Hot Technologies for 2006
The readers and editors of R&D Magazine choose the technologies that they expect
to see fast growth, large investments, and increasing
applications in the coming year.
 Click
here to enlage
Anti-bioterrorism devices, fuel cells, and nanotechnology
were the "hottest" technologies likely to
experience rapid growth and high investment in 2006,
according to a reader survey by the editors of R&D
Magazine. |
For the second consecutive year, the editors of R&D
Magazine performed a survey of our readers in late-November
2005, asking what technologies they expect to be “hot” in
2006. This year’s survey results, looking at
more than 70 different technology choices, were in
some respects not dramatically different than those
obtained last year.
The top five technologies chosen by readers this year,
in fact, were the same that were chosen in 2004, with
only slight, ordering changes. Anti-bioterrorism devices,
for example, was the number one chosen hot technology
for 2006 in this year’s survey by 39% of the
readers. In last year’s survey (performed in
November 2004), anti-bioterrorism devices placed third
with 29.5%. Comparing this year’s other four “hottest
technologies”, numbers two through five (see
bar chart) were fuel cells (No.1 in 2004, 41.4%), nanotechnology
(No.2 in 2004, 40.1%), battery/chemical energy (No.5
in 2004, 19.8%), and carbon nanotubes (No.4 in 2004,
21.1%). Both the ranking and the number of respondents
choosing these technologies were statistically very
similar between the two surveys.
Survey dynamics
 Click
here to enlage
Survey respondents said that the average likelihood
of a "hot technology" becoming a commercially
successful product is 56%, down slightly from the value
that they said in our 2004 hot technology reader survey. |
More than 170 readers responded to this year’s
survey. Each respondent was asked to choose five
technologies. As in last year’s results, the
top five technologies chosen mirror the relevant
technology issues driving many of today’s research
funding programs—that being concerns about
terrorism, energy dependence and increasing pollution,
and the ability to take commercial advantage of dramatic
new technologies (i.e., nanotechnology).
There has been some shifting, however, among technologies
that were “hot” last year and have since “cooled” down,
and vice versa. Proteomics, for example, which offered
a lot of initial hype, was listed fairly high in
the rankings in 2004 (No.18), but dropped to No.29
this year. Genomics, on the other hand, appears to
be a more practical and shorter term solution to
many of the same life science issues. Genomics was
ranked No.22 in 2004 and rose to No.15 this year.
Energy issues, following this year’s dramatic
swing in prices at the gas pump, saw some equally
dramatic swings in technological relevance. Solar/wind
power technologies jumped from No.21 in 2004 all
the way to No.7 this year. Similarly, while only
4.5% of the survey respondents thought that nuclear
power had technological relevance in 2004, that ranking
jumped to 7.8% of the respondents in 2005. As noted
above, the energy-related fuel cells retained their
top 5 ranking from 2004 to 2005, as did battery/chemical
energy technologies.
 Click
here to enlage
On average,
it takes nearly six years for a discovery to
become a "hot technology,"—the
same time readers indicated in last year's
survey. |
A number of “basic” technologies retained
respectable, although non-dramatic, rankings. These
include bioinformatics, Bluetooth technologies, cell
biology, high-performance computing, Internet technologies,
microarrays, OLEDs/flexible displays, sensor arrays,
and systems biology.
Of even lesser interest in this particular ranking
system, were the more mature technologies. These
include the likes of chromatography, spectroscopy,
optical microscopy, rheology, and telecommunications.
Defining a hot technology
What makes a hot technology? Quite obviously, it’s
not always a new technology. One of the questions
asked in this survey was how long it took a particular
technology to become a “hot” technology.
The answer in 2004 and the answer again in 2005 was
exactly the same—about six years. Less than
4% of the respondents indicated that it took only
one to two years to become “hot.” It
should be obvious to most researchers that discoveries
take a very long time to become useful tools or technologies,
let alone commercial products. The average cycle
from discovery to commercial product is often 15
years for everything from ceramics to drugs to golf
balls. The fact that these respondents indicated
that it took an average of six years to become a
hot technology, in this light, may even be wishful
thinking on the respondents side.
 Click
here to enlage
Slightly less than 80% of the survey respondents find
that it's difficult to obtain investments in a "hot
technology," a slight improvement from last year's
survey. |
In the same vein, the likelihood of one of these
hot technologies becoming a successful technology
was only indicated as being 56%—just slightly
more than 50-50. About 10% of the respondents indicated
that the technology was already a success. The editors
of course, did not define in the questionnaire as
to what being successful meant, so the respondents
were left to their own thoughts to define what that
might be.
Finding value in technologies
Again, these are hot technologies and likely only
about a third through their normal product development
cycle. A significant number of them will not likely
make it to become commercially viable products,
although the majority of them will to varying degrees
of success. Consider the changes noted in just
one year of this survey, how some very visible
technologies like proteomics and even drug discovery
saw significant drops in their rankings and hence
perceived value by research and development professionals.
