from the budget-battles dept.
An article in EE Times ("Science panel calls for balanced research spending", by George Leopold, 26 March 2002) reports on an increasing level of scrutiny of the Bush administrationís proposed funding priorities for science and technology spending in the U.S. national budget for FY2003, including nanotechnology. According to the article, "The House Science Committee is calling for increased federal funding in fiscal 2003 for technology research and development programs and for a balancing of funding for biomedical and physical science research."

In its annual "views and estimates" of the federal budget request, the Republican-controlled science panel said the Bush administration's research budget request is skewed heavily in support of biomedical research, especially at the National Institutes of Health, which is slated to receive an annual budget increase larger than the entire $5.04 billion budget requested for the National Science Foundation [NSF]. The committee endorsed the Bush administration's "multi-agency R&D" priorities for network and information technology, nanotechnology and anti-terrorism programs. The White House requested a 3 percent increase in funding for networking and information technology research. It also proposed a 17 percent increase in funding next year for nanotechnology research. The committee said it might address nanotechnology research in legislation later this year.

Additional coverage and analysis can be found on the American Institute of Physics (AIP) Science Policy website:

• "Science Committee Questions Level, Balance of Federal Research Investment", by Audrey T. Leath, 22 February 2002. According to this report, "At a wide-ranging February 13 hearing on the President's FY 2003 budget request for R&D, House Science Committee members generally supported the budget's emphasis on anti-terrorism, homeland and economic security, and health research, but also indicated that they would try to find additional funds for science programs. As Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) said, the budget priorities are 'reasonable' and 'self-evident' and 'deserve to be funded more generously than are other programs.' But he added that 'the focusing of the proposed R&D budget on two narrowly defined priority areas [defense and health] has left the spending for other agencies anemic.' He later commented that if it were not for defense and national security needs, 'this committee collectively would be madder than hell, to put it bluntly,' at the funding levels for some parts of the science enterprise."
• "Research Subcommittee, Witnesses Support Higher NSF Funding", again by Audrey T. Leath , 26 March 2002. According to this report, "[M]embers of the House Science Committee are already working to get funding for the National Science Foundation increased above the President's request of $5.04 billion. At a March 13 hearing of the House Science Subcommittee on Research, Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) . . . told witnesses that he would use their testimony to make the case for higher NSF funding to appropriators. Research Subcommittee Chairman Nick Smith (R-MI) described how committee members were 'aggressive' in trying to get NSF funding increased in the House Budget Committee's version of a budget resolution. On that same day, the Budget Committee approved a resolution containing an 11 percent increase for NSF — 6 percent more than the Administration requested."

Some insight into the high level of support for the NSF and for nanotechnology research in particular can be found in a speech delivered on 8 March 2002 by House Science Committee Chair Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) at a nanotechnology conference held at the Brookhaven National Laboratory to formally launched the Labís new $55 million Center for Functional Nanomaterials (see Nanodot post from 22 March 2002). Boehlert said, "I will do everything in my power to ensure that nanotechnology research gets the funding it deserves — not just in the Department of Energy [which operates the Brookhaven Lab] but throughout the federal government."
[Some excerpts from the speech also appear on the AIP site.]

Finally, for the minority Memberís views, see "An Analysis by the Minority Staff of the House Science Committee" from 5 February 2002.

Debate over these issues is also likely to arise in the U.S. Senate if, as planned, a bill on nanotechnology research funding sponsored by Senator Joe Leiberman and others is submitted (see Nanodot post from 27 December 2001).

from the positively-breathless dept.
A special edition of Business Week Magazine includes a number of items on nanotechnology, including an enthusiastic feature article ("The Tech Outlook: Nano Technology: No, its not all hype: these supertiny gizmos will transform our way of life", by Otis Port with Roger O. Crockett, 25 March 2002). The article notes the ongoing land-rush mentality of venture capitalists and large tech-oriented corporations into micro- and nano-scale technology R&D, as they are "pumping significant sums into nanotech research, as are governments around the world. A new study from CMP Cientifica [the Nanotechnology Opportunity Report], a market researcher in Madrid, says last year's worldwide government figure topped $1.2 billion (page 184). This year, the private and public sectors will probably spend $2 billion apiece on nano. . . . All told, venture capitalists and corporate funds will probably plow $1 billion into nano investments this year, twice what they invested in 2000, says S. Joshua Wolfe, a partner at New York's Lux Capital Group."

