Picture of the day

A field emission scanning electron microscopy image showing a ~30 nm gold dot formed in the center of a hollow gold parent structure supported on an oxidized Si substrate. This nanostructure was fabricated by a 'molecular ruler' resist process developed to extend the range of conventional nanolithography techniques.

Acknowledgements: A. Hatzor & B. A. Mantooth.

As with the previous picture, I will post the others in this series over time. To see it all now, visit the Nanotechnology Now Gallery.

"We focus on gaining atomic-scale understanding and control of materials properties. We do this by exploring, probing, and manipulating interactions and dynamics at surfaces and interfaces. We use and extend scanning tunneling microscopy to explore the surface structures, motion, and perturbations due to adsorbed atoms and molecules and due to surface features such as substrate steps and defects. We locate, study, and try to exploit the regimes in which our intuition based on macroscopic measurements breaks down. We are exploring the phenomena to be used, the ground rules, and the ultimate limits in nanometer-scale electronics and storage. Our microscopes serve not only as probes, but also allow us to manipulate matter on the atomic scale. We can thus interrogate the properties of uniquely configured atomic-scale structures. This has required the development of new tools with atomic-scale views of the surface. One new effort in our group looks at how we can bridge the gap between conventional optical microscopies and scanning probe microscopies."

—Paul S. Weiss, Professor of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University. Weiss Group Featured Images

Quote of the day

"It's a brave new world out there," Richard Smalley, Ph.D., Rice University professor of nanotechnology said. "What's new is the notion that we can actually build new nano-objects that have never existed before that increase our arsenal of capabilities." (referring to the NCI Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer initiative)

Dr. Smalley passed away in October 2005, at the age of 62. Smalley is best known as co-discoverer of the buckyball. In recent years he had been actively involved in promoting nanotech-enabled energy solutions, and was a vocal, articulate proponent.

"Colleagues and scientific leaders say it is hard to overestimate the role Smalley played in founding and fostering the development of nanotechnology, one of the most important and exciting new areas of scientific inquiry to arise in the past quarter century." Rice media release

To learn more about nanotech-enabled medicine, visit the NanoTumor Center

Definition change

As I said in the last post, it’s hard to get your hands around MM. To be more accurate, it’s hard to wrap your mind around MM.

With that in mind, here is a short explanation on how the term "nanotechnology" has a different meaning than it did back when Dr. K. Eric Drexler first used it to describe what we now call molecular manufacturing (MM).

The term "nanotechnology" evolved (*) over the years via terminology drift to mean "anything smaller than microtechnology," such as nanoscale powders and other things that are nanoscale in size, but not referring to products that have been purposefully built from nanoscale components.

Today, when poeple talk about "nanotechnology" they are usually referring to the new definition, not MM.

Read more about today’s nanotechnology products at the Nanotechnology Now Current Uses page.

(*) I say "evolved" rather that the possibly more accurate term "hijacked" since there remains some debate. Many argue that old-economy industries such as advanced materials companies are responsible for the change in meaning.

Picture of the day

Inspired by the original foglet designs of Dr. J. Storrs Hall (see "Utility Fog") Nanotechnology is a generic image created for the Royal Society of Chemistry, UK, "chemsoc timeline." This image is one of the most recognized "nanotch" images, and has been used extensively.

Murray Robertson is an artist who has been involved with the visualisation of ideas in science since 1998. You can see his work in "A Visual Interpretation of the Table of Elements." He is currently working on a new set of images based around nanotechnology/molecular computers.

