->PConnect(script.ftech.net,mi2gl,m4d2e,mi2gl)
 

Nano-Age: 3-D Sense Augmented Media

ATCA Briefings

London, UK - 12 December 2006, 00:39 GMT - We are grateful to Shekhar Kapur, based in London, England, and Mumbai, India, for "Nano-Age: 3-D Sense Augmented Media" for his response to to Dr Brent Segal based in Boston, USA, for his ATCA submission, "Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our Future or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age?"


ATCA: The Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance is a philanthropic expert initiative founded in 2001 to resolve complex global challenges through collective Socratic dialogue and joint executive action to build a wisdom based global economy. Adhering to the doctrine of non-violence, ATCA addresses opportunities and threats arising from climate chaos, radical poverty, organised crime & extremism, advanced technologies -- bio, info, nano, robo & AI, demographic skews, pandemics and financial systems. Present membership of ATCA is by invitation only and has over 5,000 distinguished members from over 100 countries: including several from the House of Lords, House of Commons, EU Parliament, US Congress & Senate, G10's Senior Government officials and over 1,500 CEOs from financial institutions, scientific corporates and voluntary organisations as well as over 750 Professors from academic centres of excellence worldwide.


Dear ATCA Colleagues; dear IntentBloggers

[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral. ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and threats.]

We are grateful to:

. Shekhar Kapur, based in London, England, and Mumbai, India, for "Nano-Age: 3-D Sense Augmented Media";
. Steven Clothier, based in Zurich, Switzerland, for "Facing the Triumph of Bio, Info & Nano (BIN) Technology over an enslaved Humanity?";
. Prof Nigel M de S Cameron, based in Chicago, Illinois, for "Why Nanotechnology represents the most significant paradigm shift!"; and
. Dr Alessandro Rospigliosi, based in London, England, and Turin, Italy, for "The Brave New World of NanoTechnology and its Impact on Academia, Business and Governments";

for their response to to Dr Brent Segal based in Boston, USA, for his ATCA submission, "Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our Future or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age?"

Shekhar Kapur, born 6 December 1945 in British India, is known as one of the globe's most critically acclaimed film directors and impresarios. He has directed noted films in both Bollywood and Hollywood. His works include Elizabeth (1998), a semi-historical account of the early reign of Queen Elizabeth I; it was nominated for 8 Oscars. Shekhar was the master behind the controversial film Bandit Queen that gained International attention when it was banned by the Indian Government. In 2000, he was awarded the Padma Shri by the Indian Government. Films directed by Shekhar Kapur include: Elizabeth, Bandit Queen, Masoom, Mr India, The Four Feathers, Elizabeth: The Golden Age (future release), 2020: Water Chaos (future release), The Last Full Measure (future release), Long Walk to Freedom (future release), The Buddha (in development). Kapur was also co-creator and executive producer of the Bollywood-themed Andrew Lloyd Webber musical Bombay Dreams, which has been running in the West End, London, since 2002, and on Broadway in New York City since 2004. His basic schooling was done at the Modern School, New Delhi. Kapur is a UK chartered accountant by training. Today Shekhar Kapur is widely hailed as the first 'Bollywood' director to cross over to Hollywood and bring with him the ancient continent's penchant for flare, music, drama, and epic story telling. He writes:

Dear DK and Colleagues

Re: Nano-Age: 3-D Sense Augmented Media


Just as we are getting used to the Digital Age, we are about to be overwhelmed by the 'Nano Age'. I have often wondered how that will affect me as a story teller/film director. I look at a Camera, which is really a passive recording device that 'reads' light as reflected by the observed object. Nano technology may soon bring to us an 'active recording device/camera. What might it be...?

Imagine a device that 'beams' (like radiation) millions (billions?) of Nano-particles. Each as small as a photon. Each nano particle 'reads' light, smell, temperature etc as they swirl around the area that they are beamed into. There may be nano particles that are specific, ie they are light sensitive, temperature sensitive or smell sensitive. They may bounce off the observed subject(s) and be 'touch sensitive' too, as they study textures.

Now imagine you have a big party scene, and as your actors are performing, the nano particles are swirling around and picking up information and constantly reflecting information back to the 'recording device', whatever that might be. You will walk away from the scene with enough information even from the back of the heads of the actors, every nook and corner of the room, the body temperature and even the perfume your actors are wearing. Not sure what I will do with all that information yet! Probably be totally confused, but the possibilities are enormous and a bit daunting.

But as I was thinking of this, it occurred to me that we may soon be engulfed by nano particles that are swirling around, beamed by not so benign an observer as a film director. It may be the proverbial 'Big Brother'! In which case there may be nothing about us that is not being recorded by someone, somewhere. What we are doing at any moment, what we smell like, what our body temperature might be. All will be tracked and known.