The article surveys a limited range of recent research, mostly into carbon nanotubes and semiconductor nanowires, and notes the formation of the NanoBusiness Alliance last year, before concluding:

The ultimate dream of nano engineers is an "assembler," which was first described in the writings of nanotech pioneer K. Eric Drexler, head of Foresight Institute in Palo Alto, Calif. It's a teensy robot that could be programmed to assemble atoms into gears and other components of nanomachines. That vision is still science fiction, says Raymond A. Kurzweil, author and president of Kurzweil Technologies Inc. But if assemblers can be developed, "they'll solve humanity's material needs," he adds. From molecules of dust and dirt, they would harvest the atoms needed to assemble computers, appliances, and other goods.

from the World-Watch dept.
According to an article in the Birmingham Post ("£80m bid for science center", by Richard Warburton, 18 March 2002), the West Midlands region of the UK is set to become the heart of Britain's science technology industry with a new £80 million (about U.S. $144 million) manufacturing complex that will create 10,000 jobs. The article says, "Plans have been drawn up for the world's largest centre for nanoscience to be based along the A38 technology corridor in Birmingham. . . . The city's universities, businesses and MPs [Members of Parliament] are pushing for the national centre for microsystems and nanotechnology which would draw on the region's international reputation for modern research and secure its place as the country's manufacturing hub."

from the learning-curve dept.
The online version of Small Times has begun an interesting new series of articles focusing on university-level educational efforts to develop and expand a workforce for emerging micro- and nano-scale technologies.

• The first article in the series ("U.S. universities develop small tech grad degrees", by Teri Sprackland, 28 March 2002) focuses on the increase of government money being used to finance university programs designed to increase U.S. competitiveness in small tech, as "the field is being recognized as worthy of its own specifically designated ñ but not yet standalone ñ graduate degrees." The article states, "Universities, capitalizing on existing research programs and faculty expertise, hope to attract and train students to satisfy small tech's growing demands. Those students will eventually form the infrastructure needed for long-term gains in the U.S. small tech industry."
• The second article ("China, Taiwan focus on nanoscience, but most still go overseas to study", by Jen Lin-Liu, 29 March 2002) highlights how China and Taiwan are using established academic programs in other countries to train their own graduate students in the emerging micro- and nano-technology sectors.

An article by Josh Wolfe, a partner at venture capital firm Lux Capital, appears in Forbes Magazine ("A New World Is Born", 14 March 2002). His take: "Don't confuse the stock market with the real world. The tech stock balloon is busted, shattered, gone. But the technology revolution is just getting started. Looming just ahead is what may well be its most exciting phase–nanotechnology. This will be bigger than the Internet and more far-reaching. It will create vast new wealth. It will destroy a lot of old wealth. And it will shake up just about every business on the planet."

from the end-of-an-era dept.
Nanodot notes without comment this item posted on the Atomasoft website on 11 March 2002. Atomasoft operates the NanotechNews website.

Atomasoft announced a major restructuring of itís [sic] operations and budget today as a result of a resignation by Jonathan Després. Mr. Després, one of the founders of Atomasoft and former CEO, will no longer work for Atomasoft and has agreed to hand over all assets and information regarding Atomasoftís operations to the executive team.
Part of the restructuring unfortunately includes the cancellation of Nano Investor Conference 2002. The event was spearheaded by Mr. Després but as a result of the current situation at Atomasoft, it must be cancelled. There have been a number of other nanobusiness conferences planned throughout this year and Atomasoft certainly does not have the resources to make its vision of a nanobusiness conference a reality at the current time. First and foremost, all its efforts will be devoted to continuing the success of the core operations; This includes the growing website portals on emerging technology.
Service to all of Atomasoftís sites will not be interrupted and business will continue as normal; We anticipate no problems with the transition period.

