Nanotechnology in the United Kingdom

0

Left behind by its European counterparts, a new Graphene centre could help revitalize the ailing UK nano sector.

A confused national nanotechnology strategy, lack of government leadership and inadequate funding are hindering UK research excellence in nanotechnology.

The United Kingdom does not currently have a national nanotechnology initiative; rather it embeds it in societal themes in programmes for ageing population, environmental change, global security, energy, food security and the digital economy. This approach puts it at odds with most developed countries in nanotechnology as the UK has sought to put as many eggs in as many baskets as possible. Even when the UK sought to implement a national nanotechnology strategy, the MNT programme, it lumped microtechnology in with nano, with funding split approximately 50:50 between micro and nano.

This is at odds with early UK activity in nanotechnology. In 2002 the Government published the Taylor Report (http://www.innovateuk.org/_assets/pdf/taylor%20report.pdf), which recognised that investment in nanotechnology was increasing rapidly worldwide and the UK needed to implemement a coherent national strategy.  Following the Taylor Report, an announcement was made by Lord Sainsbury of £90m of funding for the Micro and Nano Technology Manufacturing Initiative over a 6 year period, with the DTI (later DIUS and now BIS) committing a further £50million for projects.

Approximately one third of this investment went to Collaborative R&D MNT Projects, and two- thirds to capital infrastructure. Fifty MNT projects were approved through targeted competitions run in 2004-5, with a total project value of almost £60m, including £29m of Technology Strategy Board funds. Within this Initiative, the DTI (later DIUS and now BIS) allocated £50 million for grants under an Applied Research Programme of collaborative R&D leading to significant economic impact for the UK. £40 million was allocated towards facilities development for a UK Micro and Nanotechnology (MNT) Network. Under the network 24 centres were established, working on four main areas: fabrication, materials, medicine and metrology. At the time, Professor Hugh Clare, the Director of the MNT Network, stated: “The commercial exploitation of nanotechnologies, supported by the innovation activities of the Nanotechnology Centres, presents a great opportunity for UK business. A well funded and supported nanotechnology sector means more high quality research, more sustainable jobs and increased wealth creation.”

Micro and Nanotechnology Centres

Under the MNT programme, 24 laboratories were set up in the UK specifically funded for research in nanotechnology, with money spread geographically.

• INEX, Newcastle University (Thematic area: Fabrication) www.inex.org.uk

• UK-LMC – Laser Micromachining Limited, Denbighshire (Thematic area: Fabrication) www.lasermicromachining.com

• MicroBridge Services Limited, University of Cardiff (Fabrication) www.microbridge.cf.ac.uk

• BondCentre, Applied Micro-Engineering Ltd, Didcot (Fabrication) www.aml.co.uk

• SemeMEMS, Semefab Ltd, Glenrothes (Fabrication) www.semefab.co.uk

• Cambridge University Nanoscience Centre, University of Cambridge (Fabrication)

www.nanoscience.cam.ac.uk

• Qudos Technology Ltd, Didcot (Fabrication) www.qudostechnology.co.uk

• MNT at BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre, BAE Systems, Bristol, (Fabrication) www.baesystems.com/mems

• KNT-Photonix University of Glasgow (Fabrication), www.kelvinnanotechnology.com

• MetaFAB, Research and Commercial Division, University of Cardiff, (Fabrication) www.meta-fab.com

• CEMMNT Hub Ltd, Loughborough University, (Metrology) www.cemmnt.co.uk

• Begbroke Nano Oxford University, (Metrology) www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk

• Bio Nano Consulting, London, (Medicine) www.bio-nano-consulting.com

• Eminate, Nottingham, (Medicine) www.eminate.co.uk

• Fluence, Epigem Limited, Redcar , (Medicine) www.epigem.co.uk/products-fluidics.htm

• The Dolomite Centre Ltd, Royston (Medicine) www.dolomite-microfluidics.com

• NanoCentral, The Centre for Process Innovation, Redcar, (Materials) www.nanocentral.eu

• Comina, Intrinsiq Materials, Farnborough, (Materials) www.intrinsiqmaterials.com

• Materials Solutions, Advantage West Midlands (AWM), (Materials) www.materialssolutions.co.uk

• NanoForce, Queen Mary, University of London, (Materials) www.nanoforce.co.uk

• Centre for Micro and Nano Moulding, University of Bradford, (Materials) www.microandnanomoulding.co.uk

• Plastic Electronics Technology Centre (PETeC), CPI, Sedgefield,  County Durham, (Materials) www.uk-cpi.com/

• SAFENANO – Institute of Occupational Medicine, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, (Health & Safety) www.safenano.org, www.iom-world.org

Technology Strategy Board (TSB)

Established in 2007, the TSB took up the responsibility for the MNT facilities, and they set up the Nanotechnology Knowledge Transfer Network (Nano KTN) to continue the activities of the MNT Network. The TSB allocated £54million in funding for the centres for 5 years, after which the centres are expected to be self-sufficient. The centres have also received substantial support from the Regional Development Agencies and Devolved Administrations, who are keen to see the benefits in their regions or administrations, as well as being funded by industry to achieve a total investment of around £170 million. The NanoKTN forms part of the Technology Strategy Board’s nanoscale technologies strategy for 2009-2012. The overall objective was operate a UK KTN aligned to the Technology Strategy Boards strategic priorities. Key sectors were nanotechnology can have greatest impact have been identified, which include Healthcare, ICT, High Performance Nanomaterials for Engineering Applications, Metrology & Instrumentation, Energy and Environment.

Recent UK activity

The UK Nanotechnologies Strategy: Small Technologies, Great Opportunities was launched in March 2010 by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS). This Strategy set out how the UK Government was to take action to ensure that everyone in the UK can safely benefit from the societal and economic opportunities that these technologies offer, whilst addressing the challenges that they might present. Some key actions included in the Strategy were:

• Government Chief Scientific Advisers to review coordination of nanotechnologies research across Government including research on safety issues

• A new website to keep the public informed about Government work on nanotechnologies

• A new Nanotechnologies Collaboration Group to facilitate ongoing communication and collaboration between Government, academia, industry and other interested parties

• A new Ministerially led Nanotechnologies Leadership Group to address barriers to commercial growth in this area

• Government to explore a new industry reporting scheme with a broader scope covering nanomaterials as well as products containing them.

The strategy was heavily criticized at the time and action to implement it has haphazard at best. In October 2011, a Nanotechnology Roundtable was held which highlighted the need for leadership by Government; a more joined-up approach across Departments; and  a need  for government and business to work together to develop a forward thinking, innovation-focussed strategic approach. In 2012, the Nanotechnology Strategy Forum (NSF) wad established to facilitate discussion and engagement between Government and key stakeholders on strategic issues for the responsible advancement of the UK’s nanotechnologies industries. The NSF is an ad hoc expert advisory body with a membership drawn from industry, regulators, academia and NGOs and reflecting a wide range of stakeholder perspectives. The NSF is jointly chaired by the Minister of State for Universities and Science (BIS) and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defra.

Conclusion

Although the UK has a relatively impressive reputation for nanotechnology research, these ideas have yet to come to full fruition due to a confused national strategy over the last 10 years which has largely focused on funding fundamental research rather than pushing ahead with near market applications. As a result the UK would appear to be continually tying itself in knots as it seeks a coherent framework for success. As the likes of Germany, Japan, the United States, Russia and China push ahead with nanotechnology commercialization initiatives, many nano SMEs in the UK have failed to move past the early stage and have not been adequately supported by the government. A £50 million investment in a Graphene Centre in Manchester may go some way to addressing these problems. However, competitively it is unlikely to be enough, with South Korea investing $350 million in a similar initiative.

Share.

Comments are closed.