Quantifying the Nanotechnology Workforce: Methods, Barriers & Estimates

Stacey Frederick, Research ScientistCenter on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness (CGGC), Duke

Center for Nanotechnology in Society, UCSB

Rachel Parker, Program ManagerUnited States Agency for International Development

Washington, D.C.

SASE Annual Meeting: Milan, ItalyJune 28, 2013

The Promise of Nanotechnology Increasing emphasis placed on importance of

emerging technologies to economic growth and development.

Various reports suggest that the U.S. can maintain its leadership role in nanotechnology through an emphasis on manufacturing and the commercial deployment of nanotechnology enabled products.

Nanotechnology advocates have made optimistic claims regarding the potential of nanotechnology to create up to 7 million jobs

NNI’s Four Primary Goals1. To advance world-class nanotechnology R&D2. To foster the transfer of new technologies into

products for commercial and public benefit 3. To develop and sustain educational resources, a

skilled workforce and the supporting infrastructure and tools to advance nanotechnology

4. To support the responsible development of nanotechnology

President’s Council of Advisors on S&T (PCAST) PCAST calls for the National Nanotechnology

Coordinating Office to work with others in the Federal Government to enumerate and collect underlying data needed for the development of workforce metrics. Specifically call for the “quantification of the nanotechnology workforce.”

“Good data on the workforce will enable the implementation of additional measures to identify and mitigate further threats to occupational health and safety.”

PCAST, Cont. Report alludes to hurdles in such a characterization. “Accurately categorizing agency-level nanotechnology

investments will facilitate the identification of nanotechnology trainees, including the academic, scientific, and professional nanotechnology workforce for which there is currently a paucity of data. One area where such tracking would have significant impact is in the identification of nanotechnology-related jobs for which there are no standard occupational codes.”

National Academies NAS echoes PCAST, suggesting that the NNCO reformulate

existing working groups to focus on “facility oversight and coordination and education and workforce development.” (NAS 2013)

Further echo PCASTs call for metrics, saying “NNI reports include anecdotal evidence of research that has been incorporated into products, but little is known about where students go after graduation or about whether and what kinds of barriers stand in the way of nanotechnology commercialization. The data sets called for in the present report include information related to workforce and technology-transfer activities” (NAS 2013).

NAS, cont. NAS goes further, pointing to “lost opportunities” in dearth of data being

collected, however proposed metrics still not enough: NNI-funded projects, including such information as researcher name and

affiliation, funding agency and amount, and abstract. 1. Published documents arising from NNI activities. 2. Data related to impact, including frequently cited and downloaded papers

and patents, invited presentations, special sessions at conferences, and reports in the mass media.

3. Number of students supported. 4. User facility and network use. 5. Data related to technology transfer, including details of meetings,

workshops, and conferences, and sessions in conferences. 6. Data related to education and outreach, including workshops, activities

aimed at K-12 students, and museum exhibits. 7. U.S.-based nanotechnology job advertisements. 8. NNI-related communications about environmental, health, safety, and

societal implications of nanotechnology, such as NIOSH guidance regarding nanomaterials in the workplace.

Nanotechnology Employment Estimates

• Existing estimates are often not accompanied by a methodology or are based on broad estimations.

• Early global nanotechnology employment projections made a decade ago for 2015 ranged from 2 million to 10 million (Roco 2003; Lux 2004).

Scope Year Employment Includes SourcesGlobal 2010 600,000 Researchers & Workers (Roco, 2011)

USA 2010 190,000 (Average) 160,000-220,000 (Range) Researchers & Workers (Invernizzi, 2011; Roco, 2011)

USA 2013 23,443 Researcher/Professional (LinkedIn Corporation, 2013)

CA 2007 11,810 (Average) 4,115-19,504 (Range) Researchers & Workers (CCST, 2010)

CA 2015 (Projection)

145,000 (Average)90,000-200,000 (Range) Researchers & Workers

(CCST, 2010); based on USestimate of 900,000 by 2015 (Roco, 2002)

CA 2011 67,000 (Average) Researchers & Workers 2007 & 2015 Avg. Annualized to 2011 (CCST, 2010)

CA 2010 33,000 (Average) Researchers & Workers CCST (2010) method using 2010 estimates of 160-220,000 (above)

Difficulty in Estimating Nanotechnology- as an enabling technology is

amorphous and as such, difficult to categorically include or exclude.

Classifications for nanotechnology-related products and companies are not well delineated.

Firms are also not required to disclose activities or products that involve materials on the nanoscale

Finally, depending on where in the supply chain is targeted, the decision to include or exclude a product or company as “doing nanotechnology” varies significantly.

