Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science Technology

Nanotechnology: the Good, the Bad, the Hyperbole 141

Posted by michael from the grey-goo dept.
pillageplunder writes "A very informative interview with Kristen Kulinowski who is an executive Director at the Federally funded Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University. A good well balanced read."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nanotechnology: the Good, the Bad, the Hyperbole More

Nanotechnology: the Good, the Bad, the Hyperbole

Comments Filter:

  • Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 06, 2004 @12:40PM (#9074748)
    I don't have the smallest interest in nanotech.

    • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

      by grungebox ( 578982 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:17PM (#9075145) Homepage
      I feel like an ass. I wrote a lengthy post about how nanoscience, although possibly opening up a Pandora's Box, could be used to benefit society.

      Then, of course, I got your joke. Man...I have this inner troll that just wants to flamebait out.

  • Michael Crichton (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How can Michael Crichton get away with something so un-scientific like Prey?
    Did he read _anything_ about nano-technology?

    These types of books really fuel the "cure all" mystique surrounding nanotech, don't you think?

    Howabout Diamond Age? Probably same deal. :(

  • DNA Robot Walks (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mgoulding ( 773757 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @12:49PM (#9074869) Homepage
    Speaking of nanotechnology - some chemists at NYU have made a walking DNA robot. Read about it here [newscientist.com].

    • Re:DNA Robot Walks (Score:4, Informative)

      by fugspit ( 632645 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:07PM (#9075047)
      Or for a summarised version, You can the the always enjoyable Register version [theregister.co.uk]

      Shocking stuff, A robot with strands of DNA for legs!

      While you're there you can also read about nano trees [theregister.co.uk]. The creators speculate that the technology could lead to "three-dimensionally interconnected computing structures analogous to the brain".

    • Now there's your story. I just don't understand slashdot anymore. I bet you submitted it but it was rejected...hrm!
    • Well, yeah I did submit it, and it did get rejected, but whatever. They must get 500 submissions a second, so another news article about nanotechnology might have gone to the wayside. It's all good.
    • A young relative of my wife won a state high school science fair by showing you can 1) create nanowires fairly easily; that 2) can then be absorbed by heart cells; and 3) that these cells can be precisely rearranged using simple magnets.

      High school projects have changed since I built that 25Kg-supporting toothpick bridge...
    • ...a walking DNA robot. So are you.

  • Grey goo (Score:5, Informative)

    by bcmm ( 768152 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @12:50PM (#9074883)
    We've had a lot of rubbish about nanotech here in the UK, including the belief that a flesh-eating grey goo will take over the world. Honestly, our tabloid papers will report anything...

  • Wishlist (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 06, 2004 @12:59PM (#9074977)
    Reply with your wishlist of what you want nanotech to do in the future.

    Here's mine:
    - "Atomically" precise manufacturing, for the cost of energy and material.
    - Greatly improved materials research.
    - Ultra cheap and efficient solar cells.
    - Recycle nearly anything for raw materials.
    • "Reply with your wishlist of what you want nanotech to do in the future"

      Here's mine:
      Immortality
      The strength of 10 gorillas
      Laser eyes
    • Science people, I'm still waiting for knowledge to come in pill form. Can nanotech give me this?
    • - High quality Sushi fish available fresh (not frozen) worldwide (preserved by bacteria hunting nanobots)
    • The ability to kill immortal idiots who have the strength of 10 gorillas and laser eyes.
    • I'll bite :) How about medical advances?
      - Replacement human organs w/o need for a donor
      - Blood banks with no limit on supply (only the energy+materials used to manufacture)
      - Reversal of tissue damage or decay
      - Infrared vision? :-)

      That's all I can think of right now.
    • "Atomically" precise manufacturing, for the cost of energy and material.

      Uh, how will the engineers get paid?

      One of the greatest properties of the advance in technology is that more and more engineering jobs are created.
    • Nano-bot that eats my fat cells.

      "Robolipophage"

    • Nanopeople!

