Category: Nanodot

from the let's-talk-about-this-a-little-sooner dept.
Charles Vollum writes "Michio Kaku was interviewed on Art Bell's May 24th, 2001 "Coast to Coast AM" show. Dr. Kaku was asked about the Gray Goo problem, which had been described in an April 24th interview with Mark Pesce. Basically, his response was not to worry: assemblers are not possible in the near future because we don't know enough to build a self-repicating machine on a table top, let alone at the atomic level. He suggested that "mid-century, we should talk about this again."

Listen to a short clip in MP3, or click here to stream the entire show. (The comments on nanotechnology occur in the show's final minutes.)"

from the World-Watch dept.
According to an article in the Korea Herald ("MOST draws up 10-year plan for nano technology", by Yang Sung-jin, 25 May 2001), the South Korean Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) has drawn up a ten-year master plan to nurture nanotechnology in that country. The plan, part of a bid to position South Korea as one of the top 10 nations in the field by 2010, includes three stages, "with the government pouring 1.37 trillion won in state and private investments into the project in a bid to pave the way for the introduction of NT infrastructure within five years." The ministry said it would hold a forum on the project plan before finalizing the details in July.

from the looking-ahead dept.
In a brief interview ("Expert Ralph Merkle on nanotechnology", by K. Hearn, 23 May 2001) conducted by United Press International, Zyvex research fellow and Foresight advisor Ralph Merkle , talked about molecular assemblers, applying open source development methods to nanoscience, and the future of nanoscience research.

from the molectronics dept.
A series of articles in the May 2001 issue of Fortune Magazine ("The New World Order") attempts to highlight the likely next generation of technologies where investors and entrepreneurs can make their own fortunes. In one article ("In Search of the Silver Bullet"), the magazine "paid visits to five in-the-trenches innovators, each on the verge of what could be a breakthrough discovery."

One of the five is UCLA researcher James Heath, whose work in molecular electronics is profiled ("Building Chips, One Molecule at a Time"). According to the article, "Heath thinks he might be able to build a rudimentary computer within a couple of years. "It won't be a computer you'll be proud of," he says, "but it will work." Then, he believes, if he can scale the whole thing up to a capacity of one megabyte . . . molecular computing becomes, as Heath puts it, "an engineering project"–in other words, a technology that companies can begin to muck around with themselves."

from the public-involvement dept.
An interesting commentary ("Get Ready for Your Nano Future", by Alan Leo, 4 May 2001) on the recent NSET report on the Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology appeared on the Technology Review website. As the articleís subtitle indicates, "We know that nanotech will change the world — it's time to think about how." The article says the report indicates "The most significant implications may be unforeseen, and unforeseeable."

The key lesson, according to Mihail Roco, the National Science Foundation's senior advisor for nanotechnology, "is to involve the public early in the process — before nanotech's effects are felt."
"We look to the people who are raising [concerns] to address the issues sooner," Roco says. "History shows that all breakthroughs in science and technology have brought societal changes and, sometimes, societal fears. But nobody should think about stopping research and development in this field [just] because there could be some risks."

Additional comments in reaction to the NSET Societal Implications report appeared here on nanodot on 27 April and 30 April.

from the journalistic-double-standards dept.
An article in Londonís Financial Times ("Inside Track: Nanotechnology", by Fiona Harvey, 23 April 2001) presents a generally optimistic overview of ongoing efforts to develop machine-based nanotechnology, but gets it really wrong when assigning proper credit for the development of these concepts.

Read more to see why . . .