Quote of the day

At an April (2003) conference sponsored by the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Mihail Roco, the nanotech guru at the National Science Foundation, noted, "Developments in nanotechnology are going much faster than expected; in fact, development time is less than half that we expected." Roco also flatly declared, "If a company does not enter nanotechnology now - in five years it will be too late - it will be out of business." (RR: my emphasis)

From The Smaller the Better The limitless promise of nanotechnology, and the growing peril of a moratorium. Ronald Bailey, December 2003

Molecular Manufacturing Issues

To start, let me say that the issues you will read about below are by no means all the issues. Molecular manufacturing is a very complex subject, one that is not easy to describe in simple terms or language. Opinion on it is divided, and emotions are charged. Intelligent, well-meaning individuals in various camps hold passionate views; pretty much what we should expect from a technology that holds huge potential.

When it comes to molecular manufacturing (MM) there are many influential groups, each with their own views, agenda and ability to influence stakeholders and policy makers. On some points they agree; on many they do not, and in some cases emphatically not.

And yes, I am biased towards a majority of the views held by one of the groups, and beliefs-tempered by the views of the others. They all offer points that should be considered. I disagree with some, and with some of their conclusions, but I’m willing to listen, debate, and change my mind if presented with convincing evidence.

So for this post, I am not trying to create an exhaustive "issues" list; I’d prefer, rather, to start a conversation with you by pointing out just some of them.

What they believe

One group holds that MM is either the Holy Grail of technology or possibly a means to our end. Another group is of the opinion that MM (as defined by the first group) will either never happen (because we’ll never develop it), or is so far into the future that it’s "no worries mates" for now. Yet a third group believes that all R&D into nanotechnologies should be halted until all potential harmful effects are know, understood, and preventative measures put in place. Another, that MM is just one of many advanced technologies that could lead to an unprecedented human evolution, accompanied by greatly extended life spans and vastly upgraded intellects. And finally, another, but by no means final group, believes MM is just one of many advanced technologies that could lead to all sorts of societal ills.

Frankly, it’s hard to get your hands around MM, let alone the points-of-view held by these and other stakeholders (AKA: interest groups. Once again, that’s you and I and everyone folks, the whole unorganized, confused, anxious and hopeful lot).

For the purpose of this exercise specific groups or individuals will not be named. Suffice it to say that someone holds views and beliefs that are consistent with the following questions.

Some of the important issues

     Is MM possible?
     If so, is it safe? If not, why not? (RR: of course, if your answer is "not" then the remaining questions are moot.)

     Is Grey Goo possible? (1)
     If so, how do we prevent/defeat it? If not, why not?

     Can we build the nanofactory? (2)
     If so, what are the steps leading to it, when might we see it, and what are the upsides and downsides to it’s development? If not, why not?

     Do we have sufficient safeguards in place to ward off the potential downsides and increase the likelihood of a positive MM-enabled future? (RR: here we will take a turn away from the script and say "as far as I know there is currently no group that believes MM is possible/likely that also believes that the answer to this Q is yes.")
     If not, what is being done to address this issue?

     Are business, government and individual stakeholders adequately informed regarding the myriad ways in which advanced technologies, including MM, may change our collective future?
     If so, why so many contradictory viewpoints? If not, why not?

     Are stakeholders learning about, participating in, and influencing the debate on MM?
     If so, in which venues? If not, why not?

I hope to enlist the aid of my friends and colleagues in the nano-space in providing answers to these questions. I will also post answers from those that present an opposing yet supported p-o-v. And I will probably answer a few myself, as time allows.

Of course I’ll post those of your comments and questions that meet blog etiquette standards.

I’ll leave you with this: You are a stakeholder (*), whether you believe it or not. When it comes to advanced technologies everyone on this beautiful blue marble is a stakeholder, all 6.5 billion of us. Do you have enough information to enable you to make good decisions about advanced technologies, including MM? If not, ask your questions here.

(*) stakeholder: a person or organization that has a legitimate interest in a project or entity. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For more on these issues, please visit:
Atkinson-Phoenix Debate
Nanotechnology Now Press Kit
Foresight Debate with Scientific American
Published debate shows weakness of MNT denial
Thirty Essential Nanotechnology Studies

(1) http://www.nanotech-now.com/goo.htm
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanofactory