More accurately described as a nanobiosensor, Vo-Dinh’s device is one among a growing class of tools designed for numerous medical applications at the cellular level. This device uses a needle-like probing tip that is a mere 40 nanometers (nm). To put this remarkably small size into perspective, the width of a human hair is approximately 100,000 nanometers.

The Oak Ridge team’s probe is a single-use device. Its design includes a bare 40nm fiber-optic tip and a 350nm silver-coated arm. The arm’s silver coating channels a laser light to the needle-like tip. The purpose of the coating is to improve the probe’s accuracy by ensuring that light doesn’t leak into the surrounding environment outside a cell.

Before Vo-Dinh’s probe is used to investigate a cell, his team attaches antibodies to the end of the tip. Once inside a cell, these antibodies bond with the specific chemicals inside the cell that researchers want to investigate. The combination of the antibodies and the laser light at the probe’s tip create reactions with these internal chemicals, which causes them to glow.

Improving the amount of site-specific control over what researchers are able to investigate inside cells is referred to as improving probing specificity. Improved probing specificity is one of the most important aspects of Vo-Dinh’s research efforts. In a 2002 publication, Vo-Dinh said, “Many traditional microscopy techniques involve incubation of cells with fluorescent dyes or with nanoparticles containing dye molecules and examining the interaction of these dyes with compounds of interest. However, when a dye is incubated into a cell, it is transported to certain intracellular sites that may or may not be where it is most likely to stay and not to areas where the investigator would like to monitor.”

Another achievement of Vo-Dinh’s research relates to maintaining cell vitality. “We’re able to probe individual cells without causing significant damage to them,” he said. Unlike previous techniques, the Oak Ridge team’s design significantly reduces the risk of cell trauma, which often resulted in the death of a cell once it was probed.

Vo-Dinh’s team aimed to understand how protein and DNA expression affect the health of individual cells. To do this, they incubated living rat liver cells with Benzo alpha Pyrene (BaP) – a known cancer-causing substance. This substance was used because it’s not only known to cause cancer, but is also a known mutagen – a chemical capable of altering gene expression in DNA – and is commonly found in polluted urban environments.

A similar project at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) in Japan produced a nanoneedle intended to control differentiation in embryonic stem cells – allowing researchers to turn embryonic stem cells into specific organ cells, such as heart, liver, and kidney cells.

Recently, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory team applied for a patent on the technology for their nanobiosensor. Their future objectives include developing arrays of these probing sensors that could simultaneously examine groups of cells in human bodies.

Improvements in such nanoscale probing techniques are expected to revolutionize disease treatment and detection by allowing diseases to be confronted at the molecular level. In fact, it’s so important that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has implemented funding for a $144.3 million, five-year initiative for nanotechnology in cancer research. In an October, 2005, press release, NCI’s director Andrew von Eschenbach, M.D., said that such devices “will enable researchers to probe genetic defects inside cells, detect the earliest aberrations of cellular function that lead to cancer, and correct those errant processes long before they give rise to cancers large enough to be diagnosed by today’s methods.”

Molecular Nanotechnology and National Security

By Thomas D. Vandermolen, LCDR, USN

Source: Air & Space Power Journal.

31 August 2006

In rare instances, revolutionary technology and associated military innovation can fundamentally alter long-established concepts of warfare….

Some disruptive breakthroughs…could seriously endanger our security.

—The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America1

Introduction

Molecular nanotechnology, when fully developed, will provide the basis for the next technological revolution, possibly the most beneficial yet disruptive in human history. By allowing inexpensive mass production with atomic-level precision, this infant technology has the potential to create whole new classes of weapons and economic, political, and social disruptions serious enough to threaten international security. In order to minimize the threats while maximizing the benefits of molecular nanotechnology’s impending development, the United States should take the lead in creating a cooperative strategy of international regulation. Further, the strategy should be initiated as soon as possible to allow for the uncertain timeline of molecular nanotechnology development and the inherent difficulty of establishing such a regulatory process. Molecular nanotechnology’s arrival will cause an avalanche of problems and threats, many of which the human race has never encountered; the control strategy must therefore be ready before that day arrives.

Background

Nanotechnology (NT) is the manipulation and control of matter at the scale of the nanometer, or one-billionth of a meter–roughly the diameter of a small molecule. Therefore, unlike its predecessor microtechnology, which deals with the relatively gargantuan scale of amoebas, nanotechnology represents human engineering at the atomic or molecular level. But nanotechnology is more than just taking well-understood microtechnology engineering techniques down another step in size: it abruptly and vastly expands of the limits of what is possible. Nanotechnology works with the basic material building blocks of nature–atoms and molecules–allowing for an unprecedented level of engineering precision and control of matter. In addition, the nanometer scale (or nanoscale) is where the effects of the “regular” Newtonian physics that governs everyday human experience and the “weird” quantum physics that governs the atomic and subatomic worlds begin to overlap. Working at the nanoscale will thus permit human engineers to take advantage of the benefits of both realms of physical law simultaneously.

It is not surprising, then, that government and business interest in NT is significant and growing rapidly: the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which coordinates U.S. government research and development (R&D) efforts, is expected to have a budget exceeding $1 billion in FY2006, a ninefold increase over its 1997 budget of $116 million.2 But this increasing R&D budget also illustrates that today’s nanotechnology “…is still almost wholly on the drawing board.”3 Nanoscience is in its infancy, and the characteristics of even familiar, exhaustively studied materials (such as common metals) may hold surprises at the nanometer scale.4 Thus, despite the introduction of new NT-based products to the marketplace,5 NT’s true practical potential is still being discovered.

There is some disagreement within the NT R&D community about the ultimate potential of the field. One school of thought promotes molecular nanotechnology (MNT), also called molecular manufacturing (MM), the brainchild of Dr. K. Eric Drexler, originator of the term “nanotechnology” itself.6 Molecular nanotechnology is “extreme” nanotechnology, with engineering so precise and feature-dense that it approaches the theoretical limits of nature: “thorough, inexpensive control of the structure of matter based on molecule-by-molecule control of products and byproducts of molecular manufacturing.”7 Whereas mainstream nanotechnology focuses on creating small-scale components to be incorporated into larger products in a conventional manner, MNT products will be human scale or larger, built from start to finish by MNT processes.8 Because the degree to which nanotechnology will disrupt human affairs is still unclear, this article will focus on MNT, the potentially most dangerous manifestation.

Molecular nanotechnology’s promise depends on a few key capabilities. The first is the ability to mechanically guide chemical reactions at the molecular level, called mechanochemistry.9 In MNT, mechanochemistry will be accomplished by molecular fabricators: essentially tiny, controllable, mechanical tools capable of physically “grabbing” specific molecules and putting them together in useful ways.

A single fabricator, however, is not very useful for building large objects, as it would take thousands of years for one to build an object large enough to see with the naked eye. Therefore, the second key capability is exponential manufacturing, or the ability to create large numbers of fabricators that will work in unison; this is accomplished by having the fabricators build more fabricators–the number of fabricators will thus grow exponentially.

It is important to note that fabricators are autoproductive–that is, they are capable of building other fabricators, but only with extensive outside assistance–and not self-replicating, which would enable them to create copies of themselves without direct outside assistance, a feat demonstrated by cells and bacteria. This limitation in capability is intentional: initial MNT concepts focused on the use of free-floating, self-contained microscopic robots called assemblers, which would be able to self-replicate, or construct exact duplicates of themselves. Assemblers would be inherently complicated, requiring not only their own molecular fabricator tools, but also the associated control, propulsion, communications, and navigation systems necessary to coordinate with other assemblers on production tasks. The inherent replication ability of assemblers also made them a potential danger (see the “gray goo” discussion below). Thus, more recent MNT theories focus on the use of fabricators as an intrinsically less complex, more efficient, and less dangerous solution.10

The final key capability is convergent assembly, which enables the mass of fabricators to build large objects by first building tiny parts, then putting those tiny parts together to build larger parts, and repeating the process until a complete, human-scale product has been constructed. By some estimates, if the size of the parts doubles at each stage, it will only take 30 such stages to go from parts only a few atoms in size to objects as big as a meter.11

Thus, the MNT fabrication process will first require the production of at least one fabricator, an environmental system conducive to its operation, and a control system. The first fabricators will begin to construct copies of themselves, helped along by the externally-controlled feed and control systems, exponentially growing their number as necessary. The final mass of fabricators will then create progressively more complex molecular building blocks, ultimately assembling them into the final desired product.

In contrast to even today’s microtechnology–which, as advanced and impressive as it seems, still handles atoms “in unruly herds”12 of billions or trillions–molecular fabricators will permit (and likely demand) molecularly precise engineering, where each atom or molecule is accounted for and placed in a specific location. The result is products that are stronger, lighter, yet more feature-dense than anything produced today.

The combination of exponential manufacturing and the more efficient use of a product’s physical structure will also allow for the rapid creation of prototypes; follow-on manufacturing can then begin at any time, as the assembly process is the same as for the prototype.13

The applications of MNT are potentially limitless. Virtually every aspect of human life would be affected: for example, tiny robots could be sent into the human body to locate and destroy cancerous cells or viruses, or even correct failing organs at the cellular level, leading to indefinite extension of the human lifespan.

The dangers posed by MNT are also nearly limitless: cheap, fast mass production would enable spasmodic arms races; improved smart materials could make current weapons systems much more capable, or permit creation of entirely new classes of weapons.