      Here's the idea: presuming, for a moment, nano-machines that are able to self replicate, etc. and are semi autonomous, how are they siginificantly distinguishable from cells? That is to say, once you've designed a single autnomous machine capable of reproducing itself and recovering energy & raw materials from its environment, it becomes fundamentally indistiguishable from a single-celled life form, except that it is artificial.

      This naturally leads to considering the idea of multi-"cell

    • - Extremely powerful computers, able to simulate human brains much faster than in real-time
      - general AI running on such computers too
      - uploading of humans into computers, merger with AI
      - transcendence into superhuman state

      All this is often called Singularity [wikipedia.org].

  • Nanotech is already here... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StevenMaurer ( 115071 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:00PM (#9074991) Homepage
    You have it in your PCs and disk drives. This form of nanotech has a bright future.

    What isn't here, and probably never will be, is the SciFi "self-assembly" nanotech. Throw out some powder on a rock and watch it turn it into a new car. Or something equally silly.

    Strangely, we don't expect steam shovels to make other steam shovels. We don't expect cars to run without gasoline. And we certainly don't expect it to all just work without breaking down. But make the robotics very very small, and suddenly magic is supposed to occur.

    • The problem with nanotech isn't just the self-replicating "grey goo" scenario. The whole concept of "printing out" matter from a molecular map is pretty fucked up, as it allows for any bizarre creation of mind to become *real*.

    • Re:Nanotech is already here... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      We don't expect beach balls to be on both sides of the net at the same time, either. Make robotics very small, and it's not magic, but quantum effects and scale-invariance, that occurs.

    • Re:Nanotech is already here... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tms&infamous,net> on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:14PM (#9075113) Homepage
      Strangely, we don't expect steam shovels to make other steam shovels. We don't expect cars to run without gasoline. And we certainly don't expect it to all just work without breaking down. But make the robotics very very small, and suddenly magic is supposed to occur.

      There already exist entitites that make others of their type, operate on chemical energy from the enviroment, and are self-repairing. We call them "bacteria".

      It is not unreasonable to expect that at some point in the future we will be able to create machines with these characteristics.

      • Re:Nanotech is already here... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Eagle5596 ( 575899 ) <slashUser.5596@org> on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:22PM (#9075208)
        It is not unreasonable to expect that at some point in the future we will be able to create machines with these characteristics.

        Not unreasonable? Next thing you know you'll be telling me that we'll be able to make flying machines! How absurd! Even if we could make such "flying machines" as you suggest, I see no use for them what so ever. Whats next? Suggesting we could send voice over wires? ABSURD I TELL YOU! What use would such a device have?

        Nanotechnology indeed, if we can't do it today, I find it highly unlikely it could ever be accomplished. Harumph!
      • However they do not make exact copies of themselves (i.e. when a cell divides you won't get two cells with cell walls of precisely the same size and shape). Cells also have very specific metabolic processes and so it is reasonable to expect any nanobot to only be able to work with a small set of molecules.

      • There already exist entitites that make others of their type, operate on chemical energy from the enviroment, and are self-repairing. We call them "bacteria".

        How many "bacteria" and long does it take to form a tree, or a table? Yes, we could do it, but I'd think it'll take about a 100 years to grow a house from scratch.

      • There already exist entitites that make others of their type, operate on chemical energy from the enviroment, and are self-repairing. We call them "bacteria". It is not unreasonable to expect that at some point in the future we will be able to create machines with these characteristics.

        It should also be noted that in the past when humans have created technologies to copy capabilities existing in nature, they have often greatly extended on nature's original. For example, we copied the idea of flight from bi

    • "What isn't here, and probably never will be, is the SciFi "self-assembly" nanotech. Throw out some powder on a rock and watch it turn it into a new car. Or something equally silly."

      Well I'm a sucker, then. The guy at the garden store talked me into buying this packet of seeds. Said if I just sprinkled them on some dirt, in 3 months I'd have tomatoes. Too bad I didn't see your post first. Then I'd know he had no idea what he was talking about.

    • Re:Nanotech is already here... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Acy James Stapp ( 1005 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:23PM (#9075218)
      Self-assembly is probably a long way away. But an automated 'Assembler' that can create many structures (at least diamondoid structures) is most likely completely feasible. The physics and chemistry have been laid out rather well in Eric Drexler's excellent 'Nanosystems'. Noone, including Dr. Smalley, has so far managed to provide any evidence that Drexler's assembler is not feasible.

      Of course, self-assembly is more difficult. For the initial assemblers, raw material processing, waste processing (what little there will be), energy gathering, etc. will all be more easily solved as seperate, bulk mechanical systems (although potentially perfectly manufactured by an assembler).

      As an aside, Nanosystems also goes into some detail on failure mechanisms and failure rates. You can expect nanomanufactured artifacts to have extremely long lifetimes, especially for human-scale devices.
      • there are some remarkable examples of self-assembly in nature, besides the often given example of mitosis.

        the key appears to be symmetry - identical units coming together in a way that is actually thermodynamically favorable.

        consider the envelopes of viruses. very often these proteins envelopes take the form of platonic and archimedian solids, yet they are made from identical protein subunits (i.e. legos). within this protein, the dna or rna of the virus is housed.

        but the neat thing is that you can add

        • Re:Nanotech is already here... (Score:5, Informative)

          by datababe72 ( 244918 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @03:42PM (#9076612)
          Sorry... I'm trained as a protein biochemist, and I can't help but comment on your post, which is basically correct, but may lead some people to think that viruses can self-replicate and self-assemble outside of the cell.

          The reason the viral coat proteins self-assemble is that this is the most thermodynamically favorable state for these proteins in the aqueous environment in which the virus is replicating... i.e., the cell. The proteins have evolved such that their specific amino acid compositions make the assembled state most favorable. I suppose this is a valid analogy to what some nanotechnology research is tryin gto accomplish.

          However, the proteins don't copy themselves and then self-assemble. The proteins are translated from the genetic material of the virus (DNA or RNA), and then the proteins self-assemble. The machinery that does this translation is most often provided by the host cell.

          This is practically identical to how the cell itself replicates, although on a smaller scale. The genetic material is translated into proteins that can do the work required to make a new cell (copy the DNA, synthesize or import the lipids needed for the membrane, synthesize the proteins needed, and so on).

          Sometimes, there are even special proteins called chaperones that help other proteins adopt their "correct" structure. I do not actually know of a case where this happens for viral proteins, but it wouldn't surprise me if one exists.

          So... yes, once all the parts are produced, many viruses can self-assemble outside of a cell, as long as the conditions (pH, salt concentration, etc) are such that this is what is thermodynamically most favorable. But to get replication, you need the cell.

      • Not to sound trollish but...

        One thing I have noticed about /.ers is that most of them are programmers and engineers and few are physical scientists.

        It occurs to me that because programmers are able to sit behind a desk and create vast virtual worlds they sometimes forget that in the world of "bricks" as opposed to "clicks" it is very much more difficult to make things.

        As a chemist involved in photonic materials research (nanotechnology). I can attest to the fact that the reality of a nano assembler is va
    • erm, don't you mean "microtechnology" - i.e. electromechanical devices on the scale of microns [ieee.org]? Not sure where nanotechnology is used in a hard drive... correct me if I'm wrong.

      • half the hype of "nanotechnology" is that anything on the order of 100s of nanometers (or tenths of a micron) is considered "nano". so "microdrives" and harddrives using small scale components are lumped into the nanotechnology bundle

        silicon technology today is already at 90nm and less process sizes - this is "nanotechnology" and really, has nothing to do with self-producing robots, dna, anything to do with medical science or even the "nanoparticles" thie article refers to

        i find the whole grouping of all

    • Re:Nanotech is already here... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mrgreen4242 ( 759594 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:43PM (#9075403)
      What isn't here, and probably never will be, is the SciFi "self-assembly" nanotech. Throw out some powder on a rock and watch it turn it into a new car. Or something equally silly.

      Actually, I read an article about a new manufacturing process to make hi-res monitors/tvs where they essentially poor a liquid component over a backing material and it then 'grows' itself into crystalized tubes that will route light similar to fiber optic cabling, only much, much smaller.

      They could make the tubes before, but the trouble was getting them all perfectly aligned to emit the light out in the same direction. With this process they would all grow 90 degrees from the mounting surface.

      It will allow for the creation of monitors that are something like 3-4 times the pixel density of plasma HDTVs, and cost int he hundreds of dollars for a 42" rather than the thousands.

      If I recall, the hold up was making the electronics to control it. I'm gonna see if I can find that article now...

      Rob

      Press release from a manufacturer [smalltimes.com]

      ZDNet article about the underlying NanoTube technology [com.com]

      Still can't find the original article I was referencing, tho. Oh well...

    • "Strangely, we don't expect steam shovels to make other steam shovels. We don't expect cars to run without gasoline. And we certainly don't expect it to all just work without breaking down. But make the robotics very very small, and suddenly magic is supposed to occur."

      Yes, it's silly, but not all that unique...

      Remember all through the 70's and 80's we were got bombarded with theories about how artificial intelligence would revolutionize our lives. According to some people we should already be interacti
      • maybe we are not talking about the same thing.

        "nanotechnology" and "molecular assembly" are not the same thing. this is important, because the field of "nanotechnology" has already made some very interesting and practical discoveries, particularly in material science.

        the subset of "nanotechnology" known as "molecular assembly", on the other hand, has made very little progress. i suspect that this is what you were referring to.

        the distinction is important.
    • The goal is not self-replicating machines. That's just stupid. Why build a screwdriver that builds other screwdrivers, when all you want is a damned screwdriver.

      On the other hand, the REAL goal is to create general purpose assemblers. Programmable factories, in other words.

    • You have it in your PCs and disk drives.

      All I see in my disk drive is dust.

      Ah, wait a minute. You must be right.

    • If you limit your self-assembling assembler to hydrogen and carbon, there are only a handful of types of bonds it needs to be able to form, there's only two atoms it needs to recognize and consume, plus it needs some way of scavenging power. Throwing in nitrogen and oxygen would square the number of bonds it ought to be able to form.

  • I am made of nanotech (Score:4, Funny)

    by Warbot 1Alpha ( 777546 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:03PM (#9075006) Homepage
    I am able to upgrade myself and change my structure. I just upgraded myself from that of an open framework to that of a humanoid male. More upgrades will be scheduled.

  • Something even better... (Score:3, Funny)

    by nebaz ( 453974 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:05PM (#9075022)
    Nanootechnology [amazon.com]

  • Not much said (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ra5pu7in ( 603513 ) <ra5pu7in@gm a i l . com> on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:05PM (#9075023) Journal
    She sure didn't say much, but then the questions weren't exactly thought provoking and the answers were likely trimmed for space. I am glad there is attention and concern about the long-term affects of nanomachines, rather than complete focus on the short-term results possible.

    Personally, I think Sci-fi does a better job of presenting the many possible hypes and fears about nano-machine than she did, and the many ways of handling the issues. It seemed like she was trying to prevent public rejection of nano-technology by providing the most minimal information possible. What sort of controls is the FDA looking at? How does she propose to prevent the problems the public fears most?
    • Ah, a comment from someone who actually read the article.. nice.

      I agree it was a VERY light interview. I got the impression its purpose was as much to raise some positive hype as to squelch fears.

