Nanotech arms race debated

Signal, the publication of the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, has a Special Report on nanotechnology in their July issue, including: (1) Small Matters: Nanotechnology could lead to the next arms race; experts debate how to prepare, (2) a piece on the New Jersey Nanotechnology Consortium, and (3) a story on photo-activated porphyrin nanotubes.… Continue reading Nanotech arms race debated

Nanoweapons followup: near-term only?

Big debate over at Howard Lovy’s on the nanoweapons-of-mass-destruction concept, mentioned here previously. Most notable to me is that both Howard and Charles Choi imply that only near-term possibilities are worth discussing today: “there’s no real danger of that happening anytime soon” and “If studies raise convincing evidence that near-term nanotechnology can lead to a… Continue reading Nanoweapons followup: near-term only?

New nanoweapons discussed in Nanotech Law & Business Journal

Charles Choi of UPI’s Nano World presents two views of the development of new nanotech weapons: (1) “Pardo-Guerra and colleague Francisco Aguayo, of the College of Mexico, outlined in Nanotechnology Law & Business Journal three ways in which nanotechnology could enable new weapons” and (2) Microbiologist Mark Wheelis, of the University of California at Davis:… Continue reading New nanoweapons discussed in Nanotech Law & Business Journal

Nanotechnology a high priority for Pentagon

"Pentagon official says nanotechnology a high priority" reports that Clifford Lau, the senior science adviser in the Pentagon's office of basic research, said "Nanotechnology is one of the highest priority science and technology programs in the Defense Department," with the Pentagon spending $315 million in fiscal 2004 on all nanotechnology research. The specific projects cited are all near-term nanoscale science projects, mostly materials, like lightweight, radar-resistant nanocomposite materials for airframes and coatings to eliminate barnacle buildup on submarines. Foresight Founder and President Christine L. Peterson adds "This piece mentions that 'Pentagon interest in nanotechnology dates to the 1980s'. We at Foresight can back this up, as we were the only ones discussing nanotechnology back then, and we did indeed hear from military types quite early on."

A look inside the new Institute for Solider Nanotechnologies

from the battle-porn dept.
Foresight Advisor John Gilmore sent notice of a piece on the CNET News.com website ("Nanotech's call to arms", by Tiffany Kary, 27 March 2002), that takes a look at the newly founded Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and includes a brief interview with Ned Thomas, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT and the recently appointed director of the ISN.

Thomas notes during the interview that the somewhat controversial illustration of a nanotech-enabled battle uniform that accompanied the press release announcing the establishment of the ISN at MIT (see Nanodot post from 15 March 2002) was created by his daughter "in a couple of days". Some interesting commentary on the illustration was made in an article about the ISN that appeared the London Financial Times ("MIT comes to Washington's defence", by Victoria Griffith, 24 March 2002):

Administrators and professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology could be seen fawning earlier this month over a comic strip female superhero – not for her generous proportions but for the hope she holds for the US army.
The Wonder Woman-style figure is the chosen illustration for the university's new joint venture with the US military. The initiative – dubbed the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology – aims to create "smart" armour for soldiers in battle.

Despite the ribbing over the illustration, the FT article also provides some useful background information on the new ISN.

Technology Review notes new ISN at MIT

from the hometown-rag dept.
A brief article on the Technology Review website ("The Soldier of Tomorrow", by Alan Leo, 20 March 2002) covers the recent announcement by the U.S. Army that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been chosen as the host for the new Institute for Solider Nanotechnologies (see Nanodot post on 15 March 2002).

U.S. Army selects MIT for Institute for Solider Nanotechnologies

from the be-careful-when-choosing-grandparents dept.
According to an MIT press release (13 March 2002), the U.S. Army has selected the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to be the host institution for a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) for the U.S. Armyís Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN). A brief press release was also issued by the Army. Competition was keen among a number of universities across the United States to host the ISN, which will be a five-year, $50 million program in which MIT will receive $10 million annually for research "to create lightweight molecular materials to equip the foot soldier of the future with uniforms and gear that can heal them, shield them and protect them against chemical and biological warfare." The Army release adds the program will provide the U.S. military with "expertise in the development and application of nanotechnology for the soldier; including the creation of uniforms and materials that could help heal soldiers, protect against bullets, chemical agents or monitor a soldier's life support processes."

According to the MIT press release, the ISN will be staffed by up to 150 people, including 35 MIT professors from nine departments in the schools of engineering, science, and architecture and planning. The ISN will also include specialists from the Army, DuPont and Raytheon, and physicians from Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital, which are members of the Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology

For more information about the ISN, see the Nanodot posts on 28 June and 1 November 2001.

Read more for additional information and press coverage of the announcement.

Proposals for a national "NetGuard" for information infrastructure

from the Cyberwarfare dept.
An article in the New York Times ("Plans for Technology National Guard", by Amy Cortese, 26 November 2001) takes a quick look at proposals for the development of a National Emergency Technology Guard, or NetGuard, to develop a corps of people to help protect and restore the information technology systems and infrastructure in the event of physical and, presumably, cyberspace attacks.

New York universities battle for Army nanotech center

from the regional-conflicts dept.
An article in the Albany, NY Times Union ("Building a better high-tech soldier: New York colleges expected to compete for prestigious Army research grant", by K. Aaron, 25 November 2001) describes the competition among New York State-based universities to host the University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) for the U.S. Armyís Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies (ISN). Universities across the United States have been competing for the contract for the center (as noted here on 1 November 2001); the deadline for proposals was 15 November 2001.
The Times Union article was also reprinted on the Small Times website.

Biotechnology research and bioterrorism

RobertBradbury writes "This week Nature is highlighting the problem of public knowledge and data access and bioterrorism in "The end of innocence?". George Poste, chair of the U.S. Dept. of Defense task force on bioterrorism, goes so far in "Biologists urged to address risk of data aiding bioweapon design" as to suggest access to biological data should be regulated and the publication of manuscripts associated with "risky" projects might be denied. This isn't a new discussion, Nature pointed out on May 17, in "A call to arms" the problem of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies resisting the inspections that would put some teeth into the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention treaty. The firms fear inspections because of the potential theft of commercial secrets while the proponents object that the 2 week advance notice would allow too much time to hide any covert activities.

Some biologists, such as Claire Fraser, the Director of TIGR, realize the problem is serious and in an October Nature Genetics article, Genomics and future biological weapons: the need for preventive action by the biomedical community, concluded, "In short, the biomedical community must play its proper part in the generation of a true web of deterrence that will render biological warfare or terrorism an obviously futile as well as a morally unacceptable act".

The threat of bioterrorism is here now (see this CNN Report), long before we have to worry about nanoterrorism. Is secrecy the answer? Can inspections work? What about countries that fail to sign the treaties? Or is our only hope to develop robust defenses (vaccines, anti-toxins, rapid response capabilities, etc.) that would allow us to keep one step ahead in the bioterrorist arms race?"

0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop