You are on page 1of 39

Envisioned Developments in Nanobiotechnology

Expert Survey

Summary of Results
Aharon Hauptman and Yair Sharan
haupt@post.tau.ac.il sharany@post.tau.ac.il

Interdisciplinary Center for Technology Analysis and Forecasting (ICTAF) at Tel-Aviv University February 2006

www.nano2life.org

www.ictaf.tau.ac.il

This report is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Aric Menon*, a colleague and a friend. His professional legacy and personal friendship will always inspire us.

*Aric Kumaran Menon passed away in December 2005 in the age of 49. He was a Professor at MIC – Department of Micro and Nanotechnology, Danish Technical University, and a member of the Foresight and Strategy group in “Nano-to-Life”.
N2L expert survey report December 2005

2

1. Introduction
We present an overview of results of a worldwide expert survey conducted within the Foresight and Strategy workpackage (WP5) of the EU network of excellence “Nano-toLife” (N2L). Main goal of the survey was to provide a useful perspective on future developments in Nanobiotechnology (NBT) and to contribute to a shared vision regarding the future of NBT research, taking into consideration barriers, ethics and public acceptance, commercialization prospects and the state of basic and applied research. Specific objectives were: (1) to prioritise the various developments based on their impacts on science & technology and important socio-economic achievements (2) to assess the commercialisation prospects of the various technologies and to identify the most promising ones (3) to identify the necessary measures to foster the realisation of the envisioned developments (4) to identify consensus, or disagreement, on issues relevant to the long-range development of NBT. The survey covers 20 foreseen technological and scientific developments in NBT, based on a state of the art (SoA) review prepared during 2004, covering wide range of achievements in NBT. The preparation of the survey involved meetings and discussions with members of WP5 board, N2L Executive Board (ExBo) and scientists from the network. The survey was open to participants within and outside the network - from the scientific community, industry and other sectors. It followed pilot surveys within N2L, in order to make it as relevant as possible to N2L objectives. The survey results will help validate trends that emerged from the SoA review and provide inputs to the NBT roadmapping which will lead to a long-range strategy of research within N2L and beyond (e.g. the envisioned ENBI – the European Nanobiotechnology Institute). This overview report may be followed by a more detailed report presenting all results available on the different 20 topics one by one. It is important to note that foresight expert surveys such as the one presented here reflect professional estimates and judgments of the participating experts, and not expectations or wishes. Expert surveys are an important and widely used tool in foresight. In many foresight studies the surveys are performed in 2-3 rounds (so-called “Delphi survey”), especially when the first round reveals significant disagreements among the experts. In each subsequent run the experts can re-assess their judgments based on the results of the previous run. In this way an iterative (anonymous) group interaction is achieved among the experts, usually converging to a reasonable consensus. Such surveys are considered as a valuable tool used by industrial companies as well as governmental departments and other organizations, in order to elicit the knowledge and bring together the judgments of a large number of experts. The expert judgments enable useful analyses and priority-setting, and stimulate further discussions on the future-oriented issues.

2. Scope and content
The online (web-based) survey consisted of 20 statements on future developments in NBT, with a time horizon of ~25 years. The statements were selected based on the N2L State of the Art report and on consultation with WP5 partners as well as other scientists. Of course it was impossible to explore all the envisioned developments and applications of NBT. An inevitable compromise had to be made between the desire to cover as much

N2L expert survey report December 2005

3

Nanostructured biomaterials Novel nanostructured biomaterials replace existing materials (e. environment. performance enhancement etc). The entire questionnaire required over an hour. Finally the WP5 board approved 20 statements representing reasonably wide range of NBT research areas with envisioned applications. low. 2016-2020. regulations. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces Smart and adaptable surfaces at the nanoscale are the basic building block for Biodetection. financial measures. polymers).g. Nano to Bio x Bio to Nano x 3. high. In vitro construction of human organs Advancements in nanobiotechnology enable the construction in vitro of artificial human organs. agro-food. Attention was paid to cover the “nano to bio” domain (13 statements) as well as the “bio to nano” domain (7 statements) – see Table 1. never) The level of impact (very high.diverse topics as possible. the labor market The commercialization prospects (very high. security. Cellular cycle Thanks to advances in nanobiotechnology. environment. negative) on each of the following domains: science & technology. A web-based questionnaire was designed and tested in March 2005 and the online survey was conducted in the period from mid April till the end of July 2005. promoting public acceptance) • Table 1: the survey statements Statement 1. consumer products What limits the prospects of commercialization (no needs. Smart probes used in in-vivo Smart probes (that illuminate when reaching their target) are practically used in diagnosis in-vivo. 7. solution of ethical problems. increase in applied research. including some comments obtained after the N2L annual meeting in Munster in March 2005. or – no limits at all) in each of the abovementioned areas What actions are needed to enhance the likelihood of realization (increase in basic research. impossible) in the following areas: health & medicine. however most respondents chose to fill-in only part of the 20 statements. high. low. and a pilot survey was conducted (among WP5 and ExBo members and a few other scientists) in January – February 2005. Corrections were made based on comments from the participants. X x 4. optical tweezers) are used for manipulation inside cells while keeping the cells’ integrity and activity.g. and the necessity to refrain from a too complex and timeconsuming questionnaire. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells x x x x N2L expert survey report December 2005 4 . For each statement the respondents were asked to assess: • • • • The likely time of realization (before 2010. many barriers. The first draft of the questionnaire was formulated in the end of December 2004. 2011-2015. life quality. Nanotools for manipulation inside cells Nanotools (e. 8. Targeted drug delivery Targeted drug delivery based on nanoparticles becomes a standard tool (for therapeutic purposes. the fundamental processes of the cellular cycle are mostly understood 2. 6. needs already fulfilled by other technologies. 5. after 2020.

Self-repairing in artificial systems Living self-repairing abilities are implemented in artificial systems. authors/editors of NBT publications. Nanomachines inside the body Nano-machines for theranostics (therapy and diagnosis) are practically used inside the body. Over 720 email invitations were sent to potential participants worldwide. etc.4. N2L expert survey report December 2005 5 . 14.8.). * * The internal N2L website as well as a special TAU website were used for this purpose. x x x x X In the next sections we will usually refer to the short titles of the 20 statements. 17. 9. x x 11. Bio-inspired materials Advanced bioengineered materials based on bio-inspiration/bio-mimicry are widely used. Labs on chip Labs on chip are widely used for various applications. For example. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems Biological energy conversion systems (e. 15. 10. when reading the results it is very important to remember the full meaning of each statement. 12. Cells on chips replace animal testing In vitro tests based on cells on chips replace animal testing for various applications (e. performance enhancement etc)”. Protein & DNA chips integrated Protein chips are integrated with DNA chips for specific diagnosis purposes in current hospital practices. Protein chips for personal use Protein chips are widely used by the public for personal use. x x x x x 16. However.2005 . 18. 258 people registered. Self-assembly is widely implemented Self-assembly is widely implemented as a technique for development of materials and devices. Biosensors for single molecules Biosensors for detection of single molecules based on nano arrays (e. 3. 19. biomolecular motors) are practically used in artificial micro/nano systems.g.2005 till 1. “targeted drug delivery” in this survey means (see Table 1): “Targeted drug delivery based on nanoparticles becomes a standard tool (for therapeutic purposes. quantum dots) are used for analysis and diagnosis inside cells without affecting their normal functionality.. pharma. in different sectors.Nanosized imaging agents (e. Participation in the survey required registration in the survey website before viewing the questionnaire. Some responses were obtained on paper. managers of NBT-related industrial firms. 13. identified from the following target groups: N2L members. 20. scientists in NBT research centers and labs.g. (The survey format is shown in Appendix 1).g arrays of nanotubes) are commercially available. Chips made by using DNA / peptides Nanoelectronics chips are commercially manufactured by using DNA or peptides (as templates or for nanopatterning).g. cosmetics. including households. General data and respondents’ profile The N2L expert survey was conducted online in the period from 17. Chips employing biomolecules Chips employing biomolecules as active elements are commercially manufactured. and 139 actually answered at least part of the questionnaire.

The actual (139) respondents come from 30 countries. 4 % Male University/Research 72 . France (13) and Switzerland (7) – see Table 2.4 0 10 Europe U. Industry N2L Nonmembers members 78 .3 60 50 40 30 20. gender and affiliation 70 58.2% Graph 1: Respondents by N2L membership.S.1 1. & Canada Israel South .8% 14 . only 30 respondents are N2L members. 21 . 7 % 84.East Asia Oceania Other N2L expert survey report December 2005 6 .The number of responds per statement varied from 22 to 79.4 10.9 20 9. The highest numbers of respondents are from USA (27). Most respondents are males and belong to academic research institutes. Unfortunately. Germany (18). with an average of 45. 4 % N2L members Female 8. Israel (13). 6 % 15.6% Public/ gov.

