Saturday, November 21, 2009

For Lex

First Runner Up

From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember’d;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here.
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
- some English author

Sometimes, I wonder what would have happened if Henry V’s generals had been rational. The next scene would have been the scene where Henry’s generals stand before the troops and say something like:

I have some good news and some bad news…
The bad news is, the king is dead.
The good news is, you can all go home.

The history of the world is written by the winning side. As far back as Thucydidies, who chronicled the oft quoted History of the Peloponnesian War, the winner has determined the truth of historical fact. On the other hand, most of us have never heard of Thucydidies and a recent survey of defeated candidates for the office of Mayor of Minneapolis shows that most people couldn’t pronounce Thucydidies if their lives depended on it. Let it suffice that a long time ago, in Greece, there was a major war lasting a generation between two city-states over who was going to be the tax collector of the region. It was a very famous war, at the time, if you were there. Lots of people got killed. Lots more lived. There were lots of very famous heroes.

From this day to the ending of the world, they shall be remember’d. Maybe.

As I was rifling through a cupboard the other day, I came across a certificate of sorts. The certificate declares that my daughter’s cat was judged best of show in some competitive cat competition some 6 years ago. I remember looking at this certificate, declaring that in the opinion of a team of expert judges, this cat was better than any other cat presented before the judges on that day. I looked from the certificate to the brown stain where this best of show creature had puked her lunch on my white rug, and wondered, just precisely, what it means to be best of anything? Could those judges, in their calm deliberation, envision that this most famous cat for a day would ultimately cost me thousands of dollars in vet, cleaning and other expenses? That she would often wake me up at 4 in the morning, demanding that I join the hunt with her for imaginary mice? Perhaps the judges had this in mind when they judged her best of show. Best cat, for that day…Queen for a day. Perhaps it was a well earned prize, and her stomach calmly digested fur balls while under examination. Now, half a decade later, I doubt if she would be best of show except perhaps at a fur-ball heaving competition. Yet, as I think about that certificate, with a typical sense of pride, I looked at her and said, “my you were special, once.” Once. And then what happened?

This got me to thinking about my resume. I went through it with a sense of pride noting all the accomplishments and wonderful things that I’ve done in 30 years of professional involvement in the world. Invented, wrote, directed, founded—Lots of good stuff—A veritable powerhouse of accomplishment and high honor. Except, I also remembered this meeting I had when I was an executive at a small company. I was sitting across from the CEO and the vice president of marketing. The CEO was chewing the ass off of the marketing guy. Last year, he had increased sales by 50%, but was now complaining about how sales were in a down swing and the company needed to respond to the declining market with new products and new capabilities. My job was to create the new products and new capabilities. I had just explained that the lead time for the new things was on the order of 18 months before we could bring them to market. The CEO turned to the marketing guy and said, “There is a rule in sales. It’s not sufficient to describe your successes in the past. We have long since spent that money. The rule is, this, what have you done for me lately? If you can’t get the sales numbers up to where they have to be, I’ll have to find someone who can.” I sat there in wonder. The marketing guy had been through several stages of hell with me through premature product introductions, customers who had unrealistic expectations, customer support problems that had driven two field service technicians literally to their graves, and had managed, somehow to get contracts signed, RFPs won, and checks delivered to the company coffers. His resume was chock full of accomplishment, in the past. His time of being a hero, remember’d, was past. Now he had a simple choice, walk the plank yet again and find some new customers, or be cast aside like week old Chinese food too long in the fridge for human consumption. No greater love hath he, than he who dies for his company.

As I stood in the middle of the rug, looking at this oval brown stain in a previously pristine rug, best of show, record sales, suddenly took on a new perspective. Perhaps the issue is not in the accomplishment, but in the recognition of the accomplishment… in the means by which we judge ourselves and others. If we were truly rational people, would we hang our hides out in gale force winds to see if it was truly the storm of the century? Would we really want to read a New York Times best seller and ignore number 102 on the list? By what means do we judge ourselves and others to be successful, happy, great, or even satisfied.