This would be Great if you are a heart patient for the computers at the hospital to keep track of you, but what if you are just wanting to do something completely private? Live in leaded rooms? Any scientists out there telling me that this is just my imagination going wild ?

Best wishes


Shekhar

ATCA Editor's Note: According to nanotechnology experts, we could one day in the near future make the kind of recording that Shekhar Kapur is suggesting come true. The computers and networks needed to process this kind of information are already being made in labs in the US, enabled by nanotechnology. Home network speeds approaching 1 Trillion bits per second (that is 1 followed by 12 zeros or 1,000 Giga bit/s) will be common place by 2020. Such networks will be able to carry and to allow processing of the immense volume of data from 3D sense augmented media.

[ENDS]

-----Original Message-----
From: Intelligence Unit
Sent: 02 December 2006 08:47
To: 'atca.members@mi2g.com'
Subject: Response: Facing the Triumph of Bio, Info & Nano (BIN) Technology over an enslaved Humanity? Clothier; NanoTechnology represents paradigm shift! Prof Cameron; Dr Rospigliosi; Dr Segal

Dear ATCA Colleagues

[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral. ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and threats.]

We are grateful to:

. Steven Clothier, based in Zurich, Switzerland, for "Facing the Triumph of Bio, Info & Nano (BIN) Technology over an enslaved Humanity?";
. Prof Nigel M de S Cameron, based in Chicago, Illinois, for "Why Nanotechnology represents the most significant paradigm shift!"; and
. Dr Alessandro Rospigliosi, based in London, England, and Turin, Italy, for "The Brave New World of NanoTechnology and its Impact on Academia, Business and Governments";

for their response to to Dr Brent Segal based in Boston, USA, for his ATCA submission, "Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our Future or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age?"

Stephen Clothier is Chief Executive of Accurity Group, a boutique Swiss based group of companies in the emerging area of international technology outsourcing, a position he has held for the past six years. Trained as a Space Physicist and a Naval Officer, his experience covers a mixture of international technical consulting and research in a wide variety of areas: from NASA and ESA to Airlines, Finance and Defence. Until recently he was Co-Chairman of the Technology Forum of the British Swiss Chamber of Commerce, and is a Chartered Engineer, Member of the British Computer Society and Fellow of the Institute of Analysts and Programmers. He writes:

Dear DK and Colleagues

Re: Facing the Triumph of Bio, Info & Nano (BIN) Technology over an enslaved Humanity?


I am prompted by the fascinating discussion about research funding that has emerged around nanotechnology to respond with an observation:

Since at least the late twentieth century the world seems to have changed from one where we lacked the technology to meet the needs of our perceived vision of a desirable world, to one where the 21st century technology we have exceeds (in many areas such as bio, info and nano) our ability to understand and control how we use it. In fact our vision of a desirable world is now driven by technology -- no longer vice versa.

Are we then becoming ideological slaves to our technology, not its master? If so this slavery is building momentum and disrupting (perhaps killing) our vision of humanity based on longstanding spiritual, moral, historical and human concepts and values. As humankind we seem to be losing our ability to control our lives from within, something we have taken thousands of years to achieve through freeing ourselves from circumstances, mastering our dependence on the external environment -- which we feel differentiates us from animals. To me this loss is dangerous - technology is a tool, not a philosophy for life.

More than ever, if we are not to "lose our bearings" in a world racing with technological growth, now must be the time to strengthen our human, moral and spiritual model - to strengthen our society, our politics, our humanity in order to keep our use of technology in context, to decide what we want and believe, and not let technology decide for us - intellectually we need to take charge.

So is it not at this very time that, far from targeting our efforts through funding on specific "mechanistic" research that provides specific results, we should be spending even more on those areas that do not pay back with specific results, such as humanities, history, religious study and philosophy - those very areas that our distinguished colleagues have identified as in great danger of serious neglect, and atrophy?

Best wishes


Stephen Clothier

[ENDS]

-----Original Message-----
From: Intelligence Unit
Sent: 25 November 2006 23:05
To: 'atca.members@mi2g.com'
Subject: Response: Why Nanotechnology represents the most significant paradigm shift! Prof Cameron; Brave New World of NanoTechnology - Dr Rospigliosi; Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age? - Dr Segal

Dear ATCA Colleagues

[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral. ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and threats.]

We are grateful to:

. Prof Nigel M de S Cameron, based in Chicago, Illinois, for "Why Nanotechnology represents the most significant paradigm shift!"; and
. Dr Alessandro Rospigliosi, based in London, England, and Turin, Italy, for "The Brave New World of NanoTechnology and its Impact on Academia, Business and Governments";

for their response to to Dr Brent Segal based in Boston, USA, for his ATCA submission, "Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our Future or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age?"

Professor Nigel M de S Cameron is Director of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society (nano-and-society.org) at the Illinois Institute of Technology, where he is Research Professor of Bioethics, an Associate Dean at Chicago-Kent College of Law, and President of its affiliated Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future. Originally from the UK, he has studied at Cambridge and Edinburgh universities and the Edinburgh Business School. His chief interest lies in the implications of emerging technologies for policy and human values. He has served as bioethics adviser on US diplomatic delegations to the United Nations General Assembly and UNESCO, and was recently an invited US participant in the US Department of State/European Commission Perspectives on the Future of Science and Technology consultation in Varenna, Italy. He is a member of the United States National Commission for UNESCO, and of the advisory boards of the Converging Technologies Bar Association, the Nano Law and Business Journal, the World Healthcare Innovation and Technology Congress, and 2020Health (UK).

Professor Cameron has been Randall Distinguished Lecturer in Biomedical Ethics at the American Physiological Society, a Scholar-in-Residence at UBS Wolfsberg, and given expert testimony to committees of the US Congress, the UK Parliament, and the European Parliament. He has addressed the European Commission's European Group on Ethics on ethical issues in nanomedicine. He has recently been a featured speaker at the Aspen Ideas Institute (on science and technology policy issues), the World Healthcare Innovation and Technology Congress (nanotechnology and the future of medicine) and Frost and Sullivan's Industry Outlook and Growth Strategies conference (emerging technologies, values and policy). His edited book, Nanotechnology and Society: Issues and Perspectives, is due next spring from John Wiley. He writes:

Dear DK and Colleagues

Re: Why Nanotechnology represents the most significant paradigm shift!

Brent Segal in his helpful overview of the emerging implications of nanotechnology manages to understate the situation in his careful summary statement: "The promise of nanotechnology represents perhaps one of the most significant paradigm shifts that the world can expect to see this century." Even allowing for the hype with which the more enthusiastic advocates, and more astringent critics, of nanotechnology have pressed their respective cases, there does not seem to be any "perhaps" or "one of" about it. The technological revolution that will result from the driving down of discovery, invention, and engineering to the nanoscale is set not only to reframe every sector of industry, and to raise profound questions for our notions of privacy and defense, but potentially (and disturbingly) to threaten the human project itself. As so often, there is a thin line separating promise and threat.

1. The essential question that needs to be noted is of course that "nanotechnology" is not a "technology" like others. The reference of the term is to scale, and it is already used to embrace everything from particulate matter to dramatic innovations such as carbon nanotubes and nanoshells -- to the prospect of "molecular nanotechnology," the code-word for Eric Drexler's futuristic vision of molecular "assemblers" (celebrated in different ways in Neil Stephenson's fine 1995 novel The Diamond Age and Michael Crichton's more recent thriller Prey, and resembling nothing less than the achievement of a new alchemy). While molecular nanotechnology has not so far been considered for funding by the US National Nanotechnology Initiative, a change in policy is one of the more interesting (and bizarre?) recommendations of the National Research Council's Congressionally-mandated triennial review (just published).

The focus on scale is one reason why discussions of nanotechnology have been bedevilled by the lack of a generally-accepted definition of the term (must the scale apply to one dimension, or more? What is the relevancy of nanoscale particulate matter? One phrase widely used by the National Science Foundation in grant offerings focuses on "active nanostructures and nanosystems"). It is to be hoped that the several standards agencies will soon resolve this among other definitional questions.

In fact, the term "nanotechnology" has begun to function less as the name of a particular technology than as that of a brand. While it may simply die out at some future point (when so much is done on the nanoscale that the term becomes redundant), the several elements of risk already present in particular applications of the technology have this added: that they are linked together by powerful branding. The recent German "Magic Nano" scare (a bathroom cleaner sent people to hospital, though it would seem it was no more nano than it was magic) offered a welcome reminder of the problems that this brand development may cause (especially in the post-GMO market-place well-known to Europeans, though surprisingly little-known even to well-informed US observers).

2. Dr Rospigliosi is entirely correct to draw attention to the changing patterns and needs at the interface of public funding, research, and industry that are focused by developments in nanotechnology. They are not of course specific to nano, though the high levels of directed nano spending that have in some measure resulted from the hyped claims of enthusiasts have themselves drawn the attention of policymakers to issues of product development and, relatedly, claims of specific beneficial applications (such as the US National Cancer Institute's claim, extraordinary by any account, that by 2015 cancer will be at worst a chronic condition). Policymakers are aware that the last great public science project - the mapping of the human genome - has not led to the kind of clinical applications that had been forecast. It is inevitable that as budgets come under increasing pressure - especially for demographic and healthcare reasons - research expenditures will tend to be tied more closely to outcomes.

Those in the academy will find this unpalatable, but it may be that the massive post-War expansion of public science (associated in the US especially with the work of Vannevar Bush), while in no danger of ending, may be expected to shift more of its resources to focused outcomes. The comparatively recent ability of university researchers (noted by Dr Rospigliosi) to profit from their IP, while it has proved to have merit, may finally prove to have helped destabilize the public science model. In democracies in which increasing expenditures and hopes are being directed at publicly-funded science, the post-War model of government as VC of last resort (dramatically illustrated by current nanotechnology initiatives, especially in the US, European and Japan) may take on new forms, one of which may prove to be a creeping dirigisme.

