Nanotech defined

Here's the most-accurate and concise definition of nanotechnology I have seen in a while:

Nanotechnology refers broadly to a field of applied science and technology whose unifying theme is the control of matter on the molecular level in scales smaller than one micrometer, normally 1 to 100 nanometers, and the fabrication of devices within that size range. For scale, a single virus particle is about 100 nanometers in width. More here

It comes from a post by Mat Nayie, but I am unclear as to whether he wrote it, just posted it or of the original context of the article. The definition, unfortunately, is the best part of the article. The rest paints in too-broad brushstrokes the possible energy applications of nanotechnology.

And those who doubt the feasibility of "Drexlerian" nanotechnology might be annoyed by the illustration of diamondoid gears, wheels and other imaginary doodads accompanying the article.

Oh, and the "Great Things Come In Small Packages" headline might annoy a few old-time nanopundits (myself included).

So, anyway. Nice definition. We'll leave it at that.

Backgrounder
NanoBot Defined
Nanotech? Nahh, doesn't exist yet
When nanotech 'industry' believes its own PR ...

Autism ruling a victory for real science

I am glad to see at least one good thing come out of the ordinarily twisted and corrupt U.S. justice system, with a federal court ruling that autism is not caused by childhood vaccinations.

I hope that this will put a stop to a growing problem of misinformed parents refusing to vaccinate their children, thus putting everybody at risk for diseases that previously had been conquered.

I have been writing about this issue for years, with the nanotech connection being a disconnect between scientist and "consumer" of science.

Backgrounder
The Asperger/Nano Connection
The knowledge void: Here there be monsters
Somewhere between scientist and consumer, the message is lost

Update
Debate continues on Reddit

Where technology meets humanity

And so ends the single worst year in the life of your humble narrator.

But what is that old proverb? "May you live in interesting times."

With that blessing or curse as a criterion, 2008 has fulfilled wishes beyond reckoning. And not only for me, but also for my battered hometown of Detroit.

And it is in times like these that I remember why I enjoy learning and writing about nanotechnology. It leaves the future wide open for imagining. And I choose to imagine a better world. Before nanotech became my obsession beyond reason, I wrote about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No more explanation needed there.

I have alluded before to a better, nano-enabled future for my down-and-out Motown hometown, where the seeds of the new auto industry have already been planted.

The next age of the automotive industry has begun, and nanotech will fuel the innovation that will make possible the long-lasting, safe, affordable batteries that will power our automobiles.

And it is in automotive technology where nanotech will at last have its first real chance at making a difference in the creation of cars that are safer, more comfortable and more fuel-efficient.

In 2009, I plan on making this a major focus of my work and you'll see it reflected more on NanoBot and elsewhere.

The first major "elsewhere" will be back where my nano obsession began back in 2001, when I helped launch one of the first nanotech magazines and Websites. Small Times has asked me to return as a contributing editor and blogger. The focus there is broader -- nanotech and microscale technologies such as MEMS and microfluidics. So that will be reflected in my new blog, which will launch after the New Year.

For NanoBot readers only, here's a sneak peak at my first post, which centers on new signs of hope for U.S. battery makers.

If you could just tune your ears above the recent clatter and racket that passed for debate over a bridge loan for the Big Three, you might have been able to just make out the tiny baby cries of a newborn U.S. auto industry.

I live in Detroit, so I heard the slap on that baby's ass, followed by the opening shrieks of a brat already born into a disadvantaged, dysfunctional family.

You see, in the literal power struggle over the next age of the automotive industry -- the electric age -- the U.S. battery industry is arriving late.

Well, we'll see if they let that through. I'll link to it when it's posted. If not, it wouldn't be the first time my blogging has annoyed my employers.

So, look for signs of a better year in 2009 for nanotech and for me, personally. I will have new writing and editing projects to announce as new life is breathed into this old hack.

Longtime NanoBot readers know that this blog has my name on it for a reason. It's not only about nanotechnology, but also about some of my personal struggles in covering it. I have managed to retain and grow readership over the past 5 1/2 years of blogging despite force-feeding some of my own developing philosophies about technology's impact on culture, society and religion.

In 2008, I had some time -- a great deal of time -- to think about it. So my readers will be forced to endure more of it. The subject ties in perfectly with some of the major nanotech news developments this past year, including new studies on negative religious and cultural attitudes toward nanotech.

Almost four years ago, I wrote: "Religion. Superstition. Ideology. Dogma. Scientists can ignore them, mock them, place themselves above them at their own peril."

In 2009, this blog will take on an even more personal tone, since much of it is also my scratchpad for ideas. Many articles I have written over the years have been part of a larger narrative, with overlapping themes.

I will, eventually, gently ease into explaining why I disappeared for five months and what I accomplished during that time. I alluded to it cryptically here, but more will be explained as I am able to publish what went on that changed my life dramatically between May and October 2008.

In a way, it mirrored our times, since there was incredible pain mixed with a spark of hope.

It had nothing to do with nanotech, but it did follow the narrative of my life's work and solidified some fundamental ideas about technology and society that I have been thinking about for many years.

Here is where I begin to sound like I am completely out of my mind. But perhaps that is only because I lack the academic background to couch these ideas in the proper format.

You've read on these pages before some nonsensical rantings about how we are forcing the digitization of an analog world. When I say this, I mean it in both the literal and metaphorical sense. It is where I part ways with those who advocate molecular manufacturing. We cannot turn waves into particles, mold clay into golems, and mistake the metaphor for the object.

We are analog in a digital age, where we pretend reality can be segmented. I have seen victims of, become the victim of, people who live by machine thinking, who believe the law can handle essential human affairs, who believe they are doing right, who lean back with self-satisfaction that a scientific mind has captured an act, a thought, an emotion and found the proper hole in which to bury it.

