backtop

Print 42 comment(s) - last by randomly.. on Mar 31 at 8:53 AM

Nanotechnology plays a crucial role in electronics, materials science, and medicine.  (Source: Branchez-vous Matin)
The EU and Asia may surpass the U.S. in small stuff

If the U.S. does not do something fast, it may see its lead in nanotechnology slip through its fingers.  That was the conclusion in a report delivered to U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday.

According to the report, between 2003 and 2008 nanotechnology investments -- both public and private -- grew 18 percent a year on average, while overseas they grew 27 percent.  Among the reports recommendations are to increase research funding, promote commercialization of nanotech, and to try to lure foreign researchers into the U.S.

Nanotechnology is one of the hottest fields of research in science today.  It deals with manipulating matter on a scale of 10 or 100 billionths of a meter.  This is the scale that many molecules that the human body manufactures are on.  Nanotechnology holds great promise in materials engineering, medicine, and electronics, among other fields.  Modern computer GPUs and CPUs are today built on a nanometer scale, and thus could be considered examples of nanotechnology in action.

U.S. is the biggest name in nanotechnology still, despite its slippage.  In 2008 it invested $5.7B USD in nanotechnology, more than any other nation.  Maxine Savitz, who chaired the National Nanotechnology Initiative working group (consisting of three members of the council and 12 nongovernmental nanotechnology experts) comments, "Though we are the leader, economic competition from other countries has dramatically increased."

Among the nations stepping up pressure on the U.S. are the European Union, Japan, China, and South Korea.

The group suggests that the NNI, which has already invested $12B USD in U.S. nanotechnology, step up investments by 100 percent over the next 5 years.  They also recommend an additional $2M USD in budget to improve the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office, which oversees the NNI (the current budget for this item is $3M USD).

If the U.S. loses its lead in nanotechnology, it could be more than a tiny problem.  It would mean that vital business dollars would go overseas and U.S. manufacturers would be forced to license and dependent on foreign nanomaterials and process suppliers.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Uh
By BruceLeet on 3/26/2010 10:51:58 AM , Rating: 5
Honestly, more countries researching in nanotechnology is better off. I can't see what good could come from just the US investing and researching.

Who cares if the US loses its lead, if they do then scientists will just have to find ways to improve what has been discovered/developed, find a better alternative etc. After all it does advance medicine and technology everywhere.

What's that one quote I see sometimes here on Dailytech.

quote:
“There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.”
Isaac Asimov




RE: Uh
By Sahrin on 3/26/2010 11:24:44 AM , Rating: 5
Concur.

Science + Nationalism = no.

Science gets us nuclear power, solar cells, integrated circuits. Nationalism + Science gets us ICBM's.


RE: Uh
By HotFoot on 3/26/2010 11:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
Also agree with the OP. It is usually cheaper to license a technology than to develop it yourself - which frees up resources for taking that concept or product to the next level.


RE: Uh
By th3pwn3r on 3/26/2010 12:49:16 PM , Rating: 1
"
Who cares if the US loses its lead"

The U.S. cares of course. If they no longer have the lead in nanotechnology then they'll be losing about what they care about most, MONEY. This is why it's a concern but fear not, what they don't make in production they'll make up for by increasing taxes.


RE: Uh
By invidious on 3/26/2010 3:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
In a capitalist economy money is power. Every nation cares about power. And yes, taxing citizens is a way EVERY government maintains power and control. Taxes in America are much less than many other nations, both powerful and weak alike.


RE: Uh
By HrilL on 3/29/2010 2:48:03 PM , Rating: 3
Sure maybe in podunk nowhere in the US. Trying living in California and making a decent living. Paying 25% to the feds 9% to the state and 9% sales tax. Got to love getting taxed at 43%. Then you add in SS and Medical tax and you're looking at about 50% Losing half my income and I don't qualify for any programs or grants. I get nothing in return and have to pay for someone else. Frankly they can get their own job and support themselves. And don't even try to bring up road repair because they don't keep them repaired. We have the worst roads in Socal.


RE: Uh
By Yaron on 3/26/2010 3:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
Though I agree that competition is a good thing as it energizes and pushes forward any process, I think it would be a dangerous mistake for the US to drop their guard with regards to nano tech research and implementation. Nano tech is going to transform our world in ways we can not still fully understand: health, computers, weapons, building materials, energy... almost everything is going to be affected by this. Nano technology is HUGE!

Do you really think the EU, Japan or *China* will just "share" with the US nano technologies and their respective manufacturing techniques so they can "further develop" it?

Are you kidding or what?


RE: Uh
By BruceLeet on 3/26/2010 3:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
I never implied "sharing", you assumed it.

Let's say China does something big, creates something new and useful.

Any other country, laboratory would go "hmm, ok they did THAT somehow, it can be done, how can we do it better, cheaper".


RE: Uh
By Yaron on 3/26/2010 5:44:35 PM , Rating: 1
Nano tech science requires much knowledge, time and resources. If your competitor already achieved something great it will take you years to try and catch up. In the meantime they will go into the next phase.

If what you imply would be correct then the chinese would already have deployed stealth fighters that are either on par or superior to the F22 Raptor or the B2 bomber, they would have already produced better CPUs than the Corei7, etc etc...

I don't think that it will be a good thing for the US to let other nations lead in this crucial field of research & development.


RE: Uh
By Iketh on 3/29/2010 8:01:32 AM , Rating: 2
Intel eventually jumping into the GPU market is a good example why your logic is flawed. Their first iteration wasn't up to snuff, but eventually they're gonna compete in a race that evolved over many more years than intel has invested because they're learning from what's already out there.


RE: Uh
By AnnihilatorX on 3/27/2010 3:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
This is not an arms race. Most discoveries in nanotechnology are published in scientific journals, there is nothing to hide and not necessary to. Science had functioned in this way for over hundred years. Papers are published, scrutinised and with knowledge benefiting others and further refined, without national boundaries. It's a shame people would try to put borders and politics into science.


RE: Uh
By porkpie on 3/27/2010 7:36:22 PM , Rating: 4
" Most discoveries in nanotechnology are published in scientific journals"

Yes, and researchers gravitate to the institutions making the discoveries, who then are able to attract more researchers and make more discoveries. A self-perpetuating process, that also attracts venture capital to fund new firms to exploit those discoveries.

The US is rapidly becoming a nation where its impossible to mine or smelt our own metals, pump or refine our own own oil, produce our own chemicals, or manufacture any of our consumer goods. Without a lead in intellectual property, what else is going to sustain our economy?


RE: Uh
By porkpie on 3/27/2010 7:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
To correct one further thing, most discoveries funded with public dollars are immediately published in scientific journals.

Discoveries funded privately are often held as trade secrets, or at least delayed until the appropriate patents have been filed.


RE: Uh
By Yaron on 3/28/2010 9:23:30 AM , Rating: 3
Well said.

Furthermore, people need to remember that not all scientific research is done by civilian universities and then published to the global scientific community. A good example is Livermore National Laboratory where top secret research is being done for the benefit of US national security. I am pretty sure that one of their fields of research over there is nano technology and its many applications.


RE: Uh
By BruceLeet on 3/29/2010 6:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
Republican vs Democrat
By Phoque on 3/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Republican vs Democrat
By straycat74 on 3/26/2010 6:10:37 PM , Rating: 4
What is a bigger waste of time, your post, or my reply to it?


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By porkpie on 3/27/2010 7:43:08 PM , Rating: 3
" It seems to me the Democrats tend to invest more in research"

Glad we've heard from the peanut gallery. The facts, however, are quite different. Reagan and Bush II boosted federal R&D spending markedly, Bush I held it steady in total dollars (though it dropped slightly in terms of %GDP), and only Clinton reduced it sharply:

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By randomly on 3/28/2010 12:15:01 PM , Rating: 1
Actually Reagan cut non-defense R&D by a 1/3.

Bush I restored the non-defense R&D that Reagan had slashed.

Clinton only reduced Defense R&D spending that Reagan had doubled during his term. He actually increased Non-Defense R&D spending.

Bush II didn't increase non-defense R&D other than continue the NIH increase trend that Clinton started, the vast majority of his overall R&D increase was a 60% increase in Defense R&D.

So neither party can really claim to be better at funding non-defense R&D.


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By porkpie on 3/28/2010 1:22:31 PM , Rating: 3
"Actually Reagan cut non-defense R&D by a 1/3."

Incorrect. Under Reagan, non-defense spending dropped from $38B (81) to $32.5B (88), a drop of 15%. And for the first 6 years of Clinton's 8, he didn't boost non-defense R&D at all. Both Bush's substantially boosted non-defense R&D starting their very first terms.

In any case, your basic premise is incorrect, by incorporating a meaningless and sterile distinction between "defense" and "non-defense" research. The dollars Reagan poured into defense research netted countless spinoffs in telemetry, advanced composite materials, miniaturization, high-energy lasers, and a dozen other areas...in addition to giving us the ability to defend against ballistic missiles, a capability that has already saved numerous lives in theater engagements.

