|
||||||
|
Organic chemist Derek Lowe, PhD, gives a chemist's view of molecular nanotechnology: "As a chemist, I've more than a passing interest in this field. Nanotechnology is chemistry, through and through. It's done (going to be done, I should say, if Drexler's right) by other means than the ones I'm used to, but it's atoms and bonds all the way. As a solution-phase classical organic chemist, I look on the advent of what Drexler calls "machine-phase" synthesis with equal parts anticipation and dread. The dread isn't because of some looming catastrophe, just the fear that I'll eventually be invented out of a job." Those attempting to track nanotech in Japan may want to check out NanoNet, the website of the Nanotechnology Researchers Network Center of Japan. To get their every-other-weekly e-newsletter, subscribe here. Also very useful is the Asian Technology Information Program — which appears not to be loading at the moment — but most of their information is not free. Both cover more nanoscale than MNT. HLovy writes "Since everybody is doing a "year in review" piece, here's mine in a "nanosecond." Nanotech purists cannot see how nanotechnology could be treated as merely a business proposition, while businesspeople cannot see how it could be treated as anything else. And that brings us to 2004." The complete commentary can be found on Howard Lovy's NanoBot. Foresight Senior Associate Steve Jurvetson let us know of molecular memory start-up ZettaCore's coup: getting Intel co-founder Les Vadasz onto their board of directors. Said Vadasz: "I haven't joined any other boards since retiring…This was the only one I thought could have a high-enough impact that it piqued my interest." Jurvetson's firm DFJ is an investor in ZettaCore. One speaker at this year's EuroNanoForum took a rather controversial stand: On TechCentralStation, Foresight director Glenn Reynolds describes some "awfully important" nano work being done today, and comments: "…as nanotechnology looks more quotidian, it may also short-circuit serious discussion of its implications. I think that the nanotech business community is actually hoping for such an outcome, in fact, but I continue to believe that such hopes are shortsighted. Genetically modified foods, for example, came to the market with the same absence of discussion, but the result wasn't so great for the industry. Will nanotechnology be different? Stay tuned." Sam Ghandchi, Editor/Publisher of Iranscope, explains why he finds Drexler & Kurzweil's views more persuasive than Smalley's, and why this matters to the developing world: "The same way, the nanotechnology can be the most important technology that may replicate fuel cells, to put an end to the age of oil, and not only it would impact the economy of oil producing countries like Iran, but it can change the whole economy of energy production in the world, which is the basis of all industrial production worldwide, and can make a huge impact on poverty and wealth worldwide." Foresight advisor Ray Kurzweil has responded to a critique of his views on machine intelligence by Scientific American: "If you do the thought experiment of considering the implications of multiple generations of technology, the availability over the next several decades of enormous increases in the capacity of our computational andcommunication tools, the advent of molecularnanotechnology, and far greater insight into the principles of operation of the human brain, I believe that our perspectives will converge. Here's a must-read piece about the new nanotech bill, with a fun illustration, by popular demand on Howard Lovy's NanoBot: Ronald Bailey of Reason Magazine offers a nanotech pro-progress essay: "As for unintended consequences, someday something will go wrong with nanotechnology, as it has with electricity, cars, and computers. But we shouldnít deny ourselves the benefits of a new technology just because we cannot foresee every consequence. We should proceed by trial and error and ameliorate problems as they arise. Thatís how the dramatic progress humanity has seen during the last two centuries was accomplished. If an ICENT [International Convention for the Evaluation of New Technologies] had existed in the 19th century, we probably would still be riding horses, using candles for lighting, cooking on wood stoves, and gulping whiskey for anesthesia." TimHarper writes "http://www.nanotechweb.org/articles/column/2/12/2/ 1 Merry Christmas, peace on Earth? 