Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nanotechnology: the Good, the Bad, the Hyperbole

Posted by michael on from the grey-goo dept.

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."

7 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Michael Crichton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How can Michael Crichton get away with something so un-scientific like Prey?
    Did he read _anything_ about nano-technology?

    These types of books really fuel the "cure all" mystique surrounding nanotech, don't you think?

    Howabout Diamond Age? Probably same deal. :(

  2. DNA Robot Walks by mgoulding · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Speaking of nanotechnology - some chemists at NYU have made a walking DNA robot. Read about it here.

  3. Wishlist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Reply with your wishlist of what you want nanotech to do in the future.

    Here's mine:
    - "Atomically" precise manufacturing, for the cost of energy and material.
    - Greatly improved materials research.
    - Ultra cheap and efficient solar cells.
    - Recycle nearly anything for raw materials.

  4. Re:Nanotech is already here... by Acy+James+Stapp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Self-assembly is probably a long way away. But an automated 'Assembler' that can create many structures (at least diamondoid structures) is most likely completely feasible. The physics and chemistry have been laid out rather well in Eric Drexler's excellent 'Nanosystems'. Noone, including Dr. Smalley, has so far managed to provide any evidence that Drexler's assembler is not feasible.

    Of course, self-assembly is more difficult. For the initial assemblers, raw material processing, waste processing (what little there will be), energy gathering, etc. will all be more easily solved as seperate, bulk mechanical systems (although potentially perfectly manufactured by an assembler).

    As an aside, Nanosystems also goes into some detail on failure mechanisms and failure rates. You can expect nanomanufactured artifacts to have extremely long lifetimes, especially for human-scale devices.

    --
    -- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
  5. Near Nanotech Future by pr0t0 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I just started looking into going to grad school for Materials Science Engineering. I called a local thinktank and spoke with their Advanced Materials guy. He told me that one bright area for nanotech for the foreseeable future is how it applies to homeland security. He told me about a researcher creating a material that gave a visible reaction in the presence of various noxious chemicals.

    He also said many in the field are thinking carbon will be the Next Big Thing(tm). Just as steel was in the 1800's and silicon has been for the last 30 or so years, Carbon will be for the next 30+ years.

    --
    I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
  6. Re:Nanotech is already here... by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    Actually, I read an article about a new manufacturing process to make hi-res monitors/tvs where they essentially poor a liquid component over a backing material and it then 'grows' itself into crystalized tubes that will route light similar to fiber optic cabling, only much, much smaller.

    They could make the tubes before, but the trouble was getting them all perfectly aligned to emit the light out in the same direction. With this process they would all grow 90 degrees from the mounting surface.

    It will allow for the creation of monitors that are something like 3-4 times the pixel density of plasma HDTVs, and cost int he hundreds of dollars for a 42" rather than the thousands.

    If I recall, the hold up was making the electronics to control it. I'm gonna see if I can find that article now...

    Rob

    Press release from a manufacturer

    ZDNet article about the underlying NanoTube technology

    Still can't find the original article I was referencing, tho. Oh well...

  7. GM Food Never Harmed Anybody? by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, GM food never harmed anybody?

    What about the case of Monsanto vs. Schmeiser where a Canadian canola farmer's crop was contaminated by Monsanto's Round-Up Ready crop and who was subsequently sued by Monsanto for violating their patents by growing seed with their designed genes without a license. The farmer lost, but is still appealing.

    Keep in mind two things. First, this case entirely derives from the fact that a GMO designed to resist excessive use of herbicides contamined a non-GMO crop. (I'm not going to even go into the merit of designed a food crop to resist the use of more of a chemical known to cause human health problems.) Second, biochem companies are right now testing GMOs that are designed to grow drugs -- crops that could also contaminate the human food supply.

    The problem is not the technology. It's using the technology in an utterly irresponsible manner and then lobbying to cover up any problems that occur.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").