…
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

Mesocosms. Credit: Benjamin Coleman

The advent of new technologies is typically followed by new government regulation, and in the absence of data, fear-based reactionism can have far too much influence on policy. Quality research studies on real risks and impacts of nanoscale technologies can help lead to legitimate scientific consensus and appropriate regulation.

Engineered nanoparticles draw particular attention, because the same unique properties that give rise to special utility may also give rise to special health and environmental risks.

To calibrate our responses to nanoparticle toxicology studies, it is important to note whether an experiment reasonably represents likely exposure scenarios and whether nanoscale size is in fact a contributing factor to observed effects.

Recently highlighted at Phys.org, researchers at Duke University are investigating environmental impacts of widely used silver nanoparticles by way of experiments that seek to represent real-world exposure levels.

Previous studies have involved high concentrations of the nanoparticles in a laboratory setting, which the researchers point out, doesn’t represent “real-world” conditions.

For their studies, the researchers created mesocosms, which are small, man-made structures containing different plants and microorganisms meant to represent the environment. They applied sludge with low doses of silver nanoparticles in some of the mesocosms, then compared plants and microorganisms from treated and untreated mesocosms after 50 days.

“We’re trying to come up with the data that can be used to help regulators determine the risks to the environment from silver nanoparticle exposures,” [said Benjamin Colman, a post-doctoral fellow in Duke's biology department and a member of the Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (CEINT)].

“Our results show that silver nanoparticles in the biosolids, added at concentrations that would be expected, caused ecosystem-level impacts,” Colman said.

The researchers plan to continue to study longer-term effects of silver nanoparticles and to examine another ubiquitous nanoparticle – titanium dioxide.

Studies that do not elucidate the roles of different particle properties can still be of great benefit by drawing attention to studies that do, and by adding to the pool of reliable data. Most important is for researchers and the public alike to recognize the difference and to support policy that is sensible and appropriate.
-Posted by Stephanie C

Would this sound like a potentially world-changing substance worthy of scientific attention and funding?

That substance is graphene, a single layer of graphite with hexagonally arranged carbon atoms (visualized as chicken wire).

Now imagine that the mechanical properties of this substance aren’t measured yet, as was the case for graphene before 2009. Imagine further that there is no way to grow or isolate the single-layer crystals in their free state, as was the case for graphene before 2004. Stepping back in time yet further, imagine that the theoretical work predicting massless charge carrier behavior hasn’t been carried out yet, as was the case for graphene before 1984.

Peeling back these milestones, we can see that if the scientific question being asked is “What can be realized from here?” then the graphene timeline played out characteristically, with major advancements coming primarily from opportunity-based research. In other words, over 50+ years, from the initial theoretical work on graphene in 1947 until stable monolayers were achieved in 2004, there was limited vision of what end-goals might be achievable and limited drive to get there.

What happens when a different question is asked, specifically “What can be realized according to physical law?” This is the key premise of the exploratory engineering approach, a methodology proposed by Eric Drexler for assessing the capabilities of future technologies. He points out, for example, that the principles of space flight had been worked out long before science and industry advanced enough to get to actual launch.

For initial space flight development, the answers to the two questions above were dramatically different: what could be done in practice was far behind what had been established as theoretically possible, and there was no defined path between them. By identifying what was achievable according to physical law, the longer-term goal of space flight entered the consciousness of physicists, engineers, and politicians, bringing great minds and great resources to the challenge.

With the benefit of similarly future-focused knowledge, perhaps graphene might have received far more attention far sooner. Consider this: the groundbreaking experimental work that sparked the field as we know it today was the discovery that single-layer graphene could be extracted from a piece of graphite by (essentially) pressing cellophane tape against it and peeling it away. In other words, a decades-long roadblock to achievements in graphene research was not a matter of inadequate supporting technology but one of limited scientific attention.

Here graphene serves as a useful illustration of how progress could potentially be hindered when opportunity-based research is relied upon exclusively. Scientific advancement could benefit significantly from deliberate, exploratory engineering. Perhaps there are numerous other ‘graphenes’ right now, going unnoticed or under-prioritized, because we are failing to ask: what can be realized according to physical law?
-Posted by Stephanie C

… Nanoscale forms of substances like silver, carbon, zinc and aluminum have many useful properties. Nano zinc oxide sunscreen goes on smoothly, for example, and nano carbon is lighter and stronger than its everyday or “bulk” form. But researchers say these products and others can also be ingested, inhaled or possibly absorbed through the skin. And they can seep into the environment during manufacturing or disposal.

Nanomaterials are engineered on the scale of a billionth of a meter, perhaps one ten-thousandth the width of a human hair, or less. Not enough is known about the effects, if any, that nanomaterials have on human health and the environment, according to a report issued by the academy’s expert panel. The report says that “critical gaps” in understanding have been identified but “have not been addressed with needed research.”

And because the nanotechnology market is expanding — it represented $225 billion in product sales in 2009 and is expected to grow rapidly in the next decade — “today’s exposure scenarios may not resemble those of the future,” the report says.

The panel called for a four-part research effort focusing on identifying sources of nanomaterial releases, processes that affect exposure and hazards, nanomaterial interactions at subcellular to ecosystem-wide levels and ways to accelerate research progress. …

A free PDF of the report A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials is available.
—James Lewis

Nanotechnology: How should we evaluate the environmental impact of human-made machines that are too small to see? What limits should be placed on self-replicating nanodevices? What defenses should we institute against malevolent uses of such technology?

These questions were asked by Marc Goodman, a senior advisor to Interpol and founder of Future Crimes Institute, a think tank that explores the security implications of new technology.  In a report by Ted Greenwald at Forbes.com, Goodman urged “aspiring captains of emerging industries like synthetic biology, robotics, and nanotech to take a proactive attitude toward their impact on the global community.”

Great to see this message of foresight reaching such a key audience, in addition to Ralph Merkle’s frequent briefings on nanotech at SU.  —Christine Peterson

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.

Queen’s researchers have discovered that nanoparticles, which are now present in everything from socks to salad dressing and suntan lotion, may have irreparably damaging effects on soil systems and the environment.

“Millions of tonnes of nanoparticles are now manufactured every year, including silver nanoparticles which are popular as antibacterial agents,” says Virginia Walker, a professor in the Department of Biology. “We started to wonder what the impact of all these nanoparticles might be on the environment, particularly on soil.”

The team acquired a sample of soil from the Arctic as part of their involvement in the International Polar Year initiative. The soil was sourced from a remote Arctic site as they felt that this soil stood the greatest chance of being uncontaminated by any nanoparticles.

“We hadn’t thought we would see much of an impact, but instead our results indicate that silver nanoparticles can be classified as highly toxic to microbial communities. This is particularly concerning when you consider the vulnerability of the arctic ecosystem.” …

The researchers first examined the indigenous microbe communities living in the uncontaminated soil samples before adding three different kinds of nanoparticles, including silver. The soil samples were then left for six months to see how the addition of the nanoparticles affected the microbe communities. What the researchers found was both remarkable and concerning.

The original analysis of the uncontaminated soil had identified a beneficial microbe that helps fix nitrogen to plants. As plants are unable to fix nitrogen themselves and nitrogen fixation is essential for plant nutrition, the presence of these particular microbes in soil is vital for plant growth. The analysis of the soil sample six months after the addition of the silver nanoparticles showed negligible quantities of the important nitrogen-fixing species remaining and laboratory experiments showed that they were more than a million times susceptible to silver nanoparticles than other species.

There are three important aspects to this study that the news release does not emphasize. First, the nanoparticles were not already present in the arctic soil samples—they were added by the experimenters, so there is as yet no evidence that silver nanoparticles are widespread in the environment. Second, neither the news release nor the abstract of the research publication correlates the level of silver nanoparticles added to these samples with the levels currently found in other environmental samples. Third, the other two types of nanoparticles (identified in the abstract as copper nanoparticles and silica nanoparticles) showed no evidence of harm.

While there is yet no reason for blanket alarm about the presence of nanoparticles in the environment, the researchers are certainly correct to warn, as they do in the last sentence of their abstract:

Thus, NP contamination of arctic soils particularly by silver NPs is a concern and procedures for mitigation and remediation of such pollution should be a priority for investigation.