 Click
here to enlage
On average,
it takes nearly six years for a discovery to
become a "hot technology,"—the
same time readers indicated in last year's
survey. |
Only 21% of the survey respondents indicated that
they found it relatively easy to obtain investment
funding for the development of new hot technologies.
The political, technological, social, and economic
climate can change very rapidly in just a very short
period of time. Witness the effect of the Merck Vioxx
drug recall and subsequent lawsuits and how that
has affected the development and “hotness” of
the pharmaceutical industry. Drug discovery technologies
dropped from a hotness ranking of 9 in 2004 to 15
in 2005. Yet the overall technologies in drug discovery
have likely improved over that time and the impact
of genomics and proteomics in drug discovery is likely
starting to show some effect—and yet the ranking
dropped.
Wireless, on the other hand, has seen its shares
rise in these surveys, from off the chart completely
in 2004 to a No.8 ranking in the 2005 survey.
In the following pages, the editors of R&D will
describe in a little more detail three of these technologies
that we feel are likely to have an impact on the
research and development community in 2006 and beyond.
—
Tim Studt
There's a Multicore in Your Future
The computer microprocessor evolution that we grew
up with was that of traditional speed improvements
mostly through regular increases in the microprocessor’s
clock frequency. But continuing increases in clock
frequencies combined with decreasing feature sizes,
have created heat loads and power usage that have become
unmanageable. And when you add in factors like memory
latency and the inefficiencies of serial architectures,
this version of the microprocessor’s evolution
starts to hit a performance wall.
Coincidentally for the past decade, researchers have
been developing multiprocessing devices and architectures
that avoid these bottlenecks, while improving the overall
performance of the devices and meeting the needs of
an increasingly pervasive connectivity and proactive
computing environment.
Enter the multicore microprocessor, which has now been
available since April 2005 from both Intel, Santa Clara,
Calif., and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Sunnyvale,
Calif. And watch out, this change is about to take
the world by storm, with Intel already suggesting that
by the end of 2006, more than three quarters of all
the CPUs produced by the company will be multicore
processors. “By 2007, 100% of our server roadmap
will be dual-core,” says Steve Pawlowski, Intel
Senior Fellow and CTO of Intel’s Digital Enterprise
Group. Intel currently has more than 15 multicore products
under development across the desktop, mobile, and server
computing market segments.
Simultaneous benefits
Multicore microprocessors include two or more full
execution cores within a single processor, enabling
simultaneous management of computing activities.
Intel has already included “instruction-level
parallelism” in its processors for about
10 years, which have provided about 6X performance
enhancements. This architecture evolved into a “thread-level
parallelism”, which increased the level of
functional parallelism and processing speed improvements.
By executing more processes in parallel, the designers
have actually been able to lower the clock frequency
and the voltage, thereby maintaining the same power
usage, while providing faster overall execution speeds.
Moreover, multicore processors enable true multitasking.
On a traditional single-core device, multitasking
can max out the CPU utilization, resulting in decreased
performance as operations have to wait to be processed.
On a multicore device, since each core has its own
cache, the operating system has sufficient resources
to handle most compute tasks in parallel. The operating
system perceives each of the execution cores as a
discrete processor.
Going public
Current products are dual-core versions, although
quad-core products are already planned for introduction
as early as next year. Intel Pentium M dualcore
chips will ship for portable computers in early-2006,
with plans for more than 70% of all shipping mobile
processors to be multicore devices by the end of
2006.
AMD also has an aggressive roadmap for introducing
new multicore devices. As in all devices, there are
architectural differences between the AMD and Intel
multicore devices, however with similar performance
capabilities. AMD already challenged Intel to a multicore
performance challenge—Intel declined to participate.
Having a multicore technology available does not
negate all the continuing process developments and
enhancements being worked on. These performance improvements
would just be transferred in the standard means to
the processing and enhancement of the individual
cores on multicore devices.
Competitive pressures
There are many software programs now available that
already can take advantage of multiple processes
occurring at the same time. Many workloads such as
design simulations, test and gaming applications,
or the algorithms used in speech or image recognition
programs are highly parallelizable.
An example of performance improvements that can be
realized with just a dualcore system include 50%
speed improvements for high-definition video encoding,
65% speed improvements for MP3 encoding, 52% speed
improvements for rendering of 3-D images, and 124%
improvement in gaming while recording multiple TV
shows.
Intel has also been working with software developers
for some time to enable the development of multithreaded
code that can take full advantage of the increased
speed of multicore processors. As a result, there
already are numerous multithreading tools, resources,
and expertise for implementing thread-optimization
techniques across a wide range of applications.
