[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors
are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral.
ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and
threats.]
We are grateful to:
. Shekhar Kapur, based in London, England, and Mumbai, India, for "Nano-Age:
3-D Sense Augmented Media";
. Steven Clothier, based in Zurich, Switzerland, for "Facing the
Triumph of Bio, Info & Nano (BIN) Technology over an enslaved Humanity?";
. Prof Nigel M de S Cameron, based in Chicago, Illinois, for "Why
Nanotechnology represents the most significant paradigm shift!";
and
. Dr Alessandro Rospigliosi, based in London, England, and Turin, Italy,
for "The Brave New World of NanoTechnology and its Impact on Academia,
Business and Governments";
for their response to to Dr Brent Segal based in Boston, USA, for his
ATCA submission, "Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our
Future or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age?"
Shekhar Kapur, born 6 December 1945 in British India, is known as one
of the globe's most critically acclaimed film directors and impresarios.
He has directed noted films in both Bollywood and Hollywood. His works
include Elizabeth (1998), a semi-historical account of the early reign
of Queen Elizabeth I; it was nominated for 8 Oscars. Shekhar was the
master behind the controversial film Bandit Queen that gained International
attention when it was banned by the Indian Government. In 2000, he was
awarded the Padma Shri by the Indian Government. Films directed by Shekhar
Kapur include: Elizabeth, Bandit Queen, Masoom, Mr India, The Four Feathers,
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (future release), 2020: Water Chaos (future
release), The Last Full Measure (future release), Long Walk to Freedom
(future release), The Buddha (in development). Kapur was also co-creator
and executive producer of the Bollywood-themed Andrew Lloyd Webber musical
Bombay Dreams, which has been running in the West End, London, since
2002, and on Broadway in New York City since 2004. His basic schooling
was done at the Modern School, New Delhi. Kapur is a UK chartered accountant
by training. Today Shekhar Kapur is widely hailed as the first 'Bollywood'
director to cross over to Hollywood and bring with him the ancient continent's
penchant for flare, music, drama, and epic story telling. He writes:
Dear DK and Colleagues
Re: Nano-Age: 3-D Sense Augmented Media
Just as we are getting used to the Digital Age, we are about to be overwhelmed
by the 'Nano Age'. I have often wondered how that will affect me as
a story teller/film director. I look at a Camera, which is really a
passive recording device that 'reads' light as reflected by the observed
object. Nano technology may soon bring to us an 'active recording device/camera.
What might it be...?
Imagine a device that 'beams' (like radiation) millions (billions?)
of Nano-particles. Each as small as a photon. Each nano particle 'reads'
light, smell, temperature etc as they swirl around the area that they
are beamed into. There may be nano particles that are specific, ie they
are light sensitive, temperature sensitive or smell sensitive. They
may bounce off the observed subject(s) and be 'touch sensitive' too,
as they study textures.
Now imagine you have a big party scene, and as your actors are performing,
the nano particles are swirling around and picking up information and
constantly reflecting information back to the 'recording device', whatever
that might be. You will walk away from the scene with enough information
even from the back of the heads of the actors, every nook and corner
of the room, the body temperature and even the perfume your actors are
wearing. Not sure what I will do with all that information yet! Probably
be totally confused, but the possibilities are enormous and a bit daunting.
But as I was thinking of this, it occurred to me that we may soon be
engulfed by nano particles that are swirling around, beamed by not so
benign an observer as a film director. It may be the proverbial 'Big
Brother'! In which case there may be nothing about us that is not being
recorded by someone, somewhere. What we are doing at any moment, what
we smell like, what our body temperature might be. All will be tracked
and known.
This would be Great if you are a heart patient for the computers at
the hospital to keep track of you, but what if you are just wanting
to do something completely private? Live in leaded rooms? Any scientists
out there telling me that this is just my imagination going wild ?
Best wishes
Shekhar
ATCA Editor's Note: According to nanotechnology experts, we could one
day in the near future make the kind of recording that Shekhar Kapur
is suggesting come true. The computers and networks needed to process
this kind of information are already being made in labs in the US, enabled
by nanotechnology. Home network speeds approaching 1 Trillion bits per
second (that is 1 followed by 12 zeros or 1,000 Giga bit/s) will be
common place by 2020. Such networks will be able to carry and to allow
processing of the immense volume of data from 3D sense augmented media.
[ENDS]
-----Original Message-----
From: Intelligence Unit
Sent: 02 December 2006 08:47
To: 'atca.members@mi2g.com'
Subject: Response: Facing the Triumph of Bio, Info & Nano (BIN)
Technology over an enslaved Humanity? Clothier; NanoTechnology represents
paradigm shift! Prof Cameron; Dr Rospigliosi; Dr Segal
Dear ATCA Colleagues
[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are
not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral.
ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and
threats.]
We are grateful to:
. Steven Clothier, based in Zurich, Switzerland, for "Facing the
Triumph of Bio, Info & Nano (BIN) Technology over an enslaved Humanity?";
. Prof Nigel M de S Cameron, based in Chicago, Illinois, for "Why
Nanotechnology represents the most significant paradigm shift!";
and
. Dr Alessandro Rospigliosi, based in London, England, and Turin, Italy,
for "The Brave New World of NanoTechnology and its Impact on Academia,
Business and Governments";
for their response to to Dr Brent Segal based in Boston, USA, for his
ATCA submission, "Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our
Future or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age?"
Stephen Clothier is Chief Executive of Accurity Group, a boutique Swiss
based group of companies in the emerging area of international technology
outsourcing, a position he has held for the past six years. Trained
as a Space Physicist and a Naval Officer, his experience covers a mixture
of international technical consulting and research in a wide variety
of areas: from NASA and ESA to Airlines, Finance and Defence. Until
recently he was Co-Chairman of the Technology Forum of the British Swiss
Chamber of Commerce, and is a Chartered Engineer, Member of the British
Computer Society and Fellow of the Institute of Analysts and Programmers.
He writes:
Dear DK and Colleagues
Re: Facing the Triumph of Bio, Info & Nano (BIN) Technology over
an enslaved Humanity?
I am prompted by the fascinating discussion about research funding that
has emerged around nanotechnology to respond with an observation:
Since at least the late twentieth century the world seems to have changed
from one where we lacked the technology to meet the needs of our perceived
vision of a desirable world, to one where the 21st century technology
we have exceeds (in many areas such as bio, info and nano) our ability
to understand and control how we use it. In fact our vision of a desirable
world is now driven by technology -- no longer vice versa.
Are we then becoming ideological slaves to our technology, not its master?
If so this slavery is building momentum and disrupting (perhaps killing)
our vision of humanity based on longstanding spiritual, moral, historical
and human concepts and values. As humankind we seem to be losing our
ability to control our lives from within, something we have taken thousands
of years to achieve through freeing ourselves from circumstances, mastering
our dependence on the external environment -- which we feel differentiates
us from animals. To me this loss is dangerous - technology is a tool,
not a philosophy for life.
More than ever, if we are not to "lose our bearings" in a
world racing with technological growth, now must be the time to strengthen
our human, moral and spiritual model - to strengthen our society, our
politics, our humanity in order to keep our use of technology in context,
to decide what we want and believe, and not let technology decide for
us - intellectually we need to take charge.
So is it not at this very time that, far from targeting our efforts
through funding on specific "mechanistic" research that provides
specific results, we should be spending even more on those areas that
do not pay back with specific results, such as humanities, history,
religious study and philosophy - those very areas that our distinguished
colleagues have identified as in great danger of serious neglect, and
atrophy?
Best wishes
Stephen Clothier
[ENDS]
-----Original Message-----
From: Intelligence Unit
Sent: 25 November 2006 23:05
To: 'atca.members@mi2g.com'
Subject: Response: Why Nanotechnology represents the most significant
paradigm shift! Prof Cameron; Brave New World of NanoTechnology - Dr
Rospigliosi; Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age? - Dr Segal
Dear ATCA Colleagues
[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are
not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral.
ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and
threats.]
We are grateful to:
. Prof Nigel M de S Cameron, based in Chicago, Illinois, for "Why
Nanotechnology represents the most significant paradigm shift!";
and
. Dr Alessandro Rospigliosi, based in London, England, and Turin, Italy,
for "The Brave New World of NanoTechnology and its Impact on Academia,
Business and Governments";
for their response to to Dr Brent Segal based in Boston, USA, for his
ATCA submission, "Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our
Future or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age?"
Professor Nigel M de S Cameron is Director of the Center on Nanotechnology
and Society (nano-and-society.org) at the Illinois Institute of Technology,
where he is Research Professor of Bioethics, an Associate Dean at Chicago-Kent
College of Law, and President of its affiliated Institute on Biotechnology
and the Human Future. Originally from the UK, he has studied at Cambridge
and Edinburgh universities and the Edinburgh Business School. His chief
interest lies in the implications of emerging technologies for policy
and human values. He has served as bioethics adviser on US diplomatic
delegations to the United Nations General Assembly and UNESCO, and was
recently an invited US participant in the US Department of State/European
Commission Perspectives on the Future of Science and Technology consultation
in Varenna, Italy. He is a member of the United States National Commission
for UNESCO, and of the advisory boards of the Converging Technologies
Bar Association, the Nano Law and Business Journal, the World Healthcare
Innovation and Technology Congress, and 2020Health (UK).
Professor Cameron has been Randall Distinguished Lecturer in Biomedical
Ethics at the American Physiological Society, a Scholar-in-Residence
at UBS Wolfsberg, and given expert testimony to committees of the US
Congress, the UK Parliament, and the European Parliament. He has addressed
the European Commission's European Group on Ethics on ethical issues
in nanomedicine. He has recently been a featured speaker at the Aspen
Ideas Institute (on science and technology policy issues), the World
Healthcare Innovation and Technology Congress (nanotechnology and the
future of medicine) and Frost and Sullivan's Industry Outlook and Growth
Strategies conference (emerging technologies, values and policy). His
edited book, Nanotechnology and Society: Issues and Perspectives, is
due next spring from John Wiley. He writes:
Dear DK and Colleagues
Re: Why Nanotechnology represents the most significant paradigm shift!
Brent Segal in his helpful overview of the emerging implications of
nanotechnology manages to understate the situation in his careful summary
statement: "The promise of nanotechnology represents perhaps one
of the most significant paradigm shifts that the world can expect to
see this century." Even allowing for the hype with which the more
enthusiastic advocates, and more astringent critics, of nanotechnology
have pressed their respective cases, there does not seem to be any "perhaps"
or "one of" about it. The technological revolution that will
result from the driving down of discovery, invention, and engineering
to the nanoscale is set not only to reframe every sector of industry,
and to raise profound questions for our notions of privacy and defense,
but potentially (and disturbingly) to threaten the human project itself.
As so often, there is a thin line separating promise and threat.
1. The essential question that needs to be noted is of course that "nanotechnology"
is not a "technology" like others. The reference of the term
is to scale, and it is already used to embrace everything from particulate
matter to dramatic innovations such as carbon nanotubes and nanoshells
-- to the prospect of "molecular nanotechnology," the code-word
for Eric Drexler's futuristic vision of molecular "assemblers"
(celebrated in different ways in Neil Stephenson's fine 1995 novel The
Diamond Age and Michael Crichton's more recent thriller Prey, and resembling
nothing less than the achievement of a new alchemy). While molecular
nanotechnology has not so far been considered for funding by the US
National Nanotechnology Initiative, a change in policy is one of the
more interesting (and bizarre?) recommendations of the National Research
Council's Congressionally-mandated triennial review (just published).
The focus on scale is one reason why discussions of nanotechnology have
been bedevilled by the lack of a generally-accepted definition of the
term (must the scale apply to one dimension, or more? What is the relevancy
of nanoscale particulate matter? One phrase widely used by the National
Science Foundation in grant offerings focuses on "active nanostructures
and nanosystems"). It is to be hoped that the several standards
agencies will soon resolve this among other definitional questions.
In fact, the term "nanotechnology" has begun to function less
as the name of a particular technology than as that of a brand. While
it may simply die out at some future point (when so much is done on
the nanoscale that the term becomes redundant), the several elements
of risk already present in particular applications of the technology
have this added: that they are linked together by powerful branding.
The recent German "Magic Nano" scare (a bathroom cleaner sent
people to hospital, though it would seem it was no more nano than it
was magic) offered a welcome reminder of the problems that this brand
development may cause (especially in the post-GMO market-place well-known
to Europeans, though surprisingly little-known even to well-informed
US observers).
2. Dr Rospigliosi is entirely correct to draw attention to the changing
patterns and needs at the interface of public funding, research, and
industry that are focused by developments in nanotechnology. They are
not of course specific to nano, though the high levels of directed nano
spending that have in some measure resulted from the hyped claims of
enthusiasts have themselves drawn the attention of policymakers to issues
of product development and, relatedly, claims of specific beneficial
applications (such as the US National Cancer Institute's claim, extraordinary
by any account, that by 2015 cancer will be at worst a chronic condition).
Policymakers are aware that the last great public science project -
the mapping of the human genome - has not led to the kind of clinical
applications that had been forecast. It is inevitable that as budgets
come under increasing pressure - especially for demographic and healthcare
reasons - research expenditures will tend to be tied more closely to
outcomes.
Those in the academy will find this unpalatable, but it may be that
the massive post-War expansion of public science (associated in the
US especially with the work of Vannevar Bush), while in no danger of
ending, may be expected to shift more of its resources to focused outcomes.
The comparatively recent ability of university researchers (noted by
Dr Rospigliosi) to profit from their IP, while it has proved to have
merit, may finally prove to have helped destabilize the public science
model. In democracies in which increasing expenditures and hopes are
being directed at publicly-funded science, the post-War model of government
as VC of last resort (dramatically illustrated by current nanotechnology
initiatives, especially in the US, European and Japan) may take on new
forms, one of which may prove to be a creeping dirigisme.