One of the worst possible outcomes for the long range development of nanotechnology would be for current nanoparticle commercialization to cause substantial EHS problems as a result of inadequate EHS research and foresight. Some nanoparticles may be of little concern, but others might require special regulation or precautions, or might need to be modified or substituted, or might not be safe for certain applications.

University of Nottingham physicist Philip Moriarty is one of the few scientists who has been able to do extensive research into molecular mechanosynthesis. In 2004 Moriarty engaged in a debate with Chris Phoenix over the feasibility of molecular manufacturing. In 2008 Moriarty received a grant from the British Government to examine the viability of mechanosynthesis. In this Next Big Future interview with Sander Olson, Moriarty discusses the progress that has been made during the past decade, the challenges of working with diamond, and the prospects for building components out of silicon and diamond.

Question: You began the project for experimental work on molecular mechanosynthesis about five years ago. How is the project going?

Answer: The mechanosynthesis project has actually only been running for about 2.5 years now and the initial goal was to explore the possibility of atom-by-atom assembly on diamond surfaces, i.e. to test the viability of Drexler’s original vision of making components out of diamond. But as Drexler himself recently pointed out diamond is a very difficult material to work with. As a result, in Nottingham we have a parallel effort focused on silicon, which is much, much easier to work with than diamond. For example, we only very recently achieved atomic resolution using non-contact atomic force microscopy on a hydrogen-passivated diamond surface. Moving beyond imaging to atomic manipulation of the diamond surface is going to be much more challenging than for silicon. …

Question: If you succeed, will that prove the viability of molecular manufacturing?

Answer: It will prove the viability of key aspects of Drexler’s mechanosynthesis ‘machine language’ – i.e. single atom chemistry driven solely by mechanical force and employing pre-determined tip structures/tip tools. By the time I retire (~ 2040!), I’d really hope that we are at the point where we could simply instruct a computer to build nanostructures, and let the computer handle all the details – no human operator involvement required. But this is very far from proving the viability of molecular manufacturing. It’s also very far from the scenario that, for example, Ray Kurzweil put forward back in 2000: “Around 2030, we should be able to flood our brains with nanobots that can be turned off and on and which would function as ‘experience beamers’ allowing us to experience the full range of other people’s sensory experiences…
Nanobots will also expand human intelligence by factors of thousands or millions. By 2030, nonbiological thinking will be trillions of times more powerful than biological thinking.“

Question: So you are still a skeptic of the concept of molecular manufacturing?

Answer: I am a skeptic. I believe that the concept of molecular manufacturing – of creating macroscopic objects atom by atom for any material, is flawed. I do not believe that this technique can be scaled-up to manufacture macrosized objects for arbitrary materials. In “Nanosystems” Drexler makes a careful and clever choice of the type of system required for mechanosynthesis/molecular manufacturing, taking into account the key surface science issues. I’ve never been able to see why it is then claimed that these schemes are extendable to all other materials (or practically all elements in the periodic table), for the reasons I discussed at considerable length in my debate with Chris Phoenix.
But I want to take this opportunity to give credit to Drexler. He has been the subject of a lot of criticism – some of it rather non-scientific and ad hominem- from what might be described as the ‘traditional’ (i.e. non-molecular manufacturing) nanoscience community. Drexler deserves significant kudos for the concept at the heart of the molecular manufacturing scheme; single atom chemistry driven purely by (chemo)mechanical forces is demonstrably valid. Richard Smalley, despite raising other important criticisms of the molecular manufacturing concept, misunderstood key aspects of mechanosynthesis and put forward flawed objections to the physical chemistry underlying Drexler’s proposals.

The accomplishments of Professor Moriarty and his team certainly represent a major milestone along the road to advanced nanotechnology. It remains to be seen whether the proponents of diamond mechanosynthesis as the most direct route to developing a nanofactory (molecular manufacturing) will be able to overcome the problems underlying Moriarty’s skepticism, or whether modular molecular composite nanosystems will prove a better path. What is clear from this and other items we have reported here is that there is an abundance of promising leads that justify much greater support than is currently available for the development of advanced nanotechnology (high throughput atomically precise productive nanosytems).

Note added one day later: thanks to Robert A. Freitas Jr. for passing along this link to the YouTube version of the above mentioned video.

…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?