Mr_Farlops writes "Using nanorods and liquid plastic semiconductor, researchers at University of California, Berkeley, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have created a solar cell that can be painted or sprayed onto a surface.

The Sacramento Bee article, which I found on Slash, was a bit short on details and perhaps incorrectly cites this discovery as an advance in nanotechnology."

[Editor's Note: Additional information, including some diagrams of the solar cells, can be found in this joint press release (28 March 2002) from the UC-Berkeley and LBL.

Additional coverage is available in an article from the Reuters News Service ("Group Makes Cheap Plastic Solar Energy Cells", 28 March 2002), and another from United Press International ("Researchers make plastic solar cells", 28 March 2002).]

Leonard David writes "Thought you might find this story of interest: Space elevators/carbon nanotube composites at http://space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html
- Leonard David, Senior Space Writer
SPACE.com"

[Editor's Note: additional information on the orbital tower concept and the potential use of fullerene-based composites as a construction material can be found in this Nanodot post from 3 May 2001.]

from the small-potatoes dept.
According to a press release (14 March 2002), Boise State University has received a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) to help establish a state-wide nanotechnology research program in Idaho. An interdisciplinary team of Boise State scientists will be part of a statewide project to study and develop nanoscale materials. The Boise State phase of the project is financed by nearly $2 million in federal and matching state funds awarded to the university through the NSFís Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program to support competitive research in Idaho.

The Boise area hosts one of the fastest-growing regional high-tech economies in the U.S., and is home to Micron Semiconductor and the headquarters of Hewlett-Packardís Printing and Imaging Division.

from the win-some,-loose-some dept.
According to an article in the Austin Business Journal ("SWT, UT ramp up for nanotech", by Stacey Higginbotham, 22 March 2002), Southwest Texas State University (SWT) and a new partnership among three other Texas universities are seeking millions of dollars in federal and private funding to promote nanotechnology in Texas. According to the article, a partnership between Rice University, the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Texas Dallas called SPRING, or the Strategic Partnership for Nanotechnology, is seeking "tens of millions" in federal and private grants to build or update nanotechnology centers at the three schools, says Paul Barbara, director of UT's Center for Nano and Molecular Sciences and Technology. SWT is seeking $5.5 million to create a research lab and workforce development program for nanotechnology called the Nanotechnology Failure Analysis, Materials, Evaluation and Education Center (NanoFAME).

But as the Austin American-Statesman reports ("MIT steals away prominent UT nanotech scientist", by Cara Anna, 25 March 2002), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has managed to convince prominent nanotech researcher Angela Belcher, a University of Texas professor and a member of UT's new Center for Nano and Molecular Science and Technology, to leave the University of Texas at Austin and join MIT's new NanoMechanical Technology Laboratory as an associate professor in the fall. Additional coverage of this latest nanotech talent raid can be found in an Associated Press article ("Texas nanotech team heading to Northeast", 25 March 2002) that appeared in the Boston Herald.

The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) has posted a presentation ("Research and Development FY 2003 National Nanotechnology Investment in the FY 2003 Budget Request by the President") made by M.C. Roco, NSF; Chair, National Science and Technology Council's subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) on February 13, 2002 at the AAAS/ASME Briefing, Washington, D.C. The presentation basically reiterates the information already note here on Nanodot on 5 February 2002.

from the mass-media-mush dept.
An article on the Washington Post ("Big Potential From Small Things", by Ariana Eunjung Cha, 21 March 2002) presents a superficial but reasonably well-written survey of "current events" in nanotechnolgy, focusing on increases in federal funding for nanotech research and the increasing interest from the venture capital community. As the article notes, "The debate has shifted from 'Will it happen?' to 'When will it happen?' " said Christine Peterson, president of the Foresight Institute.