Perhaps the most publicized danger from MNT is the so-called “gray goo” problem, where self-replicating nanomachines essentially out-compete the naturally occurring life forms on earth. First postulated by Drexler in his 1986 book Engines of Creation, the “gray goo” scenario describes the release (either accidental or deliberate) of a resilient, omnivorous, artificial “bacteria” that is able to out-compete all life on earth and which subsequently “…reduce[s] the biosphere to dust in a matter of days,” leaving behind only a world-wide mass–or “gray goo”–of microscopic replicators.14 Drexler himself has since repeatedly asserted that such an event is extremely unlikely to happen accidentally, particularly with the MNT community’s conceptual shift away from assembler-based production, and would be a tremendously difficult undertaking in any case. Not surprisingly, however, dramatic possibilities like this have exerted an overshadowing and somewhat hysterical influence on public perception.15 This “science fiction” perception of MNT–plus the lack of a working molecular fabricator–have prompted the mainstream nanotech community to downplay or ignore MNT concepts. Some of the most vocal detractors–including the late Nobel-prize winning chemist Richard Smalley16–have claimed MNT-style assemblers are impossible,17 and that discussion of them hurts “real” NT development by scaring the public and diverting attention and funding from more legitimate research with a proven track record.18

Is Nanotechnology a National Security Concern?

If MNT is not technically practicable,19 then is it, or even the more “mainstream” nanotechnology, a national security concern? Whether or not strict Drexler-type MNT is viable, a convergence of less technologically-challenging mainstream nanotech and other technologies could result in MNT-like capabilities, necessitating serious consideration of the potential impacts on national security.

Much of the debate over MNT focuses on which research efforts will pay off sooner (and therefore deserve more resources), rather than confronting the issue of final capabilities. Consider, however, that every day a form of molecular manufacturing occurs around the world: Nature itself has been using molecular manufacturing for billions of years to convert cheap resources (dirt, water) and cheap energy (sunlight) into useful building materials (timber). Regardless of which development path is used to get there, a molecular manufacturing-like technology is demonstrably possible.

But should MNT or MM prove too difficult to achieve or not cost-effective for some reason, mainstream NT will still create a tremendous impact on every field that affects national security. Even a National Science Foundation report which expresses doubt about MNT’s feasibility (“…it may be technically impossible to create self-reproducing mechanical nanoscale robots…”)20 also states: “Nanotechnology will fundamentally transform science, technology, and society.”21 Kwan S. Kwok, DARPA program manager, echoes the NSF sentiment: “It is widely accepted that the potential impact of nanotechnology may be larger than that of any scientific field humankind has previously encountered.”22

Finally, consider the possible emerging trend of personal fabrication (PF), a concept created by Dr. Neil Gershenfeld of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Bits and Atoms (CBA). Gershenfeld and his colleagues have been establishing a network of “fab labs”: small facilities set up in areas with little or no access to regular sources of technology, such as rural India. Fab labs are equipped with computers and tabletop micromachining equipment that enables users to design and create objects of their choosing. Products so far have included computer circuit boards, diesel engine flywheel sensors, even works of art–and these from users with limited experience with high-tech equipment. Currently the fab lab equipment setup costs approximately US$26,000. Gershenfeld and the CBA continue to work on improving the fab labs’ setup in terms of cost, capability, and efficiency: “We’re approaching being able to make one machine that can make any machine.” Eventually Gershenfeld expects nanotechnology to become a viable basis for fabrication tools.23 In fact, the Personal Fabrication paradigm may present the most significant long-term application of MNT. MNT-based personal fabricators will embody the ultimate fusion of the industrial and IT revolutions: the ability to move data such as design plans cheaply and instantaneously to virtually any location, then convert that data into real-world, solid objects at roughly the cost of raw materials and power. This concept logically leads to that of inexpensive distributed manufacturing, tailored to the needs of the organization or even the individual.

Overall, there appear to be many paths and no outright “show-stoppers” on the road to a molecular nanotechnology-like capability. Given the threats delineated in the next section, it would be irresponsible not to prepare for MNT’s emergence.

Threats from Molecular Nanotechnology

MNT is a potentially enormously powerful technology that will generate both direct and indirect threats to U.S. security.

Direct threats

State-based arms races. Intentional misuse of MNT will probably pose the greatest direct threat to national security. Molecular manufacturing will allow anyone with access to the technology to quickly and economically create weapons of virtually any description; the aspiring arms producer would only have to provide designs, power, and basic materials. If the arms producer is a state, then the resulting flood of extremely high quality military equipment will enable that state to promptly and easily overwhelm any non-MNT-equipped enemies.

With the rapid prototyping capability provided by MM, the time period for such a buildup could be on the order of weeks or months; multiple rapid arms races could surface with regularity around the world.24 Such arms races will likely not be limited to conventional weapons as we know them today. An arms race based on “smart” weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be possible, such as a smallpox virus engineered to only kill people with a certain genetic trait.25

Individual-based arms races. States may not be alone in weapons-production activities. MNT-enabled personal manufacturing could allow WMD production to shift from governments to small groups or individuals; this democratization of arms production is the darker side of personal fabrication. Bill Joy, cofounder and Chief Scientist of Sun Microsystems, has dubbed this capability knowledge-enabled mass destruction (KMD), calling it “a surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals.”26 Given the predilection of some hackers to create harmful computer viruses just for the thrill of it, it is not a great conceptual leap to imagine that “nano hackers” might decide to do the same with real-world viruses.

Perhaps the most frightening weapon of all–and thus no doubt a natural aspiration for potential nano-hackers–are the infamous self-replicating “gray goo” assemblers. Designing a “gray goo” replicator would be an extraordinarily complex undertaking, however, and would require solving a multitude of extremely difficult engineering challenges; accordingly, some have argued that such an effort would be either impossible or highly unlikely.27 However, a dedicated and concerted attempt could conceivably fall short of the goal but still come up with something extremely dangerous and uncontrollable. In order to help ensure that the accidental creation of a “gray goo” nanomachine remains a practical impossibility, Drexler’s Foresight Institute, a nonprofit organization he founded to “help prepare society for anticipated advanced technologies,” has prescribed guidelines for the safe development of nanotechnology. The Institute recommends avoiding the use of replicators entirely, or at the minimum designing them so that they cannot operate in a natural environment.28

Surveillance. An early application of MNT and NT will likely be inexpensive, yet advanced, micro-surveillance platforms and tools. Mass-produced, these disposable sensors could be used to blanket large areas, providing ubiquitous surveillance of the people within. Although obviously a battlefield concern, such surveillance could also be employed against any group or population, raising privacy and legality issues.29

Environmental damage. Molecular nanotechnology was originally perceived as a potential cure-all for a variety of environmental problems: nanobots in the atmosphere, for example, could physically repair the ozone layer or remove greenhouse gases. Recently, however, nanotechnology is increasingly being seen as a potential environmental problem in its own right. Both NT and MNT are expected to produce large quantities of nanoparticles and other disposable nanoproducts, the environmental effects of which are currently unknown. This “nano-litter” is also small enough to penetrate living cells, raising the possibility of toxic poisoning of organs, either from the nano-litter itself or from toxic elements attached to the nanoparticles.30

Indirect threats

Molecular nanotech will be a disruptive technology, giving “…little or no advantage to the entrenched leader of an earlier technological wave,”31 and thus has the potential to radically upset the geopolitical playing field, posing powerful indirect threats to national security.

Economic. As a glimpse of the potential economic change triggered by MNT, Bill Joy has estimated that the wealth generated by the fusion of the information and physical worlds in the 21st century will equal a thousand trillion U.S. dollars; as Newt Gingrich observed, this is equivalent to “adding 100 U.S. economies to the world market.”32

Clearly no one is quite sure what an MNT-based economy would look like, but most speculations agree that it will probably resemble the software economy: product design will be the most difficult and expensive part of production, while distribution and manufacturing will likely be very inexpensive. A current analogy would be the millions of man-hours and dollars expended to create a computer word processing program, compared to the ease with which a user can “burn” copies of the program with their home computer and distribute them to friends. This analogy also points out the problems with piracy and intellectual property rights that will almost certainly plague an MNT economy.33

Essentially a highly advanced manufacturing process emphasizing distributed, low-cost manufacturing, MNT directly threatens economies heavily dependent on mass production. For example, China’s economic growth depends on using mass human labor to produce inexpensive, high-quality goods; in 2004 it provided over US$18 billion worth of manufactured goods to the department store chain Wal-Mart.34 But what will happen to China’s economy when Wal-Mart is able to use its own MNT-enabled fabrication facilities at home to produce higher quality goods at even lower cost? For that matter, when consumers are able to produce their own high-quality, low-cost, custom-designed products in their own homes, who will need Wal-Mart?

MNT is also expected to improve energy technologies such as solar energy by making solar cells tougher and much more efficient; combined with more efficient manufacturing and lighter but stronger vehicles (carbon-based materials can be up to 60 times as strong as steel), the requirements for petroleum-fueled energy supplies may decline rapidly. This will obviously have significant impact on oil companies and countries with oil-based economies; a correspondingly significant disruption is likely for the shipping industry, which last year ordered petroleum shipping tankers valued at US$77.2 billion.35

In addition, if distributed manufacturing allows most people or communities to construct what they need locally, international trade of physical items may also decrease, which casts some doubt as to whether globalization’s “peace through interdependence” effect will be as powerful in the future. Indeed, isolationism may become a more attractive policy option for many countries.

Social. Molecular nanotechnology’s medical applications may present some of the greatest social and ethical challenges in human history. Issues of cloning, genetically modified crops, abortion, and even cochlear implants have created political atomic bombs in recent years–MNT offers a completely new level of control over the human body and its processes. Accordingly, MNT has been embraced by the transhumanist movement, which advocates using technology to intellectually, physically, and psychologically improve the human form from its current “early phase” to a more advanced “posthuman.” Reactions to transhumanist concepts range from enthusiasm to indifference to outright fear and hostility: historian Francis Fukuyama has declared transhumanism one of “The World’s Most Dangerous Ideas.”36

The Threat from Revolutions. The final threat discussed here essentially results from a synergy of the other threats. Professor Carlota Perez has advanced a model of technological revolution composed of two periods: an installation period, during which the new techno-economic paradigm (TEP) gains increasing support from business, and a deployment period, when the paradigm becomes the new norm. During the installation period investor enthusiasm for the new TEP grows into a frenzy,37 leading to an increasing gap between the “haves,” who are profiting from the new TEP, and the “have-nots,” who are still invested in the old TEP; ultimately the investment frenzy forms a stock bubble, which bursts and brings on the “Turning Point,” usually a serious recession or even a depression. It is during the Turning Point that society and the judicial system are forced to reform and shift to meet the characteristics of the newly established TEP.38

If this model of technological revolution is correct–and it appears to match the last five technological revolutions well enough–then sometime during the development of MNT there will be a period of social, political, and economic unrest as the world system is pulled in two directions: embracing the new TEP versus clinging to the old. Given the staggering array of changes that MNT can bring, this period may be particularly stressful. And if MNT has already enabled some of its more dangerous potential applications–such as knowledge-based mass destruction–before proper political and social control structures have been established, this period could be catastrophic.

What Strategy Should the United States Pursue?

There are three basic strategy courses that the U.S. can pursue to deal with molecular nanotechnology: some form of deliberate international regulation and control, a “hands-off” approach that lets natural market forces dictate development and regulation, and a total ban on MNT development.

International Regulation

There are two strategic approaches relevant to international regulation of MNT: a hegemonic regulation imposed on the rest of the world by the U.S., or a cooperative regulation overseen and enforced by an international organization. In either case, regulation will only succeed–if it does–by removing the majority of reasons nations will have to develop “uncontrolled” MNT.

The basic premise in regulation should be to maximize public access to the benefits of MNT while eliminating independent (i.e., unregulated) development by minimizing access to or interference with the manufacturing technology itself. Ideally, freely providing the fruits of MNT to the world population will decrease the urge to develop alternate R&D programs, and, by virtually eradicating the effects of poverty, may simultaneously reduce the impetus for civil war and resource-related conflicts.39

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN), a nonprofit think tank “concerned with the major societal and environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology,”40 has proposed a solution based around a “nanofactory”–a self-contained, highly secure molecular manufacturing system, in effect a highly advanced version of Gershenfeld’s desktop fab lab apparatus. In this strategy, a closely guarded crash development program would be created as soon as possible to develop the molecular manufacturing expertise required to build a nanofactory; it is essential that the nanofactory be developed before any competing R&D program can come to fruition. The nanofactories would then be produced and distributed to nations and organizations (at some point possibly even to individuals) around the world, with emphasis placed on the most poverty-stricken regions. This nanofactory would be the only approved MNT manufacturing apparatus in the world, and would even have internal limitations as to what it would be allowed to construct (no replicating assemblers, for example, except under carefully controlled and monitored conditions).

The advantages of this strategy are that it offers a very large carrot–along with the stick of regulation–in the form of the nanofactories. The nanofactories can thus act not only as a valid tool of humanitarian assistance, but also as leverage to prevent balking governments from pursuing their own rogue MNT development programs, or even to ensure that their citizens’ needs are being met.41 The appeal of the nanofactories will likely be enormous, particularly if they are produced for personal use. As Gershenfeld has noted about his conceptually similar fab labs: “…the killer app for personal fabrication is fulfilling individual desires rather than merely meeting mass-market needs.”42 And by limiting nanofabrication methods to the nanofactory alone, the threat of “gray goo” replicators is minimized probably as much as is possible.43

Of course, there are disadvantages and risks in this strategy as well. Although widespread availability of nanofactories may reduce the desire for independent MNT R&D programs, there will still be noncomplying groups which will hide their projects, thus making compliance even harder to verify. There is also a significant risk in distributing the nanofactories at all; the units will require extensive built-in security to protect both their inner physical workings and their operating software, and every hacker in the world (not to mention rogue organizations or governments) will be dying to crack it. As a possible solution, the nanofactories must be programmed to destroy themselves if any attempt is made to access the classified areas of the unit–this will lead to many broken nanofactories on a constant basis, but since they can be created relatively easily, replacing them should not be an issue.

In order for this strategy to have a decent chance of working, the U.S. should not attempt to assume a primacist stance and become the sole governing body of this system. Such a strategy would require a U.S.-only nanofactory development program. Given the interdisciplinary and interdependent nature of nanotechnology research efforts around the world, a U.S.-only program could very well fall behind competing programs that leverage the international science community. Europe, Japan, Korea, China, and India are all conducting research into nanotechnology.44 However poorly the U.S. national image is perceived throughout the world today, it could grow exponentially worse if the U.S. emerged as the sole MNT superpower. Therefore, for both technical and diplomatic reasons the U.S. primacy option is not the best solution.

However, the U.S. should play a major role in establishing an international control organization (ICO) to formulate and carry out the regulation strategy. An ICO will have a better chance of actually developing a working nanofactory before competing efforts (although maintaining security would be horrendously difficult), and of encouraging international legitimacy for the nanofactory plan, which in turn would likely result in greater buy-in by the world community. There are already some rumblings of international support for an arms control-like containment structure for nanotechnology. For example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization special report on emerging technologies notes: “the need for control of these new technologies is more important now than in previous times of scientific development.”45

An organization like the one described here will be supremely difficult to establish and maintain, and will require many years of diplomatic maneuvering to secure the proper agreements. As economist David Friedman has noted :

We don’t have a decent mechanism for centralized control on anything like the necessary scale…our decentralized mechanisms…depend on a world where there is some workable definition of property rights in which the actions that a person takes with his property have only slight external effects, beyond those that can be handled by contact. Technological progress might mean that no such definition exists–in which case we are left with zero workable solutions to the coordination problem.46

We must determine whether a workable solution exists, and do so quickly.

Molecular nanotechnology could be fifty years away, or it could be ten.

Do Nothing

A valid alternative to the difficulties of regulation would be just letting the technology emerge as international market and social forces dictate. Proponents of this strategy would rely on the involved parties (governments and multinational corporations which are conducting the majority of the R&D) to self-regulate the use and distribution of MNT. It is also possible that nanotechnology research will hit an intellectual brick wall, and that the sheer difficulty of mastering nanoscience and its applications will slow the arrival of MNT such that a disruptive technological revolution never occurs, or is drastically mitigated.

This strategy holds the highest level of risk of all, and is essentially a strategy of hope. Multiple R&D programs will likely lead to multiple successes, which could very well lead to competition at the national military level and an MNT arms race. Multiple programs will mean varying levels of success, and the leading organization or state will be less likely to agree to regulation, particularly if such regulation would decrease or eliminate its lead. Given MNT’s tremendous potential for both peaceful and violent applications, controlling it with a “do nothing” strategy is analogous to providing nuclear reactors to every country under the assumption that none will use them to develop nuclear weapons. This strategy is unlikely to work, and is in fact highly dangerous.

Forbid research and development

If, as this article has insisted, molecular nanotechnology is so dangerous, then why allow it to be developed at all? Why invent the nuclear bomb again? Proponents–such as the aforementioned Bill Joy–of this strategy would advocate at a minimum the adoption of a voluntary moratorium on the part of the scientific community against further MNT-related research; ultimately an international set of laws should be established that forbid R&D into MNT. Joy himself believes the U.S. unilateral abandonment of biological warfare research is a “shining example” of the beginnings of such a strategy.47

In many ways, this path is almost as dangerous as the “do nothing” strategy, except it would take longer for the dangers to emerge. There are two main problems with this strategy: verification, and the dual-use nature of MNT. Even if every country agreed to the research ban, how would the other nations verify compliance? Unlike nuclear technology, MNT doesn’t require exotic materials that can be detected at a distance to create deadly weapons, and nuclear weapons can’t make millions of copies of themselves. Detecting non-state actor programs would be even more difficult. We are left with the same problems faced by biological weapons control agencies, except that biological weapons are only desired by certain types of organizations…virtually everyone–state, organization, individual–will want nanotechnology. The potential benefits of MNT make it highly attractive, particularly for poorer countries: MNT not only enables nations to make weapons easily, it will also enable them to purify and desalinate water, create inexpensive yet sturdy homes, provide distributed and reliable power, and possibly even expand or improve their food supplies. In short, MNT can help a poor country provide the basic necessities of life,48 which leaves no economic or military incentive to comply. In fact, such a strategy would just push development to non-complying countries. This creates another problem: there would be no complying country capable of defending against a rogue, MNT-equipped nation, unless the complying countries kept up their own unacknowledged R&D programs, which also violates the ban. To paraphrase the National Rifle Association’s slogan: If nanotechnology is outlawed, only outlaws will have nanotechnology.

Conclusion

Based on the radically unprecedented direct and indirect threats to U.S. national security posed by molecular nanotechnology, the U.S. should adopt a cooperative strategy of international regulation to control and guide research and development. The regulation should maximize the security of the processes while not constricting innovation or liberal distribution of the technology’s benefits. The U.S. should immediately begin investigating what form of regulatory organization should be employed, and the Departments of State and Education and the National Science Foundation should begin laying the educational and diplomatic framework necessary to create the international control group.

As the most recent National Defense Strategy notes about disruptive technological advances: “…such breakthroughs can be unpredictable, [therefore] we should recognize their potential consequences and hedge against them.”49 Whatever form U.S. strategy takes to deal with molecular nanotechnology, it must not be reactive in nature. The threats enabled by MNT will likely evolve faster than bureaucratic solutions can cope.

Source:http://www.nanotech-now.com/

K. Eric Drexler

Dr. Drexler is a researcher concerned with emerging technologies and their consequences for the future. In the mid 1980s, he introduced the term ‘nanotechnology’ to describe atomically precise molecular manufacturing systems and their products. Advanced nanotechnologies will make possible many dreams (and nightmares) first articulated in the literature of science fiction. He is a founder and current Chairman of the Foresight Institute, a nonprofit educational organization established to help prepare for advanced technologies. He wrote Engines of Creation (1986) to introduce a broad audience to the prospect of advanced nanotechnologies — their nature, promise, and dangers — and Nanosystems (AAP 1992 Most Outstanding Computer Science Book) to provide a graduate-level introduction to the fundamental physical and engineering principles of the field. BIO & CV.