In total federal support for research, Reagan and Bush II markedly increased total spending:

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/trtot09p.pdf


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By randomly on 3/28/2010 3:38:55 PM , Rating: 1
You're pathetic attempt to twist the truth to your preconceived world view is just laughable.

Non-defense R&D was $40.423 B in 1980. Reagan slashed that to only $26.967 B by 1983. A reduction of 33.29%

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/hist09p2.pdf
Fail #1

It's only a meaningless and sterile distinction if your sole goal is to become a weapons dealer. Defense research is great if your goal is defense competitiveness, but pouring 10's of billions of dollars into research that largely ends up classified and restricted is a poor investment economically. Look at all the companies complaining about how ITAR restricts them from exporting defense R&D derived items.

It is hardly an efficient use of research dollars if the goal is economic competitiveness when you can't sell most of what you develop.

That you are unable to differentiate between Defense R&D and non defense R&D just shows a profound willful ignorance. Nobody else seems to have a problem with it. Maybe that it always shows up as a separate category on tables and charts would give you a clue.

Fail #2

You're just trying to hide the reality under 10's of billions of defense R&D spending.

In reality:
Reagan Slashed non-defense R&D and spent it on the military.

Reagan and Bush both markedly increased Defense R&D

Fail #3


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By porkpie on 3/28/2010 4:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
"Non-defense R&D was $40.423 B in 1980"

Hello-- Reagan took office in 1981. R&D funding is not supplemental; it is allocated a year ahead. You cannot start the clock on him before a 1981 to '82 comparison.

Furthermore, why are you picking the low point of 1983, if not to distort figures? Reagan left office in 1989, by which time he had boosted spending substantially from the 1982-83 years (when he cut overall government spending dramatically, to help fight a recession).

" when you can't sell most of what you develop."

First of all, much of defense-related R&D is unclassified, either directly or in spinoffs (some of which I already alluded to).

Secondly, even classified advances are often sold, in the form of military purchases by other nations. And over time, all advances eventually become declassified. The classified work of the Manhattan Project, for instance, quickly developed in the nuclear power industry.

Third and most importantly, the gains from defense spending show up in many ways rather than direct profits. Take the first Gulf War, for instance, in which -- despite countless predictions from so-called experts -- the U.S. defeated the strongest military force in the Middle East, with less risk to the average soldier than your average resident of Chicago faces walking the city streets.

"Maybe that it always shows up as a separate category on tables and charts would give you a clue."

It's not a separate table on the first link I gave. It's broken out in some discussions, not others...a distinction not that difficult to understand.

But from a person who believes Pu-240 isn't fissionable, I suppose we shouldn't expect too much. :)


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By whiskerwill on 3/28/2010 5:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secondly, even classified advances are often sold, in the form of military purchases by other nations. And over time, all advances eventually become declassified.
The US has sold half a trillion dollars worth of weapons in the last 40 years. It also boosts our world standing and allows us to dictate policy somewhat to anyone who buys our stuff.

Military R&D pays off very well.


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By randomly on 3/28/2010 6:59:18 PM , Rating: 1
You can't cover up the fact that you deliberately tried to misrepresent R&D spending numbers to paint the republicans in a falsely favorable light. They were no better or worse than the Democrats, except for Reagan who slashed the non-defense R&D. Your deception is exposed, trying to cover it up at this point is useless and pathetic. It's there for all the world to see.

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdbdg09p.pdf
Fail #4

Sure there is some trickle down from defense R&D, but much is classified, much of the information is not mobile to the rest of the non-defense industry, much is restricted from sale out of the country, and much is not applicable to use outside defense projects. All these factors mean that dollar for dollar defense R&D is hugely inefficient compared to non-defense R&D. Your claims are obviously false on even the most cursory inspection. People are not that gullible.
Fail #5

That you think of the US solely in terms of being a military force and arms dealer is just sad. Most of your fellow citizens don't share your obsession with the military and have much broader and greater hopes for our future. Although you would sacrifice our economy for an even stronger military I am grateful that most people have much more common sense than you.

Fail #6 in a very sad sad way.


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By Yaron on 3/29/2010 7:27:09 AM , Rating: 2
...dollar for dollar defense R&D is hugely inefficient compared to non-defense R&D.

I disagree. Many of the most innovative civilian industries spawned out of defense research and application. Just consider the internet and hight-tech industries as examples.


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By randomly on 3/29/2010 12:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
I absolutely agree that research pays off.

