Nano Outreach and Education in Ibero America

NanoDYF promotes nanoscience / nanotechnology outreach and education in Ibero America. The NanoDYF 2012 conference in Puebla, Mexico 2012 June 11 – 13, will draw together leaders in research, education, business, and politics to share discoveries and discuss objectives for this outreach. I will present on critical thinking about nanotechnology. More information is at http://www.nanodyf.org/ (use translate.Google.com if you don’t read Spanish). The NanoMex 2012 Conference runs immediately afterward, June 13 – 15, at the same location.

Buckyball Toy

Would you like a Buckyball model to hang from your ceiling? Trying to teach someone how hexagons and pentagons drive the shape of C₆₀? Would you like to see which size Buckyballs can form? Having trouble visualizing armchair and zig-zag carbon nanotubes? Would you like to let your mind wander while toying with shapes that carbon can form? About $3 lets you model a C₆₀. Buy 2 x $3 to model C₇₀, C₇₆, C₈₂, etc. Buy more to model carbon nanotubes.

These are not general purpose models. Each “carbon” is black plastic with 3 equally distributed bonding bumps in a plane and “bonds” are white plastic tubes that fit snugly over the bumps. One of the three bonds is an implied double bond, so if identifying it is important, a permanent marker is easiest. Spray-painting 1/3 of the tubes might look better. Diamond cannot be modeled with this kit, as it requires all four bonds exposed for tetrahedral bonding. Also, this kit is much smaller than the near-standard Prentice-Hall molecular modeling kits. It will not connect to those.

The model is easy to assemble, but holds together for hanging, handing around, or rolling on the floor. The least expensive I’ve found is at Suntekstore.com, which ships free out of Hong Kong. See here. If you would like to sponsor a school by providing a class-set of these kits, I would be happy to facilitate (aznar@foresight.org).

Swiss Children Learn Nano Fundamentals

The Switzerland-based Innovation Society has developed SimplyNano 1 (use translate.Google, if you don’t read German), an experiment kit being distributed to 7th – 10th grade classrooms in Switzerland. It focuses on nano dimensions, surfaces, and reactivity. It includes teaching guides plus materials to make a Lego + laser model of an atomic force microscope. Read a short article translated to English.

I have not received a kit yet, but if as good as it looks and priced reasonably, it could improve nano education in the US. When / if I can answer these questions in the affirmative, I will repost and welcome those who would like to sponsor a school for acquiring a set of these kits.

Miguel F. Aznar
Director of Education
Foresight Institute

A couple months ago we noted that Abundance, by Foresight Advisor Peter Diamandis and science writer Steven Kotler hit #1 on both Amazon and BarnesAndNoble. On Wednesday, April 11, Singularity University will present a live webcast with co-founder and chairman Peter H. Diamandis on Abundance:

Diamandis will present the case that the world is getting better at an accelerating rate through the convergence of four powerful forces: the exponential advancement of technology, DIY (Do It Yourself) innovators, Techno-philanthropists, and the Rising Billion, which, acting together, will create abundance in the areas of clean water, nutritious food, affordable housing, personalized education, top-tier global health care, and ubiquitous energy – helping to solve humanity’s biggest challenges.

Diamandis co-authored Abundance with award-winning technology writer Steven Kotler, bringing together decades of data and extensive interviews with hundreds of innovators and entrepreneurs, including Larry Page, Steven Hawking, Dean Kamen, Daniel Kahneman, Elon Musk, Bill Joy, Stewart Brand, Jeff Skoll, Ray Kurzweil, Ratan Tata, and Craig Venter.

The Wall Street Journal called Abundance “a manifesto for the future that is grounded in practical solutions.” The Economist Magazine said it was “a godsend for those who suffer from Armageddon fatigue!” Sir Richard Branson said: “Abundance provides proof that the proper combination of technology, people and capital can meet any grand challenge.”

