May 3, 2007 — The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Maryland says its newly established Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST) is accepting proposals for nanotechnology related research projects.

The center is a resource for university, industry, government and other researchers who need access to state-of-the-art facilities to study a wide range of nanotechnology topics.

The CNST consists of both an active interdisciplinary research program and a national user facility: a 16,000 square foot nanofabrication facility, about half of which is devoted to class 100 cleanroom space. The nanofabrication facility includes more than 30 state-of-the-art tools such as photolithography, ion beam, and etching equipment capable of creating, measuring, and inspecting nanoscale devices with dimensions as small as 10 nanometers.

Researchers interested in working at the facility can submit proposals for review in any nanotechnology research area. The center will accept both proprietary and non-proprietary research proposals. Non-proprietary research may qualify for a partial waiver of use fees if the project falls within CNST’s mission, and such proposals are expected to lead to publication of research results in the open scientific literature.

May 2, 2007 — The Australian government has released what the Australian Nano Business Forum (ANBF) calls a “$1.4 billion industry statement,” which recognizes the imperative of Australian industry to adopt nanotechnologies.

Australia has committed “to develop a National Nanotechnology Strategy and develop niche manufacturing industries based on nanotechnology, totaling $57.7 million,” according to the ANBF. ANBF CEO Tina Rankovic notes that “this type of commitment mirrors that previously announced by governments of major economies such as the US, Japan, UK and Germany.”

The ANBF urges the government to move quickly to implement this component of the industry statement. “Australia is a medium-sized economy in an increasingly global community, with a range of pressures and challenges. One of the mechanisms to address such challenges is to build sustainable competitive advantage at all levels — company, industry and country — through both product and business process innovation” says Rankovic.

The statement specifically targets the SME (small-to-medium enterprise) sector, particularly manufacturing, which is reportedly a key driver of Australian innovation.

May 1, 2007 — There is a growing opportunity and responsibility to leverage nanotechnology to reduce pollution, conserve resources and, ultimately, build a “clean” economy, according to a new report, from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, called Green Nanotechnology: It’s Easier Than You Think.

The report summarizes proceedings at a national American Chemical Society symposium and four workshops held in 2006. It cites examples of research progress toward using nanotechnology to accomplish environmental goals in combination with
commercial or other objectives, and defines four categories in which nanotechnology applications and environmental interests intersect:

— Fostering new nanotechnology-enabled products and processes that are environmentally benign;

— Managing nanomaterials and their production to minimize potential environmental, health, and safety risks;

— Using nanotechnology to clean up toxic waste site and other legacy pollution problems; and

— Substituting green nanotechnology products for existing products that are less environmentally friendly.

The report recommends development of policies that actively promote pollution prevention through use of nanotechnology.

“It is not as though nanotechnology will be an option; it is going to be essential for coming up with sustainable technologies,” said Paul Anastas, director of the American Chemical Society’s Green Chemistry Institute.

May 1, 2007 — NanoInk, Inc., has reached a distribution agreement with Schmidt Scientific of Taiwan and China, to become the exclusive distributor for NanoInk’s NSCRIPTOR Dip Pen Nanolithography (DPN) System in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao.

NanoInk specializes in nanometer-scale manufacturing and applications development for the life science and semiconductor industries. The company’s NSCRIPTOR DPN System is an integrated hardware and software system designed for the DPN process of writing stable nanoscale patterns of molecular “ink” onto a sample substrate via a coated stylus tip. DPN users can build at resolutions ranging from many micrometers down to 15 nanometers, using virtually any material. This makes for numerous commercial applications.

“Schmidt Scientific’s visibility and presence in the Nanotechnology markets in China and Taiwan will accelerate the adoption of our DPN technology in Asia,” said Tom Levesque, Senior Director of DPN Global Sales. “Our technology is already in use at several prominent universities in the region, and we see it migrating into industrial development as a general purpose nanofabrication tool with a low cost and a small desktop footprint.”

By Barbara G. Goode, Small Times staff

May 1, 2007 — This year’s recent FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) Championship at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta featured the Nano Quest real-life challenge, which tasked students, ages 9 to 14, to design, build, and program robots to explore the world of nanotechnology.

Nano Quest was part of the event’s FIRST LEGO League (FLL) World Festival; it drew 94 teams from around the world. “Every FIRST LEGO League challenge helps students discover how imagination and creativity combined with science and technology can solve real-world problems, and this year’s focus on nanotechnology introduces them to a new frontier of science and technology,” said Dean Kamen, FIRST founder and inventor of the Segway transporter.

According to FIRST organizers, Nano Quest presented nanotechnology in understandable terms, highlighting diverse and positive ways it promises to enhance or even revolutionize existing technologies to solve problems and invent things never thought possible. FIRST collaborated with the University of Notre Dame’s Center for Nano Science & Technology and the Cornell University Nanobiotechnology Center to help shape a theme and challenge missions that reflect real issues in the study of traditional sciences at the molecular level. These include manipulating individual atoms, clothes that never get dirty, an elevator to outer space, and cures for disease.

Every participating team’s robot ran through a series of missions on the Nano Quest table. (Photo: Adriana M. Groisman)

One mission involved testing nanotechnology-enhanced stain-resistant fabric. Each team’s robot was required to deliver a dirt trap to a specific location and empty the tester’s dirt dumper. Correct delivery of the dirt trap was worth 15 points; a completely empty dumper when empty was worth another 15 points. The dirt pieces were Bonus Objects, worth 5 points each in the dirt trap, and 3 points each everywhere else on the table.

Top honors went to Champion’s Award 1st Place winner, Team 1031 “Pigmice” from Portland, Oregon; and Champion’s Award 2nd Place winner, Team 1677 “Access 9” from South Bend, Indiana.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent nanotechnology White Paper is the result of a 27-month review of the positive potential uses and the possible negative environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology. The goals of the paper are “to inform EPA management of the science needs associated with nanotechnology, to support related EPA program office needs, and to communicate these nanotechnology science issues to stakeholders and the public.” Although the 132-page paper does a good job of meeting these goals, it provides little new guidance for companies trying to “read the tea leaves” regarding how the EPA will ultimately treat nanomaterials for regulatory purposes.

The paper begins by explaining nanotechnology’s emerging importance: “[f]or EPA, nanotechnology has evolved from a futuristic idea to watch, to a current issue to address.” As the agency moves forward with its nanotechnology analysis, it attempts to balance research and development against safeguarding human health and the environment. Simply put, the agency’s quandary is that “[s]ome of the same properties that make nanomaterials useful are also properties that may cause some nanomaterials to pose hazards to humans and the environment, under specific conditions.” This same issue was identified in December 2004, when the EPA started the whole White Paper process. Nonetheless, the issue remains relevant and largely unresolved.

The paper then covers several potential environmental benefits posed by nanotechnology, including remediation of chemical and radiological contaminants; water purification; development of nanosensors to detect biological and chemical contaminants; reduction of energy demand through lighter and stronger materials; and energy-efficient fuel additives. The paper references a prior prediction that up to 14.5% annual energy savings may result from potential future uses of nanotechnology. These potential uses will indeed be dramatic “positives” when they come to fruition.

However, even though the paper spends a little more than six pages addressing potential nanotechnology benefits, it devotes 33 pages to countervailing potential EHS risks. In this regard, the paper presents perhaps the best summary of nano-related EHS information published in 2006 and could be quite useful as a quick reference guide; it should also be required reading for anyone involved in the nano-industry. This section covers, among other things, environmental, occupational, and general exposures; environmental fate of nanomaterials in air, soil, and water; detection and analysis of nanomaterials in the environment; human exposure routes, including inhalation, ingestion, dermal, and ocular; exposure mitigation techniques; and existing toxicological data, including whether analogies can be properly drawn from data in other areas such as ultra-fine particle studies.

Given the disparate treatment of the potential “pros” and “cons” of nanotechnology provided in the paper, the two topics might have been better addressed in separate documents. Certainly there should be a larger focus on nanotechnology’s potential benefits to better understand EPA’s current position on the use of nanomaterials pending comprehensive EHS testing. The potential-benefit section of the White Paper could use further, separate development. However, with all the recent attention given to nano-related EHS issues, one is hard-pressed to find serious fault with the EPA’s focus.

Moving forward, EPA identifies numerous research gaps that must be filled to progress with nanotechnology. The paper breaks down what might otherwise be an overwhelming list of research gap into two basic categories: environmental applications and risk assessment. Within the category of environmental applications, EPA’s primary research needs involve green manufacturing, green energy, environmental remediation and treatment, and sensors. Within the risk assessment category, the paper highlights the following research needs:

• Chemical identification and characterization;
• Environmental fate and treatment;
• Environmental detection and analysis;
• Human exposures measurement and control;
• Human health effects; and
• Ecological effects.

These are very large areas to cover: What else is there? Thus, current “unknowns” appear to be larger than the “knowns.” The paper was not intended to provide answers to the underlying EHS questions; instead, its purpose was to identify major issues for EPA management, which will later determine whether and how they should be tackled.

Similarly, regarding possible nanotechnology regulation, the paper takes the position that current environmental statutes provide the EPA with sufficient authority to regulate nano-materials. This statement is not new or surprising. Interestingly, however, the paper also notes that “[t]he statutes administered by EPA (identified as TSCA, FIFRA, CAA, PPA, CWA, SDWA, CERCLA, and TRI) are a starting point for evaluating and managing risks and benefits from nanomaterials. Some current EPA policies and regulations may require modifications to address this new technology.” The paper, however, does not provide any analysis regarding which statutes might need modification, nor does it suggest proposed modifications or even recommend a process for analyzing existing laws to determine whether they need such modification. Arguably, a thorough statutory analysis is the most compelling need currently facing EPA, and the paper misses an opportunity to make real progress on this issue.

For example, statutes such as the Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation Recovery Act contain measurable levels at which regulation begins, such as a specific concentration or weight emitted or discharged. Because nanomaterials may be a concern at vastly smaller measurements, many of these triggers that are measured in parts-per-million or pounds or tons emitted may not be applicable-a point EPA does not fully develop. However, it is likely that more detail will develop as the “data gap” begins to close and as more information concerning the behavior and interaction of nanomaterials at specific levels is learned.

A second example is that nanomaterials may require different treatment depending upon the environmental media (i.e., land, air, or water, which accepts the emission or discharge). While the paper briefly addresses this subject, there has always been a difference in how a material is regulated depending on the area to be protected. However, until more is learned about the interaction of nanomaterials in the natural environment, it is difficult to make definitive statements concerning specific data.

The paper concludes with seven research recommendations regarding the beneficial uses of nanotechnology and contains more than 35 general EHS research recommendations. While the creation of such lists is a valuable first step, the paper contains no budget suggestions, proposed research schedules, or division of assignments within the government to accomplish its goals. However, assuming EPA succeeds in implementing its own recommendations, the paper provides a good road map of future research needs.

Finally, the greatest practical environmental concerns facing nanotechnology companies remain, despite the paper’s long-awaited release. How will the public and industry react if EPA eventually regulates certain nanoparticles as potentially hazardous materials after they have been incorporated into consumer products for several years? Clearly, there is some level of risk of this occurring until the EPA makes a determination one way or the other. On the other hand, there are also business implications to sitting out the market and waiting to see what the EPA eventually does. It may take another several years for a clear picture to emerge while the rest of the nano-industry is rocketing along.

In addition, nano-businesses need to consider what ultimate protection will arise from a “positive” EPA determination regarding EHS issues. Absent embedding “preemption” provisions into any EPA nano-specific regulation, meeting the agency’s nano-standards-whatever their form-will not necessarily shield a company from potential liability. As a matter of law and also good business practices, no amount of government regulation can substitute for a company conducting its own analysis regarding the possible EHS implications of its new products.

Click here to enlarge image

John C. Monica, Jr. (left) is a partner at Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP and is a specialist on nanotechnology product liability issues. Michael E. Heintz is an associate in the Environmental Practice Group at the law firm and focuses on traditional environmental issues, as well as nanotechnology and global climate change.

The country supports innovators in interesting ways.

BY ANDREAS VON BUBNOFF

Although the United States leads the global nanotech landscape, Germany is not far behind. That is the conclusion of a new Lux Research report that compares the nanotech landscape in 14 countries.

The report found Germany among the top three in most categories. For instance, Germany is second behind the U.S. in the number of academic nanotech research centers, third behind the U.S. and Japan in both corporate R&D spending and public funding, and second behind the U.S. in the number of patents issued.

What conditions have helped Germany to achieve this status? How do the academic, government, research, and commercial constituents work together? How is Germany nurturing the growth of nanotech-an industry it sees as a second opportunity to do things right? This article helps answer these questions and more.

Start-ups augment stalwarts

“The climate for nanotech in Germany is very strong,” says Michael Holman, a senior analyst at Lux, and the report’s lead author. “The combination of a pretty vibrant start-up community and leading [traditional] companies like BASF and Degussa that are very active in the field has put Germany in a very strong position.”

Large German companies are indeed a big factor, with BASF alone planning to invest 180 million euros in nanotech R&D between 2006 and 2008.

The country’s vibrant start-up environment is revealed in a German government-commissioned report conducted last year by the VDI technology center in Düsseldorf. The report estimates that Germany has about 200 nanotech start-up companies founded in 1995 or later (see www.nano-map.de for a list). The start-ups alone have created about 5,000 new jobs, representing one-tenth of the total of about 50,000 German nanotech jobs, says Gerd Bachmann, a co-author of the VDI report. What’s more, seven young companies got listed on the German stock exchange in just the past two years.

Still, the number of new start-ups per year has been decreasing between 2000 and 2005, says Wolfgang Luther of the VDI and one of the report’s authors. The decline, he says, could be due to the skepticism of investors in the years after the dot-com crash in the U.S.

Furthermore, it is more difficult to get venture capital to invest in nanotechnology in Europe and Germany than in other countries like the U.S. A report by the U.K.-based consulting firm Cientifica concluded that U.S. venture capital investment in nanotech in 2005 was six times that of Europe-despite a similar-sized market with similar amounts of nanotech funding. The recent Lux report found that in 2006, just $36 million in venture capital was invested in Europe, compared to $550 million in the U.S. “I think it’s fair to say that there is more of an entrepreneurial culture in the U.S. than in Europe,” Holman says.

Katja Lindenlaub, a financial analyst at German investment firm Nanostart, agrees. “It’s hard to translate research results into companies and products,” she says, “in part because of the risk aversion of investors in the past several years.” Nanostart is one of only a few German investment firms that were willing to invest money into nanotech in the past few years, she adds. Nanostart, founded in 2003, has been listed on the German stock exchange since 2005. It invested in ITN Nanovation and Nanofocus, two of seven German nanotech companies currently listed on the German stock exchange.

New initiatives and VC alternatives

To improve the venture capital and investment situation, the German stock exchange, Nanostart, and others have organized NanoEquity, a conference that brings together investors, nanotech companies, and scientists. The third-annual NanoEquity (www.nanoequity.eu) will take place June 11-12 in Frankfurt, says Alexander von Preysing of the Deutsche Borse Group, which runs the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.

Perhaps a lack of venture capital is part of the reason there are fewer nanotech start-ups in Germany than in the U.S., where the number is probably well over 1,000, according to Charlie Harris, chairman and CEO of the U.S.-based nanotech investment firm Harris and Harris.

But not everyone agrees that the number of start-up companies is a good indicator of the state of German nanotech. “That’s a bit misleading,” says Cientifica CEO Tim Harper, adding that large traditional chemical companies like BASF probably sell more nanomaterials per year than all the nanotechnology-based start-up companies combined. And with plenty of public funding, the lack of venture capital in Germany is not as serious as one might think. “Money is money,” he says. “You don’t care whether the funding comes from the government or VC.”

