Foresight Editor, Author at Foresight Institute

Gina Miller writes "Nanotechnology: Is It Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise? is the topic of an article at Power Electronics Technology dated March 1, 2002. Sam Davis, the Editor, invokes the $500 million National Nanotechnology Initiative and Pres. Bush's proposed increase in the program as evidence that nanotechnology should be taken seriously. Davis explains how re-arranging atoms could provide us with new semiconductors and improved integrated circuits. He cites the book Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution, by Drexler, Peterson, and Pergamit (1991) and quotes Ralph C. Merkle of the Zyvex Corp on what nanotechnology will mean. And last but not least he notes the problems nanotechnology could bring in the form of deliberate abuse or accidents, and the Foresight Institute's draft of guidelines for developing nanotechnology to minimize those problems. He summarizes by asking "Although nanotechnology products are years away, is this a good thing, or bad? Is it an ethical problem, similar to nuclear energy with its good and bad points? Is it a threat to power electronics engineering and manufacturing as we know it? Is the 'march of science' going too far?" Is he worried primarily about threats to the job security of power electronics engineers?"

Gina Miller writes "AScribe reports on March 14, 2002 Using 'Nature's Toolbox,' DNA Computer Solves Complex Problem; Molecular Technology May One Day Outstrip Computers. Leonard Adleman, computer science professor at USC famed for his 1994 demonstration that DNA could be used for computation, has now used a DNA based computer to solve a logic problem (a 20-variable instance of the NP-complete three-satisfiability (3-SAT) problem) that required an exhaustive search of more than a million possibilities. Unlike the simple problem solved by his 1994 demonstration, which could easily be solved by a human with pencil and paper, no human could solve this problem without the aide of a computer. Although the current massively parallel DNA computer could not match the performance of a modern electronic serial computer, it could have advantages in certain situations. "We've shown by these computations that biological molecules can be used for distinctly non-biological purposes," Adleman said. "They are miraculous little machines. They store energy and information, they cut, paste and copy." For another approach to computation with DNA, see the Nanodot post from 23 November 2001."

Gina Miller writes "An article in the March 4, 2002 issue of Chemical & Engineering News ("Three-Element Nanorods: Nanometer-sized crystalline oxide rods exhibit useful properties" by Mitch Jacoby) reports that researchers at Harvard University, led by assistant chemistry professor Hongkun Park, have succeeded in using a solution chemistry procedure to prepare single-crystal nanorods composed of transition metal oxides. Specifically, they made nanorods of barium titanate (BaTiO3) and strontium titanate (SrTiO3) with diameters ranging from 5 to 60 nm and lengths exceeding 10 micrometers. These nanocrystals have interesting electrical and magnetic properties. "The group has demonstrated that the materials are promising candidates as media for high-density data storage. The new synthesis strategy may be extended to other classes of materials and provides new opportunities for investigations in piezo- and ferroelectricity, magnetoresistivity, and other areas." (For another recent breakthrough with inorganic nanorods possessing useful electrical properties, see this Nanodot post from 30 March 2002.)"

from the budget-battles dept.
An article in EE Times ("Science panel calls for balanced research spending", by George Leopold, 26 March 2002) reports on an increasing level of scrutiny of the Bush administrationís proposed funding priorities for science and technology spending in the U.S. national budget for FY2003, including nanotechnology. According to the article, "The House Science Committee is calling for increased federal funding in fiscal 2003 for technology research and development programs and for a balancing of funding for biomedical and physical science research."

In its annual "views and estimates" of the federal budget request, the Republican-controlled science panel said the Bush administration's research budget request is skewed heavily in support of biomedical research, especially at the National Institutes of Health, which is slated to receive an annual budget increase larger than the entire $5.04 billion budget requested for the National Science Foundation [NSF]. The committee endorsed the Bush administration's "multi-agency R&D" priorities for network and information technology, nanotechnology and anti-terrorism programs. The White House requested a 3 percent increase in funding for networking and information technology research. It also proposed a 17 percent increase in funding next year for nanotechnology research. The committee said it might address nanotechnology research in legislation later this year.