A parallel concern is presented by the problem of hyped claims and expectations: as Nobelist Sir Paul Nurse noted of the NCI 2015 claim in a recent issue of the New Yorker, when this promise fails (as, he suggested, it surely will) public confidence in public science will be undermined. This, like other highly specific future claims being made (in the US, by some leaders of the National Science Foundation) could threaten the entire public-science model (there is even a book - a long book - with the title Nano-Hype). If it is the case, as some of us believe, that issues of science and technology policy will become increasingly prominent in the politics of the next generation, much will depend on our capacity to reshape the post-War model in ways that are not deleterious to the interests of long-term research.

3. One of the greatest uncertainties is underlined by Dr Rospigliosi in his discussion of the growing dependence of western nations on immigrant researchers. Will the nano revolution enhance globalization and flatten the planet further, or will the so-called "nano-divide" result in a further accretion of competitive advantage to existing industrial powers and a heightening of present global inequities of income and opportunity? I was recently taking part in an international workshop on the societal implications of the technology; someone made the point - often made on these occasions - that we may soon have nanoscale technology solutions for the problem of clean water, with the prospect of an end to one of the grimmest of all global inequities. The more naïve nano-implication discussions tend to take this form. My response was that (a) the provision of clean water is a policy issue for the developed nations: with political will it could be resolved in large measure now; and (b) what if the researcher who comes up with the magic bullet decides to exercise his or her IP rights and squats on the patent for 20 years? Technology contributes to solutions; it does not generally provide them. Whether this technology levels the globe or leads to further orogenesis is entirely unclear; as things stand, immigrant researchers notwithstanding, it is likely to develop in the existing social and economic context and strengthen rather than subvert the status quo. Which is not to suggest that we should work for subversion, but to draw attention to the need to develop approaches that transcend, and not rely on "technology" to solve our problems of political will and social responsibility.

4. Dr Segal notes the problem of "fear and ignorance" and the kind of critiques that have been made of nanotechnology, especially the so-called "grey goo" scenario (in which molecular-scale machines run out of control and end up turning the planet into, well, goo). This scenario was popularized by Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy in his (in)famous and remarkable essay in the April, 2000 issue of Wired, "Why the Future doesn't need us." Alongside the "grey goo" scenario he posited another, which many of us found more convincing and certainly more troubling: that artificial intelligence will either create superior beings who will become our masters, or that we will "enhance" our intelligence using a machine model in which our essential humanity is left behind. The emergence of "transhumanists" (sci-fi enthusiasts, some with serious intellectual credentials) who believe our prime task is to transform ourselves into a post-human form of existence, has had the effect of adding further risk to the nano "brand" (since they claim it as their own).

Key administrators at the US National Science Foundation in 2002 published a conference report which included and advocated some of these perspectives, and sufficiently troubled the European Commission that it published what was in effect a lengthy rebuttal of what was deemed (somewhat inaccurately, since the 2002 document did not reflect policy) to be the "American" approach. Indeed, the 2003 act of Congress that reset the parameters of the National Nanotechnology Initiative specifically expressed concern about AI and the enhancement of human intelligence. The fact that the recent National Research Council report (noted above) chose hubristically to evade these questions (despite the specific request from Congress) illustrates the uneasy character of the emerging debate about the goals of the "converging technologies" that meet on the nanoscale, and how research and development relate to the common good. It is plainly in the vital interests of researchers and industry alike that these questions be ventilated both candidly and upstream of the main applications of the technology.

Best regards


Nigel

[ENDS]

-----Original Message-----
From: Intelligence Unit
Sent: 24 November 2006 23:19
To: 'atca.members@mi2g.com'
Subject: Response: Brave New World of NanoTechnology (NT) and its Impact on Academia, Business & Governments - Rospigliosi; Femto-Glimpse into Our Future / Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age? - Segal


Dear ATCA Colleagues

[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral. ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and threats.]

We are grateful to Dr Alessandro Rospigliosi, based in London, England, and Turin, Italy, for his response "The Brave New World of NanoTechnology and its Impact on Academia, Business and Governments" to Dr Brent Segal based in Boston, USA, for his ATCA submission, "Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our Future or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age?"

Dr Alessandro Rospigliosi joined Ludgate Investments, a private equity group specializing in green technology companies, in June 2006 as Scientific Research Analyst. He graduated in Chemical (with Biochemical Engineering) from University College London (UCL) in 2001 and then obtained a Gates Scholarship for a PhD in molecular electronics at Cambridge University, England. This involved working on an interdisciplinary project that covered areas of synthetic chemistry, physics and material sciences. He has presented his scientific work at several conferences (in the US and Europe) and is in the process of publishing the results of his thesis.

