Comments on: Nanotech exhibit opens at IEEE Virtual Museum http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2215 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Christine Peterson http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2215#comment-9338 Christine Peterson Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:41:16 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2215#comment-9338 I agree that it's okay to have a MEMS illustration, as long as the goal is to explain the difference. My point, which I could have made more clearly, is that having it be the FIRST illustration is unfortunate. Thanks for writing! --CP I agree that it’s okay to have a MEMS illustration, as long as the goal is to explain the difference. My point, which I could have made more clearly, is that having it be the FIRST illustration is unfortunate. Thanks for writing! –CP

]]> By: Central http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2215#comment-9314 Central Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:07:41 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2215#comment-9314 I'm an IEEE member too, and while I can see why you might object to saying that any kind of technology is a science, on the other hand, the general public does not necessarily make the same sharp distinction between science and technology. To many, technology and science are part of the same enterprise, with a lot of crossover but perhaps with different ultimate goals. For example, have you ever heard someone talk about technology being "applied science?" And it's hard to argue that there's not a huge component of scientific knowledge in nanotechnology research. But I agree that the phrase is awkward. As for the mems device, if you read the text of the exhibit you'll understand why a mems device is portrayed. This is a historical exhibit (even though nanotechnology is quite new). You're talking about the IEEE Virtual Museum. Museums are usually historical. In fact, this is a creation of the IEEE _History_ Center, which is not normally dealing with current technologies at all. Mems, integrated circuits, and the like are part of the historical background of the nanotechnology story, even if they are not nanotechnology themselves. It's just as valid to discuss them as it would be to include Charles Babbage or the ENIAC, or some analog computer in a history of the microprocessor. I’m an IEEE member too, and while I can see why you might object to saying that any kind of technology is a science, on the other hand, the general public does not necessarily make the same sharp distinction between science and technology. To many, technology and science are part of the same enterprise, with a lot of crossover but perhaps with different ultimate goals. For example, have you ever heard someone talk about technology being “applied science?” And it’s hard to argue that there’s not a huge component of scientific knowledge in nanotechnology research. But I agree that the phrase is awkward.

As for the mems device, if you read the text of the exhibit you’ll understand why a mems device is portrayed. This is a historical exhibit (even though nanotechnology is quite new). You’re talking about the IEEE Virtual Museum. Museums are usually historical. In fact, this is a creation of the IEEE _History_ Center, which is not normally dealing with current technologies at all. Mems, integrated circuits, and the like are part of the historical background of the nanotechnology story, even if they are not nanotechnology themselves. It’s just as valid to discuss them as it would be to include Charles Babbage or the ENIAC, or some analog computer in a history of the microprocessor.

]]>