U.S. Workers Unprepared for the Nanotech Revolution
Today, I continue my series of interviews with nanotechnology leaders for the NanoBusiness Commercialization Association. Vincent Caprio, the trade group’s president, asked me to speak to some of the most influential leaders in nanotech policy, commercialization and research, and I’m more than happy to speak to these brilliant, creative people. You can read my previous interview with Andrew Maynard here, where we talk about real risk vs. perceived risk.
In today’s interview, I speak to Dean Hart, chief commercial Officer, and Tom Warwick, general manager, for a Chicago-based nanotech company called NanoInk. As I write in my piece, they are “breaking down at least two barriers that stand in the way of widespread nanotech commercialization – getting the tools of the future nanotech trade in the hands of companies rather than researchers, and training a new generation of workers in how to use them.”
Hart, however, is warning that the United States risks losing the international nano race if we do not invest more in training the nanotech workers of the future. Research investment is great, but it will not mean much if there are not enough workers with the skills to use the tools of the trade. Here’s an excerpt:
It’s a competition for worker training that the United States could end up losing if it does not reorganize its priorities.
“We continue to invest in research, which is extremely important, whereas the rest of the world takes that research and then they start investing in the workforce that’s going to be able to implement it,” Hart said.
In Suzhou, China, for example, they’re launching what they are calling the Nano-Polis project that will train 30,000 workers in nanotechnology. It is a commitment to taking research and turning it into workforce development that Hart does not see happening so far in the United States.
The solution, he said, is for commercial companies to approach their local undergraduate institutions and tell them that they need their help in building the new nanotech-enabled workforce. Companies cannot pay too many $90,000-a-year Ph.D.s, but they can hire educated, nano-savvy employees at $50,000 a year. Do that, and “the whole business model has changed,” he said.
It’s about getting the technology to the attention of the masses, training them, opening up their minds to what is available, he said. “We have an opportunity for leadership, but if we don’t act quickly we’re going to lose it.”
Read the whole article here.
SO we need another useless government run training program for nanotech? Forbid the very thought. When the tools become available and economical to use, the the industries themselves will train the workers. The Chinese will be wasting their money in the meantime.
Agreed. An apprenticeship system would be ideal. It has worked very well in America’s past.
UMASS Lowell has a huge Nano-Tech Program. Come’on down, the water’s fine.
(Full Disclosure: UML Grad – 2006)
So where in America are the educational institutions that are offering nano-tech training? Can someone list a couple of schools? Preferably trade schools? Not everyone wants to get a PHD
SUNY @Albany built a Nano research facility in the early 2000′s. it’s one of the few thigns they’ve done right. I can’t speak for its veracity.
I call BS. Nanotech is just chemistry. There are plenty of unemployed chemists around. The “industry leaders” just want to pay them peanuts. you know how far 50k gets you in the sf bay area? Homeless and hungry. 90k barely pays the mortgage on a shack in mt view much less Palo alto.
question…how come once upon a time HP could employ thousands of single income head of household engineers in the bay area, and now any “worker” in the bay area needs a double income just to scrape by? someone is getting screwed and someone (c0ughexecutives/MBA’scough) are making a killing.
“Nanotech is just chemistry.” Hmmm. Could be another example of how nanotech education leaves much to be desired in this country. And the nanotech revolution is not happening in the Bay Area. Read the story I link to. It’s happening in New York state, in Florida, in North Carolina, where decent $50,000-a-year jobs would be more than welcome.
Taxes and regulations.
The term nanotechnology is used by academics and entrepreneurs to milk cash out of government and investors respectively. It is chemistry with a new smiley face. I have worked on nanoparticle drug delivery. How are those darn things made? They are made synthetically by synthetic…..wait for it….chemists. To think you can train a workforce to “do” nanotech without a solid foundation in chemistry is ludicrous. This is just another push for more STEM graduates in the US to keep science wadges low and MBA wadges ridiculously high.
I agree it is not happening in the bay area. I work in the same building as the foresight institutes offices. the office is always dark. no one is home.
OK, then- nanoteech is just applied chemistry. But, when nano-tech gets to the point that wings can be built from a single diamond crystal atom by atom, things are going to change- rapidly- in directions not yet known.
I’m waiting for 3-D printing to hit its stride. “You like that chair? We’ll have it ready in an hour. Are there any custom qualities you want? Color or design?”
The computer I’m typing on now wasn’t envinsioned in 1973 when I graduated HS, when the very first ATM’s were appearing- and the labor department was forecasting increased employment opportunities for bank tellers…
Why can’t there be a collaboration between academia and industry to fund these training programs. After all, the very companies that will need these workers should have some skin in the game. If, as some say, nanotech is nothing but chemistry then why not let BASF or Dow, or the petroleum companies fund the training. Admittedly, much of the training will come from OJT, but if you can get these future workers to walk before they’re expected to run, you’d solve a lot of issues.