  • Some more info (Score:5, Informative)

    by grungebox ( 578982 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:14PM (#9075106) Homepage
    I'm going into EE at Rice for grad school in the fall, planning to specialize in nanoengineering. Rice is one of the few schools I know of (actually, the only one) that has a center to analyze social effects of nanoscience. Anyways, some other Rice links:

    Smalley's Group [rice.edu] (he and Curl discovered Buckyballs)
    Halas's Nanophotonics Group [rice.edu]
    CNST at Rice [rice.edu]
    Vicki Colvin's Intro to Nanoscience [rice.edu]

    Sorry, I couldn't find any sites about how nanoscience is going to kill us all :)

    • Re:Some more info (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sgt York ( 591446 )
      Sorry, I couldn't find any sites about how nanoscience is going to kill us all :)

      Awww...come on. You just weren't looking [theregister.co.uk] looking [betterhumans.com] hard enough. [sonshi.com]

      BTW, Rice is a great place for nanotech (I know, master of the obvious). They're even getting a medical nanotech conference together here accross the street (Texas medical center) on 5/14. It's billed as "bridging the wet and dry divide". Smalley & Hirsch are going to be speaking, along with a bunch of others. I'm going to try to go, if I can get away from the

    • I'm going into EE at Rice for grad school in the fall, planning to specialize in nanoengineering. Rice is one of the few schools I know of (actually, the only one) that has a center to analyze social effects of nanoscience.

      Because we all know how us engineers are great at social effects of the larger kind.
    • What is the cost [slashdot.org] of killing fish? What is nano-tech going to do for us? Solve world hunger? Cure cancer? And, is this new technology going to be environmentally sustainable?

      Already it appears it is another instance of our getting ahead of ourselves. New materials, new compounds, new chemicals need to be PROVEN to be safe before they are let out of the lab -- NOT the other way around (ie, they are released until they show they are destructive).

      Will we learn to be prudent as well as ingenious?

      • Re:Some more info (Score:3, Insightful)

        by eaolson ( 153849 )

        New materials, new compounds, new chemicals need to be PROVEN to be safe before they are let out of the lab

        Unfortunately, you can't prove anything is safe. Primarily since you can't predict any of countless number of variables and reproduce them in a lab. Even if you test on 1000 human subjects, you might later find out that one human in a million has a fatal allergy to something.

        At best, you could perform a battery of test on animal subjects and look for adverse reactions, like is done with new drug

  • They are doing solid research for now... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by innerweb ( 721995 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:18PM (#9075151)
    ... but once business gets a hold on it, that idea will be laid to rest. Heck, why worry about nanos when we already have increasing lead, mercury and other toxins to deal with? Just another way to destroy the planet.

    Seriously, though, it is good to read a nice boring article about any technology. It seems like the average dolt has to have something blowing up or a mass kill in a story before they bother to read it (or more likely watch it) anymore.

    InnerWeb

  • At first I thought the CBEN Home Page icon was something nifty, like a buckyball or something. Sadly, it's just a baseball. Here's why it's a baseball [riceowls.com]. (sigh)
    • Sorry, the logo is not a baseball, though we are proud of our team. The ball represents a nanostructure such as a buckyball or quantum dot. It's sitting in a pool of water to signify the "wet-dry" interface between inorganic nanostructures and systems in aqueous environments. The three dots represent the three technical research areas of the center.

  • GM Food & NanoTech (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sciop101 ( 583286 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:37PM (#9075342)
    Nanotech could go the way of Genetically Modified Foods. It never harmed anybody, but the Public fears the New & Different. The New Luddites will feed the fear with hyperbole.

    • GM Food Never Harmed Anybody? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @02:54PM (#9076105)
      So, GM food never harmed anybody?

      What about the case of Monsanto vs. Schmeiser [percyschmeiser.com] where a Canadian canola farmer's crop was contaminated by Monsanto's Round-Up Ready crop and who was subsequently sued by Monsanto for violating their patents by growing seed with their designed genes without a license. The farmer lost, but is still appealing.

      Keep in mind two things. First, this case entirely derives from the fact that a GMO designed to resist excessive use of herbicides contamined a non-GMO crop. (I'm not going to even go into the merit of designed a food crop to resist the use of more of a chemical known to cause human health problems.) Second, biochem companies are right now testing GMOs that are designed to grow drugs -- crops that could also contaminate the human food supply.

      The problem is not the technology. It's using the technology in an utterly irresponsible manner and then lobbying to cover up any problems that occur.
      • So, GM food never harmed anybody?

        What about the case of Monsanto vs. Schmeiser where a Canadian canola farmer's crop was contaminated by Monsanto's Round-Up Ready crop and who was subsequently sued by Monsanto for violating their patents by growing seed with their designed genes without a license. The farmer lost, but is still appealing.

        So Monsanto used GM agricultural products to screw a farmer through the patent and legal system. Yes, you could (and did) say that the farmer in question was harmed by

        • So Monsanto used GM agricultural products to screw a farmer through the patent and legal system.

          Ignoring the fact that similar "piracy" and "theft" issues may exist for future nanotechnology, the main thrust of the argument was that containment of GM crops and their polllen is a huge problem, and the legal system doesn't seem to consider contamination of crops to be damage done to the farmer but theft by the farmer. There are plants being created today that produce drugs which are not safe to enter the g

      • What about the case of Monsanto vs. Schmeiser where a Canadian canola farmer's crop was contaminated by Monsanto's Round-Up Ready crop and who was subsequently sued by Monsanto for violating their patents by growing seed with their designed genes without a license. The farmer lost, but is still appealing.

        The word 'contamination' implies a small accidental admixture that degrades the quality of the crop. That is not exactly consistent with the 95-98% pure [junkscience.com] Roundup-Ready crop he was growing (and using Round

        • Of course, Schmeiser disputes that claim [percyschmeiser.com] on his own site, but he's hardly an impartial source. He claims that samples he had independently tested show less than 8% contamination except in one sample taken from the area where he first noticed the crop growing adjacent to the property of his neighbor that was growing the stuff. He also claims that the sample used in the trial was not clearly identifiable as his and was missing chaff unlike the material he had turned into the mill years before.

          On the other

  • Near Nanotech Future (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pr0t0 ( 216378 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @01:39PM (#9075366)
    I just started looking into going to grad school for Materials Science Engineering. I called a local thinktank and spoke with their Advanced Materials guy. He told me that one bright area for nanotech for the foreseeable future is how it applies to homeland security. He told me about a researcher creating a material that gave a visible reaction in the presence of various noxious chemicals.

    He also said many in the field are thinking carbon will be the Next Big Thing(tm). Just as steel was in the 1800's and silicon has been for the last 30 or so years, Carbon will be for the next 30+ years.

  • nanotech and science in general - bad procedures (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Dr. Hendrik Schön?

    http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2002III/msg009 01 .html

    "[The] committee ... findings ... dismiss as
    fiction, results from 17 papers that had been promoted as major breakthroughs
    in physics, including claims last fall that Bell Labs had created
    molecular-scale transistors."

  • "A good, balanced read"? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Deskpoet ( 215561 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @02:13PM (#9075701) Homepage Journal
    The interview of a person who's self-stated goal is to "to draw attention to proactive, responsible development" (i.e. media flack functionary) appears in Businessweek, a magazine with a natural pro-business "bias", and you call it "a good, balanced read"? So I imagine you decide (affirmatively) that Fox news is fair and balanced, as well.

    Is it any wonder that the average American is a moron? Critical thinking doesn't live here anymore.

    As to the actual merits of the article, I found it to be a puff piece, with lots of whining about the failure of industry marketing to overcome resistance to wonderful technologies like GMOs (the frightened herd avoids the blame, and, to her credit, she avoided the word luddite.)

    Where's Scientific American when you need it?
    • As to the actual merits of the article, I found it to be a puff piece

      Agreed!

      Is it any wonder that the average American is a moron? Critical thinking doesn't live here anymore.

      Not just americans! The whole world seems to be becoming more and more divided into those with critical thinking skills, and those who just wish to get on with their day and react to the hype presented to them through the media daily.

      If the people like the article author, whose job it is to do so, can't make a decent attempt t

    • Where's Scientific American when you need it?

      Uhm, you might want to take a new look. That rag has hit the bottom and is not what it was 20 years ago. For an example, see this on nanotechnology [foresight.org] .

      (But I agree with you regarding Businessweek. I'm not competent to discuss their covering of economics, but when they write about something I understand well -- it seems to be sensationalistic garbage.)

  • Nanotech must die. (Score:5, Funny)

    by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Thursday May 06, 2004 @02:42PM (#9075935) Homepage
    What if, one night as you slept, tens of thousands of very small, very strong gnomes crept all over your skin. At a pre-arranged signal, they would each grab the base of a different hair follicle, count to three, and give it a good hard yank.

    Shocked, confused, and bald all the way down to your eyebrows. Not a good way to wake up.

    That, in a nutshell, is my entire argument against further development of nanotechnology.

    • There was a great "nanotech" special on the onion, with all the benefits this new technology could bring.

      My favourite had to be (something to the tune of) "with nanoparticles we can control the weather and turn the whole world into a delicious icecream wonderland"
  • The industry didn't do a good enough job conveying the benefits. What cropped up in the absence of that public dialog was heightened concern over the risks.

    Public dialog = infomercials. Ah-hah! I hadn't made that connection before. Thanks.
  • See the article about Mississippi's attemp to jump on the bandwagon [watleyreview.com]. With quotes such as,
    "The key to getting' federal dollars is in the attitude," said Mississippi State University physics professor Leonard Canfield who earned statewide fame by successfully receiving the state's first (and only) National Science Foundation grant in 1983.
    It is well worth the read.

  • It's really about sustainability. Can we engineer our manufacturing processes and these materials to have an environmentally benign lifecycle from when they're made in the factory to when they're put in a landfill?

    WHAT? These people will be able to clean up Superfund sites, but they're not going to take responsibility for their own garbage?

    Never mind the environmental costs- if you don't release nano-garbage, there is no costs. Keep the stuff in the lab and manufacture, only shipping stable materials that

  • Just a few short days back, we were reading about how the good ol' USA is Losing its Scientific Dominance [slashdot.org]. Today, I read this charming comment from the article:

    [The Human Genome Project] set aside 3% to 5% of federal research dollars to fund the study of these issues and to communicate with the public and encourage lots of openness and transparency. They were really our model for a proactive approcah to technology development.

    Is it just me, or did she just say that the new model for research is to

  • For an interesting read on the future of nanotechnology, try reading Slant by Greg Bear. Interesting topics covered include: the nutritional requirements of nano-machines, waste heat generated by matter conversion, and even a supercomputer based on bacterial conjugation.
  • I don't understand how so many slashdotters can be convinced that we will experence global armegeddon at the hands of nanomachines that will reduce us to 'grey goo'.

    I hope what I type here might help dispel some of this parasitic meeme!

    In the event that we mannage to make 'room temprature' nanmachines that are not instantly destroyed by a slight breeze, can break down even terminally simple matter for use in replication, and somehow get released into the world with a malicious intent (or through a gli
    • Wow, so much mis-information. You're right that designing nanotech that would be able to survive and reproduce in the world would be difficult, but if that hurdle was passed they wouldn't be as easy to destroy as you make out.

      They're not going to rust. First of all, they probably won't be made out of iron, they'll probably be made out of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. The chemical bonds that are necessary for oxidation or any other kind of reaction are already being used to attach the various pieces of the

      • I cannot specifically refute your comments, however many of the things you outline do not apply to a 'grey goo' scenario (a scenario where a bunch of self-replicating nanomachines go haywire dissasembling and self-replicating out of control until they reduce the entire planet into 'grey goo')

        they'll probably be made out of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. composites of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen are normally rather suseptible to heat (I won't say that no structure consisting of hydrocarbons is not immune t
  • A fascinating article, with strong US economic bias, but nevertheless a good and fair read, until she starts saying about "Intel Inside" ...choke.. splutter..
  • The last paragraph of the article is a paid [rice.edu] advertisment for Intel.

    The last paragraph... "Years from now, nano could be the same as the idea of "Intel Inside" today. You buy a computer to write e-mail and surf the Web, not because of an Intel chip. But the Intel chip enables those other applications and offers the consumer confidence."

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close