But defense research is limited in focus, a great deal of it never sees the light of day, and even more is restricted from export because of it's defense applications. A lot of defense research is focused on achieving some capability or weapons system at high cost with relatively little of that trickling out to commercial use for the amount of money spent.

Spending the same money on a much wider range of fields where the information can be broadly shared and is not commercially restricted is just a much more productive way to spend the money if your goal is improving the economy.

The internet certainly had roots in defense back in the 1960's but it wasn't till 1988 that it was open to commercial interests. Which kind of illustrates my point about defense R&D.


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By porkpie on 3/29/2010 12:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
" it wasn't till 1988 that [the Internet] was open to commercial interests."

Can you not get at least one fact right? I myself was using Bitnet in 1983. Other people were using networks like GRAPEVINE and NSFNet in the late '70s. All these networks sprang out of the defense research done for Arpanet, and it was the cojoining of all these networks that created what we call the Internet in the late 80s. Even Arpanet itself had links to corporate and academic sites as early as the 1970s.

The Internet was never "closed to commercial interests", whether you date its creation as the merger of its antecedent networks or earlier.

US defense based R&D created the Internet, the single largest innovation of the last half century. The OP's point is very valid.


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By randomly on 3/29/2010 5:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are confused as usual.

Although you may think all networks are the same, they are not. Bitnet was not the internet, it was a store and forward point to point network. That you're unable to tell the difference between Bitnet and the Internet is indicative of your ignorance. I used the Arpanet in 1976 but it certainly was not the Internet. Sure networks existed before 1988 but they were not in the form of the internet.

My point remains that the technologies that led to the development of the internet made their way into the commercial domain more slowly because of their defense beginnings.

Although you seem unable to discern the difference there are two different points here.

1) That R&D pays off. That defense R&D can sometimes pay off too.

2) If the same avenue of R&D had been pursued in a non-defense academic/commercial way we would have gotten results sooner and at lower cost.


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By porkpie on 3/29/2010 8:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
"Sure networks existed before 1988 but they were not in the form of the internet."

Lovely. First you say the Internet existed before 1988, but it was "barred to commercial use". Then you claim it didn't even exist before then. Nothing magically happened in 1988.

You can't point to a single point in time where the Internet suddenly popped into being; it was an evolutionary process. However in no way, shape, or form is the statement 'the Internet was once barred to commercial traffic' accurate.

"Bitnet was not the internet, it was a store and forward point to point network."

Wow, you can read Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, you're wrong. Using the appropriate software, Bitnet nodes could forward packets in real time without 'storing', and act identically to modern day routers. Half a decade before 1988, I was using Bitnet for real time chat and online gaming...as well as email and news groups.

"1) That R&D pays off. That defense R&D can sometimes pay off too."

R&D sometimes pays off. Defense R&D sometimes pays off as well or better than non-defense R&D.

That's the beauty of research. You never know where an avenue will lead you. Simply because somewhere, someone believes a particular project might benefit the military does not mean that avenue is automatically less productive...and its childishly naive to believe so.

"You are confused as usual."

I'm not the one who believes 240Pu isn't fissionable, am I? Or that it doesn't contribute to a nuclear explosion.


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By randomly on 3/29/2010 11:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lovely. First you say the Internet existed before 1988, but it was "barred to commercial use". Then you claim it didn't even exist before then. Nothing magically happened in 1988.


I didn't say ANY of these things which is obvious to anyone reading the posts.

Trying to put words in my mouth with misquotes and distortions is just pathetic and desperate.

Since we've reached the point where you are incapable of coming up with a response that is relevant and seem intent on carrying on both sides of the conversation by yourself I think it's time to draw this discussion to a close.

The points are simple and have been already been clearly made and you are certainly not adding anything useful to the discussion anymore.
I'll try and simplify it one last time for you.

R&D is good.
Doing defense R&D and burying most of it is not so good.

I can't help it if you are unable or unwilling to see the distinction, but I am confident other people won't have any problems.

That you will continue to desperately hold up your house of cards ad infinitum I have no doubt but you should stop wasting people's time. Send yourself some emails telling yourself how smart and wonderful you are instead. Don't forget to use the spell checker or you might ruin the illusion.


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By porkpie on 3/30/2010 10:35:11 AM , Rating: 2
"I didn't say ANY of these things "

Your post, 3/29/2010 12:17 pm. It's all there in black and white:

quote:
"The internet certainly had roots in defense back in the 1960's but it wasn't till 1988 that it was open to commercial interests."
You then followed with this little gem, which was even worse:
quote:
Sure networks existed before 1988 but they were not in the form of the internet.

Finally, you're still ignoring the critical point. Defense R&D is not "mostly buried". Some of it is classified for a certain period. Nothing remains classified forever.

Since you've already been beaten over the head with the stellar example of the Internet, here's another. The billions in R&D that led to the atomic bomb in 1945 resulted in just 11 short years, the birth of the nuclear power industry.


RE: Republican vs Democrat
By randomly on 3/31/2010 8:53:36 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh... you don't pay any attention at all

A weapons program that cost many 10's of billions of dollars and the internet which was a quarter of a century coming to fruition proves neither cost efficiency or timeliness. If we had skipped the weapons program and gone straight to the civilian power reactor program it would have been vastly more cost effective.

We spent well over $100 billion dollars on SDI yet the benefits are minimal compared to what we would have had by spending the money on non-defense R&D.

The point remains, defense R&D is neither efficient nor timely when compared to non-defense R&D. Even if your examples were relevant you can't use exceptions to prove a rule.


Who makes it is of little interest to me
By BZDTemp on 3/27/2010 7:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Among the nations stepping up pressure on the U.S. are the European Union, Japan, China, and South Korea.


The European Union is not a nation it's more like a club.

I think this article is nationalistic and stupid. What interests me as a human being is that the world as a whole is researching nanotechnology and that it is done responsible. I marvel at all the new possibilities but we must also remember there could be a down side.

Some decades ago asbestos was Gods gift to man and it was used in anything from brake pads to building materials. Now we know that it has to be handled with great care and that asbestos fibers will destroy the lungs of people working with it. Something learned by miners, car mechanics, construction workers and many others.

Using nanomaterials uncritical could lead us down the road we saw with asbestos only it could be much worse as we don't fully know what happen with nano-products after their use. For example what about all the stuff you can spray your car with to keep windows, rims and paint looking clean when that washes off does it then turn to safe dust or is it carried through nature and the food chain just like heavy metals?!




By porkpie on 3/27/2010 8:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
More accurate to say, "we realized that asbestos could, if breathed in concentrated form for many decades, increase your risk of a very rare form of cancer".

By one study I saw, the US has prevented some 500-1000 deaths through restrictions on asbestos, nearly all of which would have been from occupational exposure (miners or others in the industry). However, discontinuing asbestos use in just one case alone -- the World Trade Center -- likely caused several times that number of deaths in just that one incident.


money money money!
By ChoreBoy on 3/26/2010 11:35:31 AM , Rating: 3
if we spend more of it, we're better@!




Lead = funding?
By djc208 on 3/26/2010 4:26:01 PM , Rating: 3
So the basis for our lead in nanotech shrinking is based soley on funding levels?

That doesn't seem like the most scientific way to evaluate technological capability. While the two are correlated in some way this is just a flag for nanotech organizations to wave to justify more funding.

I'm all for funding scientific research but funding = progress is a crappy metric to use. By that standard our government must be the world leader in mortgage and banking research.




No time to waste
By Breathless on 3/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: No time to waste
By Orchunter on 3/26/2010 10:37:48 AM , Rating: 2
Well, dont hold your breath :)


wait a minute...
By MadMan007 on 3/26/2010 12:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
If your lead in nanotechnology is shrinking isn't that a good thing? Shrinking stuff is the point of nanotechnology...maybe the US's lead was made out of nanotechnology in the first place!




By Shig on 3/26/2010 12:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
Simply impossible.

The US needs to pick and choose the industries in which we want to excel in. It's not going to be like the last 50 years where the US led in pretty much everything.

BUT, we should and need to be leading in nanotechnology. If the laws of minaturization have taught us anything, nanotech will be in everything in some way soon.

The other dilemma is understanding which fields of nanotech to go in. I've studied nanoscience and nanotechnology at the college level and I could see it branching into about 10+ fields over the next couple decades.

Electronics, civil engineering, aerospace engineering, materials science, biotechnology, medicine, cosmetics, chemical engineering, the list just goes on.




Okay...
By ZaethDekar on 3/26/2010 8:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
So that is un-scientific to base your ability by money,

however the % increase can be miss leading.

It could be we spent 1 trillion and each year it increases 18% while other countries already spend 1 billion but increases 24% per year after.

So it sounds like we are loosing the lead, but in reality we still spend more, regardless of ability.




shrinking?
By carniver on 3/26/2010 12:47:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
U.S. Sees Its Lead in Nanotechnology Shrink

If US can shrink nanotech further, they would be in the lead




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki