramics

mold release

archi- tecture

diffractive coatings

wave guides

micro- lenses

information storage

sports equipmrnt

optical components

optical lenses

electro- chromics

micro patterned

glass

micro patterned

folis

AR, IR interference

coatings

anti- fogging

easy to clean

photo- chromics

bearings

optics

printing pastes

membranes

ceramics

electro and photolumi- nescence pigments

nano powders

SIC technology

micro- parts

household kitchen

agriculture

flue gas

catalysis

easy to clean

natural fibres

nanobinders

corrosionp

rotection

nanoparticles by chemistry + processing

to materials = chemical nanotechnologies by

wet chemical processing and wet coating


to compete if they notice and adapt rapidly. Thosethat do not face rapid obsolescence and decline.

Where British manufacturers build complex, hightechnology systems, such as aircraft, vehicles, orprocess plant, they will probably be able toincorporate new components based onnanotechnology that may be cheaper, faster andwith greater functionality. These system integratorsrequire an extensive base of suppliers producingthe components and the sub-assemblies for them toincorporate into their products. Buildingnanotechnology into these components will alsorequire a microsystems industry to interface theirsmaller relatives to the outside world.

A key issue therefore that could disadvantage theUK compared to some other advanced industrialnations would be a failure of its companies toappreciate that nanotechnology is really disruptive -that it will generate major paradigm shifts in howthings are manufactured. Nanotechnology couldlead to changes that equal the revolutions usheredin by semiconductor technology and biotechnology.

Another sign of the role that nanotechnology willplay in the future economy is the increasing interestin it within the investment community. Some largeinvestors now have specialists who follow the subject,while some smaller funds concentrate onnanotechnology in their investments. A few excellentanalysis reports are available (see bibliography).There is also a growing list of start-up companiesthat hope to turn research into products and services,some of which are described throughout this report..

The global picture

Investment in nanotechnology is increasing rapidly.It is a subject that attracts large and smallcountries. More than 30 countries havenanotechnology activities and plans. As well as themajor players, there are growing programmes inSingapore, Russia and the Ukraine. In Mexicothere are 20 research groups workingindependently. Korea, already a world player inelectronics, has an ambitious 10-year programmeto attain a world-class position in nanotechnology.

The potential of nanotechnology has resulted in a rapid increase in interest in research anddevelopment, both academically and, in somecountries, in industry. Japan, for example, recentlycommitted itself to a central government spend onnanotechnology of some 75 billion yen, around£400 million, for the coming fiscal year (FY2002).Nanotechnology is one of four strategic platformsof Japan’s second basic plan for science andtechnology.

The USA’s federal budget for 2002 includes $604million for research and development innanotechnology, $199 million of it for the NationalScience Foundation (NSF). The request for thefiscal year 2003 is $710 million, including $221million for the NSF. The NSF has designated“Nanoscale Science and Engineering” as one of itssix priority areas.

A major landmark in the USA was the launch, inJanuary 2000, of the National Nanotechnology

18

Worldwide government funding for nanotechnology R&D, US$M, (April 2002)

Area 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

W. Europe 126 151 179 200 225 ~400

Japan 120 135 157 245 465 ~650

USA* 116 190 255 270 422 604 710

Others 70 83 96 110 380 ~520

Total 432 559 687 825 1502 2174

(% of 1997) 100% 129% 159% 191% 348% 503%

From a briefing note: Nanotechnology Funding: The International Outlook by Mihail C. Roco, Chair, White House/National Science and TechnologyCouncil/Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee, and Senior Advisor, US National Science Foundation, May 2002.

* excluding non-federal spending eg California

“Others” include Australia, Canada, China, Eastern Europe, FSU, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and other countries with nanotechnology R&D


Initiative (NNI). In 2002-2003, the focus for theNNI will be on fundamental research throughinvestments in investigator-led activities, centres andnetworks of excellence and infrastructure. TheNNI’s funding priority will go to: research to enablethe nanoscale as the most efficient manufacturingdomain; innovative nanotechnology solutions to“biological-chemical-radiological-explosive detectionand protection”; development of instrumentationand standards; the education and training of thenew generation of workers for the future industries;and partnerships to enhance industrialparticipation in the nanotechnology revolution.

The State of California alone has set aside $100million for the creation of the CaliforniaNanosystems Institute, a ‘distributed’ centre withfacilities at both the University of California SantaBarbara and UC Los Angeles (UCLA). Matchingfunds, from industry and federal sources areexpected to add $200 million to this investment.IBM is providing over $100 million for a centre atNY State University at Albany.

The European Commission (EC) has also recognisedthe growing importance of nanotechnology. Out ofa total proposed funding for FP6 of D17.5 billionfrom 2002 to 2006, D1.3 billion would be devotedto a priority thematic area of research onnanotechnology and nanoscience, knowledge-basedmultifunctional materials and new productionprocesses and devices.

The EC has yet to begin allocating funds underFP6 to individual projects. However, it has awarded the UK’s Institute of Nanotechnology a contract to promote pan European networkingand educational activities. The 4th FrameworkProgramme (1994 - 1998), funded some 80 projectsinvolving nanotechnology. In the 5th FrameworkProgramme, (1998 - 2002) the estimated fundinglevel is about D45 million a year.

Within the EU, the UK was second only toGermany in public investment in nanotechnologyin 2000 according to figures from the EuropeanCommission. But Germany has a much moreintegrated and co-ordinated system, and others,particularly France and Ireland, are taking action.For example, in 1999 Ireland invested D12.7 millionin the National Nanofabrication Facility at theNational Microelectronics Research Centre in Cork.

In May 2002, at a congress in Berlin the GermanFederal Research Minister presented the FederalGovernment’s strategy on nanotechnology togetherwith an overview of the country’s strengths andresearch activities in this area. In 2001 totalexpenditure on nanotechnology research anddevelopment in Germany was D217.3 million.This includes D153.1 million from the public sector- both institutional and project funding - and D64.2 million from industry sources. The Germangovernment has made nanotechnology a keyresearch policy priority and supports the exploitation

19


NANOCOMPANY

QinetiQ Nanomaterials Ltd

A spin out from QinetiQ, formerly DERA, the R&D armof the Ministry of Defence, QinetiQ Nanomaterials Ltdofficially opened for business at the beginning of 2002.It immediately became one of Europe’s largestnanomaterials and nanotechnology groups. Funds forthe company came in the shape of the first substantialinvestment by QinetiQ Ventures Ltd, QinetiQ’s ownventure fund.

QinetiQ Nanomaterials makes ‘nanopowders’. For itsproduction technology, the company has picked up onanother hot area of science, plasma – that’s really hotgas. Tetronics developed the technology and QinetiQNanomaterials has an exclusive licence to use it for tinyparticles and is building a plant at Farnborough to churnout nanoparticles by the tonne.

IPR is another arrow in the quiver at QinetiQNanomaterials. The business already has a handful ofpatents filed and eight or nine internal projects thatcould add to the portfolio.

As well as ‘pyrotechnics’, that’s explosives to most ofus, they have their eye on materials for electronics andmedicine, for drug delivery for example.

The company has access to the massive resources ofQinetiQ, one of the UK’s largest research centres withmore than 150 scientists and engineers working innanomaterials and nanotechnology, in its search fornew ideas. The plan is to develop complete technologypackages for customers, and to help them to set upproduction plants close to their factories. “We do notwant to ship large quantities around the world,” saysMike Pitkethly, Commercial Director of QinetiQNanomaterials.

http://www.nano.qinetiq.com


of its commercial and job creating potential and awider dialogue on the opportunities and risks.

A key element of the German strategy is to establishnetworks involving the best public-sector researchfacilities, universities and commercial companies.This includes continued support for Germany’s sixvirtual nanotechnology competence clusters throughto the end of 2003. These virtual nanotechnologynetworks involve 127 universities, 99 non-universityresearch institutes, 20 industry associations or learnedsocieties, 130 SMEs and 47 large companies. Aseventh network, specialising in nano-scale materials,was founded at the initiative of the KarlsruheResearch Centre and the Federal Research Ministry.

The strategic purpose of the nanotechnologyinvestments in the US and Japan, and to a lesserextent Korea, Germany and France, is clear.These countries recognise the advantage that theirindustries will have if they are early to incorporatenanotechnology into their products. They want to retain their share of high-tech manufacturing,particularly in microelectronics, and to gain share in areas where nanotechnology will turn theexisting industries upside down, such aspharmaceuticals.

Some of the specific provisions being made inother countries for major nanofabrication facilitiesand associated business start up and incubationsupport are summarised in Box 2.

20

CANADANational Institute for Nanotechnology at the University of Alberta

In August 2001, the Government of Canada andGovernment of Alberta announced that each wouldcontribute (Can) $60 million over five years to create theNational Institute for Nanotechnology at the University ofAlberta. The National Institute for Nanotechnology (NINT)will employ about 200 people, and house state-of-the-artequipment and research programmes. The National

Research Council, in collaboration with the University ofAlberta, will operate the facility.

The NINT and its partners will directly employ a total of150 people. Main features of NINT include NRCresearch, innovation and commercialization programmes,a major physical installation and state-of-the-art facilitiesshared by scientists from the University of Alberta andNRC, and a collaborative R&D programme

FRANCEMinatec

The Minatec Centre for Innovation in Micro andNanotechnology, in Grenoble, has the ambition “to become Europe’s top centre for innovation andexpertise in micro and nanotechnology”.

France launched Minatec, initially called the Micro andNanotechnology Innovation Centre, in 2000. Work beganin 2001, with a planned investment of around g150million. Regional authorities are providing about a half ofthe total costs.

The main objectives of Minatec are to:

Speed up and optimise the process of innovation, by:

� bringing together in the same place industry,upstream and applied research, training andinnovation resources;

� strengthening pluridisciplinary working in micro-technology, software, biology, user patterns, etc.

� organizing collaborative projects and alliances withcomplementary centres of excellence in France,Europe as well as in the USA and Asia.

� offering industry various approaches to technologytransfer: R&D contracts, joint laboratories,consortiums, start ups and so on.

� setting up initial and continuous training coursessuited to the new requirements of micro andnanotechnology.

� attracting students, researchers and top gradeengineers to meet growing demand by French and European firms and laboratories.

� instilling new drive in Grenoble and strengthen thearea’s assets.

� boosting European research improving ourcompetitive edge in strategic fields in a keenlycompetitive international environment.

Box 2Some overseas facilities aimed at supporting the development and commercialisation of nanotechnology


21


nanophysics to biology to electronics. The NNUN has‘domain experts’ in micromechanics and biology to assistusers in translating their ideas into experimental reality.

The NNUN, which is now more than seven years old,says of itself: “With the assistance of the NNUN, userscan often fabricate advanced nanostructures within weeksof initial contact. The NNUN also provides outreachsupport to the community through its Research Experiencefor Undergraduates program and training workshops.”

The NNUN consists of two hub facilities on the east andwest coasts at Cornell University and Stanford University,with three additional sites at Howard University, thePennsylvania State University and the University ofCalifornia at Santa Barbara. These centres offer expertisein specific areas. During 2001, more than 1700 usersconducted a significant part of their research at the NNUN’s facilities. These userswere evenly divided between local and externalinstitutions and a large majority of them were graduatestudents.

In recent years, the annual a growth rate of the NNUNhas been around 20 per cent. The user population hasalmost doubled in the past four years. In 2001, nearly150 small companies used the resources of the NNUN.

The Director of NNUN, Sandip Tiwari, sums up thenetwork’s role in a document that brings together someof the papers that have come out of the various centres.He says:

“We accomplish our mission by providing the nation’sresearchers with effective and efficient access toadvanced nanofabrication equipment and expertise. We enable research by providing state-of-the-art facilities,training, and project support. We help expand theapplication of nanotechnology by providing technicalliaison personnel, education through workshops andshort courses, and by acting as a bridge betweendisciplines to create research opportunities that mightotherwise not be apparent to specialists in narrowdisciplines.”

USANanoscale Science and Engineering CentersNational NanofabricationUsers Network

In September 2001, the US National ScienceFoundation announced awards estimated to total $65 million over five years to fund six major centres innanoscale science and engineering at Columbia andCornell Universities and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institutein New York, Harvard University in Massachusetts,Northwestern University in Illinois, and Rice University in Texas.

The Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers are:

� NSEC: Integrated Nanopatterning and DetectionTechnologies

� NSEC: Nanoscale Systems in InformationTechnologies

� NSEC: Science of Nanoscale Systemsand their Device Applications

� NSEC: Electronic Transport in MolecularNanostructures

� NSEC: Nanoscience in Biological andEnvironmental Engineering

� NSEC: Directed Assembly of Nanostructures

This is but a small part of a massive investment innanotechnology in the USA. The federal budget forfiscal 2002 included $604 million for nanotechnologyR&D, $199 million of it for the NSF. The request in fiscal2003 was $710 million, including $221 million for NSF.

Other agencies in the USA supporting nanotechnologyinclude the Departments of Commerce, Defense,Energy and Justice; the Environmental ProtectionAgency; the National Institutes of Health; and theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration.

As well as the NSECs, facilities in the USA include theNational Nanofabrication Users Network. The NNUN,also funded by the NSF, provides access to “some ofthe most sophisticated nanofabrication technologies inthe world with facilities open to all users from academia,government, and industry”. The combined staffs of theNNUN have extensive experience in all phases ofnanofabrication and its use in fields ranging from


22

ELECTRONICS MARKETS FOR NANOTECHNOLOGY

Even at this early stage in its development, people havetried to forecast the potential markets for nanotechnology.As an industry that has already demonstrated the import-ance of ever greater miniaturisation, it is perhaps easiestto see how nanotechnology could change electronics.

The current market for miniaturised systems is about$40 billion. It is an act of faith within the microelectronicsindustry that the technology will continue to followsMoore’s Law. This states that the performance ofsemiconductor devices doubles every 18 months or so.

That progress has come from the ability to create everfiner features on chips. For Moore’s Law to continue,the semiconductor industry needs new approaches.It is close to introducing 100-nm technology sometimearound 2004. This is the turning point for radically newtechnologies, which will begin to reach physical limits.

The Technology Roadmap for Nanoelectronics,produced by the European Commission, points out that5 to 7 per cent of semiconductors will be ‘non-CMOS’by 2004, and a significant proportion of the equipmentwill be capable of nanofabrication down to 10 nm. The nanoelectronics market could therefore be in therange of £10 to 20 billion two years from now.

One option for the future that the roadmap sets out is to look for are mechanisms that operate at thenanoscale and exploit quantum effects.

Few products already in the market place embednanotechnology. However, composite annual growthrates of 30-40 per cent (70 per cent for emerging

markets) are expected. The market for micro and nanosystems in the telecommunication sector is in the orderof $3.5 billion with rates of growth of 70 per centalthough the slowdown in the telecommunicationsindustry may have some short term impact on this [see NPL study]. Nanotechnology is projected to yieldannual production of $300 billion for the semiconductorindustry (and a few times more for global integratedcircuit sales) within 10 to 15 years [USNSF].

Nanotechnology will influence both optoelectronics andmagnetics, key enabling technologies in informationtechnology Companies have already announced that they are working on such ideas as the use of carbonnanotubes in photonic switching devices, electronicdisplays and fuel-cell power sources.

Electronics Market Forecast

935

13626.5

1433

296

65.5

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Electronics Semiconductors Equipment

Turn

over

(Bill

ion

Euro

)

1999

2004

Box 3

Turnover for electronic products, the semiconductor segment, and theequipment for the production of semiconductor products in billion Euro.Werner M., T Köhler, S. Mietke, J. Ilgner and G. Bachmannn,Wirrtschaftliche Bedeutung der Mikro- und Nanotechnologie, Konferenzüber Nanotechnologie, Duisburg (Germany) 10/5/2000, quoted in ECTechnology Roadmap for Nanoelectronics, 11/2000.

OTHER MARKETS FORNANOTECHNOLOGY� Pharmaceuticals Within 10 to 15 years about half

of all production (over $180 billion a year) will dependon nanotechnology [USNSF]. From microfluidics fordrug assay to nanoparticles for targeted drug delivery.

� Medical devices and biotechnology productsThe total market for biotechnology products isaround $50 billion per year, of which nano aspectscontribute perhaps 1% ($0.5 billion). This isexpected to double in the next three years across awide range from growth of biomedical materials fortendon bandages to gene therapy [NPL].

� Chemicals Nanostructured catalysts haveapplications in the petroleum and chemicalprocessing industries, with an estimated annualimpact of $100 billion in 10 to 15 years [USNSF].

The estimated world market for advanced ceramicsis over $25 billion (in 2000), with an annual growthrate of 7.2 per cent. From this, chemical processing,nanoparticles, coatings and advanced structuralmechanics have around 35 per cent of the market(the rest is within the electronic sector) [NPL].

� Sustainability Projections indicate that in 10 to 15 years advances in nanotechnology illuminationdevices, based for example on LEDs, have thepotential to reduce world-wide consumption ofenergy by more than 10 per cent. This correspondsto a saving of $100 billion a year and a reduction of200 million tons of carbon emissions [USNSF].Another fertile area will be the use of nanostructuredceramics and C60 nanotubes for novel fuel cells


Nanotechnology products andmarkets - where are we now?

Despite nearly two decades of basic research, muchactivity in nanotechnology is still at an early stage.This is typical of a radically new technologydeveloping a rising head of steam with theemphasis shifting now to the development of theunderlying technologies and their applications.Nanotechnology today is arguably at about thesame stage that information technology occupied inthe early 1960s, or biotechnology at the beginningof the 1980s.

Researchers have demonstrated various bottom-uptechniques. Laboratories around the world areworking on new approaches and on ways to scale up the technology to industrial levels.There are already significant areas of progress insome parts of industry.

For example, the first factories to manufacturecarbon nanotubes and fullerenes are underconstruction in Japan. (Fullerenes and nanotubesare C60 molecules.) Last year Mitsui & Co and aconsortium of Mitsubishi Corporation andMitsubishi Chemical Corporation announced plansto build plants to manufacture fullerenes. Theannouncements of this production plant came soonafter an announcement from NEC Corporation ofJapan that it has developed a fuel cell built aroundnanotubes as electrodes. Samsung of Korea hasalso shown a prototype of a flat-panel electronicdisplay that uses nanotubes as field emission devices.Carbon nanotubes could also act as miniaturereaction vessels, enabling us to control chemicalreactions to produce complex compounds.

Nanotechnology - the products

Applications of nanotechnology are already emergingand promise to make a significant mark by 2006.

Products already available:

� hard-disks - devices based on giantmagnetoresistance in nanostructured magneticmultilayers dominate the market

� sun-block creams based on nanoparticles thatabsorb UV light

� lasers, modulators and amplifiers fortelecommunications

� computer peripherals eg VCSELs,(Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers).

Applications close to the marketplace

� better photovoltaic techniques for renewableenergy sources

� electronic display technologies

� glasses with scratch resistant coating

� harder, lighter and stronger materials

� ‘lab-on-a-chip’’ diagnostic technologies

� quantum structure electronic devices

� self-cleaning surfaces.

� advanced photonics devices intelecommunications

23


NANOCOMPANY

Enact Pharma

Enact Pharma plc is a development company focusedon cancer and neurological diseases. Formed in April2000 by the merger of two other companies, it hasraised over £5 million in equity investment.

This may look like a traditional biotech company, but aswell as cancer therapy the portfolio at Enact Pharmaincludes ‘nerve regeneration’, the ability to generatebiologically active nerve fibres on biodegradablepolymers. The company’s technology makes it possibleto generate biologically active molecules onbiodegradable polymers, which can then be formed intochannels or tubes to provide a chemical pathway fornew nerve cells to grow along.

“The nano angle is that the biodegradable polymerbase is nano-sculptured and that this gives a majoradvantage,” says Dr Tony Atkinson, the company’sChief Executive Officer. “The molecules used in thebase are also biological nano particles.”

http://www.enactpharma.com/


Applications that may appear within the next decade:

� targeted drug delivery enabling lower dosageand reduced side effects

� anti-corrosion coatings, tougher and hardercutting tools

� polymer electronics

� flat-panel electronic displays

� longer lasting medical implants and artificiallycreated organs

� retinal implants

� medical sensors to monitor patients so that theycan be treated at home.

In addition, many new tools and techniques willbecome available. Top-down techniques (ultra-precision machining, ultra-high resolutionlithography, scanning probe microscopy) will makefurther improvements. Bottom-up “self assembly”processes will begin to become available.

Nanotechnology - the markets

It is too soon to produce reliable figures for theglobal market for nanotechnology. It is simply tooearly to say where markets and applications willcome, and when. So it is important to treat allnumbers with caution. However, existing forecastsdo hint at the growth that we can expect (see Box3, Box 4). Various separate predictions when takentogether point to the expectation of a rapid take offin the latter part of the decade (see Table 1).

24

Year Estimated global market Source

2001 £31 - 55 billion German government (2001); CORDIS (1999)

2005 £105 billion Evolution Capital (UK, 2001)

2008 £500 billion US NanoBusiness Alliance (US, 2001)

2010 £700 billion US Government (2001); Evolution Capital (UK, 2001)

2011 to 2015 exceed $1 trillion US NSTC NSET sub-committee (2001)

Table 1


25

Part 2: Analysis & Findings

In this section, we summarise the current situation on activities

related to nanotechnology in the UK, both publicly funded and

industrial, using a wide range of data sources and the research

survey that we commissioned. We then discuss the key issues arising

from them.

We then consider what obstacles exist to improving activity in the

UK over the coming decade - how could the UK do better and

what would it take? Our methodology for this is to choose a number

of specific, major application areas and to produce for each area

success scenarios for five years from now. These scenarios were

generated in a focussed workshop of the Advisory Group conducted

after considerable preparation of material commissioned from

consultants. These “Success in 2006” scenarios are aimed at

producing optimistic but realistic estimates of how well we could

expect industry in the UK to take up nanotechnology in each area

if all the necessary enablers were in place.

From this, we can then define the key obstacles which we believe

exist to achieving these success scenarios for the UK, and to validate

that they are generic across the different areas rather than peculiar

to one or two.


ANALYSIS

Current activities in the UK

The UK has a strong academic background innanoscience and nanotechnology and has beenactive in the field for a considerable time. TheNational Initiative on Nanotechnology (NION) led by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in1986 was the forerunner of a number ofinternational initiatives. A LINK nanotechnologyprogramme followed NION in 1988 to 1996 but was not continued. The Foresight MaterialsPanel commissioned a report (February 2000)which set out to underline the importance ofnanotechnology in the materials context, togetherwith its relevance to industry.

The Advisory Group commissioned OaklandInnovation and Information Services to produce a benchmarking survey of nanotechnology research in the UK, both in academia and industry. A summary of the survey appears inAnnex A to this report.

Public spending on nanotechnology R&D in theUK was probably around £30m in 2001, althoughit is hard to categorise because of the large numberof disciplines involved. It is set to rise quite rapidlyin 2002-3 as the new Interdisciplinary ResearchCollaborations (IRCs) and university technologycentres start to spend (see below).

Nanotechnology research in the UK covers mostaspects of the field. Much of this research canclaim to be up with the world’s best. The UK hasparticular strengths in nanoelectronics,nanophotonics and molecular nanotechnology.These are related to strong, established researchfields in the UK, such as semiconductor physics,photonics, molecular biology and pharmacy.

The UK’s support for nanotechnology, and thelocation of research, has grown around legacyinstitutions that were set up to support earliertechnologies, such as the Central MicrostructureFacility at the Rutherford and Appleton Laboratory(RAL) of the CCLRC and the ScottishMicroelectronics Centre.

The Research Councils have set out to developa strategy that builds upon recent successes innanotechnology research. With other sponsors,they have recently set up three newInterdisciplinary Research Collaborations (IRCs):

� Oxford University with the Universities ofGlasgow and York, and the National Institutefor Medical Research (bionanotechnology)

� Cambridge University with University CollegeLondon and the University of Bristol (inmaterials and measurement in nanotechnology)

� The Universities of Liverpool and Manchesterjointly (in tissue engineering).

Research Council support for these centres will be£28 million over six years

A number of other smaller projects currently receivefinance from Research Councils and the DTI.

There is a steady flow of new ventures from theuniversities, RAL and the Scottish MicroelectronicsCentre. This will increase with the commissioningof purpose-built incubator facilities at the threemore commercially minded new centres:

� the proposed I2 NanoTech Centre atBirmingham, including support from AdvantageWest Midlands, the Regional DevelopmentAgency

� the University Innovation Centre (UIC) basedon the Universities of Durham and Newcastle,which aims to attract significant businesssupport in the North-East Region

� the planned £45 million investment innanotechnology on Oxford University’sBegbroke Business and Science Park.

Another centre is planned jointly by UCL andImperial College in London.

The independent Institute of Nanotechnology has undertaken some seminal studies, conferencesand missions which have helped raise the profile of nanotechnology in the UK and Europe.

Part 2: Analysis & Findings

26


Key features of the UK situation

The Advisory Group has reviewed and debated thematerial we have assembled about the current statusof nanotechnology in the UK. We summarisebelow the main characteristics we have identified.

Absence of coordinated strategy,fragmentation, lack of critical mass,level playing fields

The Oakland survey commissioned by the AdvisoryGroup (Annex A) found that national andinternational perception of the UK’s research innanotechnology is coloured by its fragmented anduncoordinated nature. It is seen to be dominated bya number of internationally recognised individualsrather than there being world-leading UK centres.The UK is not recognised as having a critical massof world-class activity, but is seen as having a thinlyspread network of leading players across the fullrange of nanotechnology research activity. Inpractice, although many of these field leaders arebased at the larger centres of research such asCambridge, Birmingham, Glasgow and Oxford,the role of nanotechnology in the wider researcheffort is largely unrecognised.

Part of the problem may be that it is difficult tocreate a collective view of something asmultidisciplinary as research in nanotechnologywithout a degree of strategic overview andcoordination along traditional research departmentlines. Successful application of nanotechnologyrequires the sharing of knowledge, tools, techniquesand information from disciplines includingmaterials science, engineering, physics, chemistry,molecular biology and medical research. Thesedisciplines need to communicate effectively amongthemselves and be accessible to managers andentrepreneurs and investors.

The diverse nature of the UK’s research effort innanoscience and nanotechnology makes it hard togive industry confidence that the technology isready to develop into marketable products andprocesses. In particular, there are few ‘portals ofentry’ through which individuals or companieswanting to explore the territory efficiently can

access the expertise in the range of nanotechologiesthat might be relevant to their needs andopportunities.

A key element of many discussions was the“unfair” competitive advantage that other countriesderive from their provision, at public expense, ofmajor nanotechnology fabrication facilities. Thesecentres enable engineers and entrepreneurs frommany different organisations to use leading edgefacilities with high grade R&D and technicalsupport to explore the practicability of concepts fornew products and processes, and to develop themto the point where they can demonstratecommercial viability to potential customers andinvestors. Some key examples of such facilities inother countries were summarised earlier (see Box 3).

Consequently, large companies in the UK arepoorly sighted on the implications ofnanotechnology for their businesses and, as yet,provide only limited ‘industry pull’. Theirinvolvement is confined to maintaining a watchingbrief on an area that many perceive to be beyondtheir planning or engagement horizons. Thus, withsome exceptions, there is little large scale industrial

27


NANOCOMPANY

Oxonica

An old hand in terms of nanotechnology. All of three yearsold, Oxonica, once called Nanox, is a spin out fromOxford University. Based on research by Professor PeterDobson, the company’s focus is on making tiny particles.

One set of particles they work on soak up ultravioletlight. That’s the dangerous bit of the spectrum in sunlight.Which is why these particles could appeal to peoplewho make sunscreen or cosmetics. Nanoparticles canabsorb much more UV than conventional materials.

Oxonica is into other materials for the next electronicsrevolution. It has found ways of making materials thatproduce light and that could be used in electronicdisplays.

Quantum dots are the name of the game here. Littleclumps of 1000 to 100,000 atoms, they have excitedscientists for the past five years or so. Quantum dotscan be semiconductors, metals or metal oxides andcan have novel properties for electronic, optical, magneticand catalytic applications.

http://www.oxonica.com


investment in R&D for nanotechnology in the UK.Few companies report significant in-house researchexpertise in the emerging nanotechnologiesrelevant to their businesses. The level of industrialfunding for academic research in nanotechnology isalso low. A further factor that depresses interest inthe subject is the limited industrial base in the UKin some key areas where nanotechnology will makeits greatest impact, for example microelectronics.

The relative failure of companies in the UK toperceive the importance of nanotechnology maystem partly from the fact that no top levelorganisation provides strategic leadership oreducation relevant to nanotechnology. For example,at present no UK organisation has the remit toestablish direct contact with every business in theUK that could benefit from nanotechnology.Nor does the UK have institutions such as theNational Nanofabrication Users’ Network (NNUN)in the US, which assisted nearly 150 smallcompanies during 2001.

The NNUN dedicates significant resources toeducating industry on the benefits of adoptingnanotechnology - and the risks of failing to do so.Germany also has similar nanotechnology usernetworks. In the UK we are only just making astart, with the EPSRC supporting a number oftechnology networks, with around half a dozendirectly aimed at nanotechnology, and thecontinuing efforts of the Institute ofNanotechnology which, from a very small base,has sought to maintain links between academics,business and Government.

The role of large and smallbusinesses: value chains andsupply chains

As in other areas of advancing science andtechnology, the industrial ecology ofnanotechnology will involve companies of all sizes.Large companies will often carry out their ownR&D because they understand thatnanotechnology will disrupt their current productsand processes and therefore need to understand the implications and control the pace ofimplementation. Small start-up companies thatunderstand where new opportunities and marketsmay lie can play an important role incommercialising research. These companies willoften find their markets in the supply chains andvalues chains of larger companies and so therelationship and dynamics between small and largecompanies is often crucial. It is vital that any newstrategy for promoting nanotechnology applicationsin the UK understands and accommodates this.

Both small and large companies are potentialcustomers for facilities with the appropriate nano-fabrication tools. Many potential products requiretechniques and fabrication facilities not readilyavailable in industry. Some companies see the lackof such capabilities as a handicap. Where there arefacilities, lack of clarity on issues of intellectualproperty rights (IPR) can be an obstacle.

28

NANOCOMPANY

NanoCo Technologies Ltd

A nano company in size as well as its business as wewrite, with a full-time staff of one, NanoCo TechnologiesLtd plans to make quantum dots made with cleanchemistry.

The company has its sights on one of today’s hotsubjects, counterfeiting, which costs the UK more than £6 billion a year. NanoCo is working with a majorcompany to develop security applications of smallparticles known as quantum dots. “They came to us,”says Professor Paul O’Brien, who started the companyand still runs it out of his research group at ManchesterUniversity.

Quantum dots could produce colours that even themost sophisticated rip-off merchants could not copy.These high-tech particles could also end up in medicalkit in diagnostics, for example. Another major Britishcompany is working with NanoCo on this one.

NanoCo’s business plan calls for annual sales into thesecurity market to reach £1 million within five years.


In the Oakland survey commissioned by theAdvisory Group, eight of the 14 universitiesconsulted reported nanotechnologycommercialisation activities. The survey alsoidentified more than 20 spin-out companies.

In the past there has been criticism of theuniversities’ approach to commercialisation.Unlike the spin-out companies they spawn, thesurvival of universities does not depend oncommercial success but on their ability to attractresearch funding by maintaining high scores in theresearch assessment exercise. As a consequence,industry sometimes complains that universitiesattach higher priority to open publication ofresearch than to solving application problemsunder commercial secrecy. Universities have torecognise this and take realistic approaches to thevaluation of IPR and to the risk involved in turningideas into commercial success. There are signs ofprogress here, with a growing number ofacademics branching out into the commercialarena and creating their own start-up businesses.

There can also be problems stemming from thedifferent time horizons of industry and universities.Industry desires a rapid response while theacademic world operates through research grantswhich can often have different time constraints.

There are now enough successful university spin-out businesses to act as role models. (For example,see the 2001 Business Higher Education InteractionSurvey.) Investors also recognise the potentialreturns that can come from supporting the transferof research out of an academic environment.For example, the venture capital company BeesonGregory has also signed a deal with the chemistrydepartment at Oxford University, under which,in return for an investment of £20 million over the next 15 years, Beeson Gregory receives a 50 percent share of any spin-out company that builds on the department’s IPR. And in May 2002,Imperial College announced a £10 million dealwith the company Fleming Family & Partners tocommercialise research from the college.

Clusters and regions

Companies large and small can benefit fromproximity to other businesses and to academicresearch centres. This so-called ‘cluster’phenomenon has paid dividends as industrial policy in the UK has successfully encouraged acombination of UK investment and foreign inwardinvestment to form clusters of advanced technologybusinesses. High-tech clusters have grown in areassuch as Cambridge, the Thames Valley, WestMidlands, South Wales and Lothian. Local facilitiesin the cluster regions can complement nationalfacilities in providing trained staff, particularlytechnicians, and in the training needed to keeplocal industries up with the current state of the art.

If they are to sustain their position, companies inclusters currently active in such areas as electronicsand biotechnology need resources to developmicrotechnology fabrication (MEMS) capabilitiesnow and will require nanotechnology fabricationfacilities for the future.

As the Regional Development Agencies in Englandhave got under way, some, notably the North Westand the North East which have set up regionalScience Councils, have started to appreciate theimportance of science and technology for regionalbusiness strategies. The devolved administrations inScotland and Wales have already developed a keenawareness of this. Research Councils have takensteps to help the English RDAs to appreciate therole that science can play in regional development.

The regional dimension is a key example ofwhere the playing field is not level between the UK and its major competitors such as the US,Germany and France. For example, while theRegional Development Agencies are beginning to play a role, we have no equivalent of the state-level investments in the US such as those inCalifornia referred to earlier, or the Laender inGermany. The RDAs could play an important role in focussing and building critical mass betweenindustry, academia and national facilities innanotechnology applications.

29



People: training and recruitment

The nature of nanotechnology has implications forthe type of training available in universities.Nanotechnology is essentially an interdisciplinarysubject and requires staff trained in multipledisciplines, in development and engineering.However, graduates from universities in the UK are still almost always trained in a single discipline.

A key part of the remit of the Research Councilsand universities is the training of postgraduateresearchers. An important element of the Oaklandreport commissioned by the Advisory Group(Annex A) was an assessment of currentnanotechnology-related research activity inuniversities in the UK. The study found that some1200 researchers are engaged in relevant researchwithin the 14 institutions that supplied data ontheir staff. This figure should grow significantly inthe next three years. The UK is beginning toproduce small quantities of qualified personnel,including skilled technicians, and graduates withfirst degrees, MScs and PhDs.

Generally speaking, these are people who havemoved into nanotechnology from the classicaldisciplines. The UK produces relatively smallnumbers of people, whether at technician,graduate, or post-graduate level who could be saidto have majored in nanotechnology. Although thisfigure should grow significantly in the next threeyears, universities and the Research Councils needto keep under constant review the needs of theindividual and of future employers because we canno longer afford the loss of time and effort that isrequired when people have to retrain into the latestmultidisciplinary fields of science and technology.

Several universities offer anecdotal reports thatnanotechnology centres face difficulties in recruitingPhD students or post-doctoral researchers of UKorigin. This results from the shortage of sciencegraduates in the UK and is said to be due in partto the unattractiveness of uncompetitive stipends to high quality people. This shortage couldcombine with a ‘brain drain’ if we fail to build ananotechnology infrastructure in which newlytrained staff can work and prosper in excitingventures in the UK.

There can be no doubt that the internationalcompetition for the best talent in thenanotechnology field will become even moreintense in the coming years as industrialexploitation gathers pace. We already see some ofthe best UK start-up firms being bought out byoverseas competitors and staff relocated elsewhere(generally the US). Unless the level of industrialR&D increases considerably and rapidly, the UK is likely to see a drain of talent to well rewardedwork in leading edge industry labs overseas.

How to do better in the UK

If we want to understand how to improve the UK’sperformance we need to understand whether thereare obstacles to improving UK activity over thecoming decade. How much could the UK dobetter? What is stopping the UK doing better?What would it take to enable the improvements tohappen?

Our methodology for this was to choose a numberof specific, major application areas and producesuccess scenarios for each area just five years fromnow. The discipline of “just five years” isimportant. It removes the temptation to speculateabout long term scientific breakthroughs, yet itgives time for changes in programmes, policies andfunding to begin to take effect.

These “Success in 2006” scenarios were generatedin a focussed workshop of the Advisory Groupconducted after considerable preparation ofmaterial by commissioned consultants, the National Physical Laboratory, the Institute ofNanotechnology and the Centre for Research onInnovation and Competition (CRIC). Theworkshops set out to produce optimistic but realisticestimates of how well industry in the UK couldtake up of nanotechnology in each area if all thenecessary enablers were in place. We also asked thequestion: if a particular outcome in 2006 looksfeasible, how would we know if were on track toachieving it?

30


The headlines from the “Success in 2006”scenarios for each of the six chosen applicationareas are shown in Box 4. Each scenario issummarised in more detail in Annex B and thefull report of the Workshop is available separately(see references).

The Advisory Group found this process very helpful in framing and driving itsanalysis and discussion of whether seriousimprovement in UK performance arefeasible, and if so what would be needed to bring them about. Essentially it enabledus to go through several cycles of “what if ”arguments which were important in testing our findings and recommendationsacross a wide range of technologies andapplications.

31


ACHIEVABLE OUTCOMES FROM A SUCCESSFUL NATIONAL STRATEGYFOR NANOTECHNOLOGY

ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATIONS

� The UK’s share of products in information and

communications technologies begins to increase

� Industrial R&D in this sector increased 10 fold, along

with a similar increase in patent filing

� Annual spending by the Research Councils reaches

£80 million: each year 150 PhDs, accompanied by

300 technicians, graduate from training programmes

DRUG DELIVERY

� Double or treble the number of postgraduates work

in drug delivery

� 10 start-up businesses every year

� The first start-ups would approach profitability

INSTRUMENTATION, TOOLING AND METROLOGY

� A national nanotechnology centre will generate SME

start-ups and provide prototyping and small-run

manufacturing for 50 new customers a year

� More than five UK companies will use directed self-

assembly based on ‘disruptive’ methods compared

to one today.

NOVEL MATERIALS

� Seven new products commercialised

� Three product demonstrators at proof-of-concept

SENSORS AND ACTUATORS

� 10 per cent a year growth in the number of UK

graduates in nanotechnology

� 100 per cent increase in funding for technology

demonstrators

� One field trial of an integrated network of healthcare

sensors in a hospital

� R&D, measured by such numbers as publications,

citations and patents, to increase by 50 per cent.

� The UK’s share of nanotechnology-based sensor

systems grows 10 per cent faster than our main

competitors

TISSUE ENGINEERING

� Five to 10 start-up businesses every year

� 10 additional multidisciplinary groups every year

� 2 per cent of a $50 billion market, worth $1 billion to

the UK

� 85 to 90 per cent of UK tissue engineering

companies run by UK managers

� New employment of 1500 jobs

� Eight new products commercialised

Box 4What would “Success in 2006” look like in nanotechnology applications in the UK?


Findings.

The Advisory Group concluded that the UK isindeed considerably behind its major internationalcompetitors in the industrial exploitation ofnanotechnology, and in the level of UK industrialsupport for R&D on nanotechnology applications.

The UK’s strengths in academic nanoscience andnanotechnology research provide strongfoundations on which to develop nanotechnologyfor the benefit of companies in the UK.

A considerably higher level of successful industrialactivity is both achievable and desirable if the UKis to retain a globally significant manufacturingbase. However, for the UK to develop a breadthand volume of industrial activity which will becomparable and competitive with other leadingnations, there is an urgent need to address anumber of obstacles and weaknesses.

Having studied the many previous reports in theseareas, commissioned its own studies and held wideranging discussions and workshops,the Advisory Group finds the following obstacles toachieving the success we believe is possible over thenext few years for nanotechnology applications inthe UK:

� The lack of a stable, visible andcoordinated strategy for public support fornanotechnology applications in industry

� Fragmentation and lack of critical mass in UK R&D activities, and a mismatchbetween our research and industrialcapabilities

� Absence of a level playing field forGovernment support in internationalcompetition

� Lack of appropriate technology access and business incubation facilities

� Access to skilled people - training andrecruitment

32


33


Our recommendations for Government action

to address these issues focus on:

� National Nanotechnology Application Strategy

� National Nanotechnology Fabrication Centres

� Nanotechnology roadmaps

� Awareness and networking

� Training and education

� International - promotion and inwards transfer


Nanotechnology Application Strategy, and the NASB

The UK should develop and articulate a coherentand coordinated strategy for accelerating theapplication of nanotechnology as widely as possibleacross the economy, beginning with those areashighlighted in the report. This should be facilitatedby the DTI, through appropriate sponsorship ofindustry and academic groupings in conjunctionwith Research Councils UK. The strategy shouldbe overseen by an independent steering group fromindustry, academia, Research Councils UK andGovernment, referred to here as the UKNanotechnology Applications Strategy Board orNASB. The NASB should be set up by the autumnof 2002.

A strategy for nanotechnology in the UK mustaddress the key issues highlighted by the AdvisoryGroup and in the studies that it commissioned.These issues affect three key communities and theinteraction between them - industry, the academicresearch community and Government. To obtainthe full benefits that nanotechnology can bring, theUK strategy must:

� convince firms and investors of the need to usenanotechnology to defend and improve theircompetitive position, and ease the path forcompanies to invest in the area

� increase the number of companies developingand applying nanotechnology and itsapplications

� ensure that industry and academia have accessto the facilities needed to take the ideas thatcome from research and turn them into viabletechnologies, products and businesses, withexcellent routes to market

� ensure that industry has access to well trainedstaff

� ensure a coherent and visible strategy ofsustained public investment in nanotechnologyapplications that will encourage confidentinvestment by industry and suppliers of privatefinance

� promote the maintenance and quality offundamental research, with adequate criticalmass in areas key to the applications where thestrategy is focussed

The NASB should commission and oversee furtherwork on scenarios for “Success in Nanotechnologyin 2006 and Beyond” to identify more clearly goalsand performance indicators that the UK should useto track the progress of the strategy.

National Nanotechnology Fabrication Centres

The most important obstacle to more rapidapplication of nanotechnology in industry in theUK is the absence of facilities where researchers,companies and entrepreneurial thinkers can worktogether to assist established businesses in theiradoption of nanotechnology, and to create andincubate new businesses triggered by advances inscience and technology.

Other countries provide various forms of extendedpublic support for such nanofabrication facilities.Such support is via direct government support,through defence agencies, national R&Dprogrammes and focussed national initiatives, forexample; through local/regional governmentsupport; and through cooperation with largeleading edge companies. Such facilities are notavailable or accessible in the UK at present; andthe provision of such facilities does not fitcomfortably with any existing DTI ‘scheme’.

The provision of equivalent facilities in the UKwas identified by the Advisory Group as the singlemost important action Government should take to“level the international playing field”. (We wouldstill have a long way to go before it was tilted in ourfavour.)

A major feature of what is required is access forshort periods by individuals or groups to large,expensive, multidisciplinary facilities that are staffed with high grade technologists and engineers,working close to the leading edge of what ispossible. If a project begins to be successful,continuing access is needed while the evidence is


34


generated that it is possible to develop a viableproduct and business. Only stable Governmentsupport for such a facility can provide access forinnovative people to the range of multidisciplinarytechnologies and facilities they need to work up an initial idea for a nanotechnology applicationinto a viable product and business.

Accordingly, the Advisory Group recommends settingup as soon as possible at least two NationalNanotechnology Fabrication Centres (NNFCs).

The proposed centres should develop and operateworld-class facilities where individuals and firmscan prototype and fabricate potential products,based on the research carried out in universitiesand in businesses. The main parameters of theproposed centres are:

� The centres should be focussed aroundparticular major areas of nanotechnology, forexample, biotechnology applications,nanoparticles or electronics, rather than tryingto cover all applications, technologies andapproaches in one centre. However, it will beimportant for the centres to work togetherwhere appropriate.

� R&D engineers from other organisations can beassigned as “visiting technical staff ” to thecentres to seek help, training and support todevelop proposals for new products or processes.Such assignments could be for a few days,a few weeks or months, or longer, and be from a wide range of sources including largecompanies wishing to explore new applications,through small companies to academics andothers wishing to start a new business.

� The centres should have the technical facilitiesand support staff to take selected proposalsthrough feasibility to demonstrations of pre-production volumes at practicable levels ofyield, quality, volume and cost. The aim is toenable the launch of a focussed new business to its initial customers and investors.

� The centres should be able to support theincubation of new ventures for large and smallcompanies (‘intrapreneurs’ as well asentrepreneurs), including networking and accessto related academic researchers, management of

intellectual property rights (IPR), businessplanning, management staffing, access toventure funding and accommodation for theinitial growth phase.

� The centres will need the capability to underpinthe incubation process for the extended periodsoften necessary in this kind of disruptive,multidisciplinary area.

� The centres should carry out baselineprogrammes of R&D in areas appropriate totheir focus, in close conjunction with recognisedacademic centres of excellence in their field.

The Advisory Group has commissioned an outlinebusiness plan for such centres. This is based oncreating two or more centres working with existingcentres of research excellence (in particular theInterdisciplinary Research Collaborations of theResearch Councils, other Research Councilfacilities, and the DTI funded facilities), startingthis year (2002) and overseen by the NASB.The approach should be to increase funding steadilyover the next few years, with management flexibilityto stimulate demand and follow areas of maximumopportunity for the UK. We expect that funding for these centres should start at around £25 millionper year in 2003 and rise to £75 million or moreper year if demand justifies within five years.Public funding should be provided for the first five years with the expectation of continuing for a further five years if they are being successful.

Setting up these first two National NanotechnologyFabrication Centres should proceed as a matter ofurgency. The aim should be to secure launch fundingfrom DTI before the end of 2002 with spendingstarting by April 2003 at the latest. Funding should be one of the highest priorities for the DTI.The process should be managed by the DTIInnovation Group, in close coordination with theOffice of Science and Technology, and overseen by the DTI Knowledge Transfer Steering Group.

35



The keys steps in the process should be to:

� Develop the specification and business plantemplates for the centres, based on the list aboveand building on the business plan study alreadycommissioned by the Advisory Group. Theseshould lay out the topics to be covered in thebusiness plans of the centres being proposed.

� Organise a focussed competition for consortia to bid for the centres. These could includeuniversities, national laboratories andcommercial companies.

MICROSYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY CENTRES

While nanotechnology and microtechnologyoperate at different dimensions, many of thetechniques required for nanotechnology are relatedto those already deployed in work on microsystems.In some applications of nanotechnology, thetechniques of microtechnology will provide theearly stages of production. The proposal to createNational Nanotechnology Fabrication Centres(NNFCs) has to accommodate, interface with, orincorporate the existing and planned UK facilitiesfor microsystems fabrication. It is the view of theAdvisory Group that the proposals for separatemicro and nano facilities should come togetherwhere practicable. However, they should not bemerged as this will destroy the explicit focus onnanotechnology which the Advisory Group believesis essential. There are distinct differences as to howfacilities for microtechnology and nanotechnologywould interface with, and be perceived by, theirtarget customer base. However, there could besubstantial savings in co-locating the facilities andsharing common functions.

Roadmaps - technology and applications

The Advisory Group strongly recommends that theNational Strategy for Nanotechnology should beinformed by a continuing road-mapping process.The Group commissioned an initial road-mappingexercise which was very helpful (Annex B showssome examples). The remarkable success of theInternational Technology Roadmap forSemiconductors begun by the US points to thevalue of this approach in tracking andcommunicating likely developments in the field to the wider audience of customers and investors.Nanotechnology strategy needs to track bothtechnology and applications. The roadmappingshould be carried out as an across-the-boardprocess overseen by the NASB

Awareness, access portalsand networking

The National Nanotechnology Fabrication Centreswill meet a focussed need to accelerate the growthof new enterprise. To succeed, any nationalstrategy must also promote wider acceptance anduptake of the technology. This will require thepromotion of linkages between all the key parties in the UK - academic, industrial and financial -and the involvement of regional organisations aswell as national bodies. In particular, the RegionalDevelopment Agencies (RDAs) could play animportant role to play in promoting local clusters of expertise and growth.

The NASB and the NNFCs should also provideand support ‘Access Portals’ for individuals,companies and others who wish to explore thepotential of some area of nanotechnology to meettheir needs or ideas. These portals need to behighly visible. Their role is to provide easy accessfor people from various application areas to theR&D people who might be able to work on solving their problems or meeting their needs.For example, they would be able to connectsomeone from the food industry, or aerospace or transport, with the right people to help them

36


to explore how nanotechnology could be relevantto their likely future needs. Some form of light-touch process along the lines of FaradayPartnerships might be appropriate here, togetherwith innovative uses of Internet facilities. It will be important to leverage the existing ResearchCouncil technology networks and the otherinternational groups that already exist or willdevelop, for example as sixth FrameworkProgramme (FP6) of the EU starts to operate.

The UK must begin to catch up with and overtakeother countries in informing and educating thebusiness sector, universities, the media and otherson the implications and possibilities that will arisefrom nanotechnology. The need to raise publicawareness is pressing and cannot await theformation of the nanofabrication centres.Indeed, it can help to pave the way for them.

The action group recommends the immediateimplementation of an awareness programme fornanotechnology. Such a programme should involve the learned and professional societies andcould draw on the experience of existing publicitycampaigns within the DTI.

Training and education

The availability of trained people will be key toachieving the rapid expansion of activityenvisioned in our success scenario. They will beneeded at a wide range of levels, from leading edgeresearchers to highly skilled technicians, productionand quality engineers, application developers andso on. A major campaign in training and educationwill be needed as part of the strategy. Thiscampaign should involve the NNFCs but will needto be much wider. The NASB should also overseethis activity. Effective participation in theinternational marketplace for talent at all levels will be essential.

International - promotionand inward transfer.

The national strategy for nanotechnology in theUK should build on the growing support for thetopic within the EU. The UK should use the sixthFramework Programme (FP6) more strategically todevelop collaborations with European industry andacademics. Potential UK academic collaborationsfor FP6 initiatives should be developed by theNASB in close collaboration with the ResearchCouncils.

The success of industry in the UK in exploitingnanotechnology opportunities should not be limitedto research conducted by the UK science base. Tobe competitive, industry in the UK needs to accessthe best R&D anywhere in the world. It should bea key element of the national nanotechnologystrategy that Research Councils UK and the DTIdevelop effective ways to facilitate access to thisglobal technology network.

The UK should also promote its national researchcapabilities and facilities abroad to encouragecollaboration and attract inward investment,particularly from major multinational companiesneeded to rebalance the domestic R&D scene.

Conclusion

We believe that the field of nanotechnology and itsapplications is crucial to the future competitivenessand productivity of the UK economy, and to thewell being and prosperity of its people. We hopethat the government will take forward theserecommendations with urgency and we areconfident the research community will be ready toplay a full part in their implementation.

It has become almost a cliché to say that the UK is good at science, or invention, but bad atinnovation, and that too much British research hadto 'emigrate' to become commercial. Past failurecame about partly as a result of an innovation gap- a lack of mechanisms, processes and the will toturn world leading science into successful productsand services.

37



This pattern of past failure is changing thanks to anumber of factors, including the greater availabilityof venture capital and a growing enthusiasmamong some researchers to commercialise theirown discoveries. However, the UK has yet to plugthe innovation gap completely. A major aim of thisproposed strategy for nanotechnology in the UK isto do just that. If we succeed, then, unlike manycases in electronics and biotechnology, for example,the UK could build on its position as a researchleader in nanotechnology to become a leader in itscommercialisation.

38


39

Annexes


As a part of its investigation of the state ofnanotechnology R&D in the UK, the AdvisoryGroup on Nanotechnology Applicationscommissioned Oakland Innovation andInformation Services Ltd to conduct a review ofnanotechnology research in the UK. The study setout to produce a document that would give aninsight on the:

� Centres involved in nanotechnology research

� Research community involved innanotechnology research programmes

� Scope and quality of the research portfolio

� Involvement of industry and otherorganisations/companies likely to facilitatecommercialisation of resulting technology

The survey included a programme of 24 structuredinterviews with key players in the nanotechnologyuniversity research community. In total, the surveydrew out opinions from 14 UK universities, threeinstitutions in the USA and two Research Councilsin the UK. While this is not a comprehensive study,it does draw on the expertise of the UK’s leadinginstitutions in nanotechnology.

University centres ofnanotechnology research

All of the universities participating in this studyorganise nanotechnology research via virtual,informal networks. Often referred to as ‘centres’,they typically span several departments but with a major component in one department. Most ofthe research usually happens in the departments of physics, electronic/electrical engineering andchemistry.

Well-established networks, such as that at Oxford,have collaborative projects across departments andfaculties. Some centres are clustered in two or threedepartments, with mutual awareness but littlecollaboration.

The general reputation of departments involved in these centres is high, with the vast majorityinvolving departments with a rating of 4 or betterin the HEFCE 1996 Research Assessments

Exercise, indeed, more than half were rated as 5 or 5*. In terms of international standing,Cambridge, Glasgow and Oxford are seen as thethree strongest centres.

There is an anticipation that the recentlyannounced Interdisciplinary ResearchCollaborations (IRCs) will change the organisationat the institutions that are participating in the IRCs, especially at Cambridge which is planning a physical centre of fabrication activity. The viewis that sharing of work space betweeninterdisciplinary researchers encourages cross-fertilisation of ideas.

There is not perceived to be a critical mass ofnanotechnology research of great internationalpresence within the UK, due to insufficientGovernment funding. The dispersed, informalorganisation of most centres adds to theinternational perception of a dilute researchcommunity. The introduction of high profileformal ‘knowledge networks’ and/or a movetowards self-standing centres may be required tostrengthen the UK nanotechnology ‘brand’.

The international stage on which these institutionscompete is dominated by the USA with the 13centres listed below recording the highest numberof citations for non UK centres deemed as worldleaders.

� University of California at Santa Barbara, USA

� Cornell University, USA

� MITI at Tsukuba, Japan

� Max Plank Institute, Berlin, Germany

� University of California at Los Angeles, USA

� Stanford University, USA

� IBM Research Laboratories, USA andSwitzerland

� Northwestern University, USA

� Harvard University, USA

� MIT, USA

� RIKEN at Saitama, Japan

� University of Tokyo, Japan

� University of Wurzburg, Germany

Annex A Nanotechnology research in the UK

40


The international perspective of UKnanotechnology, which was also confirmed bymany of the UK experts interviewed, is onedominated by a number of internationallyrecognised individuals rather than there beingworld-leading UK centres.

In interviews with overseas researchers, all threeagreed that very good work takes place in the UK,but that the country is not regarded as a majorworld player. The primary reason put forward forthis is the low volume of work undertaken innanotechnology.

It was described as a thinly spread network ofleading players across the full range ofnanotechnology research activity. However, inpractice, many of these leaders in the field arebased at the larger research centres such asCambridge, Glasgow and Oxford.

The interviewees linked the size of the UK’sresearch portfolio in nanotechnology to limitedGovernment funding. One respondent ranked theUSA, Japan, Germany and the Netherlands ashaving a greater presence.

Centres in the UK claim to have someinternationally leading facilities. These are evenlydistributed across three main categories:

� fabrication tools - lithography, molecular beamepitaxy (MBE) and thin-film processing

� characterisation tools - microscopes, massspectrometry and metrology

� manipulation tools - optical tweezers, molecularmanipulation on scanning probe microscopes(SPMs)

These facilities are distributed relatively evenlyacross the institutions sampled, althoughCambridge, Imperial college , Oxford, Sheffieldand York all have more than one such facility.

The informal interdepartmental structure of manycentres and the diversity of nanotechnologyencourage collaboration. Universities in the UKhave links, mostly nationally but alsointernationally.

Collaboration

Access to key facilities appears to be an importantcatalyst for collaboration, as are EC fundingprogrammes. International collaborations are lessfrequent than national ones and appear mostly to involve institutions in the USA and Europe,especially Germany. Centres mentioned as beingcollaborators were often also cited as competitors,however the top centres in USA were mostregularly cited as competitors.

The extent of collaboration appears to varydramatically between centres in the UK. Onereported having no formal collaborations withother centres; others seek partner laboratories foressentially all projects.

To an extent, the degree of collaboration is relatedto national facilities, such as the EPSRC’s CentralFacility for III-V Semiconductors at Sheffield.This currently supports 44 grants in 32 groupsacross the UK.

Several respondents commented that collaborationis not only good for the advancement of science,but also the best way of utilising limited resourcesand facilities.

The research portfolio

The perceived strengths of nanotechnologyresearch in the UK are evenly spread across fourresearch areas: tools, electronics, bulk materials and ‘molecular’.

There is a view that electronics research is a littlestronger than the other areas. There are perceivedto be weaknesses in areas of electronics research.This may be due to the wide variety of topicswithin this area, or to intense foreign competition.

When asked about the research portfolio at theircentres, interviewees presented a similarly balancedpicture with no fewer than 10 institutions reportingactivity for each of the four broad nanotechnologyresearch areas. Reviewing each of the main themesin terms of the proportion of the research that was regarded as internationally leading, the UK’sstrength would appear to be ranked as follows:

41



� Electronics - 56 per cent of major researchthemes are regarded as internationally leading

� Molecular - 48 per cent regarded asinternationally leading

� Tools - 43 per cent regarded as internationallyleading

� Bulk materials - 38 per cent regarded asinternationally leading

Funding

Funding for research is mostly from EPSRC.Interviewees estimate that between 70 and 80 percent of funds coming from this source. Howeverthe BBSRC has a growing input, due to theincreasing focus on biological systems. Supportfrom the European Union is also significant - somecentres indicated that up to 30 per cent of theirfunding comes from this source.

With respect to the priorities for fundingnanotechnology in the future, there was support for the idea that the UK should focus on currentstrengths rather than attempt to be expert on allaspects of the subject. There was also a view thatthere will have to be investment in equipment andinfrastructure and that better integration with otherEuropean centres and initiatives would help toensure that Europe can compete with the USA and Japan.

After focussing, the most popular suggestion wasfor investment in equipment and infrastructure.Recruitment difficulties at many universities ledseveral respondents to suggest a need for funding totrain people in the necessary skills.

Of the types of research requiring particularattention for funding, interdisciplinary projectswere most commonly highlighted. Reasons givenfor this were three-fold:

� Many breakthrough discoveries are anticipatedwhere previously separate fields come together.

� Both cultural and equipment issues require a lotof support for truly interdisciplinary work to besuccessful.

� Since the UK cannot compete internationally

in large, established topics such as thosesupporting the semiconductor industry, there ismore scope to make an impact at the interfacesbetween topics.

Nanotechnology research community

While it is difficult to arrive at definitive figures forthe number of research personnel, excludingtechnicians, engaged in nanotechnology research,the study found that around 1200 activeresearchers at the centres consulted in the study.This figure is generally expected to growsignificantly, with an overall projected figure of 17per cent in the next three years.

Glasgow, Nottingham and Oxford account foraround 40 per cent of the total. It was not alwayspossible to produce a specific breakdown of stafffigures. However, drawing on the available data,the research community encompassesapproximately 440 PhD students, 350 postdoctoralresearchers and 330 tenured staff.

Of the 14 universities surveyed, three reportedhaving more than 100 individuals participating innanotechnology research. A further six universitieshave between 50 and 100 people in the area, andthe remaining five have between 29 and 50.

Looking to the future, nine of the institutionsconsulted expected numbers at their centres togrow by at least 25 per cent over the next threeyears. Almost all of the respondents admitted todifficulties in recruitment and retention of staff.

Most new positions will be for PhD students andpost-docs, both of which are in short supply.With applicants from the UK increasingly hard toattract, an increasing proportion of contractresearchers are likely to come from overseas.This, and the growing difficulty of retainingresearchers in British universities, could lead to a brain drain from the UK.

42


Many of those interviewed expressed concerns onthe national origins of researchers. These related tothe recruitment of a disproportionate number ofnon-UK citizens to departments as PhD studentsand postdoctoral researchers. Hence there is a riskof a nanotechnology brain drain. The latter ismade worse by reported difficulties in the retentionof staff.

Low pay for PhD students and high debts of freshgraduates conspire to channel graduates away from academia into companies. The most apparentskills shortage however is at the post-doctoral level.Industry currently offers far greater salaries andpermanent positions. As a result, advertisementsfrom universities for post-doctoral contracts tend to receive few or no UK applications. Indeed, mostpost-docs go to companies after completing theirtwo- or three-year contract. They are sometimes‘poached’ before the end of such contracts.

Trends in nanotechnologyresearch

Many respondents commented that the absence of a universally accepted strict definition ofnanotechnology allows the research emphasis tobroaden, encompassing many areas of researchthat have previously been referred to as chemistryor biology. Researchers see funding initiatives asencouraging this broadening, which has resulted,at least in part, from the acceptance of nanoscienceas an intrinsic part of nanotechnology, a termoriginally applied to ultra-precision machining.

These issues are generally seen as being global,with no particular differences between the UK andthe rest of the world. Other worldwide trendssuggested by respondents include an increasingvariety of subjects, including polymers andbiological molecules, and a move away from singlemolecular manipulation towards self-assembly.

Principal focus of research

Development of tools for fabrication andanalysis at a precision and scale of lessthan 100nm

By far the largest number of major themes in thisarea are in scanning probe microscopy (SPM),including atomic force microscopy (AFM) andscanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) whichtogether account for over one third of the ‘Tools’themes. Typically this work is aimed at gatheringnew types of information on the nanoscale, byincorporating temperature, capacitance, magneticresonance, optical or magnetic field sensors onSPM probe tips.

Application to new samples, such as biologicalmaterials, is also advancing SPM techniques.These machines are used in the analysis of manymaterials with nanometre resolution, and inmolecular manipulation studies. Othermicroscopies under development include electronmicroscopy and hybrid methods.

Fabrication tools under development are mostlyin the semiconductor arena, comprising epitaxialgrowth techniques, etching techniques, electron-beam lithography, and micromachining at sub-micron dimensions with shape memory polymers.Such equipment is used in the fabrication of verysmall and very fast electronic devices, intended toreplace current micron-scale devices in the next tenyears or so, for reasons of lower cost, higherperformance and robust operation.

Ultra-rigid machining and grinding tools are undercontinued development, with dimensionalaccuracies in the nanometre range. Fundamentalwork in accurate displacement mechanisms andstandards for distance and force measurement innanotechnology is being pursued, with obviousimplications for future fabrication and analysis tools.

Other tools under development include opticaltweezers for manipulation and metrology ofbiological molecules, and tools for the nanoscaleanalysis of micromachined devices.

43



Fabrication and analysis of electronicdevices with linewidths of less than 100nm

Approximately one quarter of the themes in theelectronics area address ‘traditional’ inorganicsemiconductor electronics. This work consistsprimarily of making and characterisingnanostructures, such as quantum dots and wires,in III-V semiconductor materials.

Another quarter of the themes relate tooptoelectronics, with a variety of topics includingphotonic crystals and fibres, inorganic devices -especially lasers and fundamental studies of thedevices, organic devices and hybrid devices.

A smaller fraction of the themes can be looselydescribed as ‘hybrid electronics’. This work includesmetallic cluster/semiconductor single electron devices,ferromagnetic/semiconductor magneto-electronics,primarily aimed at magnetic storage devices, andthe inclusion of biological elements into electronicdevices as amplifiers, etc. Other materials used inhybrid approaches include superconductors andsoft/hard material combinations.

Other themes include sub-micron electromechanicaldevices, theoretical quantum computation andemitter displays using carbon nanotubes.

Nanoscale sensors are included in the electronicsarea since the diverse sensing mechanisms are oftenhoused on a semiconductor substrate and usuallygive rise to an electronic signal. Types of sensorunder development include single-cell and single-molecule biosensors, chemical sensors, implantablesensors and conducting polymers for electronicnose applications.

Fabrication and analysis of bulk materialswith structural features smaller than 100nm

Over one third of the work in themes in this area ison thin films or surface modifications. There are arange of approaches from studying fundamentalproperties of films, surfaces and coated materials,to their development for use in sensors or magneticstorage devices. Structural characterisation plays animportant role, with groups employing techniquessuch as electron and scanning probe microscopies,X-ray and neutron diffraction.

The remainder of the materials work is split evenlybetween composites, polymers, particles,biological/non-biological interfaces, nanoporous,ferromagnetic and ferroelectric materials,superconductors and organic materials.Researchers are assessing nanoparticles for drugdelivery, for example.

Research is under way into the interface betweenbiological and non-biological materials, both at afundamental level and in applications to sensingand diagnostics.

Ferromagnetic and superconducting materials are under investigation on the nanometre scale.One aim is to use them in hybrid devices in thefield of ‘spintronics’.

Organic materials are under investigation for theirstructural and light-emitting properties, and theproperties of bulk biological materials are beinganalysed at the nanometre scale.

Properties of molecular assemblies andapplications of molecular nanotechnology

Approximately one quarter of the research underthe ‘Molecular’ theme is in molecularmanipulation. Most of this work employs SPMs to direct single metallic or semiconductingnanoparticles, atoms, Fullerenes or other moleculesover a flat substrate.

The researchers aims to expand the range ofmolecules and substrates, to increase thetemperature of operation to room temperature, tomeasure single molecule properties and to formnanostructures from the ‘bottom up’.

Self-organised systems, especially biological innature, account for another quarter of ‘Molecular’research. Surfaces receive a nanoscale texturethrough lithography or etching, and the researchersthen study the effects of thee surfaces on cells andother biomolecules.

Non-biological self assembly is represented by workon metallic nanoparticles to form regular arrays,and on polymers to form 3D macromolecules vialithographic templates.

44


Other ‘Molecular’ work covers a diverse range ofsystems. Three themes centred on Fullerenes, C60materials, examine the synthesis and fundamentalproperties of these molecules, and their applicationin gas storage.

Assembly with the assistance of nucleic acid ofnanostructures, electronic and structural propertiesof cell membranes, and molecular motorsrepresent the other biological themes.

Work on biomimetics and bioanalogues is usingbiological models to create novel devices, andultimately this concept underpins many of thebiological themes - the aim is to understand natureon the nanometre scale and to use or adapt theobserved principles in furthering our technologies.

Most of the work in this area is more nanosciencethan nanotechnology, with the exception of self-assembly. Several respondents commented that inorder for nanoscale processes to be viable forcommercialisation, there must be some element of self-assembly involved, since single moleculemethods are enormously slow.

Commercialisation ofnanotechnology

Eight of the 14 universities surveyed reportedcommercialisation activities: Bath, Cambridge,Glasgow, Imperial College, Newcastle, Nottingham,Oxford and Warwick.

Staff-related implications of spinning outcompanies are sometimes cited as a factor thatmight hinder commercialisation. Licensing is oftenseen as a more attractive proposition.

Many respondents expressed concerns about theprocess of forming a company. It takes a long time and can requires the lead academic to eitherleave or compromise their post. Licensing is seen by some as a suitable alternative.

The importance of an existing culture ofcommercialisation seems to be important inencouraging spin-outs, Oxford and Cambridgebeing perhaps the best example amongparticipating universities.

Several respondents stated that commercialisationof research via industrial collaboration is apreferable method to forming a new company,possibly due to the lengthy and difficult process ofstarting up a new business. Venture capitalists arenot closely involved in many centres, although most university innovation groups have such links.

During the survey, researchers mentioned over 35 companies as having formal or informal contact. However, while there is some investment in the technology, most companies are not fundingnanotechnology research in UK universities,preferring instead to lend support in kind.

Companies reported as funding nanotechnologyresearch included: GlaxoSmithKline (UK), AsahiChemicals (Japan), BAE Systems (UK), Gene Logic(US), BNFL (UK), the Toppan Printing Company(Japan), Marconi (UK), Loadpoint (UK), Druck(UK), Domino (UK), Xaar (UK), IriSys (USA),Polatis (UK), Hitachi (Japan), Toshiba (Japan) andSDL/JDS Uniphase (USA). Additional companiessupporting research in collaborations includeAgilent, Johnson Matthey, Thomson CSF, Fiat,Protovik, TDK, Senstronics, BT, Bookham, JJElectronics, Nortel, Communiweb, Epigem,Filtronic Compound Semiconductors, Peratech,BP (Sunbury), Pfizer, Kodak, Unilever, CarpenterTechnology, and Morgan-Matroc.

Opinion is divided over whether companies basedin the UK are more short-term in their outlookthan other multinationals. Some researchers feltthat US companies are more forward thinking.Most of the 37 companies named as collaboratorsand funding sources during this study are of UK or European origin, although they tend to be large,multinational concerns.

There is widespread consensus that muchfundamental work still needs Government fundingbefore industry will take a serious interest insupporting nanotechnology, as the risks to them arestill too great.

One respondent noted that greater interest fromcompanies might be forthcoming if they had clear,balanced information available to them, giving arealistic impression of what might be realistic uses

45



for nanotechnology. The ‘hype’ resulting fromadvances in nanoscience was considered to be, in asense, a barrier to commercial involvement.

Conclusions

The impression gained from the survey is that theUK is not a world player in nanotechnology. It lagscountries such as the USA, Japan and Germany.However, the UK has internationally leadingindividuals, rated as strongly as any of their peers,but these leaders are thinly spread across the spectrumof nanotechnology research. Hence the UK lacks‘critical mass’ in any one domain of the subject.

Looking at the overall portfolio, it is best describedas balanced with the perception being that the UKis relatively strong in all areas, though withelectronics perhaps slightly ahead of the others.

Analysing the activities within individualinstitutions suggests that the UK has more researchprogrammes running in the electronic andmolecular nanotechnologies. In addition these twoareas appear to have a higher proportion ofprogrammes of international standing.

To compete internationally on a limited budget,there may be merit to a more focused portfolio,perhaps around one or both of these main themes.

Many of those interviewed recognised the merit of focusing the portfolio.

The observation that it is too late to compete inapplications such as semiconductors also providesfood for thought. In assessing this focus, thestrengths of UK industry should also be considered- the significance and health of the UKpharmaceutical and biotechnology industriespresenting a particular opportunity.

Should a more focused strategy be adopted, a keyissue that needs to be addressed is of if/howResearch Councils balance their need to fundresearch purely on the basis of quality with theneed to encourage focus.

The UK’s nanotechnology community is thinlyspread across a wide range of research themes and

dominated by a relatively small number ofinternationally recognised individuals. This meansthat the UK is threatened by researcher mobility.The movement of one lead player in the UKwould significantly dent our international standing.

Most of those interviewed expected significantgrowth in the UK’s nanotechnology communityover the next three years. Although this is a positivedevelopment, there were concerns as to the originsof these recruits. Typically those interviewedcharacterised their centres as comprising staff ofwhich only 50 per cent were UK nationals, withthe balance mostly coming from Asia and Europe.The UK risks a nanotechnology ‘brain drain’, arisk that is likely to be heightened by theanticipated growth in the sector.

Informal, virtual networks dominate the UK whereasmany of the centres in the USA have a recognisedphysical presence. The distributed and informalnature of the UK’s nanotechnology communitymay in itself be limiting the development of thediscipline and compromising the internationalperception of the UK’s role in this critical field.

Much of the growth of nanotechnology is expectedto rely on interdisciplinary activity. The day-to-daysharing of space and facilities is probably the mosteffective way of facilitating these interactions.

The survey revealed that the UK has a good baseof facilities of international standing. However, asthese resources are distributed across manyuniversity centres, the UK might benefit from amore formalised and high profile network, focusingon better inter-institutional utilisation of theseresources. Such a network could be furtherenhanced if it were part of an integrated Europeannetwork. The latter would help to stimulate furthercross-fertilisation of ideas and also offer routes toadditional funding via the European Commission.

Either strategy is likely to improve the internationalperception of the UK’s nanotechnology, offeringsome ‘brand image’. In so doing it is also likely toaddress some of the concerns of the recruitmentand retention of staff.

46


What it is

Informatics includes hardware, design and modellingrelating to large-scale integrated electronics andinformation and communications technology (ICT).

Ever greater miniaturisation has been the key todeveloping faster, cheaper and more portablesystems in informatics. ‘Moore’s Law,’ which saysthat the power of computing chips doubles every18 months or so, describes our continuing ability tomake semiconductors, and therefore the systemsbased on them, more powerful. While there havelong been suggestions that the era of Moore’s Lawis coming to an end, microelectronics has so farsustained this pace .

Silicon technology will, however, within the next10 to 15 years enter a new ‘near-molecular’ regime– as feature sizes approach 25 nm for example.This could slow, or even curtail, the rapid progressof silicon microelectronics in which the fundamentalscience and not just the manufacturing technologychanges and we will need radically newapproaches. Some nanotechnology will begin toimpact much earlier than this, particularly inphotonics where miniaturisation is already moreconstrained by physics.

A disruptive technology will then be required tocontinue performance improvements in informatics.Nanotechnology in many forms could be essentialfor the further development of more powerful and faster information-handling equipment.For example, the move into the nano regime willresult in circuits based on single-molecule andsingle-electron transistors. These will appear first in special applications.

It will take novel complex architectures, materials,gate designs, interconnects, and so on toaccommodate these new devices. We will also needradical new solutions to the problem of cooling andcircuit power management.

One disruptive technology could arise from thesuccessful implementation of quantum informationprocessing (QIP).

Another disruptive technology would be ‘bottomup’ technologies. While these have the potential tobe immensely important in the longer term, theyare not likely in the near future.

A number of applications exemplify the potentialfor nanotechnology in informatics:

� Photonic crystals and photonic integratedcircuits could pack in individual components a million times more densely than conventionalones. The tighter confinement and noveldispersion properties also open up many newapplications, particularly for nonlinear (optical)devices and very low power devices.

� Quantum information Processing (QIP),crosses the disciplines of quantum physics,computer science, information theory andengineering. The aim is to harness quantumphysics to dramatically improve the acquisition,transmission and processing of information.The role of nanotechnology is fundamental tosuch exploitation, because quantum effectsappear on small length and time-scales.

� Semiconductor nanostructures such asquantum dots and bio-nanostructures haveenormous potential for providing the basicmachinery for QIP. Possible applications rangefrom biological sensors, ultra-fast optoelectronicswitches and computers, through to future-generation applications involving the control of biological processes at the cellular level, anddesktop QIP devices such as ultrasecurecryptographic systems.

� Quantum structure electronic devices(QSDs) can confine electrons into regions ofless than 20 nm, enhancing their performance.Epitaxial growth can create one-dimensionalconfinement, producing ‘quantum well’structures. A principal aims of nanotechnologyis to produce three-dimensionally confinedQSDs, for example, quantum wire andquantum dot devices. Some devices are alreadysuccessful such as: quantum well lasers fortelecommunications; High Electron MobilityTransistors (HEMTs) for low noise, high gainmicrowave applications; and Vertical CavitySurface Emitting Lasers (VCSELs), for datacommunications, sensors, encoding and so on.Other applications, such as quantum dots, areon the brink of commercialisation.

Annex B - Nanotechnology scenarios*1. SUCCESS IN ELECTRONIC, COMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATICS

47


* These 6 scenarios were developed at a workshop of experts facilitated by a consortium led by NPL.A fuller version is available in hardcopy from Ms E. Prah, DTI (020 7215 1462).


Current and future markets

The market for miniaturised systems is estimated at$40 billion. The market for IT peripherals,dominated by the USA and Japan, is more than$20 billion.

There are few nanotechnology products in themarketplace, but growth is expected to be verystrong, with a predicted composite annual growthrate of 30 to 40 per cent. One forecast puts themarket for devices for IT and electronics based onnanotechnology at about £70 billion by 2010. Themarket for micro and nanotechnology systems intelecommunication are of the order of $3,500mwith an anticipated compound annual growth ratein the order of a remarkable 70 per cent or so.

Photonic crystals could underpin major newmarkets. Ultra-high density optical integration will substantially reduce costs and powerconsumption, leading to widespread use in opticalcommunications, a huge worldwide business.Nonlinear devices will also find applications inother areas such as sensors, potentially on verylarge scales.

QIP products are likely to emerge into significantmarkets once the technical challenges to theirdevelopment have been overcome, which looks likebeing a longer-term process.

QSDs are already a success story, with largercompanies taking the lead. The estimated marketfor HEMTs by 2002 is £600m, while that forVCSELs in 2004 is £80 million; and already thequantum well laser amplifier market for 2000 isestimated at £4 billion. Key products here couldspan a huge range - even including white lightsources for domestic illumination, where QSDscould be considerably more efficient thanincandescent or fluorescence sources. Otherapplications include those in lasers, detectors,amplifiers, and modulators for communicationssystems; short wavelength lasers for CD and DVDplayers and recorders; and ultra-high density datastorage systems. Improved speed, efficiency, andcontrollability, with the ability to produce and workwith more wavelengths, are important here.

Technical challenges

The outstanding challenges concern methods formaintaining Moore’s law for electronics andextending it to photonics, either by continuingminiaturisation of silicon-based devices, by the useof different materials, fabrication principles ordevice concepts - such as molecular electronics,carbon (or other) nanotubes, and photonic crystals.

Research in photonics is already yielding suchdevices as advanced lasers. In the next five years orso such products as photonic-crystal fibre, currentlya niche product, could achieve significant markets.Two-dimensional photonic integrated circuits andphotonic crystal assisted vertical cavity lasers willalso move out of the laboratory into commercialproduction. Other products, such as nonlineargates in photonic crystal fibre and integratedcircuits, are moving from research to development.

Quantum information processing also presentsconsiderable technical challenges, with a need forbasic research into quantum effects. The likelihoodis that quantum communication systems couldappear within the next decade, with quantumcomputers emerging later.

Global competition

Research into new informatics technologies isspread through the universities in the UK, the USAand much of Western Europe, and through majormanufacturers in Japan and the USA who arebehind recent technological breakthroughs.

Japan and the USA are home to the mostinnovative semiconductor companies and manyother silicon fabrication plants are located in theFar East. Many European telecommunicationscompanies compete successfully against Japan andthe US. However, in most cases research related tonanotechnology is probably more advanced in theUSA and Japan.

Japan in particular is building up production andresearch facilities in Europe to compensate fordomestic technological weaknesses, whilesimultaneously establishing its markets abroad.

48


Japanese R&D tends to be organised according toguidelines determined by the government, with theMicroMachine Centre, an organisation supportedby METI, the Ministry of Economy Trade andIndustry, co-ordinating R&D on microsystems.

R&D and scientific work on nanotechnology iscarried out at universities as well as public researchinstitutes and industries, and is funded by METI,to the tune of about US$ 100 million in the pastfive years. The research has a longer-term focusthan is typical for the UK. there is a well focusedinterest in quantum computing, where someoriginal approaches are being pursued. Molecularscale electronics is another focus.

The US’s efforts are also strong. Here militaryfunding agencies are generous in fundingcompanies, even when there is a clear commercialbenefit for the companies involved.

The UK has strengths in photonics, and thus isrelatively competitive against the US and Japan insuch novel nanotechnology applications as photoniccrystals. In QIP, the US spent around $30 millionin 200, orders of magnitude greater than theequivalent UK funding level. Several majorJapanese companies (NEC, Toshiba, NTT, Fujitsuetc) are investing heavily in the area, includingfunding research in the UK.

The UK’s profile

Research in the UK is of high quality, but facesproblems in the transfer to industry. The UK is strongin telecommunications. Optoelectronics, where theUK is strong in niche optical communicationsareas, dominates the ICT industry. Optoelectronicsis effectively the flagship of the nanotechnologyand microelectronics sector in the UK.

A range of companies has grown rapidly fromsmall beginnings over the past decade. Theindustry is well supported by a strong R&D base.Although promising, the market is volatile: futuresuccess depends on world markets.

The UK is strong in several important areas forlong-term development of informatics. In the field

of photonic crystal, there is strong R&D, reflectingpast UK Government support and the relativestrength of the country in photonics.

Challenges for the UK

The UK lacks an industrial base that cancommercialise many of the results of even highquality and well-funded research. While there havebeen research programmes dedicated to micro andnanotechnology technologies in the past, at presentthere are no specific programme. Though the UKcontinues to fund R&D in the field throughactivities on related subjects, there are concernsthat the research lacks either critical mass orsufficient focus.

Skill shortages are widely recognised as a problem:physical sciences (chemistry, physics, and materialsscience) have recruitment difficulties. The excitingintellectual, economic, and social opportunities of nanotechnology, if it is an increasingly well-funded field, might offset this, attracting talentedyoung people.

It will take large numbers of professionals, withinterdisciplinary perspectives, to buildnanotechnology industries in informatics as well asother application areas. These businesses willdepend upon highly trained multidisciplinaryteams. This will challenge the compartmentalisedlearning of educational institutions. The solutionis not new degrees in nanotechnology that provideonly a shallow overview of many disciplines.

Research and demonstration programmes areneeded to establish the right balance betweenspecialisation and interdisciplinary training, and the way of delivering it. Additionally, education innanoscience and technology will require specialand often expensive laboratory facilities. Manyengineering schools cannot now offer students anyexposure to nanofabrication. We will have to findinnovative solutions, such as new partnerships withindustry; shared nanofabrication facilities acrossconsortia of colleges, universities, and engineeringschools, with web-based, remote access, and so on.

49



Drivers of change

Two issues are particularly important here:fabrication and functionality.

The importance of fabrication resides in the needto be able to manufacture informatics products ofhigh quality in large volumes.

Printing and lithography will continue to grow inimportance, with scalability a prominent issue.We will need the capability for optical lithographyfor mass production at nanotechnology scale.Feature size may well be reached 70-nm level incommercially viable devices by 2006.

In the longer term self-assembly offers a way ofbreaking through the anticipated ceilings for thelong-established trajectories of miniaturisation.By 2006 this may be emerging.

Functionality simply means that market needs arefundamental to the development ofnanotechnology applications in informatics.Firms in the sector face intense competition indelivering functionality, through such features asdevice size and weight, processing speed and power, data storage and power consumption.Mobile devices for communications and computingare significant end-uses, if anything increasing inimportance in 2006

The UK has some strengths in informationtechnology industries, especiallytelecommunications, photonics, and software andcontent sectors. However, with hardware, theabsence of a large native CMOS industry andassociated fabrication and infrastructurecapabilities, and shortages of skilled personnel,mean that in many areas the UK lacks criticalmass. Pockets of strength reside in niche areas,and both capitalising on, and overcoming this is amajor challenge.

What will success look like?

The success scenario developed in the workshopwas characterised in terms of a number ofapplications developments in which the UK couldanticipate playing a substantial role:

� Quantum structure electronic devices will beimportant by 2006 and be growing inimportance. This may build on current successeswith quantum well lasers, where there isestablished UK expertise. and the anticipatedcommercialisation of self-organised quantum dots.

� Photonic crystal structures, offering photonicintegrated circuits with new functionality, will beemerging as industrially significant products.

� Nanostructured displays, including polymers,should be moving toward commercialisation by 2006, becoming highly important by 2010.The combination of high resolution and lowpower will be a major commercial factor.

� Quantum information technology will have amajor impact on a timescale of one or twodecades, and should be attracting considerableresearch effort in the near future. Self-assembledfault tolerant data state and computationsystems are also a long-term development.

What will enable us to get there?

The major factors that can help to make thisscenario a reality are: first, the quality of basic andapplied research in the contributory disciplines, butcritical mass in research is also important. Criticalmass is also required in infrastructural and, forexample, fabrication facilities. Some of this may be achieved through international collaborationwithin and even beyond Europe. Availability ofskilled people will be another critical factor.

Several other factors will also be significant, if lesscentral. Availability of finance, with investment that is sustained and consistent, is bound to remainimportant. The costs associated with intellectualproperty rights could also be a barrier todevelopment.

50


How will we know we are on track?

Indicators that the scenario of UK success in thisapplication area is being achieved include (withfigures in 2001 terms):

� The UK’s share of all ICT products remains at least at current values (and the markets aregrowing), but preferably increases (from, say,10 per cent now to 13 per cent in 2006).

� Industrial R&D expenditures in informatics-related nanotechnology increases by 2006, toroughly 10 times the value of the 2001 figure.

� Likewise, industrial patenting in the area fromthe UK increases tenfold.

� Expenditure by Research Councils reachesaround £80 million a year, with capitalinvestment for a major centre by 2006 is around£100 million.

� Training occupies around 150 PhDs per year,with 300 trained technicians entering theworkplace. Development of research expertiseshould result in high quality research and bereflected in, for example, the UK holding on toits current bibliometric and citation impact.

What do we need to do to makeit happen?

For this scenario to be realised, we need suchactions as:

� Establishment of a major centre or similar facilityfor research, fabrication and training innanotechnology informatics, bridging andcombining academic and industrial lines of work.Funds would be a mixture of private and public,with substantial inputs from other countries.

� Substantial development by universities ofinterdisciplinary and multidisciplinary trainingin related areas, including mathematics as wellas physical and information sciences andengineering, and covering such business topicsas intellectual property management.

� Academic/industry collaboration to establish‘supercritical’ research teams on key subjects.

51



What it is

Drug delivery systems deliver drugs to specificpharmacological targets in the body, at the correcttime and with a controlled dose. This is hugelysafer and more effective than just spreading a drug through the body, even if this is practical.One difficulty is that the targets in the body may be small and widely distributed.

Effective drug delivery reduces unwanted sideeffects and can lead to lower doses, which canencourage patients to follow the correct dosingregime. Better targeted delivery could also allowthe use of new therapeutic possibilities, forexample, using drugs that would otherwise be tootoxic.

Drug delivery systems use either passive or activenano-engineered systems that enable the requireddose of drug to be delivered at the correct time tothe target area.

Nano-scale devices may also be able to safelydeliver to cells material other than conventionaldrugs - for example, DNA could be ‘inserted’ intocells for gene therapy and vaccinations.

While the benchmark exercise did not investigate it, nanotechnology could also play a part in drugdiscovery.


The global market for drug delivery is some $33billion per annum, with an annual growth ofapproximately 15 per cent. In the UK the marketis around $8 billion. There are 30 main drugdelivery products on the market.

Regulatory issues may not loom high, but certainapplications may face competition both from othernanotechnology solutions, and from alternativesthat do not depend on nanotechnology, such asgenetic screening to select appropriate drugs forpatients, alternative means of getting drugs into the blood system for specific organs.


A major challenge is to develop surface molecularbioengineering leading to biomimetic and bio-inspired devices to increase specificity. We needbetter knowledge of: the biological fate and thetargeting of drugs, (particularlybiopharmaceuticals, macro-molecules andmacromolecular delivery systems at the molecular,membrane and cellular level); of thephysicochemical properties of biopharmaceuticals,macromolecules and macromolecular deliverysystems and how these are modified within abiological environment; of novel materials anddelivery systems to overcome such biologicalbarriers.

Global competition

The US has a strong connection between researchand applications. Industrial consortia are attachedto universities, ensuring an application-drivenapproach. Two-way non-disclosure confidentialityagreements are well established.

Research students are closely coupled with industry,thus learning relevant skills. Funding offundamental research is mostly from the NSF,which requires significant industrial collaborationas evidence that the research is worthwhile.

The US provides a strong challenge to areas of UKstrength. It has taken much of the impetus awayfrom the UK in obtaining economic value fromencapsulated and liposome drug delivery systems.

The US takes the lead on nano-vectors for genetherapy, though the UK is not far from the frontiersof research here. Perhaps more significantly for thefuture, the US is taking the initiative with work onpeptide nucleic acid. The US is investing heavily ingene delivery, reflecting the wealth of informationthat has resulted from the human genome project.

Japan has increasing work, some of high quality,in all areas that interest the UK and Japanesedelegates are on key international advisory boards.Other players are also active in this and relatedapplication areas.

2. SUCCESS IN DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS

52


The UK’s profile

The UK has been at the forefront of drug deliverytechnology, but has lost much of its lead some areasto the US. The UK probably maintains a lead insuch applications as drug-polymer conjugates foranti-cancer and anti-inflammatories. The UK alsohas excellent underpinning research for nano-particles and micelles.

There are reports that the pharmaceutical industryin the UK, despite it evident strengths, has beenslow to take up new concepts related tonanotechnology, and that UK researchers haveaccordingly licensed their research to moreresponsive companies in the US or European.


It is essential to have strong connections betweenapplications and underpinning research is vital. TheUK’s system is less integrated than that of the US.

In the US, venture capital money is a minorcontribution to research compared with NSF funds,but is important in setting up new companies withacademics. The pharmaceuticals industry seesregulatory issues as deterrents to new drugdevelopment. While regulatory processes may beless of an obstacle in the development of improveddrug delivery systems, there could still be problems,especially in respect of costly treatments.

The area requires multidisciplinary skills andteams. The UK’s research has benefited stronglyfrom world-class scientists in polymer andbiochemistry as well as innovative medical practiceand clinical expertise. Currently, teams are oftenassembled round schemes such as LINK, which arevulnerable to dispersion when funding ends.

Drivers of change

We all get ill and grow old, and therefore are liableto benefit from such specific applications asoptimised drug delivery, individual therapy, and theuse of endogenous molecules, from increasedability of doctors to diagnose diseases at early stages.

There are liable to be significant efforts to developapplications around the delivery of drugs for thetreatment of cancer, asthma and respiratoryproblems, and pulmonary disorders.

Commercially, the promise of new drug deliverysystems also lies in the ability to extract more valuefrom drugs that have already been approved, byimproving their targeting. This leads to a seconddriver, one that the group labelled 5D technology -drug delivery philosophy and practice characterisedby the five dimensions of the right drug, right time,right person, right place, and the right price. Thiswould underpin much better targeting, enabling usto treat diseases that we cannot treat now, and tomeet currently unmet medical needs.

Clinical proving is vital. A new application needsrigorous testing for effectiveness if it is to be takenup on a large scale. The critical issue here is theinterface between the developers of applicationsand regulators, so that regulatory acceptance ofnew delivery systems can be achieved with ‘light-touch’ and speedy regulatory regimes.

The UK has advantages compared to its maincompetitors in this application area in thatpharmaceuticals is such a large and importantsector. However, the organisation of researchfunding hinders the development of underpinningresearch, through such issues such as the peerreview process and the diffusion of resources acrossmultiple Research Councils and funding agencies.


Success in the application of nanotechnology to drugdelivery can be characterised in the following terms:

� The UK will be strongly placed in the growingarea of drug delivery systems by 2006. It will bea notable area of new investment. However, itwill face strong challenges overseas, especiallythe USA.

� SMEs already have a strong presence and willdrive much of the activity. New SMEs will form,but their success will require tapping into sourcesof experienced advice to aid with dealing withregulations (where regulatory reform would alsobe welcome) and accessing finance.

53



� Leading applications in the near future willinclude, for example, well-targeted deliverysystems for oncology and similar acuteconditions. The technology will gradually cometo form the basis of future delivery systems forcommonplace drugs.

� There will be a strong link between thedevelopment of drug delivery systems and newnanotechnology products such as materials andresearch into biological targets and proof ofprinciple for new treatments.


Critical enablers to make this scenario a reality will be, on the supply side: the quality of researchand the availability of skilled personnel, the abilityto develop and deploy proprietary know-how;access to such infrastructure as manufacturingfacilities capable of nanofabrication.

Access to finance is a problem, which needs to beovercome for commercial exploitation, as issustained research funding. There were feelings that under current peer review systems there canbe barriers in the treatment of proposals formultidisciplinary research.

On the demand side, policies for health services andother public sector markets can be major driversfor market development. Many alternative drugdelivery systems are under development. A key issueis to avoid all the eggs being put into one basket!


Realisation of this success scenario would bereflected in indicators such as the following:

� An increase in the number of UK basedpostgraduates in drug delivery and relatedtopics, doubling or even trebling by 2006

� It was suggested that the critical mass ofindustrial expertise would be 20 people perfirm per drug delivery system.

� 10 start-ups per year in the area.

� One patent per person active in research anddevelopment in the area every three years.

Less precisely, we would know that the UK isbeating the competition if more money is flowinginto, and being made by, drug delivery systems(losses would be becoming profits); UK companieswould take a greater market share; and the portfoliovalue of these companies is increasing and themarket capitalisation of SMEs in the field growing.

What do we need to doto make it happen?

For this scenario to be realised, such actions areneeded as:

� Make postgraduate study financially attractive -firms could play a role in such support.

� Research Councils should not discourageinterdisciplinary academic research: this maymean more cross-Council working, or changesin peer review systems.

The large pharmaceutical companies and venturecapital firms have several roles to play. Corporateventuring would be an important way in whichthey could support this application area, as wouldthe sponsoring of incubators.

SMEs need several forms of support, which couldbe provided by Government agencies and largerfirms, probably working in unison. Schemes tosupport the transfer of knowledge betweenacademia and industry (e.g. Teaching CompanySchemes) are important.

We need better communication on the potential fordrug delivery systems between academics, thefinancial sector and user firms.

Setting up “prototyping” facilities in thisarea should be considered, withGovernment and industrial financing.As in other applications of nanotechnology,exploitation is liable to depend onproduction capabilities.

54


What it is

Instrumentation, tooling and metrology essentiallyinvolves a set of enabling technologies andtechniques. In consequence, its influence is fargreater than is reflected in the size of the economicsectors that produce these products.

Successful exploitation of nanotechnology will dependon these tools. They provide the instrumentationneeded to examine and characterise devices andeffects during the R&D phase, the manufacturingtechniques that will allow the large scale, economicproduction of nanotechnology products, and thenecessary metrology support for quality control.The requirement is for fast, versatileinstrumentation and tooling for the economicproduction of nanotechnological devices.

Instrumentation and tooling will need to evolve aslong as nanotechnology is a developing field.


Current global markets are large. Chemical vapourdeposition (CVD) equipment has an annual sale of almost $5 billion with an estimated annualgrowth of 11 per cent. Sales of scanning probemicroscopy are estimated to be $500 million.Software for molecular modelling has annual salesof around $2 billion. All of these applicationmarkets are likely to grow considerably. Demandfor such instrumentation is likely to take off whenthe mass production of nanotechnological devicesstarts in earnest.


The benchmarking study identified the followingmajor technical challenges:

� Chemical analysis methods for lateral resolutionlevels below 100 nm

� Chemical analysis methods that will work inpoor vacuums (these are particularly importantfor biological applications)

� Surface patterning techniques that will permitrapid embossing, stamping, that is contact

printing nanoscale features over areas that arelarge in relation to the nanoscale

� Developments of tools and standards fornanometrology for quality control, and so on.The requirement here is for: faster systems;progress in nanopositioning (transition andactuators) to characterise 3-D topography at the nanometre level; as well as characterisingfunctionality of systems combining physical,chemical and biological functions in bio-nanoelectromechanical systems (NEMS) systems.

Global competition

Instrumentation, tooling and metrology requires a wide range of skills for a wide range of products.No one country is pre-eminent in all of theseapplications. The USA, Japan and Germany eachlead in some areas.

Germany is in many ways similar to the UK in itsacademic research and commercial environment.Like the UK, Germany faces skills shortages:scientific and engineering staff training numbersare too low, and students are attracted to othercareers. But Germany does feature specificstrengths. It has a major manufacturer of scanningprobe microscopes SPM (Omicron) as well assemiconductor manufacturing (Siemens), and thusa strong MEMS industry.

The UK’s profile

Instrumentation has long been an area of strengthfor the UK. There are strong UK academic researchgroups and world-class companies operating inmany of the areas related to nanotechnology.However, the UK lacks a commercial manufacturerof SPMs. It also lags behind Germany in facilitiesfor microfabrication, such as MEMs foundries.

The UK and Germany have strong academicresearch in nanosurfaces and indigenous world-class manufacturers of instrumentation for chemicalanalysis of surfaces. In nanopositioning andnanometrology, too, each country has a world-classcompany developing displacement actuators and

3. SUCCESS IN INSTRUMENTATION, TOOLING AND METROLOGY

55



translation stages for the nanometre domain, andnational standards laboratories active in these fields.The UK’s leading companies are relatively smalland few, running the risk of overseas acquisition.

Companies in the UK that serve this applicationarea are disparate and mostly oriented to specificniche markets. One implication is that alliancesbetween them would not seem to be particularlyprofitable as a way to greater strength.

Shortage of scientific and engineering staff causedby better job and remuneration prospects in othercareers, is a pervasive problem: the UK lacks institutessuch as the German Fraunhofer Institutes to trainand nurture skilled engineers and technologists.

Drivers of change

A major driver will be demand for the applicationsfrom industry. The emergence of techniques anddevices from the research laboratories with realworld applications will drive efforts to mass producethem in a cost-effective manner. Instrumentationand tooling will be required to manufacture andcharacterise the new products, while a coherentmeasurement system will be required to underpintrade and promote a viable market.

Development of instrumentation, tooling andmetrology is liable to be shaped by applicationsthat emerge in other areas. Conversely, theavailability of tools for large-scale manufacturingcould be key enablers for markets to develop.

An important driver will be the availability offoundries for microelectromechanical systems(MEMS), nanoelectromechanical systems (NEMS)and even Bio-NEMS.

Another driver will be the ability to have exquisitecontrol of the production of chemical products atthe molecular level. Such disruptive technologieswill support such products as devices to enable newmeans of energy production and storage, newapproaches to food manufacture, and new chemicalsfor personal products.

Without the tools, nothing can be made. But thecosts of developing the instrumentation and tooling

for manufacture based on nanotechnology areoften too high and too risky for companies toundertake without a clear high volume market.Some markets with this characteristic are the ‘fastmoving consumer goods’, such as foods, drugs,micro electronic systems and devices. These arelikely to spearhead the use of the applications,enabling progressive cost reduction.


A success scenario can be characterised in thefollowing terms:

� In 2006 the UK’s instrument and toolingindustry will be selectively serving globalmarkets for applications in areas where the UKis strong - for example, drugs, optoelectronics,solar power, healthcare.

� There will be opportunities to create major newmarkets where there are disruptive technologies,such as in soft lithography and software modelling.High-resolution lithographic equipment will beavailable, producing 50 nm scale devices oversurfaces of 25 mm and more, thereby producing10,000,000 devices on the surface. Software(organic) models will be available, with the UK’sshare of the market growing rapidly from a baseof 25 per cent. However, the UK will notmanage to gain a significant presence in thescanning probe microscope (SPM) market.

� There will be global markets with a high exportcontent. These will be served in the UK by newstart-up companies, in a non-traditional industryusing new technologies. The skilled people toservice these markets will be available as a resultof initiatives to address current shortages. Theinfrastructure (foundries) to fabricatedemonstrator products will be in place, serving agrowing SME base.

� A new paradigm will emerge in chemical andbiochemical production. This will be based onthe use of nanotechnology, and tools derivedfrom it, and instruments that providemanufacturers with exquisite control overstructure and reproducibility. This type ofproduction will generate less pollution while

56


supporting many new products. The new paradigmshould eventually have major effects on GDP,but these will only become apparent on atimescale beyond five years.


Critical factors that can enable the realisation ofthis scenario will be the availability of skilled peopleand fabrication facilities, along with a marketstructure that responds to the likely disruptive natureof the technologies, such as with a strongly supportedSME base. It will be necessary for industry tocapitalise on the innovative academic resources.There will have to be ways to work around thesmall size of the UK semiconductor industry.

Another important enabler is finance for thedevelopment of these applications. ‘Joined up’Government in the area should address this, andespecially the perceived gap in infrastructure andfunding for producing demonstrators.


If the UK is to achieve this scenario we should seedevelopments in the years from 2001 to 2006 alongthe lines of those reflected in the following indicators:

� The increased application of ‘top down’ ultra-precision machining to a huge range ofindustrial manufacture, improving numerous‘traditional’ high technology products as well asgenerating new products.

� Co-ordinated commercial facilities would beestablished that service growing SME start-ups.Such facilities would enable demonstratorproduction and manufacturing, and use ofMEMS fabrication technology. They could alsobe facilitating new disruptive NEMS and bio-NEMS fabrication tools. Indicators relevant tothis could be that such a facility would be:

� generating new spin-offs and start-upsgrowing at a tenfold increase per year from abase of one SME

� enabling training of 50 or more new

designers and nanoengineers per year

� providing prototyping & small-runmanufacturing for 50 new customers per year

� The UK’s share of software modelling for thenanotechnology market will be growing at 10 per cent per year from its current base of25 per cent, by 2006.

� The first novel material or structure based onthese applications will have been developed andmass-produced in the UK by 2006.

� More than five UK companies will be usingdirected self-assembly based on ‘disruptive’methods as a routine tool by 2006 (from a baseof one today).

What do we need to do to make it happen?� Establish institutes that are closer to the

German model of the Fraunhofer Institutesthan to Faraday Partnerships; provide thesewith start up funding of £50m (on aGovernment/private-public partnership basis)

� Preferential grants for students in science,technology and engineering. In addition toGovernment, industry could play a role infunding schemes.

� Training programmes for science teachers inschools oriented to encourage more awarenessof, interest in, and recruitment of promisingstudents into fields related to this applicationarea. (Again, in addition to Government,industry could play a role in such schemes)

� Develop and improve technology roadmaps in a range of areas of nanotechnology, to help topull through demand for specific instrumenttechnologies and indicate the required toolingand metrology infrastructure that will be neededfor production, taking account of possibledisruptive technologies. There is a role here forGovernment, the EC, academics and researchand technology organisations and industry.

� Research Councils should fund directedresearch programmes in the manufacture ofnovel structured materials.

57



What it is

Materials underpin 70 per cent of the GNP of theindustrialised nations, in one way or another, andare therefore vital to the economy. Nanotechnologyprovides a route to the creation of almost limitlesskinds of novel materials in a variety of ways.

Nanomaterials can be described as ‘novel materialswhose size of elemental structure has beenengineered at the nanometre scale’.

Materials in the nanometre size range exhibitfundamentally new behaviour, as their size fallsbelow the critical length scale associated with anygiven property. Intervention in the properties ofmaterials at the nanoscale permits the creation ofmaterials and devices with hitherto undreamed ofperformance characteristics and functionality.

Nanomaterials include clusters of atoms (quantumdots, nanodots, inorganic macromolecules), grainsthat are less than 100 nanometres in size(nanocrystalline, nanophase, nanostructuredmaterials), fibres that are less than 100 nanometresin diameter (nanorods, nanoplatelets, nanotubes,nanofibrils, quantum wires), films that are less than100 nanometres in thickness, nanoholes, andcomposites that are a combination of these. Thecomposition can be any combination of naturallyoccurring elements, with the more importantcompositions being silicates, carbides, nitrides,oxides, borides, selenides, tellurides, sulfides,halides, alloys, intermetallics, metals, organicpolymers, and composites.


There is a large and rapidly growing market fornew materials - including speciality chemicals,catalysts, pigments, coatings, ceramics, ceramicpowders and metal oxides.


The key technical challenges are:

� Design, synthesis, characterisation and propertyevaluation of nanocomposites, nanolayeredcoatings and nanostructured materials usingneutron and X-ray scattering, NMR, dielectricspectroscopy, positron annihilation, ion beamanalysis, scanning probe microscopy andelectron microscopy.

� Molecular and mesoscopic modelling.

� Development of self-assembly and biomimetictechniques for nano-functional and nano-structured materials.

� Establishment of knowledge concerning use ofsol-gel and colloidal chemistry as the basis ofnovel functional materials.

� Controlled production of nanoparticles (interms of the size and features of thenanoparticles) for reproducibility, reliability andscalability; the development of directeddeposition techniques and new methods ofcatalyst characterisation.

� Analysis and emulation of biological depositiontechniques, that is the application ofbiomimetics to novel materials.

Global competition

In biomaterials the US is at the forefront in tissueengineering and advanced controlled release. Inother areas of such as molecular sensors anddiagnostics, Europe is in a strong position.

In ceramics, Japan and the US lead. Japandominates in manufacturing, the US in basicresearch; and there is also strong research anddevelopment activity in Germany.

In magnetic materials, research has declined in theUS, but Europe and Japan have sustained theirinterest and invested in infrastructure

In metals, with new developments in synthesis,behaviour, performance, processing and so on, theUS leads in many areas, but the UK as well asFrance, Germany and Japan are recognised ashaving significant capability.

4. SUCCESS IN NOVEL MATERIALS

58


Electronic and optical-photonic materials: in thearea of semiconductor technology, the US doeswell, but Japan leads in most areas of displaytechnology. Nanotechnology is leading to materialswith unusual electronic and optical propertiesderived from their feature sizes; many of which arebeing developed in the US. In many areas ofoptical-photonic and electronic materials, the USbenefits from facilities set up by the NSF.

The US benefits from fast-tracking innovationsthrough ‘development companies,’ which link industryand research, and survive mainly on state projects

Germany was arguably the first country to usenanotechnology as the basis of new materialsdevelopment, though according to somecommentators the industrial environment ispresently not conducive to rapid growth. Severalnetworks exist which bring together companies andresearch organisations to exchange information,which is particularly helpful to SMEs.

Germany has major nanomaterials users such asVW, and Daimler Chrysler in the automotivesector; Bayer, Merck, Degussa, and BASF inChemicals; other companies such as Henkel; andfeatures SMEs in high-technology areas such asoptics, electronics, and data communications,together with large electronics companies such asSiemens and Bosch.

The UK’s profile

The UK’s position in materials is perceived asbeing relatively weak, but improving in severalrespects. There are strengths in polymers, catalystsand biocompatible materials, and in theunderpinning colloidal science. The UK hasleading companies in coatings and hard materials,and real strengths in producing some nanoparticlesand in creating catalysts.

Much innovative work is underway in academia.Some firms, including several small and mediumfirms, some being new start-ups, are particularlyactive, though major users are not prominent. InEurope generally, SMEs arte the driving force inthe use of new materials.

In the UK, the aerospace, biomedical and defencesectors are likely to drive the applications ofnanomaterials. In this context, the area ofnanomaterials, most applications do not depend ona large electronics industry, so the UK’s relativeweakness there is not a major issue.

The UK’s science base is seen as excellent, but maybe jeopardised by a threatened brain drain, andslow translation into commercial products. TheUK’s academic community in biomimetics has alarge potential for commercial development, whichneeds to be catalysed.

Skill shortages are a problem in this area as others,with recruitment problems in core physicalsciences.

Multidisciplinary research will drive new materialsdevelopment in the future. Future industries basedon novel materials will require professionals with aninterdisciplinary perspective working inmultidisciplinary teams.

Most UK companies are in the early stages ofdeciding what their strategy will be innanotechnology. As a result, most research inuniversities is speculative. Links between theresearch base and industry are underdeveloped.The Research Councils do not require thatindividuals commercialise their research, and offerthem little help to do so.

Better linkages are required if the UK’s researchstrengths are to be reflected in development

Drivers of change

Two drivers are particularly important: access tomaterials technology; and the roles of local andglobal markets and competition

Access to materials technology is important becauseit underpins innovation in manufacturing,medicine, construction and some servicesindustries. A central issue is the ability to make newmaterials.

It will be important to set priorities. The UK hassome clear strengths and larger companies -

59



especially chemicals, pharmaceuticals and othermedical companies - that can use new materials. Itwill be important for such companies to examinethe potential environmental impacts of variousmaterials, alongside purely commercialconsiderations.

The second important driver is the roles of localand global markets and competition. The probableroutes to market are either through existing world-class players, or new companies with the potentialto supply niche markets. The new products willneed to move through, and gain acceptance by,supply chains. They will need to be convinced thatnanotechnology can deliver benefits as comparedto other approaches and demands for investment.

Some applications, apart from the obvious, couldbe in such fields as housing, security, transport,communication, space technology and the healthsector. There are links with sensors and drugdelivery systems. By 2006 we could expectdemonstrators to be showing key aspects ofapplications of novel materials in healthcare,IT systems, and in new processing technologies.


By 2006, UK industry will play a role incommercialising achievable consumer products,such as those in processing drugs and finechemicals, cosmetics, durable and self-cleaningsurfaces, informatics, novel decorative effects andfunctional coatings.

Demonstrators should emerge from the newInterdisciplinary Research Collaborations, or otherdevelopments. Such demonstrators will help toestablish the viability of new nanotechnologyproducts and of the IRCs themselves.Demonstrators will also be useful for introducingcompanies in the UK to the new technologies theywill need to maintain their competitiveness.

R&D will have increased substantially, withGovernment and industry support. Strategicinvestment in commercially viable areas will be inplace, with long-term benefits for UK industryfirmly in mind.

Critically, industry and the utilities (water industry,the National Health Service, transport and so on)must be prepared to buy innovative UK productsor development will be arrested before it starts.

While in the longer term, nanotechnology productsare liable to become cheaper and easier to produce,the cost of putting basic manufacturing techniquesin place is likely to remain high. It is anticipatedthat the UK could have a significant presence insome of the new markets. For a success scenario,the number of these markets, and the scale of theUK’s presence, should both be growing. This willrequire investment, the ability to formulate novelmaterials and development of know how toundertake processing.


To make this scenario a reality, it will important toattain a critical mass of commercialisable researchin some areas of novel materials, linked tosustained industrial pull-through in applications.Since the span of applications and of the novelmaterials themselves is very wide, choosing specificareas to focus on can be difficult. Here we canexpedite the process of focusing research andentrepreneurial interest on promising avenues forprogress by preparing roadmaps and similar toolsfor benchmarking and identifying where technicalopportunities coincide with the UK’s industrialstrengths, capabilities in research andcommercialisation, and market opportunities.

How will we know we are ontrack?

If we achieve this scenario, we can expect to seedevelopments such as:

� In a matter of months, existing roadmaps fornanotechnology would be considerablyimproved or surpassed. These roadmaps wouldenable innovators and entrepreneurs to formmore soundly based views of the sustainabilityand profitability of various applications, andallow researchers and educators to identify

60


training needs and infrastructure requirements.The European context of UK activities in thearea would be firmly established.

� In a slightly longer timescale, but still monthsrather than years, there should be well groundedposition statements for Research Councils andother bodies to identify major research areas interms of costs, timescales, resources required.

� Also in the very near future - less than a year -there should be new incentives for helping thecreation of SMEs and spin-offs.

� Following the above, within two years we couldexpect to see a national infrastructure for novelmaterials research - including commercialisationfacilities - being established, with appropriatelevels of investment and training provisions.(Sustech in Germany is in many ways a modelfor this.) A related step, which could already bein place within six to 18 months, would be theidentification and establishment of centres ofexcellence in the field, including industrialcentres.

� Results that should then follow could include,for example, the generation of sevencommercialisable new products and processes by2006, with clear paths to the market, and threedemonstrator projects for applications already inplace. New manufacturing processes employingnovel materials should be developed in therelatively near future, say two to three years, anda significant market share in the product andprocess innovations should be evident.

What do we need to do to makeit happen?� Production of roadmaps and analyses of key

research areas requires that an impartial butknowledgeable body marshal and co-ordinaterelevant area experts.

� Industry needs to move new products throughdevelopment, to apply novel materials inprocesses and ultimately to achieve significantmarket share. Policymakers and relevantinformation bodies need to ensure greaterindustrial awareness and understanding of the

scope for nanotechnology to enhance productsand performance.

� Funds should be set aside for building theinfrastructure and demonstrators: this will needto involve inputs from the DTI, ResearchCouncils, and industry.

� Appropriate incentives and early stage assistancefor industry, SMEs and spin-offs in the area aremainly a matter for the Treasury, thoughattention can be paid to seedcorn funding andsimilar mechanisms.

� Traditionally conservative buyers in serviceindustries need to be willing to purchaseinnovative products.

61



What they are

Sensors pervade many aspects of modern living.They are built into many consumer electronicdevices, cars, medical devices, security and safetydevices and systems for monitoring pollution andenvironmental conditions. Many applicationsdemand miniaturisation to reduce powerconsumption for integration into portable devices.Affordable mass production is also a prerequisitefor sensors for consumer products and fordisposable devices such as sensors for medicaldiagnostics and pollution monitoring.

Sensors support applications across the economy -industrial processes, and those in construction,extractive industries, agriculture, health care and soon - and can be incorporated into new or existingproducts.

Sensors can model various parameters: physicalparameters such as temperature, displacement,acceleration, flow and so on; and chemical andbiochemical parameters, such as concentrations ofgases, ions or molecules, and molecular interactions)

The application of nanotechnology to sensorsshould allow improvements in functionality. Inparticular, new biosensor technology combinedwith micro and nanofabrication technology candeliver a huge range of applications. They shouldalso lead to much decreased size, enabling theintegration of ‘nanosensors’ into many other devices.

We can also expect to see actuators that controlmovement on the nanoscale. Sensor/actuatorcombinations will deliver ‘smart’ and precisefunctions in products and processes. For examplenanofabrication and inspection tools require sensorsand actuator systems that can position objects withnanometre accuracy. In this way sensors andactuators constitute another enabling technology.


Biosensors are still novel products with only ahandful of products on the market. We anticipateconsiderable growth in the markets for suchproducts, but their novelty means that it is very

hard to forecast the scale with any confidence. Ifthe history of sensors and actuators based onmicroelectronics is anything to go by, we couldexpect massive markets to open up rapidly. Forexample, microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)have led to a number of successful products, withworld markets in the region of $30 billion.

For the immediate future, nanosensors could berelatively expensive, with high manufacturing costsfor sensors and actuators. If we can achieve highvolumes and low-cost products, the markets couldbe huge. The question is whether the increasedcapability of nanosensors will be sufficient to openup large markets quickly, and thus engendering arapid decrease in costs. A related question is whetherthere will be scope for small firms to producesensors and actuators based on nanotechnology.


The major challenges in the manufacture of thesedevices are:

� Greater affordability, for example, in progressionfrom MEMS to NEMS and nanoscale surfacestructuring over large areas

� Greater reliability, for example manufacturingroutes, and repeatability of functional responses

� Effective biocompatible materials, materials forharsh environments, packaging and integrationinto macro systems

� Fostering a successful marriage of bio andmicro/nanotechnology technologies

Global competition

The UK suffers one major disadvantage comparedto major competitors, since these have stronginfrastructures for Microsystems Technology(MST). For example, Germany has researchstrengths and manufacturing capability in MST.

There is much activity in the interface betweennanotechnology and biotechnology. Germany hasgrowing strengths and capabilities in both fields.The US and Japan are now focussing majorresearch efforts on these interfaces.

5. SUCCESS IN SENSORS AND ACTUATORS

62


Competition is also emerging from Taiwan, Korea,Singapore and China, rendering this a hotlycontested field.

The UK’s profile

There is considerable expertise on the design sideof sensors and actuators in the UK. But there islittle strength in manufacturing. The capability inMST largely resides in the research base, and thereis a lack of skills to take ideas forward into products.

The UK has pockets of world-class research in theunderpinning technologies. For example, the UKhas strengths in functional materials,nanofabrication, nanometrology, biomolecular andbiomimetic technology.

Start-ups and small companies are pursuingbiosensor technology, but no significant productsexist yet. ‘Industry pull’ for these applications in theUK is not as strong as in competitor countries.


Despite the difficulties, there is potential fortechnology to be developed, for example, throughspin-off companies. A number of organisationalchanges could improve the climate, particularlymore seed funding, and better arrangements fortechnology licensing.

As with other areas, there are ineffective the linksbetween users and the research base. We have alsoidentified skills shortages as a problem once more,particularly manufacturing skills as well asmultidisciplinary skills.

The challenge will be to maintain and develop astrong research base in the UK in such a way thatit can complement areas of strength in theindustrial base.

Drivers of change

The availability of a wide range of increasinglysophisticated but cheap sensors will promoteincreasingly complex monitoring systems. Systembuilders rather than sensor designers will drive theapplications.

Health, security, and environmental concerns willbe major drivers.

In health, in the developed world there isincreasing life expectancy. As the new technologybecomes more commonplace and more affordable,global demand for products will increase. Themarket is demand led and long term. Examples ofspecific applications that will emerge are personalheath monitors, devices for on-site traumatreatment, devices for a ‘barefoot doctor’ and awide range of aids for geriatric care.

The primary restraint on increased use of sensorsin health will be clinical approval, both for safetyand cost effectiveness of the systems that emerge.Concerns over the use of the vast amount of datathat could be collected will also be a restraint onthe adoption of sensors in health care.

Security is the second driver for sensors andactuators. In the same way that nanosensors canprovide ever more information on a person’s stateof health, they can also provide more data toconfirm a person’s identity or indicate theprovenance of an object or document. Examples ofspecific applications that will emerge are: peoplesensing, asset tracking and identification andchemical and biological agent detection.

A key issue for security is reliability. ‘False negatives’are unacceptable, while too many ‘false positives’cause stress and inefficiency, and quickly causepeople to ignore warnings. The primary restrainton the driver will be public acceptability. Concernsover privacy and civil liberties will dominate.

After monitoring ourselves for signs of failure, andothers for signs that they intend us harm, ourattention turns to our environment which we willwant to monitor for changes that could threaten us,our descendants, or features of the natural worldthat we cherish. Examples of specific applications

63



that will emerge are systems for monitoring andcontrolling industrial processes and waste dumps.Other distributed systems will monitor large areas,looking for unexpected changes, but they willdepend critically on the technology to network alarge number and variety of sensors, correlate thereadings and produce reliable interpretations.

A key issue for the use of environmental sensors isregulation, which is a major incentive on polluters,or other responsible parties, to monitor emissions,environmental impacts, environmental quality andso on. The primary restraint here will be the cost ofthe systems - the lower the cost, the moreparameters will be monitored.



� In 2006 the UK will take the lead in supplyingintegrated multi-sensor systems and will bestrong in sensor development, thoughmanufacture itself may be global.

� The industry will depend on multi-functionsensors. Detectors that are required in largevolumes will come from numerous sourcesacross the world; while tied suppliers will supplyhigh specification detectors for niche products tothe system integrators. Developments in sensorswill be driven by what the technology canprovide and by customer demand rather thansuppliers. It will be important to develop ITtools to support systems and data analysis. Herethe UK’s strengths such in fields as neuralnetworks will be a significant advantage.

� Reliability is essential, and regulation and after-sales service will be key differentiators inmeeting insatiable market demand.

� Overall the scenario should be characterised byhealthier, safer people.


The quality of research that UK companies canaccess is a critical feature here; but so, too, is accessto appropriate sources of finance, especially fortechnology demonstrators, and supportive policyframeworks for the health service and othermarkets in the public sector.

Other important factors include the availability ofskilled people, access to fabrication facilities,regulation of environmental, health and safetyissues, and the organisation of the industry andmarkets. Rather less important, but nonethelesssignificant enabling factors include instrumentationand standards, ownership of research and thepublic acceptability of innovations, especially in thelight of privacy concerns.


If we achieve this scenario, we will see thefollowing indicators in the years to 2006:

� 10 per cent per annum growth in the populationof trained graduates in relevant areas of UKnanotechnology.

� 100 per cent increase in the funding fortechnology demonstrators by 2004.

� The first major health field trails ofnanotechnology-using systems - such as anintegrated network of sensors - in a hospital by2004.

� Demonstrated improvements in research anddevelopment related to this area, for examplethrough publications, citations, patent filingsincreasing by 25 per cent by 2004 and 50 percent by 2006.

� The UK’s share in nanotechnology-based sensorsystems growing faster than our maincompetitors by 10 per cent per annum in 2006.

64



If we are to achieve this scenario, we need thefollowing:

� A considerable increase - perhaps a doubling -of research funding for sensors and actuators by2004; new lines of funding for technologydemonstrators; and industrial investment inprototype systems.

� Universities should be encouraged to supportthe area. Practical steps include: liberation ofuniversity staff time for R&D; longer termfunding for individuals who can demonstrate thequality of their work and its relevance to userrequirements; improved support for graduates.

� Regulations should be reviewed to examinetheir impact on innovation. In some cases weneed more rapid approval process, ensuring thata device meets regulatory requirements, thoughit is important to retain public confidence in theregulations.

� Mechanisms to foster more effective technologytransfer and better communication oftechnological opportunities and userrequirements.

