The nanotechnology committee of ASTM International is holding its first vote, and you can participate. To my knowledge, this is the only open, consensus-based nanotech standards effort. Anyone can join and vote. Membership is US$75, and it’s free for students. Read more for details on how to join and vote.
A useful article in today’s San Francisco Chronicle by Paul Carlstrom — “As solar gets smaller, its future gets brighter: Nanotechnology could turn rooftops into a sea of power-generating stations” — describes the current state of near-term nanotech’s contribution to solar energy technologies. “With nanotechnology, tiny solar cells can be printed onto flexible, very thin… Continue reading Nanotech solar power planned for rooftops, siding
The International Risk Governance Council, an independent foundation started in 2003 at the instigation of Switzerland and based in Geneva, has given nanotechnology top level priority. Their nanotechnology fact sheet explains their plans, which include the usual examination of nanoparticle risks but also fourth-generation issues as well (e.g., nanomanufacturing including self-assembly and robotic systems, and… Continue reading Int'l Risk Governance Council to take on nanotech
Longtime Foresight readers will remember Masakazu Aono from his pioneering Atomcraft Project started in 1989. Now he’s working on “Atomic Electronics” based on an “Atomic Switch”; see the report in today’s Japan Nanonet Bulletin. This is interesting, but we were more excited by the earlier bottom-up fabrication work. Dr. Aono has some advice: “Researchers should… Continue reading "Atomic Switch" coming from Masakazu Aono
Robert Bradbury writes: “Re: House Hearing on: “Nanotechnology: Where Does the U.S. Stand?” June 29, 2005. Sean Murdock’s testimony (pdf available) has some very illuminating graphs and some interesting observations such as: Next, the government must fully and effectively utilize the SBIR and ATP programs to enhance commercialization activity. Many member companies speak of the… Continue reading House Hearing on Nanotechnology: Where Does the U.S. Stand?
From an announcement by Zhejiang University in China: “On June 6th morning, 2005, a sign ceremony of establishment of Zhejiang-California International Institute of Nanotechnology was held at the State University Science Park of Zhejiang University. Being invested with 250 million RMB, the Institute is co-constructed by Zhejiang Provincial government, Zhejiang University and the US California… Continue reading California NanoSystems Institute starts joint venture in China
Robert Bradbury brings our attention to Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2006. He writes: “Though the abstract mentions cutting the NNI by 2.5% to $1.1B the report itself mentions nanotechnology 4 times and several of those are in the context of specific areas that are to receive increased funding (so it isn’t clear to me… Continue reading Confusion on 2006 NNI budget
Also in the Summer 2005 Issues in Science and Technology is an article from Environmental Defense giving many recommendations for improved nanotech policies, including: “Develop corporate standards of care. Even under the most optimistic scenario, it appears unlikely that federal agencies will put into place adequate provisions for nanomaterials quickly enough to address the materials… Continue reading Corporate standards of care needed for nanotech
ETC Group has issued a new 36-page report on Nanotech’s “Second Nature” Patents: Implications for the Global South (pdf), summarized in a two-page news release (pdf). The report lists various concerns about nanotech patents, including from Stanford’s Mark Lemley and the Nanobusiness Alliance, but the primary issue for ETC is access for poor countries. Multiple… Continue reading Reforming nanotech patents: proposals of varying practicality
The June 2005 Technology Quarterly report in the The Economist includes an update on the work of MIT’s Neil Gershenfeld (subscription required). There’s a summary of his fab lab project and some projections: “He admits that his far-flung fab labs are not the advanced molecular machines he foresees in the next 20 years on a… Continue reading MIT's Gershenfeld: Desktop molecular machines within 20 years