A parallel concern is presented by the problem of hyped claims and expectations:
as Nobelist Sir Paul Nurse noted of the NCI 2015 claim in a recent issue
of the New Yorker, when this promise fails (as, he suggested, it surely
will) public confidence in public science will be undermined. This,
like other highly specific future claims being made (in the US, by some
leaders of the National Science Foundation) could threaten the entire
public-science model (there is even a book - a long book - with the
title Nano-Hype). If it is the case, as some of us believe, that issues
of science and technology policy will become increasingly prominent
in the politics of the next generation, much will depend on our capacity
to reshape the post-War model in ways that are not deleterious to the
interests of long-term research.
3. One of the greatest uncertainties is underlined by Dr Rospigliosi
in his discussion of the growing dependence of western nations on immigrant
researchers. Will the nano revolution enhance globalization and flatten
the planet further, or will the so-called "nano-divide" result
in a further accretion of competitive advantage to existing industrial
powers and a heightening of present global inequities of income and
opportunity? I was recently taking part in an international workshop
on the societal implications of the technology; someone made the point
- often made on these occasions - that we may soon have nanoscale technology
solutions for the problem of clean water, with the prospect of an end
to one of the grimmest of all global inequities. The more naïve
nano-implication discussions tend to take this form. My response was
that (a) the provision of clean water is a policy issue for the developed
nations: with political will it could be resolved in large measure now;
and (b) what if the researcher who comes up with the magic bullet decides
to exercise his or her IP rights and squats on the patent for 20 years?
Technology contributes to solutions; it does not generally provide them.
Whether this technology levels the globe or leads to further orogenesis
is entirely unclear; as things stand, immigrant researchers notwithstanding,
it is likely to develop in the existing social and economic context
and strengthen rather than subvert the status quo. Which is not to suggest
that we should work for subversion, but to draw attention to the need
to develop approaches that transcend, and not rely on "technology"
to solve our problems of political will and social responsibility.
4. Dr Segal notes the problem of "fear and ignorance" and
the kind of critiques that have been made of nanotechnology, especially
the so-called "grey goo" scenario (in which molecular-scale
machines run out of control and end up turning the planet into, well,
goo). This scenario was popularized by Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill
Joy in his (in)famous and remarkable essay in the April, 2000 issue
of Wired, "Why the Future doesn't need us." Alongside the
"grey goo" scenario he posited another, which many of us found
more convincing and certainly more troubling: that artificial intelligence
will either create superior beings who will become our masters, or that
we will "enhance" our intelligence using a machine model in
which our essential humanity is left behind. The emergence of "transhumanists"
(sci-fi enthusiasts, some with serious intellectual credentials) who
believe our prime task is to transform ourselves into a post-human form
of existence, has had the effect of adding further risk to the nano
"brand" (since they claim it as their own).
Key administrators at the US National Science Foundation in 2002 published
a conference report which included and advocated some of these perspectives,
and sufficiently troubled the European Commission that it published
what was in effect a lengthy rebuttal of what was deemed (somewhat inaccurately,
since the 2002 document did not reflect policy) to be the "American"
approach. Indeed, the 2003 act of Congress that reset the parameters
of the National Nanotechnology Initiative specifically expressed concern
about AI and the enhancement of human intelligence. The fact that the
recent National Research Council report (noted above) chose hubristically
to evade these questions (despite the specific request from Congress)
illustrates the uneasy character of the emerging debate about the goals
of the "converging technologies" that meet on the nanoscale,
and how research and development relate to the common good. It is plainly
in the vital interests of researchers and industry alike that these
questions be ventilated both candidly and upstream of the main applications
of the technology.
Best regards
Nigel
[ENDS]
-----Original Message-----
From: Intelligence Unit
Sent: 24 November 2006 23:19
To: 'atca.members@mi2g.com'
Subject: Response: Brave New World of NanoTechnology (NT) and its Impact
on Academia, Business & Governments - Rospigliosi; Femto-Glimpse
into Our Future / Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age? - Segal
Dear ATCA Colleagues
[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are
not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral.
ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and
threats.]
We are grateful to Dr Alessandro Rospigliosi, based in London, England,
and Turin, Italy, for his response "The Brave New World of NanoTechnology
and its Impact on Academia, Business and Governments" to Dr Brent
Segal based in Boston, USA, for his ATCA submission, "Nanotechnology
2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our Future or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age?"
Dr Alessandro Rospigliosi joined Ludgate Investments, a private equity
group specializing in green technology companies, in June 2006 as Scientific
Research Analyst. He graduated in Chemical (with Biochemical Engineering)
from University College London (UCL) in 2001 and then obtained a Gates
Scholarship for a PhD in molecular electronics at Cambridge University,
England. This involved working on an interdisciplinary project that
covered areas of synthetic chemistry, physics and material sciences.
He has presented his scientific work at several conferences (in the
US and Europe) and is in the process of publishing the results of his
thesis.
Dr Rospigliosi has participated at several Model United Nations conferences
as delegate and head of delegation. During his time at Cambridge he
co-founded and was the treasurer of the Cambridge University Technology
and Enterprise Club (CUTEC) which in 2004 organized the first student-run,
CMI (Cambridge MIT Institute)-sponsored Private Equity and Venture Capital
conference in the London Guildhall. This conference has become an annual
event which provides a platform for researchers, entrepreneurs and academics
to meet investors and government officials. Partly due to this conference
and personal contacts Alessandro entered the world of private equity.
His other interests include skiing and sailing. He writes:
Dear DK and Colleagues
Re: The Brave New World of NanoTechnology and its Impact on Academia,
Business and Governments
My attention was drawn to Dr Segal's ATCA comments on the current state
of research in NanoTechnology (NT). Rather than a purely scientific
comment on the current state of this field of research, my response
aims at presenting an objective view from "within" the research
world and gives some thought to a key point Dr Segal mentioned in his
original ATCA submission: the necessity for a new, evolved class of
interdisciplinary managerial-scientists and for support from legislative
and executive powers if Western countries (and the US/EU in particular)
want to remain at the forefront of scientific innovation in the future.
I certainly agree with Dr Segal that it is inevitable that NT will influence
our world in numerous ways: from the development of novel nanoscopic
computer chips to biosensors, from the advances made in material sciences
to the creation of labs-on-a-chip. The possibility of designing molecules
to give them a desired property or properties opens-up a real "Brave
New World" for scientists and mankind.
Miniaturisation has been a Leitmotiv of human progress and in particular,
with respect to integrated circuit elements, has followed the so-called
Moore's law, which (back in the 60s) anticipated that the number of
transistors on a chip would double approximately every 18 months. An
alternative to the traditional technique of "top-down" miniaturisation,
is to start with the study of single molecules in order to investigate
how these can be used to create more complex circuit elements ("bottom-up").
This new approach to research has been made possible due to the widespread
commercialization of instruments that allow the study of nanometre-sized
samples: the Atomic Force and the Scanning Tunnelling Microscopes (AFM
and STM), Scanning Electron Microscopes (SEM) and other scanning probe
devices. Such instruments have made it possible for humankind to deepen
our understanding in so many areas, such as biochemistry, solid state
physics, supramolecular chemistry and protein science.
Having spent almost three years working on the synthetic modification
of short DNA strands to prove that their electron conduction properties
could be altered enough to turn this biopolymer into a "molecular
wire" I have witnessed how difficult it is, not only to perform
the modifications, but also to purify such DNA analogues. Human DNA
intrinsically is not a good electron conductor - otherwise solar radiation
would alter our genetic code at an alarming rate. During my PhD, I managed
to show that a slight, but noticeable difference could be made by altering
several bases on a double stranded oligonucleotide. However, the technical
difficulty of making reliable and reproducible measurement of DNA filaments
at the sub-100 nm (nanometre) level is still quite serious. Therefore,
we should be careful not to over-estimate the immediate impact of NT.
The main commercialised products that have come out in recent years
have been linked to nanoparticles in paints and colouring agents.
Most of the excitement over NT relates to the discoveries and observations
that many of the rules for materials in the bulk scale no longer apply
when dealing with nanoparticles. At these dimensions, the effects we
learn about in quantum mechanics cannot be neglected (as often done
when modelling bulky large scale reactions and properties). For example,
under certain conditions non-conducting materials can become conductive
or ordinarily non-magnetic materials can become magnetic.
Also, in many NT projects it is no longer possible to perform experiments
at room temperature, in air, at atmospheric pressure and under ambient
conditions, because most materials are air-, light- and temperature-sensitive
and need to be kept under an inert atmosphere or in high vacuum. To
make progress, very specialised and expensive equipment and knowledge
of the underlying physics and chemistry are needed.
That is why many governments, led by the USA, UK and Germany, but also
Japan, India, China and Malaysia have announced they would increase
funding (in some cases up to astronomical sums) for certain specific
NT projects. However, funding alone is not going to create miracles.