Back in the early ‘70s, when Microsoft was a fledgling company, there is a story that one of the programmers working for Bill Gates quit one day. As he walked out the door, in a rather informal exit interview, he shouted at Bill, “You’re an unscrupulous asshole!!! Someday, someone’s going to sue your ass!” Truer words were never said. This programmer probably regrets being no longer associated with the top 3 richest individuals on the planet. I’m sure today, he would gladly be number 4 with the problems of hiring the complete staff of several Seattle law firms to defend his honor and earning potential before some federal judge. Certainly, he’s out there, somewhere, doing some fantastic software for some fantastic company that ranks in the fortune 1000 list. Or maybe, just maybe, he’s doing what my first boss did when he found himself on the street after running a successful company into the ground, guiding tourists on canoe rides in Baja California becoming one with nature and breakfasting each morning with the scrambled eggs of endangered sea turtles.

As I stood there, looking at that oval stain, gift from the best of show, I wondered, since we know that the heroes of old ultimately vanish in the mists of time, what happens to their lieutenants and their sergeants and all those little people who stand in muddy trenches wondering who the hell Saint Crispin is, and why they’ll be remembered for eternity for loosing a few shafts of arrows at some muddy Frenchmen who can’t move horses through some bog? To understand this, I thought it might be good to first discover just who Saint Crispin was. Perhaps, an understanding of the Saint used by Henry V to rally his troops before battle would give me a better understanding of what it is that drives people to exceed, even if they don’t quite end up in best of show. Certainly, Crispin meets the criteria of Sainthood through the annals of Catholic history—beheaded by the Romans in 286 AD. Each Saint appears to be noted for some special trait, some memorable accomplishment other than martyrdom and piety. This is the essence perhaps of the inspirational message that Henry gave to his troops. Saint Crispin, patron Saint of…. cobblers, glove makers, lace makers, lace workers, leather workers, saddle makers, saddlers, shoemakers, tanners, and weavers. OK, Henry, I’ve got it. We’re gonna stand, outnumbered 20 to 1, before the French, to be placed in memory alongside the patron saint of people who make doileys. When we return to England, at least we’ll get discounts on shoes. I’d face down any 20 people hell bent on chopping me to bits for discounted leather products.

Anyone would.

I went back to contemplating my oval stain again. There surely is a place for those who are remember’d through history. Surely some future playwright will craft the story of Bill Gates, who faced down government anti-trust attorneys to bring humanity into the information age. There will be controversy for centuries over the pivotal transcripts and stories told about the great man and his contribution to society, and history. On the other hand, if you discount the money part, who would actually want to be Bill Gates? Accomplishment and motivation perhaps are the benchmarks of success, and perhaps we judge this by battles won, fortunes made, trophies collected. But what about those of us who never won the big game, who sold the stock at a loss, who dropped out of school, or were fired because we hadn’t excelled lately? Are we any less the models of life for our failure to own, marshal, and be quoted? As I looked at that stain, I thought of my daughter, now a sophomore in high school. In her class of 900 students, she hangs happily in the middle far removed from the top student, and equally far removed from the bottom student. What legacy shall I pass on to her about accomplishment, glory, honor and how history shall remember her? Certainly, she is interested in winning. For some strange reason, everyone wants to be first, best, fastest, richest. There is some ingrained joy in getting that blue ribbon and beamingly staring down those who didn’t quite run fast enough. Yesterday, her high school band came in 2nd in a competition, and once again, her ego was bruised by their collective failure to be the best at something that she has worked so hard for every day for many long months. Is she now a failure for not having heeded the call of her king to face down some bog slogging enemy?

Perhaps so. Perhaps, in the final analysis, most of our 6 billion co-inhabitants of this planet are not ready to face that blue ribbon, and we are destined for that trash heap of anonymity and obscurity. Perhaps victory and fame shall elude most of us, almost all of us, we band of brothers.

As the French slogged through the mud towards their English foes, surely they had some reason to push forward into the face of death to achieve something other than 2nd place. Yet, there is historical precedent for how to deal with the fact that you lost and someone else won. The Japanese have a word for this, seppuku. This is the time honored tradition of facing down your enemy and granting complete victory over you, by virtue of clearing yourself completely from this planet. Something, by the way, you don’t try at home without adult supervision. The ultimate problem facing the victor is cleaning up the mess left behind. So first place comes in two parts, the rewards, and the mess.

