A few more recent examples of the mounting interest in the business and investment community in the potential for nanotech as "the next big thing":

• An brief segment in an article in the London-based Financial Times ("Will Silicon Valley become Nanotech Valley?", by Tom Forenski, 16 February 2002) quotes Tim Harper of CMP Cientifica, who, according to the article, says that "Although there are clusters of nanotechnology companies around certain universities . . . such clumping will eventually concentrate around sources of venture capital. And since Silicon Valley is the world's greatest concentration of venture capital, it could become an important seed bed for what will, at some point, be a massive industry."
• brianwang sent notice of an extensive article in HBS Working Knowledge ("Big Things Ahead for Small Technology" by senior editor Martha Lagace, 18 February 2002), a publication of the Harvard Business School, that urges cautious interest: "Nanotechnology could be the next big investment thing–maybe. Experts say smart investors would be wise to dip their toes into tiny technology, but not jump straight into the pool just yet." The article quotes venture capitalists Josh Wolfe [of Lux Captial], Jason Friedman [of JP Morgan], and others, who spoke at Venture Capital and Private Investment conference on 3 February 2002 at Harvard Business School. The article concludes with a quote from Friedman: ìYou have to pick the spots and places where you think there are good companies. Is [nanotechnology] an interesting technology? Absolutely. Could it be the next big thing? Maybe.î

An article in Technology Research News ("Nudged nested nanotubes may oscillate", by Eric Smalley, 6 February 2002) provides additional details on the work by researchers who calculate that a group of concentric nanotubes nested inside an outer set of tubes can slide back and forth a billion times every second, as noted here on Nanodot on 22 January 2002. Such a gigahertz oscillator could be a major advance in nanotechnology that would enable applications such as ultra-fast optical filters and nano-antennae.

from the well,-maybe dept.
An extensive article on the Small Times website ("French system ensures good research translates into marketable products", by Genevieve Oger, 21 February 2002) describes another French effort to centralize and bureaucratize technological innovation: the French National Network on Micro and Nanotechnology (RMNT in French), a system that (purportedly) "identifies and evaluates the most promising technologies, the ones most likely to end up on the market." According to the article,

Here is how it works. A research lab and a business must team up to work on a specific project. The public/private consortium can be made up of three or four entities, as long it includes a company interested in making the product if the research succeeds. The consortium then hands in a proposal to the 17-member RMNT orientation committee, made up of businesspeople and researchers.

Two members of the committee are put in charge of examining the proposal and drawing up an internal report in tandem with two experts chosen from the specific field. The committee, which is made up of members from around the country, meets in a central location three times a year to evaluate all the proposals. . . .

The RMNT works on a tiny budget. It does not directly fund micro and nanotechnology projects. Its job is to rate them and decide whether they are worth funding. The label of quality they stick to a proposal will allow the business-lab team to seek government funding either through the Ministry of Research or the Ministry of Economics and Industry. The goal is to have funding go to projects that have been evaluated and chosen by specialists rather than ministry staff, who may not have the same degree of expertise.

See this Nanodot post from 14 January 2002 for more info on the French effort to create a centralized technology incubation center at Minatec in Grenoble.

An article on the Nanotech Planet website ("Zyvex: Building Nanoscale Machines with Microscopic Engines", by Allen Bernard, 14 February 2002) profiles the steady progress Zyvex is making along a "top-down" pathway toward nanotechnology by attempting to create machines designed to build yet smaller machines that, in turn, build yet smaller machines that manipulate matter at the molecular level in the manner envisioned decades ago by Richard Feynman.

"We'll build the first machine by hand," Zyvex founder and CEO Jim Von Ehr told NanotechPlanet. "And that machine will build other machines … and each of those machines can be ganged together in parallel with other similar machines to build products or another generation of machines."

The strategy is being implemented with the help of a $12.5 million National Institute of Standards and Technology matching grant in October 2001 (see Nanodot post from 25 October 2001). "What we want to end up with after this five-year NIST program is reasonably parallel sub micron scale systems handling sub micron scale parts," Von Ehr said. "I want to be careful about nanoscale. We're not really trying to build with molecules in this program."

