Part of a series on the history and prospects of advanced nanotechnology
concepts, prompted by the upcoming 50th anniversary of Feynman’s historic talk,
“There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom”.
I’ve updated my recent post, “The promise that launched the field of nanotechnology”, with the following graphic and caption:
Engines of Creation, boosted by the 1986 OMNI cover story,launched a wave of excitement about the promise of nanotechnology,
followed by a surge of support for research in diverse nano-related fields.
The post discusses the origin of the excitement about nanotechnology; this dates from 1986, when the term and initial concept first entered the public sphere. The post highlights the role of the mass-circulation publication that, in November of that year, placed the term and ideas out of Engines of Creation in front of ~106 science-oriented readers, about a thousand times as many as the book had, at that point. Here’s the cover:
MOLECULAR MACHINES THAT MIMIC LIFE
(by Fred Hapgood)
Ideas picked up by the world in 1986, then echoed, amplified, simplified, exaggerated, and embroidered, were the origin of peculiar misconceptions that reverberate to this day (often with my name still glued to them). Understanding this this history is important to understanding current concepts of nanotechnology.
At this point, there’s a substantial academic literature on this chain of events, and on the politics that surrounded it.
See also:
- Part 1 — The promise that launched the field of nanotechnology
- Part 2 — Molecular Manufacturing: Where’s the progress?
- Part 3 — The Molecular Machine Path to Molecular Manufacturing (1)
- Part 4 — The Molecular Machine Path to Molecular Manufacturing (2)
- Part 5 — “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom” (29 December 1959)
[Timeline graphic & text revised 7 Sept 2010]
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Mr Drexler
You have to acellerate your molecular manufacturing, our world don´t support more, climate problem, social problem and etc, come on Mr Drexler
You don´t have incentive ou money from the government ou others Institutes, but you have a smart mind
In molecular nanotechnology, we trust
In Science, we trust
In Drexler, we trust
In Drexler we trust
@ Ulisses Marioto —
My initial impulse was to delete your comment.
Instead, I will explain why.
This line of technology development isn’t about me, or about any individual. It’s about biomolecules, nanoparticles, physics, engineering, applications, design software, and incremental progress toward strategic enabling technologies.
Most important, it’s about the potential for a focused, multidisciplinary effort of the kind that will be necessary to develop and exploit a more tractable implementation technology, one that will enable more systematic design and faster progress. This critical advance is now within reach. To achieve it will require the creative effort of many researchers. Success may indeed be crucial to addressing global problems, including climate change.
I would be honored to support and advise the leaders of a development program of this kind, and to help formulate it — but it’s not about me, and never should have been.
I wrote this and the post that it references because aspects of the history of the concept of nanotechnology — which do involve my role in the story — are important to understanding where the field stands today.
Thank you for your kind sentiments, but they are not helpful.
{ 2 trackbacks }