Close, but to be quite accurate, it's normally around $5.4 billion (I work for a big european pharma). And around 10 years. Also, bear in mind that most project tend to be binned in the last few years (stage three clinical), so most of that money been spent by then.
But, yeah, the analogy is a good 'un.
Nah - you're missing my point. What you guys are doing blows my mind - it's years off being practical, but hell, you've got to start somewhere. What I'm having a go at is researchers dropping "nano" into a proposal to make it sell. Sometimes its appropriate, and would seem ideal in your area. But more often than not, it's not appropriate, and is corrupting the science.
BTW, don't diss us organic chemists out of hand. Remember, we've been building things like brevetoxin for years, and that's only through exceedingly careful control. Kind of like painting the Mona Lisa whilst blind folded and wearing boxing gloves. Not subtle, sure, but capable.
Lastly, my group's about to delve into "chiral surfaces". So I guess we'll need some of your tools soon too!
True, that's the pure premise of nanotech, but it doesn't seem to work like that. I'm an organic chemist, so most of this materials stuff isn't in my domain, but I do read and understand most of the journals. And the flaw is that because governments and the appropriate bodies love nanotech as a buzz word, far too many researchers use the term overliberally, and corrupt it's true meaning. Nasa has every right, and should be at the forefront of research into new materials et c. But this is materials chemistry/physics/engineering. Not nanotech.
Fir gawd sake! Dealing with matter on an atomic level has been around since Newton's time - and in it's modern incarnation since the late 19th century. It's called chemistry. Using macroscopic tools to inact precise molecular interactions and rearrangements.
You know it's gone way to far when simple crown-ether derivatives get renamed "molecular cages" or worse "nano capsules" in an attempt to get funding.
Want some funding for your research proposal? Drop in "nano", "bio" and "green" a few times, loose any detail of what you're acutally trying to do, and no problem...
Slashdot Mirror
Close, but to be quite accurate, it's normally around $5.4 billion (I work for a big european pharma). And around 10 years. Also, bear in mind that most project tend to be binned in the last few years (stage three clinical), so most of that money been spent by then. But, yeah, the analogy is a good 'un.
Apple moving to AtomChip architecture and hardware...
Nah - you're missing my point. What you guys are doing blows my mind - it's years off being practical, but hell, you've got to start somewhere. What I'm having a go at is researchers dropping "nano" into a proposal to make it sell. Sometimes its appropriate, and would seem ideal in your area. But more often than not, it's not appropriate, and is corrupting the science. BTW, don't diss us organic chemists out of hand. Remember, we've been building things like brevetoxin for years, and that's only through exceedingly careful control. Kind of like painting the Mona Lisa whilst blind folded and wearing boxing gloves. Not subtle, sure, but capable. Lastly, my group's about to delve into "chiral surfaces". So I guess we'll need some of your tools soon too!
I don't know what I'm talking about? http://www-burton.ch.cam.ac.uk/group.htm#PHD
True, that's the pure premise of nanotech, but it doesn't seem to work like that. I'm an organic chemist, so most of this materials stuff isn't in my domain, but I do read and understand most of the journals. And the flaw is that because governments and the appropriate bodies love nanotech as a buzz word, far too many researchers use the term overliberally, and corrupt it's true meaning.
Nasa has every right, and should be at the forefront of research into new materials et c. But this is materials chemistry/physics/engineering. Not nanotech.
Fir gawd sake! Dealing with matter on an atomic level has been around since Newton's time - and in it's modern incarnation since the late 19th century. It's called chemistry. Using macroscopic tools to inact precise molecular interactions and rearrangements. You know it's gone way to far when simple crown-ether derivatives get renamed "molecular cages" or worse "nano capsules" in an attempt to get funding. Want some funding for your research proposal? Drop in "nano", "bio" and "green" a few times, loose any detail of what you're acutally trying to do, and no problem...