What is lost in science, in all our attempts to segment, measure, adjudicate, is an essential humanity.

I have no use for scientists who mock the superstitious public. Superstition, religion, even metaphor, are part of our nature as humans. To deny that fact, or place yourself above it, is not even very scientific since it ignores important data about the people for whom technology is being developed.

In science, in all attempts to segment human affairs, all it takes is a little humanity, where our reactions to situations, to technological change, can be found on a spectrum and not segmented into bits. It is within that spectrum that we can solve misunderstandings between science and society.

Humanity dwells between the digits, between shadow and light, between beach and shore, between madness and sanity, where explanations can be found in the indescribable.

May the coming year be a time of peace, healing, success and humanity for us all. Happy New Year.

Nano report tells us what we already don't know

In their 2005 book "Freakonomics," authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner wrote about the symbiotic relationship between journalists and "experts."

"Journalists need experts as badly as experts need journalists," they wrote. "Every day there are newspaper pages and television newscasts to be filled, and an expert who can deliver a jarring piece of wisdom is always welcome."

And the more "jarring," the better for both. Find a piece of news that creates conflict or goes against conventional wisdom or exposes an "outrage," well then the journalists gain readers and the "expert" or his organization gets to bathe in publicity.

Levitt and Dubner pointed out a problem with this relationship, using the example of a self-serving "expert" who cooked up his own "statistics" to be feasted upon by a gullible media.

The good news is that when it comes to nanotechnology, this symbiosis between journalist and expert cannot reach the level of that kind of deceit. The bad news is that it cannot reach that level because nanotech research and commercialization is in its infancy, and neither the "experts" nor the journalists can agree on what constitutes nanotechnology.

Still, the beast must be fed. And the next best thing to a real expert on nanotech is one who claims to be one based on his or her own agenda. So, the stories that see print and make the airwaves are the ones that focus on dreams or nightmares.

If you think politically, the religious right has a problem with "playing God," while the left does not want the corporate world messing with Mother Nature. Both sides take their lessons from science fiction: take a kernal of fact and extrapolate strange, new worlds via acres of "therefores."

And, meanwhile, in the world of real nanotech research, science advisory panels in both the United States and Britain have recently come out with more reports that pretty much say the same thing. We really need to study nanotechnology more.

There was something for everybody in the latest National Research Council report on nanotech.

From a scientific perspective, more study is good since, as British scientist Richard Jones put it so well in Nature, researchers are "fearing the fear of nanotechnology." They all remember the backlash against genetically modified foods in Europe. That's what happens when you let agenda groups claim the early mantle of "expert."

The nanotech business community, in a turnaround from their position a few years ago, is all for increased funding for environmental health and safety of nanomaterials.

Raymond David of BASF told Reuters that it's imperative that the U.S. get a handle on what's safe and what's not.

The alternative "puts a bit of fear in all of us that all of this effort will not be well received or may go the route of genetically modified foods in Europe," David said. "We certainly wouldn't want that."

No, we wouldn't. If we're going to avoid hysteria and ignorance on a massive scale, then we need to quickly fill the void with real knowledge. And quickly, before more "experts" talk to journalists.

Backgrounder
The knowledge void: Here there be monsters
How PR 'spins' the atom
Wilson Center's nano numbers racket

Nanotech? Nahh, doesn't exist yet

UT Dallas and Zyvex, the only company I am aware of devoted to true molecular manufacturing, recently announced a partnership to work on a new technique to "build 3D objects atom by atom."

But, wait ... isn't that what nanotech is supposed to be about? And we can't even do it yet? I mean, Merriam-Webster defines nanotechnology as "the art of manipulating materials on an atomic or molecular scale especially to build microscopic devices (as robots)." And just about every news story you read about nanotech informs readers that it's about building new stuff atom by atom.

Well, this is why I've been hesitant to comment any further than I already have on the renewed debate over whether and how to "regulate nanotechnology." In my mind, we're not there yet, and the presence of nanoscale materials in sunscreens, socks and bowling balls does not mean we've entered the nanotech age.

Maybe we're partway there, at best, since the size of these particles does give them new properties that simultaneously create new benefits for the products and raise new fears over "tiny terrors" and other such alliterative nonsense we've been reading about lately.

But, to me, nanotech will have arrived when we not only can dump nanoscale materials into the soup, but we can precisely control their assembly and what they do once they go to work. The sunscreen with nanoscale ingredients you've been reading about is just that -- sunscreen with nanoscale ingredients. Not yet nanotech.

However, count on Zyvex chief James Von Ehr to keep his eyes on the prize during these cave-man days of nano.

"Our goal is to develop the capability to fabricate nanostructures in such a way that we can control position, size, shape and orientation at the nanometer scale, which is not possible today,” said Tom Kenny, DARPA program manager. “If we can demonstrate this, we will be able to truly unlock the potential capabilities of nanotechnology." More here

Backgrounder
How PR 'spins' the atom
... and I am a trivial boy
Zyvex's Von Ehr on pixels, bits and stitches

How PR 'spins' the atom

Here's an excellent piece by my colleague Alex Schmidt, who explains why "nano" is not appearing in the fine print on product packages these days.

A few years ago, plenty of companies hopped on the “nano” bandwagon, using the word in advertisements and product names. In some cases, the word "nano" was used to brand products that didn’t even contain nano-scale particles! Apparently, marketers imagined that the word would trickle into the mainstream to mean something vaguely cool, mysterious and futuristic. But those vague associations don't make for a particularly meaningful branding concept. You may have bought the iPod nano, but probably not because of its name.

Now PR folks have gone so far as to invent a new investment sector for companies that use nanotechnology: Cleantech. It’s a word meant to suggest an innovative, environmentally friendly product that won’t be associated with “nano” if it loses its good name. More here.

Alex is an excellent radio and print journalist who, like me, discovered the hard way that it's tough to sell a nanotech-themed story to the mainstream media because after all the hype and the scare-mongering are weeded out, real nanotech is, well, kind of hard to wrap your brain around. So, the stories that see print and make the airwaves are the ones that focus on dreams or nightmares. Or, like Alex's story, how companies choose to "spin" their atoms.

I spoke with Alex sometime last year, when she was attempting to sell her piece. She wrote to me about how publications that are already biased for or against nanotech development are the ones that are most likely to buy a nano story.

"These are the only types of magazines that will cover nano, because they're the only ones willing to be completely biased on the topic," she said. "That is, other publications that are more level-headed would never cover the topic because the "gray area" truth about nanotechnology just isn't sexy enough."

Higher journalistic standards, it seems, brings out those "gray areas" and make for a less-sexy story with no definitive conclusions about whether nano is "good or bad."

One national publication killed her story outright after a frustrating back-and-forth with an editor. Why? Well, to paraphrase her editor: It was not as provocative as it could have been and he became confused about what nanotechnology really is. There was no central thesis over whether we should worry about nanotech or not.

In short, it was killed because nanotech is still, essentially, a basic science story with an awful lot of hype, fear, hope and hucksterism surrounding it.

She sounded a lot like me after having covered nanotech a few years longer than she has.

"I reported the *&^% out of my piece and feel I have lots of good info in my head at this point," she said.

I know. I know. Maybe we'll start a support group.

But with The New Plastic, Alex, you done good.

Backgrounder
The Case Of God v. Nanotech
Cleantech's the new nano; nano's the new dot-bomb

The Case Of God v. Nanotech

Blogger's note:Here's another freebie. It's an article that I wrote a month or two ago. Then it sat in my files, doing nothing, as I became distracted with other concerns. So, unfortunately, this one never saw the light of day. It's too outdated to sell now, but I think there are still some worthwhile points in here about public and media perception of nanotechnology. Enjoy

By Howard Lovy

It took almost literally an act of God to bring the confusing subject of nanotechnology into the mainstream media the past few months. A nanotech-themed survey found that a "significant percentage of Americans" do not find nanotechnology "morally acceptable" because researchers are viewed as "playing God."

It's a good story, since it brings the subject to at least one level where nanotech meets the public. Unfortunately, most media coverage of God v. Nanotech ended up as confusing as the survey, itself, and as convoluted as most nanotech media reports tend to be.

It's partly the fault of a survey that asked for moral opinions about a technology that is not any single technology at all, and is so undeveloped that much of the "information" circulating about nanotech is based on hopes and fears rather than actual science. Media coverage generally reflects this, with different definitions and perceptions of nanotech sometimes even contradicting themselves within the same story. It's what happens when you mix a sprinkling of real science with popular opinion.

I don't mean to pick on science writer Lee Dye, but his coverage of this story on the ABC News Web site, Big Debate Over Small Science, provides us with a good Rosetta Stone to help us translate nanotech from myth to reality. Dye writes:

If scientists could produce a tiny robot that could travel through your body and heal damaged tissue, eradicate disease-carrying microbes, and even wipe out a cancerous tumor, would you support their efforts?

…

Biotechnology promises to ease our suffering, but many fear the real goal is to create super-humans, and super-warriors.

…

Nanotechnology comes with great hype, much promise, and some risk. Machines built to operate on such a small scale could be engineered to self-replicate, like human cells, thus raising the specter of a world run amok."

What Dye is describing is a vision of nanotech largely shaped by Hollywood and the writings of futurists, but has little to do with nanotechnology as it is being developed today. In this case, nanotech is being defined as biotech-plus -- meaning, take anything hopeful or frightening (curing disease, horrific warfare) and then take it a step further.

This vision of nanotech was likely what the survey participants were thinking when they answered that they had a few moral problems with nanotechnology. Qualms about biotech are transferred to nanotech.

This problem of "definition" has far-reaching impact on how nanotech is perceived and covered. It is such a broad term that it does not mean any one thing even to companies and researchers developing it. It could be semiconductors, advanced materials, cancer drug delivery vehicles, cosmetics, stain-resistant fabrics.

On top of that, reporters and editors covering nanotech are working with their own definitions. Often, these differing definitions of what nanotech "is" and what is "is not" have a number of different players talking past each other: reporters and sources, reporters and editors.

Here's a good illustration of this definition problem -- again, with the same God v Nanotech story. It comes from Katherine T. Phan of The Christian Post under the headline Americans Reject Morality of Nanotechnology on Religious Grounds.

She goes with what you'd think would be the safest route in defining nanotechnology: directly to the dictionary. But old reliable Merriam-Webster completely flubs it, defining it as "the art of manipulating materials on an atomic or molecular scale especially to build microscopic devices."

Well, the first part represents one vision, one ideal of nanotech, but current technology is not quite up to manipulating atoms in any meaningful way beyond the laboratory in small quantities. In fact, IBM only recently discovered a way of measuring exactly how much force it takes to manipulate an atom. For more on that, read this excellent report by Kenneth Chang of The New York Times.

Yes, companies pushing nanotech will attempt to achieve this as part of their long-term goals. But the sloppy solution they come up with in the meantime, they will still call nanotechnology.

Phan's report also illustrates how nanotech and biotech are confusingly intertwined in public and media perception. Phan works for a Christian publication, so her "localization" of the story for her audience has to be from the Christian perspective. Trouble is, there is a well established body of opinion on biotech issues for conservative Christians, but nanotech appears to be on the radar as simply biotech redefined. Phan writes that nanotech's "application to controversial fields like embryonic stem cell research is where it draws its critics."

Well, no. Nanotech has little to do with embryonic stem cell research. In fact, nanotech is the way around the need for embryonic stem cell research. Repairing cells and killing diseases within damaged organs removes the need to use stem cells to repair or replace them.

Phan almost rises to the task to inform her readers, but it turns out that her mention of stem cell research is cut-and-paste boilerplate for her niche audience.

"Many Christian advocate groups have asked the U.S. government to instead provide further funding for adult stem cell research, which has resulted in numerous therapies whereas research involving embryos has produced none. They have also asked the scientific community to explore non-embryonic alternatives for stem cells including a recent breakthrough technique that re-programs an adult cell to possess embryonic-like qualities."

Many of the recent breakthroughs Phan is referring to involves nanotechnology. One example can be found here.

Some of the best reporting on this story came from blogs, and my favorite came from Ben Worthen of the Wall Street Journal, who wrote:

"Our first reaction was that 70% of people must not know what nanotechnology is – President Bush, who has openly relied on moral views to shape his scientific agenda, has made nanotechnology one of his scientific priorities, after all."

Wired's Rob Beschizza got it right, too, in his blog entry:

"I think he's hyping an angle: religious belief merges neatly into irreligious fear of the new and other objections to science. He specifically chooses to forget about the science-skeptical nature of postmodernists, feminists, environmentalists and countless other non-religious factions."

So, with nanotech comes these issues of perception, myth and definition, how exactly is a responsible journalist supposed to cover the topic?

All too often, nanotech stories begin with what is not known -- usually the dreams of futurists or the nightmares of alarmists. That's going backward. Begin, like any good reporter, by confirming what is known.

We know that most nanotech research focuses simply how materials behave at the nanoscale -- or "fundamental nanoscale phenomena and processes." Along with that, an industry is being built around developing the tools and measurement devices to manipulate and see at the nanoscale. And more is being learned about environmental health and safety of nanomaterials.

None of these elements are ready to have a moral value placed on them yet -- and certainly not a negative one.

How do I know this? I start with what is known.

All three of the categories named above are central focuses of the recently released proposed 2009 National Nanotechnology Initiative budget.

It's not the most exciting document in the world. No predictions of doom, no cryonically perserved heads in stasis waiting to be reconnected with young bodies in 500 years. Not a document that you'd wave in your hands as you interrupt a news meeting. However, journalists who are interested in telling the real story -- where the science and business of nanotech actually is at this point, might want to start there.

It's not all there is, but it is a good place to start.

As for those who contemplate the societal, ethical, religious and moral aspects of a technology that has not yet developed into anything outside the imagination of its proponents and detractors, you'll get studies like God v Nanotech – further contemplation of a navel that is still obscured by its umblical cord.

Truth is stranger than prediction

This is why you should never post anything on a blog at 3:31 a.m., no matter how much sense you think you make at the time ...

So, government bans are bad, yet drive innovation, so they are good. A scientific opinion is fact if enough of the culture believes it to be so ... until the belief falls out of fashion or is dropped out of sheer boredom ... A police state is peace, British Petroleum is green, left and right each support fascism (left in Iraq, right in the U.S.), the environment can be cleaned up through bumper stickers and rock concerts, and we all lived with Fred Flintstone and Dino just a few thousand years ago, sunscreen is dangerous nanotech while molecular manufacturing is impossible, therefore safe ...

I mean, you just can't make this shit up. Stranger than fiction. Welcome to the future, my friends. More here

I love my responsible friends at the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. And friends don't let friends contemplate their own belly buttons for too long.

The truth is, most science fiction -- even in the "golden age" (a time period usually defined by whenever the reader was a lonely teenager with no friends holed up in his room reading SciFi to escape real life) becomes caricature over time, since the future is never really "one thing."

"Predictions" of early 21st century life from the vantage of the last century all appear to me to be cartoonish, since it is ridiculous that we should become "a society of ..." fill in the blank. Instead, life goes on much the same, as our toys become more sophisticated. Almost all pictured either a new fascism arising out of those who control the new technology, or some kind of dull "Star Trekkian" egalitarian society somehow free of bigotry, superstition, hate and humanness.

Even the oft-cited "1984" in the end seems cartoonish to me today, despite the fact that any form of government control or monitoring of anything at all turns "Orwellian" in the exaggerated pen of lazy writers who feel they can just use the catch-all "Big Brother" epithet to end all debate.

I would find the whole lament over lack of decent science fiction pretty funny, except there's a slight edge of truth to the claim that SciFi influences the direction the future will take. I'd go a step further and say that it influences the present, since all one has to do is bring up the specter of an exaggerated, imagined dystopia to get some segments of the public all riled up against any technology.

Why, even sunscreen can be a harbinger of an Orwellian future. "Friends of the Earth" (the group's own self-appointed designation), in its just released Anti-Nano-Sunscreen Manifesto (pdf), very correctly, and I might say responsibly, includes the fine print that the "jury is still out on how readily and how deeply nanoparticles penetrate skin." So far so good. Then it goes on to mention food packaging. Yes, good. Very real. Then, uh-oh ... we're off in Asimov-land:

"And the technology could potentially further affect our lives – from crippling our security and privacy with the creation of never-before-seen weapons and surveillance systems to altering the fabric of the clothes we wear and creating batteries from viruses constructed at the nano-scale. ..."

Heeelllpp!!! Run for the hills!!!! The nano-virus batteries in our suntan lotion and stain-free nanopants are altering my DNA and turning me into a DARPA robot!!!!

I love escapist science fiction. But. Nahh. We really don't need any more SciFi influencing current debates. Like I wrote at 3:31 a.m. to my friends at CRN. Just take a look at the bizarre events swirling around technology in real life.

Backgrounder
Irresponsible NanoHype

When nanotech 'industry' believes its own PR ...

The nanotech "industry" is again the victim of its own hype. It adopted a broad definition of nanotech to attract more investment. If it appears that nanotech is already big business and already incorporated into hundreds of products, then the illusion is created that it's not such a risky investment. Come on in, fellas, and bring your checkbooks.