The article was also reposted on the Small Times website.

from the World-Watch dept.
While thereís little said in it about nanotech per se, an article in the London-based Financial Times ("'Valley' in the Alps", by Jo Johnson, 26 February 2002) provides some interesting background on the history and current climate of the region around Grenoble, France as a long-standing technology center and incubator. Previous coverage of French high-tech center appeared here on Nanodot on 28 January 2002.

from the backdate dept.
An article from the December 2001 issue of Mechanical Engineering magazine ("The engineered course of treatment", by Mauro Ferrari and Jun Liu), a publication of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is now available online. The article says, "Use of nanoscale devices is helping to revolutionize medical treatment and research." Ferrari is a professor of internal medicine and mechanical engineering and director of the Biomedical Engineering Center at Ohio State University in Columbus. Jun Liu is a doctoral candidate in his group.

In their article, Ferrari and Liu assert, "The ability to engineer devices and their components at the nanoscale level will revolutionize medicineóand the biomedical disciplines in general. There is a simple reason for this: Whatever we put into the body, in order to be therapeutically effective, must mimic the basic biological structure it replaces or augments. And biology is intrinsically and without exception multiscale, with hierarchies of ordered components comprising complex architectures of smaller, ordered components, all the way down to the molecular or atomic levelóthe nano level, precisely."

Gina Miller writes "Nanotech Planet has an article explaining the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory's (ORNL) new process of trapping single atoms. The new technique allows them to study a single atom's properties using classic microscopy at room temperature without cooling. "We're looking perhaps at a new class of nano-scale materials with novel optical properties," said Barnes, a member of ORNL's Chemical and Analytical Chemistry Division. "The challenge we face will be in controlling this process and fully understanding the mechanism.""

from the what's-really-going-on-here? dept.
An extensive article on the Small Times website ("Second top official to step down at California NanoSystems Institute", by Jayne Fried, 22 March 2002) reports that molecular computing researcher James Heath will step down as an acting co-director of the California NanoSystems Institute (http://www.cnsi.ucla.edu/) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) . . . but not right away. Heath will be leaving UCLA to devote more time to research, and will join the faculty at California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. "It's a tough thing to do, to go to Caltech," Heath told Small Times. "This (CNSI) is my baby, but it comes down to when I go to bed at night I think about institute problems."

According to the article, Heath expressed disappointment and frustration with the pace at which technology is moving from research labs to the marketplace within the University of California system. "UC has not been very strong in transferring intellectual property out into the world and making it happen," Heath said. Part of the reason is that the UC system is a "big company that is not quite as nimble as it could be."

The report notes that Heath's departure leaves the multi-million dollar CNSI with co-director Evelyn Hu, a nanotech electrical and computer engineer at UC Santa Barbara, and Roy Doumani, acting chief operating officer. Hu is one of the founders of CNSI. "I won't deny Jim's leaving is something that is very sobering because he's had such an influence," Hu said. "We worked so closely together." The article also notes that although Heath will be at Caltech, Doumani said Heath "will remain active and be able to stay as a member of CNSI." The plan appears to be an open door policy in which scientists outside the UC system will participate in CNSI. "I hope to find a way to get Caltech involved in the institute," Heath said.

As the title of the Small Times article reflects, Heath is the second major figure to announce departure from a CNSI leadership position in recent months. In January 2002, Martha Krebs left as director of CNSI for a broader role at UCLA. Krebs was also associate vice chancellor of UCLA for research, and said she will be devote herself full time to that job. Krebs was a key figure in establishing CNSI, and had moved to California a year ago from Washington, D.C., to become director of the institute. Previously, as science director at the U.S. Department of Energy, Krebs helped establish the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative.

A commentary in Red Herring Magazine ("Reality Check: Nanotech's boosters are getting ahead of themselves", by Stephan Herrera, with additional reporting by Om Malik, 26 March 2002) opines that "Some new statistics on nanotech may be a bit optimistic." In particular, Herrera casts a cold eye on figures issued in a recent report by the NanoBusiness Alliance (NBA) that give the impression, as he puts it, that "nanotech represents an immediate opportunity, not just a distant target. In a new survey, the NBA asserts that the field is already a $45.5 billion industry that could grow to $700 billion by 2008. . . . The NBA concludes that VCs will invest more than $1 billion in nanotech this year. How the field has grown–or has it?" Herrera wonders if "these numbers might just be wishful thinking, intended to stir up media hype and investor interest."

The article quotes Nathan Tinker, an NBA cofounder and the survey's author: "Mr. Tinker says there's no harm in interpreting nanotechnology broadly. 'I tried to consider the whole range of nano,' he says. In fact, he included sales from products that most nanotech experts would not even consider to be nano, like microelectrical mechanical systems."

Herrera considers the $1 billiion investment figure by VCs to be even more fuzzy, and notes that even some NBA figures are distancing themselves from the number — such as Josh Wolfe, an NBA cofounder and "a leading voice in nanotech."

from the put-THAT-in-the-toolbox dept.
According to a press release (21 March 2002), researchers at the University of St Andrews in Scotland have discovered a natural fluorinase enzyme, a biological catalyst which bonds carbon to fluorine. The discovery was published in the 21 March 2002 issue of Nature. An understanding of how natural enzymes handle a highly-reactive element such as fluorine would have important implications for the development of artificial molecular machines systems.

An item on the Nature Science Update website ("Magic bullet homes in", by Philip Ball, 4 March 2002) describes work by researchers at the University of Gottingen in Germany who have developed a custom-made drug molecule that turns lethal only when it reaches cancer cells. In healthy cells it is harmless, but it targets tumor cells selectively.

According to the NSU article, the Gottingen antitumour molecule is a ring of three carbon atoms that is highly strained and apt to burst open. Open, it is a reactive molecule that wreaks havoc among the nucleic acid molecules essential for normal cell function. The drug is delivered in the form of a 'prodrug' without the strained ring but with a sugar side-group. Once the sugar is clipped off, the molecule rearranges itself into a three-atom ring, and becomes lethally active. The Gottingen team uses an enzyme to cut away the sugar group. An antibody on the enzyme ensures that the enzyme targets the tumor cells, and activates the drug molecules there.

This method is vaguely similar to another molecular ësmart bombí that employs a single radioactive actinium atom contained inside a molecular cage and attached to a monoclonal antibody that homes in on cancer cells (see Nanodot post from 16 November 2001).

from the feeding-the-fascination dept.
People — or at least the popular science media — seem to have a continuing fascination with the diminutive robots under development by Sylvain Martel at the Nano-Robotics Research Group within the MIT BioInstrumentation Laboratory, who has created small mobile robots which he calls NanoWalkers. Or maybe itís just the hometown press: MITís Technology Review Magazine ran a short article ("Walking Small", by David Cameron, 1 March 2002). Previous coverage of these decidedly NON-nanotech devices was noted here on Nanodot on 25 January 2002 and 20 December 2001.

Not to be outdone, and going a step smaller, an article in Semiconductor Business News ("Agilent Labs says 'nano-stepper' is smallest MEMS device", by Mark LaPedus, 14 March 2002) reports that Agilent Technologies Inc.'s R&D arm in Santa Clara, California is developing what is believed to be the world's smallest device, based on microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) technology. According to the article, the nano-stepper is a miniature moving component that is capable of providing linear, two-dimensional movements of about 15 million steps per second, with each step taken by the "nano-stepper" measuring 1.5-nm.