[extropy-chat] Nanotech educations [was yada yada stem cell research]

[Robert J. Bradbury]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, devon fowler wrote:

> --- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix at CRNano.org> wrote:
> > Robert Bradbury wrote that the research side of R&D
> > can't be accelerated by throwing money at it.

I don't recall whether or not I mentioned this before --
this opinion is based on the observation that the U.S.
threw a lot of money into AIDS "research" in the mid-'80s
to early '90s.  A lot of those funds were spent unproductively
because at the time we had insufficient knowledge of where we
should focus our attention.

> I'm assuming you've already answered these questions:
> -yes research can and is being slowed down

This is true -- *but* it should be taken into account that
this is a context-dependent state.  Whether it is a grant
review committee or a set of partners at a VC firm they
still have to buy into the idea.  In 2000 (at least the
VCs) would buy almost any idea -- now things are quite
different.

> -and there is and will be a substantial effect on
> develpment.

Yes, no buyin = no funding = no development.  *But*
at least my analysis of one of the nanotech development
paths indicates that it is currently prohibitively expensive.
My impression is that Chris believes you can cut some corners
significantly from that perspective.  If something is
perceived as prohibitively expensive you will get no buyin.
The other side of the coin is that you have to be extremely
convincing that the corner cutting will work.

> > ObNanotech: Research careers in molecular
> > manufacturing are also being
> > energetically discouraged in the U.S.

Not really true IMO -- you have a combination of the
disbelievers (Smalley, Whitesides et al) and the
current nonbelievers (i.e. nanotech will not provide a
decent short term ROI -- e.g. Modzelewski, Wolfe).
Of course the "nonbelievers" will change their tune as soon
as it looks like significant profits are feasible with near-term
nanotech.  [In business "near-term" is usually 3-4 years or less.]

> Why is this happening?  I'd be curious to know is it
> due to typical shock of the unknown?

This is part of it -- nanotech claims raise the incredulity
radar of both grant review committees as well as VC boards.

It isn't so much the "unknown" that is the problem but
the problem that nanotech so significantly disrupts
our current perspective that people don't know how
to navigate the development river and therefore tend
to stay away from it.  (For example -- ask a typical
VC if he would fund the development of an AI that could
do a better job picking successful startups than s/he could?)

> Or just government or private interests being nasty due to
> power games or the like?

There are always short-term interests involved -- that is the
way markets work (so you will get investment in a chemical
process that allows Nano-Tex to repel staining substances
from your clothes but will not get investment in molecular
manufacturing [which most probably takes much longer to develop]).

At one of the last nanotech business conferences I went to
I think it was suggested that there were something like 40
firms working on nanotubes.  It is *very* hard to believe
they will all be successful.  *But* nanotubes are something
that has been around for a decade or more and are things that
you can create today.  Its a touch/see/taste/feel mentality.

Now with regard to some of Devon's questions and some of
the points Chris made...

Devon -- find a legit. nanotech center that is actually
using materials by Drexler/Freitas/Merkle/Hall in a classroom
setting (Drexler actually taught a course at Stanford on
Nanotech but it was many years ago.)  You can follow the
"approved" nanotech path (which means kind of chewing
around the edges of real nanotech rather than going
for the "full monty") -- but if they are using the
"real" source materials at least you can be confident
that the background education should be complete.

Chris -- CRN should identify precisely *who* is getting
funding from NSF and/or international governments for
nanotech education and it should independently rate
the quality of education at various nanotech centers/hubs.
This may be scored on something like a 1-5 basis on topics
such as "technical" education, "ethical" education,
"cross-discipline" education, etc.  CRN would probably
be better than Foresight because it would be less likely
to have conflict-of-interest problems.  There can't be
more than 10 or so concentrated nanotech centers at
this point and putting the directors or Dept. heads
on notice that they were being "rated" might certainly
do more to make them think about whether or not students
find their offerings acceptable.

Remember this -- there are generations growing up out
there that grew up on Star Trek Voyager, then The Matrix,
then Andromeda.  To them there is no question about
the absolute feasiblity of nano-coolness.  The guys
are all drooling over 7 of 9 and Romi and the girls
all want the tech that can allow them to look like them
(or some other creation of their own design).  I recently
have gotten several communications (via Orkut) from
Iran (of all places) from an individual who wants
to more completely understand how the human mind works
and accelerate human evolution.

Devon should be seeking the school which best understands
"real" nanotech.  Chris -- one of the things CRN could do
to help is to provide ratings to guide people like Devon.

Side note to Devon -- the people at *most* universities
and involved in most of the academic grant review committees
have *not* read the fundamental literature (Nanosystems,
Nanomedicine VI/IIA and related works).  They should
be viewed as ignorant in most cases.  You should open
any conversations on the topic with something to the effect
of: "What have you read by Drexler/Freitas/Merkle or Hall?"
If the answer is "nothing" then you can assume they know
little about real nanotech.

[Chris -- if you really wanted to be provocative, you could at
a category along the lines of "Educational quality
for bio/nanotechnologies to significantly extend the
human lifespan (to thousands of years or more)" -- then call
up Kass and ask him to be on the rating committee....]

Robert