News & Analysis
Comment
KB3001
Do you have any numbers, Mark, regarding the commercialisation of nanotechnology ...
eryksun
The dream of bottom-up, self-assembling manufacturing will be realized first in ...
Firm: U.S. falling behind in nanotech
Mark LaPedus
8/18/2010 1:07 PM EDT
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The U.S. dominated the rest of the world in nanotech funding and new patents last year, but the U.S. is also falling behind in the arena, warned a research group.
U.S. government funding, corporate spending, and VC investment in nanotech collectively reached $6.4 billion in 2009, according to Lux Research. But Japan, Germany and South Korea surpassed the United States in terms of commercializing nanotechnology and products, according to the Boston-based firm.
China, Russia and other nations pose as threats to the U.S. in nanotech. Overall, the report found global investment in nanotech held steady through the recent financial crisis, drawing $17.6 billion from governments, corporations and investors in 2009, a 1 percent increase over 2008, according to the firm. Only venture capitalists dialed back their support, cutting investments by 43 percent relative to 2008.
''Last year saw the U.S. lead all other countries in terms of government funding, corporate spending, VC investment, and patent issuances. But its capacity to commercialize those technologies and leverage them to grow the economy is comparatively mediocre. U.S. competitiveness in long-term innovation is also at risk, as the relative number of science and engineering graduates in its population is significantly lower than it is in other countries,'' according to the report.
|
|
|
|
|
mark.lapedus
8/18/2010 1:15 PM EDT
Does anyone buy this? Is the US falling behind in nanotech? If so, what should be done about it?
Sign in to Reply
Rich Krajewski
8/18/2010 11:58 PM EDT
Yeah, all those high-paying, nanotech, engineering jobs are just going begging in the US! Oh, wait. I just checked monster.com for nanotech jobs. There aren't any. Maybe if we convince more children to become engineers, the problem will be solved!
Sign in to Reply
will99878898
8/19/2010 1:37 AM EDT
the whole nanotech ... is over hyped.
I was in it many years ago and still checking nano letters routinely -- to see what they are doing recently.
it's quite boring, nanotubes again and again, DNA is the recent toy for them.
there are many limitations for nano tech, van deer waals force, very expensive equipment, small room to play at etc. it should just stay as a niche subject.
many interest groups apparently exaggerated it to get funding/job/something to do/etc.
other countries are more conscious while US is deep in the tech-superiorty myth. they want some tech like semicon/laser to save US economy... again!
well, this time it might won't work, US need to face the reality and let some people to make shoes to lower the unemployment rate.
Sign in to Reply
Kaiser Silicon
8/19/2010 1:28 PM EDT
You make an interesting point. For whatever reason 3 years ago the Congress jacked up the minimum wage from $5.25/hr in 2007 to $7.35/hr in 2009, about a 40% increase in 2 years. That would have been tough to absorb in a booming economy, and in this economy, no way. While I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, the net results is a loss in jobs that people could have fallen back onto in a bad economy, including low skill, low wage manufacturing jobs. There are some jobs that there is a wage beyond which there are no jobs. Sadly, our Democratic friends just don't get that.
However, back to the issue at hand. The sometimes open hostility of the gov't to private industry makes job creating in ANY industry very problematic, including nanotechnology. Until our friends in gov't understand that capitalism and private industry are the geese that lay the golden eggs, no company in its right mind will set up shop or exapand the operations that it already has if the possiblity exists that the gov't will confiscate its reward for taking a risk.
Sign in to Reply
motti2
8/20/2010 12:15 AM EDT
This is laughable. The US is largely leading in nanotech, and neither are the applications commercial applications being published so much in the academic literature, ie the things that count commercially, are often NOT called nanotech but the materials science is certainly benefiting from nano scale engineering / material properties etc.
And I do not mean golf balls, or nanotube this and that ( without specific commercial applications rarely discussed )
So NO the sky is not falling and the US is not falling behind and YES VIRGINIA nanotech is hiding in all sorts of products that folks are oblivious to.
mark-nano.blogspot.com
Sign in to Reply
eryksun
8/22/2010 5:15 AM EDT
The dream of bottom-up, self-assembling manufacturing will be realized first in synthetic biology. There are projects underway to synthesize a minimal cell, and we've already synthesized artificial genomes. The field of biological engineering will blossom over the next 20 years. We'll start primitive and then ramp up exponentially to internal novel cell structures, genetic 'software engineering', and complex designs that far exceed what I call "life 1.0." We're coming into the era of life 2.0 (and 3.0, 4.0, ad infinitum). Eventually, we may even be able to use synthetic biology to bootstrap some of that wicked diamondoid nanotech that Drexler et al. got us dreaming about.
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
8/22/2010 11:08 AM EDT
Do you have any numbers, Mark, regarding the commercialisation of nanotechnology products? What is considered a nanotechnology product in this study? and what period did this study span? Note that commercialisation figures lag behind R&D spending figures, so the rewards for 2009 R&D efforts might not be seen as commercial products for years to come. I have to say that I am not seeing any signs of the US falling behind in Nanotech, but that's just anecdotal.
Sign in to Reply