NASA Supporting Nanotech Development

It doesn't come easy writes "In laboratories around the country, NASA is supporting the burgeoning science of nanotechnology. The basic idea is to learn to deal with matter at the atomic scale -- to be able to control individual atoms and molecules well enough to design molecule-size machines, advanced electronics and "smart" materials."

Comments

Re:What about nano-economics?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Real progress is made by small teams that see risk as opportunity, while NASA-style science is done by large teams that see risk as something to be avoided at all costs.

First of all, up to recently, space exploration was an activity that can't possibly be boosted by competition. Totally New Things[tm] usually come from government-funded research labs, such as the ARPANET, the moon landing program, etc... That's because such ground-breaking experiments can only be put together at a complete loss. Once the road is open, let competition pave it.

Secondly, it's true NASA today is stifled by a risk-avoiding attitude, but that's only because the administration (and the public) doesn't really have a strong desire to go to space, therefore any small problem leads to a reduction in NASA budget. The great things NASA did in the past were done because the administration just had to achieve what Kennedy promised, otherwise they'd have lost the race to the moon. In that light, loss of astronauts and giant rockets exploding right and left weren't very big concerns compared to losing face with the USSR. Nowadays, there is no USSR to compete against.

Re:What about nano-economics?

[MichaelSmith]

Let's stop paying people on their skills in writing grant applications and start rewarding people for their ability to think in creative and useful ways.

I think science is totally broken because of the secretive, competitive approach which scientists take to towards their work.

Science is not really a commercial activity, people who spend 10 years working on something and lose in the last month to another team can have their entire career at risk over small issues of secrecy and professional ethics.

An open source approach in science would accomplish two things:

1. You could easily prove who had what idea first
2. Scientists could immediately build on the work of others without being accused of plagurism

Right now, working in science is too much of a risk for people in some fields; particularly biotech. Why devote your career to something when you are judged by a first past the post system?