Peter Diamandis co-founded Singularity University with Ray Kurzweil in 2008, and currently serves as its Chairman and a member of the Faculty. He is also Founder and Chairman of the X PRIZE Foundation, which leads the world in designing and launching large incentive prizes to drive radical breakthroughs in the areas of exploration, energy and environment, education, global development and life sciences. Diamandis is a leading speaker on innovation, counseling senior business leaders how to utilize exponential technologies and incentivized innovation to dramatically accelerate their business and career objectives. Dr. Diamandis earned a BS in molecular genetics and aerospace engineering from MIT, and an MD from Harvard Medical School. He is also known for “Peter’s Laws,” including “The best way to predict the future is to create it yourself!”

Webcast participation requires registration. Questions can be submitted in advance or during the webcast via Twitter (#whichwaynext).
—James Lewis, PhD

Carl Bass, successor to the successor to the successor to me as CEO of Autodesk got up in front of an audience and spoke on “The Five New Rules of Innovation” among which was nanoscale and bio-inspired structures.

Unlike when I did it all those many years ago, nobody giggled.

And they say there isn’t progress!

Video (17 minutes–the nano bit is short, but it’s there):

John Walker’s thoughts on nanotechnoloogy were published about 22 years ago in a Foresight Briefing “What Next? Nanotechnology for Manufacturing“. The definitive copy of this essay, with the complete set of illustrations, is available on John Walker’s Web site.

Since the dawn of humanity, a privileged few have lived in stark contrast to the hardscrabble majority. Conventional wisdom says this gap cannot be closed. But it is closing—fast. In Abundance, space entrepreneur turned innovation pioneer Peter H. Diamandis and award-winning science writer Steven Kotler document how progress in artificial intelligence, robotics, infinite computing, ubiquitous broadband networks, digital manufacturing, nanomaterials, synthetic biology, and many other exponentially growing technologies will enable us to make greater gains in the next two decades than we have in the previous two hundred years. We will soon have the ability to meet and exceed the basic needs of every man, woman, and child on the planet. Abundance for all is within our grasp. …

Providing abundance is humanity’s grandest challenge—this is a book about how we rise to meet it.

A preview of Chapter 1 and other information is available on the Abundance web site. Kudos to Diamandis and Kotler for showing why the future is brighter than it appears, and laying out a roadmap to get there.
—James Lewis

Our friends over at the Thiel Foundation asked us to help spread the word about their fellowship program, which offers $100,000 grants to innovators age 19 or younger.

If you know of a very bright, energetic, and visionary young person, please bring this opportunity to his or her attention.

Of course, here at Foresight we hope that your protege will work on nanotechnology, and the Thiel Foundation is very interested in this field, but the fellowships are available in a wide range of areas of endeavor.

Below is their message. Think of this as a potentially large holiday gift to the smartest teenager you know!

Another great holiday gift — to yourself and society at large — is your membership in Foresight Institute. Donate by December 31 and your gift will be matched:
http://www.foresight.org/challenge

Best wishes,

Foresight Institute

from the Thiel Foundation:

We’d like to tell you about the 20 Under 20 Thiel Fellowship, a no-strings-attached grant of $100,000 that lets extraordinary young adults skip college and focus on their work, their research, and their self-education. We are delighted to announce that our friends at the Thiel Foundation are now accepting applications for the 2012 class of Fellows.

The future will not take care of itself. Global prosperity is not inevitable. The world will only get better if visionary people are creative and relentless about solving hard problems.

The 2011 class of Thiel Fellows includes 24 people who are tackling breakthroughs in hardware and robotics, making energy plentiful, making markets more effective, challenging the notion that there is only one way to get an education, and extending the human lifespan. Several of them have already launched companies, secured financing, and won prestigious awards. As they’re demonstrating, you don’t need college to invent the future (you can read about their progress in a recent article in TechCrunch).

If you’re under twenty and love science or technology, we hope you’ll consider joining the 2012 class of fellows. Go to ThielFellowship.org and apply to change the world. There’s no cost to apply, and they’re accepting applications through December 31. Fellows will be appointed this spring and begin two-year fellowships this summer.

If you’re twenty or over, we have a different request. Think of the smartest, most creative person you know who’s 19 or younger. Sit down and talk with that person about her or his goals and interests. For some people, such as future doctors, the time and cost of four years of college may be worth it. But for those who plan to invent things or start companies, starting now may make more sense. If your friend is interested, you might suggest pursuing an innovation or applying to the Thiel Fellowship.

Millions of people enjoy a higher quality of life because smart people like Steve Jobs, Muriel Siebert, Benjamin Franklin, Mark Zuckerberg, and hundreds of others skipped college to start a project that couldn’t wait.

We hope you’ll help me spread the word about the Fellowship. The time for innovation is now.

Please visit ThielFellowship.org to learn more.

• What will be the next great revolution in the material basis of civilization?
• How can we establish reliable knowledge about key aspects of such technologies?

From the news release, aptly titled “The next technological revolution?“:

The key to tackling some of our planet’s greatest challenges may be found in the laws of physics and methods of engineering, as opposed to any specific technological innovation.

Speaking at the inaugural public lecture of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology, Dr Eric Drexler said there is a compelling case for the viability of atomically precise manufacturing. This is the process of building structures, tools and machines starting at the molecular level, with atomic precision, to address challenges such as rising greenhouse gases and energy production for our growing population.

In a talk entitled “Exploring a Timeless Landscape: Physical Law and the Future of Nanotechnology”, pioneering nanotechnology researcher Dr. Drexler invited the audience to consider the intriguing possibility of nano-level manufacture of macro-level products. Such a process, if achieved, would be the next great revolution in the material basis of civilization, offering high-performance components, materials or systems and accelerated productivity. …

Those who have read Drexler’s 1988 essay on exploratory engineering and the 2007 Technology Roadmap for Productive Nanosystems will be familiar with the main arguments presented in the talk. Dr. Drexler’s conclusions about the development of atomically precise manufacturing were:

• We now have ample scientific knowledge. Rather than additional breakthroughs we need component design.
• Molecular experiments are fast and inexpensive by ordinary engineering standards.
• Advances in fabrication methods will yield faster more predictable results, accelerating progress.

Dr. Drexler left the audience to consider whether the advent of atomically precise manufacturing meant that in preparing for the 21st century we should expect scarcity and conflict or something radically different, and whether we could change the conversation in the world about the future incrementally in a well-grounded way.

The Oxford Martin Programme has made the abstract available, which includes a link to a Youtube video of the lecture “Timeless Landscape: Physical Law and the Future of Nanotechnology“.

“Christine Peterson, president of the Foresight Institute based in Palo Alto, California, warns that without safeguards, the data we gather about each other might one day be used to undermine rather than to protect our freedom. ‘We are moving to a new level of data collection that our society is not accustomed to,’ she says.” …

“‘We need to look urgently at who is getting the data, what they are doing with it, what it does to our freedoms and whether the information can be abused,’ she says. ‘And we need to think about these things now.’”

Establishing standards now for current and near future widespread sensing based upon smart phones owned by individual members of the public will set precedence for considering the future in which MEMS and nanotechnology will make truly ubiquitous and thorough sensing inexpensive.

The clear winner with 3,097 votes — 35 per cent of the total — is Catherine McTeigue’s prediction of nanorobots that will repair cancerous cells:

Nanorobots fight the medical battles of the future

“Say the word “cancer” and people are fear-ridden. Projects being undertaken to harness nanotechnology and develop nanorobots to enter into the human body and repair cancerous cells, without the need for life-changing, disfiguring and painful chemotherapy, will have the greatest impact in the next 30 years. Watching loved ones suffer will be a thing of the past as the robots aid speedy recoveries, mortality rates drop, and as the technology is used more frequently, so will the cost, that oft deciding factor. An enormous step forwards for all mankind, in the form of a microscopic creature.”

The winning suggestion is a bit vague as to just what kind of medical nanorobots are envisioned. Recent posts (here, here, and here) suggest that near-term, incremental nanotechnology could be successful in curing cancer by selectively killing cancer cells while sparing normal cells. However, the phrase “repair cancerous cells” suggests advanced medical nanotechnology, of the type Freitas has proposed, that could be capable of molecular level repair of cells rather than necessarily killing cancerous cells. On the other hand, using near-term nanotechnology to deliver into cancer cells siRNA or miRNA to alter cellular gene expression might also make it possible to “repair cancerous cells”. The next poll we would like to see is something to the effect of “How do you think medical nanorobots will be developed over the next 30 years?”

