Investors are betting on high-tech breakthroughs
There hasn't been much to please investors lately, but that doesn't stop them from looking for the next big thing.
Many people today put their gold on nanotechnology - the process of producing tiny machines the size of atoms, but researchers say that until the true promise of nanotechnology is realized, many years of hard work in laboratories will be needed.
The fear is that if there is now over-enthusiasm, the work being done now could fall victim to a kind of bubble cycle and bursting, as happened in the telecom and dot-com fields.
It sounds like science fiction, but researchers predict that tiny computers the size of a grain of sand will be developed that will be able to function for years with the same power as a wristwatch battery.
Smart textiles will be able to sense the degree of heat or the presence of toxic substances to protect the wearer. Filters at the level of atoms could be used to protect against chemical weapons and to clean the environment.
Institutional investors and venture capital funds have doubled their investments in nanotechnology over the past two years, with $640 million invested in nanotechnology companies, according to John Wolff of Lux Capital Group. The public is as excited about nanotechnology now as they were about the Internet in the early XNUMXs.
The only people making money today in the field of nanotechnology are the conference organizers.
And just as new companies added the dot-com suffix to their names to capitalize on the internet investment craze, so they are beginning to add the nano prefix to their names to ride the wave. According to Wolff, some of these companies that claim to be active in the field of nanotechnology are nothing more than hype-hungry charlatans and do not even have products approaching the tiny scale of nanometers. "The only ones making money from nanotechnology today are the conference organizers." He says.
Computer manufacturers are showing great interest in nanotechnology. Smaller and smaller transistors and increasingly complex processors accelerate the miniaturization cycle and bring us stronger and faster computers. However, the scientists predict that the trend must stop because the traditional silicon technology will reach its physical and economic limits in 2012.
Chris Murray at IBM and Stanley Williams at HP are racing to overcome these limitations while using nanotechnology to further miniaturize computer circuits. IBM is now working with carbon nanotubes to replace silicon transistors, and according to Dr. Williams, a joint project between HP and UCLA has developed memory chips using molecular switches. But the biggest problem is time. A new discovery takes 10-15 years before it reaches the market, Murray says. "This is a revolution, and it demands attention," he says. All those who predict that the revolution will happen in a shorter time are not producing something truly revolutionary, or are not telling the whole truth." added
According to Williams, nanoelectronics is today where microelectronics was in the 20s. As it happened then, even today the revolutionary development will take place in a decade or even several decades. Much more than some of the nanotechnology enthusiasts predict. He fears that those who are currently betting on nanotechnology in the hope of quick returns may be disappointed or worse, cause a retreat that will also bring down the basic research funded by the governments. "If too much money from venture capital funds is invested hastily, people will get burned and their field will get a black mark," says Williams.
But there is a fine line. "Hype is a good thing, it accelerates the flow of investments" says Wolf. Those working in nanotechnology need money for research, but they cannot say how long it will take them to reach the computer revolution. "This field will provide the biggest and most important breakthrough of the current century. It will cause real economic changes" concludes Wolff. The only question is when.
"Waiter, there's a nanotech particle in my soup!"
The more media coverage nanotechnology receives, the more voices claim that it may, in the end, cause lasting damage to man and nature.
Victoria Griffith, Financial Times 25/09/02 15:07
"What God created in nature is what we are trying to create through nanotechnology," says David Tomanek, professor of physics at the University of Michigan, and a senior researcher in the field. "Nanotechnology allows us to create materials that have never existed in nature," adds Larry Bock, CEO of the nanotechnology company Nanosys.
Such grandiose statements, which glorify the potential of this (relatively) new technology, cause concerns among those involved in the quality of the environment. While nanotechnology - a science that allows handling tiny components at the molecular level - rushes towards commercialization, the resistance to this process threatens to slow down the pace of its development.
ad
One group dealing in the fields of environmental protection, the Canadian ETC - Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, claims to suspend all research related to nanotechnology, until its impact is fully examined. "We are concerned about nanoparticles that can penetrate drinking water and food, and nano tubes that will travel in and out of our immune system, without our knowledge," warns Pat Mooney, the group's CEO. "There are many dangers associated with the use of nanotechnology".
