JAPAN NANONET BULLETIN - 64th Issue - February 16, 2006

Nanotechnology
—The United Kingdom and Japan—

During her four years as a counsellor, she made tremendous efforts to coordinate cooperation in fundamental research and industry between the UK and Japan in nanotechnology. We had a chance to interview her before she left Japan in December 2005. We asked about her contributions towards international cooperation in nanotechnology, issues of science and society and future prospects of nanotechnology between the UK and Japan.

UK and Japan joint projects on nanotechnology

Q: Thank you very much for accepting our interview today. First I’d like you to look back on UK and Japan joint projects on nanotechnology.

Well, when I arrived in Japan, nanotechnology wasn’t really a subject, which was a high priority for the science and innovation section at the Embassy. Japan was ahead of us, and the UK wasn’t focusing on it as much. We started looking at our strategy for nanotechnology very seriously in the UK in 2001, more or less as I arrived, with the establishment of an expert panel. At the same time, here in Japan we were looking at what was happening in the Japanese nanotechnology market and realized that there were opportunities for us to work together. The first thing I ever did on nanotechnology in Japan was to talk at Nanotech 2002 at Makuhari Messe. I introduced a group of professors from the UK, from the North East; talking about nanotechnology in the UK and why we were good to partner with. I think Nanotech 2002 was a fairly low key event but in 2003 NEDO (New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization) joined the annual event, which made the event larger. nanotech conference from 2002 to the event in 2005, which was huge, with a considerable international participation is a demonstration of how the importance of nanotech has grown, while we were the only international participants in that original nanotechnology conference. And, we’ve done lots of different things to promote the relationship between the UK and Japan in this area. We’ve done several academic-to-academic workshops, to promote collaboration. We have done work specifically on nanobiotechnology - we had a mission over in July 2002; that was mainly industry led. And then of course, we collaborated in the Royal Society-Science Council of Japan joint workshop on the potential health, environmental and societal impacts of nanotechnologies. That’s beyond technology development collaboration, focused on collaboration on how to implement this technology, bringing the general public with us. So there has been lot of activity over the last four years, and the scale of it has grown.

Features of the UK’s nanotechnology

Q: I’d like you to tell us something about the features of the UK’s nanotechnology. It seems to me and probably most Japanese related to nanotechnology, that the UK has been very proactive in nano-biotechnology. And I heard you yourself were involved in biotechnology in the Research Councils.

Well, as I’ve already said, we are probably behind the game in terms of nanotechnology materials compared to Japan. What we do have is some really world leading centres. For example, the group led by Mark Welland at the University of Cambridge, which is very much focused on nanomaterials and John Ryan’s group at the University of Oxford, which is very much focused on bio-nanotechnology. A third leading centre is the group at Newcastle University. And there are others like Glasgow, which has links with the Oxford group, and Bristol University with Meryin Miles and his team, which is very much focused on AFM. So, there are some really key leading groups, but it’s perhaps not as integrated as in Japan. Here in Japan, the industrial sector is dominated by big companies, such as Fujitsu, Mitsubishi, and NTT. And in nano-bio, you’ve got companies like Matsushita, Olympus and Shimadzu. You’ve got big company involvement, but you have relatively few small companies. Nano Carrier is the one that I’m most familiar with. In the UK, our nanotechnology industry is similar to our biotechnology industry. We have these very strong academic activities, and we have a lot of spin out companies from those academic groups. Companies like Oxonica, which is a spin out from the University of Oxford. There are some big companies but the UK industrial sector is dominated by small companies. But I think that difference is good for us and it’s good for you. It’s good for us, because your big companies want to work with our small companies and our academic base. And both countries get access then to each other’s expertise. It is very complementary.

The UK is a smaller country than Japan but even when you do R&D input as a percentage of GDP, Japan’s investment in nanotech is an order of magnitude greater than the UK. But our investment is much more targeted. We are also increasing investment in infrastructure, for example the considerable investment in infrastructure associated with Newcastle University.

Q: Prof. Ken Snowdon?

Yes, Ken Snowdon’s group. For example, they are building up their microfabrication facilities and associated infrastructure.

MNT Network (Micro- and Nano-technology Network)

Q: You also have the MNT Network. Would you tell me about it?

