3 Nanotechnology
| (25678)
9621/04
COM(04) 338
| Commission Communication — Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | Opinion of 15 July 2004 from the Science and Technology Committee
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xxiv (2003-04), para 2 (23 June 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Introduction
3.1 The Communication proposes a programme of action to maintain
and strengthen European research and development (R&D) in
nanosciences and technologies.
3.2 When we considered the Communication on 23 June,
we concluded that its two most important and controversial proposals
were for a threefold increase in Community expenditure on nanotechnology
research and development by 2010; and for resources to be concentrated
in a limited number of "infrastructures" (such as advanced
facilities, equipment and instrumentation for researchers to use)
to meet what the Commission sees as Europe's urgent need for world
class "poles of excellence" in nanotechnology. We noted
that the Science and Technology Committee had made a recent Report
on the application of nanotechnology in the UK.[8]
So we asked the Committee for its opinion on the Commission's
Communication.
The opinion of the Science and Technology Committee
3.3 We have received the following opinion from the
Committee:
"The Commission Communication Towards a European
strategy for nanotechnology presents a major challenge to
the Member States of the European Union to translate excellence
in nanoscience into commercially viable products and services.
The proposed strategy acknowledges that public investment in
nanotechnology in Europe risks becoming significantly lower than
our main competitors over the next five years and proposes a three
fold increase in the budget for nanotechnology in Framework 7
in order to maintain the EU investment at a level comparable with
that of the USA and Japan. In our inquiry, we found that the
money currently committed by the UK Government, spent in line
with the existing strategy, would ensure that the UK continued
to fall behind our international competitors. We would agree
that there is a requirement for a significant increase in European
investment in nanotechnology. The extent of this increase should
be seen in the context of other commitments and priorities in
Framework 7.
"We welcome the clear emphasis the Communication
places on nanotechnology as opposed to microtechnology. The latter
forms a strong part of the existing UK Micro and Nano Technology
(MNT) Initiative, largely due to the perceived requirement for
revenue generation in the short term. There is an opportunity
for UK organisations to gain significantly from an EU programme
that supports commercial exploitation of nanotechnology and at
the same time provides for longer term research and development.
"The identification of a need for EU investment
in large centres that provide real critical mass is key. Such
centres can act as one-stop-shops that offer the full range of
services from basic research, to device design, prototyping and
manufacture. In an international context the United States is
well ahead of the competition: a National Nanofabrication Users
Network was established by the National Science Foundation in
1992. Five new national centres are being set up by the US Government,
and various state-sponsored centres are being established to provide
local hubs for nanotechnology. The EU needs to develop similar
centres if it is [to] compete on equal terms.
"The Communication proposes the EU should invest
in different categories of 'Poles of Excellence':
(a) small scale centres to provide a local or
regional focus: these would be of considerable benefit to current
DTI regional MNT strategy, as they would correlate closely with
the established UK nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations;
(b) intermediate sized centres (costing up to
200M euros), equivalent to the largest centres in the EU at present,
and larger than anything in the UK; and
(c) 'mega-centres' — larger than anything
that already exists at present in the EU, but comparable in size
to the large centres now being constructed in the USA.
"In our Report, we argued that the UK should
be developing at least two intermediate sized centres, in line
with the recommendations of the Government-sponsored Taylor Report
on a UK Nanotechnology Strategy. These centres would provide
state-of-the-art fabrication facilities with a critical mass of
expertise and technical support and would stand to benefit from
the proposed European strategy. Instead, the Government has chosen
to develop a regional strategy in which existing smaller scale
facilities, in line with category (a), are opened up to provide
wider access to industrial users. The justification for new large
scale centres will depend on the number and capabilities of smaller
and intermediate sized facilities but such centres would certainly
be of benefit to UK industry and researchers. The ready accessibility
of nanofabrication prototyping and manufacturing facilities is
essential for most SMEs if they are to move from development to
large scale manufacturing. If large scale centres were to provide
full manufacturing capability alongside prototyping capabilities,
they would be of significant value to UK industry, provided that
access arrangements were sufficiently flexible. The additional
benefits of such centres being located in the UK would be considerable.