Ireland 15. Greece 11. Canada 18.K 8. Denmark 22. it is clear that a person can be a specialist in some areas while possessing only limited knowledge in other areas. Italy 7. “knowledgeable”.A 2. Brazil Number of respondents 27 18 13 13 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total 139 Because of the diversity of NBT research areas. in some cases the answers of those respondents who qualified themselves as “experts” or “knowledgeable” are highlighted. Netherlands 17. Romania 9. France 5. Finland 21. Japan 19. U. Australia 12. The distribution of respondents by their level of expertise in each statement is shown in Table 3. U. the respondents were asked to state their level of knowledge for each individual statement. Germany 3. Austria 13. N2L expert survey report December 2005 7 . Sweden 14. Therefore. Belgium 25. Norway 23. Lithuania 24. South Korea 29.S. China 16. Switzerland 6. India 28. In the following results.Graph 2: Distribution of respondents by geographic regions Table 2: Respondents by country Country 1. Singapore 20. Spain 10. Israel 4. “familiar” and “unfamiliar”. They were requested not to respond to statements for which they considered themselves as “unfamiliar”. New Zealand 27. Bulgaria 26. Nigeria 30. according to four categories: “expert”.

5% (12) 26.2% (5) 22.7% (16) N2L expert survey report December 2005 8 . Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems.2% (11) 36.Table 3: Respondents’ level of knowledge (N=total number of respondents per statement) Statement 1. Biosensors for single molecules 16.3% (19) 26.6% (20) 44.7% (16) 47.7% (18) 19.Targeted drug delivery 5.7% (21) 27. Nanomachines inside the body. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 7.4% (6) 29% (9) 37.5% (9) 20% (7) Knowledgeable 45. in vitro construction of human organs.6% (10) 30% (12) 34.8% (14) 47. 3.5% (12) 45. Protein chips for personal use. Chips employing biomolecules 20.8% (33) 50% (26) 27.6% (10) 15. 6.7% (37) 31.8% (11) 20% (8) 19. 4.7% (9) 22.2% (20) 39. 10.4% (18) 35.3% (12) 40.4% (13) 33.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 8. 14. Labs on chip 12.6% (36) 46.8% (2) 25% (17) 16. cellular cycle 2. nanostructured biomaterials. cells on chips replace animal testing 15.2% (8) 22.2% (11) 19.9% (24) 46.8% (28) 30% (12) 39.4% (12) 22% (9) 20.2% (4) 25. Smart probes used in in-vivo.1% (9) 54. Self-repairing in artificial systems. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 9.5% (11) 35.5% (19) 45. Bio-inspired materials 11.4% (16) 36.7% (10) 3.2% (21) 45.5% (11) 43.3% (6) 28.4% (14) 50% (20) 41.2% (17) 18.2% (14) 35. Protein & DNA chips integrated 13. 19. 18.2% (24) 47.8% (20) 45. Self-assembly widely implemented 17.8% (6) 26.3% (12) Familiar 41. Chips made by using DNA / peptides N 79 52 68 73 41 53 40 51 33 36 49 31 31 32 42 47 22 35 40 35 Expert 12.1% (32) 50.7% (13) 52.9% (19) 32.5% (11) 18.5% (15) 44.

The “never” answers were excluded in the calculation of the median and the quartiles (they can’t be logically integrated). high percentage of “never” in a certain statement indicates disagreement even if the inter-quartile span is short.4. “25% quartile year” (25% of the respondents think that the statement will realize before this year) and “75% quartile year” (75% think that it will * realize before this year ). The number of respondents (N) from both categories is given for each statement. Shown are the median value. Also shown is the percentage of respondents who think that the statement under consideration will never be realized. The time-span between the 25% quartile and 75% quartile indicates the degree of consensus (or disagreement) among the respondents: shorter span means higher degree of consensus. N2L expert survey report December 2005 9 . with distinction between the opinions of all respondents and those self-rated as “experts” or “knowledgeable”. Likely time of realization In the following table & graph an overview of the likely time of realization for all statements is presented. therefore it is important to display them separately.) * 25% of the respondents think that the statement will realize after this year. (Of course.

Nanomachines inside the body. cells on chips replace animal testing 15.0 2. 14. Labs on chip 12. Biosensors for single molecules 16. Smart probes used in in-vivo. 3. 4. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems.9 1.Table 4: Time of realization – all statements All Respondents Statement 1. 10.3 22. Protein & DNA chips integrated 13.7 11.8 4.8 10.0 13.4 5.4 5.9 12. Chips made by using DNA / peptides N 25% quartile Experts and Knowledgeable % Never N 25% quartile 50% Median 50% Median 75% quartile 75% quartile % Never 79 51 64 73 40 52 39 51 33 36 46 31 31 32 42 47 22 35 39 34 2013 2013 2008 2009 2008 2008 2008 2008 2013 2008 2008 2008 2013 2012 2008 2008 2013 2018 2008 2013 2018 2018 2013 2013 2013 2008 2013 2008 2018 2013 2013 2013 2018 2013 2013 2013 2018 2025 2013 2013 2025 2025 2013 2018 2018 2013 2018 2013 2025 2018 2018 2014 2018 2018 2018 2015 2025 2025 2018 2025 7.8 18. nanostructured biomaterials.8 5.3 0 11.9 46 25 46 49 22 38 19 30 18 20 31 24 22 20 31 38 10 19 20 19 2013 2013 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2013 2008 2008 2008 2013 2008 2008 2008 2013 2013 2008 2013 2018 2018 2013 2013 2013 2008 2013 2008 2021 2013 2013 2013 2015 2013 2013 2013 2015 2021 2013 2013 2025 2025 2013 2013 2018 2013 2018 2018 2025 2013 2013 2016 2018 2013 2015 2014 2025 2025 2013 2025 6. 19. Self-assembly widely implemented 17.1 0 0 0 25. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 9.1 5.8 4.0 6. Bio-inspired materials 11. Self-repairing in artificial systems.5 8.0 0 12.0 0 0 5. 18.6 7.2 20.5 0 20.0 15. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 7.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 8.0 0 N2L expert survey report December 2005 10 .1 0 0 0 18. Protein chips for personal use. in vitro construction of human organs. cellular cycle 2. 6.8 5. Chips employing biomolecules 20.Targeted drug delivery 5.

4. Targeted drug delivery Targeted drug delivery based on nanoparticles becomes a standard tool (for therapeutic purposes. Nanotools for manipulation inside cells Nanotools (e. 5. In vitro construction of human organs Advancements in nanobiotechnology enable the construction in vitro of artificial human organs.6 % 6. 3. Nanostructured biomaterials Novel nanostructured biomaterials replace existing materials (e. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces Smart and adaptable surfaces at the nanoscale are the basic building block for Biodetection.3% 2. optical tweezers) are used for manipulation inside cells while keeping the cells' integrity and activity. the fundamental processes of the cellular cycle are mostly understood 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 N 79 46 51 25 64 46 73 49 40 22 52 38 39 19 “Never” 7. performance enhancement etc).g.0% 0% 0% 0% 12.5% 7.9% 13% 1. N2L expert survey report December 2005 11 .0% 5.0% 10. 6.25% quartile st Median 75% quartile Graph 3: Time of realization – all statements 1 line in each statement: all respondents nd 2 line: experts/ & knowledgeable 2005 1. Smart probes used in in-vivo Smart probes (that illuminate when reaching their target) are practically used in diagnosis in-vivo.4% 2. polymers). Cellular cycle Thanks to advances in nanobiotechnology.8% 5. 7.g.8% 8.

quantum dots) are used for analysis and diagnosis inside cells without affecting their normal functionality. 12. Protein chips for personal use Protein chips are widely used by the public for personal use. 2015 2020 2025 2030 N 51 30 33 18 36 20 46 31 31 24 31 22 “Never” 5. 13. including households. Cells on chips replace animal testing In vitro tests based on cells on chips replace animal testing for various applications (e. cosmetics…). in different sectors. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells Nanosized imaging agents (e. biomolecular motors) are practically used in artificial micro and nano systems.1% 11. pharma. 14.2005 2010 8.g. 32 20 N2L expert survey report December 2005 12 . Labs on chip Labs on chip are widely used for various applications. 11.8% 18. Bio-inspired materials Advanced bio-engineered materials based on bio-inspiration/ bio-mimicry are widely used.8% 20% 9. 10.g. Protein & DNA chips integrated Protein chips are integrated with DNA chips for specific diagnosis purposes in current hospital practices.2% 18.1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems Biological energy conversion systems (e.9% 0% 12.g.