There is a need for an independent body that can ease the dialogue between
academia, governments and research institutes in order to ensure that
research money is used efficiently and that "good" conditions
for research are created. A relatively new breed of human resources
is needed to fulfil this task: a class of managerial-scientists capable
of coordinating the efforts (and needs) of specialists in different
subject areas across international borders. In some cases, for example,
it is necessary to link experts from fields as diverse as quantum physics,
theoretical and organic chemistry with specialists in biochemistry and
proteomics. Although there are many institutions that have been created
for this purpose it is not an easy task, because scientists that have
worked life-long in one area typically find it difficult to interact
and work efficiently with researchers in other disciplines. It is obvious
that managing such a wide variety of experts requires a coordinator
that has enough understanding of all subject areas to guide a fruitful
project. At the same time these new "managers" must appreciate
the commercial reality around a particular project if they are to exploit
these for financial return.
There are a number of issues I would like to enumerate in relation to
the challenges science and research institutions are faced with nowadays
which impact future business and government policy:
· Although we can see that occasionally governments announce
spending in very specific commercially-oriented research projects, the
overall trend (particularly obvious in France and Italy over the past
few years) is that less public money is given to academic institutions
as a whole. This could have several detrimental consequences for those
departments that do not work on potentially commercialisable and revenue-oriented
research (ie humanities). Therefore universities and other publicly-funded
institutions need to find their own source of revenue. The generation
of cash flow could be created by successfully commercialised university
spin-offs. If well-managed, a few such companies can produce enough
revenue (through royalties and capital gain) for such institutions to
compensate for declining government funding and eventually replace it
altogether. This is a possible means of financing the increasing costs
of research and of "unprofitable" departments (such as the
arts, music, literature, languages, history and philosophy, etc...).
· Planning and timing is of the essence. Proper planning, timing
and funding are fundamental points when running a company, a research
institute or, even more so in recent years, a university. Huge amounts
of money, effort and time are often wasted due to poor planning strategies
because, particularly with novel, interdisciplinary research the accountability
of research supervisors is not very strict - rightly to give them the
necessary freedom to perform uncertain yet possibly ground-braking research.
But this freedom needs to be guided by knowledgeable and integral managers
if misuse is to be avoided.
· The requirements put on research supervisors have become unsustainable:
Professors are facing ever increasing administrative tasks (such as
knowing and complying with extremely detailed health and safety regulations,
writing research proposals, general laboratory management requirements
and organising conferences) which take-up so much of their time, that
very little is left for their original duties (teaching and supervising).
It therefore seems strange that even at the best research institutions
tasks are not divided in order to alleviate the burden of non-research
related duties.
· Indirectly linked to the above is a commonly accepted rule
that researchers should be the ones presenting their work at conferences
and, if their intellectual property (IP) can be commercialised, they
should exploit it to found a start-up company. However, they may not
necessarily be the most suited individuals to perform these tasks, because
poor presentational, managerial, social and occasionally language skills
often downgrade excellent pieces of work.
· Restructuring these institutions and the underlying mentality
is not an easy task, but if countries that have benefited from leading
research institutes do not want to lose their advantageous position
they will have to re-formulate their strategy.
· Dependence: It is a matter of fact that today in the UK a vast
proportion of research students and post-doctorate workers in many science
departments (just as the great number of foreign business professionals
working in the City of London) are non UK-citizens. This has created
a serious dependence on foreign well-educated and qualified workers.
· Whilst during the past decades the US and the UK attracted
bright and capable workforces on the one hand due to very good remuneration
and on the other hand because they were being offered career opportunities
they did not have in their home countries, as a former head of the EC
directorate for science and research -- Prof Andreta -- recently stated
at an Innovation and business conference: "Top scientists from
developing nations are starting to move back to their countries of origin,
even from prestigious institutions". He quoted a statistic that
over the past two years approximately 8,000 researchers from Asian countries
left (even Institutes like Caltech and MIT) to go back to their counties
of origin, because for similar wages and working conditions they prefer
to work in their home countries.
Given the role played by technological innovation in maintaining USA,
Britain and France's role as world-class players and given that Britain
and France have played a role in maintaining the "balance of power"
since the 17th century, it is surprising that some of these points seems
to have escaped the attention of the ruling elite in those countries
as well.
I hope this will stimulate a controversial, yet positive, discussion
on ATCA and wish you all the best.
Yours
Alessandro Rospigliosi
[ENDS]
-----Original Message-----
From: Intelligence Unit
Sent: 26 June 2006 09:20
To: 'atca.members@mi2g.com'
Subject: ATCA: Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our Future
or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age? Dr Bent Segal
Dear ATCA Colleagues
[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are
not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral.
ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and
threats.]
We are grateful to Dr Brent Segal from Boston, USA, for his submission
to ATCA, "Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our Future
or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age?"
Dr Brent M Segal is a Co-founder and part-time Chief Operating Officer
of Nantero, a leading Nanotechnology company where he oversees operations
roles focusing on partnerships, involving companies such as LSI Logic,
BAE Systems and ASML. He continues to assist Nantero with intellectual
property management and government programmes involving the US Navy
and various agencies. He is also a General Partner at Atomic Venture
Partners where he focuses on investments involving early stage technology
with explosive growth potential. Some of his primary areas of expertise
include Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, Semiconductors and Nanotechnology.
He was previously a member of Echelon Ventures of Burlington, Massachusetts.
Dr Segal received his PhD in Chemistry from Harvard University in 2000
and has published more than 20 articles in journals including Journal
of the American Chemical Society, Inorganic Chemistry, and various IEEE
publications, including one in which Nantero was named one of the top
ten companies for the next ten years. He is a graduate of Reed College,
with a degree in Biochemistry.
Dr Segal is frequently invited to speak at conferences and seminars
such as COMDEX, NANOTECH 2005 and the annual National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) meeting on the topic of nanotechnology intellectual
property creation and management to move Nanotechnology from the laboratory
to fabrication. He is an active member of the steering committee of
the Massachusetts Nanotechnology Initiative (MNI), executive member
of the Massachusetts NanoExchange (MNE) and a member of the New England
Nanomanufacturing Centre for Enabling Tools (NENCET) Industrial Advisory
Board and a member of the planning board for Nanotech 2006. He sits
on the Board of Directors of Coretomic, of Burlington, Vermont and ENS
Biopolymer, Inc of Cambridge, Massachusetts. He was a Research Associate
at Nycomed Salutar, Inc where he secured several new patents involving
novel X-ray contrast agents for medical imaging. He is co-author of
over 80 patents and applications and has worked extensively on intellectual
property creation and protection issues at both Nycomed and Metaprobe.
In his spare time he enjoys theatre, ballet, NFL football, specifically
monitoring the 49ers which stems from his Bay Area roots and Menlo Park
education, and wine sampling. He writes:
Dear DK and Colleagues
Re: Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our Future or Nano-Hegemony
Coming of Age?
The contribution of technological innovation to the world economy is
well documented with estimates that it may be responsible for as much
as 50% of economic growth over the past 50 years. As the silicon age
reaches maturity, Moore's law coming to an end as documented by Gordon
Moore himself, what will be the next game-changing technology to emerge?
With populations aging worldwide and healthcare costs spiralling literally
out of control, is there a saviour on the horizon? Which technology
segment has the US government been investing more than USD 1 billion
per year and the EU, Japan, China and other countries are globally investing
over USD 6 billion per year? What will become the next paradigm shift
to impact the technology component of a growing economy? Could it be
Nanotechnology?
Perhaps the first vision of nanotechnology was first described in a
lecture titled, 'There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom' in 1959 by Richard
P Feynman. Feynman theorized that with the proper toolset, individual
atoms or molecules could be manipulated. The reality of such tools from
companies like FEI and Veeco are now commonplace amongst scientists
and engineers alike signalling the beginning of the nanotechnology era.
Introduction to Nanotechnology
The US government has defined Nanotechnology as the understanding and
control of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100 nanometres, where
unique phenomena enable novel applications. Encompassing nanoscale science,
engineering and technology, nanotechnology involves imaging, measuring,
modelling, and manipulating matter at this length scale. What does this
really mean?
An easier way to understand nanotechnology is to consider the three
categories which may include nanotechnology defined by dimension; nanotechnology
defined by properties and effects; and nanotechnology defined by fabrication.
To companies such as Intel which state that they entered the Nanotechnology
era in 2000 "when [we] began volume production of chips with sub-100nm
length transistors" one can easily understand the meaning of nanotechnology
by dimension. Simply taking advantage of lithographic patterning via
scaling of transistors from micron-sized (microtechnology) to less than
100 nanometres yields faster, more powerful computer chips with more
features per unit area.
Other companies such as Nantero also in the semiconductor space, making
non-volatile memory using Carbon Nano Tubes (CNT) that promise to replace
all other forms of memory in what is over a USD 100 billion market utilize
new materials but most importantly take advantage of properties such
as van der Waal's interactions. The Dutch physicist and chemist, Johannes
Diderik van der Waals was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1910 for his work
to describe intermolecular forces later named after him.
The last definition of nanotechnology by fabrication which involves
molecular-scale generation of nanotechnological machines described by
Eric Drexler in his 1986 book Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of
Nanotechnology. Most chemists, physicists and nanotechnologists would
generally describe this concept as nanotechnology by fantasy especially
surrounding the term "gray goo" which describes hypothetical
self-replicating molecular machines reproducing out of control. For
example the late Professor Richard Smalley, Nobel Prize winner and discoverer
of "buckyballs", one of the most important discoveries of
a new chemical entity in many decades, debated Drexler in a series of
letters in the American Chemical Society journal Chemical and Engineering
News delineating the improbability of generating nanoscopic robots of
the form Drexler envisioned.
