![Friuch Consulting home page [logo]](wp-content/themes/friuch-branded/images/friuchconsulting.jpg)
« Top Six Ways Volunteering Helps Your Consulting Practice | Home | ProTip: Increasing Survey Response Rates with Super Prizing »
The US Roadmap for Nanotechnology and Where Canada Stands in Comparison
By crooky | December 17, 2007
The Foresight Nanotechnology Institute in the US gave us nanotech geeks a sneak peek at their Technology Roadmap for Productive Nanosystems – due for public announcement in January, 2008. I am extremely interested in this topic area because of my ongoing work with NanotechBC. I’ve already worked on a nanotechnology asset map for British Columbia and I am in the process of working on a provincial strategy with some colleagues for early 2008. I think Canada could take a lot of cues from this Foresight Institute document when thinking about where we want to go with nanotechnology north of the border.
If you are completely new to the concepts behind nanotechnology, there is a good summary of nanotechnology at a high level overall at Wikipedia.
Before delving into where this roadmap gives directions to, I think it is worth mentioning that there are overlapping, evolutionary stages for nanotechnology (as described by Dr. Mihail C. Roco of the National Science Foundation). The shoddy graphic below (produced by yours-truly) represents the different stages of nanotechnology:
Tier 1: Passive Nanostructures are basic nanomaterials like carbon nanotubes, nanopowders (used in some cosmetics already), etc… They’re made in bulk with electro-mechanical processes. Companies using this kind of technology started to crop up in 2000 and make up the bulk of existing nanotechnology companies in Canada and the US at the moment.
Tier 2:Active Nanostructures are nanomaterials that change with physical and chemical properties when they’re exposed to environmental stimulants like electricity, temperature, other chemicals and radiation. Companies making these advanced materials started to crop up in 2005 and have explored things like targeted drug delivery using nanomaterials and molecular-level electronics.
Tier 3: Systems of Nanostructures are series of active nanostructures working in conjunction like little factories or machines to achieve a task. In my diagram, I have some goofy-looking nanostructures working together to push out a ribbon of polymer. These machines could do the same things we’re doing using macro-scale electronics and machinery to produce passive and active nanostructures. It is estimated that the first commercial applications of this technology will hit the market in 2010. Some of these systems could be synthetic organisms like that work like RNA to create nanopolymers. See an example of an organic RNA-based production engine that exists in nature below.
Tier 4: Molecular Nanosystems are the closest reality to nanorobots as envisioned in science fiction novels like Prey. However, these molecular scale computers and robots would be used to carry out gene therapy and enable direct human-computer interface. This kind of technology is not expected until after 2020.
So, the Foresight Institute and its partners want to see US scientists reach that coveted fourth tier before anyone else in the world and to dominate that industry. Nanotechnology is widely recognized as a disruptive technology (the last disruptive technology we saw was the invention of the telephone and look what that’s done for mankind). Billions of dollars are already spent annually in the US to push mainstream nanotechnology past Tier 1 into Tier 2 and once the commercial applications of nanotechnology move past sunblock and carbon nanotubes in khakis, more money will start to roll in from private investors.
If you want to download the Foresight Institute document, I have a copy archived on my server. You can get it here.
The report is long and I confess that I haven’t read much past the first 50 pages, but here are the highlights. The report recommends that the US nanotechnology community as a whole:
1. Establishes atomic precision as the essential criterion for all research
2. Encourage collaboration amongst institutions
3. Prioritize modeling and design software (CAD designed nanosystems, for example)
4. Establish nanomaterial databases – not unlike the public SNP database for human biology research
5. Create better tools for analyzing and measuring nanomaterials
6. Discover nanoscale “building blocks” that can be used to assemble other atomically precise materials (for example, self-assembling nanomaterials)
7. Leverage DNA-based atomically-precise material production (organic production of nanopolymers using ribosome-like synthetic organisms) plus using molecular nanosystems to build custom DNA
8. Leverage optimized research and advanced models to yield high gain results in the short term
I think the drive for atomic precision, modeling and design software, better tools and optimized research is what’s really going to drive nanotechnology into the third tier. I think 2010 is ambitious and we won’t see mainstream applications of tier 3 technologies until closer to 2020. This report identifies some key Tier 3 technologies that they thing the US community should pursue:
I can tell you from previous work I’ve done in this field that Canada’s competitive advantage in Tier 2 technologies lies in nanobiological systems. Liposome companies throughout Canada are reinventing themselves as “nanotech” companies. The forestry sector is already started to self-organize to take advantage of nanotechnology in an industry that suffers from the ups and downs of a commodity market. However, as usual, I think Canadian high tech companies; industry bodies and government institutions are at risk of failing to recognize that this market is currently up for grabs. Sure, the US has a strategy but that doesn’t mean that they’re going to take the whole market.
There are certainly more Tier 2 companies in the US than in Canada but in a typical Canadian fashion, some of our best and brightest have been toiling away in under-funded academic posts while developing world-class tools and instrumentation crucial to the future of “atomically-precise manufacturing”. I think the biggest take-home message from this roadmap for Canada’s nanotechnology industry is that we too need to be thinking about optimized research and how we can identify areas of inquiry that will yield high gain results in the short term.
*********************
Aaron “Crooky” Cruikshank is the Principal and Founder of Friuch Consulting. He has written professionally about science and technology for ten years.
Topics: Policy, Technology |
Loading ...