Dr Rospigliosi has participated at several Model United Nations conferences as delegate and head of delegation. During his time at Cambridge he co-founded and was the treasurer of the Cambridge University Technology and Enterprise Club (CUTEC) which in 2004 organized the first student-run, CMI (Cambridge MIT Institute)-sponsored Private Equity and Venture Capital conference in the London Guildhall. This conference has become an annual event which provides a platform for researchers, entrepreneurs and academics to meet investors and government officials. Partly due to this conference and personal contacts Alessandro entered the world of private equity. His other interests include skiing and sailing. He writes:

Dear DK and Colleagues

Re: The Brave New World of NanoTechnology and its Impact on Academia, Business and Governments


My attention was drawn to Dr Segal's ATCA comments on the current state of research in NanoTechnology (NT). Rather than a purely scientific comment on the current state of this field of research, my response aims at presenting an objective view from "within" the research world and gives some thought to a key point Dr Segal mentioned in his original ATCA submission: the necessity for a new, evolved class of interdisciplinary managerial-scientists and for support from legislative and executive powers if Western countries (and the US/EU in particular) want to remain at the forefront of scientific innovation in the future.

I certainly agree with Dr Segal that it is inevitable that NT will influence our world in numerous ways: from the development of novel nanoscopic computer chips to biosensors, from the advances made in material sciences to the creation of labs-on-a-chip. The possibility of designing molecules to give them a desired property or properties opens-up a real "Brave New World" for scientists and mankind.

Miniaturisation has been a Leitmotiv of human progress and in particular, with respect to integrated circuit elements, has followed the so-called Moore's law, which (back in the 60s) anticipated that the number of transistors on a chip would double approximately every 18 months. An alternative to the traditional technique of "top-down" miniaturisation, is to start with the study of single molecules in order to investigate how these can be used to create more complex circuit elements ("bottom-up"). This new approach to research has been made possible due to the widespread commercialization of instruments that allow the study of nanometre-sized samples: the Atomic Force and the Scanning Tunnelling Microscopes (AFM and STM), Scanning Electron Microscopes (SEM) and other scanning probe devices. Such instruments have made it possible for humankind to deepen our understanding in so many areas, such as biochemistry, solid state physics, supramolecular chemistry and protein science.

Having spent almost three years working on the synthetic modification of short DNA strands to prove that their electron conduction properties could be altered enough to turn this biopolymer into a "molecular wire" I have witnessed how difficult it is, not only to perform the modifications, but also to purify such DNA analogues. Human DNA intrinsically is not a good electron conductor - otherwise solar radiation would alter our genetic code at an alarming rate. During my PhD, I managed to show that a slight, but noticeable difference could be made by altering several bases on a double stranded oligonucleotide. However, the technical difficulty of making reliable and reproducible measurement of DNA filaments at the sub-100 nm (nanometre) level is still quite serious. Therefore, we should be careful not to over-estimate the immediate impact of NT. The main commercialised products that have come out in recent years have been linked to nanoparticles in paints and colouring agents.

Most of the excitement over NT relates to the discoveries and observations that many of the rules for materials in the bulk scale no longer apply when dealing with nanoparticles. At these dimensions, the effects we learn about in quantum mechanics cannot be neglected (as often done when modelling bulky large scale reactions and properties). For example, under certain conditions non-conducting materials can become conductive or ordinarily non-magnetic materials can become magnetic.

Also, in many NT projects it is no longer possible to perform experiments at room temperature, in air, at atmospheric pressure and under ambient conditions, because most materials are air-, light- and temperature-sensitive and need to be kept under an inert atmosphere or in high vacuum. To make progress, very specialised and expensive equipment and knowledge of the underlying physics and chemistry are needed.

That is why many governments, led by the USA, UK and Germany, but also Japan, India, China and Malaysia have announced they would increase funding (in some cases up to astronomical sums) for certain specific NT projects. However, funding alone is not going to create miracles. There is a need for an independent body that can ease the dialogue between academia, governments and research institutes in order to ensure that research money is used efficiently and that "good" conditions for research are created. A relatively new breed of human resources is needed to fulfil this task: a class of managerial-scientists capable of coordinating the efforts (and needs) of specialists in different subject areas across international borders. In some cases, for example, it is necessary to link experts from fields as diverse as quantum physics, theoretical and organic chemistry with specialists in biochemistry and proteomics. Although there are many institutions that have been created for this purpose it is not an easy task, because scientists that have worked life-long in one area typically find it difficult to interact and work efficiently with researchers in other disciplines. It is obvious that managing such a wide variety of experts requires a coordinator that has enough understanding of all subject areas to guide a fruitful project. At the same time these new "managers" must appreciate the commercial reality around a particular project if they are to exploit these for financial return.

