LONDON, Dec. 4, 2002 — The United Kingdom’s business community has to put nanotech and MEMS “on its research agenda” or lose the race to commercialize the technology, according to Marc Desmulliez, author of a recent report, “2010 Micro/Nanotechnology in the U.K.”
Desmulliez is chairman of the Institution of Electrical Engineers’ (IEE) Microsystems and Nanotech Professional Network (PN). The report was based on a survey of about 200 U.K. company officials his team at the Micro Systems Engineering Center at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh conducted for the IEE.
While nearly 90 percent of respondents believed microsystems technologies (MST) and nanotechnology will have a great impact on the country’s competitiveness, most said very few of their companies’ products currently contain some MST.
 |
Desmulliez said the United Kingdom lacks the “technology translation” needed to move R&D from academia to industry. But, he added, the government is attempting to correct this through institutions such as the I2 NanoTech Centre and the Institute of Nanotechnology.
Desmulliez and other experts, however, do not believe the survey accurately represents the current state of nanotech and MST in the United Kingdom. It paints a bleak picture of corporate knowledge of, and expectations for, small tech. For example, nearly 60 percent of interviewees expressed “no interest in, use of or research into biochips in the near future.”
J. Malcolm Wilkinson, managing director of Technology for Industry Ltd. (TFI), said this response stems from a lack of understanding about “how large the potential markets are likely to be.” His company’s recent study of the application of MEMS/MST in medical and biomedical markets makes the point. It anticipates the total, worldwide, market value of in-vitro diagnostics (diagnostics done outside the body) as about $20 billion.
Respondents believed the United States has a huge lead over Great Britain and Europe in the “level of innovation in MST and nanotechnology” and will maintain that lead for the next decade.
Tim Harper, chief executive of CMP Cientifica, agrees. “If you look at what is happening in universities, Europe is right up there with the U.S.” He said the problem is not in innovation, but in commercialization. He said that this gap is already being addressed by organizations such as the European NanoBusiness Association (ENA) and through initiatives such as the Phantoms nanoelectronics network.
At a recent European Venture Capital Association meeting, Harper said, the nanotechnology session was so popular, attendance was standing room only. “This indicates that European investors have woken up to nanotechnology and will be giving the U.S. a run for its money in the investment stakes. Unlike the IT boom, Europe is catching the wave at the same time as the U.S.”
Wilkinson concurred: “The U.K. is in a very strong position in nanotechnology R&D but in a relatively weak position in microtechnology and vice versa. Cambridge and Glasgow Universities are world class in nanotech. Their competitors are in the U.S.A., not the Continent.”
More than 72 percent of respondents believed the public is scarcely aware of opportunities presented by microsystems and nanotechnology. The experts said this already is being remedied.
“The public is aware of MEMS, i.e. the devices, the widgets, but not of the applications of MEMS,” Desmulliez said. He said the IEE is organizing a series of nontechnical tutorials next year on the basic principles of MEMS and nanotech and a series of seminars to provide greater public awareness on technical topics. “We are also thinking of creating a one-day event where academia and industries will meet and share knowledge and possible business deals.”
Respondents said they believed those “technologies with the greatest potential for innovation in your business” are microelectronics and MEMS. They thought nanotechnology and biotechnology have much less potential.
Nanotech’s low score is because many companies don’t have a handle on its benefits for their business, Desmulliez said. They “have not put nano on their research agenda, don’t have an appreciation of it.”
Wilkinson added that biotech’s low score is potentially a “serious problem if it means many companies are not aware of the disruptive effect these technologies could have on their business in the very near future.” The solution, he said, would be increasing public awareness with “real case studies showing the bottom line (profit/loss) impact of products incorporating these technologies.”
Harper agreed it’s a problem, but “one that the ENA and CMP Cientifica are trying to address.” He said the survey results reflect a common “misconception that nanotechnology is all somewhere in the future. In fact it is already available.”
The survey tested the responses of 200 companies and research institutes between November 2001 and February 2002 using computer-assisted telephone interviewing. Some 51 percent of respondents were heads of company departments or divisions with 49 percent of interviewees coming from research and development environments. Many respondents were consultants.