More coverage of the work to create cylinder-shaped nanoscopic nanowire bundles that interweave substances with different compositions and properties (see Nanodot post from 2 February 2002). As a result, well-defined junctions and interfaces with potentially important functionalities were incorporated within individual nanowires. The alternating bands of different semiconductor materials in the super-thin wires serve as the electron and photon manipulators.

• An item on the Technology Research News website: "Tiny wires turn chips inside out", by Eric Smalley, 13 February 2002.
• An article in the online version of Science News: "Circuitry in a nanowire: Novel growth method may transform chips", by Peter Weiss, 9 February 2002

from the caveat-emptor dept.
Marc Rothchild writes "Whether you are a company executive, investor, senior technologist, researcher, or entrepreneur, it is becoming increasingly timely and difficult to remain knowledgeable of all things `Nanotech'. To keep those that are interested on the pulse of the accelerating developments in the exciting Nanotechnology community, San Francisco Consulting Group has launched Nanotech Business Update (NBU), a periodic electronic mailing designed to inform, educate, and discuss Nanotechnology at least twice every month by getting reliable straight talk, news and insight without any hype or exaggeration. To receive this Update, please fill out the free submit form at http://www.sfcgcorp.com/sfcg2.htm or send an email to nano@sfcgcorp.com with you Name, Company Name, Title, and email address"

from the terminology-drift dept.
Cryptologist Hal Finney points out on the Extropy mailing list that Foresight's views of molecular nanotechnology are still not generally accepted, despite all the funding of "nanotechnology". Read More for his post. Yet there are a few brave researchers who take self-replication via nanotechnology seriously in public; see the end of this interview with Harvard's Charles Lieber in The Deal: "There really are some fundamental scientific problems where you can end up creating self-replicating things and invading bodies, but I don't worry about that at this point." He's right not to worry that this might happen soon. However, since it is a possibility, some of us are putting time into thinking about it in advance — it's a tough problem to head off, and figuring it out will take some time.

The media drumbeat touting molecular electronics as the first likely wide-scale applications of nanotechnology is getting louder:

• An article in EE Times ("Researchers close to delivering molecular circuits", by Chappell Brown, 15 February 2002) says "Although it's a little like watching a chess match in slow motion, molecular electronics researchers are converging on viable circuit-fabrication methods. Several approaches to building circuits with molecules reached the stage of at least rudimentary logic or simple devices, such as inverters or AND gates, last year."
• The looming advent of nanoelectronics was also highlighted at this yearís annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Boston, 14-19 February 2002. A press release from the AAAS (14 February 2002) says "A landslide of discoveries brought the promise of powerful electronic and computing devices, built at the molecular scale, to the forefront of scientific research in 2001. In particular, several research teams hooked up tiny devices such as transistors, wires, and switches to form working circuits for the first time", and describes the many advances by researchers in the field in the past year. "We may be five to six years ahead of schedule in nanoelectronics, and some of today's research is nearing the stage where it could be turned over to industrial production . . . It's been a momentous period for nanoelectronics, with more in store for the future," said James Ellenbogen of the Mitre Corporation. In December 2001, the editors of the journal Science, which is published by the AAAS, highlighted the field of molecular electronics as this yearís "Breakthrough of the Year" in a special issue of the journal (20 December 2001).
• More coverage of the molectronics buzz at the AAAS meeting was provided by an article from the Atlanta Constitution ("Science gathering predicts a big future for small tech", by Mike Toner, 15 February 2002) that appeared on the Small Times website. Recent advances in molectronics, Toner writes, are "the harbingers of a new epoch" that "might make it possible to develop a generation of nanorobots that could fight disease on a molecular level, biochemical sensors that could detect a single anthrax cell and computer storage devices that could pack the contents of the Library of Congress in the space of a sugar cube. . . . One by one, researchers are marshalling the building blocks of a market the National Science Foundation estimated could grow to $1 trillion and employ 2 million people over the next 10 to 15 years." The article also quotes nanotech researcher Charles Lieber, a Harvard chemistry professor and winner of the 2001 Foresight Feynman Prize for Experimental work: "A year ago, I wasn't sure that the achievement of a complex integrated nanosystem was possible. Now I think it is a distinct possibility in the near future."

