Nanoclast

When one reflects on the relatively short history of nanotech there are handful of names that standout, like Feynman, Taniguchi, Drexler, Smalley and Kroto, Binnig and Rohrer, and Don Eigler.

The New Scientist has recently published an interview with Eigler online that marks the 20^th anniversary last month of his moving around of xenon atoms with a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) to spell I-B-M.

The brief interview calls upon Eigler to provide context to his 1989 experiment using the STM to manipulate the atoms: “Prior to this it was only through chemistry that we were able to build atomically precise structures.”

And provides his way of understanding the development of nanotechnology today: “I like to differentiate between evolutionary technology and revolutionary technology. My cellphone and laptop contain evolutionary nanotechnology because they can be traced back to larger structures. Revolutionary is still very much in the future, but I'm thinking of things like new forms of drug delivery or new kinds of molecular structures.”

Even the environmental, health and safety concerns that have become near-daily fodder for science news, Eigler offers up an opinion on: “…with testing and an appropriate degree of regulation we'll be able to reap the benefits with very little in the way of a downside.”

I have followed with a mix of bemusement and pity the long slow downward spiral of Oxonica. The final denouement, if you will, was Oxonica selling Oxonica Energy Limited to Energenics Holdings Pte, the company that they tried to stiff arm out of paying royalty fees to and then attempted to hold up in a prolonged legal battle, which they ultimately lost leading to this sale.

This is not a sad story, however, because now the inventor of the fuel additive that makes diesel fuels run more efficiently, Ronen Hazarika, CEO of Energenics, will be taking over the business. And it seems by using the original nano-enabled formula Energenics' product has proven quite effective in increasing diesel fuel efficiency.

While this may mark the end of this story, it is not quite the epilogue, and as TNTLog has pointed out we may yet see some interesting parts of this story revealed over time. 

Last week in his keynote speech at the Rusnanotech Nanotechnology International Forum the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev impressed me as making the most pragmatic, realistic and detailed speech I have yet seen by a national leader on the role of government in the commercialization of nanotechnology. You can watch the entire video of the speech here.

Since the forming of the Russian Federation after the fall of the Soviet Union, the only bright spot economically has been the exploitation of Russia’s natural resources, in particular its oil. But as Medvedev points out Russia has the intellectual capability and the oil riches necessary to transform its economy into a knowledge-based one by using nanotechnology investment and research.

It appears Russia is committed to getting this nanotechnology initiative right, even if it means they may have to change some of their ways of thinking along the way. I can think of at least one nanotechnology blogger that is changing his views on the Russia nanotechnology initiative.

No, not that uncertainty principle, but I did get your attention, I hope. No, the uncertainty principle I am referring to here has to do with the idea that behind every human action remains a certain degree of uncertainty, or doubt.

For Professor Simon Brown at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand in a new article for the journal Nature Nanotechnology (subscription required) the inability to accept this uncertainty principle (as I have termed it) lies at the root of calls for more data on the toxicity of nanoparticles.

"[C]alls for more data on the impact of nanomaterials on human health and the environment reflect a failure to accept that there will always be unknowns associated with any new technology. Effective governance of emerging nanotechnologies will require an acknowledgement of these unknowns, an open and adaptive approach to regulation, and the courage to make decisions."

Brown rightly re-examines the term “Deficit Model” and recognizes that not all deficits, such as deficits in information, can be corrected. As the summary of the article on Meridian Institute website says, “In fact, it is unlikely we will ever have detailed toxicology data for each of the (estimated) 50,000 kinds of carbon nanotube, let alone all the other types of nanomaterials.”

I beg to differ somewhat here by pointing out that you may not really need to test every single nanoparticle’s level of toxicity as some can be eliminated from testing requirements or grouped together, etc. But I agree with the fundamental point.

Brown apparently urges “genuine” public engagement. I think I can guess what disingenuous engagement might be, but from what I have seen there have been a lot of earnest and sincere people trying to tackle this issue and all they seem to get in return is a shoulder shrug from John Q. Public.

But what Brown suggests, a type of decision making model that operates without all the facts, will be required if agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decide to determine the toxicity of a material based on its size rather than its chemistry without having some basic tools needed to investigate nanoparticles in living organisms.

The August edition of Nature’s Nanotechnology journal has an article on research in which by manipulating a catalyst the researchers at CEA, LETI, Minatec were able to lower the temperature needed to synthesize aluminum and copper nanowires with CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) processes.

The researchers claim that this manipulation of the catalyst could be a significant step in the development of real-world applications for semiconductor nanowires.

In an unrelated area, I would like to draw everyone’s attention to the Rusnanotech Nanotechnology International Forum going on today and tomorrow. The conference organizers are broadcasting all of the presentations live online. While the time difference will make it difficult for many in the US to see most of the presentations, if you can accommodate it into your schedule, I encourage you to check it out.

I have been glued to my computer, clicking between the fourteen or so conference rooms and watching the presentations of most interest to me. If you’re business inclined or more interested in the technical presentations, there’s something for everyone. Check it out.

Try to imagine a FP6 (or an FP7, for that matter) European Union (EU) project on the risks of nanomaterials first translated into a website that is supposed to be simplified language for the layman and then translated again via an online translator into English and you have the EU’s unintentionally fascinating NanoSMILE.

Since I was not raised in the labyrinth-like language of your typical European bureaucrat, I often found myself reading sentences over and over again in the vain hope that this time it would make sense—they never did. I pride myself in representing a certain segment of the audience that might come to the website and want to learn more about the risks, or lack thereof, of nanomaterials. What I didn’t realize is that I needed to completely change the way I thought so that I would immediately understand that the term “legal” could somehow represent “the precautionary principle.”