Additional coverage and analysis can be found on the American Institute of Physics (AIP) Science Policy website:

"Science Committee Questions Level, Balance of Federal Research Investment", by Audrey T. Leath, 22 February 2002. According to this report, "At a wide-ranging February 13 hearing on the President's FY 2003 budget request for R&D, House Science Committee members generally supported the budget's emphasis on anti-terrorism, homeland and economic security, and health research, but also indicated that they would try to find additional funds for science programs. As Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) said, the budget priorities are 'reasonable' and 'self-evident' and 'deserve to be funded more generously than are other programs.' But he added that 'the focusing of the proposed R&D budget on two narrowly defined priority areas [defense and health] has left the spending for other agencies anemic.' He later commented that if it were not for defense and national security needs, 'this committee collectively would be madder than hell, to put it bluntly,' at the funding levels for some parts of the science enterprise."
"Research Subcommittee, Witnesses Support Higher NSF Funding", again by Audrey T. Leath , 26 March 2002. According to this report, "[M]embers of the House Science Committee are already working to get funding for the National Science Foundation increased above the President's request of $5.04 billion. At a March 13 hearing of the House Science Subcommittee on Research, Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) . . . told witnesses that he would use their testimony to make the case for higher NSF funding to appropriators. Research Subcommittee Chairman Nick Smith (R-MI) described how committee members were 'aggressive' in trying to get NSF funding increased in the House Budget Committee's version of a budget resolution. On that same day, the Budget Committee approved a resolution containing an 11 percent increase for NSF — 6 percent more than the Administration requested."

Some insight into the high level of support for the NSF and for nanotechnology research in particular can be found in a speech delivered on 8 March 2002 by House Science Committee Chair Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) at a nanotechnology conference held at the Brookhaven National Laboratory to formally launched the Labís new $55 million Center for Functional Nanomaterials (see Nanodot post from 22 March 2002). Boehlert said, "I will do everything in my power to ensure that nanotechnology research gets the funding it deserves — not just in the Department of Energy [which operates the Brookhaven Lab] but throughout the federal government."
[Some excerpts from the speech also appear on the AIP site.]

Finally, for the minority Memberís views, see "An Analysis by the Minority Staff of the House Science Committee" from 5 February 2002.

Debate over these issues is also likely to arise in the U.S. Senate if, as planned, a bill on nanotechnology research funding sponsored by Senator Joe Leiberman and others is submitted (see Nanodot post from 27 December 2001).

from the positively-breathless dept.
A special edition of Business Week Magazine includes a number of items on nanotechnology, including an enthusiastic feature article ("The Tech Outlook: Nano Technology: No, its not all hype: these supertiny gizmos will transform our way of life", by Otis Port with Roger O. Crockett, 25 March 2002). The article notes the ongoing land-rush mentality of venture capitalists and large tech-oriented corporations into micro- and nano-scale technology R&D, as they are "pumping significant sums into nanotech research, as are governments around the world. A new study from CMP Cientifica [the Nanotechnology Opportunity Report], a market researcher in Madrid, says last year's worldwide government figure topped $1.2 billion (page 184). This year, the private and public sectors will probably spend $2 billion apiece on nano. . . . All told, venture capitalists and corporate funds will probably plow $1 billion into nano investments this year, twice what they invested in 2000, says S. Joshua Wolfe, a partner at New York's Lux Capital Group."

The article surveys a limited range of recent research, mostly into carbon nanotubes and semiconductor nanowires, and notes the formation of the NanoBusiness Alliance last year, before concluding:

The ultimate dream of nano engineers is an "assembler," which was first described in the writings of nanotech pioneer K. Eric Drexler, head of Foresight Institute in Palo Alto, Calif. It's a teensy robot that could be programmed to assemble atoms into gears and other components of nanomachines. That vision is still science fiction, says Raymond A. Kurzweil, author and president of Kurzweil Technologies Inc. But if assemblers can be developed, "they'll solve humanity's material needs," he adds. From molecules of dust and dirt, they would harvest the atoms needed to assemble computers, appliances, and other goods.

from the World-Watch dept.
According to an article in the Birmingham Post ("£80m bid for science center", by Richard Warburton, 18 March 2002), the West Midlands region of the UK is set to become the heart of Britain's science technology industry with a new £80 million (about U.S. $144 million) manufacturing complex that will create 10,000 jobs. The article says, "Plans have been drawn up for the world's largest centre for nanoscience to be based along the A38 technology corridor in Birmingham. . . . The city's universities, businesses and MPs [Members of Parliament] are pushing for the national centre for microsystems and nanotechnology which would draw on the region's international reputation for modern research and secure its place as the country's manufacturing hub."

from the learning-curve dept.
The online version of Small Times has begun an interesting new series of articles focusing on university-level educational efforts to develop and expand a workforce for emerging micro- and nano-scale technologies.

The first article in the series ("U.S. universities develop small tech grad degrees", by Teri Sprackland, 28 March 2002) focuses on the increase of government money being used to finance university programs designed to increase U.S. competitiveness in small tech, as "the field is being recognized as worthy of its own specifically designated ñ but not yet standalone ñ graduate degrees." The article states, "Universities, capitalizing on existing research programs and faculty expertise, hope to attract and train students to satisfy small tech's growing demands. Those students will eventually form the infrastructure needed for long-term gains in the U.S. small tech industry."
The second article ("China, Taiwan focus on nanoscience, but most still go overseas to study", by Jen Lin-Liu, 29 March 2002) highlights how China and Taiwan are using established academic programs in other countries to train their own graduate students in the emerging micro- and nano-technology sectors.

An article by Josh Wolfe, a partner at venture capital firm Lux Capital, appears in Forbes Magazine ("A New World Is Born", 14 March 2002). His take: "Don't confuse the stock market with the real world. The tech stock balloon is busted, shattered, gone. But the technology revolution is just getting started. Looming just ahead is what may well be its most exciting phase–nanotechnology. This will be bigger than the Internet and more far-reaching. It will create vast new wealth. It will destroy a lot of old wealth. And it will shake up just about every business on the planet."

from the end-of-an-era dept.
Nanodot notes without comment this item posted on the Atomasoft website on 11 March 2002. Atomasoft operates the NanotechNews website.

Atomasoft announced a major restructuring of itís [sic] operations and budget today as a result of a resignation by Jonathan Després. Mr. Després, one of the founders of Atomasoft and former CEO, will no longer work for Atomasoft and has agreed to hand over all assets and information regarding Atomasoftís operations to the executive team.
Part of the restructuring unfortunately includes the cancellation of Nano Investor Conference 2002. The event was spearheaded by Mr. Després but as a result of the current situation at Atomasoft, it must be cancelled. There have been a number of other nanobusiness conferences planned throughout this year and Atomasoft certainly does not have the resources to make its vision of a nanobusiness conference a reality at the current time. First and foremost, all its efforts will be devoted to continuing the success of the core operations; This includes the growing website portals on emerging technology.
Service to all of Atomasoftís sites will not be interrupted and business will continue as normal; We anticipate no problems with the transition period.

Mr_Farlops writes "Using nanorods and liquid plastic semiconductor, researchers at University of California, Berkeley, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have created a solar cell that can be painted or sprayed onto a surface.

The Sacramento Bee article, which I found on Slash, was a bit short on details and perhaps incorrectly cites this discovery as an advance in nanotechnology."

[Editor's Note: Additional information, including some diagrams of the solar cells, can be found in this joint press release (28 March 2002) from the UC-Berkeley and LBL.

Additional coverage is available in an article from the Reuters News Service ("Group Makes Cheap Plastic Solar Energy Cells", 28 March 2002), and another from United Press International ("Researchers make plastic solar cells", 28 March 2002).]

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Author: Foresight Editor

Nano: Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise?

DNA Computer Solves Complex Problem

Nanorods: Nanometer-sized crystalline oxide rods e

U.S. House debates direction of national nanotech funding, policy

Business Week takes a positive look at nanotech

New national center for micro, nanotech planned in UK

Small Times covers nanotech education in U.S., East Asia

VC talks nanotech in Forbes Magazine

Jonathan Despr

Photovoltaic Paint? (flexible solar cells)

Search Foresight Institute