Dan Gillmor, technology columnist for the San Jose Mercury News highlights the increasing interest of venture capitalists in nanotechnology ("Big Breakthroughs come in small packages", 16 February 2002): "Small things — really small things — are looking bigger and bigger to the venture capital community these days. Investors smell profits in nanotechnology — building and manipulating things one atom or molecule at a time — and the related field of micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS)." The article also quotes a number of venture capitalists who attended a meeting at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to discuss the possibilities of commercializing nano- and micro-technology. The article was reposted on the Small Times website.

from the World-Watch dept.
An article in the Taipei Times ("Nanotechnology looks promising", by Dan Nystedt, 10 February 2002) underscores Taiwanís efforts to expand its research and development programs in biotechnology and, more recently, the microscopic science of nanotechnology. The article quotes Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian, who said during a tour of a new national Nanotechnology Research Center in January, that nanotechnology was "the new century's rising star" that "will bring about a massive shift in the development of new materials, information-technology products and biomedicine."

But, the article notes, "Others in Taiwan are not so optimistic about how long it will take to develop new products from the nanotechnology initiative. . . . Other critics of Taiwan's proposed nanotechnology program point out that China plans to spend NT$105.7 billion (US$3 billion) by 2005 on nanotechnology research, far more than Taiwan. They believe the government should put more money into R&D so Taiwan can maintain its high-tech advantage over China."

Additional background on Taiwanís nanotechnology initiative can be found in these Nanodot posts from 22 January and 24 January 2002.

According to a press release (14 February 2002), Umar Mohideen, associate professor of physics at the University of California-Riverside, has performed the first demonstration of the lateral Casimir force (a shape-dependent Casimir force) in his laboratory. His findings appeard in Physical Review Letters.

The Casimir force has its origins in virtual particles that exist in empty space. According to the release, the force acts tangential to two surfaces, resulting in a horizontal sliding motion of one surface against the other. This lateral force may make the movement of gears and motors in micromachines easier.

from the brain-trust dept.
Foresight Institute is pleased to announce that Ray Kurzweil, noted author, inventor and technologist, and John Gilmore, an equally-distinguished computer expert and open-source advocate, have joined the Foresight Instituteís Board of Advisors.

"I'm excited to strengthen my relationship with the Foresight Institute, an organization that has been contributing important insights into multifarious intersecting technological revolutions, while addressing how best to foster their promise while avoiding their peril," Kurzweil said.

"Foresight has been advising me on the social impacts of technology for more than a decade," said Gilmore. "I'm pleased to be able to advise Foresight in areas where I happen to know more. We've been talking about successful business models that don't limit peoples' right to make copies. We're also seeking to understand the conflicts between absolute intellectual property protection and our society's foundational rights of inquiry, expression, and competition."

More information about the new Foresight Advisors can be found on the home pages of John Gilmore and Ray Kurzweil.

from the sifting-wheat-from-chaff dept.
There has been a surge in the number and variety of articles in financial and investment-oriented media — some more successful than others at presenting the science and the potential and the pitfalls of nanotechnology research and development. Most spend a lot of verbiage trying to separate science from hype. Hereís a few examples:

• An item from Reuters News Service ("Nanotech Brings New Hope, and Hype, to Market", by Dane Hamilton, 12 February 2002) asserts that "a growing number of Wall Street specialists say the new technology could be a foundation for a new bull market, just as personal computers, biotech and the Internet underpinned previous rallies. Others say the field is way too early for widespread investment and is already being over-hyped."
• An article on the News.com website ("Breaking free from Newton", by Jennifer Fonstad, 5 February 2002) is generally enthusiastic: "For technology, the last half of the 20th century has been a march to miniaturization–make it smaller, make it faster, make it cheaper. While there are seemingly limits to the continuation of this march, a quantum leap to the world of the small may yet enable us to break through the barrier." Fonstad is a managing director at venture capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson. [Thanks to David Wallace Croft for submitting this item.]
• And Small Times weighs in with an article ("Investors see the reality behind the nanohype — and some nice pants", by Jayne Fried, 12 February 2002) that points up the accelerating trend in which companies in old-line industries try to reinvent themselves with the ënanoí label — and sometimes even some actual nano-scale technology.