The Science and Environmental Health Network, a group that brings together a number of research organizations, has asked the US government to increase the funding that will be dedicated to examining the apparently negative impact of nanotechnology.
Sayings like these make all those involved in the field worry. Noting the large impact of much opposition to crop biotechnology and gene therapy, many in the industry suggest taking preemptive action before this wave of opposition becomes more significant. Richard Siegel, a pioneer in the field of nanotechnology who serves as head of the Rensselaer Center for Nanotechnology, flew to a conference in Sweden last year to discuss the issue with "green" activists. "Communication between the two sides is necessary," he claims.
Charles Lieber, a professor at Harvard University, and one of the leading researchers in nanoelectronics, argues that through dialogue between industry and the public at an early stage, nanotechnology proponents can deflect the looming public relations disaster that has plagued other research fields in the past. "We must be active in educating people about nanotechnology", he explains, "even though it is very difficult to argue with someone fanatical, on both sides of the fence".
The problem with forming an "appropriate response" to the claims made against this industry is that the claims themselves are not yet formed. Only very few people really understand the technology in the field. The research field is huge, and its applications are many.
The use of nanoparticles has become common in recent years. Nanomaterials - compounds the size of single molecules created by scientists - are incorporated, for example in suntan cream, with the aim of blocking the sun's ultraviolet rays, but allowing other rays to penetrate through them. These compounds add brightness to colors and strength to coatings. The Japanese Mitsubishi concern recently revealed plans to develop carbon nanoparticles for use in a variety of products, from transistors to cosmetics. Kraft Foods is testing nanoparticles as part of an attempt to extend the shelf life of its products and improve their taste.
However, nanoparticles are only early applications of the field. The next phase will see the adoption of nanotechnology in the areas of drug delivery, high-end electronics and energy production - something that the US National Institute claims can be done within the next three years. IBM and HP are developing electronic components based on nanotechnology. By developing molecules that can be attached to each other like a puzzle, the researchers intend to create computers that build themselves. "You will only have to shake the solution, and the molecules will know by themselves where to go to create the wiring," says Prof. Tomanek.
"Smart" components may also be used as a means of transferring drugs to their intended place in the human body, since biological molecules use the same puzzle method to create links between them, with the aim of creating a chemical reaction.
Perhaps because the possibilities in this field are so vast, there is little agreement about the exact area where the future of nanotechnology lies. In 1986, Eric Drexler described in his book the danger of the emergence of "gray goo" - a process in which nanotechnological robots, programmed to replicate themselves using any material suitable for this purpose, take over the earth and wipe out humanity.
Two years ago, Bill Joy, one of the founders of the Sun company and its chief scientist, renewed this "disastrous" theory, and described these nano-robots penetrating the human body, with the aim of curing diseases, but after entering they "go crazy" and cause trouble. Most researchers refer to these horror scenarios as closer to science fiction than reality. However, almost everyone believes that nanotechnology brings with it risks. It has the ability to change the way the cells work - and this is where the source of its power as a disease healer comes from. But this fact embodies the understanding that nanotechnology has the ability to affect our health, even negatively.
More "familiar" toxins are also a scenario that cannot be ignored, similar to any process involving chemical substances. Some nanoparticles are known to be toxic. Gallium arsenide, for example, contains arsenic. Prof. Lieber believes that the use of nano-sized components in cosmetics should be monitored at a higher level. Rice University established a research team with the aim of testing whether toxic amounts of nanoparticles may accumulate in the human body and in the environment. Some of the fears about nanotechnology have already been proven to be unfounded. For example: since the structures of some of the particles look like the structure of asbestos, the Macabres claimed that this was a hint of their potential toxicity. However, studies recently carried out by the American Space Agency on mice and rats determined that these particles are not harmful, most likely.
