blog

Nanotechnology.

Arguably, it’s my current research field–my Ph.D. in chemistry at Northwestern was on electronic materials in general, but one of my advisors and a good chunk of that research group focused on molecular and nanoscale electronic devices. And I’ve read plenty of science fiction, plenty of Eric Drexler’s vision of nanotechnological molecular manufacturing, and of course plenty of science.

What I find interesting is the distinction between the public perception of “nano” (when there is any) and the hard science research that’s going on. Sometimes the perception is well-informed, and sometimes it’s tremendously overhyped.

For example, I keep coming across an increasing amount of nanotech hype. For example, see Howstuffworks “How Nanotechnology Will Work” with its movies of “nanogears” supposedly replacing “current manufacturing processes.” It’s straight out of Drexler. I’m sorry. I do not imagine (as the article states) that in “a few decades, we will use these nanomachines to manufacture consumer goods at the molecular level, piecing together one atom or molecule at a time to make baseballs, telephones and cars.”

It’s going to take me a few articles to get back to that particular statement. But I’ll posit that as “nanotech hype.” And at the moment, I focus on some initial questions and issues I have with the subject of “nano.”

Language is important, and it’s one reason that I usually use the word “nanoscience” to describe my research, rather than nano-”technology.” A recent speaker, Prof. Davis Baird a professor in the philosophy department and in the NanoCenter at South Carolina addressed that very question. For the moment, I’m mostly going to paraphrase his talk. All errors in this post are mine, so don’t blame Prof. Baird.

Why is it “nanotechnology” and not “nanoscience.” Isn’t there basic science research that needs to be done? Since the “nanoscale” is ~1nm to ~400nm, hasn’t a lot of science (chemistry, biochemistry, solid-state physics) involved nanoscience? Aren’t there still a lot of questions about how molecules interact in clusters and nanometer-sized particles?

Yes. But we talk about “nanotech” because Drexler, others like him, as well as policy makers in Washington wanted to focus on the technology and manufacturing on the nanoscale. Products. Finance. New markets. Money. The National Nanotechnology Initiative has right at the top of their website “Supporting the Next Industrial Revolution.”

The so-called “founding myth” of nanotechnology goes something like this… Richard Feynman gives a talk in 1959 called “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom” at the American Physical Society meeting at Caltech. He outlines a dream of machines and devices at an atomic and molecular scale–and points out that there’s no known physical law which obviously forbids such nanoscale devices.

Years pass, and eventually the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) is proven by researchers at an IBM lab in 1981. Resolution is on the atomic scale and individual atoms can be manipulated, providing “quantum corrals,” IBM logos, and other pictures of “individual atoms.” (circa 1990).

In the middle, Drexler publishes Engines of Creation in 1986 with visions of “assemblers” and “nanogears.” With the use of the STM to manipulate and observe individual atoms, the nanotechnology revolution is off and running.

As with all myths, there’s some truth and some nontruth to this. For example, if you asked people like Prof. Mark Ratner in 1974 when he published a paper on “Molecular Rectifiers,” (i.e., molecular-scale electronic devices), I’m not sure all of them would have heard of Feynman’s “Room at the Bottom” talk.

But interestingly, as Prof. Baird pointed out, Feynman gave another talk in 1983, revisiting the subject of nanoscale devices (the talk is called “Infinitesimal Machinery” and is transcribed in J. MEMS, Vol. 2, No. 1, (March 1993), pp. 4-14.).

Feynman’s second talk is much more pessimistic. He talks more about technical problems with the nanoscale–accuracy, Brownian motion, intermolecular attraction between different pieces (e.g., Drexlerian nanogears) and viscosity. (I don’t see him talk about molecules vibrating or moving along–it’s one problem with the nanoimages like the IBM logo linked above. They’re typically very unstable.)

But the point I want to make is this. If we really care about honestly pursuing nanotechnology, we have to realize a few things.

1. There’s a tremendous amount of basic science that must be done to support these visions–and in turn, nanoscale devices will have tremendous implications for new science research. I, for one, would love to have better ways to measure and characterize nanometer-sized regions of devices, individual molecules, and the like.
2. There’s a tremendous amount of hype about what nanotech can do and the timescale for reaching these visions. As scientists, we grumble about this hype–but we cannot simply go back into the lab and do research without providing our views. As an example, I think the Wikipedia article on nanotechnology is usually more balanced.
3. In response to the points raised by Prof. Baird, I think that scientists need to be aware of the public perception of nanoscience and the “standard founding myth” of nanotechnology and point out that this area of science has been pursued long before the word “nanotechnology” was coined. We need to point people to both Feynman talks, to atomic resolution from electron microscopy which predates STM.

These are all reasons that I started this blog–I want to put out a set of views on “nano” from the perspective of a researcher in the area. What’s new? What’s not new? What might be hype?