thielfellowship.org

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/business/the-thiel-fellows-forgoing-college-to-pursue-dreams.html

http://www.hulu.com/20-under-20-transforming-tomorrow

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.

Hope to see you there!  —Christine Peterson, President, Foresight Institute

A decade ago, University of Oregon chemist James E. Hutchison wrote an invited article in Chemical & Engineering News in which he envisioned “a generalized roadmap for the future design and development of green nanoscience materials.”

That roadmap has grown up and is now in front of chemistry leaders worldwide with the publication of “Green Nanotechnology Challenges and Opportunities.” The new “white paper” on the potential of incorporating benign chemistry practices was co-written by Hutchison. The American Chemical Society’s Green Chemistry Institute issued the document, which is freely available at www.acs.org/greenreport.

…

“The roots of green nano are really deep here in Oregon,” said Hutchison, who holds the Lokey-Harrington Chair in Chemistry at the UO. “This report mirrors the strategy that we have had for several years now. This is the way that things are going to be done. The report addresses the need for commercialization, for new policies — a new science for addressing our societal needs. It’s been 10 years in coming, but we are at the table now.”

The report outlines the promise of green nanotechnology, which promotes the design of useful particles thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair in a way that reduces or eliminates waste or the production of hazardous substances. It also spells out what actions need to be undertaken by the various stakeholders, Hutchison said.

When successfully implemented, green nanotechnology could lead to a revitalized and sustainable U.S. chemical and materials manufacturing base, the white paper says. Nanoparticles could well find their ways into medicine, electronics, energy production and other industries.

“Green Nanotechnology Challenges and Opportunities” presents examples of both encouraging success in meeting the challenges of near-term nanoparticle development and reasons for concern that inept government regulation will retard progress.

A solid success is the development of sensitive assays for the biological effects of nanoparticle to be used to guide research and development of nanoparticles for applications. The combination of the embryonic zebrafish model with precisely engineered gold nanoparticles means that the effect of specific changes to charge, surface chemistry, and particle size can be investigated for subtle biological effects.

An example of the challenges yet to be overcome is the case of Dune Sciences. This company licensed a promising nanotechnnology innovation to permanently attach silver nanoparticles to surfaces so that commercial antimicrobial applications of silver nanoparticles could be developed without the worry of potentially toxic silver nanoparticles escaping into the environment. Unfortunately no path could be found through the EPA regulatory maze to register the product, despite the evident fact that the proposed product was safer than what was already on the market. This impasse prevented the company from securing funding and necessitated putting development of the product on hold.

The report also presents a brief analysis of the different barriers to developing nanotechnology in the US and in China that is worth a look.

Given Foresight’s interest in the long-term development of atomically precise productive nanosystems as a future manufacturing technology, with both its much greater potential benefits and its potentially more complex regulatory issues, the path forward being blazed by green nanotechnology is worth following.

See this page for schedule and link: http://foresight.org/reunion/schedule.html

It’s free so please have patience if we run into any technical difficulties.

You can try sending questions to speakers by using this Twitter tag (though in-person participants get first priority): #foresight2011

Next time we hope to see you in person!

As I write this, late conference registration is still open: http://www.eventbee.com/v/foresightinstitute/event?eid=890000225

(And note, the Friday evening no-host reception is open to all.)

—Chris Peterson

…Intel CEO Paul Otellini has said “it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip, and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States.” He has also said that not long ago “our research centers were without peer. No country was more attractive for start-up capital. We seemed a generation ahead of the rest of the world in information technology. That simply is no longer the case.”

Capital markets (and with them our leadership in IPOs) are fleeing the U.S., with the latest development being the acquisition of the NYSE by Deutsche Börse. Having learned nothing from the impact of punishing the innocent with Sarbanes-Oxley, Congress has unleashed an open-ended rulemaking frenzy under Dodd-Frank. Who knows what that will bring, but it’s a safe bet it will work out well for large organizations like GE while entrepreneurs and real innovators are losers again. And as always, tighter environmental regulations and data requirements are promised (ostensibly to ‘crack down’ on polluters, though the more likely result is that better replacement innovations simply won’t even be attempted). …

So despite the Einsteinian insanity of arguing yet again for sensible innovation policy, let’s connect all of this with why nanotechnology (other than via Moore’s Law, a battery, three protein/liposome/polymer cancer drugs, and some low-impact consumer applications) has not yet lived up to its hype, at least as measured by venture capital investment, successful investor exits (A123 and ???) and high-wage job creation in the U.S. (A123 and ???). …

Except for the biggest and lowest risk opportunities (e.g. better drop-in replacement batteries with one new component, blockbuster drugs) the process can’t even get going when small companies have to pay big company prices for regulatory compliance to access a small initial opportunity (consistent with limited ability to ramp production), and both investors and customers find the cost, risk and uncertainty hurdles too high to overcome. This is compounded by the worsening U.S. environment for startups and investors. It is small wonder, really, that the two-year old ‘recovery’ certainly doesn’t feel like one in the hardware/materials manufacturing sector.

