Nanotechnology between the lab and the shop floor: what are the effects on labor?

At least 60 countries have nanotechnology programs. (Sargent 2008, p. 10) In spite of their different magnitudes and accomplishments, these programs have in common a focus on developing nanotechnology R&D to increase their countries’ industrial competitiveness in the global market.

Current discussion on the need to perform changes in STEM education at the K-12 level to include nanotechnology concepts has a view on the future nanotechnology workforce development. To some extent, the same can be said about nanotechnology awareness through informal education. However, education discussion has been more “science-pushed” than being articulated with research on ongoing changes in the workplace due to the introduction of nanotechnology.

Some important workers’ organizations that have been involved in the discussion on risks of nanotechnology include the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC); the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Association (IUF), which represents unions from 120 countries; the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU); The United Steelworkers, in the US; and the Chemical Workers of São Paulo, Unified Workers' Central, Brazil. Other nanotechnology implications for labor such as employment or training have been much less or not at all addressed. Only a very recent ETUC resolution issued on December 1, 2010 manifests concern with changes in work processes and working conditions that could disrupt the working environment, require new skills, and create inequalities among the working class (ETUC 2010). Still, a researcher at the ETUC’s research institute stated that European workers in general are little aware of the emergence of nanotechnology and its implications (personal interview with Aida Ponce, ETUI, January 11, 2010).

Market consultant firms present some different data. According to Lux Research (2010) global investment from governments, corporations, and investors in 2009 was US$17.6 billion. The same report indicates that venture capitalists cut investments in 2009 by 43% relative to 2008, due to the economic recession. Cientifica’s (2008) Nanotechnology Opportunity Report provides a higher figure of US$25 billion ininvestment, including venture capital.

An earlier estimation expected a $US3.1 trillion market for nanotechnology products by 2015. Such a figure was comparable to the total US manufacturing output in 2007 and to the current global ICT market (Palmberg et al. 2009, p. 22). More recently, Lux Research, taking into account the impact of the economic recession, estimated that the market will top the $US2.5 trillion mark in 2015 (Holman 2009; Hwang and Bradley 2010).

Although the US is still the country that invests most in nanotechnology, Asia, as a region, surpassed the US in 2008. In 2008, the US invested US$5.7 billion while Asia (primarily Japan, China, and South Korea) invested US$6.6 billion, US$4.7 billion of which was Japanese (PCAST 2010, p. 24).

In 2008, for the first time, the US lost its lead in nano-related publications, ranking second after the EU-27 region; by 2009, the EU was still leading, but China (including Taiwan) was the second, and the US was the third (PCAST 2010, p. 20).

According to Davies (2008), at the moment, passive nanostructures— in which the nanomaterial or structure does not change its form or function—are predominant. These nanostructures are added to the already existing products and materials to enhance them, configuring incremental innovations. Active nanomaterials, which are able to change their form or function, will bring about major breakthroughs in the future. Roco (2010, p. xxxvii) considers that active nanostructures started being incorporated into products in 2005, and that these will undergo further development in the coming years. According to Subramanian et al. (2010), bibliometric analyses from 1995 to 2008 show that there is a sharp rise in active nanostructures publications from 2006 onward, suggesting a transition to this more complex phase of nanotechnology development.

The authors note that 93.8% of these companies were located in 20 leading countries (Roco et al. 2010b, p. 410).

The list of the top 30 patents assignees are long-established multinational enterprises based in the US, Japan, and Europe (Palmberg et al. 2009, p. 62).

After the initial excitement and very optimistic predictions about nanotechnology development, a more cautious approach is visible in policy and academic circles. A good example of it is the report on the evaluation of the European Framework 6 on Nanotechnologies and Nanosciences, Knowledge-based Multifunctional Materials and New Production Processes and Devices, the title of which, “Strategic Impact, not Revolution,” clearly indicates that current European R&D is at an initial phase (Oxford Research and Austrian Institute for SME Research 2010, p. 168).

Personal communication. Unpublished database.

Bayer Material Science has recently opened a large carbon nanotube pilot facility in Leverkusen, Germany, boasting an annual capacity of 200 tons. The previous plant, started in 2007, had a capacity of 60 tons per year. Nanocyl installed a new reactor with a capacity of 400 tons per year of carbon nanotubes in Sambreville, Belgium, which will start operations this year. Another company, CNano, headquartered in California but with manufacturing in China, bought online a 500 ton per year facility for carbon nanotube production. (Nanotech Wire 2009; PlasticsToday 2010).