Thinking again on the rewards of success I remembered this time, long ago, when the business editor of a local newspaper wrote an article about me. I was portrayed as one of the region’s hottest up-and-coming entrepreneurs. Somewhere in the article, he made an estimate of my net worth based on records of stock ownership and the current market price for the stock. His information was faulty and he gave me a net worth 10 times what it was at the time, and 300 times what it ultimately came out to be. There I was reading with joy, this moment of victory in my life, until I read that paragraph. There was enough paper money there to advise anyone with an evil heart, that kidnapping my children was a task well worth the exercise. I talked it over with my wife and we discussed, getting an unlisted phone number, hiring a security guard for the kids, adding alarm systems for the house, placing the kids in private school—all manner of possible ramifications from a moment of over-inflated public fame. For the first time in my life, I realized that to get the blue ribbon was not necessarily the prize that I’d always dreamed of. With fame and fortune, real or imagined, also come duty and responsibility and risk. Perhaps the risk comes with the territory, but think of it this way, Bill Gates can hire the security guard, have a 40 acre home with fences, dogs, electronic surveillance and have his children home schooled by Yale scholars. I couldn’t. In fact, the only thing I could afford at that time was to get an unlisted phone number. Fortunately, my paranoia was never rewarded with an evil act against my family, but for a month I lived in fear of what might have happened.

I think on that day, I realized that sometimes, it’s actually better to be somewhere just behind the winning team. If you win the gold, someone covets your gold. If you win the silver, someone covets your sliver. If you win the bronze, well, hell, who wants the bronze other than scrap dealers? And, if you are simply the 1st runner up, you don’t even get your name in the paper. On the other hand, being 1st runner up isn’t a bad position to be in. There is certainly a sense of accomplishment, a sense of anonymity, and even if you can’t display the gold, you can certainly purchase a reasonable replica to show off to close friends.

So staring at that oval stain on the rug, I realized that the cat, best of show for a day, Queen of her house, had given me many things more than a blue ribbon and a certificate. Just the simple fact of her being, the interspecies affection between pet and pet was a simple gift unrecorded and unremembered through eternity. Whilst best of show never threw up on a judge, no judge ever had their lap invaded by this cat when the world seemed cold and distant. They never saw her purr or had her argue with you over whether or not salmon was on her menu for the day. And she, what does she know of ribbons and certificates, she can’t even read for God’s sake! It’s a good certificate, something to show when conversation grows lax. But it says nothing of the real world, where now, I must pull out a pail and a sponge and clean up the gift from best of show.

We band of brothers who never get the gold; almost all of us, we happy not so few.

Friday, October 19, 2007

I Didn’t Know It Was Loaded

"Companies tend to look for success in the bottom line."

-Anne C. Weisberg


When one searches the Thomas Register for companies that make integrated circuits, the number of companies that are in the Midwest is a fraction of a percent of the whole. What can be found is a small sprinkling of "fabless" companies that design semiconductors, but don't actually make them. Of course, very few small companies have the capital to invest in the multi-billion dollar manufacturing facilities that have football field sized production spaces so clean that that the only dust to be found is no larger than 300 nanometers in size.


It was not always so…


In July of 1968 a small company started with the purpose of developing a memory device based on silicon rather than the then prevalent magnetic memory.

Woven magnetic core memory bits


At the time, silicon memory cost almost 100 times more than the hand woven magnetic cores that constituted the memory elements of computers of this era. Facing various investment hurdles, and potential competition from other companies, the founders changed course and took the brazen path of producing the world's first microprocessor, the Intel 4004, which contained 2,300 transistors in the space of a postage stamp, cost an earth shattering $200 per chip, and executed instructions at the rate of 1 every 1/60,000th of a second. (It would take more than 250,000 of these chips to match the performance of a typical processor in today's home PC.) Faced with financial success, the company went down the path of stuffing ever more functionality into their microprocessor family creating generation after generation of microprocessor.


Three years before the founding of Intel, Gordon Moore, then at Fairchild Semiconductor, who would later be one of Intel's founders, wrote in a paper for Electronics that suggested that it seemed as if the industry was doubling the density of components every year. He suggested that if this trend continued, the present density of 50 components per circuit might reach 65,000 components per circuit by 1975. Somewhere along the way, this observation and speculation became "Moore's Law" and the operational standard for the semiconductor industry. Today, it seems as if "Moore's Law" is the law as far as the electronics industry is concerned.


There are two other interesting things that happen as "Moore's Law" continues down its economic course. First, the cost of the factories that build these devices increases by a factor of 2 every year or so. Second, the size of the features used in building these devices is currently in the 130-nanometer range, and shrinking. Intel is investing a few billion dollars in the next generation factory, which will build features as small as 65 nanometers, which means features will be brought to market that are on the order of 300 atoms wide.


