Nanotechnology: The term was coined by MIT graduate Dr. K. Eric Drexler in his book "Engines of Creation" (1986), inspired by.Richard Feynman's 1959 talk entitled "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom" in which Feynman discussed "microtechnology as a frontier to be pushed back, like the frontiers of high pressure, low temperature, or high vacuum". Feynman went further to suggest that "ordinary machines could build smaller machines that could build still smaller machines, working step by step down toward the molecular level" (1). Drexler jumped to the endpoint of this notion and defined Nanotechnology as technology based on the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules to build structures upward, to complex atomic macro systems.

As conjectural as his futuristic vision was, Drexler offered some objective criteria to differentiate nano- from micro-technology: " Present microtechnology handles statistical populations of atoms. As the devices shrink, the atomic graininess of matter creates irregularities and imperfections, so long as atoms are handled in bulk, rather than individually. Indeed, such miniaturization of bulk processes seems unable to reach the ultimate level of microtechnology -- the structuring of matter to complex atomic specifications" (1). Reasonable extensions of the "atomic level" nanotechnology criteria today include key microtechnology demonstrations of scaling-induced, nonlinear or revolutionary materials or structural properties not observable from statistical behavior of larger aggregates of atoms. That would include revolutionary sub-cellular biological systems as well as combinational behaviors resulting from non-linear structures such as carbon nanotubes and nanowires integrated in electronic microsystems.

Drexler's vision, however sincere, has become highly controversial. Respected Rice University Professor Richard Smally, 1996 Nobel Prizewinner in Chemistry, sharply and publicly criticized the more fanciful notions suggested by Drexler, to the extent of noting that molecular level construction was impossible, or at least indefensible, citing "fat fingers" and "sticky fingers" as reasons to discount any sort of assembly at this scale2. Dr. Drexler continued to press the public debate, and the December 2003 cover article of Chemical & Engineering News, reprints their rather hostile exchange. Smalley's final response to Drexler:. "You and people around you have scared our children. I don't expect you to stop, but I hope others in the chemical community will join with me in turning on the light, and showing our children that, while our future in the real world will be challenging and there are real risks, there will be no such monster as the self- replicating mechanical nanobot of your dreams." (2).

But controversy 'sells', and 'selling' funds research. The original definitions have been subsumed by the popular press, funding agencies, and alas, researchers, to extend the term ridiculously beyond what was originally envisioned. Witness current definitions: (Computing Dictionary) " /nan'-oh-tek-nol'-ah-jee/ Any fabrication technology in which objects are designed and built by the specification and placement of individual atoms or molecules [and here comes the apostasy-JMH] or where at least one dimension is on a scale of nanometers." Since its resultant popularization, nanotechnology has become the mantra of scientists, technologists, educators, and science fiction writers seeking publication, start-ups seeking funding, and governmental agencies awarding research funds.

We are all aware of virtual hijacking of the term to enhance interest in particular research, proposals, and soon, marketing of products. Are we innocents in this hijacking? Have we not occasionally submitted to the temptation to define the natural, evolutionary scaling of our technologies as "nanotechnology" where no non-linear or revolutionary materials or structural properties are presented? Does this border on intellectual dishonesty? If so, is it justified by a research-choking fixation by publications and particularly, by funding agencies? Respected research institutions and the seminal journals and conferences that give them voice, may be giving up far more in the search for attention than the current funding and publication sweepstakes can ever repay.

So, let us not scare the children, and let us not compromise academic integrity in the search for attention. Let us be guided not by the popular press, but by Feinman's observation nearly 50 years ago, that "microtechnology is a frontier to be pushed back, like the frontiers of high pressure, low temperature, or high vacuum". Let us provide the nano-macro transductions and extend dimensions naturally into the deep sub micron range and claim the benefits in the name of Deep Microtechnology, confident that we will create impacts as large as anything currently promoted as nanotechnology.

-JMH

1 Proceedings of National Academy of Engineering, Vol 78, Number 9, September 1981
2 Chemical & Engineering News, December 2003
Various Referrals from Institute for Molecular Manufacturing and Foresight Institute

• Copyright Notification: All papers downloaded from this site are © University of California or the publisher, all rights reserved. Contact the BSAC Webmaster for permission related to copyrighted materials.
• Links on these pages to commercial sites do not represent endorsements by UC or its affiliates.
• Privacy Policy
• Contact Us