The potential of graphene could be huge, but the reality at
present is that we simply do not know the full range of uses to which this
revolutionary new material could be turned. This super-thin ultra-conductive material
stronger than diamond was first synthesised at The University of Manchester in
2004 through pioneering work carried out by Russian research scientists Andrei
Geim and Konstantin Novosolev. As with many innovations in the past, it may
have originated in Britain (albeit in this case largely as a consequence of the
talents and research interests of two Russian expatriates), but it would seem
that we are failing to capitalise upon the technological and economic
possibilities of a revolutionary innovation, whilst other nations lead the way.
According to figures compiled by CambridgeIP, China leads
the field in terms of patents taken out on graphene, with almost 41 times the
number than taken out in the UK: 2,204 compared to a lowly 54. The US is second
on the list, with a considerable 1,754, whereas South Korea comes in at third
place with a far from negligible 1,160. China’s willingness to explore and use
cutting-edge technologies is clearly displayed in these figures, as is its
economic and, increasingly, intellectual challenge to the US. The figure
associated with patents originating in the UK is feeble considering that the
pioneering work was undertaken in Manchester, and begs us to ask why there has
been such a failure to utilise this head start to the national advantage.
George Osborne may have pledged £60 million in government funding for graphene
research and BP may have announced its intent to create what is quoted by the BBC as “a world centre for graphene research”, but can this really enable us to
make up the lost ground and catch up with more canny competitors who, in the
case of the East Asian nations (amongst which we can include Singapore) have
their eyes set on the long-term, rather than the short-term investment
priorities that we apparently have absorbed from the ailing hegemon across the
Atlantic?
Although the US has suffered a great deal of
deindustrialisation, it still has some powerful domestically-based
transnational corporations (TNCs) which are global leaders in technology
capable of stumping up the funds required for researching the commercial
possibilities of new technologies and materials, but even so, their priorities
are short-term compared to those of what many have termed the “Confucian
developmental state”, into which can be bracketed, despite their individual
characteristics, China, South Korea and Singapore. The East Asian approach to
economics and investment in science is driven by the long view, and not demands
for immediate returns. We would do well to move a little closer towards their
perspective, and further from the American one.
South Korea’s largest chaebol – Samsung – holds a mighty 407
graphene patents, and it is sure to put them to good commercial use. A new
generation of ultralight and flexible smartphones has been touted as one of its
first widespread prospective uses. What a pity it is that no company in this
country took up this idea with a view to transforming it into a globally
popular product! It is in the development and utilisation of such new materials
and technologies – not to mention new sources of energy – that will ultimately
drive economic renewal in our country if we are to ever experience it, not in
an overreliance upon the inflated financial services sector. We need to provide
incentives for investment in a new industrial revolution which will fund the
pensions and social services of tomorrow, for we have little to fund them with
at present. One of the major reasons that we have lagged behind competitors in
the exploitation of graphene is perhaps the fact that we now possess such a
denuded base of domestic capital and so few large domestic corporations capable
of funding and utilising the research that is required.
The globalists of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal
Democratic parties may trumpet the glories of open markets, but with nothing to
sell, who ultimately benefits? Globalism is bankrupt, as is the current
economic strategy that focuses upon the short term and the undermining of the
accumulation of domestic capital. In this respect, we must not look to America
for inspiration for our economic model, for continuing to ape the US will bring
us further ruin. We need an economic vision and industrial strategy that looks
to the next 50-100 years and beyond, not just to the next General Election. Our
current political parties are not fit to deliver such an approach, so we must
create a party that is capable of doing so.
