Category: Nanodot

from the World-Watch dept.
A pair of reports in the Canberra Times cover a minor flap that developed when Australian Federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson departed from normal practice by directing the Australian Research Council (ARC), the nation's top research body, how to spend a third of its 2003 budget. Making the announcement on 28 January ("Nelson sets priority for research funds" by C. Jackson, 30 January 2002), Nelson said 33 per cent of ARC funding would go to four priority areas of cutting-edge scientific research such as nanotechnology, genomics, complex and intelligent systems and photonics. About A$170 million (about US$86.4 million) would support projects and centres for up to five years; Nelson said that research proposals in the areas of nanotechnology and biomaterials, photon science, genomics and phenomics, and complex and intelligent systems should share one-third of ARC grants allocated in the current application round for 2003. According to the second report ("Minister's decision means some research grants doubled" by C. Jackson S. Grose, 31 January 2002), the result of the reallocation of funds to those four specific areas will result in funds to those areas almost doubling. In the 2002 round, genomic and phenomics received the largest amount of the four, 6.4 per cent. Nanotech and biomaterial work received 5.9 per cent, photon science 2.9 per cent, and 2.8 per cent went to complex and intelligent systems research.

According to the reports, the announcement has thrown the ARC's grants system into turmoil.

According to an article in the Albaby, N.Y. Times Union ("RPI among finalists for Army nanotech project", by K. Aaron, 30 January 2002), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is one of just a few U.S. universities still under consideration to be the host institution of the University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) for the U.S. Armyís Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN). Competition for the UARC was quite keen, and included three universities in New York State alone (see Nanodot posts from 1 November and 28 November 2001). According to the article, the Army will announce which school will host the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies by the end of March. The award would bring the winning university $95 million over five years, though Richard W. Siegel, a professor who is leading the RPI effort, expects that to climb.

from the old-news-warmed-over dept.
An article from Crain's New York Business ("New Yorkís in a nano state of mind with research and VC money", 28 January 2002) provides a rather boosterish perspective on nanotech research and business activity in New York State, but largely rehashes developments that have been taking place there over the past year or so.

from the World-Watch dept.
A series of articles in the venerable French newspaper Le Monde on 18 January 2002 profile Minatec, a new micro- and nano-technology education, research and business incubation center being developed in Grenoble, France, as well as broader nanotech research and development activities in the European Union (EU), and compares them to their counterparts in the United States and elsewhere:

• " Les grandes promesses de l'infiniment petit " ("The grand promises of the infinitely small", by Michel Alberganti). An overview of Minatec research and development goals, primarily related to electronics applications.
• "Minatec cristallise les ambitions de la filière électronique de la région de Grenoble" ("Minatec crystallizes the ambitions of a electronics career for the Grenoble region", by Nicole Cabret). A closer look at Minatec funding, staff, facilities, and its administrative and operational structure.
• "Un univers de nains pour, demain, gouverner le monde" ("A universe of dwarves for, tomorrow, governing the world", by Jean-Francois Augereau). Interestingly, this article cites researchers such as Richard Smalley and Jim Gimzewski in support of the vision of advanced nanotechnology attributed to K. Eric Drexler.
• "Jean Therme, directeur du centre grenoblois du Commissariat à l'énergie atomique" ("Jean Therme, Director of the Grenoble Center of the Atomic Energy Commission"). An interview by Nicole Cabret provides additional information on the establishment and goals of Minatec.
• "L'Europe tente de suivre le rythme des Etats-Unis" ("Europe attempts to follow the rhythm of the United States"). This might be more accurately translated as "Europe attempts to match the pace of the United States", since the article describes the urgent need for the EU to establish nanotech efforts comparable to the U.S., Japan and China/Taiwan.

Previous coverage of Minatec appeared here on Nanodot on 14 January 2002.

If you donít read French, try the Babelfish/AltaVista machine translator. It provides a rough but useful translation of lengthy web pages. The version of the article simplified for printing usually translates faster, because all the banner ads and nav elements have been removed.

from the transition-state dept.
A brief item on the Small Times website ("Krebs leaves nano institute, remains at UCLA", by Jayne Fried, 25 January 2002) reports that Martha Krebs has left her position as director of the California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) for a broader role at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), on of the UC campuses that hosts the CNSI. Krebs also has served as associate vice chancellor of UCLA for research, and said she will be devote herself full time to that job. Krebs was a key figure in establishing CNSI, and had moved to California a year ago from Washington, D.C., to become director of the institute. Previously, as science director at the U.S. Department of Energy, Krebs helped establish the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative.

