Nanotechnology: the Good, the Bad, the Hyperbole

pillageplunder writes "A very informative interview with Kristen Kulinowski who is an executive Director at the Federally funded Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University. A good well balanced read."

Comments

Nanotech is already here...

[StevenMaurer]

You have it in your PCs and disk drives. This form of nanotech has a bright future.

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

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

Re:Nanotech is already here...

[Mr. Slippery]

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

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

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

Not much said

[Ra5pu7in]

She sure didn't say much, but then the questions weren't exactly thought provoking and the answers were likely trimmed for space. I am glad there is attention and concern about the long-term affects of nanomachines, rather than complete focus on the short-term results possible.

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

They are doing solid research for now...

[innerweb]

... but once business gets a hold on it, that idea will be laid to rest. Heck, why worry about nanos when we already have increasing lead, mercury and other toxins to deal with? Just another way to destroy the planet.

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

InnerWeb

GM Food & NanoTech

[sciop101]

Nanotech could go the way of Genetically Modified Foods. It never harmed anybody, but the Public fears the New & Different. The New Luddites will feed the fear with hyperbole.

"A good, balanced read"?

[Deskpoet]

The interview of a person who's self-stated goal is to "to draw attention to proactive, responsible development" (i.e. media flack functionary) appears in Businessweek, a magazine with a natural pro-business "bias", and you call it "a good, balanced read"? So I imagine you decide (affirmatively) that Fox news is fair and balanced, as well.

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

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

Where's Scientific American when you need it?