19 December 2003 This week we took the first steps towards using nanotechnology for something that would benefit not only business but humanity in general, with the Inaugural Forum at Israel's Weizmann Institute on ìNanotechnology in the Service of Desalination, Remediation, and Purification of Waterî. Nanotechnology in the service of humanity is an issue that has been cropping up all year, from the meeting on nanotechnology and health care in Thanjavur, India, in January, through conference calls to Accra and Kabul, to Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shimon Peres's speech on nanotechnology and water at the World Nano-Economic Congress in Washington DC." Read More for the rest. Berkeley economist Brad DeLong has A Framework for the Economic Analysis of Technological Revolutions, with an Application to Nanotechnology up on his blog. While slightly confused on MNT ("if engines of creation are possible, hasn't evolution had enough time to build them yet?"), his conclusions about the need for the U.S. to encourage immigration in order to continue to play a key role in technology sound exactly right. In addition to the CRN presentation already reported here, Foresight director and law prof Glenn Reynolds presented at the recent EPA meeting and gives his report on Tech Central Station: "I noted that only in the final category ['true Molecular Nanotechnology'] did serious ethical or regulatory issues appear, and also noted that the recent flood of 'it's impossible' claims relating to 'spooky' nanotechnology seems to have more to do with fear of ethical or regulatory scrutiny than anything else. I won't waste too many pixels on my own views here, because you can read the article in draft here." The article will be published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. Mike Treder writes "CRN's Director of Research, Chris Phoenix, was in Washington DC yesterday (Dec. 11) for an appearance before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board. The EPA is assessing potential environmental impacts of nanotechnology, and they invited Chris to participate on a panel along with other experts. We've posted a new web page that outlines the information Chris presented, and goes into greater depth on selected subjects. It's at http://www.crnano.org/EPAhandout.htm" David B. Hughes writes "The debate over whether molecular manufacturing and nanoassemblers are feasible has turned into a PR war. With billions of dollars of research funding and industrial profits at stake, both sides are taking their ideological clash to the public. So far, Eric Drexler and the Foresight Institute own the moral and scientific high ground. But his critics at the National Nanotechnology Initiative hold the purse strings. And they don't play by the same rules." AndreasLigtvoet writes "IBM has trumpeted a nanotech method for making microchip components which it says should enable electronic devices to continue to get smaller and faster. See the story at BBC." Patrick writes " A functional electronic nano-device has been manufactured using biological self-assembly for the first time" Roland Piquepaille writes "Engineers and physicists working together have discovered that under certain conditions liquid drops and gas bubbles were breaking at two separate points instead of one, leaving an extremely thin thread in between. This could lead to the creation of nanofibers and nanowires and to numerous applications, such as new kinds of composite materials, electronic circuits and pharmaceutical products. Nanotechweb.org reports on this discovery in "Nanowires drop out of fluid research." I'm not totally convinced that this discovery can lead to solid industrial processes, but it sure looks promising. You'll find more details and references in this overview which also includes an image of the break-up of a water drop in oil." qftconnor writes: Readers might be interested in skimming through the recent Royal Society report Nanotechnology: views of Scientists and Engineers. I found the parts labeled 'Science Fiction' to be particularly entertaining. A typical remark: "Nanorobots ñ the biocomplexity of putting a nanorobot in the body to enter and repair cells has been massively overestimated [sic]. ëWeíll never know enough to go in and cure a cellí. This scenario also fails to recognise that the emphasis in health care is on developing non-invasive techniques and essentially persuading the body to heal itself." Sure." HLovy writes "I can tell from my Web stats that I do have some readers in Iran, which has nanotechnological goals of its own. To them, I'd like to extend an invitation to contact me and see how we can get a battle plan together for an all-out war on inequitable distribution of resources such as fresh water and arable land, brandishing nanotech-enhanced weapons. Having spent much of my journalism career writing about the Mideast conflict, I'm certainly not blundering into this subject under the influence of any kind of naive daydream that historical, cultural, religious and political barriers will simply melt into the desert. But it couldn't hurt to set up a tent. For the complete commentary, please see Howard Lovy's NanoBot." |
|
|||||
|
Copyright © 2009 the Foresight Institute - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