Assuming that this trend continues, there is a wall to be found. At some point in the not too distant future, the smallest feature size is about the same size as the smallest hunk of matter—the atom. When, and if, the feature size is the size of an atom, this is going to be a rather imposing physical problem, which limits how long "Moore's Law" can hold. Pessimists give it 5 years. Optimists forecast the end to "Moore's Law" not later than 2017. Anyway you look at it; there is a limit to how small you can make things out of atoms.


On the other hand, if you're a nanotechnologist and really don't care about computers that much, there is something rather interesting that Intel has been doing for the last 30 odd years. By constantly shrinking the size of components in their products, Intel has finally broken the hallowed 100-nanometer barrier and will be routinely manufacturing components in the clear realm of nanotechnology by the end of this year. This makes Intel the world's largest nanotechnology company.


What I like most about Intel is that they don't think of themselves as a nanotechnology company. Intel's chairman, Andrew Grove states "The two areas that our business focuses on, computing and communications, are the backbone of the digital infrastructure, and our products are the building blocks that makeup this infrastructure." Did anyone see the word "nano" in there? I didn't. Yet Intel has public plans to produce transistors as small as 20 nanometers by 2007.


The key point of this is that nanotechnology, for those who enjoy market success, is just another hurdle on their path to market success. Like overcoming unions, shipping strikes, and foreign competition, nanotechnology is just another one of those things that gets in the way that has to be managed and cudgeled until it bleeds profit.


In four weeks, we'll take a look at a different company that positively drips "nano" albeit without profits. Next week, we're going to enter the dreamland world of nano-possibilities.


The Atomic Shopping Cart


“Children need money. As they grow older they need more money. They need money for essentially the same reasons that adults need money. They need to buy stuff…”

Donald C. Medeiros

In a time of global terrorism, conflicts in the Middle East, a growing budget shortfall, what kind of insanity would compel you to spend $700 million on the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)? You’d either have to be nuts, or a Republican. Or perhaps, like a child, you have bad dreams, and only a $700 million lollipop will let you sleep soundly at night.

It was a dark and stormy night in the summer of 1999. Twenty-three years before, in 1976, the U.S. Congress had established the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) with a broad mandate to advise the President and others within the Executive Office, on the impacts of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. In the summer of 1999, the OSTP had just presented a report to Congress that said, “The rest of the world is spending more on nanotechnology than we are” and “we will lose the technical high ground, again, just like we did with televisions, automobiles, and memory chips.” It’s not that any of the members of Congress had a clue as to just what nanotechnology was, but they all knew that the Japanese were spending $400 million per year on nanotechnology, and if we didn’t start now, the future of the world’s economy would be in the hands of peoples who have yet to immigrate to this country. Of course, looking back, we discover that the Japanese were lumping nanotechnology and biotechnology into the same pot, so in actual fact, they were spending 1/10th of what was claimed on nanotechnology. And of course, the global economic meltdown was just beginning, which made the rest of the world re-think their technology investment… but that’s just history at this point. Congress spoke, and the NNI was born.


Once a federal feeding frenzy starts, all manner of things can happen. The least likely is that spending will decline. After all, a Federal Bureaucracy has a life of its own that by default is subject to cost overruns, increases in infrastructure costs, and at some level, the actual execution of whatever goals and objectives are promoted from “the highest levels.” So what kinds of programs is the federal government buying with our nanotechnology dollars through the National Nanotechnology Initiative? There are, according to NNI reports, five program areas where activity is warranted:

  1. Fundamental Research - Provides sustained support to individual investigators and small groups doing fundamental, innovative research

  1. Grand Challenges for research on major, long-term objectives

  1. Centers and Networks of Excellence for interdisciplinary research, networking, industry partnerships

  1. Research Infrastructure metrology, instrumentation, modeling/simulation, user facilities

  1. Societal Implications and Workforce Education and Training for a new generation of skilled workers; the impact of nanotechnology on society (legal, ethical, social, economic)

And in what proportions is the NNI spending this money? The NNI breaks it down by seven rather indistinct spending areas.

Nanostructure ‘by Design’, novel phenomena 45%

Device and System Architecture 20%

Biosystems at the nanoscale 14%

Multiscale and Multiphenomena Modeling 9%

Environmental Processes 6%

Manufacturing at the nanoscale 6%

Education and Social Implications 0%

Funny how the 5 programs don’t match the 7 spending categories, but then it’s not my data. I’m also amused by the actual NNI definition for investment in item 7 (the one that really counts). The NNI suggests that it’s not “0%” as I report, but rather, “distributed”, which is government speak for, “we don’t spend money here but definitely attend conferences and would appreciate it if you’d talk to your local congressman or senator.”

When you dig through the budgets in some detail, what you discover is that 1/3 of the money goes to the national laboratory system and 2/3 of the money goes to universities. A lot of the money, I mean a lot of the money goes into building infrastructure, which means, buildings. Of course, history proves that it is impossible to perform novel and break-through research without a new building from which to perform the novel and break-through research.

One of the nice things about the NNI is that it isn’t large enough, yet, to have the infrastructure necessary to actually disburse very much of its own money. Thus, it relies heavily on other government agencies to do its spending. In fact, it spreads the wealth through:

  1. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
  2. Department of Commerce (DOC)
  3. Department of Defense (DOD)
  4. Department of Energy (DOE)
  5. Department of Justice (DOJ)
  6. Department of State (DOS)
  7. Department of Transportation (DOT)
  8. Department of Treasury (DOTreas)
  9. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  10. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
  11. Intelligence Community (IC - various)
  12. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
  13. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
  14. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  15. National Science Foundation (NSF)

  1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Most of these agencies distribute the money through research grants called SBIR or STTR programs, which are small amounts of money granted in $50,000 to $600,000 increments to small companies that perform research specified by the funding agencies. Thus, while the NNI represents a single pot of money, the distribution of the money is handled under the policies and practices of 16 different federal agencies. Needless to say, when one asks each of these agencies what nanotechnology is, you get a slightly different answer. But we’ll come back to this topic in four weeks.

Next time, we’re going to take a look at a small company that routinely uses nanotechnology as part of its business model—A small obscure company that goes by the name, INTEL.

How Small is Small?


Seen from the moon we are all the same size.”

-Eduard Douwer Dekker

This week continues with a basic primer to concepts in nanotechnology. To discuss nanotechnology is sometimes akin to discussing the origins of one’s belief in God. There are ardent evangelists that will take any of the numerous sides to the nano-theology debate. For some, nanotechnology is just the continuation of one’s ongoing dedication to science & discovery. One shining example is Richard Smalley who completed his post-doctoral work at the University of Chicago in 1976. Two decades later, he shared the 1996 Nobel Prize for chemistry for the discovery of fullerenes (a form of highly structured carbon). This was the first Nobel Prize granted for a discovery clearly within the realm of nanotechnology. One would think that this means that nanotechnology is a relatively recent development in the annals of science. One would be dead wrong.

The word nano is derived from the Greek word nannos, which roughly translated means “little old man” or “dwarf.” In today’s English usage, nano is a technical term for measurement meaning 1 billionth of something. It is usually compounded with the word meter and as a nanometer, is a measure of distance of 1 billionth of a meter— approximately the distance occupied by 5 to 10 atoms stacked in a straight line. The word technology has a common meaning, also derived from Greek, which can be generally defined as the application of scientific method to commercial objectives. So nanotechnology very generally means of the manipulation of exceptionally small things, approximately at the atomic or molecular scale, towards some commercial objective. In a nutshell, nanotechnology is the manipulation of very small things to make a profit.

Sumerian texts from 6 millennia ago document mankind’s first venture with assembly of small things to make a profit. Carefully preserved cuneiform tablets recount how early technologists performed the transformation of glucose (C6H12O6) into ethanol (CH3-CH2-OH). These early technologists, also known as brewers, created the magical concoction called beer by employing a primitive molecular assembly process using a molecular assembly device called yeast. Today, the annual global consumption of this molecularly engineered product is approximately 34,333,000,000 gallons, which represents a significant percentage of the world’s GDP.

While the Sumerian’s may not have known exactly what they were doing, they set the stage for global demand of nanotechnology-derived products. For millennia, brewers and vintners quietly plied their trade assembling molecules one loving atom at a time without a care in the world about how nature had granted them the ability to create bulk products from the mass assembly of individual molecules.

It wasn’t until 1959 that Richard Feynman, who later would share a Nobel Prize for his work in quantum electrodynamics, got around to suggesting that it was not only possible, but also desirable to think about assembling commercially viable products, one atom at a time. Most nanotechnologists claim that Feynman’s 1959 “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom,” speech created the foundation for what would become nanotechnology in its various incarnations. While Feynman was perhaps 6,000 years late in seeking commercial opportunity with nanotechnology, his significant contribution was to make the quest for atomic assembly of products respectable. In short, any credentialed scientist could now claim to be working in a direction suggested by Feynman, and not be denied tenure for being a crackpot.