The MNT Initiative was set up in 2003 with an initial investment of 90 million pounds over 6 years. Sorry, if I take a step back, the UK’s original nanotechnology strategy report focused on two things: basic research, where the Research Councils are in the lead; and the need for innovation and commercialization, which the MNT Initiative is focusing on, pulling through technologies from the basic research side into industry. So MNT is providing similar funding to METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) in Japan. I think that is the closest analogy, except that METI tends to fund large projects with big company involvement, whereas DTI (Department of Trade and Industry) funding is more about enabling the process. That’s a general comment on the difference between R&D funding and commercialization funding in the UK and in Japan. And, of course the money that DTI is putting in is small, compared to what NEDO in Japan, for example, is putting in.

Participation in Nanotech 2006

Q: I’m getting back to nanotech, Nanotech 2006. The participants from the UK have been increasing, haven’t they?

Our participation has changed. Nanotech 2002 was actually led by the Northeast Regional Development Agency. It was very academically focused. And, up to last year it remained fairly academically focused. Nanotechnology is still not wholly commercial; it’s on the verge of commercial.

This year, the focus will be on trade, as well as promoting UK strengths in science and technology. In other words, the companies that are coming over have products and processes to offer. If you look at who is looking after it internally, the Embassy’s Science and Innovation Section will run a seminar, but our commercial or trade section is running the rest of the mission. Their involvement to date has been limited. In other words, nanotechnology is moving towards the market. So back to your original question, yes, we do have a big mission coming this year. And we have moved on to a different level. A lot of the work we’ve been doing to date has been focused on academic-to-academic collaboration. For example, I think you are familiar with the work we’ve done with JST (Japan Science and Technology Agency) in Japan - very much about academic-to-academic links. But, things are moving downstream. It’s not only in the UK, but in Japan as well - we’re moving to the next stage.

Bio-nano strategy

Q: A few days ago, I talked with Dr. Julie Deacon via e-mail. She is very interested in a discussion about the bio-nano strategy.

That’s the European strategy. The European Commission is developing a nanobiotechnology strategy. We have our own strategy within the UK, but in addition, the Commission is developing its own Europe wide strategy.

Q: As far as I know, in the Euro nano-bio strategy, you are focusing on three areas: nanomedicine, diagnosis and tissue engineering. Right?

Three things. Yes. Nanobio is an area where the UK has a lead and actually where big companies have been involved. In my original mission to Japan in bionanotechnology, GSK (Glaxo Smith Kline) and AstraZeneca were both involved. These two pharmaceutical companies were tremendously interested, particularly in what Japan is doing within companies like Shimadzu and Olympus, for example, on DNA chips and similar types of technology associated with personalized medicine. In this area, big business has been involved from a very early stage. A lot of John Ryan’s work is focused on single molecule manipulation, and the use of bio-nano for drug delivery and drug design. It’s an area where we probably have the lead over Japan, in terms of using bio-nano, but an area where Japan is ahead of the UK and actually probably rest of the world, is instrumentation development. We were very impressed with some of the academic research being undertaken in Japan, particularly that of Professor Namba. What a fantastic work he is doing. And, Professor Baba, as well.

Q: So, you have both the UK strategy and the European Union strategy. How do you match two strategies?

Well, we had a huge input to the European strategy for nanobiotechnology. Julie Deacon is one of the leading lights in it. So, through the involvement of experts from the UK, the strategies are very complementary to each other. Actually, we are all chasing the same thing really, aren’t we? So for the UK, Europe, Japan and US - all of the strategies are remarkably similar.

Societal implication of nanotechnology

Q: Can I change the subject to the societal implication of nanotechnology? In July 2004, the Royal Society and the Royal Academy on Engineering published a great report, which is also very familiar to Japanese. And February 2005, the government responded to the report. Would you tell me about the government activities since the response?

We’ve made some progress but governments can move slowly sometimes. Are you familiar with DEMOS (Democracy in Europe and the Mobilization of Society) work?

Q: A little bit. I went to the DEMOS office last July.

The joint project between the ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) and Lancaster University, to promote dialogue between scientists and the general public, is one major project we have launched to move forward in this area. This project is still on going. Another development, which the Research Councils are now exploring, is funding more research on the technologies and science that will underpin the regulatory process. But, I think as you know, there was a controversy as to whether to set up a dedicated centre or whether to disperse the funding around existing centres of expertise - this is the way the UK Research Councils normally operate. Also there are a number of cross-governmental committees, which have been established to coordinate activities. So there is a cross-governmental approach that brings all the interested parties together. And then the last thing, of course, is international engagement: the work with the Science Council of Japan; international engagement within Europe and international engagement with US. It doesn’t sound a lot, but actually, there is a lot going on. It’s just moving forward slowly. I don’t know whether that really answers your question.

Q: It does. Regarding the safety of nanomaterials, honestly speaking, the recommendations of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering seem to include precautionary statements especially in the description about the release of nanoparticles into the environment. I think most Japanese involved in nanotechnology would also think so.

As with all these things, it’s about the environment in which you live. To fully understand the UK approach, you have to take account of BSE, Mad Cow Disease. The UK government and government’s science community in particular lost the confidence of the general public over BSE. Because, you know, we said one thing; and then we said something else. So, we have that history there, which resulted in a breakdown of trust between the government and society that hasn’t happened in Japan. I have to say, we are not alone in making such errors. There were similar mistakes in Japan. But, at least in recent years, there has been no such breakdown in trust between the general public and the government here in Japan or maybe the general public doesn’t voice its distrust in such a vocal way, as happened in the UK. And after BSE, we also had the GMO (genetically modified organism) experience, where the technology seems to get ahead of the general public’s acceptance of the technology. This history, coupled with the fact that we have a very active environmental lobby in the UK, with organisations such as Green Peace and Friends of the Earth, means we are proceeding with caution. Against this background, the UK government wants to take a considered approach to this. There are two things happening. The first is addressing the generally held view that we don’t have all the necessary science to the regulatory framework; that’s the fist thing. The second thing is that we need to bring the general pubic along with us. So, I think even if everyone is completely confident with the science, we’d still want to be proceeding with caution because we want to bring the public with us. So, in short, I think that you have to understand the culture of the UK to understand our approach. I have to say things have changed. Things are much better now. British people’s trust in government and government scientists has been restored; and we are getting there. It is getting back to where it used to be.

Q: When I went to the Euro Nano Forum in September 2005, I was impressed with the attitude of social scientists making efforts for watching the reality. Most of them were saying that we have to distinguish science from science fiction.

As I said, I think it really is changing. Though Japan might think that we are being precautionary to nanotechnology, there are issues to be addressed. I don’t think the science is quite there yet to be completely confident that the regulations are right, and I think that came out of our workshop. There are some gaps in our understanding. Did you not get that impression too from that workshop? For example, how do nanoparticles move around the body? That’s the one that really stuck in my mind from that conference. We know they do different things in the body. We need research to understand that. And of course, we have done nothing on nanoparticles in the environment. I don’t think there has been much research in that area. I’m not aware of any in UK. Is there any in Japan?

Q: I don’t think there is.

Me neither. The focus is on occupational health to make sure that we do not get into another asbestos situation, isn’t it?

Q: So, also in Japan, this year we have started several projects for safety of nanomaterials mainly in work places. METI has started one, and MHLW (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare) is also starting one.
So far, METI is most proactive in the issue in Japan, I think. MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) has something to do, too. Probably, MEXT will focus on more basic and longer-term issues.

That’s similar to what is happening in the UK, with the Research Councils doing the longer-term work. And, the ESRC, which is doing the longer-term work on public dialogue, and MRC (Medical Research Council), BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council) and EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) are doing longer-term research. So, it is very much the same balance. You haven’t got an ESRC type project going on in Japan or does the Nanonet fulfil this role?

Q: To some extent, yes. We have been discussing with sociologists and ethicists, and also joining international meetings on nanotechnology and society.

Expectations in UK and Japan cooperation in science and technology

Q: I’d like to ask you about some your expectations in the UK and Japan cooperation in science and technology.

Of course. I expect it to increase. When I came here, Japan was very much focused on the US as its key partner of choice for science collaboration. I think science is so global now. It really is. One country cannot do it alone. At the moment, about 75% of the R&D in the world is done in Japan and the US. But that percentage is going down. No country can go it alone anymore. So, overall I think science and innovation international collaboration is gong to increase, particularly as China and India emerge. And, as already discussed many of the issues that scientists are tackling at present are global issues, avian flu is a good example. So, against that background, I think bilateral collaboration between Japan and the UK will increase. The ways in which we do things are very complementary. That’s my experience from working here. And once you get over the initial barrier, it works very well. For example, the work with JST. That started off as one small project, and now it’s grown. And it’s developed from an academic-to-academic collaboration, to an investment by NTT in Oxford University to work on bionanotechnology. So, overall international collaboration in science will increase and I think the Japan and UK relationship will grow. The UK is now fourth largest economy in the world and we have a very strong knowledge based economy. So, I think we have quite a lot to offer to Japan in terms of partner.

Q: Thank you very much.