I know for a fact NSF invited the inventor back to DC to make a presentation to NSF and academics.

The inventor was praised for his concepts by NSF but was blasted and insulted by the hard drive storage companies in attendance. The hard drive business doesnt want any nanotechnology that advances data storage and threatens their strangle hold on the market.

This same thing is happening in other areas where corporate America feels threatend.

If anyone should be blamed for NOT doing anything to advance science IT IS CORPORATE AMERICA PROTECTING THEIR TURF and KILLING Innovation.

Atom itself a molecule of constructs, where it is relatively dwarf to another such unit and so the Nanoscience is appropriate to classify the explorations on the nature in a top-to-bottom approach, in which the illusive molecular manufacturing is having illusive social impacts due to our optimism to supersede the nature.

Language is the mirror through which we view the world. Corrupt language, and the vision you see in the mirror shall be corrupted as well. If you wonder why NSF, and pretty much everyone else, is not thinking about MNT, look no farther than the word "nanotechnology". NSF report is about "nanotechnology", which in today's language means "any technology with nanoscale features", so their questions and their conclusions are correct. When the meaning of the word, which once applied only to MNT, was broadened to include everything, MNT became an ultra-special subset of it. When Foresight popularized its magical benefits, MNT became an ignored ultra-special subset, because its implementation was (and still is) unspecified, because its benefits sound too good to be true (and we know what that means), because nanobots are presented as a lifeform (and only God may create life without committing blasphemy), and because its function is considerably more difficult to understand in a world that still does not really believe in atoms. If you are unwilling to stand by the name, and force everyone to accept that "nanotechnology" should only mean "assemblers", there is no reason to be surprized when everyone but you starts using the word for other purposes. What we should do at this point is accept that "nanotechnology" really does mean "everything" these days, invent another word, and then demand funding for it