Full interview with Ottilia Saxl, Chief Executive of the UK Institute of Nanotechnology 

Can you first of all tell us where you come from and what the UK Institute of Nanotechnology is all about?

The Institute started in 1997, but we'd been doing work in nanotechnology since 1994 as part of the UK nanotechnology initiative. When the initiative finished, we thought nanotechnology was quite interesting, so we started the Institute. However, we don't want to limit ourselves to the UK at all. We've really wanted to be European and even global from the beginning, and with modern technology, that's not so difficult to do. We are a virtual organisation with a big fuss about not being identified as Scottish or British, but we see ourselves as European.

Do you have partners in other European countries?

We're part of the biggest European project, called "Nanoforum", which is fully funded by the Commission. We will also be running the second EuroNanoForum conference in the UK in 2005.

Nanotechnology stands for a very broad array of technologies and applications. Could you give us an explication of the term and the applications that you are most interested in?

What we look at is the fact that nanotechnology is what they call "disruptive". It will totally change the way in which traditionally we have 'made products' and 'invented products', because we're no longer hamstrung by traditional ways of doing things. We will be able to control the properties of materials at the level of atoms. That makes it possible all of a sudden to make all sorts of clever things. The technology offers as much as you can imagine - without going crazy. It's not science fiction, it's real: technology is getting cleverer.

So in the short term, say in the next five years or so, which applications do you think will be most promising?

Most money is going into medicine, but that takes a long time to come through, because medicine has a lot of regulations. But what is very promising is the speed of analytical and diagnostic techniques. It's here now, but there is a lot of resistance to hand-held analytical and diagnostic capability, because the big laboratories don't want you to just do your own analysis of impurities in the water etc. So these things could be done right away.

With the excitement of the deciphering of the human genome, what is actually happening just now is to do with the fact that many pharmaceutical therapies are bad for you. It is now recognised that 25 per cent of all deaths in the Western world are due to adverse reactions to prescribed drugs. One third of all drugs do nothing for you, and others do you a lot of harm. This has got a lot to do with your own personal genome. So if you could have a quick analysis of your DNA, then you can see how it reacts against a common therapy like codein or waferin. If you are going to have a heart attack and someone gives you waferin it's not going to help you if you are allergic to it. So if we were able to analyse the patient's reaction to drugs, we could in the future avoid prescribing drugs that could kill you. This is something that could come through very quickly. I think it will be driven by the courts and liability litigation.

Talking about one of the major concerns of EU businesses and policy-makers alike: innovation and growth - what role do you think small nanotechnology companies and start-ups can play in boosting innovation in Europe?

I think small companies will actually be very exciting and really important. I'd never been a believer in small companies until I got involved in nanotechnology. What you find is that most nanotechnologies actually reach the market place through small companies. Large companies have been a bit tardy, and they are now watching small company development and partner with the ones that have the technology they need. Small companies are definitely the engine of nanotechnology development and innovation. It's quite exciting.

Is this development comparable to what we see in the US?

Well, you see, the cul ture in the US is quite different from Europe. It's a monoculture, and it's about large companies taking on new technologies and small start-ups being invested in. In Europe, we have a multitude of cultures. In Germany, it's a very patriarchical culture in which new start-ups are not very well accepted, but this is changing. In Britain, we are doing rather well, and we've actually got a lot of nanotechnology companies. In France, it's a very controled culture. So what I am saying is that in Europe, we've got the ideas, we've got the potential, but there are cultural barriers against start-ups being acceptable.

Apart from the cultural aspects, what are the main obstacles for the development of nanotechnology in Europe?

I think we've got to believe in ourselves. If you look at Europe and the States, we're spending the same amount of money on nanotechnology, and we're a damn sight cleverer than most people in the States, I must say. But Europe is so culturally diverse. This encourages imagination, but it also stops us all cooperating with each other. We do not have a coherent approach to nanotechnology, and the market is rather fragmented.

Is this true for European research efforts as well?

Yes, I think that is true. I fear that there are a lot of people doing the same kind of research in Europe, so there is a lot of duplication. We are lacking good infrastructure, we need to create European structures for nanotechnology. In America, they have large networks of laboratories with a huge amount of funding and infrastructure. We have really nothing like that in Europe. We have individual laboratories in individual countries, which are very much entities on their own. Fantastic big laboratories, but all pretty much doing their own thing. They are only just beginning now to link up to networks and realising the strength that lies in cooperation.

In what ways could EU policy-making help to improve this kind of infrastructure in Europe?

So far, there is really no funding for infrastructure in Europe. There is only funding to do research. But I think and I hope that this will be a feature of the next framework programme. This is a huge gap that needs to be addressed.

You mentioned that in terms of public funding, Europe is nearly up there with the US. What about the situation for private funding?

There are lots of problems in Europe. Some countries like Germany have got lots of industry, but no money, in others, a lot of money is put into nanotechnology, but there is no big industry. It's just this fragmentation problem again. We're all such prima donnas. This is different in America. No matter if someone comes from Kentucky or Chicago, they are all thinking of the bigger picture.

There is a lot of talk about the risks, particularly health and environmental risks, of nanotechnology. Do you agree with critical voices calling for more research into these risks? How important is this for the public acceptance of nanotechnology?

The difference with nanotechnology is that you can drop the word 'nano' tomorrow. If people say they don't like it, you just drop it. Nanotechnology is really only 'advanced technology'. However, of course, a careful consideration of risks and benefits should take place before a product comes to the market, not after. So, when companies consider a new product that has a 'nano dimension', they ought to be able to demonstrate to the public that they have looked at the risks of that product. They really must do that.

I think there are a lot of red herrings just now about toxicology, mainly concerning carbon nanotubes. The producers of these carbon nanotubes will have to put up guidelines saying that they are of a certain limited use and that it won't happen that lots of powder will be available on the open market. It has to be put into context: how will carbon nanotubes be used, how will they be produced, and when they will be used, will they pose any danger? They should never be available as a powder. I think it is essential to ex amine the risks and benefits of every product with a 'nano dimension'. The risk could be zero, but then the producer has to show it is zero.

Thank you very much for this interview, Ottilia.