Also, while initial prices as in all new device introductions
is somewhat high, process improvements would work
to drive these price increases down.
On to the “many”
Intel’s multicore roadmap sees single core
hyperthreading extending into mid-2006 with multicore
(dual, quad, and possibly more) devices increasing
the number of computing threads per socket to possibly
10 by 2012. Beginning in 2010, Intel’s plan
is to introduce its “many-core” products
(hundreds of cores per device), which will increase
the number of hyper-threads, to more than 100 about
10 years from now.
—
Tim Studt
Resources:
Advanced Micro Devices, www.amd.com,
Intel, www.intel.com, 800-628-8686
RFID Goes More Mainstream
As a technology, radio frequency identification (RFID)
tags are nothing new. Many of the components incorporated
into these devices can be traced as far back as the
1930s, and the military’s use of long-range,
radio transponders in Identify Friend or Foe (IFF)
systems. In the 1960s, companies such as Sensormatic,
Boca Raton, Fla., and Checkpoint, Thorofare, N.J.,
extended and commercialized the technology for the
purpose of creating RFID-based anti-theft equipment.
Today, RFID tags, and their subsequent readers, are
broadly used in manufacturing, retail, and military
applications. These activities, however, are poised
to get a dramatic upswing with several high-profile
initiatives coming into play in 2006.
Getting hot
The renewed commitment into RFID technology comes
after more than a decade of uncertainty. Years
of reliability issues and high price points caused
many groups to cast aside RFID as a viable solution
for their inventory/security needs. But these issues
have slowly been addressed. Just a few years ago
the most basic of a RFID tag would cost anywhere
between $1-$5. Today, they are being sold for a
fraction of the price, as low as 7.5 cents for
latest generation RFID tags. Reliability has also
been stepped up. Case in point, in a recent article
in Business Week, industry giant, Boeing, Chicago,
Ill., noted that their recent adoption of a RFID
system “worked 99.8% of the time, failing
to read just 21 tags out of more than 18,000.” This
accuracy rate towers over the 20% accuracies reported
in years past. Fellow industry heavyweight, IBM,
Yorktown Heights, N.Y., has also come aboard the
RFID bandwagon with a recent $250 million investment
in Sensor and Actuators, of which RFID plays a
significant role.
Government and industry create a slew of RFID initiatives
and solutions. Images: Texas Instruments. |
“
RFID technology has matured to the point where it
is being deployed by the world’s top retailers
and consumer products suppliers, so companies that
hold back are risking being passed by more agile
and efficient competitors,” noted Doug Martin,
IBM’s worldwide Chief Architect for RFID, at
a recent symposium held this past July.
Other IT heavyweights are following suit. For its
part, Microsoft, Redmond, Wash., has plans to release
its own RFID Services Platform by early next year.
And let’s not forget about Wal-Mart. When the
company announced two years ago that it would roll
out RFID technology across its stores and distribution
centers, many baulked at the idea. However, by Jan.
2005, more than 100 Wal-Mart stores have been equipped
with RFID, with plans to increase that number to
1,000 by the end of 2006.
Government support
Then there are the government-sponsored initiatives.
Agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) have been actively supporting measures to
stimulate the adoption of RFID tags by pharma manufacturers
as a means to curb counterfeit drug distribution
and profiteering. The goal, according to the agency,
is to have all pharma manufacturers enlisting RFID
technology by 2007.
The U.S. Dept. of Defense has also become a strong
proponent of RFID, announcing that it would require
all of its 60,000 plus suppliers to incorporate RFID
tags on all deliverables by being 2007. Beginning
Jan 1, 2006, suppliers will be required to tag pallets
of items, such as packaged petroleum, lubricants,
oils, chemicals, construction material, all types
of ammunition, and pharmaceutical and medical material
being shipped to several military depots throughout
the U.S.
Other initiatives are also in the works. In a May
2005 survey conducted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO), the GAO was able to list 28 planned
RFID projects across agencies at the cabinet level.
But perhaps it will be the government’s most
recent RFID-based mandate that will have most people
talking in 2006. In an effort to improve national
security, the U.S. State Department recently announced
that U.S. passports must be equipped with RFID technology.
Starting in Oct 2006, any new or reissued U.S. passports
will include an RFID chip containing information
such as passport holder’s name, nationality,
gender, date of birth, and a digitized photo. It
will also store the passport number, issue date,
expiration date, and type of passport. State Dept.
employees, along with diplomats, are slated to receive
the new tagged passports as early as Jan. 2006.
Of course, all these initiatives do not guarantee
the success of RFID technology, but they do go along
way in qualifying RFID as a “hot” technology.