"In the context of the UK Government's current
policy, the extent to which the UK stands to gain from the proposed
strategy must be open to doubt. The success of Member States
in securing funding from EC Framework programmes is strongly correlated
with their national funding. It is generally accepted that the
UK is in a weak position regarding investment in nanotechnology
centres: Germany, France, Netherlands, Ireland and Sweden have
already established centres of excellence, and it is likely the
Commission will wish to build upon this existing expertise in
Framework 7. The absence of any intermediate level nanotechnology
centres in the UK is likely to limit severely the benefits that
the UK might expect from EU expenditure on the development of
nanotechnology infrastructure in Europe. The Ten Year Science
and innovation investment framework announced on 12 July gives
no indication that the hosting or development of large scale nanotechnology
facilities is envisaged by the Government. The UK Government
could therefore be urged to develop world class nanotechnology
centres in advance of the commencement of awards of Framework
7 funding.
"We welcome the recognition in the Communication
of the importance of training and education in the development
of a long term programme to develop and exploit a European nanotechnology
capability. Nanotechnology is interdisciplinary, combining engineering
and the physical and biological sciences. Industry will therefore
require a new generation of scientists and engineers highly trained
in the core disciplines, but with knowledge and expertise gained
from adjacent disciplines that will enable them to succeed in
an interdisciplinary environment. Unless this is given priority
UK industry will not be able to benefit fully from developments
in nanotechnology. We support the approach outlined in the strategy
of leaving it to individual Member States to develop appropriate
training courses and curricula. We recommended in our Report
that the Research Councils should work closely with the MNT initiative,
the RDAs and Sector Skills Council to address nanotechnology skills
shortage in the UK.
"Technology transfer is a critical issue if
industry is to benefit from the investment and expertise available
in the science base. The high costs of developing manufacturing
facilities are a major disincentive to many companies. We drew
attention to the equity gap, in the region of £250,000 to
£1 million, that hinders high tech and other SMEs from developing
new products. UK Ministers have viewed the main problem to be
a shortage of sound business proposals rather than a shortage
of available venture capital and other funds. We disagree. The
proposed European strategy recognises the difficulties faced by
SMEs but proposes no effective solutions, other than drawing attention
to the potential role the European Investment Bank could play
in providing loans. In our view, further measures are required
if a successful, internationally competitive manufacturing sector
is to be established.
"Consideration of health and environmental issues
raised by nanotechnology is an essential component of a nanotechnology
strategy. We endorse the proposals in the European strategy for
further research into the potential for adverse environmental
and health impacts of nanotechnologies and the sharing of this
knowledge on an international basis. We also support the call
for Member States to adopt a proactive approach to raising public
awareness and confidence in the new technologies. The Communication
recommends that social and ethical issues should be considered
by Member States so that nanotechnology can be developed in a
socially responsible manner. We have already recommended that
the Research Councils should address these research and public
awareness issues. Further recommendations are expected from the
Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering study commissioned
by Lord Sainsbury in 2003 and expected to report shortly.
"In conclusion, we believe that the European
strategy outlined is a good one but that the UK is not yet in
a position to make the most of the benefits to be gained from
new or improved nanotechnology centres and facilities. In our
view, the UK strategy should be adapted accordingly, along the
lines we recommended in our recent Report."
Conclusion
3.4 Our responsibility is to examine European
Union documents and to report our opinion on their legal and political
importance and, if we consider it appropriate, to recommend further
consideration of such documents. We seek to avoid duplicating
the work of other Committees. But we recognise the benefits to
the House and to our own work from collaboration with other Committees.
We regard the opinion of the Science and Technology Committee
on the Commission's Communication as an excellent example of the
benefits of such collaboration. We are grateful to the Committee
for providing its opinion so clearly and quickly.
3.5 We ask the Government for its comments on
the opinion and, in particular, on two points. The first is the
Committee's view that the Government could be urged to develop
world class large-scale nanotechnology centres in advance of awards
of funding from the European Union's 7th Framework
Programme for research and development. The second is the Committee's
view that further financial measures are required as part of the
European strategy if a successful, internationally competitive
nanotechnology manufacturing sector is to be established in the
United Kingdom.
3.6 We shall keep the Communication under scrutiny
pending the Government's reply.
8 Fifth Report, 2003-04, Too little, too late?
Government Investment in Nanotechnology, HC 56-1. Back
| 