For comparison, two million is the number of workers in the IT sector across Europe (STOA 2007, p. 9).

This estimate was based on the analysis of the existing nanotechnology R&D activities in industry in the US, Japan, and the Western Europe. The indirect jobs estimate was extrapolated from previous experience in the information technology sector (Roco 2003a, b, p. 182).

This number of jobs was correlated to an estimation of a $US3 billion market by 2014 for nanotechnology products. This figure, however, was later reduced to US$2.4 billion by Lux Research (Holman 2009; Hwang and Bradley 2010).

Personal interview, December 1, 2010.

Original in German: Luther, W.; Malanowski, N. (2004): Nanotechnologie als wirtschaftlicher Wachstumsmarkt. Innovations- und Technikanalyse. VDI Technologiezentrum, Düsseldor.

In the absence of more aggregate data, some researchers have analyzed nanotechnology job offerings to provide some data on the demand for a nanotechnology labor force. Stephan et al. (2007) analyzed job postings on nine websites over 20 months in 2005–2006 (125 positions), and announcements in Science during 2005 (171 positions). They concluded that while announcements for the academy in Science grew significantly in 2005 compared with a previous study made in 2002, the number of positions placed by firms in specialized websites remained stable over the analyzed period. Industry demands involved firms of different sizes and came mostly from non-nanotech dedicated firms. Another study conducted by Freeman and Shukla (2008) analyzed 5,370 job postings from SimplyHired.com over 12 months from March 2007 to March 2008. In addition, they contacted 80 companies offering jobs. The authors concluded that job growth in nanotechnology was modest and that companies are not having problems filling positions.

In the US, concerns about a possible scarcity of skilled workforce are also present in nanotechnology documents, and have to be contextualized in a broader and older discussion on the decline of the immigrant qualified workforce the US has relied on. The Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the NNI recommends some strong measures to retain scientific and engineering foreign talents trained in the US (PCAST 2010, p. 30).

Original in German. Henn, S. Gründungen in der Nanotechnologie. Clusterentwicklung und Förderung. ISW workshop “Nanobiotechnologie Entwicklungstendenzen und Qualifikationsanforderungen,’ Berlin, April 15, 2004.

The US National Nanotechnology Initiative states: “Workforce Education and Training efforts will promote a new generation of skilled workers with the multidisciplinary perspectives necessary for rapid progress in nanotechnology” (NSTC 2000, p. 15). The European Commission Strategy for Nanotechnology maintains that “To realise the potential of nanotechnology, the EU needs a population of interdisciplinary researchers and engineers who can generate knowledge and ensure that this is, in turn, transferred to industry.” And later on “Nanotechnology is a dynamic field that requires continuous training to follow the latest developments. As nanotechnology moves closer to the market, the need for training to assist in startup/spin-off creation, the management of IPR portfolios, safety and working conditions (including health and safety at work) and other complementary skills are important to ensure that innovators are better placed to secure funding and take forward their initiatives.” (European Commission 2004, pp. 13–15).

See Center for Nanotechnology Education and Utilization. Pennsylvania State University http://​www.​cneu.​psu.​edu/​default.​htm.

According to Zarifian (1995), flexible production environments pose challenges to workers labor situations characterized by events, some of them unexpected, and others provoked by accelerated process and product innovations. Work in such context means mobilizing knowledge and problem-solving competencies to address events.

Recently, some Duke University engineers have adapted a decade-old computer-aided design and manufacturing process to reproduce nanosize structures with features on the order of single molecules. They used the traditional computing language of macroscale milling machines to guide an atomic force microscope. The system reliably produced 3D, nanometer-scale silicon-oxide nanostructures through a process called anodization nanolithography (Morgan 2007). This suggests that, at least in the short run and in some production techniques, nanotechnology process innovation may upgrade the existing automation infrastructure rather than contribute a radically new process.

Based on its expertise in silicon chip fabrication, surface chemistry, and nanotechnology, IBM Research has developed a lab-on-a-chip technology that can perform instant point-of-care tests for avian flu, swine flu, breast cancer, prostate cancer, bacterial infections, poison, and toxins. Within 2 years from now, IBM claims its lab-on-a-chip technology could become as commonplace as off-the-shelf pregnancy tests, allowing anyone to perform instant, inexpensive tests for medical conditions that today take skilled personnel hours to perform. The IBM lab-on-a-chip test returns "yes" or "no" results from a pin prick of blood in just a few minutes (Johnson 2009).

Personal Interview, Dec. 1, 2010.