Author: Foresight Editor

Battelle's list of the Top Ten strategic technologies for 2020 includes: "Nanomachines. Microscopic machines, measured in atoms rather than millimeters, will revolutionize several industries and may perform a wide range of jobs for us-from heating our homes to curing cancer. Battelle researchers see the medical industry as the most important area for nanomachine technology by 2020. 'We may be able to develop nanomachines that will go into your body and find and destroy individual cancer cells while not harming healthy cells,' says Battelle Senior Research Scientist Kevin Priddy. Nanomachines also could be used to deliver drugs to highly localized places in the body, to clean arteries, and to repair the heart, brain, and other organs without surgery."

Dawn Van Zant writes "For Immediate Release February 11th, 2005

Advanced Nano-Products, Inc., Recipient of the 2005 Frost & Sullivan Product Differentiation Innovation Award for the U.S. Protective Coatings Market.

Point Roberts, WA, February 11th 2005 – Nanotechnology Investment, a global research portal for the nanotechnology investment community is pleased to feature an award winning private nanotechnology coating company positioned in the environmental coatings industry.

More…

At the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, Bert Gordijn presented a paper titled Nanoethics: From Utopian Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares towards a more Balanced View: "Hardly ever has there been such a discrepancy between opposing evaluative judgments as can be observed in the debate on nanotechnology." However, Daniel Moore is not impressed: "This is the completely wrong way to think about ethical issues."

We mentioned earlier Adam Keiper's coverage of this meeting on Howard Lovy's Nanobot blog. For another view, see Chris Phoenix on CRN's blog: "As far as I can tell, it went extremely well…The committee focused directly on molecular manufacturing…I'm pretty confident that MM will get a fair hearing…Whatever they produce will be the result of open-minded and very careful study." Encouraging.

2012Rocky writes "We'd like to let everyone know that "N" is for Nanotechnology is now available in DVD.

Go to our review page and click on "BUY NOW"

http://www.nanotech-now.com/N-is-for-nanotechnolog y-review.htm"

Ed. Note: If any Nanodot users would like to buy the DVD (CDN $30 for personal use) and review or discuss it and this item has slipped off the front page, we will adjust links to tie the stories together.

We've all heard about Mike Roco's role, but Smalltimes now reveals the part played by Tom Kalil: "It did happen, with the help of Kalil and others at the White House. Kalil was able to leverage his post as deputy director of the White House National Economic Council to push for the money as part of a new initiative." Kalil also catalyzed the new Center of Integrated Nanomechanical Systems at UC Berkeley.

Brad Allenby, former AT&T vice president for environment, health, and safety, comments on "problematic" responses to technology: "Thus, for example, some deep greens have already demanded a halt to nanotechnology. More broadly, a resurgence of religious fundamentalism around the world is at least partly attributable to fleeing into a structure of ideological certainty in an attempt to avoid an increasingly complex and contingent world…Even more problematic is the effort to completely stifle (as opposed to regulate or manage) new technologies — it has not worked with genetically modified organisms, and it has already failed with nanotechnology…"

Nanobot correspondent Adam Keiper covers today's National Research Council meeting on molecular manufacturing, including many familiar names and some new ones, as well as an audio clip from Foresight co-founder Eric Drexler (in four convenient formats!). Thanks, Adam.

UPI's Charles Choi reports: "State governments invested more than $400 million in nanotechnology research and development in 2004. Combined with the more than $1 billion in federal spending, that makes nanotechnology the largest publicly-funded science initiative since the space race."

Euroscience.net has an ongoing nanotech discussion, originally kicked off by Nature editor-in-chief Philip Campbell commenting: "You'll find responses [to Bill Joy] from champions of nanotechnology such as Richard Smalley and Robert Freitas, as well as Freeman Dyson…But how is the public supposed to form a judgement when experts like Eric Drexler and Richard Smalley totally disagree about the feasibility of nano-robots of the kind envisaged by Joy? You can find that debate on Drexler's Foresight Institute website. So far Drexler has the last word – his latest rebuttal of Smalley was posted on his website in April 2003. (Two month later, in June, he posted an additional letter on his website. — Ed.) He sticks to physical arguments and shows why Smalley's particular reasons for dismissing molecular assemblers are beside the point." The debate later continued in C&E News. (Source: Feb '05 NanotechNews-now.)