Month: February 2005

On his new blog, Univ. of South Carolina professor David Berube gives additional commentary on the recent National Academy meeting on molecular manufacturing. The bottom line: "Now, I have a reputation of being tough on folks which is probabl[y] the result of my debate training and the fact that i have coached intercollegiate debate for over a quarter century. I need to admit that they presented a very strong case to include molecular manufacturing as an important component within the NNI."

The NY Times (registration required) is running an article today "Tiny is Beautiful: Translating 'Nano' Into Practical which quotes many of the 'known' names such as Dr. Mirkin and Dr. Alivisatos.

But much of what is discussed is nanoscale chemistry and/or nanoscale physics and not "nanotechnology". As Dr. Alivisatos says, "They're just little rocks."

How does one communicate to writers for the publications between the scientists and the public, such as Kenneth Chang at the NY Times, as well as the people approving "nanotechnology" research grants, the differences between what one gets simply from making something small and what one gets from engineering complex machines at a nano-scale?

Perhaps more importantly, how does one communicate to the VC firms such differences (making something which is small vs. engineering small machines) and how does one judge investment models based upon this?

Over at Soft Machines, debate continues among Richard Jones, Chris Phoenix, Philip Moriarty, and me on the feasibility of molecular manufacturing. Click on Read More below for my response.

Wikipedia is an free online encyclopedia written cooperatively using WIKI technology. Their nanotechnology entry seems to need tweaking: the illustration appears to be of MEMS, not nanotech. Those of you familiar with this community: please help them out by suggesting a more appropriate graphic. (The molecular nanotechnology entry needs a graphic too.)

As reported by Eurekalert, scientists at Arizona State University have demonstrated an oligoaniline switch which demonstrates "negative differential resistance" (a decrease in current with increased voltage). This property would allow such molecules to function as a basis for a number of elements (memories, logic elements, etc.) that could be built into molecular computers. The abstract from Nano Letters is here.

For those unfamiliar with Nano Letters it is well worth following to keep pace with nanotechnology from a molecular chemistry perspective. This month's issue is covering topics such as nanotube optoelectronics, single-electron quantum dots, protein nanotubes and single molecule transistors.

Some countries have not yet jumped on the nanotech bandwagon, but Costa Rica isn't one of them: "Nanotechnology research in Latin America has received a boost with the inauguration of the National Laboratory for Nanotechnology, Microsensors and Advanced Materials (Lanotec) in Costa Rica….'The development of nanotechnology is very important for the technological development of Costa Rica,' says [Jeannette] Benavides…"

Nanomanufacturing per se is no longer good enough, it must be "high rate." Seed funding proposals are due this Tuesday to the new Center for High-rate Nanomanufacturing. "Proposals are encouraged, but not limited to, areas specifically supporting and/or complementing the core CHN effort in high-rate, template-directed-assembly." The new center is described in an Overview pdf.

Sonia Miller of the New York Law Journal interviews big names in nanotech on Law.com. Excerpts: "Q [to Jim Von Ehr]: Do you believe nanotechnology should be regulated?] A: I believe in markets. Sometimes you have to regulate where there is a market failure. There is no market failure in nanotechnology. It's too early to regulate. If we prematurely regulate nanotechnology, we shut down our ability to innovate and develop the next industrial revolution…Q [again to Jim]: What, in your belief, are some anticipated legal implications of nanotechnology? A: Patents concern me greatly, particularly in nanotubes. There are so many patents being issued. I fear that we are setting ourselves up for many years of IP lawsuits. This will have a chilling effect on innovation."

From Intellectual Property News: "Brand protection technologies, once used exclusively to prevent and detect counterfeit passports and currency, are now being applied to packaging, products and production techniques. Controversial in nature, brand owners lead the way in implementing radio frequency identification (RFID), nanotechnology, DNA coding, and digital watermarks to allow their investigators, law enforcement, customs, distributors and ultimately consumers verify the authenticity of items."

Venture capitalist Tim Oren quotes Dan Colbert of NGEN Partners, from a guest column in Smalltimes: "We are in the process of gaining increasing control and finesse over the structure of matter at the smallest scale where material properties emerge. This is where the authentic focus of discourse and activity is, and ought to be." Sounds right.
Tim goes on in his own words: "Much-touted generic nanotech — such as nanotubes and even more nanomachinery — lack the viable applications and market scale necessary to ignite a Moore's Law spiral of investment, adoption, and learning." This is true of nanomachinery today, and may well be true on a typical VC timescale of three to five years, but (one hopes) not true longer term.–CP