Nanotech Is Living Large
Kevin Kelleher
04/13/06 - 11:32 AM EDT
The first big nanotechnology success story may be already sitting in
the portfolios of millions of investors.
Some traders have soured on the
search for a nanotech start-up that can repeat the success that
Intel saw in semiconductors,
Microsoft saw in software and
Google has seen in Internet
search. Judging from the scarcity of big names that have emerged after
decades of nanotechnology research and years of hype, some have
concluded that the science is just one big fizzle.
Reading between the lines of a new report by New York-based market
research firm Lux Research, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that those
frustrated investors are simply looking in the wrong place. It's the
large, established companies that are investing in nanotech, doing the
homework to turn the science into marketable products -- and they're the
same ones that will be the first to harvest the results.
The report, titled
How Industry Leaders Organize for Nanotech
Innovation, underscores a point that many in the science have been
making, often in vain: Nanotechnology isn't an industry per se, but a
realm of innovation, materials and science that could potentially change
many existing industries by making possible new products and new
efficiencies.
That explains why, according to Lux, corporate R&D spending on
nanotechnology is more than nine times greater than institutional
venture-capital funding. In 2005, the 1,331 companies in 76 industries
that Lux tracked invested $3.2 billion in nanotech and sold $32 billion
in products that incorporate some form of nanotechnology.
While $32 billion is barely a drop in the $14 trillion bucket of
revenue for those same companies, it's more than twice as much as the
$13 billion in nanotech-related revenue in the previous year.
Of course, the bulk of those investments are in industries that are
R&D intensive to begin with, including medical devices, aerospace and
defense.
General Electric, which has always had a sensitive antenna for promising
innovation, earmarked $50 million for nanotech research last year, or
1.6% of its total R&D budget. CEO Jeffrey Immelt has ranked nanotech
with personalized medicine and renewable energy as top priorities.
Lux expects things to really start taking off in the next couple of
years. By 2008, nanotech R&D spending will more than triple, hitting $12
billion. The number of companies with initiatives specifically
structured toward nanotechnology will double to 290, and the number of
employees devoted to nanotechnology will rise more than sixfold as
scientists and engineers are joined by sales and manufacturing staff.
"Between 2006 and 2008, nanotechnology's materials, tools and
processes will become commonplace in many industries; by 2010, they'll
be de rigueur," wrote Lux senior analyst Mark Bunger. "Competitors will
grow smarter about which products incorporate nanotech, suppliers
choosier about who gets their newest materials and buyers more demanding."
Even more significantly, more products will approach the markets, especially in
the life sciences and electronics industries. Some 150 "nano-enabled
cancer treatments" are in clinical trials, Bunger wrote. "Add to that
applications like
Unilever's functional foods,
DuPont's automotive
coatings and
Hewlett-Packard's printable electronics that will be
in-market, and more than $150 billion in goods will incorporate emerging
nanotechnology -- triggering a cascade of operational effects like the
need for worker retraining and new supplier selection."
Of course, some industries will be more affected by a wave of
nanotech development than others -- chemical and semiconductor makers, in
particular, but also metals, defense and pharmaceuticals. Many, from
advertising to finance to travel, will feel the barest impact.
But others, such as automakers and food and beverage companies, will have a significant, if indirect, impact from nanotech innovations.
Honda and
Toyota, for example, are both hoping to gain a
competitive edge with nanotech investments.
Still, Lux's report points out, not all of the companies that will be heavily
affected by new nanotechnology are preparing themselves. The efforts of
many firms "are often a mishmash of grassroots evangelism,
underfunded volunteer projects, investigatory committees and aimless
partnerships."
Pharmaceutical companies are the worst laggards. "Large drugmakers
are coming to the nanotech game very late," Bunger wrote. "These players
believe they can simply acquire early-stage products after they enter
clinical trials. By waiting until promising nano-enabled products
mature, life-science giants deprive patients of needed drugs -- and
shareholders of the profits that flow from them."
Bunger warns that, as nanotechnology develops into a more mature and
more commonplace part of the marketplace, it will precipitate the kind
of structural changes to industries that digital technology
brought to film. Companies slow to adapt, as
Eastman Kodak was to digital cameras, will be left mired in endless
restructuring.
In other words, an oil company that is today looking for a partner
in the chemical industry to develop nanostructured solar cells will have
an edge over less farsighted competitors. Bunger singled out
Boeing as a company preparing on several fronts, not only by
developing nanotechnology in house but also by building a chain of
nanotech suppliers and partnering with research facilities at Northwestern University.
For investors, all of this means that nanotechnology will not turn
many large companies into a pure play driven by their nano-innovations.
Instead, it will give some companies a big chance to strengthen their
hold in an industry and force others to fall by the wayside.
The time to start watching how companies are investing in and
deploying nanotech won't come in some distant future. If Lux is right, that
time is now. As Bunger put it: "The next four years form a short window
of time for large corporations to reorganize."