2005 15. Self-repairing in artificial systems Living self-repairing abilities are implemented in artificial systems.7% 20. 20. N2L expert survey report December 2005 13 .3% 0% 22. 18.8 5.5% 4.0% 11. Chips employing biomolecules Chips employing biomolecules as active elements are commercially manufactured. Biosensors for single molecules Biosensors for detection of single molecules based on nano arrays (for example. Chips made by using DNA / peptides Nanoelectronics chips are commercially manufactured by using DNA or peptides (as templates or for nanopatterning).9% 0% 16. Self-assembly widely implemented Self-assembly is widely implemented as a technique for development of materials and devices. 17. Nanomachines inside the body Nano-machines for theranostics (therapy and diagnosis) are practically used inside the body. arrays of nanotubes) are commercially available. 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 N 42 31 47 38 22 10 35 19 39 20 34 19 “Never” 4. 19.4% 15.8% 6.0% 5.1% 5.

pharma. Novel nanostructured biomaterials replace existing materials (e. the statements can be grouped by their likely timeframes of realisation: Short term – before 2010: 6. Smart and adaptable surfaces at the nanoscale are the basic building block for Biodetection. Protein chips are widely used by the public for personal use 17. in different sectors. Nano-machines for theranostics (therapy and diagnosis) are practically used inside the body. 11. 12. the fundamental processes of the cellular cycle are mostly understood 2. 14. 19.). Nanoelectronics chips are commercially manufactured by using DNA or peptides (as templates or for nanopatterning). Biological energy conversion systems (e.. Thanks to advances in nanobiotechnology. optical tweezers) are used for manipulation inside cells while keeping the cells’ integrity and activity 10. performance enhancement etc). Self-assembly is widely implemented as a technique for development of materials and devices. 4.g arrays of nanotubes) are commercially available. quantum dots) are used for analysis and diagnosis inside cells without affecting their normal functionality.g. Biosensors for detection of single molecules based on nano arrays (e. Medium term –2011. biomolecular motors) are practically used in artificial micro/nano systems 13.2020: 1. Targeted drug delivery based on nanoparticles becomes a standard tool (for therapeutic purposes. cosmetics. Protein chips are integrated with DNA chips for specific diagnosis purposes in current hospital practices. 16. 8. Advancements in nanobiotechnology enable the construction in vitro of artificial human organs. Chips employing biomolecules as active elements are commercially manufactured. 9.g. In vitro tests based on cells on chips replace animal testing for various applications (e. Labs on chip are widely used for various applications. including households.g.g.Based on the above results.2015: 3. 20. 7. N2L expert survey report December 2005 14 . 15. Advanced bioengineered materials based on bio-inspiration/bio-mimicry are widely used. polymers). 5. Nanotools (e. Nanosized imaging agents (e. Long term –2016.g. Living self-repairing abilities are implemented in artificial systems Very long term ~2025: 18. Smart probes (that illuminate when reaching their target) are practically used in diagnosis in-vivo.

Chips made by using DNA / peptides (50% before 2015.8% all respondents. In Graph 4 the statements are ranked by the overall impact index. 20% experts & knowledgeable) 14. more than 10% of the respondents think that statements 3. A domain impact index was calculated for each statement and domain. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells Statements with the lowest degree of agreement (interquartile span 12 years) are: 1. 33% after 2020) 17. 6. life quality and the labor market. high. negative) on each of the following domains: science & technology. Impact of achievement For each statement the respondents were asked to assess its impact if realized (very high. An overall impact index for each statement was also calculated (mean value of the domain indices). 18. 9 and 18 will never be realized. 31% after 2020) 9.Degree of consensus on the time of realization The degree of consensus on the time of realization differs considerably among the statements. Living self-repairing abilities are implemented in artificial systems (22. 20% experts & knowledgeable) In addition.2% experts & knowledgeable) 17.8% all respondents. which indicates the impact of each statement on all domains (for the calculation method see Appendix 2). Self-repairing in artificial systems (32% before 2015. negative= -20. 23% after 2020) 20. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 8. based on the following values: very high=100.7% all respondents. Statements with the highest degree of agreement (interquartile span 5 years) are: 3. In vitro tests based on cells on chips replace animal testing (18. N2L expert survey report December 2005 15 . and the individual impact indexes are shown as well. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems (36% before 2015. 7. environment. Both indexes are shown in table 5. Protein chips are widely used by the public for personal use (25. low=20. in vitro construction of human organs (37% before 2015. 5. 30% after 2020) 2. cellular cycle (43% before 2015. Nanostructured biomaterials. low. high=60. 35% after 2020) Statements with high percentage of “never”: It is important to highlight the statements that are considered by relatively high percentage of respondents (more than 18%) as totally unlikely: 13.

7 85.Labs on chip.Table 5: Impact index (top 3 highlighted in each domain) Statement N S&T Environ ment Life quality Labor Market Over all 1. Protein chips for personal use.6 88. Smart probes used in in-vivo.7 59.understanding cellular cycle.Self-assembly.1 59.3 85. 18.3 62.5 80.4 61.6 82. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 7. 16.6 72.2 81.1 68. 19. Statements with highest impact on the quality of life are: 2.3 76.0 76.8 82. Statements with highest overall impact are: 11. Nanomachines inside the body. 3.8 44.1 35.1 41.6 40.4 49.Self-assembly and 10. Statements with highest impact on the labor market (over 50%.4 90. Labs on chip 12.0 66.3 47.9 67.7 92.0 60.7 75.1 86. Protein & DNA chips integrated 13.6 43. 14.1 87.9 57.7 39.5 62.9 65.7 71.7 35.7 76.4 67.7 90. Chips employing biomolecules 20.4 50. 16. nanostructured biomaterials.6 40.9 51.7 64.3 68. and 18. Chips made by using DNA / peptides N=number of respondents 72 48 62 72 40 53 35 48 31 35 47 30 24 26 39 46 18 30 34 30 89.9 64. Self-assembly widely implemented 17.Nanomachines in the body and 1.6 63.7 72. In most statements the impact on the labor market is much lower then the impacts on S&T.Targeted drug delivery 5.5 80.0 83.Nanomachines in the body. although considered “visionary” (to be realized in 2025) is perceived as having relatively high impact on three domains: science & technology.Bioinspired materials and 6.8 70.6 40. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems 10.9 59.6 61. Statements with highest impact on the environment are: 11. environment and life quality. Statements with highest impact on S&T are: 16. 18.in vitro construction of human organs.Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces. Biosensors for single molecules 16.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 8. Impact on the labor market is generally low.2 68. life quality and the labor market.7 45.1 45.7 49. 6. the respondents’ opinion is that the highest impact of most statements is on science and technology in general.Labs on chip.1 39.9 67.0 57.0 52.6 44. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 9.0 40. which is the main reason that the overall index is lower than the domain indexes.7 82.7 62.8 68.4 67.1 Evidently.5 84. cells on chips replace animal testing 15. 4.2 57. cellular cycle 2.6 62.8 38.5 75.6 78.1 54.8 71.0 56.6 66.9 58.0 33.7 30.1 45.7 79.Labs on chip. Self-repairing in artificial systems.4 55.Bio-inspired materials.1 71.2 84.7 71.4 50.8 75.3 40.8 72. 12-Protein & DNA chips integrated. It is noteworthy that the theranostic nanomachines (statement 18).1 62.Nanomachines in the body. N2L expert survey report December 2005 16 . but much lower than other areas) are: 11.9 74.Self-assembly and 18.7 82.2 47.3 66.2 84. Bio-inspired materials 11.3 70.4 70. 10. in vitro construction of human organs.7 61.

9 70.6 82.7 80. Chips employing biomolecules 13. The statements are ranked according to the overall (mean) impact index (table 6). Protein & DNA chips integrated 18. Protein & DNA chips integrated 2. 1: understading cellular cycle).6 82.1 56. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems 5.7 57.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 5.4 81.7 44. Labs on chip 16. No respondent foresaw an adverse impact on science and technology.3 72.7 76.6 40.4 40.Targeted drug delivery N 26 24 28 67 33 36 43 46 56 62 Na 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 N2L expert survey report December 2005 17 . Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 3. 2. 15.6 150 86. 20. Table 6: Adverse impact on environment (N= total respondents.2 76. cells on chips replace animal testing 19.1 67.7 60.3 87.8 71.7 66.0 74.3 68.0 71.9 47. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 1.7 72.1 49. 4.1 41.2 62. Smart probes used in in-vivo.7 90.7 67. Bio-inspired materials 18. in vitro construction of human organs. Chips made by using DNA / peptides 1.6 75. Nanomachines inside the body.0 45. Statements with adverse impact According to a minority (up to 12%) of respondents (1 to 3 per statement).6 89. Nanomachines inside the body.8 51.8 47.1 200 44.6 40.0 45. Self-assembly widely implemented 10.2 66.5 84.5 75. Na =number of respondents ascribing adverse impact) Statement 12.9 100 57.9 43.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 0 84.0 82. 8.1 62. nanostructured biomaterials. cellular cycle 7.6 50. Protein chips for personal use. 12.3 62. Biosensors for single molecules 6.6 58.0 33.1 85.4 The Labor Market Science & Technology Environment Quality of Life 250 300 350 Graph 4: Impact levels of all statements on the four domains. as shown in Table 6 and Table 7. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 20. Self-repairing in artificial systems. 3. 17.0 84.4 85.7 80.7 83.9 45.2 90.4 52.Targeted drug delivery 9.7 35.3 55.5 40. in vitro construction of human organs.8 50 75.3 54.9 70. Chips made by using DNA / peptides 7.0 71.1 49.7 92.5 57. 8.0 78.7 79.3 30.3 61. nanostructured biomaterials. cellular cycle 14.1 38. 4. the realization of some statements will have adverse impact on the environment or the labor market.2 88.4 35. Smart probes used in in-vivo. and only one respondent ascribed an adverse impact on life quality to only one statement (No.7 82.7 39.5 68.11.7 40.6 39.2 76.

