UK nanotech failures
“The commercialisation of nanotechnology research in the UK in many ways presents a depressingly familiar picture of excellent research that is not being translated to the country’s commercial benefit to the same extent as it is in other competitor countries,” complains a report by the committee. “The story is all the more dispiriting because the UK was recognised to be ahead of the game when a nanotechnology research programme was started in the mid 1980s.”
The report adds: “The benefits of nanotechnology were too uncertain and far off for industry to get involved without government stimulation of interest and help with the provision of expensive facilities.”
Loss of leadership has translated into a decline in participation in the nanotechnology sections of the European Union’s “Framework” research programmes.
The UK secured 15% of the EU funding available for nanotechnology projects under the Fifth Framework Programme (FP5) and one third of participants came from industry. Statistics on the response to the first call for proposals for the new FP6’s “nanotechnology, materials and production technologies” thematic priority show that while the UK represented 11% of participants in the proposals submitted (second only to Germany) , UK industrial participation accounted for only 5.5% of the total available funding.
In its presentation to the committee, the UK’s Institute of Physics claimed that this poor UK industrial showing means that “UK science is being exploited and developed elsewhere in Europe.” Industrial participants are mainly in France, Germany and Italy.
UK academia does not, however, escape criticism. At present, only ten UK universities offer courses with nanotechnology highlighted as a specific element in the title. Four of these are at undergraduate level.
The report comments: “It is our view that undergraduate courses in nanotechnology are more of a desperate scheme to attract people into science courses than an attempt to provide the right skills for subsequent employment.”
The committee believes that universities should, instead, be nurturing these skills at postgraduate level in an interdisciplinary environment. At the undergraduate level, nanotechnology should increasingly form a component of standard physics, chemistry, biology, medicine and engineering courses.
The report calls on the UK government to implement a more focused strategy for the commercialisation of nanotechnology. Current funding goes primarily to existing microtechnology research and facilities that are dispersed around the UK. The strategy is aimed at assisting regional development and much of the funding is provided by regional development agencies. The report refers to this as “a muddled strategy that seeks to reconcile the conflicting long term interests of the DTI’s science and innovation policy with the development of regional policy.” Attempting to address both priorities simultaneously has served to “undermine” the UK’s position in terms of commercialisation, according to the report.
The report was compiled following oral evidence sessions with representatives from government, research councils, regional development agencies, small and large companies, academia and scientific societies.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsctech.htm
