Interested in funding your nano-related startup company? Want to find out important issues surrounding starting and running one? Then take a look at this conference:

Nanotech Investing Conference (3rd Annual)
February 2-3, 2004
The Lodge at Rancho Mirage, Palm Springs, CA
http://www.ibfconferences.com/nanotech2004.htm
Presented by: IBF*International Business Forum

FORESIGHT MEMBER DISCOUNT: To register at the reduced rate of $995 (regularly $1,195), mention ìForesightî. Contact Cathy Fenn of IBF at (516) 765-9005 ext. 21 or via email at Cathy@ibfconferences.com

What do you think were the most important nano-related developments of 2003? What were the downsides and upsides of nanotechnology's breakthrough into the mainstream?

Phillip Ball from Nature magazine makes his case, from a British perspective, here.

Formerly implying they played a primary, or at least major, role in getting the MNT study taken out of recent legislation, NbA is now downplaying their part in the process. Perhaps they got some flak about it? See Howard Lovy's blog item. Note to Mark M.: it is a risky thing to make fun of bloggers–they can make a difference. Just ask Trent Lott, the former Senate majority leader.

HLovy writes "R.U. Sirius, who has an impressive track record of spotting cultural and technological trends years before the rest of the media pick up on it, has posted an interview with me on his neofiles Webzine.

More on Howard Lovy's NanoBot."

Roland Piquepaille writes "Scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science (WIS) in Israel have produced a new type of nanotube made of gold or silver. These nanotubes, which are produced at room temperature, don't have the mechanical strength of the more common carbon nanotubes. But they have unique electrical and optical properties, making them ideally suited "to form the basis for future nanosensors, catalysts and chemistry-on-a-chip systems." The story doesn't give any clues about availability for future products. It doesn't mention prices either. But considering that carbon nanotubes cost between $500 and $900 per gram, I wonder what will be the price for nanotubes made from gold. This summary contains more details and a spectacular image of gold nanoparticle nanotubes obtained with a scanning electron microscope."

JohnFaith writes "Technology Research News reports that Researchers from the University of Cambridge have grown nanotubes on plastic substrate. From the pictures in the article, the structures look more like tall thin cones, but maybe the tips are single tubes?"

Roland Piquepaille writes "Scientists at Northwestern University have designed the smallest scaffoldings in the world made of self-assembling structures built from synthetic molecules. This news release says that these nanostructures can promote neuron growth. This could lead to "the reversal of paralysis due to spinal cord injury." This research has important potential because, as says Nature, "every year in the United States alone, about 15,000 people damage their spines [and] few recover fully." The results of this research work have been published by Science (free registration needed to read the abstract). This summary contains more details and excerpts."

Roland Piquepaille writes "Several articles appeared yesterday about how a small Hawaiian squid is using reflective plates to confuse predators, paving the way for a new generation of optical nanotechnology tools. Here are two short stories from Scientific American, "Squid May Inspire New Nanolights," and from Ananova, "Nature's 'searchlight' could leave inventors squids in." Scientific American says that this small squid has "a built-in flashlight made up of a previously unknown type of protein." The authors of the study called it "reflectin". I'm not sure if this will lead to future nanolight tools, but Ananova reports that "the structure of the reflecting plates could offer inspiration to nanotechnology designers." This overview contains more details and includes a picture of the cute three-inch-long Hawaiian bobtail squid."

JeremyTurner writes "Here is an abstract I proposed in 2003 about MNT's potential impact on the contemporary artworld. I was hoping to get some feedback from Nanodot users about the subject and advice as to the types of venues and resources that are currently available for me to publish this abstract and develop the research in further detail.

HLovy writes "It's obvious that business and government have a bad case of DNA PTSD, or genetic shell shock, which is why they certainly won't get fooled again when it comes to nanotechnology. I've heard the mantra many times during the past few years: "No More GMO." But the chanters wear pinstripes and not patchouli oil.

Public outcry (especially in Europe) against genetically modified organisms was the result of a determined effort between science, business and government to completely misread the public. It took some serious brainpower, collusion and planning to so totally miss the point on what gets the masses all fired up, and the important role public perception plays in the introduction of any new technology. The biggest mistake was the arrogant assumption that the public will accept as inherently good anything that helps big biotech companies succeed and farmers increase their yields. What was missing from the equation, of course, was consideration of how the public "feels" about genetic manipulation.

More on Howard Lovy's NanoBot."

A new collaboration between UCLA and the LA Museum of art seems to have produced an innovative new exhibit (permalink here) depicting the crossroads between art, science, and culture, and how they influence one another.

If anyone in the LA area happens to make it by the exhibit, feel free to submit a review of the exhibit to us, and we'll include it in a future posting on nanodot…

V

Dean Tribble writes "ZettaCore, a semiconductor start-up initially funded by Draper, Fisher, Jurvetson, received B-round venture funding of $17.5M, led by the top-tier Kleiner Perkins.

WesDuCharme writes "The chicken and egg puzzle of whether AI might lead to molecular nanotechnology or vice versa is an interesting one. This abstract in Nature, reported more fully here here describes an intriguing first step in the genetics arena.

As reported in The Globe and Mail, ìThis week, a group of researchers in Britain unveiled the Robot Scientist, a device five years in the making. Not only can it ask, "What if?" it can also design some experiments to test its hypothesis, carry out those experiments and, finally, analyze the data collected before confirming or altering its hypothesis.î

Although the Robot Scientist was only going over ground already covered, the potential for speeding up scientific progress seems clear. Anyone feel timetables tightening?

Foresight Press Advisory: Palo Alto, CA ñ January 20, 2004 ñ A report released today in Sacramento indicates that U.S. federal confusion over nanotechnology's original goal has spread to the state of California, where the concept originated. The report, "Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: Opportunities and Challenges in California," was released today at a meeting of the state's Joint Committee on "Preparing California for the 21st Century."

HLovy writes "The nano meme continues to pick up steam. I'm among the Pong generation, so I might be lost in this game space, but it's clear that game programmers and marketers know a cool prefix when they hear it. So, in no particular order, here are some of the latest games and videos with a nano theme."

Roland Piquepaille writes "In "Keen Eye for the Nano Guys," Wired News writes that one of the top three world's most powerful microscopes is used today in England "to unlock the secrets of nanoparticles and their impact on human health." "The SuperSTEM microscope at Daresbury Laboratory in Cheshire, England, is so sensitive that it requires a special building capable of protecting it from the vibrations caused by raindrops. Its resolution is so sharp that researchers can count atoms on its images." This overview contains more details about the potential dangers created by nanoparticles and how this microscope can help. It also includes photographs of — and obtained by — the SuperSTEM microscope."

2012Rocky writes "Among a rapidly growing group of nano-commentators, Nanotechnology Now is concerned that the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act calls for a one-time study of the feasibility of "molecular self-assembly," and omits any possibility of studying the feasibility of molecular manufacturing. Failure to investigate both the promise and the peril of molecular manufacturing may well lead to a future where we find ourselves taken by surprise, to our collective detriment. Read the other comments here: http://nanotech-now.com/MNT-12092003.htm"

Benjamin Melki writes "With an interest increase in nanotechnology companies among the investors community, Nanovip.com has compiled a list of public companies directly involved in nanotechnology research or products. Concerned markets are the Nasdaq, the Nyse, the OTC BB, pink sheet… and we have also listed companies trading on the Hong Kong board, on the UKís lse and on the Toronto stock exchange. We are open to new suggestions."

Roland Piquepaille writes "Despite all the hype surrounding nanotechnology, there are actually hundreds of real products available today. Forbes.com had the good idea to select ten nanotech products that you can purchase right now. It goes from high-performance ski wax to a breathable waterproof ski jacket, or from an OLED digital camera to performance sunglasses coated with nanofilm layers 150 nanometers thick. My two preferred products are a $250 tennis racket, with a 3-ball pack of nanotech tennis balls to go with it, at a cost of $4.49. And guess what, these tennis balls have already been approved by such organizations as the Davis Cup. As you can see, nanotechnology is becoming mainstream. Let's see what 2004 will bring us. This summary gives you more details about these two tennis products."

Senior Associate RobertBradbury writes "Eurekalert has a story about scientists at Purdue who are starting to unravel how mussels can stick to almost anything. It appears that iron is used as an essential crosslinking agent between the protein(s) in the adhesive. The common crosslinking agent in proteins is sulfur but the bonds may be weaker than those that iron provides. This may give nanotechnology oriented chemists an additional strategy for producing cross-linked polymers to develop Stages 2 & 3 of one nanotechnology development path as discussed by Drexler in Table 16.1 of Nanosystems."