There are a number of issues I would like to enumerate in relation to the challenges science and research institutions are faced with nowadays which impact future business and government policy:

· Although we can see that occasionally governments announce spending in very specific commercially-oriented research projects, the overall trend (particularly obvious in France and Italy over the past few years) is that less public money is given to academic institutions as a whole. This could have several detrimental consequences for those departments that do not work on potentially commercialisable and revenue-oriented research (ie humanities). Therefore universities and other publicly-funded institutions need to find their own source of revenue. The generation of cash flow could be created by successfully commercialised university spin-offs. If well-managed, a few such companies can produce enough revenue (through royalties and capital gain) for such institutions to compensate for declining government funding and eventually replace it altogether. This is a possible means of financing the increasing costs of research and of "unprofitable" departments (such as the arts, music, literature, languages, history and philosophy, etc...).

· Planning and timing is of the essence. Proper planning, timing and funding are fundamental points when running a company, a research institute or, even more so in recent years, a university. Huge amounts of money, effort and time are often wasted due to poor planning strategies because, particularly with novel, interdisciplinary research the accountability of research supervisors is not very strict - rightly to give them the necessary freedom to perform uncertain yet possibly ground-braking research. But this freedom needs to be guided by knowledgeable and integral managers if misuse is to be avoided.

· The requirements put on research supervisors have become unsustainable: Professors are facing ever increasing administrative tasks (such as knowing and complying with extremely detailed health and safety regulations, writing research proposals, general laboratory management requirements and organising conferences) which take-up so much of their time, that very little is left for their original duties (teaching and supervising). It therefore seems strange that even at the best research institutions tasks are not divided in order to alleviate the burden of non-research related duties.

· Indirectly linked to the above is a commonly accepted rule that researchers should be the ones presenting their work at conferences and, if their intellectual property (IP) can be commercialised, they should exploit it to found a start-up company. However, they may not necessarily be the most suited individuals to perform these tasks, because poor presentational, managerial, social and occasionally language skills often downgrade excellent pieces of work.

· Restructuring these institutions and the underlying mentality is not an easy task, but if countries that have benefited from leading research institutes do not want to lose their advantageous position they will have to re-formulate their strategy.

· Dependence: It is a matter of fact that today in the UK a vast proportion of research students and post-doctorate workers in many science departments (just as the great number of foreign business professionals working in the City of London) are non UK-citizens. This has created a serious dependence on foreign well-educated and qualified workers.

· Whilst during the past decades the US and the UK attracted bright and capable workforces on the one hand due to very good remuneration and on the other hand because they were being offered career opportunities they did not have in their home countries, as a former head of the EC directorate for science and research -- Prof Andreta -- recently stated at an Innovation and business conference: "Top scientists from developing nations are starting to move back to their countries of origin, even from prestigious institutions". He quoted a statistic that over the past two years approximately 8,000 researchers from Asian countries left (even Institutes like Caltech and MIT) to go back to their counties of origin, because for similar wages and working conditions they prefer to work in their home countries.

Given the role played by technological innovation in maintaining USA, Britain and France's role as world-class players and given that Britain and France have played a role in maintaining the "balance of power" since the 17th century, it is surprising that some of these points seems to have escaped the attention of the ruling elite in those countries as well.

I hope this will stimulate a controversial, yet positive, discussion on ATCA and wish you all the best.

Yours


Alessandro Rospigliosi

[ENDS]

-----Original Message-----
From: Intelligence Unit
Sent: 26 June 2006 09:20
To: 'atca.members@mi2g.com'
Subject: ATCA: Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our Future or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age? Dr Bent Segal


Dear ATCA Colleagues

[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral. ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and threats.]

We are grateful to Dr Brent Segal from Boston, USA, for his submission to ATCA, "Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our Future or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age?"

Dr Brent M Segal is a Co-founder and part-time Chief Operating Officer of Nantero, a leading Nanotechnology company where he oversees operations roles focusing on partnerships, involving companies such as LSI Logic, BAE Systems and ASML. He continues to assist Nantero with intellectual property management and government programmes involving the US Navy and various agencies. He is also a General Partner at Atomic Venture Partners where he focuses on investments involving early stage technology with explosive growth potential. Some of his primary areas of expertise include Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, Semiconductors and Nanotechnology. He was previously a member of Echelon Ventures of Burlington, Massachusetts. Dr Segal received his PhD in Chemistry from Harvard University in 2000 and has published more than 20 articles in journals including Journal of the American Chemical Society, Inorganic Chemistry, and various IEEE publications, including one in which Nantero was named one of the top ten companies for the next ten years. He is a graduate of Reed College, with a degree in Biochemistry.

Dr Segal is frequently invited to speak at conferences and seminars such as COMDEX, NANOTECH 2005 and the annual National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) meeting on the topic of nanotechnology intellectual property creation and management to move Nanotechnology from the laboratory to fabrication. He is an active member of the steering committee of the Massachusetts Nanotechnology Initiative (MNI), executive member of the Massachusetts NanoExchange (MNE) and a member of the New England Nanomanufacturing Centre for Enabling Tools (NENCET) Industrial Advisory Board and a member of the planning board for Nanotech 2006. He sits on the Board of Directors of Coretomic, of Burlington, Vermont and ENS Biopolymer, Inc of Cambridge, Massachusetts. He was a Research Associate at Nycomed Salutar, Inc where he secured several new patents involving novel X-ray contrast agents for medical imaging. He is co-author of over 80 patents and applications and has worked extensively on intellectual property creation and protection issues at both Nycomed and Metaprobe. In his spare time he enjoys theatre, ballet, NFL football, specifically monitoring the 49ers which stems from his Bay Area roots and Menlo Park education, and wine sampling. He writes:

Dear DK and Colleagues

Re: Nanotechnology 2006: A Femto-Glimpse into Our Future or Nano-Hegemony Coming of Age?

The contribution of technological innovation to the world economy is well documented with estimates that it may be responsible for as much as 50% of economic growth over the past 50 years. As the silicon age reaches maturity, Moore's law coming to an end as documented by Gordon Moore himself, what will be the next game-changing technology to emerge? With populations aging worldwide and healthcare costs spiralling literally out of control, is there a saviour on the horizon? Which technology segment has the US government been investing more than USD 1 billion per year and the EU, Japan, China and other countries are globally investing over USD 6 billion per year? What will become the next paradigm shift to impact the technology component of a growing economy? Could it be Nanotechnology?

Perhaps the first vision of nanotechnology was first described in a lecture titled, 'There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom' in 1959 by Richard P Feynman. Feynman theorized that with the proper toolset, individual atoms or molecules could be manipulated. The reality of such tools from companies like FEI and Veeco are now commonplace amongst scientists and engineers alike signalling the beginning of the nanotechnology era.

Introduction to Nanotechnology


The US government has defined Nanotechnology as the understanding and control of matter at dimensions of roughly 1 to 100 nanometres, where unique phenomena enable novel applications. Encompassing nanoscale science, engineering and technology, nanotechnology involves imaging, measuring, modelling, and manipulating matter at this length scale. What does this really mean?

An easier way to understand nanotechnology is to consider the three categories which may include nanotechnology defined by dimension; nanotechnology defined by properties and effects; and nanotechnology defined by fabrication.

To companies such as Intel which state that they entered the Nanotechnology era in 2000 "when [we] began volume production of chips with sub-100nm length transistors" one can easily understand the meaning of nanotechnology by dimension. Simply taking advantage of lithographic patterning via scaling of transistors from micron-sized (microtechnology) to less than 100 nanometres yields faster, more powerful computer chips with more features per unit area.

Other companies such as Nantero also in the semiconductor space, making non-volatile memory using Carbon Nano Tubes (CNT) that promise to replace all other forms of memory in what is over a USD 100 billion market utilize new materials but most importantly take advantage of properties such as van der Waal's interactions. The Dutch physicist and chemist, Johannes Diderik van der Waals was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1910 for his work to describe intermolecular forces later named after him.

The last definition of nanotechnology by fabrication which involves molecular-scale generation of nanotechnological machines described by Eric Drexler in his 1986 book Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. Most chemists, physicists and nanotechnologists would generally describe this concept as nanotechnology by fantasy especially surrounding the term "gray goo" which describes hypothetical self-replicating molecular machines reproducing out of control. For example the late Professor Richard Smalley, Nobel Prize winner and discoverer of "buckyballs", one of the most important discoveries of a new chemical entity in many decades, debated Drexler in a series of letters in the American Chemical Society journal Chemical and Engineering News delineating the improbability of generating nanoscopic robots of the form Drexler envisioned.

History of Nanotechnology

While Nanotechnology may seem mysterious and accessible solely by rocket scientists, chemists and physicists, the first reported human nanotechnologists may have been the lustre ceramics encapsulated within Abbasid tiles imported from Syria and placed in the mihrab of the Sidi Oqba Mosque in Kairouan, Tunisia. The tiny gratings generated within the pottery cause colour changes from blue to red upon illumination with white light at various angles. To understand the size of nanotechnological materials some context would be helpful. For example CNTs are best described as a rolled up sheet of graphite with a diameter of 1 nanometre or 1 X 10-9 meters (about 100,000 times smaller than a human hair) with a macroscopic length up to several millimetres by some accounts. To put this in context another nanotechnological material with a 2.5 nanometre diameter and a macroscopic length of at least many microns called DNA might be more familiar to most people.