Again I must confess I didn’t get through much of this website (it is so discouraging to continue browsing when you can’t even get the gist of the homepage), but to give you at least one indication of its way, I present the following:

“It's [sic] use must allow different audiences to understand the realities of work and production situations and to minimize differences in perceptions between the subjective views and the rationally estimated risk level.."

I have a feeling this might make more sense in French, but my French is even worse than my English.

Still undeterred at this point I thought I would take the website's quizzes, and I can happily report that I received 3 out of 3 in a four-question test. But what I really liked was the first question that asked for the definition of a “nano object.” I was frozen for a moment but through a process of elimination I was able to deduce the correct answer. Phew. Now I know what a nano object is. Hooray!

NanoSMILE does serve a purpose, at least for me, and that is to illustrate how not to do a public engagement website on nanotech while Nano & Me provides us with a good example of how to do it properly.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been under pretty steady pressure over the last five years to look at nanoparticles in terms of their size rather than their chemistry. It appears they have finally succumbed.

I suppose this is a positive move, but when one considers that the microscopy tools that are needed to investigate these nanoparticles outside of a vacuum hardly exist and that some kind of universal standards of measurement have still to be arrived at I remain somewhat conflicted.

Just from a social science point of view, I am not sure that nanotech’s critics will ever be satisfied with the results, especially if they prove that the risks of nanoparticles are negligible. The raison d’etre of your typical anti-nanotech NGO has always come across as being less about the dangers of nanotechnology and more about fears of globalization and big business.

If anyone wants really satisfactory answers to the impact of nanoparticles in the environment or on the human body, they should be prepared to wait a long time because they will have to develop, and even invent, the tools necessary to measure them in these situations. Honestly, I don’t think anyone on either side of this debate has the patience to wait for that.

I was reading Steven Cherry’s blog last week “If There’s an Innovation Gap, Where is it?” since this is a subject of particular interest to me following the sometimes herky-jerky development of nanotech.

After reading the ensuing comments today, I have to say I come squarely down on the side of Vivek Wadhwa of UC-Berkeley. A lot of money has gone into basic research in recent years and in the last half century as well with a lot of results—they just don’t ever make it into commercial markets.

If the question is “Why don’t we have more innovation?” I am hard pressed to believe that the answer is a lack of basic research. I can read reams of daily reports on basic research in nanotech. But I have a hard time of thinking of more than a handful of companies that have introduced successfully nano-enabled products.

Where is the disconnect? It clearly seems to be in getting those lab results into prototypes and from prototypes into products.

Judy Estrin may indeed be correct in her assessment that the blame can be placed, at least partially, upon big businesses’ lack of foresight. But perhaps not in the way she argues, which involves its turning away from research that might not be efficient towards the bottom line. I think their shortsightedness is more intentional and has been adopted to squeeze the last bit of profit from already existing technologies before tossing them aside for new innovations.

The drive for short-term profits is indeed an obstacle to innovation, but not because money has been diverted away from basic research; instead it seems to be so that the companies will not have to take on the capital costs of bringing that innovation to market.

Of course, if an innovation is more than incremental, it should be able to recoup those capital costs pretty quickly and certainly be worth the investment. But when success is measured quarterly there is hardly any time for any innovation to be more than red ink on a balance sheet.

Eventually someone will make the capital investment when a real opportunity is recognized, and those who passed on those opportunities content to rake in their quarterly earnings figures will be forced to innovate or die. But until then we will see a lot of hand sitting.

Last February a project entitled DEEPEN brought together some nanotechnology thought leaders in the UK, like Tim Harper (who commented on the proceedings here and here), Richard Jones, and Steffi Friedrichs who heads the Nanotechnology Industries Association to talk about nanotechnology to laymen.

The result, as one might expect, is cringe inducing. We get someone rattling on about the dangers of human enhancement “Where does it end?” one of the participants laments. And then we get the entire room completely misunderstanding Mr. Harper’s use of a metaphorical argument that you can’t expect nanoscientists to solve the problem of the "rich getting richer" to explain that nanotechnology is not a cure-all for what ails the world nor is it the source of all its ills.

All in all a rather sad display, made all the more so by the earnestness of the participants. I am reminded of the saying: “the path to hell is paved with good intentions.” Indeed.

No sooner do I announce my “War on Nanotech-and-Energy Hype” (I’m wondering if I can have that made up into some exhilarating video graphic) then none other than the New York Times--that bastion of useful information about nanotech--informs us that the US Department of Energy has increased its funding of nanotechnology research by 40% to an estimated $337 million in 2009 from $245 million in 2008.

This latest broadside in my ongoing battle to fight the hype was really distressing. We get numbers like “40%” and “$337 million” thrown around like they actually meant something beyond bragging rights for national nanotechnology initiatives and for researchers in the energy field to rub it in the nose of say a typical biomedical researcher.

So despite one researcher in the energy field remarking that this increase in funding will really “move the needle,” we are not told what this additional $92 million is going to do for nanotech/energy research other than pay for some construction to build a massive new synchotron.

Just when I thought it couldn’t sink any lower, we are informed that all this nanotech research in energy could provide us with low-cost fuel cells—I started to fall into a deep depression.

It seems the hard part of the government’s role in nanotech funding is not getting the money, and increasingly larger amounts of funding by the way, but someone looking at how the money can best be spent beyond building new research facilities.