Mapping location of nanotechnology companies

Bmelki writes "Nanovip.com has established comparative statistics from the number of nanotechnology companies that we have in our database. The companies were sorted by country and American state, then put into graphics. At this stage, America is the leading country by far; California being the leading state with the most nanotechnology involved companies."

Magazine soliciting nanotechnology articles

Paul C. Easton writes "Former Foresight Update editor Lew Phelps brings to our attention that The World & I magazine is soliciting articles about nanotechnology. Specific topics may include nanotechnology applications in materials design, electronics, robotics, health care, environment, energy conversion, transportation, and national security. Articles on the ethical and social implications of nanotechnology will also be considered."

Nanoshells, a potential cancer therapy

WillWare writes "From Ananova, a story about Jennifer West's work at Rice University on "nanoshells", remniscent of earlier work at Sloan-Kettering:"

Tiny golden "bullets" could eventually be used to target and destroy cancerous tumours while leaving healthy tissue unharmed… researchers used nanoshells – tiny particles of silica coated with gold – to apply heat to tumours and destroy them using near-infrared light, a type of low-energy radiation.

What About Waste Heat?

rcarlberg writes "The Drexler/Smalley debate skirts the issue, and Drexler's Nanosystems gives it but one dismissive mention (13.3.7), but I can't help wondering about the effect of waste heat on nanomanufacturing."

Nanotechnology subsidies and regulation

A letter, End Subsidies for Nanotechnology, published by the Washington Post in response to the story "For Science, Nanotech Poses Big Unknowns" (see Nanodot post) claims that government funding of nanotechnology will undermine self-regulation of industry via the liability market.

NanoCreationism

HLovy writes "Having covered the Foresight Institute conference in October and now the business-focused NanoCommerce 2003, I can see now the extent of the contrast between these competing visions. I have not taken any kind of scientific poll, but judging from the conversations I've had with many of the people here, I can safely confirm for the MNT believers something they likely already knew: They are indeed being marginalized by those who speak for the nanotech business community, and proudly so. I used the term "believers" on purpose because one source told me that arguing with a Drexlerian is akin to debating a Creationist: There's simply no winning, since they take their beliefs on faith. I countered that most Creationists do not desire or seek proof — the very definition of faith — whereas MNT proponents are actively pursuing proof.

I don't want to talk about who said what to me and when, yet, since my interviews are not yet complete and I don't want to help launch another round of name-calling, but one of my sources brought up what I feel is a valid criticism of Foresight, the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology and others: The more they launch public attacks against those who disagree with them, the less inclined the nanotech business leadership will be to even invite them to the table, for fear their words will be used against them.

For the complete commentary, please see Howard Lovy's NanoBot."

Molecular recycling a difficult goal

The following interchange between Foresight President Christine Peterson and Our Molecular Future author Douglas Mulhall resulted from a Small Times column by Mulhall titled Incorporate disassembly into every self-assembled nanotech product, first brought to our attention by Senior Associate Robert Bradbury. In this article, Doug Mulhall says that nanotech products are already being produced which cannot be disassembled by current technologies, even incineration or (presumably) by acids, etc. Foresight President Christine Peterson asks readers whether this is true; can examples be cited? "This seems unlikely to me, but I'm willing to be educated if there are indeed examples of this."

More intemperate words from Mark Modzelewski

Glenn Reynolds comments at InstaPundit.com on email he received from Mark Modzelewski of the NanoBusiness Alliance calling Reynolds's recent TechCentralStation column on nanotechnology "delusional fantasies and rantings."

Nanotech defended on behalf of developing World

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'."

Letters about Drexler/Smalley debate

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."

0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop