 |
Dec. 3, 2004 – Ten years ago, Ottilia Saxl launched the Center in Scotland for Nanotechnology. The Stirling-based center evolved in 1997 into the Institute of Nanotechnology, or IoN, and with Saxl as its chief executive has served as a catalyst for nanotech research and commercialization in Europe and beyond.
IoN is responsible for the Nanoforum network, the online resource AZoNano.com and the startup facilitator NanoMicroClub. Saxl talked with Small Times’ Candace Stuart about the institute’s past and future.
 |
What inspired the creation for the Center in Scotland for Nanotechnology?
The UK government already had an initiative on nanotechnology to raise the public awareness of research since 1986. There was a little money in the kitty the government had left for nanotechnology transfer. I had just read (K. Eric) Drexler’s book (“Engines of Creation“) about a fortnight before the closing date for applications.
I was running a company called the Technology Transfer Center and sent in an application. I think I was the only one who applied in Scotland because no one had heard of nanotechnology.
Did Drexler’s book somehow resonate with some of the work you were doing in tech transfer?
What it really said is that if you are involved in advanced technology in any way then nanotechnology will be the future. In the Technology Transfer Center we were looking at things like electronic product design, gene therapy, lab-on-a-chip.
At the area we were looking you could have just said it was nanotechnology and gene therapy or nanotechnology and lab-on-a-chip. So it was quite comfortable for me to see that world of atoms and molecules was another name for advancing technology. We slipped quite easily into being the Institute of Nanotechnology after that.
What was your initial mission for the institute and has that changed over the years?
It was really to raise awareness of nanotechnology in distant areas. For example, you can talk about nanotechnology and some people say, “How does that benefit me? I’m in drug discovery.” Another person will say, “How does it benefit me? I’m in medical implants (or) making paints and coatings, or thin film.” We’ve always looked at the implications to old industry of particular nanotechnologies.
We’ve also been keen to follow research and academia, and to educate people, to make nanotechnology interesting.
Some articles suggest that you see yourself as a European institute. Did you feel that way in 1997 when you created the institute?
We felt it is easy to become global when you create any organization in this electronic age. You can’t be parochial or insular; you have to be global. Our attitude was we wanted to be global and the first step in that was to be European and expand from that into the rest of the world.
Where do you feel you are right now?
We’re considered a very influential organization in European terms. I have no doubt about that. Places like the Far East and Australia view us as — and Canada — most of the world sees us as an important organization.
With regard to the States, we don’t need to do much in America because you do so much yourself. You have the bull by the horns, but I think the rest of the world is still trying to find out what is going on in their own patch and other people’s patch.
Could you compare the Institute of Nanotechnology to any entity here?
The closest you get is the Foresight Institute, (but) they have a different mandate because Eric Drexler runs it. He’s keen to promote his particular brand of nanotechnology. We’re much more into networking and bringing people together and exploring what makes them tick, what makes their research tick, what their ethics are. We’re looking at the broader picture.
Do you feel it is critical for Europeans to work together on nanotechnology, and if so, why?
If you look at Europe, there is a multitude of diverse cultures. There are different languages; there are different backgrounds so we’re not so tightly knit perhaps. We have in Europe a highly imaginative culture and we want to try to harness that imagination. If we do so it will be incredibly productive.
You work with the research community, industry, the government, the public. Do you use different strategies with these groups or do you have one overarching strategy?
The overarching strategy is to never compartmentalize people. Our strategy has been to mix people together and get a spark that way. The institute’s never been constrained to working with one group because it’s seen the wonderful things that happen when you mix people together.
What kind of interaction do you have with the European Union?
Wonderful. We do a lot of work with the European Union in many areas. We lead one of the most important nano networks, which is called Nanoforum. This brings together many players in Europe. We do all of the dissemination work, commissioned reports, which are available for nothing to the public.
Have you identified specific areas that you think Europe is particularly strong in nanotechnology?
Europe has a lot of strengths, but one area in particular is enhanced health care. September next year is our Europe-wide meeting called EuroNanoForum and it is going to focus on the health of the EU citizen in 2020.
We’re going to look at all kinds of research (related to) how you can treat your aging population, how you can look after people’s health, how you can use nanotechnology across a spectrum of needs.
What’s your short-term goal? What do you want to achieve by the end of the year?
What I’d like to achieve this year is to make Nanoforum the strongest network in Europe by having the best partners, to make it a really powerful entity to bring together the nanotechnology community in Europe.
Would you want to expand beyond that?
Absolutely. I believe (we have) really good relationships with Taiwan, Korea, Australia and (we’re) beginning to get a good relationship with Japan. Certainly if Nanoforum can then integrate with these other Far Eastern countries, with Australia, with Canada, I think it would be good for all of us.
What is your goal for 2010?
(Laughing) My goal would be growing marrows (zucchini) in the garden. I think everybody has a goal that whatever technology they’re in benefits everybody. It’s not exclusive. It’s inclusive. I think the goal would be that nanotechnology provides an inclusive feature.
Is there anything from the 10 years that stands out as something you never would have guessed you’d be doing?
Ten years ago, nanotechnology — no one had heard of it. Today if you’re looking at the political or scientific level, there’s been an exponential leap in the learning curve. The word has become common in everybody’s vocabulary. People used to laugh at me and say I should get a proper job. It was a wee seed 10 years ago and now it’s flourishing. It’s a big tree now.
Did you anticipate that?
Maybe at the back of my mind I thought this is so exciting and it’s so meaningful it’s just got to happen.
Did you anticipate that the public would get involved in a debate over nanotechnology along the lines of genetically modified food?
You can’t anticipate that at the beginning, but what has pleased me is the nanotechnology community has been so keen to engage with everybody to make sure people know what they’re criticizing or supporting. The GM debate raised the importance of being honest and trying to explain things, to communicate and not brush the public off with a “why should we bother?”
The nanotechnology community did a great job to talk about nanotechnology, to talk about its implications. We want to defuse misapprehensions. Some people may not like nanotechnology, but at least they know what they don’t like. It won’t be an emotional reaction or a gut reaction; it will be a reaction from knowledge.