From Wired: John Sperling Wants You to Live Forever (And he's Promising $3 billion to make it so.) "For the past seven years, Sperling has quietly assembled an unorthodox team of researchers poised to use all relevant technology – including, ultimately, therapeutic cloning, stem cell medicine, and genetic engineering – to alleviate human suffering and the fear of death."
Senior Associate Michael Butler forwards "Can Nanotech Help End The Great Human Divide?," which describes a paper by medical ethics experts at the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics that was published by the IOP journal Nanotechnology "The authors call for a new international network to assess emerging technologies for development, identify the potential risks and benefits of NT incorporating developed and developing world perspectives, and explore the effects of a potential 'nano-divide'."
Ralph Merkle writes: "The December 1st 2003 issue of Chemical & Engineering News carried a debate between Drexler and Smalley about the feasibility of molecular manufacturing. The January 26th 2004 issue devotes a little over two pages to letters on the debate. Of the eight letters published, five supported molecular manufacturing, one was clearly opposed, and two seemed skeptical."
Roland Piquepaille writes "Here is another fascinating story. In "Nanotech spy eyes life inside the cell," the New Scientist writes that researchers at Indiana University in Bloomington are using viruses carrying gold nanoparticles as 'nano-cameras' to image living cells and understand how the viruses do their work. The researchers took a virus that infects barley, put it in an alkaline solution and introduced the gold nanoparticles in the solution. Then they fired a green laser. When the laser hit the gold, it went in many directions, revealing what's inside the cell. Now, they have to test this technique on real plant cells. If it works, scientists will be able to really look at individual viruses. This summary contains more details and an illustration."
WesDuCharme writes "Glenn Reynolds has an interesting piece entitled A Tale of Two Nanotechs http://www.techcentralstation.com/012804A.html. He makes the case that the business community is pulling us away from molecular nanotechnology for fear of the public relations problems that advanced applications may cause. In making the case, however, he oversimplifies the dichotomy, ìThe downside is that a sometimes-bitter war has been waged within the nanotechnology community itself, between the scientists and visionaries on the one hand, and the business people on the other. The scientists and visionaries want research on advanced nanotechnologyÖî Of course there are some scientists, such as Richard Smalley (whom Glenn mentions later), who seem squarely on the side of the business community in this matter. The article goes on to make good arguments that what we might call ìbusiness relinquishmentî is unlikely to work."
Interested in funding your nano-related startup company? Want to find out important issues surrounding starting and running one? Then take a look at this conference:
Nanotech Investing Conference (3rd Annual)
February 2-3, 2004
The Lodge at Rancho Mirage, Palm Springs, CA
http://www.ibfconferences.com/nanotech2004.htm
Presented by: IBF*International Business Forum
FORESIGHT MEMBER DISCOUNT: To register at the reduced rate of $995 (regularly $1,195), mention ìForesightî. Contact Cathy Fenn of IBF at (516) 765-9005 ext. 21 or via email at [email protected]
What do you think were the most important nano-related developments of 2003? What were the downsides and upsides of nanotechnology's breakthrough into the mainstream?
Phillip Ball from Nature magazine makes his case, from a British perspective, here.
Formerly implying they played a primary, or at least major, role in getting the MNT study taken out of recent legislation, NbA is now downplaying their part in the process. Perhaps they got some flak about it? See Howard Lovy's blog item. Note to Mark M.: it is a risky thing to make fun of bloggers–they can make a difference. Just ask Trent Lott, the former Senate majority leader.
HLovy writes "R.U. Sirius, who has an impressive track record of spotting cultural and technological trends years before the rest of the media pick up on it, has posted an interview with me on his neofiles Webzine.
More on Howard Lovy's NanoBot."
Roland Piquepaille writes "Scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science (WIS) in Israel have produced a new type of nanotube made of gold or silver. These nanotubes, which are produced at room temperature, don't have the mechanical strength of the more common carbon nanotubes. But they have unique electrical and optical properties, making them ideally suited "to form the basis for future nanosensors, catalysts and chemistry-on-a-chip systems." The story doesn't give any clues about availability for future products. It doesn't mention prices either. But considering that carbon nanotubes cost between $500 and $900 per gram, I wonder what will be the price for nanotubes made from gold. This summary contains more details and a spectacular image of gold nanoparticle nanotubes obtained with a scanning electron microscope."