Raising money by selling stock has actually gotten easier for young German companies than for their U.S. counterparts. In Q4 2005, the Frankfurt Stock Exchange introduced the so-called entry standard, a lower reporting and accounting standard than the one used in the U.S. The standard, which among other things doesn’t require the issuance of quarterly reports, could save companies a lot of money, claims von Preysing. Lux’s Holman notes that in the U.S., some small firms spend as much as $1 million just to comply with the reporting and accounting regulations to get listed. In Germany, that is no longer the case.

Indeed, saving money was one of the reasons why his company decided to get listed under the new entry standard last year, says Nanogate CEO Ralf Zastrau. Five young nanotech companies have become listed under the new standard since it took effect, von Preysing adds.

Leveraging university “capital”

Another strength of Germany is its many universities and research centers that help spin off nanotech start-ups, says Cientifica’s Harper. In fact about two-thirds of German start-ups come from such spin-offs, according to the 2006 VDI report. “When people say Germany is not entrepreneurial, I point to places like Saarbrücken,” Harper says, referring to the Institute of New Materials in Saarbrücken, which has generated a number of spin-offs.

For example, the original business plan for Nanogate was created based on ideas from the INM, says Zastrau. The operational start of Nanogate was in 1999, with venture capital funding. Today, 53 people work at the company, which has been profitable since 2004 and went public last year.

Harper says one challenge for start-ups is to move up the value chain by selling products rather than just bulk nanomaterials that other companies incorporate to add value to their products. He compares this to selling cement or bulk chemicals, which are not very profitable except for big companies like Degussa that can sell massive amounts. To succeed, start-ups must be more application-focused, says Harper.

That is exactly what Nanogate is doing, says Ralf Klenke of Nanogate Advanced Materials, a subsidiary of Nanogate. He says a customer who wants to put a nanoparticle-based coating on, say, a bathroom sink, doesn’t get a lot from just buying nanoparticles. “We deliver everything,” he says, including instructions and sometimes even the equipment to apply nanotech-based coatings that give surfaces certain useful properties.

Another profitable company that spun off from academia is microscope manufacturer WITec. The company was founded 10 years ago by three Ulm University physics postdocs. It produces ready-to-use, customized microscopes, such as scanning probe microscopes, used to analyze nanostructures. Initially, Ulm University let the company rent lab space, says co-founder Klaus Weishaupt. “Ulm is a very good place for high-tech start-ups,” he explains.

Unlike Nanogate, WITec was funded with private money, which is not necessarily a bad thing, Weishaupt says, because it creates pressure to make profits as soon as possible. “If the fridge is empty, the pressure is greater to make money than when you have millions from an investor to spend,” he says, adding that he doesn’t want the company to get listed on the stock exchange anytime soon. “We don’t want to sell. It’s better when the profits go into your own pocket.”

Not all German start-up companies are profitable, of course. Aquanova AG, for example, was founded in 1995 and produces nanoencapsulated dietary supplements such as co-enzyme Q10 to increase their bioavailability. One reason Aquanova is not yet profitable is that clinical trials are time-consuming, says Frank Behnam, who is responsible for corporate development at Aquanova. He says the company will likely be profitable in 2008 or 2009.

Nanomaterials, followed by . . .

Given the long tradition of its chemical and pharmaceutical industry, Germany’s strength is in nanomaterials; big players like BASF or Degussa hold strong positions. “German companies have been selling chemicals and materials around the world for 70, 80 years,” says Cientifica’s Harper. “They are very well-connected. It’s very easy [for them] to just add another line to the catalog.”

But there are other fields to watch, like healthcare, Holman says, with companies such as Cinvention AG, which makes nanostructured carbon coatings for medical devices, and MagForce, which injects magnetic nanoparticles that concentrate in tumor areas. A magnetic field can then be used to heat them to destroy tumors without using chemotherapy or surgery. Both companies’ products are still in clinical trials, but they’re promising, says Holman.

However, certain traditional fields, like the German textile and construction industries, still need to understand the advantages of going nano, says Bachmann. A new German government initiative called “Aktionsplan 2010” wants to speed up innovation in these areas, he adds.

Perhaps with all these activities, Germany won’t repeat the same mistake with nanotech as it made with computers in the past. “We have invented the computer,” says Aquanova’s Behnam, “but we haven’t been able to translate that into products like the Americans did.”