Science and technology tend to take a generation to achieve success with new paradigms. Thus, it comes as no surprise that it took nearly a quarter century before the realities caught up with Feynman’s conjectures. In 1985, three significant events occurred:

1. Richard Smalley, et al, discovered fullerenes.

2. Eric Drexler published the seminal book “Engines of Creation.”

3. IBM published a photograph of xenon atoms, which had been moved into a pattern that spelled out the letters “IBM.”



From a marketing point of view we now had, respectively:

1. Acceptance by the international community of something novel that had nanometer scale structure.

2. A popular book talking about what nanotechnology could do for you and your kin.

3. A rather remarkable photograph showing that atoms could be moved one at a time.

Thus, while science may derive from generations of dedicated attention to detail and the growth of ideas pyramided on the ideas of others, for nanotechnology, the birth in the public’s eye came in one moment in time, in 1985. From that time forward, there would be no lack of scripts for science fiction episodes, and no dearth of funding for those seeking to build the inscrutable.

In future blogs, we’ll see exactly what is so important about a fullerene and why a former University of Chicago post-doc achieved acclaim for finding something so small.

Grey Goo


“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”

--Richard Feynman

One of the more interesting concerns of nanotechnology is “grey goo.” The term was invented by Eric Drexler to describe one of the dangerous issues that must be faced as nanotechnology capabilities evolve. Here’s how it works.

1. Pretend that nanotechnology truly exists to the point where we can fabricate machines of arbitrary complexity using individual atoms or molecules.

2. Pretend that these machines have sufficient complexity and computational means that they can make copies of themselves using whatever happens to be lying within their reach.

3. Pretend that their fabrication systems are such that they can make a copy of themselves about once an hour.

4. Pretend that one of these machines decides to do nothing except make copies of itself.

THEN we take this


And turn it into this in about 1 week.


It’s a bit worse than the Borg. The idea is that everything gets converted into grey goo: you, me, trees, chickens, and everything. This would not be good news. It would totally ruin my retirement plans.


By comparison, let’s think a bit about my favorite bacterium, e. coli. This bacterium lives in your stomach and mine, and is about 10 micrometers in width, and can make a copy of itself in about 20 minutes. If just one e. coli decided to replicate itself uncontrollably, it could perform the same feat as our hypothetical nanomachine in about a day and a half.



Because of this concern, there are those in the nanotechnology community who have proposed legislation that would make it illegal to create a nanomachine with the ability to make a copy of itself. One wonders if we should advocate similar legislation for bacteria. I am, for some reason, reminded of Indiana House Bill #246 submitted in 1897 which would have made the legal value of ∏ (pi) = 3.2

The interesting issue here is that e. coli long since made the genetic decision to make as many copies of itself as fast as possible forever and ever and ever. Just counting the bacteria that live inside humans, there are about 3.9 x 1023 (39,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) bacteria that have made that same genetic decision. If we move into the rest of the world, the number of bacteria that have made similar decisions is estimated to be 5 X 1030. So how come these bacteria haven’t converted the planet into sludge? Well, there are two leading answers.

The first is that bacteria dine on each other, so since everyone is having lunch at the same time, no single bacteria has an opportunity to grow at an unrestricted rate without becoming lunch for another bacteria. The grey goo model suggests in this case, that since evolution hasn’t created our runaway nanomachine, there are no natural predators to stop it, so it will convert the planet into copies of itself in about a week.

The second one is that, fundamentally, the universe is a hostile place, and no matter what your intentions, be they lofty or bacterial, the universe just doesn’t provide you with all the parts you need to make things on demand. In fact, if you’re in the mood to make a lot of copies of yourself, the raw materials in your neighborhood are going to get consumed rather quickly, which is going to slow down your rate of replication. Similarly, if you happen to need some rare substance in your replication process, such as tantalum, you’re not going to find very much of it floating around waiting to be consumed.

Thus, while grey goo is certainly an interesting idea and legislation will be pending to see to it that we don’t make it outside of Iraq, there are likely to be some significant natural laws that should bring the threat level down to a manageable level. On the other hand, we need not worry too much, for the nanotechnology community has proposed that along with grey goo, we should also fabricate blue goo. Blue goo would be the nanocops of this new age, nanomachines that have the express purpose of hunting down and destroying grey goo.

