Select Committee on European Scrutiny Twenty-Ninth Report


3 Nanotechnology

(25678)

9621/04

COM(04) 338

Commission Communication — Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology

Legal base
DepartmentTrade and Industry
Basis of considerationOpinion of 15 July 2004 from the Science and Technology Committee
Previous Committee ReportHC 42-xxiv (2003-04), para 2 (23 June 2004)
To be discussed in CouncilNo date set
Committee's assessmentPolitically important
Committee's decisionNot 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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 29 July 2004