Ralph Merkle, Ph.D.

Dr. Merkle received his Ph.D. from Standford University in 1979 where he co-invented public key cryptography. He joined Xerox PARC in 1988, pursuing research in computational nanotechnology until 1999.

He chaired the Fourth and Fifth Foresight Conferences on Nanotechnology, is on the Executive Editorial Boards of the journal Nanotechnology, was co-recipient of the 1998 Feynman Prize for Nanotechnology Theory, and was co-recipient of the ACM’s Kanellakis Award for Theory and Practice, and the 2000 RSA Award in Mathematics.

Here is an outstanding presentation done for the Sixth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology, on the Long and medium term goals in molecular nanotechnology. PPT

Dr. Merkle has eight patents and has published and lectured extensively. He is a Director of Alcor, and Advisor to the Foresight Institute and Molecular Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc. He has been at Zyvex since 1999, where he continues his nanotechnology research. A portion of his interview on TechTV’s Big Thinkers [May 2002] is available here – just above “More Information”. BIO.

Gerd Binnig & Heinrich Rohrer

Inventors of the Scanning Tunneling Microscope (1981), and awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1986 for their work in scanning tunneling microscopy [which they shared with Ernst Ruska, designer of the first electron microscope]. An STM can image details down to 1/25th the diameter of an atom – several orders of magnitude better than the best electron microscope.

Dr. Binnig was appointed an IBM Fellow in 1987 and remains a research staff member at IBM’s Zurich Research Laboratory. BIO

Dr. Rohrer retired from IBM in July 1997. BIO

Heinrich Rohrer

Harry Kroto: [Professor Sir Harry Kroto FRS] in 1996 Professor Kroto was jointly awarded the Nobel Lauriate for chemistry with Richard Smalley and Robert Curl, for the discovery of C60 [buckyballs], and later that year he received a Knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II. (In 1985 his experiment, designed to unravel the carbon chemistry in red giant stars, revealed the existence of Buckminsterfullerene)

Since 1990 he has been chairman of the editorial board of the Chemical Society Reviews. Currently he is researching Synthetic Fullerene Chemistry, Nanotubes and nanoparticles, Cluster beam studies [Generation of small fullerenes (C24, C28 etc...) by laser vaporisation], and Astrophysical studies monitoring of red giant stars in the search for C60 in space, at the Sussex Fullerene Research Centre | BIO.

Videos:

The Next Big Thing : Nanotechnology: Vega Science Trust program featuring panellists Sir Harry Kroto (Nobel Prize winner from Sussex University), Jim Gimzewski (leading nano-technologist from IBM), Peter Dobson (Professor at Oxford University) and panel regular Jacqui McGlade.

Professor Sir John Walker FRS

John Walker: [Professor Sir John Walker FRS] 1997 Nobel for Chemistry: along with American biochemist Paul Boyer, Professor Walker was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1997, for their explanation of the enzymatic process involved in the production of the energy-storage molecule adenosine triphosphate (ATP). (Danish chemist Jens C. Skou also shared the award for separate research on the molecule.) These findings offer insight into the way life forms produce energy.

He received a Knighthood for his services to medical research in 1999. BIO | History of ATP

Don Eigler: In 1989, Dr. Don Eigler used his STM to spell out the letters “I-B-M,” demonstrating the ability to position individual atoms with atomic-scale precision. Since then, his group has demonstrated the ability to construct custom molecules and even to operate an electrical switch whose only moving part is a single atom. Eigler and his collaborators have learned to create a new kind of electron trap called a “quantum corral” which allows them to visualize and study the quantum mechanical properties of electrons which are confined to dimensions which are as small as possible future electronic devices.

Don Eigler

James Von Ehr II

James Von Ehr II: James Von Ehr is the founder, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Zyvex Corporaton, the first nanotechnology development company. He is personally contributing $2.5 million to UTD to set up their Nanotech Center. He is also co-founder of the Feynman Grand Prize, a $250,000 prize for a particular embodiment of nanotechnology. He co-founded the Texas Nanotechnology Initiative, a non-profit organization dedicated to positioning Texas as a world leader in the discoveries, development, and commercialization of nanotechnology. He also manages the Von Ehr Foundation, a private charitable foundation he established in 1999.

He currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Texas Nanotechnology Initiative, Metroplex Technology Business Council, the North Texas Technology Council, Molecular Electronics Corporation, and the New York-based NanoBusiness Alliance. BIO.

Robert A. Freitas Jr.: Dr. Freitas joined Zyvex in March, 2000. He has degrees in physics, psychology, and law, and has written more than 100 technical papers, book chapters, or popular articles on a diverse set of scientific, engineering, and legal topics. He co-edited the 1980 NASA feasibility analysis of self-replicating space factories and later authored the first detailed technical design study of a medical nanorobot ever published in a refereed biomedical journal.

Most recently, he authored “Nanomedicine,” the first book-length technical discussion of the potential medical applications of molecular nanotechnology and medical nanorobotics.

The best collection of sites with images: Foresight Nanomedicine Gallery organized by R. A. Freitas Jr.

Nanomedicine Art Gallery Complete Exhibit List

Nanomedicine Articles

BIO

Nanomedicine, Vol. IIA (2003), is available online here. The book is currently available for purchase at $99 in hardcover from Amazon.com here, and includes 348 pages, 6259 literature references, and an extensive index. He is now working on completing Volume III of Nanomedicine.

Robert A. Freitas Jr.

Richard E. Smalley

Richard E. Smalley: Dr. Smalley was the head of the Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology at Rice University, and Chairman of the Board Carbon Nanotechnologies, Inc.. Recipient of the 1996 Nobel Prize for chemistry for the discovery of fullerenes. He has served as Chairman of the Rice Quantum Institute, 1986 – 1996, and was on the Scientific Advisory Board, CSIXTY, Inc., February 1995 – 2005. He was the Director of the Rice Center for Nanoscale Science & Technology (CNST), 1996 – 2001, and was the Director of Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory, 2002 – 2005. The Smalley group is developing the SWNT synthesis, purification, manipulation, and characterization techniques necessary to move SWNT materials from a scientific curiosity to a viable component of working technologies.

David Tomanek: Dr. Tomanek is Professor of Theoretical Condensed Matter Physics at Michigan State University. Main research interest is to understand fundamental properties of nanostructured materials using advanced numerical techniques. He also maintains The Nanotube Site. BIO & CV.

David Tomanek

John Storrs Hall – JoSH

John Storrs Hall: Known as the originator of the Utility Fog concept, “Josh” is also a Research Fellow of the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing [IMM]. He has a background in computer science, particularly parallel processor architectures, artificial intelligence, particularly agoric and genetic algorithms as used in design, and reversible computing, and his research interests include molecular nanotechnology, paritcularly the theory of self-reproducing machines, and the design of useful macroscopic machines using the capabilities of molecular manufacturing. BIO & CV.

Ray Kurzweil: Inventor, scientist, engineer, entrepreneur, writer – Ray Kurzweil is perhaps today’s most outspoken proponent of the Singularity, and the merger of human and machine intelligence. Among his awards are the $500,000 2001 Lemelson-MIT Prize – world’s largest in invention and innovation, and the 1999 National Medal of Technology, the nation’s highest honor in technology. In 1988, he was named Inventor of the Year by MIT and the Boston Museum of Science, and in 1986 was named Honorary Chairman for Innovation of the White House Conference on Small Business. A noteworthy aspect of his unique track record is that all four of the companies he founded, built, and sold not only created entirely new technologies and new markets, but still continue today as leaders in the same markets that they pioneered. He is currently involved in these business ventures. BIO & CV.

Ray Kurzweil

George M. Whitesides

George M. Whitesides: Dr. Whitesides is best known for his groundbreaking work in self-assembling chemical compounds. He is now Mallinckrodt Professor of Chemistry at Harvard University. He wrote an insightful, albeit controversial article called The Once and Future Nanomachine.

Christine Peterson: Christine Peterson writes, lectures, and briefs the media on coming powerful technologies, especially nanotechnology. She is cofounder and President of Foresight Institute, a nonprofit which educates the public, technical community, and policymakers on nanotechnology and its long-term effects. She directs the Foresight Conferences on Molecular Nanotechnology, organizes the Foresight Institute Feynman Prizes, and chairs the Foresight Gatherings.

With Eric Drexler and Gayle Pergamit, she wrote Unbounding the Future: the Nanotechnology Revolution, which sketches nanotechnology’s potential environmental and medical benefits as well as possible abuses. An interest in group process led to coauthoring Leaping the Abyss: Putting Group Genius to Work with Gayle Pergamit. BIO.

Christine Peterson

Tim E. Harper

Tim E. Harper: Tim Harper is the founder & CEO of CMP Cientifica, and the Co Author of the Nanotechnology Opportunity Report™. He is also the Executive Director of European NanoBusiness Association and an advisor to the US NanoBusiness Alliance. He contributes a weekly column to the Institute of Physics Nanotechweb site.

In 1997 he founded CMP Cientifica, which organises Europe’s largest scientific nanotechnology conference, TNT 200x. The company also manages both the Phantoms network, which coordinates European nanoelectronics research, and the NanoSpain network which links the Spanish scientific nanotechnology community. Cientifica.

Richard P. Feynman: One of the greatest theoretical physicists of the twentieth century. Famous for – among other things – this quote which is regarded as the “start” of nanotechnology “The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom. It is not an attempt to violate any laws; it is something, in principle, that can be done; but in practice, it has not been done because we are too big.” BIO.

Richard P. Feynman

Photo copyright Christopher Sykes

Mike Treder

Mike Treder

Mike Treder: Executive Director of CRN, is a business professional with a background in technology and communications company management. He serves on the Boards of Directors of the Human Futures Institute and the World Transhumanist Association, and is a member of the Executive Advisory Team for the Extropy Institute.

