Nanotechnology has come to fore as a technology that has the potential to create the next multi-trillion dollar market. As any another technology in the past, this technology is also faced with various challenges as well as opportunities to create jobs and enable the growth of markets. But the question that we need to ask ourselves is whether this technology is being nurtured responsibly or this greatest opportunity of our times to create new markets is being squandered?
I have been associated with the field of nanotechnology for about 5 years now, both as a researcher and an intellectual property technology analyst. When I first started off learning about it the opportunities seemed unlimited. Nanotechnology was touted and is still considered in many quarters as an answer to all the technological challenges faced by the tech industry in the pursuit of advancement of technology. The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act passed by the Congress of the United States of America was definitely a critical step in right direction which has, from that point on, spurred on investments in the form of public grants and private investment to the tune of tens of billions of dollars across the world. This has led to a dramatic increase in research and development effort across the world, in particular, the United States, Europe and Japan. This effort can be linked to an explosive growth in the number of journal publications spanning various aspects of nanotechnology. However, over a period of time, through my experiences as a researcher, I realized that nanotechnology might not be the answer to all the technological challenges, as touted, after all. But, I was really captivated and impressed with the potential this technology brings to the table of innovation and problem solving. I had come quite a distance in adjusting my outlook on this exciting technology from being a silver bullet for all the technology problems to one of a key enabler in achieving the right solutions for the technological challenges as well as the advancement of technology.
At this point, I was reminded of the telecommunications industry around 1997-2000 time frame. Almost every major carrier had major stakes in the fiber optic technology, especially in the DWDM technology. Huge investments were made based on inflated forecasts of demand and the expectations were sky high. However, one key aspect that was taken for granted: technological break throughs that were critical for maintaining profitable performance to cost ratio. Technological progress at a rapid pace was taken for granted. When the costs were not going down and the demand started to fade, it resulted in the collapse of the telecommunications industry. But, what was sad was to see the near demise of a technology with tremendous potential: DWDM. Looking at the investment trends in nanotechnology, just before the discovery of the recent economic down turn, it seemed as if significant amounts of money was being invested in areas where either technological breakthroughs would take a very long time and it would be very difficult to predict the bang for buck ratio for the end products based on these break throughs or the performance improvements enabled by these technologies might just be an over kill for end applications. Hence, the investment to benefit ratio might not be so attractive. I am increasingly inclined towards an approach where strategic technologies are identified based on their ability to create products that can be very useful and responsible investments be made in those technologies. I would like to stress on the word "responsible" as I feel that it is very important to nurture the technology in the right way because this nurturing will pretty much decide the fate of the technology and its ability to succeed in the market place and enable the growth of an industry.
I have been associated with the field of nanotechnology for about 5 years now, both as a researcher and an intellectual property technology analyst. When I first started off learning about it the opportunities seemed unlimited. Nanotechnology was touted and is still considered in many quarters as an answer to all the technological challenges faced by the tech industry in the pursuit of advancement of technology. The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act passed by the Congress of the United States of America was definitely a critical step in right direction which has, from that point on, spurred on investments in the form of public grants and private investment to the tune of tens of billions of dollars across the world. This has led to a dramatic increase in research and development effort across the world, in particular, the United States, Europe and Japan. This effort can be linked to an explosive growth in the number of journal publications spanning various aspects of nanotechnology. However, over a period of time, through my experiences as a researcher, I realized that nanotechnology might not be the answer to all the technological challenges, as touted, after all. But, I was really captivated and impressed with the potential this technology brings to the table of innovation and problem solving. I had come quite a distance in adjusting my outlook on this exciting technology from being a silver bullet for all the technology problems to one of a key enabler in achieving the right solutions for the technological challenges as well as the advancement of technology.
At this point, I was reminded of the telecommunications industry around 1997-2000 time frame. Almost every major carrier had major stakes in the fiber optic technology, especially in the DWDM technology. Huge investments were made based on inflated forecasts of demand and the expectations were sky high. However, one key aspect that was taken for granted: technological break throughs that were critical for maintaining profitable performance to cost ratio. Technological progress at a rapid pace was taken for granted. When the costs were not going down and the demand started to fade, it resulted in the collapse of the telecommunications industry. But, what was sad was to see the near demise of a technology with tremendous potential: DWDM. Looking at the investment trends in nanotechnology, just before the discovery of the recent economic down turn, it seemed as if significant amounts of money was being invested in areas where either technological breakthroughs would take a very long time and it would be very difficult to predict the bang for buck ratio for the end products based on these break throughs or the performance improvements enabled by these technologies might just be an over kill for end applications. Hence, the investment to benefit ratio might not be so attractive. I am increasingly inclined towards an approach where strategic technologies are identified based on their ability to create products that can be very useful and responsible investments be made in those technologies. I would like to stress on the word "responsible" as I feel that it is very important to nurture the technology in the right way because this nurturing will pretty much decide the fate of the technology and its ability to succeed in the market place and enable the growth of an industry.
I think the same concept of responsible nurturing should be applied to nanotechnology, else we will be responsible for greatest lost opportunity of our times to create jobs and new markets.
Posts
Nice post prasanna.
ReplyDeletePrasanna, here are some additional thoughts:
ReplyDelete"The Nanotech Mirage - A Differing View, by Adolfo Gutierrez, PhD; CTO uBricks Research", http://www.semiconductor.net/blog/920000492/post/1430033343.html
dude awesome one!!
ReplyDeleteHaving spent the good part of the last three years looking at nanotechnology investments and working with state (www.jcots.va.gov) and federal goverments on promulgating the real economic benefits of nanotechnology, not as the 'new new thing' but as sustainable businesses with products, markets and services with real economic impact to capital creation and job creation, I believe that only early incremental gains with proven business results will attract additional capital. Very little political support exists to facilitate this on a national or state level. I am much more impressed with early gains made in Europe toward commericialization of nanotechnology.
ReplyDeleteI would take exception to the 'targeting' of specific technologies and nurturing them to the exclusion of all else. I have seen that approach result in other technologies pushed aside for what was scientifically-speaking 'politically' expedient and resulted in underfunding of other technologies with significant promise.
Almost nothing works better than the free market, entrepreneurship with appropriate private capital at risk to align interests and create success.
Nanotechs will provide for sure in the next 20 years both several of the main opportunities, but also the most highly speculative bubbles. First of all, it must be stressed that there is not a single approach and that within the nanotechs are associated very different technologies that share between themselves only the word nano.
ReplyDeleteTwo main families may, however, can be arbitrarily distinguished: loose nano-particles and fixed nanostructures on substrates. The first are the most "cheap" business. However, they are a 1 shot technology and are difficult to reuse. Furthermore a tracking of where the nano-particles go is a main issue, complicated by the fact that their behavior may be completely different out of their target, possibly even dangerous for health.
The second category is probably more user-friendly and by allowing improved miniaturization of new functions may provide important savings with regard to costly and/or rare materials and energy required for manufacturing. In the end this is the best way to provide a safe very high-added value to future products. The drawbacks are, however, as important as the benefits. First the technologies are very expensive to develop as they require top level equipment and skills and present a higher risk of failure to reach the goals. Furthermore, unexpected development by competitors providing unexpected materials and properties may reduce to ashes years of development and huge investments. Development in this area is highly speculative and will be in most of the situation a wild guess at best.
The best way to invest money in the field at this stage, in my opinion, is in medium-long term multi-purpose technologies, in particular those allowing improved flexibility and allowing knowledge generation speed-up. They may not be short term profitable, but will prove less risky and highly profitable in the medium and long term.
In the actual situation of frenzy short term profitability this will probably not be promoted by VC, but mainly by governments or very large companies (private fortunes) that can afford such a long term vision.
excellent sir..
ReplyDeletei want to do research in nanotechnology, no i completed my m.tech in india... if anyone have idea regarding college admission for research means mail me at softanbu@gmail.com
ReplyDeletehi sir what about in india
ReplyDeletehi sir i am a collage student i want to give a presentation on nanotech please provide a good ppt on it
ReplyDeleteA lot of talking without saying much of the physics and engineering
ReplyDeleteReal Nanotechnology /New IP of Nano/ give new opportunity to SME's for development in the World.
ReplyDeleteHi,Will you pls tell me about how to take hands on experience in nano particle synthesis and how to start a nano lab.To start with what i have to do Pls mail any body to chem_renu@yahoo.co.in
ReplyDeleteI think the things you covered through the post are quiet impressive, good job and great efforts. I found it very interesting and enjoyed reading all of it...keep it up, lovely job..
ReplyDeletenanotechnology cell phone
Hi;
ReplyDeleteI have completed my PhD in nanoparticles. I interested in post doc plz guide cme University.
waseemsyed34@yahoo.com