As time goes on, though, we'll see the "industry" move to a less broad definition. But the damage has been done. It made the mistake of believing its own press releases. What's worse, anti-nanotech activists believed the hype, as well. If nanosize ingredients -- even in stink-free socks -- are something special and different, then they need to be treated as such, and tested.

There's an internal logic of its own here, yet I cannot help but ponder whether all the stink over nanosized ingredients in cleaning products will ultimately be good for real nanotechnology. After all, the custodians working at the labs where scientists are creating engineered molecules to cure diseases, make drinking water safe and end poverty need to clean the clean rooms and laboratory bathrooms with safe material. And all those scientists working late hours without changing their socks need some protective footwear for the sake of their coworkers.

Backgrounder
How low can nano go?
'Super thick non-digestible' nano
'Crain's-ing' my neck to see the hype

Perception is de facto nano fact

Gannett writer Erin Kelly's report this week on nanotech and the environment begins with the extremely thin "news" angle of "Magic Nano" gone horribly awry.

"A preview of what could go wrong happened just last week in Germany, where "Magic Nano" -- a glass and ceramic tile cleaner in an aerosol can -- was recalled by the manufacturer after nearly 100 consumers reported problems breathing."

The main question is neither asked nor answered: Is this a nanotechnology-enabled product, or just a product that uses “nano” in its name?

In the end, though, it hardly matters. As I've written ad nauseam here over the past few years, it is perception that matters (see here, here and here). And to the Gannett reporter's credit, as much is said further down in the story.

"Business leaders said they fear that American consumers could reject nanotechnology -- in much the same way that most Europeans have rejected genetically modified food -- unless they are convinced that protections are in place. The perception of danger by the public -- even if it isn't based on fact -- can kill nanotechnology before its benefits are realized, analysts say."

So, what’s important here is the perception of risk and not actual risk. It makes no difference that Magic Nano does not use nanotechnology. In the public mind, it does, so get over it and go from there. It’s part of a nano dumb show being acted out in public.

Like Lux Research VP Matthew Nordan told the House Science Committee late last year:

" 'Responsible development of nanotechnology -- to ensure that the U.S. obtains the full benefits of nanotechnology applications -- requires addressing both real and perceptual risks.' He added, 'Even if studies showed every commercially relevant nanoparticle to be harmless in every real-world usage scenario, public skepticism about the safety of nanoparticles could still build and sharply limit the use of nanoparticles in products -- similar to the situation encountered with genetically modified organisms in Eurpoe.' "

Matthew is one of the few nanotech industry boosters who “gets it” and will say so in public. He also told the committee (sorry, I do not have a link to the following quote, but it was reported in the Daily Environment Report, No. 223, p. A-5, Nov. 21, 2005, a publication of the Bureau of National Affairs Inc.

“When it comes to public perception, said Nordan, 'it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch.' Unfortunately, he added, industry has done 'exceedingly little' on these issues. The problem, Nordan said, is that industry startups that are doing a lot of nanotechnology innovation often avoid such questions so that they do not scare off investors. But such behavior, he added, will be very self-destructive in the long term.”

Having worked both apart from, and inside, the industry I can unequivocally say that Nordan's statement is accurate.

You say you want an evolution ...

In 2003, President Bush signed a $3.7 billion bill to fund research at the molecular level that could lead to medical robots traveling the human bloodstream to fight cancer or fat cells.

That excerpt from today's Washington Post piece, Inventing our Evolution (registration required), will likely upset all those familiar with the real 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which of course will lead to nothing of the kind as long as the act is administered by those who currently run the U.S. nanotech program.

Those who believe such "medical robots" to be firmly in the realm of science fiction would likely shake their heads at their own unsuccessful campaign to rid the media of these images. And those who believe in the feasibility of nanoscale robotics also disapprove of this language because it makes the general public believe a lie -- that the U.S. government is funding the popular, Drexlerian vision of nanotechnology.

And, besides, President Bush's conservative evangelical Christian beliefs would have prevented him from signing anything that smacked of "human enhancement." (Fellow Republican Bob Dole apparently had no such trepidations.)

I must have forgotten to mark World Transhumanist Day on my calendar because two major pieces ran on this theme. The other one, Human evolution at the crossroads, appeared on MSNBC, along with the picture above. Apparently, that's what we're all going to evolve into, larger eyes the result of "greater domestication."

I'm sorry, but the only thing I could think of when I saw that picture is that Mad Magazine was more accurate back in the early '70s in one of those images that has stuck with me since I was a kid. Mad assumed that the next step in human evolution would be to grow incredibly huge asses -- also due to "greater domestication."

In any case, as I've predicted for the past year or so, the stage is being set for the next political battle that will determine what you're allowed to do and what is verboten, if you're a scientist. And "nanotechnology" -- whatever that means, since it will mean different things to different people -- will stand front and center as both the problem and the solution. Everybody have your talking points in order?

Backgrounder
Converging ideologies against human performance
Congress is thinking about thinking
Nano superhero is, appropriately, a golem

We all live in a nano submarine

Richard Jones, Eric Drexler, just stop worrying and learn to love the silly submarines. Do you want the public to pay attention? Do you want to spark some young person's imagination? Or do you want to continue talking nano to your own closed circle of friends? A little while ago, I decided the latter choice was not only dull, but self-defeating.

Inspire dreams, or the purveyors of nightmares will win the image war, resulting in more wasted, dark decades or ages.

So open the show with a little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants and then -- before they know what's hit them -- sneak in some real information. At the very least, they'll walk away thinking nano.

More than a hundred years ago, moviegoers were shown the comically false image at right. Despite this artistic depiction of laws of physics and proportion being so flagrantly violated, mankind managed to make it to the moon a couple of generations later.

