Do you have any numbers, Mark, regarding the commercialisation of nanotechnology products? What is considered a nanotechnology product in this study? and what period did this study span? Note that commercialisation figures lag behind R&D spending figures, so the rewards for 2009 R&D efforts might not be seen as commercial products for years to come. I have to say that I am not seeing any signs of the US falling behind in Nanotech, but that's just anecdotal.
The dream of bottom-up, self-assembling manufacturing will be realized first in synthetic biology. There are projects underway to synthesize a minimal cell, and we've already synthesized artificial genomes. The field of biological engineering will blossom over the next 20 years. We'll start primitive and then ramp up exponentially to internal novel cell structures, genetic 'software engineering', and complex designs that far exceed what I call "life 1.0." We're coming into the era of life 2.0 (and 3.0, 4.0, ad infinitum). Eventually, we may even be able to use synthetic biology to bootstrap some of that wicked diamondoid nanotech that Drexler et al. got us dreaming about.
This is laughable. The US is largely leading in nanotech, and neither are the applications commercial applications being published so much in the academic literature, ie the things that count commercially, are often NOT called nanotech but the materials science is certainly benefiting from nano scale engineering / material properties etc.
And I do not mean golf balls, or nanotube this and that ( without specific commercial applications rarely discussed )
So NO the sky is not falling and the US is not falling behind and YES VIRGINIA nanotech is hiding in all sorts of products that folks are oblivious to.
You make an interesting point. For whatever reason 3 years ago the Congress jacked up the minimum wage from $5.25/hr in 2007 to $7.35/hr in 2009, about a 40% increase in 2 years. That would have been tough to absorb in a booming economy, and in this economy, no way. While I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, the net results is a loss in jobs that people could have fallen back onto in a bad economy, including low skill, low wage manufacturing jobs. There are some jobs that there is a wage beyond which there are no jobs. Sadly, our Democratic friends just don't get that.
However, back to the issue at hand. The sometimes open hostility of the gov't to private industry makes job creating in ANY industry very problematic, including nanotechnology. Until our friends in gov't understand that capitalism and private industry are the geese that lay the golden eggs, no company in its right mind will set up shop or exapand the operations that it already has if the possiblity exists that the gov't will confiscate its reward for taking a risk.
the whole nanotech ... is over hyped.
I was in it many years ago and still checking nano letters routinely -- to see what they are doing recently.
it's quite boring, nanotubes again and again, DNA is the recent toy for them.
there are many limitations for nano tech, van deer waals force, very expensive equipment, small room to play at etc. it should just stay as a niche subject.
many interest groups apparently exaggerated it to get funding/job/something to do/etc.
other countries are more conscious while US is deep in the tech-superiorty myth. they want some tech like semicon/laser to save US economy... again!
well, this time it might won't work, US need to face the reality and let some people to make shoes to lower the unemployment rate.
A Book For All Reasons Bernard Cole1 Comment Robert Oshana's recent book "Software Engineering for Embedded Systems (Newnes/Elsevier)," written and edited with Mark Kraeling, is a 'book for all reasons.' At almost 1,200 pages, it ...