New Lux Research report ranks U.S. states on economic development from
nanotech:
Massachusetts, California, and Colorado Lead
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- 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 nanotech the largest publicly-funded science initiative
since the space race. But states' efforts vary wildly in scope, effectiveness,
and impact, according to a new report from Lux Research entitled "Benchmarking
U.S. States for Economic Development from Nanotechnology." Lux Research
Managing Director F. Mark Modzelewski will present the report in an exclusive
briefing to the U.S. Department of Commerce tomorrow.
"Multiple stakeholders -- including state and local officials, federal
representatives, large corporations, start-ups, investors, and universities --
have a vested interest in making nanotechnology efforts succeed," said
Modzelewski. "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 nanotech; 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
nanotech spending, the status of a state nanotech initiative, companies active
in nanotechnology in the state, and in-state nanotech patents -- as well as
states' general technology development strength, which includes metrics like
R&D inputs, size of technology and science workforce, 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:
* 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; California boasts the highest number of
nanotech patents with over 200, but 11 states have none to date.
* The top states combine a high level of nanotech activity with a strong
track record in commercializing advanced technologies -- but they aren't
without flaws. Number-one-ranked Massachusetts has excelled in nanotech
because of its leading universities and high concentration of technology
entrepreneurs, but does not have a coordinated statewide initiative; #2
California is vulnerable to high taxes and regulatory hurdles that
encourage businesses to elsewhere, and has seen leadership shake-ups at
the California NanoSystems Institute; and #3 Colorado 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.
Number 11 Washington state has developed one of the first nanotechnology
degree programs at the University of Washington, #13 Pennsylvania has
built a large number of regional alliances with corporations and
universities throughout the mid-Atlantic through its Ben Franklin
Partners initiative, and #15 Minnesota boasts stellar R&D both at the
University of Minnesota and at corporations like 3M and Cargill Dow.
"Leading states have three things in common," Modzelewski commented.
"First, they involve all relevant stakeholders in developing nanotechnology
initiatives rather than leaving the effort to universities. Illinois Governor
Blagojevich's administration has done a particularly strong job in partnership
with the Daly administration in Chicago, corporations, start-ups, the
universities, non profits and investors. Second, they focus on
commercialization from the outset -- as California did when it recruited
entrepreneur Derrick Boston to lead the commercialization effort for the
California NanoSystems Institute. Third, they play to strengths. For example,
Arizona exploited assets donated by Motorola to develop nanotech efforts in
electronics, where it already has a concentration of research activity."
The report is available immediately to clients of Lux Research's
Nanotechnology Strategies advisory service. For information on how to become a
client, contact Rob Burns, Vice President of Sales, at (646) 723-0708. Special
terms are available for public sector institutions.
Lux Research's linear ranking of U.S. states for economic development from
nanotechnology follows:
1 Massachusetts
2 California
3 Colorado
4 Virginia
5 New Mexico
6 New Jersey
7 Connecticut, Maryland (tie)
9 Illinois
10 New York
11 Washington
12 New Hampshire
13 Pennsylvania
14 Texas
15 Minnesota
16 Arizona
17 Oregon
18 Vermont
19 Georgia, Michigan (tie)
21 Delaware
22 Rhode Island, Utah (tie)
24 Indiana
25 Oklahoma
26 North Carolina
27 Idaho
28 Nevada
29 Ohio
30 Kansas, Montana (tie)
32 Wisconsin
33 Iowa
34 Tennessee
35 Florida
36 Nebraska
37 Maine
38 Kentucky, Louisiana, Wyoming (tie)
41 Missouri
42 Alabama, South Carolina (tie)
44 North Dakota
45 West Virginia
46 South Dakota
47 Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Mississippi (tie)
About Lux Research:
Lux Research is the world's premier research and advisory firm focusing on
the business and economic impact of nanotechnology and related emerging
technologies. Lux Research provides continuous advisory services, customized
consulting, and reference studies to corporations, start-ups, financial
institutions, and public sector organizations. Our founders and our research
staff are the most widely recognized nanotechnology visionaries throughout the
world. Visit http://www.luxresearchinc.com for more information.
|
