…
In what fields would APM cause the most pronounced economic disruption and the collapse of global supply chains to more local chains?

The digital revolution had far-reaching effects on information industries. APM-based production promises to have similarly far-reaching effects, but transposed into the world of physical products. In thinking about implications for international trade and economic organization, three aspects should be kept in mind: a shift from scarce to common raw materials, a shift from long supply chains to more direct paths from raw materials to finished products, and a shift toward flexible, localized manufacturing based on production systems with capabilities that are comparable on-demand printing. This is enough to at least suggest the scope of the changes to expect from a mature form of APM-based production — which again is a clear prospect but emphatically not around the corner.
…

-Posted by Stephanie C

Image courtesy of Oregon State University

Nanomedicine will make major contributions to health care not only by providing new and improved therapies, but by providing new diagnostic methods that will be faster and less expensive than currently available procedures. A hat tip to KurzweilAI News for reprinting this news release from Oregon State University “Nanotube technology leading to fast, lower-cost medical diagnostics“:

Researchers at Oregon State University have tapped into the extraordinary power of carbon “nanotubes” to increase the speed of biological sensors, a technology that might one day allow a doctor to routinely perform lab tests in minutes, speeding diagnosis and treatment while reducing costs.

The new findings have almost tripled the speed of prototype nano-biosensors, and should find applications not only in medicine but in toxicology, environmental monitoring, new drug development and other fields.

The research was just reported in Lab on a Chip [abstract], a professional journal. More refinements are necessary before the systems are ready for commercial production, scientists say, but they hold great potential.

“With these types of sensors, it should be possible to do many medical lab tests in minutes, allowing the doctor to make a diagnosis during a single office visit,” said Ethan Minot, an OSU assistant professor of physics. “Many existing tests take days, cost quite a bit and require trained laboratory technicians.

“This approach should accomplish the same thing with a hand-held sensor, and might cut the cost of an existing $50 lab test to about $1,” he said.

The key to the new technology, the researchers say, is the unusual capability of carbon nanotubes. An outgrowth of nanotechnology, which deals with extraordinarily small particles near the molecular level, these nanotubes are long, hollow structures that have unique mechanical, optical and electronic properties, and are finding many applications.

In this case, carbon nanotubes can be used to detect a protein on the surface of a sensor. The nanotubes change their electrical resistance when a protein lands on them, and the extent of this change can be measured to determine the presence of a particular protein – such as serum and ductal protein biomarkers that may be indicators of breast cancer.

The newest advance was the creation of a way to keep proteins from sticking to other surfaces, like fluid sticking to the wall of a pipe. By finding a way to essentially “grease the pipe,” OSU researchers were able to speed the sensing process by 2.5 times.

Further work is needed to improve the selective binding of proteins, the scientists said, before it is ready to develop into commercial biosensors.

“Electronic detection of blood-borne biomarker proteins offers the exciting possibility of point-of-care medical diagnostics,” the researchers wrote in their study. “Ideally such electronic biosensor devices would be low-cost and would quantify multiple biomarkers within a few minutes.”

The above news item indicates not only how nanotechnology is going to improve medical care, but it hints at the future economic impact of widespread nanotechnology. If a five-minute test using a handheld biosensor in the doctor’s office replaces several expensive lab tests performed by skilled technicians, what happens to the jobs of those technicians? Historically technological innovation has created more and better jobs than those that were lost, and in this case the expanding nanotechnology industry may create jobs for the displaced medical lab technicians. But it is not at all clear that this trend will persist with the more radical displacements that will occur as nanotechnology advances toward productive nanosystems and atomically precise manufacturing. As early as 1986 in Engines of Creation Eric Drexler described how advanced nanotechnology and artificial intelligence could produce a world of abundance with no need of human labor and proposed an Inheritance Day to distribute the wealth. Three years ago here on Nanodot J Storrs Hall described how artificial general intelligence could produce an “early retirement” for the human race (see “Early retirement” and “Early retirement — how soon?“). Perhaps the issue of how transformative technologies will affect jobs, employment, and the distribution of wealth deserves more attention.
—James Lewis, PhD

I think in the longer term it will be the way we make our products. It will mean that they incorporate computation, they incorporate the ability to change their shape, they are perhaps multipurpose products. At some point it starts to sound like science fiction, and there is a reason for that. When you look ahead two or three decades, if what you see at that stage does not look like science fiction, then you’re not trying, you’re not thinking ambitiously enough. …

The interview ends with two interesting questions. (1) When can we expect advanced nanomachinery to be commercialized? After acknowledging the range from optimistic to pessimistic predictions: “… let’s say that in 25 years maybe we will see some really dramatic stuff happening.” (2) Will any technologies not be affected in some way by advanced nanotechnology? “… I personally don’t see a technology area that will not be impacted by nanotechnology.” Do these two answers seem on target?

• 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“.

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

… This was the largest AGI conference yet, with more than 200 people attending, and it had a markedly different tone from the prior conferences in the series. A number of participants noted that there was less of an out-of-the-mainstream, wild-eyed maverick feel to the proceedings, and more of a sense of “business as usual” or “normal science” – a sense in the air that AGI is obviously an important, feasible R&D area to be working on, albeit a bit “cutting-edge” compared to the majority of (more narrowly specialized) AI R&D. …

Videos of the conference talks, including the workshops and tutorials, will be posted by Google during the next months, and linked from the conference website. …

Goertzel’s report provides links to PDFs of the slides of twelve presentations, including “The Economics of Singularity” by former Foresight President J. Storrs Hall, which seems to continue the theme of his March 2009 Nanodot post “Early Retirement“. The future could indeed by wonderful, if we have the foresight to get from here to there. It was interesting to see that some of the talks listed focused on Open Source and Crowd Sourcing as ways to develop AGI.

…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)

The Humanity+ @ Caltech conference will be divided into four main sessions:

• Session 1, Re-Imagining Humans: Mind, Media and Methods
• Session 2, Radically Increasing the Human Healthspan
• Session 3, Redefining Intelligence: Artificial Intelligence, Intelligence Enhancement and Substrate-Independent Minds
• Session 4, Business and Economy in the Era of Radical Technomorphosis

Posted by Travis Earles on November 01, 2010 at 12:07 PM EDT

Starting today, public comment is being accepted on the draft Strategic Plan for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which is posted at the NNI Strategy Portal. The NNI is an interagency program for coordinating Federal research and development in nanotechnology, which is the understanding and control of matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers. At these super small scales, unique phenomena emerge, enabling the development of materials and devices with novel applications. Research in nanoscale science and engineering has the potential to bring about new nanotechnology innovations, such as improving how we collect and store energy, reinforce materials, sense contaminants, target drugs, and shrink and accelerate computational devices.

The NNI Strategic Plan is the framework that underpins the nanotechnology work of 25 NNI member agencies. It aims to ensure that advances in nanotechnology R&D and their applications to agency missions continue unabated in this fledgling field. Its purpose is to facilitate achievement of the NNI vision by laying out targeted guidance for agency leaders, program managers, and the research community regarding planning and implementation of nanotechnology R&D investments and activities.

…You may review the draft Plan and submit comments of approximately one page or less (4,000 characters) from now until November 30, 2010.

To comment on the DRAFT National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan 2010, you must first register. In a quick scan I did not find any mention of the advanced nanotechnology that is Foresight’s primary concern. Searches for the phrases “atomic precision”, “atomically precise”, “productive nanosystems”, and “molecular manufacturing” all came up negative. The various program component areas (see page 5) do make a strong case for expanded incremental improvements in the design, manufacturing, and use of nanostructured products in a wide range of applications—electronics, materials, energy, medical, environment, health, and safety, etc. Perhaps the closest indirect allusion to advanced nanotechnology is Program Component Area 5 – Nanomanufacturing:

R&D aimed at enabling scaled-up, reliable, and cost-effective manufacturing of nanoscale materials, structures, devices, and systems. Includes R&D and integration of ultra-miniaturized top-down processes and increasingly complex bottom-up or self-assembly processes.

Whether your primary interest is near-term or long-term, let them know what you think of their plan.