4 31.1 55.9 43.3 56. Chips made by using DNA / peptides 4.8 37.3 52. cells on chips replace animal testing 20. impossible=0.5 52.8 64.0 47.0 N2L expert survey report December 2005 18 .0 79. nanostructured biomaterials.0 45. low=25.4 44.0 67. Bio-inspired materials 11.9 74. Nanomachines inside the body.3 53.0 26. An overall impact index for each statement was also calculated (mean value of the area indices).0 31. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 7. environment.9 39.3 52.9 43. NL =number of respondents ascribing adverse impact) Statement 9.8 60.0 22.2 51.9 63.7 57.8 26.8 78.3 33. Protein & DNA chips integrated 17.1 47.3 67. which indicates the commercialization prospects of each statement in all areas (for the method of calculation see Appendix 2). In Graph 5 the statements are ranked by the overall impact index.0 49.3 50.5 59.6 41.5 51. 3.2 62.5 27.0 71.3 61. 14. Bioenergy conversion in micro/nano systems Medicine & Health Secu rity Enviro nment Agriculture & Food Consu. cellular cycle 2.2 33.8 89.5 51.7 37.8 47.1 53. 6.9 60.5 47.5 36. in vitro construction of human organs. Table 8: Prospects of commercialization index (top 3 highlighted in each area) Statement 1.8 56. N 26 27 15 47 25 28 65 66 33 35 NL 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 6.3 48.7 77.2 50. 12. Chips made by using DNA / peptides 81.8 47. Self-assembly widely implemented 17.8 49.5 60.9 44.2 70. Smart probes used in in-vivo. impossible) in each of the following application areas: health & medicine.3 80.9 56.Overall mer Products 10.8 46.9 36. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems.7 53.2 66.9 72.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 5.3 45.3 44. Self-repairing in artificial systems.9 64. Both indexes are shown in table 8.0 64.9 48. cellular cycle 7. Protein & DNA chips integrated 13.7 33.2 50. based on the following values: very high=100.8 54.Table 7: Adverse impact on the labor market (N= total respondents.4 44.1 53. agriculture & food.5 86.7 55. cells on chips replace animal testing 15. low.7 46. 19.2 46. 4.9 89.7 42.5 59.5 31.9 41.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 8. and consumer products. 2.2 57.7 51. Self-repairing in artificial systems.1 59. in vitro construction of human organs.8 46.3 38.0 34. high=50.6 42.4 81.8 57.3 62.2 50.1 53. Chips employing biomolecules 20. Prospects of commercialization For each statement the respondents were asked to assess its prospects of commercialization (very high.9 42. Protein chips for personal use.9 37. Smart probes used in in-vivo.2 89.2 58. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 9.4 57.8 58.4 61. high.9 41.4 59.8 62. security.Targeted drug delivery 5.3 81.0 57.0 56.3 47.9 85. Labs on chip 12.8 54.4 76. 18. An area-oriented prospect index was calculated for each statement and area.6 54.0 48.5 63. Biosensors for single molecules 16.7 39.2 69. 14.Targeted drug delivery 1.4 64.0 54.

0 81.9 72.7 51.8 36. Protein & DNA chips integrated 18. in vitro construction of human organs. Chips made by using DNA / peptides 5.8 33.3 48. nanostructured biomaterials.0 64.9 71.6 52.1 48.3 46.5 200 63.3 69.2 50. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 15.3 27. For all statements.7 39.7 44. Protein chips for personal use. Some topics in the security area.7 81.0 86.8 100 150 Graph 5: Commercialisation prospects in the five application areas. 8.3 74.8 37.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 2.0 41.8 50. (It is noteworthy that even statement 20.9 37.7 26.9 61.5 49.9 63. Bio-inspired materials 19.0 51.2 42.7 66. 10.8 56.2 33.5 59.lab on chip. The statements are ranked according to the overall (mean) prospect index (table 9).0 47.3 43.2 59. 6-biodetection. Chips employing biomolecules 1. cells on chips replace animal testing 3.0 59.4 52.3 54. scores more in this area than in other areas. Nanomachines inside the body.11.8 80.4 89.5 60.4 42. cellular cycle 14.3 33.2 79. 20.4 47.4 56.6 44.9 62.1 54.2 85. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 9.1 41.0 55.9 26.8 53. Biosensors for single molecules 16.7 59.4 50 50. Self-assembly widely implemented 13.8 57.0 78.9 34. a nanoelectronics topic. The same topics have the highest prospects in the environment area.9 64.5 81.5 53. Self-repairing in artificial systems.9 45.0 47.9 42.9 37.9 77.8 57.3 45.8 44.5 31.0 55.9 53. focusing on detection & identification.0 58. seem to have relatively higher prospects (>60%): 11.2 70.3 31. Smart probes used in in-vivo.8 38. N2L expert survey report December 2005 19 .5 54.2 67.0 44. 12.0 53. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems 17.5 47.8 76. Labs on chip 6. 4.2 31.0 46.6 64.3 22.5 89.Targeted drug delivery 7.8 64.2 89. Medicine & Health is the area that exhibits highest prospects for commercialization.7 46. with 9 topics scoring more than 80%.4 43.) The other four areas scored much lower prospect indexes.1 54.2 57.7 Medicine and Health Security Environment Agriculture and food Consumer Products 250 300 350 46. and 15biosensors.2 56.5 51.9 36.

The likely time-frames of realisation are shown as well for completeness. 16.3 62.7.8 67.4 62. Smart and adaptable surfaces at the nanoscale are the basic building block for Biodetection. The top five statements (having highest combination of overall impact and prospects indexes) are shown in Table 9. Statements mapped by overall impact and overall prospects of commercialization In Graph 6 all the statements are mapped by their overall impacts and prospects. 6. Graph 6: Map of overall impact and prospects (all statements) 70 Likely realization: 65 60 55 Before 2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2025 12 20 8 5 3 13 19 14 11 6 15 10 16 Overall Prospects 1 18 9 4 17 50 45 7 40 35 50 55 60 2 65 70 75 Overall Impact Table 9: Top 5 statements with highest combination of overall impact and overall commercialization prospects: Statement Impact Prospects 11.1 61.7 71. 72. 15. Labs on chip are widely used for various applications. Biosensors for detection of single molecules based on nano arrays (for example. It can be observed that for most statements there is a positive correlation between the overall impact and overall prospects: statements with higher impact usually also have higher prospects of commercialization. including households.7 70. arrays of nanotubes) are commercially available. Advanced bio-engineered materials based on bioinspiration/bio-mimicry are widely used. in different sectors.4 67.8 68. Self-assembly is widely implemented as a technique for development of materials and devices.3 60.9 N2L expert survey report December 2005 20 . 10.

Statements with relatively high percentage (over 8%) of “impossible” in the other areas are: • In the security area: statements 4-drug delivery (20%) .7 35.2 18.3 30.7 51. 14. <3. 4.6 5.4 33. many barriers.0 31.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 8.6 29.4 28.in-vitro const.6 31.7 38.3 26. 14.0 44.5 21.6 N2L expert survey report December 2005 21 .4 12.1 26.4 35. 9 (11%).8 10.5 10. Self-assembly widely implemented 17.3 21. of organs (17%).7 42.7 25. 8 (9%).9 47.0 36.4 45.5 20.Statements considered as impossible to commercialize: Some statements are considered (by minority of respondents) as impossible to commercialize in certain areas. What limits the prospects of commercialization For each technology statement the respondents were asked to assess what are the causes that limit the prospects of commercialization in each of the application areas mentioned in the preceding section. 2. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 9. the percentage of “impossible” is negligible for all statements (zero in 13 statements.0 33.6 40. for each statement and each application area.1 28. or – “nothing limits”.9 9.in-vitro const. Smart probes used in in-vivo.1 39.9 23.7 44.0 34.8 26. 8 (9%).2 42.4 22. Bio-inspired materials 11. 3. needs already fulfilled by other technologies.6 40. 9 (11%).1 4. of organs (19%).0 57. Labs on chip 12.8 31.6 21. 4 (8%).3 40. • In the environment area: statements 2. Protein & DNA chips integrated 13.1 28.5 26. Self-repairing in artificial systems.9 22. In the health & medicine area. Protein chips for personal use.1 40.3 38.9 37. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 7.9 16.0 14. (9%).7 22.in-vitro const.4 35.in-vitro const.8 11.3 38.3 Secu rity 27.7 57.0 26.3 20. 6. 8.8 37. • In the agro-food area: statements 2.0 43.5 8.3 29. 7.Targeted drug delivery 5.2 42.4 22. Chips employing biomolecules 20.7 35.3 44. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems 10. 18-theranostic nanomachines (13%).2 14.5 Enviro nment 34. The optional answers were: no needs.0 29. In vitro construction of human organs.6 42.4 24. 8 (9%) • In the consumer products area: statements 2.0 44. 12 (11%). 4drug delivery (17%). 5-smart probes (17%).3 21.8 23. 5.4 27. Table 10: Percentage of “nothing limits” in all areas (top three highlighted in each area) Statement 1. 7 (9%).4 51.0 43. 18.smart probes (13%). 13.1 45.0 Consumer Products 26.6 11. 18 (9%). Chips made by using DNA / peptides Medicine & Health 35. cells on chips replace animal testing 15. of organs (21%).7 10.5 15. of organs (23%).7 20. 5.5 9.0 29.2 47.2 29.4 10. 19.0 Agrofood 28. Nanomachines inside the body.4 33. 5-smart probes (11%).0 40.1 25. 14.1 29.0 47.5 39.0 45. Nanostructured biomaterials.9 24. 12 (11%). Cellular cycle 2.4% in 7 statements).4 16. Biosensors for single molecules 16. 8. Tables 10-15 present the percentage of the optional answers.

