EPSRC Nanotechnology Theme Day 16 June 2005 Church House, London Panel Chair: Prof essor Graham Davies (Birmingham University) Report Prepared by: Dr David Holtum (EPSRC) Contents Acknowledgements ................................ ................................ ......................... 2 Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ........................ 3 1. Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .5 2. Conduct of Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 6 3. Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 8 4. Panel Analysis and Comments on Results ................................ ............ 12 5. General Comments and Conclusions ................................ ..................... 14 6. Panel Recommendations ................................ ................................ .......... 15 Appendix (1) Evaluation Scor ing Criteria ................................ ................... 17 Appendix (2) Theme Day Agenda ................................ ................................ 18 Appendix (3) Panel Members ................................ ................................ ....... 19 Appendix (4) Nanotechnology Themes ................................ ....................... 20 Appendix (5) Plots of Quality V Impact ................................ ....................... 22 Appendix (6) Summary of Breakout Sessions. ................................ .......... 27 Appendix (7) Evaluation of Nanotechnology IGRs ................................ .... 33 Appendix (8) Bibliometric Study ................................ ................................ .. 48 Appendix (9) List of Posters Presented at the Theme Day ....................... 51 Appendix (10) Evaluation Questionnaire ................................ .................... 57 1 Acknowledgements The E PSRC would like to thank the following for helping with the success of the theme day: The Panel for their hard work and enthusiasm under the chairmanship of Professor Graham Davies The grant -holders and researchers for their posters and discussions with the panel The speakers for their excellent and stimulating talks: Professor Paul Shore (Cranfield University) Professor Hanjo Lim (Ajou University, Korea) Professor Mark Welland (Cambridge University) Professor Jim Gimzewski (UCLA, USA) Dr Liam Blackwell for organising the Breakout ses sions and the APMs who ran them Office support – in particular Beverly Silk for organising the event and Carol Becker and Jeanna Gowland for their help on the day itself. Church House for the venue and hospi tality. Appendix 3 – List of Panel Members Appendix 9 – List of participating grant -holders and projects . 2 Executive Summary The primary objective of the Nanotechnology theme day was to evaluate EPSRC’s Nanotechnology portfolio to provide guidanc e for future investment strategy in this cross cutting , interdisciplinary research area. The main activity to satisfy this objective was analysis of a sample of the portfolio by an international panel . They assessed the research quality, training aspects, impact and exploitability of 7 8 (out of a possible population of 286) recently completed or current EPSRC Nanotechnology grants. The panel also received inputs from a bibliometric study, an evaluation of final reports and breakout sessions , held on the the me day. They were also able to compare the current sample with those assessed a nd reported on at the previous Nanotechnology T heme day held in 1999. The panel used the Quality, People, Impact and Exploitability (QPIE) Framework to evaluate the portfolio. In general the overall metrics were lower for the 2005 Theme Day than for 1999. This was particularly noticeable regarding the research quality. In 1999 about 80% of the posters seen were considered to be predominantly world leading ( given a grade of 5 ) o r predominantly competitive at an international level (graded 4 ) whereas in 2005 this dropped to about 60%. The panel felt that this was partially because the area had matured and now there was generally a better understanding and benchmarking ability amon gst researchers . However, it was also felt that there was a genuine diminution of quality. The bibliometric data would appear to support this conclusion. The training of people aspect was overall the lowest metric, as it was in 1999. Impact scores were low er in 2005 than 1999 and this category showed the greatest drop in grants graded 4 or 5. The level of exploitability of the research was considered to be similar for the 2005 and 1999 Theme Days. The Nanometrology theme had the grants of highest quality an d impact but there were not a great number of grants in this theme. The greatest numbers of grants were in the Nanostructure d Materials and Functional Nanotechnology themes . M ost of the grants in these themes were of good quality and impact but of lower ex ploitability and lower in training aspects. There were only two grants in the Nano Electromechanical Systems category and none in the Biomimetics category at the Theme Day. The Panel made the following recommendations: • EPSRC should, as a matter of urgen cy, carry out an in depth review of its strategy for Nanotechnology research to establish a funding framework that would address the relative weakness of Nanotechnology research in the UK. This could result in the establishment of a Nanotechnology Program analogous to its current programmes such as Chemistry and Materials. • If the UK was to compete in Nanotechnology research new funding was required specifically directed to Nanotechnology. • Nanotechnology was a dynamic research area and 5years was too long a period between reviews. The panel felt that the EPSRC Nanotechnology research portfolio should be reviewed again in less than two years time. 3 • The UK needed to m ake use of its strengths in Medicine, Biosciences and Design Technology. The EPSRC thus neede d to strongly encourage its Nanotechnology community to work with these communities and there needed to be increased cross council collaboration to ensure that these ties were formed and maintained. RCUK could help encourage this. • The EPSRC was the major funder of basic and applied Nanotechnology research in the UK and if the UK was to be a major force in Nanotechnology in the world the current strategy for funding Nanotechnology research required revising. Specific points to note were: • Nanotechnology was a complex research area and the strategy needed to be flexible and continually reviewed to maintain its currency. • The Nanotechnology Themes generated in 1999 still had some relevance but should be reviewed because the dynamic nature of Nanotechnology re search meant that some of the original themes were now redundant. The strategy required for funding in each of these themes differed from theme to theme and could involve any of the mechanisms previously used by EPSRC and might require new mechanisms, but it was clear that the current funding strategy needed drastic revision. • Training in Nanotechnology, perhaps by means of MSc courses, required further consideration. This was needed both for future workers in industry and researchers for Universities. • An y strategy evolved needed to take into account industrial and societal needs and concerns. • There needed to be a much better estimate of what the EPSRC was actually spending on Nanotechnology, the current methodology overestimated this. There should be an explicit view of what should be counted as Nanotechnology this could help to reduce the medium quality research that appeared to have been funded because of its association with the Nanotechnology research area. • Cooperation between the DTI MNT programme a nd the EPSRC needed improving to ensure the exploitation of Nanotechnology research. Manufacturing Industry in the UK had drastically reduced the amount of early stage development that it did and DTI and EPSRC had to ensure that this funding gap (the so ca lled ‘Valley of Death) did not prevent the progression of research into products. 4 1. Introduction 1.1 . Theme Days General The primary objective of a Theme Day is to evaluate the effectiveness of the EPSRC's support for research in an area that cuts across programme boundaries. The Theme Day is, therefore, a constituent part of the overall evaluation framework and, along with Programme and Sector evaluation reports, feeds into the business planning process. Secondary objectives of Theme Days are to provide advocacy by generating information on research achievements and successes that can be used to demonstrate the importance and relevance of research; and to provide an opportunity for individuals within a particular research community to network w ith others. Theme Days provide a mechanism for examining topics of research that span programme areas. An independent expert review Panel provides opinion on a representative sample of grants from the research theme and draws conclusions about the portfol io as a whole, or major segments of it. A Theme Day is not concerned with constructing league tables of individual grants or individual research groups, nor is it trying to isolate individual achievements or failures. The Panel's considerations are facilit ated by discussion with, and poster presentations by, grant holders. Grants are scored on the basis of these discussions against the agreed QPIE (Quality,