Too late to stem the 'toxic bucky' tide

From tidepool.org, more evidence that the environmental activist community is picking up the buckyball story and running with it. Ed Hunt writes:

Western states are hoping to cash in on the next big technological boom - nanotechnology. Billions of dollars are being invested into what is likely to become a global trillion-dollar-a-year industry.

Yet what are the consequences of this new industry to the people of Salmon Nation? What are the potential problems for salmon, and the other creatures that live here?

… Few studies on health or environmental effects of nanoparticles have been conducted. Of the studies that have been conducted, the results have not been encouraging. Indeed, nanoparticles appear to have negative -- toxic -- effects on metabolism in ways that scientists did not anticipate. Almost no testing has been conducted to study the most likely vector for nanopartical contamination. Studies where nanoproducts are inhaled are expensive. Thus far, no one has expressed any interest in funding them, according to the Washington Post.

Moreover, some of the new nanoproducts being created are proprietary and so the companies creating them do not want to disclose what they contain even when they plan to release them into the environment.

Why should we in the Pacific Northwest be concerned about this lack of regulatory oversight applied to this potentially lucrative field?

Because our states are spending millions of state taxpayer dollars in the hopes of attracting billions of federal taxpayer dollars to foster an industry with -- by all accounts -- unknown health and environmental consequences. I'm a life-long subscriber to Popular Science and a technology evangelist, but that makes even me nervous.

You can read the rest here. This piece, which is certainly not knee-jerk neoluddite, nevertheless does begin with the assumption that buckyballs are bad – a premise that was based solely one very limited study that even the researcher says should not be taken out of context. Of course, it has been and will continue to be. I asked Commerce Undersecretary Phil Bond about this last week in Washington.

Howard Lovy: Do you think it's almost too late? What was retained, and spread around the world, was "buckyballs, toxicity."

Phil Bond: "Buckyballs kill fish."

HL: Right. It's simplistic, but that is how these things spread around the world then is filtered through people's own personal politics and worldview.

Bond: Is the damage done, you mean?

HL: Is the damage done, but also wouldn't the people who want to be receptive to "bad nano" find something else?

Bond: Well, I suspect that that may be true. There are early adopters to any technology, both pro and con. So, the early adopters in the con view are not going to be persuaded. They're already convinced and they will take stories like this as proof of their point of view. However, I think the vast majority of people, certainly in the United States, are positively predisposed toward new technology as things that can both make life better and create jobs.

HL: Do you think that could change, though, as it did in Europe – where bad information actually hindered the genetically modified foods industry.

Bond: Yes, it can. I'm not sure in my lifetime I can see the fundamental attitude changing, but it can slow us down while we have the discussion, we can lose leadership while you're having the discussion.

HL: They're already protesting outside Lawrence Berkeley.

Bond: Right, I think you can certainly slow things down. I think America is still almost genetically positive about technology and innovation as a way to make life better and so we need to harness that and put it to use and at the same time addressing legitimate concerns.

Related Posts
Commerce's call to nano arms
Nano is a concept by which we measure our pain
A sad jab at the 'Bad Rad Lab'

Discuss

Nano is a concept by which we measure our pain

Toxicologist Eva Oberdorster's new study on the effects of nanoparticles on aquatic animals deserves some thoughtful analysis, yet the Washington Post makes some strange leaps of logic in its reporting.

The study, described at a scientific meeting Sunday, was small and has yet to be peer reviewed or published in a scientific journal. And although some companies anticipate making tons of the particles within the next few years, current production levels are relatively low, so the risk of exposure for humans and other animals is still quite small.

Nonetheless, the findings underscore the growing recognition that the hot new field of nanotechnology, which federal officials have said will be at the heart of America's "next industrial revolution," may bring with it a number of old-fashioned trade-offs in terms of potential environmental damage and health risks.

Other animal studies have already suggested that a related class of nanoparticles cause lung injuries when inhaled, raising concerns about worker safety in the small but growing number of nanoparticle factories.

Sorry, but the qualifiers "may" and "suggested" just do not do enough to counteract the impression left on the reader that nanoparticles cause lung injuries and threaten factory workers.

As I've pointed out before, the "animal studies" mentioned above concluded that if you pump rats' lungs full of nanotubes, they will suffocate. The toxicity of the nanoparticles was not conclusive and, in fact, it was suggested that the clumping was a good sign, since it prevented the nanotubes from reaching deeper into the lungs.

The vague idea of some future "factory workers" being endangered is mentioned once, then dropped.

While it would be foolish for nanotech businesses and advocates in government to dismiss concerns over "nanotox," all parties need to stick to the evidence as it's presented. This latest study is yet another small piece of evidence in a longer process of scientific discovery. Despite the tendency of the media to want to tell its readers what these small-scale studies mean by making all sorts of unscientific leaps in logic for them, don't lose sight of what is actually being presented.

Some better context can be found in The New York Times' coverage:

"This is a yellow light, not a red one," Dr. Oberdorster said in a telephone interview last week.

Vicki L. Colvin, whose laboratory at Rice University's Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology supplied the buckyballs used by Dr. Oberdorster, was even more cautious about the results, which have not yet been reviewed by other scientists.

Dr. Colvin said that the surface characteristics of the lab's buckyballs, which are not a form that is commercially available, needed further study. She said that they had not been coated, a process that is commonly used to limit the toxicity of such materials in applications like drug delivery.

Nanotechnology is such a young discipline that any issue for which the nano name is invoked is largely a reflection of a personal world view or political agenda rather than any overwhelming body of evidence. Nanotechnology advocates in business and government choose to focus on the optimistic leaps of logic, while those who see corporate conspiracies in the wallpaper can make just as many plausible or implausible leaps into the negative. As I told Neofiles a few months ago:

A health advocate could say that once nanoparticles breach the blood-brain barrier, we're entering into dangerous territory, while another can say that breaching that barrier will enable a range of cures for various brain disorders. Nanotechnology, right now, is an unsettled wilderness that is either abundant with resources for the picking, or a vast frozen wasteland. It's a reflection of your own world view.