65



What it is

Nanobiotechnology offers the key to faster andremote diagnostic techniques - including new highthroughput diagnostics, multi-parameter, tunablediagnostic techniques, and biochips for a variety ofassays. It also enables the development of tissueengineered medical products and artificial organs,such as heart valves, veins and arteries, liver andskin. These can be grown from the individual’s own tissues as stem cells on a 3-D scaffold, or bythe expansion of other cell types on a suitablesubstrate.

Nanobiotechnology provides methods, too, testingthe compatibility of organs from donor animalsand humans, to new materials for replacementbone and teeth.

Nanobiotechnology is also paving the way forretinal, cochlear and neural implants andnanopatterned substrates to encourage the growth,regeneration and repair of tissues. These aredramatic new developments in medical treatments,with huge scope for diffusion.

The applications which seem likely to be mostimmediately in place are external tissue grafts;dental and bone replacements; protein and geneanalysis; internal tissue implants; andnanotechnology applications within in-vivo testingdevices and various other medical devices.

Nanotechnology is applied in a variety of waysacross this wide range of products. Smaller chiparrays will ensure faster analysis for proteomics andgenomics. Artificial organs will demandnanoengineering to affect the chemicalfunctionality presented at a membrane or artificialsurface and thus avoid rejection by the host.

There has been much speculation and publicityabout more futuristic developments such asnanorobot therapeutics, but these do not seemlikely within our time horizon.


The demand for medical devices has grown rapidly,especially in the developed world, and will continueto expand as the population ages and withincreasing expectations of healthcare.

There will be more emphasis on tailoringtreatments to particular patients, whilst keepingcosts low. Miniaturisation is key to this and todevices that reduce waste, accelerate diagnosis andminimise discomfort. Tissue engineering will attractincreasing attention.

Estimates of the total cost of biotechnologyproducts represent around $50 billion per annum,with nanoaspects contributing perhaps around 1 per cent of this total. This contribution coulddouble in the next three years. Investment in bio- and nanotechnologies that can underpin thenext batch of applications is critical for UKmanufacturing in this field.


The UK requires research across a spectrum oftechnically challenging fields, including work toimprove capabilities of creating and working withnanofunctionalised materials and surfaces, andachieve novel surface patterning.

Nanobiomimetics is seen as an important locus of development, where understanding andapplying the structures and processes alreadyevolved naturally at the nanolevel is a vector ofcreative effort and applications development.

More generally, improved understanding of tissuestructure and functioning is essential for progress,and proteomics is seen as a particularly importantfield for development.

Global competition

The US has considerable strength in relevant high-technology areas. However, restrictive regulationson stem cell research may drive some researchers tothe UK.

6. SUCCESS IN TISSUE ENGINEERING,MEDICAL IMPLANTS AND DEVICES

66


The US’s strength in microfabrication could makeit the leading source of products. Another factortending to foster US leadership in developingapplications in this area is its large private healthcare system, which allows for expensive treatments.

Biotechnology is also a major US strength and itscoupling with nanotechnology puts thecombination at a level where investment and skillsare at a premium. Thus in tissue engineering,nanotechnology is applied in concert with othertechnologies, such as microtechnology andmolecular biology.

US investment in high technology is strong andfunding is reportedly more simply organised,through the NSF as opposed to the multitude offunding bodies in the UK. There are relativelynumerous US companies in tissue engineering, andtheir applications seem to be closer to market.

The UK’s profile

The UK will be a large user and producer of theseapplications of nanotechnology. They draw onareas of traditional strength in the UK, especiallyin biology and biochemistry. The UK has a strongscience base in molecular biology and expertise indrug discovery.

The UK is internationally strong inpharmaceuticals and in medical devices, facilitatedby collaborative research between industry andacademia.

Networks in the UK are good when well organised,but there are problems in developinginterdisciplinary teams: the investment inInterdisciplinary Research Collaborations shouldproduce world-leading science, but the US isalready at the frontier.

The analytical side to nanotechnology aspects oftissue engineering is very important. The UK canmake a big impact in terms of innovating newmethods.

The investment for tissue engineering in the UK is roughly proportionate with the total spend innanotechnology, at around 15 per cent. The UK

has been slow in exploitation of this researchcompared to countries such as Japan and the US.There is a fear that the decline in the numbers ofscience graduates may reduce this further.


Among the major risks to the UK in tissueengineering, medical implants and devices is thedanger of aggressive acquisition of companies inthe UK. The prospect then is that the commercialexploitation of knowledge generated in the UK willhappen abroad.

Problems with IPR protection could also causediscoveries to go abroad. The lack ofmicrofabrication efforts and facilities, coupled withskills shortages and poor exploitation strategies,threaten existing areas of excellence.

Drivers of change

Two sets of issues are important here, marketdemand and access to the technology.

Market demand could manifest itself in pressure tomove products forward in fields such as cochlearimplants, in-vivo monitoring, artificially createdorgans, retinal implants, nerve regeneration andwound healing, and needle endoscopy/delivery ofnano-products.

The ageing population will drive demand for ‘spareparts’. Growing demands and shortages of medicalstaff are a constant problem health care, leading topressure to adopt more labour-saving and effectivetechniques. Here relief can come from suchdevelopments as faster and more accuratediagnosis, more rapid surgical techniques andproducts that can be used on an out-patient basis.

Second, if market pull is to shape the applicationarea, there has to be access to the technology.This may prove the limiting factor in development.

Nanotechnology may itself enable breakthroughsin other areas, but development of tissueengineering and medical devices based onnanotechnology could be limited without advances

67



in other areas. The combination of technologicalchallenges makes multi-disciplinary knowledgeessential, combining engineering, biology and otherfields for example.

The UK has advantages in this application area,for example through its large industrialinfrastructure in healthcare and the NHS’scentralised purchasing system.

There is a strong research base in universities,companies and health providers. There is alsogrowing experience with the successful operationof incubators and similar ways of linking researchand markets.

However, there are also problems in capitalising onthese advantages. For example, there are shortagesof management skills, together with a deficit incapacity for nanotechnology manufacturing andthe risk averse tendencies in the NHS. This canmake it slow to change and to adopt new methods.There is some sense, too, that research remainsfragmented, with breakthroughs occurring on auniversity-by-university basis more than as resultsof combined and concerted efforts.



� Some preventative diagnostic products willalready be in use in the UK by 2006. Diagnosticsin general have a less difficult regulatory routeto market than do surgical and clinical devices.But some medical devices, such as cochlearimplants, will also have reached the market.

� The development of the sector will be largelydriven by SMEs, saving money for the NHS and other health services. A number ofcompanies in the UK will be clearly profitableand achieving sustained success.

� The world market will be worth some $50bn by 2006, with the UK gaining 2% of this,mainly in niche applications (that will allow forthe growth of large markets).

� IP brokerage will lead to a fewer number ofbetter-equipped companies compared to thebroader biotechnology sector. IPR alliances areliable to develop. Because IP and innovation will largely come out of quite basic research,the return on investments will come from takingadvantage of niche opportunities, probablythrough the development of spin-off companies.Investors will have achieved a return oninvestment of 30 per cent compound.

� The multi-disciplinary nature ofnanotechnology has been confronted withimproved management and training in researchand industry.


It will take a wide range of factors to enable thisscenario to become a reality.

One set of factors concerns the availability ofappropriate skills. This goes beyond skills in R&Dfunctions, it also includes more generalmanagement capabilities, being able to mobiliseand motivate multidisciplinary teams and relateintellectual effort to user requirements.

An important issue here is the ownership of theresearch, the ability to leverage access to knowledgeand appropriate value from innovations. This mayrequire new ways of working across the interfacebetween the public and private sectors.

Demand is extremely important. For this tomaterialise, products based on nanotechnology willhave to demonstrate their clinical effectiveness andthat they can deliver substantially greater efficiency.


If the scenario is being achieved, we can expect to developments such as the following in the yearsto 2006:

� Five to 10 new start-ups in the UK per annumin tissue engineering, medical implants anddevices.

68


� Five to 10 multidisciplinary groups establishedeach year in UK companies and universities.

� The UK achieves some 2 per cent of a $50billion market by 2006.

� A growing IPR portfolio in nanotechnology inthis area - perhaps an average of 100 patentsper year by the end of the period.

� The establishment of attractivemultidisciplinary training programmes inuniversities, and a substantial increase in thenumber of undergraduate and postgraduatecourses with a serious and substantialnanotechnology component.

� A high proportion - perhaps 85-90% - ofUK-based companies in the area being run byUK managers, with new employment in thesector by 2006 reaching or surpassing the levelof 1,500.

� New products have been launched onto themarkets for tissue engineering and medicalappliances, deriving from work carried out on asresult of collaborative development programmes- perhaps an average by 2006 of one productper eight programmes set up over the period.


Many of the actions required to meet such targetsinvolve concerted effort by Government anduniversities. For instance, improved and morerelevant training of scientists, technicians andmanagers: new courses and course content alongthe lines mentioned above; improved financing for doctoral researchers in this field; and bettercareer structures for scientists & technicians in lifesciences. These all require action by universitiesand resources from the DTI, Research Councilsand even the DfEE.

There is also a need to upgrade the quality oftechnology transfer offices and related facilities atuniversities.

The Department of Health and NHS should buildmore awareness of nanotechnology into setting

research priorities and support for research moregenerally.

Regulatory frameworks should be examined to seehow far they support or impede innovation.

Finally, recommendations that have emergedalready from the Foresight process need to becirculated more widely and acted on by all partiesidentified.

69



References and bibliography

Nanotechnology The huge opportunity that comesfrom thinking smallInstitute of Nanotechnology, 2001

Opportunities for Industry in the Application ofNanotechnologyDepartment of Trade and Industry/Institute ofNanotechnology, February 2000

Materials Shaping Our FutureReport of the Foresight Materials Panel, December2000

Nanotechnology in EuropeInstitute of Nanotechnology, 2001

Nanotechnology: Its Impact On Defence And The MoDhttp://www.mod.uk/linked_files/nanotech.pdf

Survey of Networks in NanotechnologyEuropean Commission, November 2001http://www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology/src/networks.htm

The International Technology Service Missions onNanotechnology to Germany and the USAInstitute of Nanotechnology, 2001

Making it in MiniatureParliamentary Office of Science and Technology,November 1996

Nanotechnology in the European Research AreaEuropean Commission, May 2002ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nano_leaflet_052002_en.pdf

Technology Roadmap for NanoelectronicsEuropean Commission IST Programme, Future andEmerging TechnologiesSecond Edition, November 2000

Joint EC/NSF Workshop on NanotechnologiesOrganised by the European Commission and theNational Science Foundation of the United States ofAmericaftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nano_workshop_001020_proceedings.pdf

Nanotechnology in Europe:Experts’ Perceptions and Scientific Relationsbetween Sub-areasInstitute for Prospective Technological Studies Seville,October 1997

Reports on Micro and Nano TechnologiesMinatech Project, December 2001

Nanotechnology Research Programme 1997-1999Tekes, the National Technology Agency of Finland

National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading To The Next Industrial RevolutionUS National Science and Technology CouncilA Report by the Interagency Working Group onNanoscience, Engineering and Technology, February2000

National Nanotechnology InitiativeThe Initiative and its Implementation PlanNational Science and Technology Council Committeeon Technology Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science,Engineering and Technology July 2000http://www.nsf.gov/home/crssprgm/nano/nni2.pdf

Nanostructure Science and TechnologyA Worldwide StudyNational Science and Technology Council

Committee on TechnologyThe Interagency Working Group on NanoScience,Engineering and Technology September 1999http://itri.loyola.edu/nano/final/

Societal Implications of Nanoscience andNanotechnologyNational Science Foundation, March 2001http://itri.loyola.edu/nano/societalimpact/nanosi.pdf

Nanotechnology: Shaping the World Atom byAtomNational Science and Technology Council, September1999http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/IWGN.Public.Brochure/

The California NanoSystems Institute: A ProgressReport: October, 2001http://www.cnsi.ucla.edu/Presentations/October%20Progress%20Report.pdf

CNF User Information ManualCornell Nanofabrication Facility, February 2000

Annex CPublications, references and web sites

70


A Sampling of Research from the NationalNanofabrication Users Network (2002)http://www.cnf.cornell.edu/nnun/2002nnunreports.html

A Critical Investor’s Guide to NanotechnologyIn Realis, February 2002www.inrealis.com

Nanotechnology in Japan:Latest Trends in Public and Private Sector R&DBritish Embassy, Tokyo, June 2001

Nanotechnology in Japan - A Guide to Public Spending in FY2002British Embassy, Tokyo, January 2002

Nanotechnology in Australian IndustryReport of a workshop held in Sydney on 30 March2001 under the auspices of the Department of Industry,Science and Resources and the CSIROhttp://www.isr.gov.au/industry/advancedmanufacturing/NanoWorkshopReport.pdf

Nanotech - The science of the small gets down to businessScientific American - Special Issue, September 2001

Nanotechnology: The Tiny RevolutionCMP Científica, November 2001

On the Web

The Institute of Nanotechnologyhttp://www.nano.org.uk/

I2 NanoTech Centrehttp://www.i2nanotech.co.uk/index.html

BTG Nanotechnology Networkhttp://www.nanonet.org.uk/

CORDIS: Nanotechnologyhttp://www.cordis.lu/nanotechnology/

European Nanoforumhttp://www.nanoforum.org/

The NanoBusiness Alliancehttp://www.nanobusiness.org

Nanonethttp://www.nanonet.de

Minatec, FranceCentre for Innovation in Micro and Nanotechnologyhttp://www.minatec.com

PhantomsIST Nanoelectronics Networkhttp://www.phantomsnet.com

National Microelectronics Research Centre, Irelandhttp://www.nmrc.ie/research/nanotechnology/

US National Nanotechnology Initiativehttp://www.nano.gov/

National Nanofabrication Users Network (NNUN)http://www.nnun.org/

California NanoSystems Institutehttp://www.cnsi.ucla.edu/default.htm

Japan Economic FoundationJournal of Japanese Trade and Industry, Sep/Oct2001 A Future Society Built by Nanotechnologyhttp://www.jef.or.jp/en/jti/200109_010.html

National Institute for NanotechnologyUniversity of Alberta, Canadahttp://www.engineering.ualberta.ca/nint/home.asp

Nanotechnology in Australiahttp://www.nanotechnology.gov.au/

CMP CientíficaNanotechnology: The Tiny Revolution, November2001http://www.cmp-cientifica.com/cientifica/frameworks/generic/public_users/NOR/NORWP.htm#_Toc529462054

The Nanotechnology Glossaryhttp://www.cmp-cientifica.com/cientifica/frameworks/generic/public_users/tnt_weekly/glossary.htm

Nanotech Planet: A Glossary of Nanotech Termshttp://www.nanotechplanet.com/glossary/article

Encyclopaedia Nanotechhttp://quantumcad.com/library/def/index.htm

Larta’s Nanotechnology Yellow Pageshttp://www.larta.org/nano/html_old/nanotechnology.htm

71



Chairman

Dr John Taylor OBEDirector-General of the Research CouncilsOffice of Science and Technology

Members

Professor Graham DaviesHead of Engineering University of Birmingham

Professor Alan FershtCentre for Protein Engineering,University of Cambridge

Professor James K Gimzewski Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry UCLA

Dr Clive HayterProgramme Manager, Materials Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Dr Alistair KeddieDirector-General, Innovation Group Department of Trade and Industry

Professor Nicholas la ThangueCathcart Chair of Biochemistry.Glasgow University

Professor Chris LoweDirector, Institute of BiotechnologyUniversity of Cambridge

Professor John PethicaProfessor of Materials ScienceUniversity of Oxford

Professor Michael PettyCentre for Molecular and Nanoscale ElectronicUniversity of Durham

Professor Stephen ProsserTRW Automotive Electronics

Professor Will Stewart(then) Chief ScientistMarconi plc

Professor John WoodChief Executive CCLRC

Remit and Terms of Reference

Remit

1. Mindful of the growing importance ofnanotechnology for present and future science,technology and industrial application, theDepartment wishes to establish a clear mechanismfor steering its actual and potential involvementwith relevant activities in nanotechnology.

2. The Department will establish, inter alia, asteering group of experts in relevant fields,including actual or potential industrial users,together with representatives of DTI, otherGovernment bodies .

3. The Group will be chaired by the Director-General of the Research Councils.

4. The Group will advise on, and oversee, a studyto benchmark UK nanotechnology capability andcarry out a gap analysis with respect to leadingcompetitor nations in the field.

5. The Group will advise on the supportinfrastructure for nanotechnology in the UK, andthe activities of Government (including theResearch Councils) in promoting activities of asuitable nature and scale to attract industrialinvestment.

Terms of reference

1. The Group will provide advice, through itschairman, and the Director-General, BusinessCompetitiveness Group, DTI to the Minister forScience and Innovation on the actions that need to be taken to improve the UK’s capability innanotechnology and related technologies.

2. The Group members will be appointed for oneyear, in the first instance.

Advisory Group on Nanotechnology Applications

72


73



74



Printed in the UK. June 2002. Department of Trade and Industry.© Crown Copyright. http://www.dti.gov.uk/DTI Pub 6182 2k/06/02/NP. URN 02/1034


Documents

Nanotechnology Applications submitted to NanotechnologyA