Category: Nanodot

Thereís a brief article on the Wired Magazine website ("Nanotech's Pitch for Megabucks", by Declan McCullagh, 15 December 2001) that provides additional coverage of the panel-discussion-as-lobbying-session presented at the U.S. Capitol by the NanoBusiness Alliance on 13 December 2001. According to the article, one person whom the Nanobusiness Alliance invited to speak at Thursday's panel discussion was Meyya Meyyappan, director of the Nanotechnology Research Center at NASA Ames. "If (corporations) know it's going to take 15 years, why are they going to invest?" Meyyappan said. "The role has traditionally come through government funding. That's a role, knowledge creation."

The article also quotes Foresight President Chris Peterson: "The fraction of federal funding going to the universities that result in products in the marketplace is not high. Even though the fraction is not high, it may be an excellent investment in the sense that the payoff is high." . . . Looking toward the future, Peterson said, "Eventually nanotechnology will bring up unique regulatory challenges." But she added: "It's not necessary today. There is no need to be concerned either way, if you're afraid of the regulation or if you want it."

An article on the Small Times website ("NanoBusiness Alliance goes to Washington", by D. Brown, 14 December 2001) provides coverage of a brief panel presentation sponsored by the NanoBusiness Alliance (NBA) in Washington, D.C. on 13 December 2001. The panel presented background information on nanotechnology to U.S. House of Representatives and Senate staffers, lobbyists and policy wonks as part of the NBAís efforts to influence U.S. government policy on nanotechnology-related issues. At a press conference earlier in the day, the NBA also announced that former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich will join the organization as its honorary chairman.

KPalmquist writes "Small Times reports today on the global pursuit of carbon nanotube mass-production. The interesting thing is that in this situation it's not necessarily a race of who can produce the most at the least expense; the diversity of nanotube types and quality are also key factors."

from the World-Watch dept.
A pair of items that provide some coverage of nanotech-related developments in Boston and elsewhere in Massachusetts:
An article from the Boston Business Journal ("The next big thing? More local biotechs adopt atomic-level product development", by Allison Connolly, 23 November 2001) discusses bionanotechnology research and development by several firms in the Boston area.
An item on the Multex Investor Marketguide.com website ("Ready for nanotechnology?", by Carla Drysdale 10 December 2001) has a brief general introduction, but focuses primarily on profiling Woburn, Mass.-based Nantero, a firm which is attempting to develop non-volatile random access memory (NRAM) products based on carbon nanotubes.

KPalmquist writes "Newt Gingrich announced today that he will be honorary chair of the NanoBusiness Alliance. F. Mark Modzelewski, head of the Alliance, says: "Newt Gingrich has long been the strongest voice in nanotechnology among America's policy and governmental leaders. The emerging nanotechnology sector has gained a brilliant and tested leader.""

In its annual review of the yearís highlights in the field of chemistry, the 10 December 2001 issue of Chemical & Engineering News, a publication of the American Chemical Society, includes an extensive article describing a broad range of advances in nanotechnology and molecular electronics that have occurred in the last year.

Interesting news continues to come out of Texas, one of several states emerging as a center of nanotech-related research and development activity. An article in the Houston Business Journal (30 November 2001) notes the announced move of the Toronto-based firm of C Sixty to Houston, in part lured by $4 million in venture funding for its efforts to develop applications for fullernes (buckyballs). The article also notes other recent events such as the $10.5 million grant from the National Science Foundation to create a Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University, and development of Houston-based firms Carbon Nanotechnologies (the venture by Richard Smalley and partners to commercialize carbon nanotubes) and Molecular Electronics Corp., co-founded by molectronics pioneers Jim Tour, Mark Reed, and their partners. The article quotes James Calaway, a C Sixty board member, and president and CEO of Center for Houston's Future: "We're developing a sophisticated group of early-stage nano investors," Calaway says. "Houston is really becoming a hotbed for this area . . . "We're building a nano-cluster here. That's the most important thing. We're building the commercial aspects early enough that we can become a leading nano-cluster in the world."
Perhaps the cooperative agreement between the UT Dallas and Canadian nanotech centers announced in December 2001 was meant as compensation for drawing C Sixty away from Toronto?
Another article in the Ft. Worth Business Journal ("Big Things come in small packages", by G. Bennison, 6 December 2001) makes a few general comments about the developing Texas nanotech boom, but focuses primarily on the Center for Nanostructure Materials and Quantum Device Fabrication (NanoFab) at the University of Texas at Arlington.

Glenn Reynolds, a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and a Foresight Board member, comments on the recent attention from both policy makers and the media to the potential opportunities and dangers of nanotechnology in an article on the TechCentral Station website ("Donít Be Afraid. Donít Be Very Afraid: Nanotechnology Worries Are Overblown", 6 December 2001). His conclusion:
"Overall, the best defense against the abuse of nanotechnology by terrorists, rogue governments, or anyone else is a combination: reasonable regulations to foster responsibility and safety, governments willing to police abuses by terrorists or other governments, and a world order in which such acts are discouraged in general. Weíre quite a distance from these factors, but fortunately we have at least a couple of decades to get there. Itís time to start working."

Reynolds' comments about facing the potential dangers of nanotechnology without undue fear and loathing were also reported in a piece on the Wired website ("Don't Fear Science You Can't See"). Reynolds also had a similar discussion in Ad Astra, the magazine of the National Space Society ("Space, Nanotechnology and Techno-Worries", Jan/Feb 2001; available as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file).
"Rather than too much technology," he writes, "perhaps the problem is that we have too little. In the early days of nanotechnology, dangerous technologies may enjoy an advantage. Once the technology matures, it is likely that dangerous uses can be contained. The real danger of the sort of limits Joy proposes is that they may retard the development of constructive technologies, thus actually lengthening the window of vulnerability." Reynolds concludes that Bill Joy may have done a service by drawing greater attention to both the dangers and the opportunities of nanotechnology, but: "If the debate is to accomplish anything, however, it will have to proceed on a more informed level."

from the The-buzz dept.
A spate of news items about nanotechnology has emerged in the wake of the Nanotech Planet conference held last week in Boston. Some items of interest:

• An article on the Wired ("Nanotech, but Not in a Nanosecond") website that reiterates the cautionary statements regarding investment-oriented nanohype made by HPís Stanley Williams and others.
• Another Wired item ("Don't Fear Science You Can't See") features some level-headed comments by Foresight Senior Associate and Board member Glenn Reynolds (who spoke at the conference) and others on negative reactions to the other kind of nanohype ñ fears of runaway self-replicating nanobots and the like.
• An article on the Small Times ("European nanotech depends too much on government handouts, expert says", by M. Kelley, 30 November 2001) website presents comments by Ramon Compano, a member of the European Commissionís Program for Future and Emerging Technologies, who claims European nanotech ventures receive far more support from public investment and research grants than the private sector.
• Small Times also ran an article that reported the comments of venture capitalists and investors who were speakers and in the audience at the conference: "While bullish on nanotechís promise in general and confident that it will lure its share of investment dollars, the speakers also warned that the sector is a long way from practical success."
• A similar item appeared on the The Deal.com website ("VCs see slow start to nanotech investing", by Charles Sisk, 30 November 2001): "Despite predictions that the market for nanotechnology . . . will take off in the next 15 years, most ideas are still too under-developed to warrant funding, venture capitalists and other investors said."