—
Jeannette Mallozzi
Resources:
Dept. of Defense, www.defenselink.mil
U.S. State Dept. www.state.gov
Investing in stem cell research
Many countries have recently declared initiatives on
stem cell research and its funding. Of course, recent
events such as the resignation of stem cell pioneer,
Hwang Woo-Suk, from his position as director of the
World Stem Cell Hub has cast a shadow as to possible
global collaborative efforts in stem cells. Nevertheless,
countries are preparing and following through with
their own stem cell programs. Here we examine the direction
in which stem cell research is headed in different
countries throughout the world.
•
Belgium: The Stem Cell Institute in Leuven (SCIL) was
established in 2005. Research at this facility will
focus on coronary heart disease, diabetes, cancer,
and Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases.
The SCIL has an affiliation agreement to collaborate
jointly with the Stem Cell Institute at the Univ. of
Minnesota, which allows for research and academic collaboration
between the two institutions, including exchange of
faculty and students, joint research projects, and
conferences.
•
Canada: Currently, the Canadian Stem Cell Network coordinates
research and brings together researchers from across
the country in studying the biology of stem cells,
the bioengineering of stem cells, clinical applications,
and ethics. Canada is establishing an electronically
accessible national registry of human embryonic stem
cell lines.
•
China: China’s focus in stem cells is centered
primarily on moving the science into the clinic rather
than on understanding the basic mechanisms of stem
cell biology. Researchers are pursuing clinical trials
of cell-based therapies to treat brain injury, corneal
disease, and neurodegenerative illness.
Stem cells are promising
in
many different research areas. Global collaborations
and
initiatives will help
further this research. Image: National Institutes of
Health.
|
•
Czech Republic: This country is
looking to characterize the seven stabilized human
embryonic stem cell lines
derived at the Laboratory of Molecular Medicine in
Brno. Researchers will develop protocols and strategies
for neurodifferentiation of human embryonic stem cells.
The country’s Ministry of Education also has
plans to establish a registry of stem cells in the
second half of 2006.
•
Denmark: Currently, the Danish Centre of Stem Cell
research has a focus on both basic and applied stem
cell research. The focal areas are early embryonic
development, transgene technologies, and stem cell
isolation and differentiation in relation to stem cell-based
therapies including brain, liver, pancreas, intestines,
blood, and immune system.
•
Germany: German researchers promote
regenerative medicine and stem cell research regarding
tissue engineering,
biological replacement of organ function, and cell-based
regenerative medicine using embryonic and adult stem
cells. Germany’s Research and Education Ministry
is preparing a national stem cell strategy paper that
will include legal guidelines for German scientists
wishing to collaborate with foreign colleagues.
•
India: India promotes research for therapeutic applications
using adult and embryonic stem cells, as well as bone
marrow, peripheral blood, and umbilical cord blood
cells.The government is promoting city cluster programs
in order to share information, explore collaboration,
and discuss emerging policy issues.
•
Japan: The emphasis is on fundamental
research into developmental biology and the development
of techniques
using animal models. Using human embryonic stem cell
lines derived at Kyoto University, researchers will
study the differentiation into, and subsequent application
of, endothelial cells, nerve cells, hematopoietic cells,
cardiac cells, and hepatocytes. RIKEN is Japan’s
flagship research center for stem cells, and the research
carried out there focuses on mechanisms of development,
mechanisms of regeneration, and scientific bases of
regenerative medicine.
•
Netherlands: The Dutch Euro-stells Project involves
the development of a Stem Cell Toolbox Program to add
to the knowledge of the basic features and properties
of stem cells in human as well as animal models.
•South Korea: Researchers wish to discover factors
which induce stem cell differentiation for therapeutic
purposes.
They have established the World Stem Cell Hub to supply
the results of stem cell research to patients worldwide.
• UK: The UK looks to establish
a public-private consortium for the advancement of
stem cell technology and to
redevelop and maintain the UK Stem Cell Bank, a central
facility that characterizes and stores ethically sourced,
quality controlled adult, fetal, and embryonic stem
cell lines. They will build on the close links established
under the UK Stem Cell Initiative to provide effective
forums to improve collaboration around research funding,
cross-fertilization between scientists, technical experts
and private industry and provide a platform for a sustained
program of public dialogue on stem cell research over the
next decade.
•
U.S.: In the coming year, the U.S. will fund a National
Stem Cell Bank and two new Centers of Excellence in
Translational Human Stem Cell Research. The Stem Cell
Bank will consolidate many of the federally funded
eligible human embryonic stem cell lines in one location.
The Centers of Excellence will bring scientists together
to explore how stem cells may be used in the future
to treat blood cancers and blood disorders, kidney
disease, and neurological disorders.
— Martha Walz
Resources:
National Institutes of Health, http://stemcells.nhi.gov/research/intlresearch.asp
UK Stem Cell Initiative, http://www.advisorybodies.dho.gov.uk.uksci/
|
