California

California-Based Research and Development

By 2007, nanotechnology research and development activities had become widespread throughout the country. Three California cities exhibited some of the highest concentrations of these activities—San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland—each having more than 15 self-identified companies, universities, government laboratories, or organizations working on nano research and development (R&D), according to a report by the Woodrow Wilson Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Only Boston and Middlesex, Massachusetts, exhibited similar concentrations of nanotechnology R&D. According to the report, a total of 161 organizations in California work on nanotechnology, 84 percent of them as businesses, significantly more than any other state. The combination of Silicon Valley, Stanford, the University of California-Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, and the availability of venture capital enabled nanotechnology to take off, particularly in Northern California. According to the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at University of California-Santa Barbara (CNS-UCSB), California surpasses all other states in the investment of venture capital in nanotechnology, with over $1 billion invested. These developments build on the social, economic, and human capital accumulated in Silicon Valley over decades, as described by A. Saxenian.

Similarly, and according to the same Woodrow Wilson Center report, the state has more academic research laboratories (15) than any other state. Three nanotechnology research initiatives are particularly noteworthy. In 2001, a site next to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories was chosen to house the Molecular Foundary, one of six U.S. Department of Energy facilities dedicated to nanomaterials research. In January 2006, one of two Centers for Nanotechnology and Society opened at the University of California-Santa Barbara to research societal issues concerning nanotechnologies. The center has brought together a network of California researchers and policy makers through conferences and outreach and produced important research on issues such as workers' health, risk perceptions, and globalization and nanotechnology. [Page 64]Finally, in 2008 the National Science Foundation and Environmental Protection Agency committed $28 million to two Centers for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, one located at the University of California-Los Angeles (UC CEIN). The Center's objective is to develop scientific models for understanding nanomaterial toxicology, fate and transport, and safety measures.

Training, Health, and Safety Challenges

In 2004, the state government and federal congressional representative Michael Honda (15th District, Silicon Valley) launched the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Nanotechnology, which published the report “Thinking Big About Thinking Small: An Action Agenda for California,” identifying eight action areas to be addressed to take full advantage of the economic opportunities of nanotechnology, including improving the business climate, access to financial and human resources, and the creation of a bureau to coordinate California's nanotechnology policy.

While in the three years following the publication of the report, no steps in this direction were taken, the report focused attention and efforts: Representative Honda took some of these measures to Congress in July 2007 and organizations such as the California Institute of Nanotechnology, California Consortium of Nano-Bio-Clean Tech, and the International Association of Nanotechnology relied on this work to advocate for government support of small enterprises and economic development based on nanotech research, development and deployment. The Task Force helped place nanotechnology on the State science and technology policy agenda, which at the time was heavily concentrated on addressing climate change, according to government staff.

...