Chris Phoenix: CRN’s Director of Research, is an inventor, entrepreneur, and published author in the fields of nanomedicine, nanomanufacturing, and administration of nanotechnology. He holds a Master’s Degree in computer science from Stanford University.

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology™ (CRN) A non-profit organization, formed to advance the safe use of molecular nanotechnology. The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology™ (CRN) was founded by Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder in December 2002. The vision of CRN is a world in which nanotechnology is widely used for productive and beneficial purposes, and where malicious uses are limited by effective administration of the technology.

Chris Phoenix

Chris Phoenix

Mihail C. Roco: Dr. Roco is Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology, NSF and Chair, National Science and Technology Council’s subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET). May 2002 Interview on NNI.

Mihail C. Roco

Sumio Iijima

Sumio Iijima: Dr. Iijima has been a Senior Research Fellow at NEC Corporation since 1987, and discovered carbon nanotubes in 1991. He is also a professor of materials science at Meijo University in Nagoya. He is currently taking a global leading role as a Representative Researcher in the International Cooperative Research Project “Nanotubulites” of Japan Science and Technology Corporation (ICORP/JST). He also serves as Director of the Research Center for Advanced Carbon Materials of National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST). CV

Josh Wolfe: Josh Wolfe is a co-founder and Managing Partner of Lux Capital, focusing on investments in Nanotechnology and Software (Artificial Intelligence, Distributed Systems). He is also a Managing Director of Angstrom Partners, a merchant bank specifically focused on nanotechnology, a Senior Associate of the Foresight Institute for Nanotechnology, the Coordinator for the Institute of Molecular Manufacturing’s Prize in Computational Nanotechnology, a co-founder of The NanoBusiness Alliance and a member of the Cognitive Science Society. He is the author of “The Nanotech Report” and the monthly “Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report”. BIO.

Josh Wolfe

Steve Lenhert

Steve Lenhert: Steve Lenhert is a PhD student, and scanning probe microscopist at the Interface Physics department of the University of Münster. He is the author/editor of the web-based Encyclopedia Nanotech and co-moderates & contributes to the sci.nanotech newsgroup, adding his very well informed 2c’s worth. Recently he has co-founded QuaNTeQ, LLC (Nanoword.net), a start-up company focusing on nanotech education, networking, and distribution of publications. And until the untimely demise of the nanotechnology category at About.com, he oversaw what was once the most informative and current, general purpose Nanotechnology websites.

Source:http://www.nanotech-now.com

What kind of world do we wish to inhabit and leave for following generations? Our planet is in trouble if current trends continue into the future: environmental degradation, extinction of species, rampant diseases, chronic warfare, poverty, starvation and social injustice.

Are suffering and despair humanity’s fate? Not necessarily. We have within our grasp the technology to help bring about great progress in elevating humanity. Or we can use our evolving knowledge for destructive ends. We are already immersed in fiery debates on genetic engineering, cloning, nuclear physics and the science of warfare. Nanotechnology, with its staggering implications, will create a whole new set of ethical quandaries. A strong set of operating principles is needed — standards by which we can guide ourselves to a healthier destiny.

Excellent work on nanotechnology ethics, including technical standards and policies, has been compiled by the Foresight Institute, and we encourage everyone working in this field to support their work. See also the The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN), a non-profit organization, formed to advance the safe use of molecular nanotechnology; and The Nanoethics Group a non-partisan and independent organization focused generally on the ethical and social implications of nanotechnology.

The following are some ethical guidelines gleaned from both Foresight and our own philosophy and experience in this field:

* Nanotechnology’s highest and best use should be to create a world of abundance where no one is lacking for their basic needs. Those needs include adequate food, safe water, a clean environment, housing, medical care, education, public safety, fair labor, unrestricted travel, artistic expression and freedom from fear and oppression.

* High priority must be given to the efficient and economical global distribution of the products and services created by nanotechnology. We recognize the need for reasonable return on investment, but we must also recognize that our planet is small and we all depend upon each other for safety, stability, even survival.

* Military research and applications of nanotechnology must be limited to defense and security systems, and not for political purposes or aggression. And any government-funded research that generates useful non-military technological advances must be made available to the public.

* Scientists developing and experimenting with nanotechnology must have a solid grounding in ecology and public safety, or have someone on their team who does. Scientists and their organizations must also be held accountable for the willful, fraudulent or irresponsible misuse of the science.

* All published research and discussion of nanotechnology should be accurate as possible, adhere to the scientific method, and give due credit to sources. Labeling of products should be clear and accurate, and promotion of services, including consulting, should disclose any conflicts of interest.

* Published debates over nanotechnology, including chat room discussions, should focus on advancing the merits of the arguments rather than personal attacks, such as questioning the motives of opponents.

* Business models in the field should incorporate long-term, sustainable practices, such as the efficient use of resources, recycling of toxic materials, adequate compensation for workers and other fair labor practices.

* Industry leaders should be collaborative and self-regulating, but also support public education in the sciences and reasonable legislation to deal with legal and social issues associated with nanotechnology.

Buckyball

“It is the roundest and most symmetrical large molecule known to man. Buckministerfullerine continues to astonish with one amazing property after another. Named after American architect R. Buckminister Fuller who designed a geodesic dome with the same fundamental symmetry, C60 is the third major form of pure carbon; graphite and diamond are the other two.” Bucky Balls – Andy Gion.

AKA: C60 molecules & buckminsterfullerene. Molecules made up of 60 carbon atoms arranged in a series of interlocking hexagons and pentagons, forming a structure that looks similar to a soccer ball [Steffen Weber, PhD.]. C60 is actually a “truncated icosahedron”, consisting of 12 pentagons and 20 hexagons. It was discovered in 1985 by Professor Sir Harry Kroto, and two Rice University professors, chemists Dr. Richard E. Smalley and Dr. Robert F. Curl Jr., [for which they were jointly awarded the 1996 Nobel Lauriate for chemistry] and is the only molecule composed of a single element to form a hollow spheroid [which gives the potential for filling it, and using it for novel drug-delivery systems. See Structure of a New Family of Buckyballs Created].

“The buckyball, being the roundest of round molecules, is also quite resistant to high speed collisions. In fact, the buckyball can withstand slamming into a stainless steel plate at 15,000 mph, merely bouncing back, unharmed. When compressed to 70 percent of its original size, the buckyball becomes more than twice as hard as its cousin, diamond.” The Buckyball – Rodrigo de Almeida Siqueira.

Source:http://www.nanotech-now.com/

“Conceptually, single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) can be considered to be formed by the rolling of a single layer of graphite (called a graphene layer) into a seamless cylinder. A multiwall carbon nanotube (MWCNT) can similarly be considered to be a coaxial assembly of cylinders of SWCNTs, like a Russian doll, one within another; the separation between tubes is about equal to that between the layers in natural graphite. Hence, nanotubes are one-dimensional objects with a well-defined direction along the nanotube axis that is analogous to the in-plane directions of graphite.”
—M. S. Dresselhaus, Department of Physics and the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology <!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:”"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

A one dimensional fullerene (a convex cage of atoms with only hexagonal and/or pentagonal faces) with a cylindrical shape. Carbon nanotubes discovered in 1991 by Sumio Iijima resemble rolled up graphite, although they can not really be made that way. Depending on the direction that the tubes appear to have been rolled (quantified by the ‘chiral vector’), they are known to act as conductors or semiconductors. Nanotubes are a proving to be useful as molecular components for nanotechnology. [Encyclopedia Nanotech]

Strictly speaking, any tube with nanoscale dimensions, but generally used to refer to carbon nanotubes, which are sheets of graphite rolled up to make a tube. A commonly mentioned non-carbon variety is made of boron nitride, another is silicon. These noncarbon nanotubes are most often referred to as nanowires. The dimensions are variable (down to 0.4 nm in diameter) and you can also get nanotubes within nanotubes, leading to a distinction between multi-walled and single-walled nanotubes. Apart from remarkable tensile strength, nanotubes exhibit varying electrical properties (depending on the way the graphite structure spirals around the tube, and other factors, such as doping), and can be superconducting, insulating, semiconducting or conducting (metallic). [CMP]

Nanotubes can be either electrically conductive or semiconductive, depending on their helicity, leading to nanoscale wires and electrical components. These one-dimensional fibers exhibit electrical conductivity as high as copper, thermal conductivity as high as diamond, strength 100 times greater than steel at one sixth the weight, and high strain to failure. NASA JSC – Carbon Nanotubes

A nanotube’s chiral angle–the angle between the axis of its hexagonal pattern and the axis of the tube–determines whether the tube is metallic or semiconducting. Nanotubes Under Stress

A graphene sheet can be rolled more than one way, producing different types of carbon nanotubes. The three main types are armchair, zig-zag, and chiral. Examples:

Carbon nanotubes possess many unique properties which make them ideal AFM probes. Their high aspect ratio provides faithful imaging of deep trenches, while good resolution is retained due to their nanometer-scale diameter. These geometrical factors also lead to reduced tip-sample adhesion, which allows gentler imaging. Nanotubes elastically buckle rather than break when deformed, which results in highly robust probes. They are electrically conductive, which allows their use in STM and EFM (electric force microscopy), and they can be modified at their ends with specific chemical or biological groups for high resolution functional imaging. Professor Charles M. Lieber Group

CNT exhibits extraordinary mechanical properties: the Young’s modulus is over 1 Tera Pascal. It is stiff as diamond. The estimated tensile strength is 200 Giga Pascal. These properties are ideal for reinforced composites, nanoelectromechanical systems (NEMS). Center for Nanotechnology | Gallery

Carbon Nanotube Transistors exploit the fact that nm- scale nanotubes (NT) are ready-made molecular wires and can be rendered into a conducting, semiconducting, or insulating state, which make them valuable for future nanocomputer design. … Carbon nanotubes are quite popular now for their prospective electrical, thermal, and even selective-chemistry applications. Physics News 590, May 21, 2002

Many potential applications have been proposed for carbon nanotubes, including conductive and high-strength composites; energy storage and energy conversion devices; sensors; field emission displays and radiation sources; hydrogen storage media; and nanometer-sized semiconductor devices, probes, and interconnects. Some of these applications are now realized in products. Others are demonstrated in early to advanced devices, and one, hydrogen storage, is clouded by controversy. Nanotube cost, polydispersity in nanotube type, and limitations in processing and assembly methods are important barriers for some applications of single-walled nanotubes. Carbon Nanotubes—the Route Toward Applications Ray H. Baughman, Anvar A. Zakhidov, Walt A. de Heer

Source:http://www.nanotech-now.com/

Nanocomposites

A plastic nanocomposite is being used for “step assists” in the GM Safari and Astro Vans. It is scratch-resistant, light-weight, and rust-proof, and generates improvements in strength and reductions in weight, which lead to fuel savings and increased longevity. And in 2001, Toyota started using nanocomposites in a bumper that makes it 60% lighter and twice as resistant to denting and scratching.

