Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute Terminology confusion 1.
Download ReportTranscript Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute Terminology confusion 1.
Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute Terminology confusion 1. Technology a lot smaller than microtechnology: nanoscale bulk technology 2. Technology enabling control at the level of individual atoms: from U.S. NSF “The essence of nanotechnology is the ability to work at the molecular level, atom by atom, to create large structures with fundamentally new molecular organization” 3. Nanomachines with atomic precision #1 is short-term, #2 longer-term, #3 longest Word has become a marketing tool in U.S. Why the buzz? World can be divided into bits (information) and “stuff” (atoms) Investors just got burned by bits in the dot.com bust Current enthusiasm for nanotech is investors’ rediscovery of “stuff” Jazzy new label for chemistry, materials science, applied physics But that’s okay—they are exciting Will there be a dot.com-style nanotech bust? Already “too many” nanotube companies? Funding “too many” is normal for new technologies, not clear it’s avoidable Some reforms among analysts Nanotech gives physical products, not “eyeballs” (viewers of Internet ads) Reason to think that a bubble can be avoided Near-term products: mostly materials Drug delivery, medical implants, sensors (bio & chemical), solar energy (photovoltaic or direct hydrogen production), batteries, displays & e-paper, nanotube and nanoparticle composites, catalysts, coatings, alloys, insulation (thermal & electrical), filters, glues, abrasives, lubricants, paints, fuels & explosives, textiles, hard drives, computer memory, optical components, etc. (from TNT Weekly, published by Cientifica out of Spain, France) Not an integrated “industry” Near-term applications showing up invisibly in existing products (higher strength, safety, sensitivity, accuracy, overall performance). Incremental. Above can be a problem for venture capital Term useful for gov’t interaction and cross-industry tech transfer Shared challenges? Yes: legal, PR Where is work occurring? Switzerland, Sweden, France, Germany, U.K. are major players in Europe Complaints that EU work is slowed by need to balance funding among participating countries Both research and early products are widespread in U.S. (esp. Calif, Texas) No clear geographic winner in U.S. yet & there may not be (no “Nano Valley”?) What’s the bottleneck to commercialization? Lots of unexploited science: see Foresight Conferences and Feynman Prizes (“Rembrandts in the Attic”) In US: VC, corporate, angel funding available Delay is evolutionary process of looking at each exp’t phenomenon, picturing a new technology, and identifying an early business opportunity Individuals who can do this: rare, valuable, cross-disciplinary (hire from other industries) From science to product idea Variation & selection process: broad function, narrower use, specific application, first product definition Requires both creativity and knowledge of large number of applications and processes Hard to get mindshare of top creatives Scrounge, lubricate, brainstorm, extract via questioning Collaborative international online project incubator Cross-sector: Businesses, governments, academic institutions as partners Enable more rapid identification of complementary projects, partners Expose project concepts to community of interest in controlled fashion Already used by other industries, e.g. RITAnet, Access5 (aerospace) Online recruitment across national boundaries International cooperation enhanced by talent moving between Europe & U.S. U.S. workers not aware of European projects and vice versa Experienced cross-border jobs facilitator has entered the nanotech area WorkingIn-Nanotechnology.com Patent process a challenge Patent offices overwhelmed Annually, over 300,000 total applications in US; over 3000 granted to IBM alone Hard for new companies to keep track Hard for patent offices to hold onto expert staff, esp. true in hot areas like nanotech Hard for examiners to make good decisions, under 6 hours/each for prior art search Litigation, high legal expenses = advantage to large companies; non-IP countries Patent process a challenge, II Given complexity, patents can be issued for “inventions” that are obvious, found in nature, appear in prior art. Chilling effect, litigation Overly-broad patents not necessarily good for industry (what if: html, alphabet) Cannot depend on legal profession to fix this voluntarily — for them the system “works” Patents not always the answer: Run Faster! Sometimes based on misrepresentation, patents can work their way into standards Avoiding GM-style backlash Avoid arrogance of GM-food companies Prey, Bill Joy in Wired, Greenpeace UK report: some over-reaction from establishment Stay calm, do not “shoot from hip”, pick a spokesperson internally or other Engage cluefully with media, government (not “just” a PR function) — European firms have advantage at this Consistent message (PopSci poked fun) If word becomes negative, co’s will drop Has nanotech been overhyped? U.S. funders are solidly supportive, able to recognize and discount both hype & anti-hype. Europe still somewhat put off by hype. Problems arise when there’s confusion on timescales (1st through 4th generation: 2000-2020) in popular press and business press. Hard to prevent. Hard to overstate long-term potential Tools for looking ahead to long-term nanotech Laws of physics Laws of economics Laws of human nature Result: technological advance to the limits allowed by nature Process does not result in a time estimate (but everyone wants one) Does result in molecular machine systems Molecular machine systems: longer-term New way of viewing matter Today, can have atomic precision or large complex structures, not both Want both together Goal: Direct control down to molecular level, not indirect control as today (e.g. drugs, surgery) for products of any size Can change/improve structure of all physical things including human body Basis of advanced nanotech: Molecular machines Used by nature in plants and animals, which can be thought of as complex systems of molecular machines Now learning to design and build new molecular machine systems Goal: nanosystems for manufacturing complex, atomically-precise products of any size (from cubic-micron mainframes to aircraft carriers) Differential gear design (cutaway) Molecular machine systems for manufacturing (schematic) Why molecular machines? Why are molecular machines so important, compared to molecular materials, sensors, electronics? Machines can make all the others better NNI 2004 budget: “The initiative focuses on long-term research on the manipulation of matter at the atomic and molecular levels, giving us an unprecedented ability to create building blocks for advanced products such as new classes of devices as small as molecules and machines as small as human cells.” Molecular manufacturing with molecular machine systems Extreme decrease in direct manufacturing costs (not insurance, legal, tariffs) Extreme decrease in pollution Extreme increase in device complexity possible (e.g. medical) Extreme increase in software/design challenge Timing of molecular machine systems “We tend to overestimate short-term tech change, underestimate long-term” Timing estimates are guesses As an engineering goal, it depends on funding and focus If delay in focused effort: 25 years? Probable international competition for economic, military advantage Crash program estimate 10-15 years Four issues for policymakers Near-term environmental and health issues from nanoparticles, nanotubes Mid-term patent difficulties: errors harm industry & public interest, strain international relations Long-term “grey goo” concern overblown, already covered by Foresight Guidelines safety rules Long-term arms control issues are real, very challenging (e.g. chem, bio) Europe/US relations Differing attitudes toward Precautionary Principle likely to continue, for fundamental cultural reasons May result in ongoing friction on nanoproduct safety: trade conflict? Differing attitudes toward overly-broad patents may extend to nanotech U.S. could use European patent influence: how can this be facilitated? Opportunity for joint project U.S. likely to declare Apollo-style project for molecular machine systems, possibly with defense orientation U.S. “go it alone” strategy could be headed off by European project — ideally announced earlier — leading to joint Europe/U.S. effort Powerful technologies are best shared among the democracies, at least NATO For more information, both short-term and long-term — main site, see Foresight Update technical news nanodot.org — news site & database 11th Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology 9-12 Oct 2003, San Francisco Foresight Vision Weekend, May 2004 Chemical & Engineering News, TNT Weekly, Nanotech Opportunity Report www.foresight.org