Right now, the general public is being bombarded with some amazing predictions of how nanotechnology will completely alter almost every aspect of their lives. To many, the claims seem not only fantastic, but implausible. Nanotech proponents in government and business are just as guilty of promoting selective logic as the neoluddites of the environmental movement when they ask the public to believe positive implausible scenarios and not to pay attention to the negative.

It's a difficult concept to describe. I was asked by a reporter for NPR's "Marketplace" last week to define nanotechnology. I gave the usual explanation (under-100-nanometers, special-properties, etc.), and then I struggled to explain how nanotechnology right now is more of a concept than anything else. We've created the building blocks and dumped them on the floor. What we create with them now, and how safely we do it, is yet to be determined.

So, there is nano the science and nano the business, and they're moving along quite nicely as they take their baby steps. But when it reaches level of public debate, nano often loses its solidity to become neither science nor business, but a concept that is a reflection of the human imagination.

Related Posts
Nanotubes and the tale of the rats
The nano-brain barrier
New materials are not without risk

Discuss

The Asperger/Nano Connection

Howard,

Congratulations on the new baby. I've been meaning to write for some time and tell you how much I enjoy your blog and Small Times.

I've followed the nanotech world since I read a paper many years ago by some fellow named Drexler. Your writings became more personal to me recently when you talked about the MMR concerns a few months ago (I'd been following that on my own too), as my son has lived with Asperger Syndrome all his 15 years, and was diagnosed not long after that series of shots as a baby. He's blessed to be incredibly bright along with the social difficulties. He has a strong interest in applying himself to the nanotech world (I can't figure out from whom he could get such an interest :)

As a high school junior his test scores are very high and he's getting all sorts of high-quality colleges sending him letters (I know *I* never got letters from Ivy League schools).

Take care,
Billy Harvey

Billy,

Thank you very much for your kind note. Sounds like you have a great kid! I'm proud of mine, as well. She's a bit awkward, socially, but always amazes me in how brilliant she is in other areas.

Good luck with everything.

Howard

Related Posts
Nano goes Commando
MMR/autism link loosens
Somewhere between scientist and consumer, the message is lost

Discuss

MMR/autism link loosens

Childhood Vaccine-Autism Study Retracted (Associated Press) Most of the scientists involved in widely discredited 1998 study suggesting a link between childhood vaccinations and autism have renounced the conclusion. More Update: The New York Times covered the story today. Related Posts Difficult to be dispassionate 'Societal Concerns' vs. Scientific Accuracy Somewhere between scientist and consumer, the message is lost Discuss AdvertisementWhen Your Doctor Is Wrong: Hepatitis B Vaccine & Autism

Difficult to be dispassionate

A great many people have reacted to my Small Times column from last November, and subsequent NanoBotposts, that used the alleged MMR/autism link to illustrate a larger point about the disconnect between scientists and "consumers" of science. It's an emotional issue, since it involves my child and the children of the parents who have written to me, making it difficult to remain dispassionate. I certainly understand and respect the views of parents who have reached different conclusions than I have. A wide-ranging discussion on the autism/MMR issue can be found here, as well as many other sites. I've been quoting nanoscientist Carlo Montemagno a great deal these days, but let me go back to my interview with him one more time for some words that I find appropriate. He's talking about the nanoparticles/environment issue -- and I realize the analogy does not work on all levels -- but I found the sentiment appropriate, nontheless. Me: How affected are you, if at all, by public perception of nanotechnology – maybe some of the things that you read in the popular press that may be wrong or used to further somebody's agenda? Montemagno It does have an effect on me. It always has an effect on me. I work really hard at trying to educate people and also being honest. People are worried about nanoparticles, in Europe mostly now. Immediately what ends up happening is that people who don't know anything, they speculate that it's deadly. Scientists step back and say, 'Oh, that's not a problem at all.' You know what the answer is? We don't know. It hasn't been studied and we don't know. I think what has to happen is an honest dialogue. Say, 'Look, I don't know the answer. There may be a problem, may not be a problem, we have to study it. We don't know the answers. You going out off the deep end and saying it's a problem without any data is just as wrong as me telling you there is no problem with no data. Discuss You Click, You Buy Asperger Syndrome or High-Functioning Autism? Elijah's Cup: A Family's Journey into the Community and Culture of High-Functioning Autism and Asperger's Syndrome Asperger Syndrome, the Universe and Everything Asperger's Syndrome: A Guide for Parents & Professionals Asperger Syndrome: A Practical Guide for Teachers Eating an Artichoke: A Mother's Perspective on Asperger Syndrome

Journal recants publication of autism study

For those who read my Small Times column on this topic, here's an update via The Seattle Times. Another update from BBC News: Sir Liam Donaldson, England's chief medical officer, accused Dr Andrew Wakefield of peddling "poor science". He said the 1998 study was flawed and has been criticised by "independent experts around the world". His comments came as the General Medical Council prepared to open an investigation into the way Dr Wakefield carried out his study. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Tony Blair has urged parents to have their children vaccinated. Discuss Autism Spectrum Disorders Asperger Syndrome or High-Functioning Autism? Curious Incident of Dog in Night-Time Immunization Safety Review: Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine & Autism

Nano's 'No GMO' Mantra

It's obvious that business and government have a bad case of DNA PTSD, or genetic shell shock, which is why they certainly won't get fooled again when it comes to nanotechnology. I've heard the mantra many times during the past few years: "No More GMO." But the chanters wear pinstripes and not patchouli oil.