This Research: Broad & Focused ApproachBroad ApproachApplied to: United States

Focused ApproachApplied to: California

Estimate the total number of workers employed by firms and organizations purportedly engaged in some degree of nano-related development.

Estimate the ‘nano’ portion of total employment

California accounts for largest share of nano activity in the United States

Research Objectives: Develop a repeatable methodology to estimate the U.S. nano

workforce based on a defensible database of nano stakeholders Apply the method to provide estimates of the workforce

Methodology Part 1: Determine Nano Population Meta database created with individual nano datasets of

varying scope and size Merged and cleaned to create a master file with

information for each location Total number of individual datasets included: 16

Woodrow Wilson Center, Plunkett, Lux, NanoVIP, Nanowerk, CADTSC and NSTI (California only)

General business data collected from Hoovers & websites Key variable used: employment

Methodology Part 2: Define Scope & Value Chain Positions

Firms Total: 1,437

SupportingOrganizationsTotal: 603

Methodology Part 3: Focus Areas

Focused approach: only for California Focus area: degree to which a stakeholder appears to be

focused on nano-related activities Apply percentages to total employment

Nano-specific: 100% Partial Nano-specific: 50% Micro- and Nano-specific: 50% Not Nano-Specific: 0%

Subjective, yet important step towards accurate estimates

Broad Approach: United StatesFirm Results Employees at firm locations (n = 1,437): 283,000 employees Top three NAICS codes at three-digit level: 60% of total

Computer & Electronic Product Manufacturing (334): 23% Professional, Scientific & Technical Services (541): 23% Chemical Manufacturing (325): 15%

Top five states based on number of firm locations account for 52% of all U.S. locations and 49% of employment: California, Massachusetts, New York, Texas & Pennsylvania

Broad Approach: United StatesSupporting Organization Results

Calculated California’s average and median employment by support organization category to generate U.S. estimates California locations: 137 (23% of US total); Employees: 27,427

U.S. Total (firm and support): 322,000 – 419,000

Support Group CategoryU.S. Employment Estimates

Based on California’s:Median Average

Research Centers/Organizations 29,837 113,179

Industry Associations 1,463 2,032Labs & Testing Facilities 4,681 15,822Service Providers 2,439 4,433Investors 899 861Estimate Range 39,000 136,000

36%

19%

19%

16%

10%

Share of Locations by Category (n=603)

ResearchOrganizationsIndustryAssociationsLabs & TestingFacilitiesService Providers

Investors

Focused Approach: California Firm Results California total firm:

Locations: 361 Employment: 67,665

Majority partly focused on nano (79%)

18% of locations, yet only 2% of employees , appear to be entirely focused on developing or manufacturing nano-related products or tools

18%2%

45%68%

34%27%

3% 3%

Locations Employees

Nano-Specific Partial Nano

Micro & Nano Not Nano

Above: Share of CA Firm Locations & Emp. by Focus Area

Focused Approach: California Employment Results by Focus Area

Focus AreaNano Employment

Support Firm TotalTotals 13,677 33,482 47,158Nano-Specific (100%) 370 1,299 1,669Partial Nano-Specific (50%) 12,743 23,023 35,766Micro & Nano-Specific (50%) 564 9,160 9,723Not Nano-Specific (0%) -- -- --

• Results using data from this research are in line with estimates made in the California Council on Science & Technology (CCST) 2010 report on Nanotechnology in California for the number of workers in California.

• Non-Farm Employment in California (April 2013): 14,602,200• Our Results: Nano Employees Share: Focused & Broad Approach: 0.3% - 0.7%

Comparison: Nano Researcher & Worker Estimates (2010-12)Existing: 2010/2011 This research: 2011/2012

United States: 160-220,000

California: 33,000-67,000

U.S. Broad Total: 322 – 419,000 U.S. Focused Total (Est.): 161-210,000 California Total: 95,092 California Focused Total: 47,158

• Conclusions: this research provides• Estimates of the U.S. and California nano workforce• A framework and scope for describing the nanotechnology economy• A database of stakeholders that can be used as a basis for tracking and

developing future estimates• A repeatable methodology for estimating the nanotech workforce

Limitations / Future ResearchLimitations Future Research

Employment estimates are only as good as estimates of nano stakeholder population Estimates dependent on firm

disclosure of nano-related activities

Without survey or US Census micro data, employment estimates are dependent on secondary sources

Expand, update and improve nano population estimates SBIR/STTR funding data Primary data collection

Expand focused methodology to other U.S. states and refine the % and categories

Estimates nano workforce supply and demand and job profiles Graduate data LinkedIn Job listings