History of Nanotechnology
While Nanotechnology may seem mysterious and accessible solely by rocket
scientists, chemists and physicists, the first reported human nanotechnologists
may have been the lustre ceramics encapsulated within Abbasid tiles
imported from Syria and placed in the mihrab of the Sidi Oqba Mosque
in Kairouan, Tunisia. The tiny gratings generated within the pottery
cause colour changes from blue to red upon illumination with white light
at various angles. To understand the size of nanotechnological materials
some context would be helpful. For example CNTs are best described as
a rolled up sheet of graphite with a diameter of 1 nanometre or 1 X
10-9 meters (about 100,000 times smaller than a human hair) with a macroscopic
length up to several millimetres by some accounts. To put this in context
another nanotechnological material with a 2.5 nanometre diameter and
a macroscopic length of at least many microns called DNA might be more
familiar to most people.
Challenges in Nanotechnology
Accessing new products utilizing nanotechnology such as implantable
devices that automatically administer drugs, real time diagnostics for
physicians, cooling chips to replace compressors in cars, refrigerators,
air conditioners, sensors for airborne chemicals or other toxins, photovoltaics
(solar cells), fuel cells and portable power to provide inexpensive,
clean energy, and new high-performance materials and coatings presents
challenges which are significant. While the internet era involved relatively
small amounts of capital to enter the field, the nanotechnology era
involves large amounts of capital mostly in the form of tools and fabrication
facilities. Some of the first implementations of nanotechnology have
come in the materials space where neither expensive chip fabrication
nor FDA approval, for example are required.
Another limiting factor in nanotechnology involves the workforce and
its mindset. Most of the workforce in modern society is collected into
silos via specialization. In fact specialization and "the assembly
line" are credited with the efficiencies that have led to modern
capitalism which can no doubt lead to a significant discussion about
Democracy, Nationalism and even religion. Nanotechnology, however, represents
a significant deviation from the status quo, and the requirement for
specific combinations of disciplines in order to achieve developmental
success. No longer can a physicist or chemist study in isolation. The
new era of nanotechnology is already bringing biologists, chemists,
physicists, engineers, medical doctors and many other technical specialists
together to exchange thoughts and ideas whose combination will yield
the discoveries characterized as nanotechnology. In a society where
we value being the "expert" at one thing only, will we produce
a workforce capable of such thinking? The country that is most quickly
able to create this new breed of "specialized generalists"
will likely enjoy tremendous economic success.
So now we move to the concept of "nano-hegemony" in a world
which has recognized the benefits of a future with nanotechnology and
a fear of a future without it! CNTs, for example, were discovered not
in the United States but rather in Japan by Professor Sumio Iijima at
NEC in 1991. Many of the nanotechnology discoveries using measurements
such as scientific papers and patent applications are occurring in Asia,
Europe and the Unites States in nearly equal numbers. Nearly every major
industrialized nation is now working on some form of nanotechnology
program and no fewer than 100 well-recognized major companies have significant
development programs.
Potential threats from Nanotechnology
Now we turn to the potential threats that nanotechnology could pose.
Indeed the threats to society from "gray goo" are overstated,
bordering on absurd but real threats could exist. One concern in particular
has to do with environmental health and safety from the introduction
of new materials into so many new products. Certainly new regulations
and requirements will emerge as we begin to understand the risks involved
in nanotechnology. Some information exists already which should not
be ignored. For example iron oxide nanoparticles of various sizes tend
to show up as part of what is commonly termed "rust" while
titanium oxide nanoparticles are quite safely used in many forms of
sunscreens with significant data on their safety.
One of the greatest threats posed by nanotechnology emanates from fear
and ignorance which lead to irrational behaviour. Movies and books which
encourage paranoia cannot be overestimated as sources. The experience
of the EU with biotechnology in the 1990s represents one potential outcome
should proper education and awareness of nanotechnology not proceed
with alacrity.
Conclusions
The promise of nanotechnology represents perhaps one of the most significant
paradigm shifts that the world can expect to see this century. This
shift will be different from others in that its entrance will be pervasive
in nearly every industry yet without the obvious fanfare experienced
by other technologies that have come before because many of the first
entrants will be in the form of significant improvements to existing
products. Nanotechnology will spawn a debate about world power, capitalism,
specialization and democracy as it increases in prominence. Will you
be ready?
Best regards
Brent
[ENDS]
