U.S. states poured more than $400 million into nanotechnology research, facilities, and business incubation programs in 2004, on top of greater than $1 billion in federal government spending, making nanotechnology the largest publicly funded science initiative since the space race.
But states’ efforts vary wildly in scope, effectiveness and impact, according to a report from Lux Research, “Benchmarking U.S. States for Economic Development from Nanotechnology.”
“Multiple stakeholders — including state and local officials, federal representatives, large corporations, startups, investors and universities — have a vested interest in making nanotechnology efforts succeed," Modzelewski said. “Biotechnology created more than 400,000 jobs from 1979 to 1999. Nanotechnology promises a far greater economic impact because it can affect not just biologically derived products, but all manufactured goods. Also, it’s not just new jobs that are at risk from nanotechnology; existing ones in industries impacted by nanoscale science are on the line as well.”
To rank U.S. states on their ability to develop their economies through nanotechnology, Lux Research constructed a quantitative assessment tool that ranked all 50 states on 16 criteria.
Lux Research independently assessed states’ level of nanotechnology activity — including metrics like state nanotechnology spending, the status of a state nanotechnology initiative, companies active in nanotechnology in the state, and in-state nanotechnology patents — as well as states’ general technology development strength, which includes metrics like R&D inputs, size of technology and science work force, concentration of high-tech companies, and corporate taxation and regulatory burdens.
States were ranked on a relative basis according to their populations, so a single nanotechnology center in New Hampshire has a greater impact than the same center would in Texas.
The study found that:
Ø States vary widely across the metrics assessed by Lux Research. For example, New York has the greatest state-level funding of more than $150 million in 2004, while 20 states including New Hampshire and Utah committed almost nothing.
Ø California boasts the highest number of nanotechnology patents with more than 200, but 11 states have none to date.
The top states combine a high level of nanotechnology activity with a strong track record in commercializing advanced technologies — but they aren’t without flaws. Massachusetts, ranked No. 1, has excelled in nanotechnology because of its leading universities and high concentration of technology entrepreneurs, but does not have a coordinated statewide initiative. California, ranked No. 2, is vulnerable to high taxes and regulatory hurdles that encourage businesses to look elsewhere. Colorado, ranked No. 3, has committed little state-level funding, relying instead on federal appropriations and individual companies.
A number of up-and-coming states are moving in on today’s leaders. Washington (No. 11) has developed one of the first nanotechnology degree programs at the University of Washington, Pennsylvania (No. 13) has built a large number of regional alliances with corporations and universities throughout the mid-Atlantic through its Ben Franklin Partners initiative, and Minnesota (No.15) boasts stellar R&D both at the University of Minnesota and at corporations like 3M and Cargill Dow.
Means the article is accessible only to our magazine subscribers.