But nanotechnology and nanomaterials, along with the production techniques to deliver them, are still new compared to the chemical industry, and there is still hope that badly needed societal innovation might occur in support of enabling their economic and social benefits. One thing that is clearly required is a far more enabling regime for startups and low-volume first applications. One possible scenario for this is a fast-track, light-regulatory-touch path for green nanotechnology: nanomaterials and nanomanufacturing developments conducted according to the principles of green chemistry. Another way to say this is safe-by-design (to the extent possible, based on what we know) products produced by green-by-design manufacturing processes.

Progress has been made on this vision, and we’re ready to discuss concrete criteria for what constitutes green nanotechnology, standard/simplified characterization protocols and enabling policies. And that’s exactly what we intend to do at GN11, Greener Nano 2011, May 2-3 at Hewlett-Packard’s Cupertino site in the heart of Silicon Valley. We’re assembling a great program and attendance of the right people and organizations to “Advance Applications and Reduce Risks” – including the risk of not innovating in the first place.

There is no time to lose, because other countries (especially in Asia) seem determined to win the opportunity to lead in 21st century manufacturing.

Skip Rung is certainly addressing an important problem. As someone who has followed nanotechnology closely since 1986, I have to say that, despite substantial advancements in nanoscience and nanotechnology, progress has been disappointing in two areas: (1) there has not been major investment in developing advanced nanotechnology (high throughput productive nanosytems) based on the Feynman vision as articulated by Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle, and Robert Freitas; (2) advances in nanotechnology have not launched a large and rapidly growing nanotechnology industry in the way that advances in semiconductor manufacturing and integrated circuits launched the computer industry. A vibrant industry focused on near- and intermediate-term applications advances the technology base needed to develop advanced applications. Many early nanotechnology enthusiasts were drawn from the computer industry because they perceived the possibility of a parallel course for nanotechnology development. However, the anemic growth we have witnessed in nanotechnology reminds me more of the biotech industry. When I was in the early phase of my career as a molecular biology researcher 35 years ago, the development of recombinant DNA technology inspired the hope that learning to produce in bacteria otherwise difficult or impossible to obtain molecules like interferons would launch a huge biotech industry that would rival the size and importance of the computer industry. Actual growth, while real, was much more modest because it turned out we had only scratched the surface of the necessary underlying science. The immune system was much more complicated than we realized, the genome was a vast, unexplored frontier, and the existence of such crucial phenomena as epigenetic regulation and RNA interference was unsuspected. Has the growth of the nanotechnology industry been slow because we are still as ignorant of nanoscience as we were of biology in 1976? Or is Skip Rung correct that government policies are at fault? There are clearly significant environmental, health, and safety issues with some nanomaterials that need to be managed so that we do not create a public relations nightmare for the fledgling nanotechnology industry. Can government provide necessary regulation without strangling innovation?

Today, Research and Science Education Subcommittee Chairman Dan Lipinski (IL-03) expressed his strong support for the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s draft Strategic Plan, in particular its focus on ensuring that America’s substantial investment in nanotech research and development is turned into new companies, products, and jobs.

“I firmly believe that nanotechnology has enormous potential to create domestic jobs, and as a result I strongly support the draft strategy’s emphasis on technology transfer and commercialization,” Congressman Lipinski stated in a letter to John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. “Over the past decade the NNI agencies have invested billions of dollars in nanotech research, and as a result we have seen tremendous advancements in materials science and engineering. But we cannot afford to let these discoveries follow the unfortunate pattern of American innovations turning into products manufactured in China or Japan. The proposals in this draft are a good first step toward avoiding this problem and creating the kind of good-paying high-tech jobs we need.”

Nanotechnology has the potential to have a transformative effect on numerous fields, and in some cases is already beginning to realize that potential. In medicine, it could lead to devices able to detect cancer in its early stages. In the clean energy industry, it is reducing the cost of solar panels and increasing the efficiency of batteries for alternative-fuel vehicles. In information technology, it is needed to enable continued increases in processor speeds. And in manufacturing, exceptionally strong, light, and durable nanomaterials can be used to improve existing products and create new ones. Nanotechnology involves manipulating materials as small as a single nanometer. A sheet of paper is about 100,000 nanometers thick.