…On the tree of robotic life, humanlike robots play a particularly valuable role. It makes sense. Humans are brilliant, beautiful, compassionate, loveable, and capable of love, so why shouldn’t we aspire to make robots humanlike in these ways? Don’t we want robots to have such marvelous capabilities as love, compassion, and genius?

Certainly robots don’t have these capacities yet, but only by striving towards such goals do we stand a chance of achieving them. In designing human-inspired robotics, we hold our machines to the highest standards we know–humanlike robots being the apex of bio-inspired engineering.

In the process, humanoid robots result in good science. They push the boundaries of biology, cognitive science, and engineering, generating a mountain of scientific publications in many fields related to humanoid robotics, including: computational neuroscience, A.I., speech recognition, compliant grasping and manipulation, cognitive robotics, robotic navigation, perception, and the integration of these amazing technologies within total humanoids. This integrative approach mirrors recent progress in systems biology, and in this way humanoid robotics can be considered a kind of meta-biology. They cross-pollinate among the sciences, and represent a subject of scientific inquiry themselves.…

Looking forward, we can find an additional moral prerogative in building robots in our image. Simply put: if we do not humanize our intelligent machines, then they may eventually be dangerous. To be safe when they “awaken” (by which I mean gain creative, free, adaptive general intelligence), then machines must attain deep understanding and compassion towards people. They must appreciate our values, be our friends, and express their feelings in ways that we can understand. Only if they have humanlike character, can there be cooperation and peace with such machines. It is not too early to prepare for this eventuality. That day when machines become truly smart, it will be too late to ask the machines to suddenly adopt our values. Now is the time to start raising robots to be kind, loving, and giving members of our human family.…

The problem of how to ensure friendly AI is important enough that it seems wise to investigate multiple paths toward that goal. Perhaps improving humanlike robots is one such path.

Do not rage against the machine. Embrace the machine.

That is the core message of Michio Kaku’s “Physics of the Future.” …

Nanotechnology will be at first rare and expensive and, by the end of the century, commonplace and cheap, largely fulfilling the predictions of pioneering scientists such as Richard Feynman and Eric Drexler. In a world where programmed molecular assembly powered by sunlight can produce almost anything out of raw materials, material wealth will be widespread. …

Prof. Reynolds agrees with Prof. Kaku’s “largely optimistic view” of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and the future overall, but points to one disturbing passage that concerns the present—not the future:

The most disturbing passage in “Physics of the Future” doesn’t concern the future; it’s about the present. In that passage, Mr. Kaku recounts a lunchtime conversation with physicist Freeman Dyson at Princeton. Mr. Dyson described growing up in the late days of the British Empire and seeing that most of his smartest classmates were not—as prior generations had been—interested in developing new forms of electrical and chemical plants, but rather in massaging and managing other people’s money. The result was a loss of England’s science and engineering base.

Now, Mr. Dyson said, he was seeing the phenomenon for the second time in his life, in America. Mr. Kaku, summarizing the scientist’s message: “The brightest minds at Princeton were no longer tackling the difficult problems in physics and mathematics but were being drawn into careers like investment banking. Again, he thought, this might be a sign of decay, when the leaders of a society can no longer support the inventions and technology that made their society great.”

The future belongs to those who show up. Mr. Kaku’s description of that future is an appealing one. But will we show up?

Is Prof. Dyson’s assessment an accurate description of the current state of Western civilization in general and the US in particular? My (thoroughly non-scientific and limited) casual observations suggest that it is. The workhorses of the scientific enterprise are postdoctoral research associates (and to a lesser extent, graduate students). When I began my research career in the early 70s most postdocs were American and most of the ones who were not were European. When I (briefly) attempted to get back into research last year nearly all the postdocs I saw were Asian (not Americans of Asian descent, but visitors from Asia). It is wonderful that American universities attract such talented, energetic visitors, but worrisome that we are no longer “growing our own”. Is the US making the necessary effort to “show up” for the future?