Assessing the Way Forward for UK and Nano

By Matt James

Nanotechnology: It has been called the fourth technological revolution with the potential to provide us with the tools to fight global challenges and to engage in atomically precise manufacturing. Some commentators have even said that it presents us with a rebound revolution that far from moving us forward,  causes us to rethink our understanding of science and technology.

Despite these exciting and profound benefits unanswered questions and uncertainty still permeate the nano project. For example, confusion over language and what is precisely meant by nanotechnology. Is it a technology or a group of technologies? Would nanoscience be a more helpful term? Should we focus on size – science and technology at the nanoscale? Would more precisely defined terms help to more clearly define what nano is? And what about the risks, such as toxicology, and the research gaps in our current knowledge and understanding? What do we really need to know in order to help inform and shape future regulation?

At a recent evening event hosted by Nesta, the UK’s innovation foundation, several sets of questions were posed around the general theme of how can we capture the possibilities but avoid the pitfalls of nanotechnology. The organisers had pulled together an impressive panel of speakers in order to try and begin to form some responses and plan a way forward and position the UK as one of the key players. Panel presentations were supposed to be brief and form only the first half of the programme, followed by a good 30 minutes of Q&A with the audience. As those of us know who organise and chair similar events, however good the intentions may be, if you do not firmly but graciously keep your speakers to their allotted time, time will slip! As was the case in this instance, insightful comments and reflections were made by the panel but time quickly ran away resulting in time for meaningful Q&A being lost. Nevertheless, the event caused some interesting points on the relationship between UK and nano to be made.

Presentations

Kicking off proceedings was Eric Drexler, academic visitor at the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology, who some have termed the “godfather” of nanotechnology. He offered a useful historical survey of the ideas and terminology that surrounds the nano revolution, acknowledging the diversity in meaning but highlighting the scope for terms and techniques to compliment one another. Addressing the aspect of the conversation he has been most associated with, that of molecular nanotechnology, Drexler looked to the future and talked briefly about the future impact and implications of atomic precise manufacturing (APM). In Drexler’s thinking when we really master APM then the full impact of nano will be realised.

The idea of variation and diversity in definition and terminology was also picked up by John Knowles, chairman of the Advisory Board for the Nanotechnology Knowledge Transfer Network and who sits on the UK Government’s Nanotechnology Strategy Forum. Whilst acknowledging the benefits of research and development in the UK and within the EU, Knowles expressed the growing concern prevalent among many in the UK who regard EU attempts to drive advances in nano by drafting tight definitions of what can be classed as nanotechnology to be extremely concerning. It is felt that devising and applying definitions which are too tight risks an exodus of talent, ideas and money from the UK, particularly in terms of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), to other countries where policy definitions are not as stringent.  He went on to argue for directing support into specific areas of nanotechnology as opposed to specific companies as well as issuing a strong rallying cry for further investment in the UK nano scene.

Professor of physics and pro–vice chancellor for research and innovation at the University of Sheffield, Richard Jones offered a nuanced set of reflections setting out the key benefits of ‘going small’ and developing new technologies at the nano scale before moving to specifically address the matter of innovation. In his opinion innovation is not happening fast enough at the nanoscale. He helpfully made the distinction between different types of innovation and made the case that within the field of nanotechnology longer term investment and commitment is necessary in order to yield the breakthroughs which are so eagerly hoped for. Jones concluded his remarks with the salutary warning that we may not come to realise and experience the full impact and benefits of nano if this longer term approach is not heeded.

Finally Sonia Contera, Co–Director of the Oxford Martin Programme on Nanotechnology gave a whistle– stop overview of some of the exciting advances which have been made in the field of nano medicine, providing ample evidence of how nano is helping to drive convergence particularly between biology and physics. Clearly demonstrating her passion and enthusiasm for the subject, Contera spoke animatedly about how nanophysics for medicine is transforming drug–delivery, tissue engineering and biosensing. She likened these developments to moving from a world of ‘cartoon–style’ drawings and diagrams of biological systems to actual pictures which help to vividly display the wonder of these systems at the nano scale. This in turns is helping to further our understanding of biology.

