It’s time to expose the nanotechnology hype

By Bipin Parmar

Nanotechnology has been around for many years, with papers published on the subject by the likes of IBM, Bell Labs, Mitsubishi and Fujitsu in the 1960s and 1970s.

While many technology analysts and commentators talk it up as the next big thing, we do not believe that nanotechnology is a business sector or a properly defined material, device, product, service or market. The nanometre is a measurement (not a technology) representing one billionth of a metre. Nanotechnology usually refers to material less than 100 nanometres, or 1/100,000 the width of a human hair.

The Chilli’s definition of nanotechnology is a process manipulating atomic and molecular level elements in materials and leading to substantial changes in the electrical and mechanical properties of that material.

The changed material is different in each case and application, and therefore cannot be categorised and measured. The materials for each application, ranging from stain-resistant clothes, bread baking, face cream, sun tan lotion, paints, car bumpers to nanotubes is unique. Nanocomposite materials are already being used for toughening some materials in the automotive industry and face cream for better skin penetration.

It is therefore very surprising when one sees analysts and some journalists claiming a huge nanotechnology market worth up to hundreds of billions – for a market that cannot be measured or easily calibrated. The intended audience is the same public that was mesmerized by previous technology-based hypes such as the Internet, regardless of its true applications, value and business case. There is even a nanotechnology index produced by a leading investment bank, which is a collection of information and some products that have nothing to do with nanotechnology itself.

Nanotubes – a dream for pure scientists>
Nanotubes are derived from so-called nanotechnology and have been very over-hyped as the new semiconductor replacement material. Nanotubes, when grouped together, are seen by the naked eye as dust or soot. Under a microscope they look like a jumble of hairs or steel wool. Separating them out and manipulating each fibre so that signals can be exchanged is many moons away and is in the realms of pure science that can only be carried out at well-endowed corporate and university laboratories. It is not something a startup or a VC should venture into easily, as the exit plan could be well beyond the average exit cycle of seven years for a technology company, or 12 years for a biotech company.

Nano health scare
There are also some concerns about potential health hazards associated with nanotechnology, where a lot more research is needed. This could again end up with the public accusing scientists of carrying out scientific research without giving due regard to human health and animal welfare. Early research and studies carried out at the Southern Methodist University and Rice University in the US has shown tissue damage to mice’s lungs and fish brains. Clearly, more research is needed before there will be a widespread use of nanomaterials.

It is time to expose the over-hyping of nanotechnology, and time for level-headed research to be carried out at government laboratories – for the good of all parties concerned.

Comments on this story? Send an email to the editor at Editor@TheChilli.com