Impact: Will likely be used on other GM and Toyota models soon, and in other areas of their vehicles, as well as the other auto manufactures, lowering weight, increasing milage, and creating longer-lasting autos. Likely to impact repair shops (fewer repairs needed) and auto insurance companies (fewer claims). Will also likely soon be seen everywhere weight, weather-proofing, durability, and strength are important factors. Expect NASA, the ESA, and other space-faring organizations to take a serious look, soon, which will eventually result in lower lift costs, which will result in more material being lifted into space.

The Chicago-based firm began looking into the potential of nanotechnology six years ago, but didn’t come out with a product – the NCODE series of tennis rackets – until 2004. Later in the year, it started shipping drivers and fairway woods, the Pd5, Dd5, Td5 (MSRP – $300) and FwC (MSRP – $200), whose crowns are constructed with nano carbon which, Wilson claims, creates a low-density, high-strength clubhead. Angus Moir, global business director, says use of nano materials sets Wilson apart from the competition. “They make our products more user friendly,” he says. link

Nanocrystals

“Metal nanocrystals might be incorporated into car bumpers, making the parts stronger, or into aluminum, making it more wear resistant. Metal nanocrystals might be used to produce bearings that last longer than their conventional counterparts, new types of sensors and components for computers and electronic hardware.

Nanocrystals of various metals have been shown to be 100 percent, 200 percent and even as much as 300 percent harder than the same materials in bulk form. Because wear resistance often is dictated by the hardness of a metal, parts made from nanocrystals might last significantly longer than conventional parts.”

Nanocrystals absorb then re-emit the light in a different color — the size of the nanocrystal (in the Angstrom scale) determines the color.

Six different quantum dot solutions are shown, excited with a long-wave UV lamp.

“Nanocrystals are an ideal light harvester in photovoltaic devices. (They) absorb sunlight more strongly than dye molecules or bulk semiconductor material, therefore high optical densities can be achieved while maintaining the requirement of thin films. Perfectly crystalline CdSe nanocrystals are also an artificial reaction center, separating the electron hole pair on a femtosecond timescale. Fluorescent nanocrystals have several advantages over organic dye molecules as fluorescent markers in biology. They are incredibly bright and do not photodegrade. Drug-conjugated nanocrystals attach to the protein in an extracellular fashion, enabling movies of protein trafficking. (They) also form the basis of a high-throughput fluorescence assay for drug discovery.” © Sandra Rosenthal, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, The University of Chicago.

Nanoparticles

Stain-repellent Eddie Bauer Nano-CareTM khakis, with surface fibers of 10 to 100 nanometers, uses a process that coats each fiber of fabric with “nano-whiskers.” Developed by Nano-Tex, a Burlington Industries subsidiary. Dockers also makes khakis, a dress shirt and even a tie treated with what they call “Stain Defender”, another example of the same nanoscale cloth treatment.

Impact: Dry cleaners, detergent and stain-removal makers, carpet and furniture makers, window covering makers …. See Nano-Tex products

BASF’s annual sales of aqueous polymer dispersion products amount to around $1.65 billion. All of them contain polymer particles ranging from ten to several hundred nanometers in size. Polymer dispersions are found in exterior paints, coatings and adhesives, or are used in the finishing of paper, textiles and leather. Nanotechnology also has applications in the food sector. Many vitamins and their precursors, such as carotinoids, are insoluble in water. However, when skillfully produced and formulated as nanoparticles, these substances can easily be mixed with cold water, and their bioavailability in the human body also increases. Many lemonades and fruit juices contain these specially formulated additives, which often also provide an attractive color. In the cosmetics sector, BASF has for several years been among the leading suppliers of UV absorbers based on nanoparticulate zinc oxide. Incorporated in sun creams, the small particles filter the high-energy radiation out of sunlight. Because of their tiny size, they remain invisible to the naked eye and so the cream is transparent on the skin. From Nanotechnology at BASF

Sunscreens are utilizing nanoparticles that are extremely effective at absorbing light, especially in the ultra-violet (UV) range. Due to the particle size, they spread more easily, cover better, and save money since you use less. And they are transparent, unlike traditional screens which are white. These sunscreens are so successful that by 2001 they had captured 60% of the Australian sunscreen market.

Impact: Makers of sunscreen have to convert to using nanoparticles. And other product manufactures, like packaging makers, will find ways to incorporate them into packages to reduces UV exposure and subsequent spoilage. The $480B packaging and $300B plastics industries will be directly effected. See Big Opportunities for Small Particles

Using aluminum nanoparticles, Argonide has created rocket propellants that burn at double the rate. They also produce copper nanoparticles that are incorporated into automotive lubricant to reduce engine wear.

AngstroMedica has produced a nanoparticulate-based synthetic bone. “Human bone is made of a calcium and phosphate composite called Hydroxyapatite. By manipulation calcium and phosphate at the molecular level, we have created a patented material that is identical in structure and composition to natural bone. This novel synthetic bone can be used in areas where natural bone is damaged or removed, such as in the in the treatment of fractures and soft tissue injuries.”

Nanostructured Materials

Nanodyne makes a tungsten-carbide-cobalt composite powder (grain size less than 15nm) that is used to make a sintered alloy as hard as diamond, which is in turn used to make cutting tools, drill bits, armor plate, and jet engine parts.

Impact: Every industry that makes parts or components whose properties must include hardness and durability. See Nanostructed Materials Get Tough A PDF document

Kodak is producing OLED color screens (made of nanostructured polymer films) for use in car stereos and cell phones. OLEDs (organic light emitting diodes) may enable thinner, lighter, more flexible, less power consuming displays, and other consumer products such as cameras, PDAs, laptops, televisions, and other as yet undreamt of applications.

Impact: all current makers of CRTs, liquid crystal displays (LCDs), and other display types. See OLEDs get ready to light up the market for flexible screens and KODAK OLED technical details [a PDF]

Nanoclays and Nanocomposites

Used in packaging, like beer bottles, as a barrier, allowing for thinner material, with a subsequently lighter weight, and greater shelf-life.

Impact: $480B packaging and $300B plastics industries. Reduced weight means transportation costs decline. Changing from glass and aluminum – think beer and soda bottles – to plastic reduces production costs. Nanoclays help to hold the pressure and carbonation inside the bottle, increasing shelf life. It is estimated that beer in these containers will gain an extra 60 days (from 120 to 180) of shelf life, reducing spoilage, and decreasing overall costs to the end user. Nanocor is one company producing nanoclays and nanocomposites, for a variety of uses, including flame retardants, barrier film (as in juice containers), and bottle barrier (as shown above). “They are not only used to improve existing products, but also are extending their reach into areas formerly dominated by metal, glass and wood.” See Nanocor

Nanocomposite Coatings

Wilson Double Core tennis balls have a nanocomposite coating that keeps it bouncing twice as long as an old-style ball. Made by InMat LLC, this nanocomposite is a mix of butyl rubber, intermingled with nanoclay particles, giving the ball substantially longer shelf life.

Impact: Tires are the next logical extension of this technology: it would make them lighter (better millage) and last longer (better cost performance). See Nanocomposites in tennis balls lock in air, build better bounce

Nanotubes

Nanoledge makes carbon nanotubes for commercial uses, of which one mundane (marketing tactic) use is in a tennis racket, made by Babolat. The yoke of the racket bends less during ball impact, improving the player’s performance.

Impact: Once companies like Nanoledge can scale-up their production from grams, to pounds, to tons, and can do so while controlling the type of nanotube they produce, the world becomes their oyster: everywhere strength and weight are a factor – such as in the aerospace, automobile, and airplane industries – they will make a major (disruptive) impact. See French firm hopes to get PR bounce out of nanotubes in tennis rackets

Applied Nanotech recently demonstrated a 14″ monochrome display based on electron emission from carbon nanotubes.

Impact: Once the process is perfected, costs will go down, and the high-end market will start being filled. Shortly thereafter, and hand-in-hand with the predictable drop in price of CNTs, production economies-of-scale will enable the costs to drop further still, at which time we will see nanotube-based screens in use everywhere CRTs and view screens are used today. See Applied Nanotech demonstrates carbon nanotube TV

And Samsung is expected to demonstrate a CNT-based 32″ display by the end of 2003.

Nanocatalysts

China’s largest coal company (Shenhua Group) has licensed technology from Hydrocarbon Technologies that will enable it to liquify coal and turn it into gas. The process uses a gel-based nanoscale catalyst, which improves the efficiency and reduces the cost.

