Technology does not significantly alter basic human nature and the character of the players on the global stage is important. Through what seems to be an inherent naivety in the British character, perhaps born of past experience of power and influence, Britain seems unaware of just how weak the foundations of our expectations are, we have to start being far more pragmatic in our approach to developing our society. Without research, development and manufacture of new products the UK is destined to continue its relentless slide down the path to ruin and all those good intentions and initiatives will be lost in the mists of time and the murky smog of influence by selfish power bases. There are sacrifices to be made but without them the future holds only greater deprivation for the majority.

We don’t need more people in universities (although it does make unemployment in the short term look less horrendous) what we need is money spent on maximising the potential for the best to achieve and for research to be conducted by the best with the best technology available. We need control of the money supply by other than the corrupt, private activities of the Bank of England (and the FED); we don’t need corrupt overpaid bankers, who are sucking us, the ordinary tax payer, dry – a fraction of their bonuses could have saved Corus, funded research projects and all sorts of vital social projects now destined to curtailment due to lack of funds. We do need money to be spent on financing targeted learning, research, development and industry. We don’t need a vast bureaucratic government machine paying absurd sums for quangos, advisers, consultants, ‘administrators’ etc. etc. – the parasites of our society. We need to start demonstrating our dissatisfaction and to initiate REAL change. Sorry, bit of a tirade.

We need to understand our present position, determine our objectives as a nation, re-think our approach to achieving them and target the paths to their successful fulfilment. Nanotechnology is just one area in which we desperately need to maximise our participation, attention and investment.

The report started well, there were some positive aspects; I like and agree with the aim, “the economy and users will benefit.”

The interdisciplinary nature of some of the proposed funding should be praised, such as the regenerative medicine programme.

I was particularly encouraged by the proposed 35,000 new apprenticeships as The National Science Foundation projects a global demand of 2 million nanotechnologists and 6 million support personnel by 2015; can we be sure all 35,000 will be trained in nanotechnology. If so great, that will be a big help in us positioning ourselves to take advantage of the $1T potential market in 5 yrs time.

Setting us The NanoLeadership Group is to be commended, at the mini IGT where UK Industry were canvassed many SMEs were crying out for more help, not just with tech transfer, but also with whole supply chain. This will show a great ROI particularly if we can benefit with help in securing FP-7 funding.

However, I tend to agree with your criticisms above, Andrew. Like you, I don’t believe we are number 3 in the UK in terms of companies involved with nanotechnology in the world.

Where were the mentions of China, the aggressive Russnano programme, Germany’s excellent Strategy for nanotech, which targets funding for research in areas of Industry Germany is strong in; pharma, automotive, engineering.

I believe if we follow the strategy, we will surely continue down the path of being a service industry dominated country. Nanotechnology gives The UK the chance to dominate once again in manufacturing, it would be a great boost to the economy and jobs, but unlike the US strategy, I really feel we are missing an opportunity here.

Why aim to lead the way in standardization? When the same outcome could be achieved by working with global, or European networks, benefiting from skills and funding from other countries. the same goes for the emphasis on legislation, safety, toxicology, regulation; I had also counted the volume of content here rather than on developing new product.

Some of the funding aspects are really quite small, and one wonders what is being sacrificed to achieve those ring-fenced budgets; £5M for solar, is not going to make us a global leader. And funding of £11M for healthcare – won’t keep many programmes running, nanoscience is often heavily reliant on expensive capital equipment to do the research.

Sadly; while the Aim is a good one, and there are some positive aspects, I see such an emphasis on legislation and safety, which could be achieved through alternative means, that I believe we are missing the point. Nanotechnology will be a life-changing interdisciplinary science which will have a huge impact on healthcare, energy, transport, communications amongst others, we have a great academic heritage, punching well above our weight, but this report does not give The UK enough support to get us into the Top Five players globally. Personally I think “the win” is big enough for us to give The UK Nanotechnology Strategy more of a boost.

——

Tom

It’s a really disappointing document, totally missing the point on just about every measure.

You make a fair point about the website problems this morning, for which I apologise. We’re due to move that site to more robust infrastructure shortly, and are ensuring that key reports such as this one are available on our main site as the primary source. On reflection, it was unwise to host them solely on the same experimental platform as the nanotechnology evidence-gathering site. We’ve taken some steps to improve availability in the short term, though I appreciate that’s somewhat after the horse has bolted. Sorry.

I know about the other document because I was asked to “edit” it. In reality, this meant that the person in charge was so upset by the original drafts that he demanded more professional input. I wrote much of the final report with input from a handful of good people. Not much of the original survived.

The big difference between the two reports is probably in the recent introduction of safety issues. A decade ago this was less prominent.

I have yet to read the new report. I suspect that it is as attached to reality as many of these exercises.

Can anyone really hold up the NNI as a roaring success?

Many of the ideas floated in the UK’s first report floundered because the academic community got into turf wars. Everyone wanted their nanotech centre and wanted to throw money at it.

Follow thorough is, as always, more important that grandiose proclamations.

I don’t like saying this, but there are just so many local factors at work here that observations from afar suffer from a lack of context. Not your fault. Indeed, good reason for us to pick over our own entrails.

The failure of the government department to get the report up on a decent web site speaks volumes for its competence.

Try this:

New Dimensions for Manufacturing: A UK Strategy for Nanotechnology

It appeared in 2002.

I went to a seminar recently where the speaker (Jane Gregory, UCL) argued that we could read the bulk of UK engagement policy as simply an attempt to make the public feel more comfortable about buying new products. So, not so much a matter of opening up science as being a bit cleverer about selling us stuff (which, depending on your politics, isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s all really quite linear/ deficit model after-all, despite the wrapping in a bit of sociologically-based jargon). It’s about making us all agree, and agree that it’ll be ok in the end. Hence the obsession with risk, not to mention similar emphasis on consensus, and general avoidence of more extreme viewpoints. It’d probably be reductive/ unfair to apply it to all UK science policy, but I thought it was interesting analysis. Think it’s going to be published in Science as Culture in the next few months (co-author Charles Thorpe)