Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson...

27
Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute
  • date post

    20-Dec-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    220
  • download

    2

Transcript of Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson...

Page 1: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides

2 October 2003, Paris

Christine Peterson

Foresight Institute

Page 2: 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.

Page 3: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

Why the buzz?World can be divided into bits

(information) and “stuff” (atoms) Investors just got burned by bits in the

dot.com bustCurrent enthusiasm for nanotech is

investors’ rediscovery of “stuff”Jazzy new label for chemistry,

materials science, applied physicsBut that’s okay—they are exciting

Page 4: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

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 avoidableSome reforms among analystsNanotech gives physical products, not

“eyeballs” (viewers of Internet ads)Reason to think that a bubble can be

avoided

Page 5: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

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)

Page 6: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

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

Page 7: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

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”?)

Page 8: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

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)

Page 9: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

From science to product ideaVariation & 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 creativesScrounge, lubricate, brainstorm, extract

via questioning

Page 10: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

Collaborative international online project incubatorCross-sector: Businesses, governments,

academic institutions as partnersEnable more rapid identification of

complementary projects, partnersExpose project concepts to community

of interest in controlled fashionAlready used by other industries, e.g.

RITAnet, Access5 (aerospace)Contact www.amtech-usa.org

Page 11: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

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 versaExperienced cross-border jobs

facilitator has entered the nanotech area

WorkingIn-Nanotechnology.com

Page 12: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

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

Page 13: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

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

Page 14: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

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

Page 15: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

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

Page 16: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

Tools for looking ahead to long-term nanotechLaws of physicsLaws of economicsLaws of human natureResult: technological advance to the

limits allowed by natureProcess does not result in a time

estimate (but everyone wants one)Does result in molecular machine

systems

Page 17: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

Molecular machine systems: longer-termNew way of viewing matterToday, can have atomic precision or

large complex structures, not bothWant both togetherGoal: 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

Page 18: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

Basis of advanced nanotech:Molecular machinesUsed 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)

Page 19: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

Differential gear design (cutaway)

Page 20: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

Molecular machine systems for manufacturing (schematic)

Page 21: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

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.”

Page 22: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

Molecular manufacturing with molecular machine systemsExtreme decrease in direct

manufacturing costs (not insurance, legal, tariffs)

Extreme decrease in pollutionExtreme increase in device complexity

possible (e.g. medical)Extreme increase in software/design

challenge

Page 23: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

Timing of molecular machine systems “We tend to overestimate short-term

tech change, underestimate long-term”Timing estimates are guessesAs an engineering goal, it depends on

funding and focus If delay in focused effort: 25 years?Probable international competition for

economic, military advantageCrash program estimate 10-15 years

Page 24: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

Four issues for policymakersNear-term environmental and health

issues from nanoparticles, nanotubesMid-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)

Page 25: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

Europe/US relationsDiffering 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?

Page 26: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

Opportunity for joint projectU.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

Page 27: Nanotechnology: maximizing benefits, minimizing downsides 2 October 2003, Paris Christine Peterson Foresight Institute.

For more information, both short-term and long-termwww.foresight.org — main site, see

Foresight Update technical newsnanodot.org — news site & database11th Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology

9-12 Oct 2003, San FranciscoForesight Vision Weekend, May 2004Chemical & Engineering News, TNT

Weekly, Nanotech Opportunity Report