Comments on: Nanotechnologist running for U.S. Congress

By: Marlborough_Voter

Marlborough_Voter — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 10:47:31 +0000

Hello again. I wanted to post one more time. At this point I will note that the Foresight Institute is not a partisan or political organization. And these posts should in no way be seen as an endorsement by the institute. This information is on topic because the subject is himself a nano technologist. I myself am a physicist which is one of the main reasons I volunteered for the campaign.

Mike Stopa on ‘What Is Nano Technology’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rzEv6nhYeo

This was taken at a fund raiser. He was explaining the importance of nano science to laymen.

By: Science and politics « FrogHeart

Science and politics « FrogHeart — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:28:06 +0000

[...] was gobsmacked by a link I followed from a Foresight Institute posting about a nanotechnologist running for the US Congress. From the Foresight posting (which was kept rigidly nonpartisan), Bill McDonald brings to our [...]

By: Marlborough_Voter

Marlborough_Voter — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 03:18:02 +0000

Mike Stopa on Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFUgGZTjqaY

By: Marlborough_Voter

Marlborough_Voter — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 03:13:59 +0000

Mike Stopa has extensive policy papers on his website. You can see him here singing joyful praise to Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aka97HmMPNw

–Laser Guy

By: Titus

Titus — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:25:35 +0000

“I wonder how well a scientist will be received by the anti-science party.”

You’d rather he run with the anti-economics party?

By: Christine Peterson

Christine Peterson — Fri, 28 May 2010 21:54:36 +0000

@ Mike Stopa — Thanks for clarifying your views on nanotech. Nothing wrong with being a geek on this site! I should mention that Mike Roco is definitely not the one who coined the term nanotechnology. It was used once in Japan very early, but the person who introduced the term into the English language is Eric Drexler.
–Chris Peterson

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 28 May 2010 05:06:01 +0000

I wonder how well a scientist will be received by the anti-science party. And I wonder at what cost.

By: Julie Crusaders

Julie Crusaders — Fri, 28 May 2010 02:51:47 +0000

Mike Stoopa will be an excellent man in Congress. I pray that he will be elected and be part of our take back of our great country.

By: Michael Stopa

Michael Stopa — Fri, 28 May 2010 02:22:13 +0000

Hi Christine,
I have been a scientist (and, unfortunately, a geek) all of my life. Nanotechnology is that happy area of science where curiosity and utility thrive in close quarters. We all live to make something “novel” turn into something useful (and, if possible, lucrative…no apologies).

I have recently participated in an NSF workshop run by Mike Roco (probably the guy who coined the term “nanotechnology”) dedicated to determining what the next ten years of nanotechnology public (i.e. NSF) funding should be directed toward. Part of that is determining where the public/private funding border should be.

But the value, for the nation, of some level of public funding for nanotechnology is, in my opinion, clear.

You are absolutely right, however, my libertarian ideology is in tension with my public funding. But I long ago agreed to the government providing us with roads. This is not that much more of a stretch.

Thanks for the visibility. Please join us on Facebook too: Mike-Stopa-for-US-Rep. There’s a good video recently posted.

Cheers,
Mike

By: Duke

Duke — Thu, 27 May 2010 21:04:36 +0000

RE federally spending on nanotech, federal funding of basic research I think is generally good, so long as its basic. Like the human genome project, or much of nanotech even today. Lots of public bang for the taxpayer buck there, in an area where private money is lacking since the payoff is too far off to survive corporate budget fights. When it gets nearer to applied research is when the politicians should ideally beg off, but unfortunately that’s where they want in so they can get a bigger thank-you from actual companies with larger numbers of employee-voters.