As I listened to these presentations and reflected on the points raised, here is what was on my mind:

1)       Values and investment

Throughout the evening two key messages seemed to keep coming through. First, the exciting speed at which advances in nanotechnology have evolved over the past decade. We may not be precisely where we thought we might be but developments at the nanoscale have certainly propelled us forward. Second, that there is need to continue to invest in nanotechnology. What we have experienced to date is not all there is to know and in order to really harness the benefits of nano the scale of investment required is critical.

Given these two points I was surprised that not more was said or referred to in terms of values and the crucial part they play in helping to shape how government, industry, and science go about making strategic long term decisions. The sheer speed of change and the impacts of emerging technologies are becoming more dramatic by the day thanks largely due to Moore’s law of exponential growth. As was highlighted during the evening this helps to bring the realisation of new products and services ever closer to our door. Which of these will be of most benefit to society? Which are deserving most of investment? On what basis; on what values will the answers to these questions be made? These values based questions are important because values help to create and shape the markets. As the products become more revolutionary – and the exciting possibilities which working at the nanoscale help to vividly demonstrate – mean that it is crucial to link with the values of prospective investors, buyers and wider market forces.

With these revolutionary technologies comes the obvious risk based questions which intersect with investment. How government shape regulatory regimes will ultimately be the result of the values held by society at large. John Knowles boldly declared that the UK government was pleased that that the general public had a positive perception of nanotechnology. Whilst concerns exist surrounding toxicology and other associated risks the perception is nowhere near the negative ‘yuck’ factor which dominated the GM foods debacle. The conversation seems to be fertile ground for fostering an ongoing conversation on nano which continues to be shaped by the values questions for this will surely help to drive forward and shape the necessary investment which everyone is recognising as crucial to nano’s success in the UK.  But this conversation needs to be focused on the long term and not the short term.

2)      Developing long term vision

Given the global economic climate and the need to do more with less, there is growing unease amongst those in the business and finance communities with capitalism and its tendency to focus more on the short term than the long term. As Prof Jones pointed out when discussing innovation, it is perhaps easier to invest in and champion advances and innovation in the digital sector because it can produce faster and relatively cheaper returns. Working in nano world requires far most investment – both in terms of finance and time – to achieve the same level of results due to the complexities involved. Seemingly our competitors (such as Japan) know this and the UK needs to realise this and act in a similar way.

3)      Knowledge networking

Rather revealingly John Knowles started his presentation by saying that he was going to defer to his science colleagues for comments on the science and the future. This points to one of the key problems facing us. It should not be left to just the scientists to determine and shape the future; there needs to be an exchange of fresh ideas and thinking – from across the disciplines and communities – which together helps to determine the future.

As innovation guru John Kao has helped to bring to our attention, the way of the future, its technology and how it evolves and develops has closer similarities to jazz than it does classical music. We need the free flow of ideas from those voices in the centre as well as on the edges to help challenge and question the mainstream.

Simply following the usual path of “this–is–the–way–things–have–always–been–done” will not be enough for the future. In my mind this is what many were hinting at during the course of the evening’s discussion. In order for us to truly benefit from the potential of emerging technologies such as nano it compels us to embrace new ways of workings which are more nimble, responsive and transformational just like the technologies we are dealing with.

The 2004 report by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering (RS/RAEng) on the opportunities and uncertainties of nanotechnologies quickly earned wide spread respect for its detail and perspectives on the advances surrounding nanotechnology and correcting the UK Government’s failure to previously lead on nano. Almost 10 years on, the need for ongoing, sustained long term engagement is necessary in order to ensure the UK continues to play a lead role in developing and harnessing the opportunities affording to us at the nanoscale.

A video of the event will be posted shortly on the Nesta website.

• Nanotechnology

There have been 0 replies to this Article. + Post your comment here.