Impact: “If the technology lives up to its promise and can economically transform coal into diesel fuel and gasoline, coal-rich countries such as the U.S., China and Germany could depend far less on imported oil. At the same time, acid-rain pollution would be reduced because the liquefaction strips coal of harmful sulfur.” See Very Small Business

One of the characteristic properties of all nanoparticles has been used from the outset in the manufacture of automotive catalytic converters: The surface area of the particles increases dramatically as the particle size decreases and the weight remains the same. A variety of chemical reactions take place on the surface of the catalyst, and the larger the surface area, the more active the catalyst. Nanoscale catalysts thus open the way for numerous process innovations to make many chemical processes more efficient and resource-saving – in other words more competitive. From Nanotechnology at BASF

Nanofilters

Argonide Nanomaterials, an Orlando based manufacturer of nanoparticles and nanofiltration products, makes a filter that is capable of filtering the smallest of particles. The performance is due to it’s nano size alumina fiber, which attracts and retains sub-micron and nanosize particles. This disposable filter retains 99.9999+% of viruses at water flow rates several hundred times greater than virus-rated ultra porous membranes. It is useful for sterilization of biological, pharmaceutical and medical serums, protein separation, collector/concentrator for biological warfare detectors, and several other applications.

Impact: In the future, for one application, sterilizing drinking water, this product may have an impact on so-called Third World peoples, who only have access to dubious sources of water.

For more current applications, see Reality is the concept that governs the new nanobusiness world

These are just a few of the many ways in which nanotechnology is working itself into our everyday lives. At present, there are no nanobots, no molecular-scale machines, and no assemblers – these are still in the basic research stages, and may not be seen for decades (although many would argue that a concerted effort would bring them to fruition in just a few years).

Tim E. Harper

“What we are seeing is the beginning of a revolution, caused by our ability to work on the same scale as nature. Nanotechnology will affect every aspect of our lives, from the medicines we use, to the power of our computers, the energy supplies we require, the food we eat, the cars we drive, the buildings we live in, and the clothes we wear. And it will happen sooner than most people think. By 2010 you won’t be able to count the number of businesses affected by nanotechnology.” iTim Harper, Founder and Chief Executive Director of the European NanoBusiness Association, and CEO CMP Cientifica

Source:http://www.nanotech-now.com

Nano This and Nano That

We’ve all seen articles, papers, and predictions based on Nanotubes – they seem to be everywhere these days. Here is just one prediction: “Nanofibers (nanotubes) may offer the potential for creating some astoundingly large and strong space structures; they may make the prospect of rotating orbital colonies feasible.” See The Use of Nanofibers in Space Construction for one speculative view.

Over the past year or so, we have seen a myriad other varieites of nano -this and nano -that. From nanosprings and nanohorns, to nanorods and nanomesh, there are nanoscale whosits and nanoscale whatsits gallore. Why, on Google alone, there are 9,950,000 pages that contain, somewhere, the word “nano”!

We thought you’d find useful a page describing the current batch of nano-things, with some brief explanations and links to further reading. This is not an exhaustive list of nano-whatsits, or their possible uses – if you find that we’ve missed something, please email us.

Nanocontainers

“Micellar nanocontainers” or “Micelles”, these are nanoscale polymeric containers that could be used to selectively deliver hydrophobic drugs to specific sites within individual cells. See Nanocontainers deliver on drugs.

The first atomic-scale images of nanocrystals that help reduce pollution show a surprising triangular, rather than hexagonal, shape. The new information should help researchers improve the chemical process.

Nanocrystal – courtesy Physical Review Letters & Prof. Dr. scient Flemming Besenbacher, Interdisciplinary

Nanocrystals

Nanoscale crystals that are often harder, stronger and more wear resistant than the same materials in bulk form. “Nanocrystals might be used to make super-strong and long-lasting metal parts. The crystals also might be added to plastics and other metals to make new types of composite structures for everything from cars to electronics.” See Discovery could bring widespread uses for ‘nanocrystals’. Single atoms caged inside nanocrystals gives you a “quantum confined atom”, or QCA, “with potential uses ranging from clear-glass sunglasses to bio-sensors to optical computing and just about anything optical in between.” See Nanocrystals Technology Shines New Light on Optics, A Good Look at Nanocrystals, and Researchers Turn Scrap to Strength with Nanocrystals.

Nanoshells

Nanoscale metal spheres, which can absorb or scatter light at virtually any wavelength. “The nanoshells act as an amazingly versatile optical component on the nanometer scale: they may provide a whole new approach to optical materials and components,” Professor Naomi Halas. See Metal Nanoshells in Bioengineering and Nanoshells May Be Key To Next Wave Of Light-Based Technology and Physics of Nanoshells.

Nanohorns

One of the SWNT (single walled carbon nanotube) types, with an irregular horn-like shape, which may be a critical component of a new generation of fuel cells. “The main characteristic of the carbon nanohorns is that when many of the nanohorns group together an aggregate (a secondary particle) of about 100 nanometers is created. The advantage being, that when used as an electrode for a fuel cell, not only is the surface area extremely large, but also, it is easy for the gas and liquid to permeate to the inside. In addition, compared with normal nanotubes, because the nanohorns are easily prepared with high purity it is expected to become a low-cost raw material.” See NEC uses Carbon Nanotubes to Develop a Tiny Fuel Cell for Mobile Applications and here is a TEM image.

Nanowires

“Semiconductor nanowires are one-dimensional structures, with unique electrical and optical properties, that are used as building blocks in nanoscale devices.” See Nanowires within nanowires and Learning how to Fabricate Nanowire. “Striped or ‘superlatticed’ nanowires can function as transistors, LEDs (light-emitting diodes) and other optoelectronic devices, biochemical sensors, heat-pumping thermoelectric devices, or all of the above, along the same length of wire.” See Nanowires Get Their Stripes.

Nanosprings

A nanowire wrapped into a helix. Speculation is that they “may someday make highly sensitive magnetic field detectors, perhaps finding application in hard drive read heads. Alternatively, nanosprings could serve as positioners, or even as tiny conventional springs, for nanomachines of the future.” See Spiraling in on Nanosprings and Nanosprings jump into place.

Nanomesh and Nanofibres

This term covers CNT’s (see above), and as described here, the other “nanoscale fibers” referred to as “polymeric” (made from polymers). Currently used in air and liquid filtration applications. Using a process called “electrospinning” – or e-spin – a polymer “mesh” is formed into a nanofiber membrane, hense “nanomesh”, with 150 – 200 nm diameters. Some have been made since 1970, but were not called “nano” until recently. One potential use is “to prevent body tissues from sticking together as they heal. It also breaks down in the body over time like biodegradable sutures.” , which makes it a surgical material for the 21st Century. Other uses include biomedical devices, filtration systems, and dust collecting systems. See Biodegradable nanofiber could prevent scar tissue.

Nanorods

Another nanoscale material with unique and promising physical properties, such that may yield improvements in high-density data storage, and allow for cheaper flexible solar cells. See Three Element Nanorods and Flexible and Inexpensive Solar Cells Based on Inorganic Nanorods.

Nanopores

Essentially itty bitty tiny holes. Nanoscopic pores found in purpose-built filters, sensors, or diffraction gratings to make them function better. See Influencing structure in the heart of nanoland. As activated carbon, they may also be used as an alternative fuel storage medium, due to their massive internal surface area. “Scientists believe nanopores, tiny holes that allow DNA to pass through one strand at a time, will make DNA sequencing more efficient.” See Understanding Nanodevices — Nanopores. In biology, they are “complex protein assemblies that span cell membranes and allow ionic transport across the otherwise impermeable lipid bilayer. Nanopores are important because while some pores help maintain cell homeostasis, others disrupt cell function.” See Towards Fabrication of Solid-State Mimics of Biological Nanopores. “A nanopore can be a protein channel in a lipid bilayer or an extremely small isolated ‘hole’ in a thin, solid-state membrane” such that “DNA and RNA, can be registered and characterized singly …” See Developing Nanopores as Probes and The Nanopore Project.

Nano-test-tubes

CNT’s opened and filled with materials, and used to carry out chemical reactions. See The Opening and Filling of Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes (MWTs) and The Opening and Filling of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes (SWTs).

Nanofilters

One opportunity for nanoscale filters is for the separation of molecules, such as proteins or DNA, for research in genomics. See Selective nanofilters for proteins, DNA Another, as “masks to prevent exposure to biological pathogens such as viruses that can be as small as 30 nanometers in diameter.” See Biologically inspired nanotechnology. And another use is in water filtration. See Softer, Purer Water.

Nanopens & Nanopencils (AKA: Atomic Pencil)

“Analogous to using a quill pen but on a billionth the scale”, and may transform dip-pen nanolithography. Allows for drawing electronic circuits a thousand times smaller than current ones. The “pen” is an atomic force microscope (AFM). See Nanopipettes and Nanoplotter for further details.

Nanopipettes

“Cantilevered/Straight Nanopipettes can be used as nanopens for controlled chemical delivery or removal from regions as small as 100 nanometers. They can also be used as vessels for containing molecules whose optical properties change in response to their chemical environment.” Other uses include “controlled chemical etching with the precision of atomic force microscopy; chemical imaging of surfaces; delivering femtosecond laser pulses; and performing NSOM/SNOM imaging using a UV excimer laser.” See Cantilevered/Straight Nanopipettes Modifying the nanopipette yields other nanotools, such as Nanotweezers and Nanoheaters. See Nanotools.

Nanoplotter

A multi-tip nanopen. “A device that can draw patterns of tiny lines just 30 molecules thick and a single molecule high. … produces eight identical patterns at once and extends … dip-pen nanolithography towards mass producing nanoscale devices and circuits by converting what was a serial process to a parallel one. May be use to “… miniaturize electronic circuits, pattern precise arrays of organic and biomolecules such as DNA and put thousands of different medical sensors on an area much tinier than the head of a pin.” See Plotting Chemicals and Nanoplotter with Parallel Writing Capabilities (PDF).

Nanobalance

Simply put, a nanoscale balance for determining mass, small enough to weigh viruses and other sub-micron scale particles. “A mass attached at the end of a nanotube shifts its resonance frequency. If the nanotube is calibrated (i.e., its spring constant known), it is possible to measure the mass of the attached particle.” A nanobalance “could be useful for determining the mass of other objects on the femtogram to picogram size range.” See Weighing The Very Small.

Nanobeads

Polymer beads with diameters of between 0.1 to 10 micrometers. Also called nanodots, nanocrystals and quantum beads. Impregnating fluorescent crystal chips into these beads allows simultaneous measurement of thousands of biological interactions, a stepping stone for breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of disease. … with the potential to accelerate drug discovery and clinical diagnostics.” See Nanodots and Local Mechanical Properties of Cells.

Nanoguitar

“Made for fun to illustrate the technology — the world’s smallest guitar is 10 micrometers long — about the size of a single cell — with six strings each about 50 nanometers, or 100 atoms, wide. Just one of several structures that Cornell researchers believe are the world’s smallest silicon mechanical devices. Researchers made these devices at the Cornell Nanofabrication Facility, bringing microelectromechanical devices, or MEMS, to a new, even smaller scale — the nano-sized world.” See World’s smallest silicon mechanical devices are made at Cornell.

Source:http://www.nanotech-now.com/

What is Nanotechnology? Answers differ depending on who you ask, and their background. Broadly speaking however, nanotechnology is the act of purposefully manipulating matter at the atomic scale, otherwise known as the “nanoscale.”

Coined as “nano-technology” in a 1974 paper by Norio Taniguchi at the University of Tokyo, and encompassing a multitude of rapidly emerging technologies, based upon the scaling down of existing technologies to the next level of precision and miniaturization. Taniguchi approached nanotechnology from the ‘top-down’ standpoint, from the viewpoint of a precision engineer.

Foresight Nanotech Institute Founder K. Eric Drexler introduced the term “nanotechnology” to the world in 1986, using it to describe a ‘bottom-up’ approach. Drexler approaches nanotechnology from the point-of-view of a physicist, and defines the term as “large-scale mechanosynthesis based on positional control of chemically reactive molecules.” See our Press Kit History of Nanotechnology for details.

In the future, “nanotechnology” will likely include building machines and mechanisms with nanoscale dimensions, referred to these days as Molecular Nanotechnology (MNT).

It uses a basic unit of measure called a “nanometer” (abbreviated nm). Derived from the Greek word for midget, “nano” is a metric prefix and indicates a billionth part (10-9).

There are one billion nm’s to a meter. Each nm is only three to five atoms wide. They’re small. Really small. ~40,000 times smaller than the width of an average human hair. (See How small is one-billionth of a meter?)

A good reference to visit to help you understand the nanoscale materials end of “nanotech” is the Teacher’s Guide To The (Small) World Of Nanostructured Materials

One aspect of nanotechnology is all about building working mechanisms using components with nanoscale dimensions (MNT), such as super small computers (think bacteria-sized) with today’s MIPS capacity, or supercomputers the size of a sugar cube, possessing the power of a billion laptops, or a regular sized desktop model with the power of trillions of today’s PC’s.

The other aspect deals with scaling down existing technologies to the nanoscale, examples of which can be seen at our Current Uses page.

Some of the most promising potential of nanotechnology exists due to the laws of quantum physics. Quantum physics laws take over at this scale, enabling novel applications in optics, electronics, magnetic storage, computing, catalysts, and other areas.

Regardless of the diverse opinions on the rate at which nanotechnology will be implemented, people who make it a habit of keeping up with technology advances agree on this: it is a technology in its infancy, and it holds the potential to change everything.

Read this great Introduction from the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology for a better understanding of what nanotechnology is and is not, the social and business implications, and some steps being considered to control misuse.

Related and interwoven fields include, but are not limited to: Nanomaterials, Nanomedicine, Nanobiotechnology, Nanolithography, Nanoelectronics, Nanomagnetics, Nanorobots, Biodevices (biomolecular machinery), AI, MEMS (MicroElectroMechanical Systems), NEMS (NanoElectroMechanical Systems), Biomimetic Materials, Microencapsulation, and many others.

SIZE

Let’s start BIG, with something you can get your hands on (so to speak):

A meter is about the distance from the tip of your nose to the end of your hand (1 meter = 3.28 feet).

One thousandth of that is a millimeter.

Now take one thousandth of that, and you have a micron: a thousandth of a thousandth of a meter. Put another way: a micron is a millionth of a meter, which is the scale that is relevant to – for instance – building computers, computer memory, and logic devices.

Now, let’s go smaller, to the nanometer:

A nanometer is one thousandth of a micron, and a thousandth of a millionth of a meter (a billionth of a meter). Imagine: one billion nanometers in a meter.

Another perspective: a nanometer is about the width of six bonded carbon atoms, and approximately 40,000 are needed to equal the width of an average human hair.

Another way to visualize a nanometer:

1 inch = 25,400,000 nanometers

Red blood cells are ~7,000 nm in diameter, and ~2000 nm in height

White blood cells are ~10,000 nm in diameter

A virus is ~100 nm

A hydrogen atom is .1 nm

Nanoparticles range from 1 to 100 nm

Fullerenes (C60 / Buckyballs) are 1 nm

Quantum Dots (of CdSe) are 8 nm

Dendrimers are ~10 nm

DNA (width) is 2 nm

Proteins range from 5 to 50 nm

Viruses range from 75 to 100 nm

Bacteria range from 1,000 to 10,000 nm

For our purposes, nanometers pertain to science, technology, manufacturing, chemistry, health sciences, materials science, space programs, and engineering.

Nanotechnology is the understanding and control of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications. Encompassing nanoscale science, engineering and technology, nanotechnology involves imaging, measuring, modeling, and manipulating matter at this length scale.

At the nanoscale, the physical, chemical, and biological properties of materials differ in fundamental and valuable ways from the properties of individual atoms and molecules or bulk matter. Nanotechnology R&D is directed toward understanding and creating improved materials, devices, and systems that exploit these new properties.

From What is Nanotechnology?

Powers of 10 From 10-15 meters (a fermi), in steps of 10, to 10 -9 meters (nanometer), all the way out to 10 +16 meters (a lightyear), and finally, to 10 +23 meters (10 million light years). If you have not seen this really neat series of viewpoints, it can help to put scale into perspective!

“View the Milky Way at 10 million light years from the Earth. Then move through space towards the Earth in successive orders of magnitude until you reach a tall oak tree just outside the buildings of the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida. After that, begin to move from the actual size of a leaf into a microscopic world that reveals leaf cell walls, the cell nucleus, chromatin, DNA and finally, into the subatomic universe of electrons and protons.”

New Scientist has a great illustration on size.

Source : http:////www.nanotech-now.com/

What is Nanotechnology?

The term “nanotechnology” has evolved over the years via terminology drift to mean “anything smaller than microtechnology,” such as nano powders, and other things that are nanoscale in size, but not referring to mechanisms that have been purposefully built from nanoscale components. See our “Current Uses” page for examples. This evolved version of the term is more properly labeled “nanoscale bulk technology,” while the original meaning is now more properly labeled “molecular nanotechnology” (MNT), or “nanoscale engineering,” or “molecular mechanics,” or “molecular machine systems,” or “molecular manufacturing.” Recently, the Foresight Institute has suggested an alternate term to represent the original meaning of nanotechnology:

At the most basic technical level, MNT is building, with intent and design, and molecule by molecule, these two things: 1) incredibly advanced and extremely capable nano-scale and micro-scale machines and computers, and 2) ordinary size objects, using other incredibly small machines called assemblers or fabricators (found inside nanofactories). In a nutshell, by taking advantage of quantum-level properties, MNT allows for unprecedented control of the material world, at the nanoscale, providing the means by which systems and materials can be built with exacting specifications and characteristics. Or, as Dr. K. Eric Drexler puts it “large-scale mechanosynthesis based on positional control of chemically reactive molecules.”

MNT represents the state of the art in advances in biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, computer science and mathematics. The major research objectives in MNT are the design, modeling, and fabrication of molecular machines and molecular devices. The emergence of MNT – both infant and mature – has numerous social, legal, cultural, ethical, religious, philosophical and political implications.

At the most basic social level, MNT is going to be responsible for massive changes in the way we live, the way we interact with one another and our environment, and the things we are capable of doing.

For more information, read What is Nanotechnology? by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, this explanation from CORDIS for a “child’s eye view” of nanotechnology, and What is Nanotechnology? by Tim Harper. See also Introduction to Nanoscience by Prof. Vicki Colvin, Rice University Department of Chemistry and Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology. See also What is Nanotechnology? from LANL, and Dr. Mihail Roco’s presentation titled National Nanotechnology Initiative Overview from the 3rd Integrated Nanosystems Conference in Pasadena, California, held on September 22nd, 2004. (PDF)

For more information on the potential (both good and bad), see War, Interdependence, and Nanotechnology

For more information on a recent study devoted to the beneficial potential of nanotechnology Nanotechnology in Construction – one of the top ten answers to world’s biggest problems

At the end of the day, it is not the meaning behind the terms that is important, it is the fact that all the many definitions suggest that we have been and are on a rapidly accelerating technological rollercoaster, and rapid change is the track it rides.

Once MNT develops to the stage where we’ve built the two most essential machines – called the Universal Assembler and the Nanocomputer – everything has a near-term possibility of significant change.

“A key ingredient in understanding nanotechnology is realizing precisely what it is and what it isn’t. … we are talking about research and development in the length scale of .1 nanometers to 100 nanometers to create unique structures, devices, and systems. In many instances the actual structures, devices, and systems will be much larger, but they will be classified as nanotechnology due to the fact that they will either be created at the nanoscale or nanotechnology will enable them to perform new and/or improved functions.

Many materials, once they are individually reduced below 100 nanometers, begin displaying a set of unique characteristics based on quantum mechanical forces that are exhibited at the level. Due to these quantum mechanical effects, materials may become more conducting, be able to transfer heat better, or have modified mechanical properties.” From “The Next Big Thing Is Really Small: How Nanotechnology Will Change the Future of Your Business.”

Source:http://www.nanotech-now.com/