2 Nanotechnology
| (25678)
9621/04
COM(02)338
| Commission Communication — Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 12 May 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 20 May 2004
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 17 June 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested and an opinion requested from the Science and Technology Committee
|
Background
2.1 Broadly speaking, nanoscience studies the manipulation and
assembly of matter at the atomic or molecular level; and nanotechnology
applies nanoscience to create products and processes.[5]
2.2 In its recent Report on the application of nanotechnology
in the UK, the Science and Technology Committee said:
"Nanotechnology is more than an exciting new
technology. It represents a whole new method of manufacturing
… It is better described as a collection of technologies
which are genuinely 'disruptive' — that is, they will render
many existing technologies and processes obsolete and create entirely
new types of products…. Nanotechnology has been described
as a new industrial revolution."[6]
The document
2.3 The Communication proposes a programme of action
to maintain and strengthen European research and development (R&D)
in nanosciences and technologies. The Commission says that its
proposals are in line with the relevant Conclusions of the European
Councils of Lisbon (for the EU to become the most competitive
and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world), Gothenburg
(agreeing a strategy for sustainable growth) and Barcelona (agreeing
that spending on R&D and innovation should be increased to
3% of GDP by 2010).[7]
2.4 The Communication begins by outlining the scope
for nanotechnology to lead to innovations in fields such as medicine,
information technology, energy production and storage, materials
science, manufacturing, instrumentation and the environment.
2.5 The Communication compares public expenditure
on R&D in nanotechnology in the EU and elsewhere. In 2003,
the public expenditure of the EU (including the spending of the
Community, Member States and associated countries) was €1,150
million, compared with €1,070 million in the USA and €810
million in Japan. According to the Commission's figures, the UK's
public expenditure on nanotechnology R&D in 2003 was €130
million; Germany's was €250 million and France's €180
million; all the remaining Member States invested less than the
UK.
2.6 The Commission notes that in 2003 per capita
R&D public expenditure on nanotechnology was €2.9 in
the EU (excluding the accession states), €3.7 in the USA
and €6.2 in Japan. Per capita expenditure is to rise to €8
in Japan in 2004 and €5 in the USA by 2006.
2.7 The Commission comments that:
"One of the crucial differences between the
EU and our main competitors is that the landscape of European
R&D in nanotechnology risks becoming relatively fragmented
with a disparate range of rapidly evolving programmes and funding
sources. The EC contribution under FP 6 [the 6th R&D
Framework Programme] of €350 million in 2003 amounts to around
one third of the overall European expenditure in nanotechnology.
"Our main competitors are characterised by coordinated
and/or centralised R&D programmes in nanotechnology. In the
USA, for example, over two-thirds of funding is allocated as part
of the National Nanotechnology Initiative within the auspices
of the federal programme. It appears unlikely that the EU can
remain competitive at world-level without better focussing and
coordination at Community level."[8]
2.8 The Commission says that the EU needs to ensure
not only that it produces world-class R&D but also that it
takes action on: R&D infrastructure; education and training;
innovation; and "the societal dimension".
2.9 The Commission believes there is a risk that
the EU's public expenditure on nanotechnology R&D will be
significantly less than that of its competitors over the next
five years. So it proposes a threefold increase in Community expenditure
by 2010. Member States should also increase their own spending
on nanotechnology R&D. The Commission adds, however, that:
"national capacities are often proving inadequate
for the creation of world-class poles of excellence [that is,
infrastructure for nanotechnology R&D]. It is therefore urgent
that [national] programmes are coordinated in a way that effort
is consolidated and focussed so as to ensure a critical mass and
greater impact within the ERA [European Research Area] on the
three synergistic axes: research, infrastructure and education."[9]
2.10 The Commission discusses the value of "technology
roadmaps" and "foresighting" for nanotechnology.
Roadmaps and foresighting define and assess progress, bringing
together those with relevant knowledge to consider possible developments,
challenges, risks and future needs. Several roadmaps are already
being prepared.
2.11 The Commission defines "infrastructure"
as the facilities, equipment and instrumentation that needs to
be available to researchers in order to develop nanotechnology
and show whether R&D can be translated into commercially viable
products and processes. In the Commission's view, Europe urgently
needs world-class nanotechnology infrastructure:
"To achieve the necessary critical mass, we
need to concentrate our resources in a limited number of infrastructures
within Europe. Sectors that can benefit from mutual synergy include
nanoelectronics, nanobiotechnology and nanomaterials. However,
the need to minimise fragmentation and duplication must be offset
against the importance of ensuring competition and thus R&D
excellence." [10]
Infrastructure for nanoelectronics has already been
identified as one of the areas for investment under the European
Investment Bank's initiative for "Quick Start" projects.
2.12 The Commission notes that Europe needs sufficient
and suitable qualified researchers and engineers if it is to realise
the potential of nanotechnology. It calls for action in schools
to introduce children to the concepts of nanotechnology; and proposes
new approaches to first degree and postgraduate education in the
sciences and engineering, including training in entrepreneurial
skills.
2.13 The Commission says that:
"Scientific investigation and assessment of
possible health or environmental risks associated with nanotechnology
need to accompany the R&D and technological progress….
In particular, nanoparticles might behave in unexpected ways due
to their small size. They may present special challenges, for
example, in terms of production, disposal, handling, storage and
transport. R&D is needed to determine the relevant parameters
and prepare for regulation, where necessary…" [11]
2.14 The Commission calls on Member States to create
conditions that promote investment in R&D by industry. It
encourages the European Investment Bank and European Investment
Fund to contribute to strengthening the capital base for innovation
in nanotechnology. It also calls on Member States to explore the
use of Structural Funds for R&D and to forge closer cooperation
between patent offices.
2.15 The Commission synthesises its proposals into
19 specific "actions" addressed to Member States and
sets out others addressed to the Commission itself.
The Government's view
2.16 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Science and Innovation at the Department of Trade and Industry
(Lord Sainsbury of Turville) notes the Commission's proposal that
EU-level expenditure on nanotechnology R&D should increase
threefold by 2010. He comments that:
"it is likely that the Commission will wish
to continue with the larger scale R&D actions that are currently
being used in FP6, although at this stage there are very few actions
underway and there is no evidence that the impact of such actions
represents good value for money."
2.17 The Minister also comments on the Commission's
view that resources should be concentrated on a limited number
of R&D infrastructures. He says:
"From a UK perspective, unless the new infrastructures
are based in the UK and are directed to UK industrial strengths,
the benefits to UK competitiveness are limited."
2.18 The Minister concludes:
"It is unlikely that many Member States will
agree to the large proposed increase in the R&D budget for
nanotechnology or to the building of very large nanotechnology
infrastructures at the European level, particularly the New Member
States."
Conclusion
2.19 In our view, the Minister has highlighted
the two most important and controversial aspects of this Communication.
These are, first, the proposal for a huge increase in Community
spending on nanotechnology R&D; and, second, the risk that,
if the Commission's approach were adopted, new major infrastructure
might be located to the detriment of the UK.
2.20 We should be grateful, therefore, if the
Minister would keep us fully informed of the discussions between
Member States on these proposals. Given that the Science and Technology
Committee has recently reported on nanotechnology, we also ask
that Committee for its opinion,[12]
and would like to receive this by 15 July. Meanwhile, we shall
keep the document under scrutiny.
5 A nanometre is one billionth of a metre. Back
6
Fifth Report, 2003-04, Too little too late? Government Investment
in Nanotechnology, HC 56-1, para 1. Back
7
Lisbon European Council, 23/24 March 2000, para 5; Gothenburg
European Council, 15/16 June 2001, paras 19-32; Barcelona European
Council, 15/16 March 2002, para 47. Back
8
Commission Communication, p.8. Back
9
Commission Communication, p.11. Back
10
Commission Communication, p.13. Back
11
Commission Communication, p.21. Back
12
Standing Order No. 143(ii). Back
| 