Challenges in Nanotechnology


Accessing new products utilizing nanotechnology such as implantable devices that automatically administer drugs, real time diagnostics for physicians, cooling chips to replace compressors in cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, sensors for airborne chemicals or other toxins, photovoltaics (solar cells), fuel cells and portable power to provide inexpensive, clean energy, and new high-performance materials and coatings presents challenges which are significant. While the internet era involved relatively small amounts of capital to enter the field, the nanotechnology era involves large amounts of capital mostly in the form of tools and fabrication facilities. Some of the first implementations of nanotechnology have come in the materials space where neither expensive chip fabrication nor FDA approval, for example are required.

Another limiting factor in nanotechnology involves the workforce and its mindset. Most of the workforce in modern society is collected into silos via specialization. In fact specialization and "the assembly line" are credited with the efficiencies that have led to modern capitalism which can no doubt lead to a significant discussion about Democracy, Nationalism and even religion. Nanotechnology, however, represents a significant deviation from the status quo, and the requirement for specific combinations of disciplines in order to achieve developmental success. No longer can a physicist or chemist study in isolation. The new era of nanotechnology is already bringing biologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, medical doctors and many other technical specialists together to exchange thoughts and ideas whose combination will yield the discoveries characterized as nanotechnology. In a society where we value being the "expert" at one thing only, will we produce a workforce capable of such thinking? The country that is most quickly able to create this new breed of "specialized generalists" will likely enjoy tremendous economic success.

So now we move to the concept of "nano-hegemony" in a world which has recognized the benefits of a future with nanotechnology and a fear of a future without it! CNTs, for example, were discovered not in the United States but rather in Japan by Professor Sumio Iijima at NEC in 1991. Many of the nanotechnology discoveries using measurements such as scientific papers and patent applications are occurring in Asia, Europe and the Unites States in nearly equal numbers. Nearly every major industrialized nation is now working on some form of nanotechnology program and no fewer than 100 well-recognized major companies have significant development programs.

Potential threats from Nanotechnology


Now we turn to the potential threats that nanotechnology could pose. Indeed the threats to society from "gray goo" are overstated, bordering on absurd but real threats could exist. One concern in particular has to do with environmental health and safety from the introduction of new materials into so many new products. Certainly new regulations and requirements will emerge as we begin to understand the risks involved in nanotechnology. Some information exists already which should not be ignored. For example iron oxide nanoparticles of various sizes tend to show up as part of what is commonly termed "rust" while titanium oxide nanoparticles are quite safely used in many forms of sunscreens with significant data on their safety.

One of the greatest threats posed by nanotechnology emanates from fear and ignorance which lead to irrational behaviour. Movies and books which encourage paranoia cannot be overestimated as sources. The experience of the EU with biotechnology in the 1990s represents one potential outcome should proper education and awareness of nanotechnology not proceed with alacrity.

Conclusions

The promise of nanotechnology represents perhaps one of the most significant paradigm shifts that the world can expect to see this century. This shift will be different from others in that its entrance will be pervasive in nearly every industry yet without the obvious fanfare experienced by other technologies that have come before because many of the first entrants will be in the form of significant improvements to existing products. Nanotechnology will spawn a debate about world power, capitalism, specialization and democracy as it increases in prominence. Will you be ready?

Best regards


Brent

[ENDS]

We look forward to your further thoughts, observations and views. Thank you.

Best wishes


For and on behalf of DK Matai, Chairman, Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance (ATCA)


ATCA: The Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance is a philanthropic expert initiative founded in 2001 to resolve complex global challenges through collective Socratic dialogue and joint executive action to build a wisdom based global economy. Adhering to the doctrine of non-violence, ATCA addresses opportunities and threats arising from climate chaos, radical poverty, organised crime & extremism, advanced technologies -- bio, info, nano, robo & AI, demographic skews, pandemics and financial systems. Present membership of ATCA is by invitation only and has over 5,000 distinguished members from over 100 countries: including several from the House of Lords, House of Commons, EU Parliament, US Congress & Senate, G10's Senior Government officials and over 1,500 CEOs from financial institutions, scientific corporates and voluntary organisations as well as over 750 Professors from academic centres of excellence worldwide.


Intelligence Unit | mi2g | tel +44 (0) 20 7712 1782 fax +44 (0) 20 7712 1501 | internet www.mi2g.net
mi2g: Winner of the Queen's Award for Enterprise in the category of Innovation

[ENDS]

mi2g is at the leading edge of building secure on-line banking, broking and trading architectures. The principal applications of its technology are: 1. D2-Banking; 2. Digital Risk Management; and 3. Bespoke Security Architecture. For more information about mi2g, please visit: www.mi2g.net

Renowned worldwide for the ATCA Briefings. Subscribe now.
 
Home - Profile - Values - People - Careers - Partners - Contact Us
D2 Banking - Bespoke Security Architecture - Digital Risk Management - Tools

Intelligence Briefings - Brochures - Case Studies -
SIPS Methodology FAQ (pdf)
Keynote Speeches - Articles - News Feeds - Glossary (pdf)
Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy