Category: Nanodot

from the catching-the-wave dept.
khennes1 writes "Which states will be big in the small-scale nanotech arena? An article from United Press International ("Nanotech hubs spread all over ", by K. Hearn, 11 July 2001) details various nanotech initiatives emerging across the country."

The article covers programs on the U.S. east coast in New York and Pennsylvania (and possibly the Boston and Washington, D.C. areas), as well as in California and Texas.

In a feature cover story for its 23 July 2001 issue, Forbes Magazine highlights nanotechnology, and profiles six research efforts working in various parts of the field ("The Next Small Thing", by Elizabeth Corcoran, 23 July 2001). Those profiled include Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer at IBM, inventors of the scanning transmission microscope (STM) who are now working to apply that technology to very high-density data storage; Harvard chemist George M. Whitesides; Angela Belcher of the University of Texas; Harold Craighead of Cornell's Nanobiotechnology Center; and Stanley Williams of HP Labs, James Heath at UCLA, and Mark Reed of Yale. The research covered ranges from nanobiotech to self-assembly to molecular electronics.

Note: Access to the magazine content is free, but may require registration.

from the View-from-another-shore dept.
Reason Magazine science correspondent Ronald Bailey makes a rather vituperative commentary ("Nanotech Negativism", 4 July 2001) on a what he terms is a " neo-Luddite report" from the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) in February ("The ETC Century"). In particular, Bailey expresses concern that the concerns raised by groups such as RAFI, especially gray-goo scenarios, will create a "fear of nanotech will inspire authoritarian repression to monitor or prevent the research from proceeding." After noting ongoing efforts to envision effective countermeasures to abuse and misuse of replicating nanobots, Bailey takes particular exception to a suggestion for an international technology regulatory body: "It doesnít take much of an imagination to realize what such a cumbersome and highly politicized process would do to the pace of technological progress. Not even rampaging nanobots would be able to outgrow an expanding U.N. bureaucracy."

Bailey had similar comments on what he terms "a global anti-technology movement" in February.

from the putting-things-in-perspective dept.
In the wake of an announcement on 6 July 2001 by researchers in the Netherlands that they had created a nanotube based single-electron transistor, Los Angeles Times science writer Charles Pillar offers this commentary that puts the discovery in context ("Tiny Transistors a Big Leap for Technology", 6 July 2001):

ìNanotechnology is being researched by scientists in many parts of the world. The most optimistic researchers project the creation of super-intelligent, microscopic devices that will push computing into futuristic realms. A multitude of micro devices might solve the toxic waste problem by disassembling poisonous molecules, such as dioxin, into the innocuous atoms that compose them, for example. Other scientists remain skeptical, saying that the absence of enabling technologies–such as wireless communications and power supplies–make such advances unfeasible any time soon.î

Piller concludes: "Skeptics contend that practical applications of nanotechnology are still a long way off. But a rush of incremental nanotech advances–such as the Delft University team's transistor–make it clear that nanotechnology is moving out of the realm of science fiction."

from the engineering-the-future dept.
The July 2001 issue of ASME News, a newsletter of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, reports that the ASME Board of Governors has approved development funding for a virtual institute — a clearinghouse for ASME's nanotechnology-related activities.
The purpose of the institute will be to provide international forums for technology transfer in the design, synthesis, manipulation and control of nanoscale systems. A goal for the Institute is support for nanotechnology design and development and the commercialization of the products and processes that use nanotechnology. It will also promote ASME as a leading engineering society for the practical application of nanotechnology as well as for the interdisciplinary engineers and scientists who will serve as the systems integrators.

from the catching-the-wave dept.
In the wake of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, and the establishment of major nanotechnology programs in California, New York and other states, smaller-scale programs are also springing up in other states and regions of the country. Two recent items from the trend:

• According to a report in Business First, a Columbus-based business journal, Ohio University has received a $1.2 million grant from the National Science Foundation to research nanotechnology ("OU gets grant for nanotechnology research", by C. Hall, 2 July 2001).
• Another item from the Atlanta Business Chronicle, ("It's all about being small: State jumps into 'nanoscience' ", by J. Bryant, 29 June 2001) sums the trend up pretty well: "Sensing what has become a global competition to develop these products, the federal government and universities such as Georgia Tech have suddenly gotten serious about funding nanoscience."

from the wider-audiences dept.
An brief interview with Dr. James R. Baker, Jr., who heads the University of Michigan's Center for Biologic Nanotechnology, appeared in the June 2001 issue of American Demographics ("FutureSpeak: Nanotechnology"). While short on substance, the interview does introduce some interesting aspects of nanotechnology to a different audience (demographers and sociologists, presumably).

from the World-Watch dept.
In the online version of Peopleís Daily, Chinaís Xinhua news agency reports ("China's Bid to Establish Nanotech Research Center", 29 June 2001) that China's Ministry of Science and Technology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) have unveiled the Shenyang National Laboratory for Materials Science (SYNL), in an effort to push forward advanced research on nano technology.
In April, Jiangsu Province announced research and industrialization of nanometer technology will be one of the main priorities in the province's new century drive to develop its science sector, according to an official from the provincial Development Planning Commission. And the coastal province of Shandong recently worked out its blueprint for developing nano-meter industry.

For some perspective on how nanotechnology fits into Chinaís overall plans to advance its science and technology programs, an interesting commentary from the Chinese National Science and Technology Awards Ceremony appeared in February.

from the public-affairs dept.
A pair of recent guest editorials in major San Francisco and Seattle newspapers have called for increased focus and greater funding for U.S. nanotechnology programs:

• San Francisco Chronicle columnist Hal Plotkin, who is also the Silicon Valley Correspondent for CNBC.com, writes in his piece ("The Tech Sector Needs A Nanotechnology Target", 21 June 2001): "As a field, nanotechnology is about where rocket science was at the dawn of the Space Age. Huge early investments in the space race yielded technological dividends that are only now beginning to dwindle. A similar race toward inner space will probably lead to even more lasting rewards." Plotkin also notes "Concerns over safety have already led to the creation of a voluntary set of ethical guidelines for nanotechnologists. The proposed rules say a lot about what could happen if something goes wrong", and points to the Foresight Guidelines.
• And in the Seattle Times, Thomas Kalil, a former deputy assistant to the president for technology and economic policy in the Clinton administration, criticizes the Bush Administrationís proposed FY2002 budget (" Cutting-edge small technology deserves big U.S. investment ", 28 June 2001). Even though nanotech-oriented programs in the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative saw a 23% increase in the proposed budget, overall funding for many of the agencies involved was cut. Kalil writes: "Unfortunately, the budget the Bush administration has submitted to Congress will make it difficult to significantly expand the NNI. The Bush plan would cut the research budgets of the National Science Foundation, NASA and the Department of Energy, agencies that all play a key role in the NNI . . . For a number of reasons, however, a failure to significantly expand U.S. government funding for nanotechnology would be a serious blow to America's future."
  Kalil concludes, "At a minimum, the Bush administration and Congress should work together to double federal spending on nanotechnology research over the next five years. America's economic and technology leadership in the 21st century will depend on these kinds of farsighted investments."