The one caveat to all of this is that the military potential of the various kinds of goo will certainly result in some level of funding over the next few decades. In fact, a larger version of goo technology has already been funded by DARPA under the name “smart dust.” Perhaps it isn’t such a bad idea to legislate the value of ∏

There's Something Happening Here

“Stop children, what's that sound, everybody look what’s going down”
- Buffalo Springfield

Mayor Richard Daley formed the Mayor’s Council of Technology Advisors in 1999. In the last year, this council has proposed that Chicago should become a regional nanotechnology hub. Meanwhile, the University of Wisconsin has created a Center for Nanotechnology, the University of Minnesota has created the Organization for Minnesota Nanotechnology Initiatives, the Institute for Nanotechnology quietly resides at the University of Illinois, Purdue University in Indiana has raised $51 Million for the Birck Nanotechnology Center, and on and on and on. Clearly, something big is afoot.

Most people think of nanotechnology as something that got Wesley Crusher into trouble in a 1989 episode of “Star-Trek, the Next Generation.” Few people realize that the U.S. government has spent almost $2 billion trying to create nanotechnology, and that the global investment in nanotechnology is approaching $6 billion—more than the cost of a fully equipped Nimitz class aircraft carrier en route to the coast of Iraq.

When governments start investing this kind of money into a technology, there is either a rich payoff at the end, or someone has their hand in a pork barrel of major proportion. Digging lightly into the U.S. government’s investment in nanotechnology, we find that its $700 million 2003 budget is managed by an organization called the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) subcommittee that is harbored within the National Science Foundation. This initiative is managed by Dr. Roco, who speaks with a distinct French accent, and closely resembles Jacques Valle’s character in Spielberg’s “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” Dr. Roco has recently reported that nanotechnology, whatever it is, will represent a 1 trillion dollar economic force employing 2 million workers in the United States by 2015.

If all of this is true, then perhaps it is time to start paying serious attention to nanotechnology, whatever it is. This is where I come in. Three years ago, I had the dubious pleasure of starting the writing phase on a book called “The Investor’s Guide to Nanotechnology and Micromachines.” At that time, I had no prior experience with nanotechnology beyond science fiction and an occasional glimpse of pictures of small things published in Scientific American. How I got this book project is something only Hercule Perot could divine, but let it suffice that I had to learn a few giga-words worth of nanotechnology jargon, philosophy, business, technology, and personalities. Throughout that process, I had to keep the words of Kurt Vonnegut in mind, “anyone who can’t explain what they’re doing to an 8 year old child is a charlatan.” Thus, by the spring of 2002 I had the number one best selling nanotechnology book on the market, and by the spring of 2005, if sales continue, I’ll have earned in excess of $1/hour for my efforts.

On the other hand, this experience gave me insight and access to programs that in principle may represent 20% of the world’s gross domestic product in a decade or so. In short, I became absolutely enthralled by the topic. Once a writer gets a bug up their heinie, he has to keep writing until “all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.” Much to my joy, ePrairie has given me an opportunity to guide its readers through the often murky yet ever fascinating swamps of nanotechnology.



Thus, this is the first in a weekly series of columns dedicated to nanotechnology. My intent is to educate, infuriate, and pontificate. The focus of these columns will cycle in an orderly way from week to week. Starting next week, we will dive headlong into an introduction to nanotechnology—the first of several primers on what it is, and where it came from. The week after, we will take a look at current topics in nanotechnology—a guide to what’s hot, what’s not, and why or why not. The third week we will look at the business case for nanotechnology—companies to watch, stocks to avoid, and sectors of interest. The fourth week, we will look at some of the dreams of the nanotechnology community—fascinating claims and promises from immortality to a Ferrari in every garage. Then the cycle will repeat itself.

One thing is clear about nanotechnology. Whatever it is, there’s going to be a lot more of it before we’re finished. A recent review of technology economic impacts suggested that nanotechnology is not something new and wonderful, but rather a steady incremental development built on knowledge and research going back literally thousands of years. This study suggested that fully 40% in the growth in this country’s Gross Domestic Product for the last 10 years could be directly attributed to developments in nanotechnology, albeit under different names.

Of one thing I am certain, each and every human being on this planet will benefit from these technologies.



With apologies to Robert Graves, “I Claudius”



_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_