Interview with Tim Harper

		July 4, 2001 Founder & CEO of the nanotechnology integrator CMP Cientifica, Tim is a former European Space Agency engineer, who now runs conferences and information services and works closely with the VC industry to help select and guide investments in nanotechnology companies. Tim is co-author of the Nanotechnology Opportunity Report and joint editor in chief of The X Report. A brief biography of Tim Harper is available on the CMP website. Steve: What's the story behind CMP-Cientifica, Trends in NanoTechnology (TNT) and your new collaboration agreement with Spark Inversiones? Tim: What we are trying to achieve with CMP, TNT and Spark are three separate activities, although they are all involved in nanotechnology. In essence they are the technologies, the information and the funding. I should make it clear that CMP Cientifica and Spark Inversiones are two very separate companies that are collaborating in the field of nanotechnology, while the TNT label covers all of CMP Cientifica's information services, whether conferences or publications. CMP Cientifica has been involved in nanofabrication for a long time, since I was at ESA in fact. Over the last four years we have worked with both clients & suppliers to develop tools and techniques with nanometer precision. Unfortunately, most of our work is covered by NDA's so I can't tell you as much as I would like to. CMP Cientifica also coordinates the Phantoms network, an EU funded network on Nanoelectronics and NanoSpain, a more local network. Our experience shows us that the best way to advance technology is to bring together a wide range of experts, and get them to talk to each other. That's where the problems get solved, and it helps reduce duplication of effort. The TNT conferences are a great enabler for cooperation, and we have an excellent relationship with the NSF in the US, that allows us to get a truly global perspective on nanotechnology. TNT Weekly was born out of the realization that most people outside the scientific community had almost no idea what nanotechnology is. In most people's minds, nanotechnology is tangled up with miniature robots, grey goo and terraforming Mars. You may think that the science fiction associations don't matter, but if you are looking for funding for a nanotechnology related business, it means you'll have a tough time convincing anyone to invest. VCs aren't in the business of investing in 30-year R&D projects, they need shorter term returns on their investments, but that's not the way most VCs see nanotechnology. Essentially what we are doing with TNT Weekly is trying to provide clear, unbiased factual information about nanotechnology. The fact that it is as popular with the investment community as with the scientific community indicates we're doing something right. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Side Note: If you wish to make rational business decisions about nanotechnology then Click here for a free Subscription to Trends In Nanotechnology (TNT) Weekly ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Given that we have the technologies, and the information, the only remaining obstacle is getting funded. Most VC companies are staffed by financial professionals, and they can bring in analysts for whatever market sectors interest them. With nanotechnology there is no market to speak of, so how do you get a handle on where to invest? In fact you don't, and lack of information raises the risks, so the investment goes into better-understood markets. What we are doing with Spark is bringing together our knowledge and experience of nanotechnology, with their expertise in early stage investing. This means that you'll be presenting your business plan to people who understand your market, and that's crucial for any kind of business success. Imagine that, a VC who really understands nanotechnology - for me that's a dream come true, and we hope it will be for European nano entrepreneurs. Steve: What sort of environment, discussion and progress was there at TNT 2000 and what can be expected from TNT 2001? Tim: The TNT conferences can be divided into two themes, science & networking. We keep these running together by having reasonably short lectures, followed by long coffee breaks & lunches. Organizing the conferences in old monasteries in medieval walled cities such as Toledo and Segovia certainly helps the atmosphere. What I always like to see is little knots of people frantically discussing fine points of technology, if you can get this going then the conference will be a success. TNT 2000 was our first conference on nanotechnology, and the proceedings have just been published in the IOP journal "Nanotechnology." This year we have a much more global participation, with support from both the EU and the NSF, and we've noticed a lot more industrial participation, which is vital if we are to get nanotechnology out of the lab and onto the market. TNT 2001 will also feature a lot more breakout meetings during the coffee breaks, where people can discuss specific themes. What is a Nano? Steve: If at all possible, how can one distinguish between a nanotechnology company and an ordinary company that is only using nano as a marketing scheme? I mean, anyone can say, "Our products are atomically precise." Tim: Well the 'N' word seems to be in fashion at the moment, and we're not afraid to highlight misuses in TNT Weekly. Some of the marketing guys have already realized that a 'pico' is smaller than a 'nano', and it won't be long before we hear more about femto. Erik Moderegger of AT&S compiled a list of nano trademarks, which we put on our web site, and some of them are mind-boggling. I'd bet that very few of them are registered to anyone connected with nanotechnology. As nanotechnology will have such an impact on most industries, the only way to distinguish nano from non-nano is by defining nanotechnology so tightly that it excludes everyone except Zyvex. Maybe I should turn the question around and ask whether a cosmetics company manufacturing nanoparticles for use in its products is a nanotechnology company or not? Steve: In deciding which companies and products to include in my collection of links and how to organize them, I must draw the line somewhere. I consider nanotechnology to require observing, understanding and controlling the structure of matter on the nanoscale in order to get novel effects from the materials and subsequent integration of those materials. For instance, I would consider Nanophase to be a nanotechnology company because their sun-screens incorporate particles of a strategic size such that they absorb UV rays, without absorbing the larger visible frequencies. Thus, they block the harmful rays while remaining invisible to the human eye. They don't carve each of their nanoparticles with nanomachines, but rather produce them with conventional methods. However, we now have novel analytical tools for observing nanoscale features, allowing us to tune the fabrication process to create the nanostructures that produce desired effects. Together with the theory, it then becomes possible to design devices based upon nanoscale or quantum size effects. Thus, we seem to be able to create nanostructured products based on rational design rather than years of trial and error. A couple more examples of real products resulting from this trend are molecular imprinting, solid lubricants and nearly perfect mirrors, as well as the instruments that allow nanoscale quality control of these objects. I would not consider Zyvex a nanotechnology company, but rather a "Molecular NanoTechnology (MNT)" company, as they also call themselves. Perhaps MNT is a subset of the more general nanotechnology that you and I seem interested in, but it definitely deserves a class of its own. Tim: Agreed. This just illustrates the difficulty of separating nano from non-nano. Even the definitions used by the EU and the NSF are slightly different; so, although we have to draw a line somewhere, its position has not yet been agreed on. Revolutionary Nanotech Products Steve: I imagine that with nanotechnology it might be possible to create a liquid paint that once it dries could function as a display screen. The paint might either be subsequently plugged in to receive signals and energy, or simply be solar powered and receive wireless signals. Of course, it needn't emit light as our current display screens do. It would be enough just to have pixels that could change color. Might nanotechnology economically produce such a paint? Tim: Nanotechnology will be bound by the same rules of economics as most other companies, selling various things to other people for a profit. Our experience in the Field Emission Display market has shown the difficulties of taking a great idea to market, ten years of development have yet to yield a product that can be sold at a reasonable price. As an investor, I would be very wary of anyone proposing a paint that functions as a screen, is self powered, communicates with other screens, tap dances and a whole host of other things. For each of those applications, you have a different set of problems, of lifetime, of stability, of interfacing, of driving the thing & so on. If someone comes along with a plan to produce a display based on nanoparticles, that's fine. When they start adding all kinds of other functions before the core product has been developed, it becomes a problem. This comes down to the age-old fight between engineers and business people. The reason for this is driven by economics rather than science and engineering, and the need to have, at some clearly defined time-scale, a marketable product. Engineers and scientists will always give you something better in a few months time, that's their job. However, companies, and their investors, need to take a decision on how good something needs to be before you can put it on the market. As Guy Kawasaki says, 'Don't Worry, Be Crappy" - meaning get a product on the market in order to generate some sales income to pay for the fixes/improvements. You could argue that Microsoft takes this to extremes by getting an unfinished product onto the market as quickly as possible and then adding the patches at their leisure. If I were to be cynical, I could mention the premium rate lines for technical support in this context. So the answer is, nanotechnology might produce such a paint, but you would probably have to commercialize the applications one step at a time. There is nothing wrong with looking further ahead in terms of functionality and applications, but at some stage, and preferably an early stage, you have to have some kind of product that you can move from development to sales. Steve: Perhaps my imagination was running a little too far into the future. The first step towards smart paint would clearly just be a paint that could change color on command. Of course, such materials exist, but there isn't really a market for them. Thus, there is nothing motivating the traditional step-wise development of smart paint - unless, the whole product could be strategically designed in advance, based upon existing data stored in steadily shrinking computer chips... How long do you expect until we begin to see some revolutionary nanotech products? Tim: Reading the NSF report on the societal implications of nanotechnology, it amazed me that so much of the thinking was linear, and based on our current understanding of technology. While nanotechnology may make some things better it will also create whole classes of new materials, and consequently markets, that we would be crazy to try to predict right now. Because of this wide spectrum of applications, there are some nanotechnology products that have been commercialized for years now, such as nanometer sized gold particles for labeling of oligonucleotides, lipids, peptides, proteins etc., and other applications still bubbling away in University labs that might bear fruit in 20 years. So that's our time-scale, any time from now, until sometime in the future! Steve: It seems that the demand for smart paint (I want smart paint!) is relatively unimportant compared to the trillion dollar electronics industry or priceless medical industry - ventures that can afford lofty goals with roadmaps. Of course one must beware of snake oil and asbestos, but is it really futile to imagine what new materials and markets might result from the current trends? Tim: There are so many possibilities it's almost pointless to speculate on the killer applications, it's like medieval theologians debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - an interesting debate, but how do you verify your conclusions? The applications will surely come, but at the moment it's difficult to predict where from, simply because nanotechnology is a huge field and at a very early stage. We have identified several areas where we believe nanotechnology will have a significant, and early impact, but you have to keep an open mind, and stay in touch with the science, because things can change very rapidly, just ask any company who bought a 3G mobile telephony license! Electricity, the Wheel and Nanotechnology Steve: In which areas do you think nanotechnology will have a significant and early impact? Tim: The recent Red Herring issue on Nanotechnology identified materials, medicine and optics. I would argue that the optical applications they mention are just exploiting properties of materials anyway, although I can understand their reasons for wanting to include optics, and in particular optical switching, in a magazine aimed at investors. Nanotechnology is often called the new Internet, but its repercussions will be felt much more widely than that. I would liken it more to the invention of the telephone, or even the discovery of electricity. Now when we talk about future applications of nanotechnology, we should remember that electricity was initially used to replace gaslights & candles, the telephone was not designed to enable you to connect to the Internet. Put the technology in the hands of some bright people, and the results will be unimaginable, given our current perception of technology. However, I would predict materials, electronics and pharmaceuticals are obvious areas in the short term, as a lot of the groundwork has already been done, and these industries already have the tools and experience of working at sub micron scales. While these may not be the most exciting applications of nanotechnology, they will improve existing materials & processes, and their commercialization will help fund a great deal of research into large scale manufacturing. Nanophase Technologies is a good example of how nanotechnology can have an impact in an unexpected way but this is just the tip of the iceberg. What's better, an army of nanobots mopping up skin cancer in twenty years time, or more efficient sun blocks now? Steve: Perhaps progressive development and creative dreams are two complementary approaches to nanotechnology - like theory and experiment, top-down and bottom-up or even TNT and NTN. The wheel might be another technology worth remembering - seeing as for so long we thought we had invented it, only to find that biomolecular nanotechnology has had wheels all along. In addition to faster computers, nanomedicine and mucho dinero, what are you looking forward to from nanotechnology? Tim: Personally, I'm a big fan of any new technology, so of course I'm looking forward to all kinds of devices getting better, faster, lighter, and having less buttons. However, the area where nanotechnology has the greatest scope to change the world is by making things, whether they be mobile phones, computers, or drugs for the treatment of HIV or cancer, just work a whole lot better than they do at present.

		Copyright © Steve Lenhert, Quanteq, LLC