In his letter, Congressman Lipinski commends the draft Strategic Plan’s proposal to double federal investment in nanomanufacturing research and increase public-private partnerships that can boost commercialization. In addition, he applauds the plan’s three Signature Initiatives, especially the sustainable nanomanufacturing initiative. Since nanotechnology’s promise can only be fulfilled if suitable manufacturing processes are developed, this initiative aims to develop industrial-scale, safe, and environmentally sustainable methods for manufacturing nanodevices for a variety of applications.

“After a decade that saw American manufacturers shed 5.6 million jobs, we must seize the opportunity to revitalize this critical sector by translating nanotechnology research into jobs and economic growth,” Congressman Lipinski said. “In my home state of Illinois, research performed at the state’s eight NNI-supported Centers of Excellence has helped lead to a variety of startups with names like Nanosphere, Nanophase, NanoInk, and Nanotope. But there’s no doubt we need to accelerate commercialization, and I’m pleased that the Strategic Plan takes that obligation seriously. With the right vision and the right execution, I’m convinced nanotechnology will be the foundation of the next industrial revolution.”

One of the few members of Congress who holds an engineering degree, Congressman Lipinski wrote a bill reauthorizing the National Science Foundation; cosponsored and helped pass in the House last year the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act, which would have reauthorized the NNI; and this year helped pass in the House the America COMPETES Act, which includes both pieces of legislation. He is also a strong supporter of domestic manufacturing, having authored the National Manufacturing Strategy Act, H.R. 4692, which passed the House in July with bipartisan support.

The NNI coordinates nanotech research across 25 federal agencies and has helped create a network of state-of-the-art nanoscale research centers. It is required to produce periodic Strategic Plans outlining its vision, goals, and R&D investment strategy.

(December 6, 2010)

December 1, 2010 • 2:00 p.m. ET

More than 2,500 products based on nanotechnology have made it to the market. Which companies have the breakthroughs to drive forward during the recovery? This talk will highlight several examples you may not be following. …

Speaker: David Keenan
David Keenan is a chemical engineer with advanced training in management of technology. Following his career at 3M, Sheldahl and Goodrich, he served as CEO of Nanoscience Technologies Inc., a New York-based startup pursuing commercialization of structural DNA nanotechnology based on the research and patents developed by Nadrian Seeman, PhD, and his group at NYU. Currently, Keenan is president of Small Technology Consulting where he works with clients to develop technology and market assessments in micro and nanotechnology.

Those attracted to the idea of Open Science may also want to check out the web site for Open Access Week, just ending. From the web site:

Open Access Week, a global event now entering its fourth year, is an opportunity for the academic and research community to continue to learn about the potential benefits of Open Access, to share what they’ve learned with colleagues, and to help inspire wider participation in helping to make Open Access a new norm in scholarship and research.

“Open Access” to information – the free, immediate, online access to the results of scholarly research, and the right to use and re-use those results as you need – has the power to transform the way research and scientific inquiry are conducted. It has direct and widespread implications for academia, medicine, science, industry, and for society as a whole.

Open Access (OA) has the potential to maximize research investments, increase the exposure and use of published research, facilitate the ability to conduct research across available literature, and enhance the overall advancement of scholarship. Research funding agencies, academic institutions, researchers and scientists, teachers, students, and members of the general public are supporting a move towards Open Access in increasing numbers every year. Open Access Week is a key opportunity for all members of the community to take action to keep this momentum moving forward.

On a purely personal note, French statesman Georges Clemenceau is reputed to have said something like “War is too important to be left to the generals.” Having watched progress in nanotechnology and artificial general intelligence since 1986, I am inclined to agree with the open science movement that progress in science in general, and nanotechnology and AGI in particular, is too important to be left solely to the professionals and the governments and large corporations that fund them.

Humanity+ @ Caltech
December 4-5, 2010
Redefining Humanity in the Era of Radical Technological Change
Pasadena, CA

Several times a year, Humanity+, the world’s leading nonprofit for the ethical use of technology, holds conferences about the sciences, technologies and social issues concerning the future. Past Humanity+ conferences have taken place in Cambridge, Massachusetts at Harvard University and Irvine, California. Our next conference, Humanity+ @ Caltech, will take place on December 4-5th (Saturday-Sunday) at Caltech in Pasadena, California.

Speakers will include many of the top visionaries and leaders of the transhumanist community, as well as new voices from the worlds of science, art, media and business.

The Humanity+ @ Caltech program will be divided into four main sessions, each one of which will cover a key area of transhumanist thought:

• Re-Imagining Humans: Mind, Media and Methods (Saturday morning)
• Radically Increasing the Human Healthspan (Saturday afternoon)
• Redefining Intelligence: Artificial Intelligence, Intelligence Enhancement and Substrate-Independent Minds (Sunday morning)
• Business and Economy in the Era of Radical Technomorphosis (Sunday afternoon)

For information about registration: http://humanityplus10.eventbrite.com/