Public outcry (especially in Europe) against genetically modified organisms was the result of a determined effort between science, business and government to completely misread the public. It took some serious brainpower, collusion and planning to so totally miss the point on what gets the masses all fired up, and the important role public perception plays in the introduction of any new technology. The biggest mistake was the arrogant assumption that the public will accept as inherently good anything that helps big biotech companies succeed and farmers increase their yields. What was missing from the equation, of course, was consideration of how the public "feels" about genetic manipulation.

The right has a problem with "playing God," while the left doesn't want the corporate world messing with Mother Nature. The result is that it could take a generation or two to undo the damage done to public acceptance of scientific progress.

If you're curious about how and why this happened, PBS is running an excellent series on the history of DNA, and last night I caught some of the episode that deals with genetically modified organisms. The PBS site's "gallery of genetic modifications" is especially well done, stating the issues concisely and with flair.

It goes into the Flavr Savr tomato, created by the biotechnology company Calgene, and accompanying "rumors and horror stories [that] mention square tomatoes or tomatoes that glow in the dark."

By the time the Human Genome Project came along in the late '90s, the lesson had been learned. That's when the phrase "societal and ethical implications" became part of the government lexicon.

I recently had a talk with Kevin Ausman, executive director of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University, who explained some of this historical context to me.

The study of societal and ethical implications, he said, is now an embedded part of most government nanotechnology programs, and it's a direct descendent of the Human Genome Project, where science, government and business had amazingly learned from their mistakes.

"The scientists involved in the Human Genome Project weren't really aware, until lots of surveys and things were done by the social scientists, that privacy issues were going to be the public hot-button issue," Ausman said. "In hindsight it makes a lot of sense."

And it paid off in broader public acceptance and trust. "You do a comparison of the Human Genome Project to genetically modified organisms, and it's just incredible the difference in public perception, and I believe pretty strongly that's directly attributable to the money and the good-faith effort that went into studies about societal and ethical implications," he said.

One more thing about DNA on PBS that I think could echo into nanotech's future. The documentary describes the "golden rice" debacle in which Monsanto essentially made overblown claims that it has found the solution to malnourishment. Long story short: "According to a 1999 report in the Financial Times, African countries in particular are 'wary of increasing dependence on developed countries and multinational corporations as a result of genetically modified crops.'"

A number of efforts are about to get under way that involve selling the idea of nanotechnology to developing nations, including those in Africa, as a means of solving local problems. Nanotechnology proponents are telling them that nano is no GMO. There doesn't need to be a Great White Monsanto to dole out its product. Developing nations can grow their own nanotech industry and tailor it to their own needs. It's true, but nanotech proponents will first need to penetrate more than a few layers of mistrust.

Watch for some of these efforts to make the news this year.

Related Posts
The Napster of nano
A nanosize line in the sand
Water for peace

Discuss

Drexler on 'Drexlerians'

Here are excerpts from a couple of e-mails I recently exchanged with Eric Drexler, the author who first popularized nano, yet now finds himself persona nano non grata among the businesspeople and politicians who have taken the nano name.

Eric Drexler: Regarding the following on your blog:

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

Indeed, it would seem that the other side, which can cite no refereed papers, no defensible scientific arguments, more closely resembles the creationists. Indeed, for them, "There's simply no winning," but because they have no sound arguments for their position.

On a related, point, why does everyone call this work "Drexlerian"? To do so ignores the work of Merkle, Freitas and others, and needlessly personalizes what should be a question of scientific and technical analysis. Indeed, I'd love to see an extended critical discussion of molecular manufacturing that made no reference to "Drexler" or "nanobots", just to see whether the critics have anything coherent to say that does not depend on attacking their habitual, scientifically irrelevant targets.

Me: I think you probably already know the answer to your question on why they pick on those poor little hypothetical nanobots: Because it's done with a kind of wink to the current nanotech business community whose goals are to bring existing nanotechnology to market. They want to distance themselves as far as possible from the idea of "nanobots" because their brand of nanotechnology is finally emerging as a legitimate industry with products to sell. They fear that association with sci-fi-sounding "nanobots" would place loosen their foothold on legitimacy in the business and investment communities.

Drexler: I think I understand their strategy, but it is profoundly misguided. By equating molecular manufacturing with "nanobots" and making false claims about the impossibility of both, they amplify confusion and undercut their own credibility. As a basis for claims of safety, this just won't work. The nanotech business community would do better to embrace the modern understanding of the subject, which includes a simple fact -- that developing and using molecular manufacturing simply doesn't require building scary little self-replicating robots.

Indeed, in the Chemical & Engineering News exchange, I use the term "nanobot" only once -- to reject Prof. Smalley's characterization -- stating that molecular manufacturing will use "no swarms of roaming, replicating nanobots." Prof. Smalley ignores this and continues to confuse molecular manufacturing with "nanobots", using the term a dozen times. I began the exchange by stating that "I have written this open letter to correct your public misrepresentation of my work." The misrepresentation continues.

Me: Interesting comments on the term, "Drexlerian." I've been guilty of using it a few times, too, without even thinking of asking Drexler himself whether he wants to become an adjective. But the word is out there in the culture and has taken on a life of its own in the debate. Its meaning can be either derogatory (Drexlerian = Raelian?) or imply foresight and vision, depending on who is using it.

Like it or not, the name of "Drexler" is no longer your own. Its use does not negate the efforts of others because it's come to describe and symbolize much more than your work, but also that of Merkle, Frietas and probably many others who will come after you. The challenge for you, though, is to draw attention not only to scientists who disagree with you, but also to the many who not only agree but are beginning to prove and demonstrate your theories. That, I think, is the only way to counter any impression that this is about Drexler vs. the rest of the world.

Drexler: I cannot control what people say, but I can urge that they speak more constructively. When critics use my name as a label, they evade the real issues -- of science, technology, and policy -- and lower the discussion to the level of personalities.

Discuss