According to the report, Jim Health, formerly co-scientific director of CNSI, is now acting director of the institute; he will work with Evelyn Hu, the other co-scientific director prior to change. Heath told Small Times that CNSI will be seeking a chief operating officer, — "probably more of a business or entrepreneurial type than a scientist", Heath said — to assist in running the instutute.

from the nanotech,-eh dept.
An extensive article in the Ontario, Canada National Post ("Small Miracles", by Margaret Munro, 21 January 2002) provides an interesting, if somewhat skeptical, look at nanotechnology in Canada and the United States. While dismissing speculations about advanced molecular nanotechnology as "the stuff of fiction", Munro writes "there is clearly a revolution afoot", but:

Scientists say the revolution will be gradual. "The hype is just that," says Robert Wolkow, a research officer at the National Research Council in Ottawa and one of the country's leading nanotechnologists. "Many really remarkable things will happen. But they're not going to happen next year or even in five years," he says. A more realistic time frame is 10 to 20 years before nanotechnology dramatically changes our lives. But when the revolution comes, says Wolkow, "it will be fantastic."

In addition to profiling a number of interesting nanotech research projects, the article briefly mentions the contention over the feasibility of molecular assemblers that resulted from the September 2001 special nanotech issue of Scientific American, and quotes skeptical Canadian researchers.

from the money-talks dept.
According to an article in the Taipei Times ("Business leaders learn about nanotechnology", by Chiu Yu-tzu, 22 January 2002), business representatives meeting in southern Taiwan on 21 January said that full support from the government and research organizations would be crucial to future industrial transformation, including nanotechnology.

More than 500 representatives of diverse industries attended a panel discussion held by the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) in Kaohsiung to hear the latest information about nanotechnology research. According to the report, "Representatives said that they sensed signs of an economic recovery, but what they needed urgently was full support from both the government and research organizations to promote nanotechnology, which is innovative and will soon be closely linked to daily life. "

Highlighting the accelerating pace of nanotechnology activity in Taiwan, the meeting closely follows the dedication of a new national Center for Nanotechnology and rapid progress toward the development of an integrated nanotech development program (see Nanodot posts from 22 January, 10 January, and 7 January 2002).

from the World-Watch dept.
An article in the Taipei Times ("Nanotechnology Research Center opens in Hsinchu", by Chiu Yu-Tzu, 17 January 2002) reports that the the Hsinchu-based Industrial Technology Research Institute's (ITRI) Nanotechnology Research Center was formally launched on 16 January 2002. According to the article, the center is expected to spend at least NT$10 billion (about US$286 million) in funds allocated by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, from now until 2007.

At the opening ceremony, National Science Council Vice Chairman Wu Maw-kuen said that the draft of the national program had been passed by the NSC on 15 January and a comprehensive project would be available in March or April. "Next year, Taiwan's national nanotechnology program will be formally launched. We believe that the center at the ITRI will play an important role in integrating diverse researches in both the industry and universities," Wu said. The estimated expense for promoting the national program through 2007 will be about NT$19.2 billion (about US$548 million). A Nanodot post from 7 January 2002 provides additional background on the work to develop a national nanotechnology program in Taiwan.

A brief item about the opening of the center from the Asia Pulse news service appeared on the Small Times website.

An article in the Dallas Business Journal ("Chicken Little is still alive and squawking: New technologies give rise to echoes of old fears", by Bartlett Cleland, 18 January 2002) says "The past 200 years have brought an age of wonder with constant life-changing inventions and mind-stretching advances. But every step forward has had its accompanying Luddites — the skeptics, the fearful and opportunists who express their outrage at progress. Today, their latest fear is nanotechnology."

Cleland, who is director of the Center for Technology Freedom at the Insititute for Policy Innovation in Lewisville, Texas, writes "already the fear-mongers are lining up to proclaim that nanotechnology will bring about the end of all humanity — a familiar refrain from those who fear the future. Much as Chicken Little did, these folks scream that the sky is falling even before they know the facts."

As has been argued elsewhere, Cleland says it is no solution to abandon or relinquish technological research and development: "Technology's track record is one of progress, not destruction. . . . This is not to say that technology is essentially good, but neither is it evil. It is the users of technology who decide whether it is used for good or for evil. . . . The future worth fearing is one where the good guys don't get there first, and the "bad guys" better understand, control and access superior technology. Restraints on the development of technology by the civilized world only give the upper hand to those who are not going to obey the law anyway."

Cleland concludes: "Many will try to regulate the advancement of nanotechnology for their own ends or because of their fears. But policy makers should resist the temptation to regulate nanotechnology. . . . Nanotechnology holds great promise for many areas of life. Those who fear the future will continue to whip up fear and concern rather than to engage in logical and productive analysis. Because to fear the future rather than to shape it correctly is a sure means to a disastrous outcome."