from the self-replicating-organizations dept.
An article from United Press International ("Business group spreads word on nano", by Scott R. Burnell, 15 February 2002) profiles the NanoBusiness Alliance. According to the report, the industry group focusing on nanotechnology is establishing more than 20 regional offices this year to spur growth in the technology, with its first regional "hubs" to be set up in Washington, D.C. and Denver. The group expects to have about 25 hubs operating by year's end, in locations such as Boston, California's Silicon Valley, Israel and Canada.

Vik writes "According to this BBC article, the UK Government wishes to pass laws that allow it to veto research – even from the private sector – and to censor the publication of results.

While nanotechnology is not explicitly mentioned, it looks like the thin end of an anonymous wedge to curb research into any technology that the UK Government sees as being destabilising.

A list of "sensitive" technologoes is to be maintained, and students using them will have to be licenced by the government. Academics are livid. It is draconian stuff indeed, being one of those dreadful forms of legislation which prohibit a wide range of commonplace acts but are only enacted when the Government or police feel like it.

Vik :v)"

Update: More coverage on this issue appeared in the New Scientist (18 February 2002).

from the temporary-controversy dept.
Excerpted from the Feb. 2002 Foresight Senior Associate Letter, by Eric Drexler and Chris Peterson: "The U.S. Senate is debating a possible complete ban on human cloning, both therapeutic and reproductive. People who object to both are objecting to tampering with cells that (via reproductive cloning) could lead to human life. Such a ban could be passed without much public comment, so if you have strong views on this, get them in immediately; see www.lef.org for info on how.

"If such a ban were passed, it would not obstruct progress toward molecular manufacturing: cloning isn't an enabling technology here. In the long term, advanced nanotechnologies will eliminate the incentive for therapeutic cloning, so those who oppose such procedures may become strong advocates of nanotechnology."

from the both-gains-and-dangers dept.
Foresight director Jim Bennett brings to our attention this item from Red Herring by Dinesh D'Souza on whether technology can further tradition human values: "The critics focus on the moral dangers of technology. Those dangers–of technological hubris and undermining human dignity–do exist, and we should debate them. But what the critics miss is the possibility of moral gains. Used correctly, technology can generate moral progress by strengthening and affirming our highest values, as we have seen it do in the past. Technology doesn't just offer us the chance to be better off; it offers us the chance to make a better society." His examples are the ending of slavery, emancipation of women, and extending human lifespan.

from the so-there-TNT-Weekly dept.
Prof. Wiley Kirk of the Center for Nanostructure Materials and Quantum Device Fabrication (NanoFab) at University of Texas at Arlington was quoted in the Fort Worth Business Press (Dec. 6, 2001): "Dr. Kirk, who began moving atoms in the NanoFab center this summer, describes exciting potential medical developments utilizing nanostructures. 'We could have tiny robots circulating in the bloodstream to deliver drugs to cancer cells without harming healthy cells. They might bring extra intelligence to artificial limbs, eyes and hands." The research team also envisions these robots clearing clogged arteries or repairing damaged tissue, as well as the possibility of repairing defective DNA in human cells." The news article appears to be unavailable online.

Anonymous Coward writes "Greenpeace, noted peace and ecology NGO, is hosting a debate on arms races and relenquishment – it's unofficial but is pretty detailed. It appears that the organization is debating Bill Joy's arguments and the general strategies of de-escalation and relenquishment."

More on this discussion was posted by jbash, who writes "People around Foresight are always talking about how we (whoever "we" are) need to go and engage the Green types (whoever they are) and talk about the implications of nanotechnology machine intelligence, and whatnot. Well, I was tracing some links from this very site, and, lo! I found one of "them" saying something about engaging "us".

Read more for the lengthy remainder of jbashís remarks.

NOTE: The Greenpeace site is extremely sssslllooooowwwww . . .

Anonymous Coward writes "The Global Green Parties are discussing common policies regarding artificial intelligence and artificial life. Please come contribute."