2 9.8 26. 18. Labs on chip 12.6 40. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 7.9 24. Cells on chips replace animal testing Relatively high consensus exists in statements 2. 14.1 28.4 62.1 10.7 44.0 13. Protein & DNA chips integrated 14.3 42. 6. 19.It is evident from Table 10 that two statements are outstanding: high percentage of respondents think that nothing limits the commercialization of Labs on Chip (statement 11) and of Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces (statement 6) in all areas of application.4 13.6 3.4 28. Protein chips for personal use. 3.6 29.9 0 0 8.7 45. It is clear from Table 11 that in the medicine & health area a considerable disagreement on the limits to commercialization exists regarding the following statements: 3.4 17. cellular cycle 2.7 20.1 45. However.9 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 37.3 33.4 2.4 51.9 0 0 4. N2L expert survey report December 2005 22 .7 78.3 No needs 1. Self-repairing in artificial systems.4 58.7 42.2 63. A comparable (and relatively high) percentage of “nothing limits” and “many barriers” indicates large disagreement.2 14.5 In Tables 11-15 it is easy to identify the degree of agreement among the respondents regarding the limits to commercialization. Nanostructured biomaterials. 4.Medicine & Health (%) (large disagreements highlighted) Statement Nothing limits 35. 4.8 11.2 42.5 50.9 51.6 0 1.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 8. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 9.3 2. large difference between the percentages of “nothing limits” and “many barriers” indicates high degree of consensus (for example in statement 17).8 0 0 5.2 29.8 52.8 13. cells on chips replace animal testing 15.5 21.Targeted drug delivery 11. Protein & DNA chips integrated 13. 18. Chips made by using DNA / peptides 56.9 Needs already fulfilled 6.3 Many barriers 1.4 5.0 3. Smart probes used in in-vivo. 17.1 65.Targeted drug delivery 5. Conversely. 9. Self-assembly widely implemented 17. Biosensors for single molecules 16.9 22.3 7. it is important to note that this opinion is not consensual: many respondents think that there are many barriers that limit the commercialization of the same statements.6 36. Bio-inspired materials 11. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems 10.2 8.0 11.6 44.0 54. Chips employing biomolecules 20. Table 11: Limits to commercialization .3 75.6 7.1 39. in vitro construction of human organs.6 71.3 5.1 60.9 57.3 2.3 38.3 13. Nanomachines inside the body. nanostructured biomaterials.6 21.3 15. Labs on chip 12.0 44.

Table 12: Limits to commercialization .0 16. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems 10. but in the same time it has relatively large percentage of “many barriers”. Again.1 12.5 4.0 33.7 38.7 20. Self-assembly widely implemented 17. Biosensors for single molecules 16.9 35. Nanomachines inside the body.4 28.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 8.6 33. Hence.7 58.2 27. In the agro-food area.6%) 18.4 11.0 4.7 27.2 25. The commercialization in the consumer products area also seems to be uncertain. and the number of “needs already fulfilled by other technologies” is also very low.0 45. Chips employing biomolecules 20. Protein & DNA chips integrated 13.8 22.0 29.0 14. 4.8 45. cellular cycle 2.7 38. most respondents agree that these technologies.2 14.3 17.0 35.5 60.7 16. 6.0 30.5 28.2 47.1 29.3 30.9 20. which have both small percentages of “no needs” and relatively large percentages of “nothing limits”. 18.0 16.4 15.5 15.Statements with especially high percentage of “many barriers” are: 17.1 No needs 20.0 6. N2L expert survey report December 2005 23 . statements 9. nanostructured biomaterials.8 29.6 Needs already fulfilled 15.0 26. Self-repairing in artificial systems.6 7. Self-repairing in artificial systems (78.1 54. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 7. Labs on chip 12. Similar situation is observed in the area of environment (Table 13) and agriculture & food (Table 14). 16. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 9. Chips made by using DNA / peptides The commercialization in the security area seems to be questionable for most statements.5 16.9 37. cells on chips replace animal testing 15.8 40.8 33.5 14.3 Many barriers 36.6 11. 14. Smart probes used in in-vivo. Protein chips for personal use.3 29.3 27.6 10.6 27. once realised.2 14. will find their niche in the health & medicine market and will meet existing and future needs.0 29. in vitro construction of human organs.8 5.3 28. 3.4%) The number of “no need” responses is negligible for most statements.1 40.0 27.0 33. Bio-inspired materials 11.3 16.7 12. in vitro construction of human organs (75. 19. statement 1 (understanding cellular cycle) has very small percentage of “no needs”.Targeted drug delivery 5. Theranostic nanomachines inside the body (71.3 2.3 23. except 2-labs on chip and 6-biodetection.0 13.4 0 0 21. 17 and 19 have relatively low percentage of “no needs” but relatively high percentage of “many barriers”.0 42.2 18.Security (%) (large disagreements highlighted) statement Nothing limits 27.6%) 2.8 1.7 57.6 30.3 38.5 5.0 26.0 29.3 12.0 22.5 20.

Chips employing biomolecules 20.0 34. 3.0 13.5 23.7 22.0 N2L expert survey report December 2005 24 .8 15.1 6.6 17.0 30.3 0 13.6 40.0 Many barriers 32. Smart probes used in in-vivo.8 22.5 48.0 Many barriers 49.9 47.1 2.3 31.2 14.2 34.0 10.2 11.8 74. 3. 19. 6.9 25. in vitro construction of human organs.3 26.4 20.7 19.2 8.3 22. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 9.9 13.0 17. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 7.4 25.5 8.8 20.8 40.3 44. cells on chips replace animal testing 15.0 41.7 42.4 47.0 35.8 23. Labs on chip 12.4 27.0 45.7 32.0 1.0 47.4 30. Biosensors for single molecules 16.0 Needs already fulfilled 19.7 35.9 10. 18. 14. Protein chips for personal use.Targeted drug delivery 5.9 4.6 40.3 40.0 8. in vitro construction of human organs.7 21.7 51. 4.2 27.6 31. Nanomachines inside the body.0 17. cellular cycle 2.4 17.6 17.0 34.1 15.2 17.0 36. Self-assembly widely implemented 17.0 Needs already fulfilled 18.3 5.0 No needs 1.0 No needs 13.1 14.9 27.Targeted drug delivery 5.3 14.0 43.3 40.4 35.0 25.6 42.Environment (%) (large disagreements highlighted) Statement Nothing limits 34.9 28.7 13. Bio-inspired materials 11.3 11.4 16. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems 10.7 25.7 23.0 17.3 40.6 17. Self-repairing in artificial systems.5 26. Labs on chip 12.0 57.9 51.9 45. 19.6 31.3 55.9 35.8 5. 6.1 15. Self-repairing in artificial systems. Chips made by using DNA / peptides 3. 4. nanostructured biomaterials.7 20.4 13.6 20. Protein chips for personal use. Chips made by using DNA / peptides Table 14: Limits to commercialization . Nanomachines inside the body.8 10.0 40.7 11.7 18.5 25.Table 13: Limits to commercialization .3 8. 18.9 40.8 31. nanostructured biomaterials.2 14. Bio-inspired materials 11.4 22.7 10.3 36.0 10.3 30.8 11.3 7.5 26.1 28.0 21.9 16. 14. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems 10.6 5.6 26.3 31.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 8.3 16.5 45.1 26.1 37.0 31.7 22. cellular cycle 2.1 10.6 22.0 30. Chips employing biomolecules 20.6 14.7 33.0 13.3 14.5 10.Agriculture & Food (%) (large disagreements highlighted) Statement Nothing limits 28.0 30.4 35.1 13.2 42.7 35.3 26.6 5. cells on chips replace animal testing 15.4 18. Self-assembly widely implemented 17.5 26. Protein & DNA chips integrated 13. Biosensors for single molecules 16.3 8.4 40.4 45.7 44.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 8. Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 9.0 5.4 12.8 11.0 9.7 21.3 14.1 41. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 7. Smart probes used in in-vivo.5 26.4 64.9 14. Protein & DNA chips integrated 13.7 7.

Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 9. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems 10.9 23.5 39.5 18. Self-repairing in artificial systems.1 0 17.5 21.6 Many barriers 35.3 14.0 17.3 15.7 27.4 24. cells on chips replace animal testing 15.0 35.1 7.3 35. Nanomachines inside the body.1 4. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 7.4 33.Table 15: Limits to commercialization.8 7.7 22. Self-assembly widely implemented 17.4 29.3 35.Targeted drug delivery 5.0 17.3 25.9 9.7 35.4 9.3 21.1 25.4 34.9 10.5 45.6 33.0 20. cellular cycle 2.5 48. 6.4 33.2 42.1 12.4 27.7 9. 3.1 42.7 N2L expert survey report December 2005 25 .0 44.3 21.1 8.1 44. Smart probes used in in-vivo.4 10.6 33. 14.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 8.1 3.1 7.4 11.6 26. Labs on chip 12. 4.7 14.0 40.7 15.9 37.8 45.7 8.1 40.1 7.1 25. 19.0 29.3 20. Biosensors for single molecules 16.4 22. 18. nanostructured biomaterials.3 33. Chips made by using DNA / peptides Needs already fulfilled 21.7 22.3 47.1 8.7 25.5 1.6 0 7.consumer products (%) (large disagreements highlighted) Statement Nothing limits 26.4 9. in vitro construction of human organs.3 No needs 17. Bio-inspired materials 11.7 45.8 37.0 59.4 11. Protein chips for personal use.5 64. Chips employing biomolecules 20.9 52.6 23. Protein & DNA chips integrated 13.

5 8. financial measures. Regulation activity is needed especially in statement 12-Protein & DNA chips integrated (48.5 11.7 86.3 37.5 16. and promoting public acceptance.0 57.0 36. Bio energy conversion in micro/nano systems 10. Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces 7. especially statement 2 (in vitro construction of human organs).4 50.7 37.6 19.9 37.6 25. Actions needed to enhance the likelihood of realization For each statement the respondents were asked what actions are needed to enhance the likelihood of realization.8 7.8 19.6 64. statement 18 (theranostic nanomachines inside the body). Nano-agents for analysis inside cells 9. in vitro construction of human organs.2 25.5 68.1 22.0 26.8 88.3 84.9 22. The results are shown in the following table.6 39.9 22.5 25.4%). Chips made by using DNA / peptides 78 50 65 73 40 53 38 51 32 36 49 31 31 32 42 46 20 35 40 35 17.1 91. Table 16: Actions needed to foster realization* Statement N Increase in basic/ applied research 79. Nanomachines inside the body. Self-repairing in artificial systems.7 48.6 25.3 39.3 28. For all other statements less than 40% of the respondents recommend regulation activities. Chips employing biomolecules 20.5 15.9 19.8 17.1 15.7 20.2 90.4 18.0 32. The optional answers were: increase in basic research.4 22.0 81. Biosensors for single molecules 16. Protein & DNA chips integrated 13.0 19. increase in applied research.0 88.7 75.7 15.0 25. Labs on chip 12. 18.3 28. fiscal/financial measures are considered by most respondents as least needed action.9 87. 6.4 88. and statement 17 (living self-repairing abilities in artificial systems). Solution of ethical problems and public acceptance issues is needed to enhance the realisation likelihood of several statements.0 25.8 80. cellular cycle 2. solution of ethical problems. Protein chips for personal use.6 37.2 28.Nanotools for manipulation inside cells 8.3 85.5 62. 6.6 15.9.2 15.5 78.6 15. 10 and 16. Bio-inspired materials 11. Smart probes used in in-vivo.6 35. 3.9 financial measures Regula tion 1.8 84.7 32. Self-assembly widely implemented 17.7 17. Surprisingly.Targeted drug delivery 5.5 36.5 32.5 26.5 20. cells on chips replace animal testing 15. N2L expert survey report December 2005 26 .8 28.1 20.0 17.6 Solve ethical problems or public acceptance 38.5 82.7 22.4 24. nanostructured biomaterials.1 The prevalent opinion among the respondents is that the most important action to enhance the likelihood of realization for all statements is increase in basic/applied research – especially in statements 5.0 24. 14. 4.0 22.0 82. * Percentages don’t add up to 100% because more then one action could be checked.0 85. 19.2 24. regulations (including standards).

cellular cycle • • • • • Cellular cycle knowledge is the key to develop biosensors My answer mainly concerns the perspective of biotechnology (the nano or micro is in this sense meaningless) Nanobiotechnology will play some role in understanding cell cycles.if we fully understand the immunological differentiation and complexity needed for this. • • 4. Second comment is related to the R&D in industry. since this is not covered by most granting agencies. Comments of respondents In the questionnaire the respondents were invited to add free comments on the statements. in vitro construction of human organs • It is a worrisome topic.. Their comments are presented below. but will not be the key technology. Thus bionanotechnolgy contributes only to low extent to the specificity and stability problems.g. but will not be the only (nor key) technology needed. Statement may be true if and only if nanobiotechnology is not simply considered as a set of techniques The major problem will be the increase in basic research.biomaterials might be better than other materials for some purposes . • Tissue engineering does not belong to bionanotechnolgy in my opinion. • Liposomes are used since decades as “nanoparticles”. 3. unless of course basic transport phenomena at the small scale (which have been studied since the late 1800s but are still not completely understood) • regenerative medicine is one of the most important breakthrough direction of research in medicine today and it advances with the highest speed • The prospect of artificial non biological nano-or micro devices replacing some specialist cell functions is within reach (insuline producing devices etc). • Nanobiotechnology will contribute.10.The promise of decades of immunological research was also targeted drug delivery . and some of these will replace synthetic polymers. Smart probes (that illuminate when reaching their target) are practically used in diagnosis in-vivo N2L expert survey report December 2005 27 . It may be misused widely. PHA) Ethical problems and public acceptance will be depending on innovations in basic research/novel discoveries and their R&D. which is oriented to the short-term financial success.in medicine or in environment Some new materials will come out of nano-bio. Only few chose to do so. we must overcome a common public misconception that all scientific cellular research originates from/involves stem cells derived from human embryos • 2. Micro arrays technology and nanosized labels can be seen as a area of bionanotechnolgy. Novel nanostructured biomaterials replace existing materials • • Nano is not perse better than not nano or multi nano . The real stuff and full organs will come much later from better understanding of cell growth. Targeted drug delivery based on nanoparticles becomes a standard tool Why based on nano particles? . Engineered biopolymers (whose engineering does not always involve nano) are already replacing synthetic polymers in some applications (e. AFM and quantum dots will be used as a tool. The problems of drug targeting are only weakly related to the size. we might develop enough target specific recognition for any disease (with no need for nano targeted particles) • It's the real source for innovative medicine nowadays. 1.. In vivo nanostructres may find some applications. It involves cell biolgy and chemistry (biopolymers) and material sciences . • 5. less to middle-term ones.

g. then the data handling informatics. but not very important. I cannot see applications in other areas • Are optical tweezers really nanotools? They were introduced well before the nanotechnology craze.• Smart probes that operate at the nanoscale already exist. Nanotools (e. the military should highly support reserach in this area and speed up implementation as it might help both: detection capabilities and reduce military activity impact on the invironment and human health There will be many fields of application and there are several items to improve. Nanosized imaging agents (e.g. data mining etc needs to be user friendly when it will be fully developed. The immunological and toxicological effects are more related to surface chemistry than to the size. and they work best on particles/objects that are around a micron in size (it's very hard to trap particles below a few hundred nanometers). they are a few nanometers big. • To substitute MRI and radio-labeled vectors by optical will be difficult and not very important. Of course. but if feasible we can really have a revolutionary area. No other applications. It will be a revolution in Science and Technology Requires significant financial and fiscal investment in quantum dot research. low relevance • • • • • • • 10. 8. Optical tweezers are extremely important tools. optical tweezers) are used for manipulation inside cells while keeping the cells’ integrity and activity • It is a tool for basic research. 6. as are other non-invasive manipulation techniques. Smart and adaptable surfaces at the nanoscale are the basic building block for Biodetection. many fluorescent dyes fluoresce only when they attach to certain target molecules (e.g. Bionanotechnology contributes only in minor extent to the application of such agents. This new and emerging technology. Nice vision. biomolecular motors) are practically used in artificial micro/nano systems. Many biosensors use membranes as interface to detect the targeted species. Biological energy conversion systems (e. first the repeatability and accuracy of sampling and measure.. For bioanalysis nanotechnolgy is not needed.. Here we deal with large uncertainties. • • • • • • 7. Biological systems offer a window into a very sophisticated collection of nanomachines. Not only motors but also all kind of computer devices might be assembled this way. • Nice tools. This tool might be used in basic research to detect changes on nano level in living cells so a tool for basic (biophysical research) . • What has this to do with bionanotechnology? • I think that studying the strategies used by cells in a quantitative way gives an unique opportunity to design new devices. For research single molecule detection and for sensors surface optimization using nanotools and nanomaterials is interesting. maintaining the stability and reproducibility of image production inside living cells alongside simultaneous cell metabolism is a massive challenge.e. For example.g. A nice tool for basic biophysical research. DNA). Advanced bioengineered materials based on bio-inspiration/bio-mimicry are widely used. quantum dots) are used for analysis and diagnosis inside cells without affecting their normal functionality. the dyes are molecules. i. Nature is complex. Products already available today but slow market acceptance. This is already being done! 9. • There are too many unknown factors in bio-inspiration and bio-mimicry that are hard to be reproduced in a quantitative manner for better understanding.other applications are really very hard to visualise for biodetection there will be a large array of other technologies. N2L expert survey report December 2005 28 .

