Russia's Crash Nano Program

Michael Berger, our friendly colleague over at Nanowerk, has done a brilliant job of reviewing and analyzing Russia's nanotechnology crash program:

In terms of gross domestic product (GDP), Russia ranks as the eleventh largest economy in the world. But while many smaller countries such as Australia or South Korea, not to mention all of the bigger nations, have invested steadily and broadly in all areas of nanosciences and nanotechnologies for years now, Russia has had no coordinated science policy, no industrial policy, and no commercial industrial base to develop its nanotechnology capabilities. Until last year, that is. In April 2007, the Russian president signed off on a public policy paper that ordered a multi-billion dollar program to develop a world-class Russian nanotechnology industry by 2015.

That's just one paragraph from Michael's content-rich but succinct description of how Russia stands compared to the rest of the world, and where they aim to go over the next several years:

The approach that Russia has chosen rests largely on a central organization -- the Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies (Rusnano).

According to Rusnano's business strategy document (pdf download, 1.3 MB), the Corporation's mission is to "implement public policy with the purpose of Russia’s joining the number of the world leaders in the field of nanotechnology." Although it intends to cooperate with other Russian economic development organizations such as the Investment fund of the Russian Federation, the Development and Foreign Economic Activity Bank, the Joint Stock Company 'Special Economic Zones, or the Russian Venture Company, Rusnano is intended to be the central organization for all nanotechnology related developments.

Interestingly, although the country lacks a broad and developed nanoscience research infrastructure, Rusnano's self-declared major priority is a commercial focus on investment projects and it mentions these industries as core: aerospace, rocket and space, nuclear, and energy.

From CRN's perspective, we are most interested in watching for signs of -- or open announcements about -- a plan to develop molecular manufacturing.

In May of 2007, Vladimir Putin, then President (and still de facto leader) of Russia, was quoted as saying:

"A program for the development of nanotechnology must be put in place in Russia in the near future." And he reportedly added, "Russia's economic potential has been restored, the possibilities for major scientific research are opening up. The concentration of our resources should stimulate the development of new technologies in our country. This will be key also from the point of view of the creation of the newest modern and super-effective weapons systems."

But that's not all. Putin also said this:

"Our resources should be concentrated on stimulating the development of new technology. This could be the key to developing new, modern, and effective military systems. Nanotechnology is an activity for which this government will not spare money."

All this discussion of new weapons systems makes us uneasy, especially in light of previous rhetoric from India's former President Abdul Kalam, in which he asserted that nanotechnology "would revolutionize the total concepts of future warfare." An arms race built around nano-enabled weapons, which has long been one of CRN's major concerns, seems even more likely now than before.

But the question remains: will any Russian scientists pursue molecular manufacturing with a portion of the funding they might now receive? There is still no indication of immediate plans to go in that direction, but we would expect that much of the work they'll do will be useful as enabling steps toward MM. And it would not surprise us if in a few years a group decides to put those projects together and make a push toward atomically-precise exponential manufacturing.

It will almost certainly happen somewhere, whether in the United States, Russia, Japan, South Korea, China, Singapore, India, Europe, or elsewhere. The issue is not if, but when; not whether, but where. 

Mike Treder