Omission in the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Deveopment Act
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"
January 18th, 2004 at 11:11 AM
US centrism, and lobbying for US funds.
This Nanodot headline post, and to some extent also the referenced article, are disappointingly US-centric and completely focussed on obtaining US government funding and US government recognition. Even worse, the result of the NNI distortions are portrayed in quite alarmist terms, as if everything depended on the NNI. To the rest of us in the world (yes, we do exist), this is extremely myopic, not to say distasteful.
MNT research in the wider world continues unabated, regardless of the limited viewpoints of the US government and politicians. And MNT research in the wider world (and in the US as well) continues without any visible slowdown, regardless of the lack of NNI cash to fund feasibility studies.
A more international approach and less small-townism would be very useful on this forum, given the global issues surrounding molecular nanotechnology. As far as I am aware, Foresight and Nanodot are not purely US advocacy sites, but it often sounds that way. And if people want government money to fund their studies (which they must expect since a study by the traditional industries alone would make no sense), then say so. Let the "bad guys" use the subterfuge and have the hidden agendas. We really don't need that.
I recognize that in large part this is a struggle for recognition in the circles of US influence, more than for funding (you can after all seek funds elsewhere, and you should). To some extent though, that struggle is quite pointless. The war for acceptance of MNT was won long ago, pretty soon after people digested Nanosystems, and each daily report of development breakthroughs just underlines that further. Industry is already investigating MNT extremely widely. People would do well to remember the law of diminishing returns.
January 18th, 2004 at 2:57 PM
Re:US centrism, and lobbying for US funds.
I have to consider the research from an academic angle, as that is my current perspective (chemistry graduate student). We do nanocrystal studies, mesoscopic optical studies, and materials studies. I would really like to do diamond mechanochemical studies. We have access to all the necessary equipment within the building and I think I can do it. My boss won't approve the experiment. "It's hype." She couldn't tell me why it was hype, and she was shocked when I told her that Nanosystems had detailed chapters on quantum, thermal, and frictional effects on nanomechanical systems. My boss is young, open minded, and curious, but she has been conditioned by the senior academic staff, who have not read the body of MNT literature. The origional clause of the bill threatened to give MNT some legitimacy in open US academic circles. Does that threaten secret government projects? If MNT research is really going on in labs and corporations world-wide as you say, they certainly don't publish much. Do we want that? More immediately, where are they? Who do I apply to for a job? Zyvex is the only one I know of.
January 18th, 2004 at 7:26 PM
Re:US centrism, and lobbying for US funds.
"My boss is young, open minded, and curious, but she has been conditioned by the senior academic staff, who have not read the body of MNT literature."
I think the question one may want to pose to them is whether or not they want to be on record as being "wrong" or whether they want to risk being left behind in the rush to nanotechnology.
I will cite a concrete example. Viola Vogel who is the co-director of the U.W. nanotech center (and someone whose work I respect) published a chapter in a NSF publication (in late 2000) on the societal impact of nanotechnology that clearly demonstrated that she had not read any of the literature with respect to Nanorobots (e.g. Nanomedicine (late 1999 publication date for Vol. I) but that date back to 1996 (or even earlier if you read the literature carefully).
So as much as I respect Dr. Vogel when I have the opportunity to encounter her I will make it clear to her that she did not do her homework. That is one weapon you can use against the "old school" — "How stupid do you want others to make you look?"
Another revolves around what will happen when people really understand the potential for nanotechnology. Do you think people who haven't read the literature or people who have been naysayers for years and years are going to get funded? I think not.
So you have to press them hard to identify precisely what the fantasies are — (can't one certainly imagine times in chemistry when the synthesis of B-12 or Taxol were fantasies??? And didn't those fantasies prove unjustified?). And press them on the risks they take of being viewed as non-visionary when vision is precisely what will be required by grant committees and venture capital firms.
"The origional clause of the bill threatened to give MNT some legitimacy in open US academic circles. Does that threaten secret government projects?
Doubtful. It is far more likely that you are dealing with people who simply have not done the required reading. From my experience in speaking with people in government this is certainly true. I suspect it is also true of many scientists in the U.S. who are involved in nanotechnology research as well.
If MNT research is really going on in labs and corporations world-wide as you say, they certainly don't publish much. Do we want that? More immediately, where are they?"
You might want to point out the references cited at the end of this letter to your advisors. Also there is a wealth of nanotechnology research information of a technical nature provided on the transhumantech mailing list (though you will have to select it from among the other topics).
Who do I apply to for a job?
This is very tricky. I will state that the hits on the NanoAtHome source paper are running: TW > JP > KR >= U.S. (.gov). I also notice frequent German requests. Most importantly I would find a manager who has actually read Nanosystems (over 10,000 copies have been sold) and/or some of the other technical papers that have been written by Drexler, Hall, Merkle or Freitas over the last decade.
Finally, do not hesitate to point out how difficult real molecular nanotechnology may be. I discuss here why at least one path may be prohibitively expensive now. BUT those costs will come down — the various paths may be difficult but they are not impossible. It will be the early participants who end up with the prizes and spoils.
Robert
Useful References
Ralph C. Merkle, Robert A. Freitas Jr., "Theoretical analysis of a carbon-carbon dimer placement tool for diamond mechanosynthesis," J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 3(August 2003):319-324.
http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/DimerTool.htm
http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/JNNDimerTool.pdf
Jingping Peng, Robert A. Freitas Jr., Ralph C. Merkle, "Theoretical Analysis of Diamond Mechanosynthesis. Part I. Stability of C2 Mediated Growth of Nanocrystalline Diamond C(110) Surface," J. Comp. Theor. Nanosci. 1(March 2004). In press.
David J. Mann, Jingping Peng, Robert A. Freitas Jr., Ralph C. Merkle, "Theoretical Analysis of Diamond Mechanosynthesis. Part II. C2 Mediated Growth of Diamond C(110) Surface via Si/Ge-Triadamantane Dimer Placement Tools," J. Comp. Theor. Nanosci. 1(March 2004). In press.
January 19th, 2004 at 6:15 AM
Re:US centrism, and lobbying for US funds.
You write: My boss is young, open minded, and curious, but she has been conditioned by the senior academic staff, who have not read the body of MNT literature.
Lend her your copy of Nanosystems — maybe have two of them, one at home and one always with you as silent PR and for loaning out. Subsequently, print out any detailed items on mechanochemical reactions and feed them to her, one at a time, just to keep her thinking about it. Make mechanochemistry "your thing" in tutorial groups — lecturers are always happy when students find their own material instead of having to be fed. Whenever any new commercial breakthrough is announced, pop her a photocopy or printout as an "FYI" on how industry is closing in on the issues, worldwide — that's important so that she can see that your feet are on the ground. Feed her also any information you find on nanoscale materials research — she will be able to relate to that already, and it will warn her implicitly that she is being left behind. Never sound like an activist, but portray the information as an indicator of how the underpinnings for MNT are rapidly being put in place by industry and the rest of the world.
University lecturers are not under the thumb of their bosses except very loosely, and certainly not as far as their daily research is concerned. I had the pleasure of being one for several years, and life as a research academic is about as free and unrestricted as it could possibly be. She has to get a paper or two published each year and do her paperwork and her lectures and that's about it, and her mind is definitely her own. If you get her curious about mechanochemistry, the rest will follow naturally.
Your post also brought to mind the Nanodot article of 2nd Jan 2004 about Michael Crichton's essay on consensus science. There will probably be an element of that operating in your department as well, but don't worry about it too much. You see, the war has already been won for the most part, as even the naysayers are now working towards making MNT happen by redefining everything nanoscale as nanotechnology and hence making the term kosher. With each new "nanotechnology product" that hits the streets (doesn't matter that it's not), another nail seals the fate of MNT detractors. All we need now is time, and steady work.