The idea that nanorobots fabricated by atomically precise manufacturing processes are a likely part of our future, and that this is a good thing, is appearing more frequently, largely as a result of Drexler's recent book Radical Abundance.
An interview with UK nanotechnologist Richard Jones argues that the surest and most efficient path to advanced nanomachine function will incorporate or mimic biomolecular nanomachinery rather than scaled down rigid conventional machinery.
The concern of the US GAO for a gap in nanomanufacturing is well-placed, but it is only half of the problem with the limited US vision of the impact of nanotechnology on the future world economy.
Too much reliance on opportunity-based research could significantly hinder scientific advancement. We have the ability now to explore the specifics of potential future technologies, and the knowledge gained could, in turn, add useful and possibly surprising priorities for research today.
When can we expect advanced nanomachinery to be commercialized? Will any technologies not be affected in some way by advanced nanotechnology?
A poll of NewScientist readers selected medical nanorobots as the technology that will have the biggest impact on human life in the next 30 years.
David Hanson of Hanson Robotics argues that building humanlike robots will push the boundaries of several scientific and technical disciplines and prevent intelligent machines from becoming dangerous as they achieve true general intelligence.
In a review of physicist and television host Michio Kaku's latest book, Foresight advisor Glenn Reynolds finds reason for optimism, but also cause for concern in the career choices of today's brightest minds.
UK scientists use mechanical force to manipulate silicon dimers on a silicon surface as a first step toward automated atomically precise manufacture of three-dimensional nanostructures.
Will proposals to establish criteria for green nanotechnology foster growth of nanotechnology innovation?