I have heard the arguments for decades. Twenty years ago I was fortunate to be a member of a committee reporting to government which unanimously concluded that the UK needed a central semiconductor research facility. The government did not like the message, disbanded the committee and set another to examine how to maximise the UK potential in electronics.

At the time, it seemed to me that I was a lone voice in saying that silicon would be the dominant technology for the foreseeable future, at least for twenty or thirty years. Those of similar vintage may recall that the government were listening to university researchers, particularly in the U.S., who were saying that "silicon would reach the end of the road by 2015".  Silicon is still the dominant technology and looks set to remain so for the next two decades. That is not to say it has had the field to itself. Developments have been significant in other areas, which have in the main increased the demand for silicon. GaN, for example, has excelled at making low energy light bulbs which silicon could never do, but each lamp needs a silicon power device or two or an I.C., or a combination, in a switching regulator. Other technologies have made high frequency design for mobile phones possible, but silicon computing power is still used in the cameras and phone systems.

The arguments expressed by university researchers were aimed, understandably, at protecting their facilities, but did not really help with maintaining silicon production. Even leaders in the UK industries at the time proffered a view that went along the lines that "the UK does not need to make DRAMs because [though making a penny a chip can make you a fortune] you only have to lose a penny a chip to lose a fortune". That seemed to be accompanied by an arrogance that "we can produce designers capable of developing ideas but can leave the manufacturing part to others" - meaning, we don't need to invest in large fabrication plants. Those sentiments have echos in the comments here. Today, larger populations in the U.S. and China, for example, would suggest that to be competitive is harder simply in terms of numbers of engineers available, though certainly a few decades ago, the UK was well able to hold its own.

If the UK is to become a serious player on the world stage it will need investment, and lots of it. Countries which have done well (China, Taiwan and Korea, to name a few) have had investements by their respective governments which put UK efforts into the shade. On the countrary, the UK has been happy to see what we had sold to foreign owners. 

Silicon could still be a technology to invest in. But it really is less important than answering the fundamental questions of "what is the overall aim?" and "will the investment be adequate?". In silicon, to compete in the chip area would now mean a catch-up as we are several generations behind. State of the art IC fabrication is almost ten times smaller than UK last had. Even in the discrete business, where there was even more disdain for the technology, power devices are needed at the end of the system design for controlling motors in EV's for instance.

It is well beyond time that the government paid serious attention to the needs of technologies in future. If we are to continue to hold a place in the world of manufacturing, or leadership even, the new technologies of renewable energy and energy efficiency are likely to become critical. It will need more than a promise to invest, but a proper road map and funding to achieve.

I have heard the arguments for decades. Twenty years ago I was fortunate to be a member of a committee reporting to government which unanimously concluded that the UK needed a central semiconductor research facility. The government did not like the message, disbanded the committee and set another to examine how to maximise the UK potential in electronics.

At the time, it seemed to me that I was a lone voice in saying that silicon would be the dominant technology for the foreseeable future, at least for twenty or thirty years. Those of similar vintage may recall that the government were listening to university researchers, particularly in the U.S., who were saying that "silicon would reach the end of the road by 2015".  Silicon is still the dominant technology and looks set to remain so for the next two decades. That is not to say it has had the field to itself. Developments have been significant in other areas, which have in the main increased the demand for silicon. GaN, for example, has excelled at making low energy light bulbs which silicon could never do, but each lamp needs a silicon power device or two or an I.C., or a combination, in a switching regulator. Other technologies have made high frequency design for mobile phones possible, but silicon computing power is still used in the cameras and phone systems.

The arguments expressed by university researchers were aimed, understandably, at protecting their facilities, but did not really help with maintaining silicon production. Even leaders in the UK industries at the time proffered a view that went along the lines that "the UK does not need to make DRAMs because [though making a penny a chip can make you a fortune] you only have to lose a penny a chip to lose a fortune". That seemed to be accompanied by an arrogance that "we can produce designers capable of developing ideas but can leave the manufacturing part to others" - meaning, we don't need to invest in large fabrication plants. Those sentiments have echos in the comments here. Today, larger populations in the U.S. and China, for example, would suggest that to be competitive is harder simply in terms of numbers of engineers available, though certainly a few decades ago, the UK was well able to hold its own.

If the UK is to become a serious player on the world stage it will need investment, and lots of it. Countries which have done well (China, Taiwan and Korea, to name a few) have had investements by their respective governments which put UK efforts into the shade. On the countrary, the UK has been happy to see what we had sold to foreign owners. 

Silicon could still be a technology to invest in. But it really is less important than answering the fundamental questions of "what is the overall aim?" and "will the investment be adequate?". In silicon, to compete in the chip area would now mean a catch-up as we are several generations behind. State of the art IC fabrication is almost ten times smaller than UK last had. Even in the discrete business, where there was even more disdain for the technology, power devices are needed at the end of the system design for controlling motors in EV's for instance.

It is well beyond time that the government paid serious attention to the needs of technologies in future. If we are to continue to hold a place in the world of manufacturing, or leadership even, the new technologies of renewable energy and energy efficiency are likely to become critical. It will need more than a promise to invest, but a proper road map and funding to achieve.