g arrays of nanotubes) are commercially available • Many needs are already fulfilled by other technologies. 11. Chips employing biomolecules as active elements are commercially manufactured • • • • N2L expert survey report December 2005 29 . In basic research and diagnostics this might be a logic development – see statement 11 Medical doctors acceptance and costs are strong factor. but autonomous. 19. Interpreted to refer to nonbiological systems (e. The only “particles” which show long circulation times are liposomes. that of deliberately-engineered (designed) self-assembly. Biosensors for detection of single molecules based on nano arrays (e. portable and real-time devices are not yet available. Protein chips are integrated with DNA chips for specific diagnosis purposes in current hospital practices. • Theoretically feasible. but not necessary for practical applications. protein-protein assemblies? • I interpret this statement as referring to biology-based systems 18.g. in different sectors. 16. We already learned a lot of biology. miniscules cameras. • Single molecule detection is nice. tissue enhancers and blood oxygenerators are just few examples of the large potential.so this will be a good prospect of nano(bio)technology • Price will decide over application. contractile proteins. Engineering will be more important than nanotechnological aspects. drug delivery carriers. virus capsules… From my experience (in a project aimed at developing nanoparticles to be used as MRI contrast agent). Nano-machines for theranostics (therapy and diagnosis) are practically used inside the body • The statement will occur during the 2020-2030 decade. What you mean by living self-repair ability? DNA repair. Integration of applied and fundamental research required Item interpreted to include self-replication as well as self-assembly 17. Biological to digital converters. lipid bilayer fusion processes.• I consider this not as a nano specific statement. Labs on chip are widely used for various applications. as opposed to discovered selfassembly. The return will be great. but not robust enough for a commercial product. diamondoid molecular machine systems) • Enhancing self regeneration might perhaps be possible (like supporting bone after friction). They are already in use!! This area is a major area to improve detection of cancer and survival rate!! What are the benefits? • • • • • 15. including households • Lab on chips is a logic step in miniaturising and automatising all kind of monitoring and diagnostic procedures . 12. Self-assembly is widely implemented as a technique for development of materials and devices Self-assembly is a popular term these days. Living self-repairing abilities are implemented in artificial systems • Fields for applications uncertain. Multiplex analytical tools will be important. the immune system is very effective in scavenging particles from blood. self assembly processes. but a general one. there is still a lot to be learned. Governments should provide sufficient research and developments funds in this development. Many natural designs can be used and adapted to serve our needs on all scale levels. but this is only support of therapy because the body restores the tissue • The potential of nano-machines for diagnostics and therpeutics is limitless. I am interpreting it in a very strict sense. • What are nanomachines? This is a buzzword and comprises many different things: polymeric vesicles..

• Interesting concept but academic.• • • Difficult to assess specific commercial potential. It is interesting for research. The resistance of large companies to switch to a fundamentally new technology may be significant. N2L expert survey report December 2005 30 . What means “active elements”? Since proteins are widely used as bio-recognition elements on chips. Nanoelectronics chips are commercially manufactured by using DNA or peptides (as templates or for nanopatterning) • A potentially powerful technology. etc.) The questions are time consuming and overlapping. since such chips could vary widely in their nature (depending on the biomolecules. but one that goes against current trends. how they're used. • Nanofabrication using DNA as templates will hardly find commercial applications. 20. No commercial relevance. as fulfilled by inorganic structures. Look at the lab on chip . this is already reality. Statement 19 is covered by statement 13.this development might be parallel.

This is one example of marked disagreements between the experts on several issues in this survey. Practical and commercial applications of NBT developments under consideration will be realized mainly in the area of medicine and health.Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces.Self-assembly. are Labs on chip (statement 11) and Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces (statement 6). 12-Protein & DNA chips integrated. It seems that there are no critical limitations to the development of the field. Topic with no limits to commercialization in all application fields. 18Theranostic nanomachines in the body and 1. and 18Theranostic nanomachines in the body. The following topics are of high priority. taking into account their overall impact (on all domains considered) and their commercialization prospects (in all areas considered): • Labs on chip (statement 11) • Self-assembly for materials and devices (statement 16) • Bio-engineered materials based on bio-inspiration/bio-mimicry (statement 10) • Biosensors for detection of single molecules based on nano arrays (statement 15) • Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces (statement 6). 4. the same topics are considered by ~40% of respondents as having “many barriers”. 5. However. For all statements. Some topics in the security area. Statements with highest impact on the environment are: 11. 8.12.lab on chip. 6-biodetection. 6. emerging from judgments of a large group of NBT experts. except a few cases where issues of ethics and public acceptance are identified. focusing on detection & identification. Conclusions 1. Much scientific research activity is still needed in order to develop the NBT field and to identify its potentially successful applications in different areas. environment and life quality.in vitro construction of human organs. The other four areas scored much lower prospect indexes. Statements with highest impact on the quality of life are: 2. 2-in vitro N2L expert survey report December 2005 31 . although considered “visionary” (realized in very long term). 10Bio-inspired materials and 6. 3. In other areas practical use and commercialization are questionable or uncertain. In the Medicine & Health area. half of the respondents. with 9 topics scoring more than 80%. statements with high percentage (>70%) of “many barriers” are: 17-Self-repairing in artificial systems. seem to have relatively higher prospects (>60%): 12. In most statements the impact on the labor market is much lower then the impacts on S&T.Labs on chip. is perceived as having high impact on three (out of five) areas of application.understanding cellular cycle. The expert survey provides a worldwide view on selected future developments in Nanobiotechnology and their potential impacts and prospects in different domains. The last statement. 7. and 15-biosensors. 2. Statements with highest impact on S&T are: 16. The highest impact of most statements is on science and technology in general. according to approx. Financial matters are not considered as a major obstacle. Medicine & Health is the area that exhibits highest prospects for commercialization. 9.

11. 12. beyond the 20 statements selected for this survey. In such expanded and more comprehensive survey different conclusions might have emerged. the “experts” and “knowledgeable” respondents tend to be more optimistic. Regulation activity is needed mainly in statement 12-Protein & DNA chips integrated (according to 48% of respondents) and in statement 4-Targeted drug delivery (40%). What next? The expert survey is one of the activities in the foresight and strategy task of N2L. especially statement 2 (in vitro construction of human organs). Twelve statements are likely to realize in medium term (2011-2015) and five statements in longer term (2016-2020). The prevalent opinion is that the most important action to enhance the likelihood of realization for all statements is increase in basic/applied research (with different degrees among the statements). and 8-Nano-agents for analysis inside cells) is forecasted in short term (before 2010). This coordinated effort is depicted in the following scheme.construction of human organs and 18-Theranostic nanomachines inside the body. 13. 10. and statement 17 (living self-repairing abilities in artificial systems). One particular statement. Surprisingly. These activities should complement each other and be coordinated in order to lead to the final goal – the strategic plan for the network and the forthcoming ENBI*. It should be remembered that the current expert survey doesn’t necessarily cover the entire NBT field. One could have added more topics. and expect the realization a few years earlier). Most of the technology statements are likely to be realized till 2015 (detailed likely realization times are presented in Graph 3). Expert Survey Roadmapping Prospective Workshops SOA Report Strategic Plan update * The European Nanobiotechnology Institute N2L expert survey report December 2005 32 .Biodetection with smart nano-surfaces. “theranostic nanomachines practically used inside the body” is considered as “visionary”. statement 18 (theranostic nanomachines inside the body). For all other statements less than 40% of the respondents recommend regulation activities. Realization of two statements (6. Solution of ethical problems and public acceptance issues is needed to enhance the realization of several statements. with expected realization around 2025 (interestingly. fiscal/financial measures are considered to be the least needed action (only 15%-29% of the experts recommend this action in all statements).

Foresight is a continuous process. high percentage of “never”. can sharpen and deepen the future-oriented thinking and give rise to additional insights. even though much dependent on the limited number of participants. especially on topics with low consensus. high percentage of “many barriers” and high percentage of respondents who think that there is a need to solve ethics/public acceptance problems. N2L expert survey report December 2005 33 . in order to better shape the conclusions and provide useful inputs to N2L policy and programmes. and an expert survey must be followed by additional discussions and other activities. This could also be achieved in part of the statements by means of brainstorming sessions and/or interviews with relevant specialists. The results can then help stimulate further discussions in smaller groups such as prospective workshops which. high percentage of “never” or topics with many barriers and/or public acceptance issues. • It would be interesting to initiate international professional discussions on topics such as statement 17 (Living self-repairing abilities implemented in artificial systems).It should be stressed that one of the main advantages of the expert survey is the possibility to acquire knowledge from a large number of experts. thereby reflecting the professional opinion of the relevant community. which has high disagreement on time of realization. Some future activities could follow the present survey: • Running a second round in order to achieve a higher degree of agreement (a common practice in such foresight Delphi-type surveys). • Adding possibly missing topics and expanding the survey • Stimulate discussions among N2L members on the results.

Appendix 1: Structure of the online survey N2L expert survey report December 2005 34 .

N2L expert survey report December 2005 35 .

Category 4 ≡ Negative (adverse) ≡ -20 For each of the four domains a weighted mean MIi (1≤ i≤4) was calculated.2015 ≡ 2013 2016 – 2020 ≡ 2018 after 2020 ≡ 2025 The answers for “Never” are presented separately and are not included in the calculations. quality of life. the labor market. thus deriving insights on the development of nanobiotechnology in the next 20 years and its impact on science and technology. as input to a long range policy in this field. Personal information on the participants to collect data on their gender.Category 2 ≡ High ≡ 60 K3 . their affiliation and sectors to which they belong. each of them referring to an emerging development in nanobiotechnology. 2. environment. on the economy and on the quality of life. their professional expertise.Category 1 ≡ Very high ≡ 100 K2 . The prospects of commercialization of this technology in five different areas: medicine & health. In the following we describe the calculation of the quantitative survey results. If Iij (1≤ i≤4. The limitations on commercialization of the technology as assessed by the participant. Actions needed to enhance the likelihood of the realization of the technology. security. The level of impact In order to grade the level of impact the following calculations were made (see table 1): Impact Category Domain Very high (100) High (60) I12 I22 I32 I42 Low (20) I13 I23 I33 I43 Negative (-20) I14 I24 I34 I44 Mean Science & I11 Technology Environment I21 Quality of life I31 The labor market I41 Table 1 – Impact of achievement MI1 MI2 MI3 MI4 Each category was weighed as follows: K1 . The level of its impact on four domains: science and technology. A list of 20 statements. the weighted mean for domain i.Appendix 2: Results calculation method The questionnaire designed for the N2L expert survey included the following: 1. The answers were collected online. stored in a database and processed. (1≤ j≤4) is the number of participants who chosed category j as the level of impact on domain i then MIi. agriculture & food. environment. is calculated as follows: Ii1x 100 + Ii2 x 60 + Ii3 x 20 + Ii4 x(-20) Mi (1≤ i≤4) =  Si N2L expert survey report December 2005 36 . their country of residency. enabling us to compare between the various statements and prioritize them. consumer products. For each of these technologies the survey aimed to asses several issues: The timeframe in which the statement will occur. When will the statement occur In order to calculate the median and quartiles for each statement the time frames were represented by the following: Before 2010 ≡ 2008 2011 .Category 3 ≡ Low ≡ 20 K4 .

For each participant at least 2 domains had to be chosen in order to be included. (In this case 2≤Nk≤4). The index of impact is then the sum of all individual means. MIn divided by the number of actual participants. In addition. an overall prospects index was calculated. Prospects Category Area Medicine and Health P11 Security P21 Environment P31 Agriculture and Food P41 Consumer Products P51 Table 2 – Prospects of commercialization Each Category was weighted as follows: C1 Category 1 ≡ Very high ≡ 100 C2 Category 2 ≡ High ≡ 50 ≡ 25 C3 Category 3 ≡ Low C4 Category 4 ≡ Impossible ≡ 0 For each five areas a weighted mean MPi (1≤ i≤5) was calculated. For each participant at least 3 areas had to be chosen in order to be included. Agriculture and Food. This calculations result in five different distributions for each of the five areas ordering the 20 statement according to their prospects of commercialization in the five areas: Medicine and Health. This index is the mean of the individual weighted means of all participant. This calculation results in four different distributions for each of the four domains. N2L expert survey report December 2005 37 . In addition. Security. 1≤ j ≤4) is the number of participants who chosed Category j as the level of prospects of commercialization in area i then MPi the weighted mean for area i will be calculated as follows: P12 P22 P32 P42 P52 P13 P23 P33 P43 P53 P14 P24 P34 P44 P54 MP1 MP2 MP3 MP4 MP5 Very high (100) High (50) Low (25) Negative (0) Mean Ii1 x 100 + Ii2 x 50 + Ii3 x 25 MPi (1≤ i≤5) =  Si Where Si = Ii1 + Ii2 + Ii3 + Ii4 The value of Mpi will span from 0 (if all will chose the “Impossible” Category) to 100 (if all will chose the “Very High” Category). So if participant n chose Category Kin for domain i then his mean Min is Min = (K1n + K2n + K3n + K4n) / Nk Nk is number of categories that were referred to by the participant.were Si = Ii1 + Ii2 + Ii3 + Ii4 The value of MIi in this case will span from –20 (if all will chose the “Negative” Category) to 100 (if all will chose the “Very High” Category). ranking the 20 statements according to their level of impact on each domain. Environment. (Some of the participants didn’t refer to all areas). The index of prospects of commercialization is then the sum of all individual means MPn divided by the number of actual participants. (Some of the participants didn’t refer to all questions). If participant n chosed Category Kin for area i then his mean MPn is: MPn = (C1n + C2n + C3n + C4n)/Nk Nk is the number of categories that were referred to by the participant (In this case 3≤Nk≤5). an overall impact index was calculated as the mean of the individual weighted means of all participants. then only the chosen ones were included in the calculation. In a case in which a Category was not chosen for a certain domain. The prospects of Commercialization In order to grade the prospects of commercialization of each technology the following calculation were made (see table 2). Consumer products. If Pij (1≤ i≤5. If a category was not chosen for a certain area then only the chosen ones were included in the calculation.

7 45.0 Mean2 89.3 35.3 7.4 43 7.7 22.4 22 9.6 22.3 23 13.9 35.3 27.9 0 0 23 73.3 0 24 54.8 15 29.4 23.7 9.5 0 79.1 22.1 0 0 90.0 7 28.0 31.5 13.3 12.5 16 31.2 14.1 25.534 N2L expert survey report December 2005 38 .6 38.0 7 28.7 22 9.0 26 100 Familiar N % 2 7.6 12.6 8.7 0 89.2 9 34.Appendix 3: Example of detailed results (per statement) Statement 2: Advancements in nanobiotechnology enable the construction in vitro of artificial human organs Level of expertise N 2 24 26 52 % 3.6 2 7.3 0 23 82.8 42.8 51 100 Expert Knowledgeable Familiar Before 2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 After 2020 Never When will the statement occur? Experts and Knowledgeable N % 2 8.1 63.3 18.5 9.7 42 4.1 13.0 7.8 42 7.6 21 4.0 17.3 45.7 8.7 8 30.4 12 23.5 21.9 4.8 16.1 23.4 8.4 4 7.34 3.2 50.4 65.80 .1 26.2 76.8 4.4 24 16.4 18.10 1.6 63.8 34.27 .8 4.3 22 4.3 59.0 100 All respondent N % 4 7.9 26.4 54.3 6.8 46.2 33.63 n.0 2 8.1 21.2 4.0 67.6 13.7 33.s Domain N Science and Technology Environment Quality of life The labor market 48 43 46 47 All Respondents Experts and Knowledgeable What will be the level of impact of this achievement on the following domains: Very high High Low Negative Mean1 N Very high High Low Negative Mean1 (100) (60) (20) (100) (60) (20) (-20) (-20) % % % % % % % % 56.7 76.7 54.7 25 100 χ2 .6 26.27 1.1 3 2 χ 1.4 89.9 14.6 31.46 1.8 2.3 33.0 67.8 5 19.67 Area Medicine and Health Security Environment Agriculture and Food Consumer Products What are the prospects of commercialization of this technology in the following areas N Very high High Low Impossible Mean2 N Very high High Low Impossible (100) (50) (25) (100) (50) (25) (0) (0) 47 80.0 7 28.119 2.8 76.6 69.2 44.5 3 2 χ 3.3 43 2.8 14.

0 55.0 22.0 11.0 40.9 17 23.7 18 11.6 64.0 48.7 20.0 60.0 50.0 24.1 66.0 Nothing limits % 20.6 25.3 16.2 3 2 χ 1.0 40.7 11.7 8.0 10.0 58.0 60.0 5.5 52.0 Increase in basic research Increase in applied R&D Fiscal and financial measure Regulations (e.6 20 30.6 25.0 Experts and Knowledgeable N 25 25 25 25 25 25 % 60.g standards) Solve ethical problems Public acceptance N2L expert survey report December 2005 39 .8 33.4 17.0 11.8 11.1 8.0 50.46 3.3 5.8 22.1 11.9 11.0 22.61 2.7 5.7 Medicine and Health Security Environment Agriculture and Food Consumer Products 41 36 35 34 35 What limits the prospects of commercialization? All Respondents Experts and Knowledgeable No Need already N Many No Need already Nothing Need fulfilled by other barriers Need fulfilled by other limits technology technology % % % % % % 2.22 All Respondents N 50 50 50 50 50 50 % 56.1 74.3 5.0 36.8 45.0 11.12 .0 0 5.6 18 27.39 4.Area N Many barriers % 75.4 0 20 75.