Big money for little science

By Cathrin Schaer

Friday 1st February 2002

Nanotechnology - happening or hype?

Self-assembling consumer goods, super-computers a million times faster than anything we know now and no bigger than a human cell, affordable space travel in a vehicle no larger than the family car. Sounds good, doesn't it? That's exactly what the advocates of nanotechnology, a new frontier in science, were promising just a few years ago.

Nanotechnology as social revolution hasn't happened, but don't write it off. As Scientific American magazine put it recently, "Nano is all the rage". Just to prove it, it devoted its September 2001 issue to the subject. Proving it further is the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) with its $US422 million budget, instituted by former US President Bill Clinton early in 2000. Even US President Bush seems enamoured of nanotech. If his budget request passes, federal funding for nano research will have quadrupled since 1997.

Nano-what?

Nanotechnology is literally the technology of the teenie weenie - the really, really small. It is about molecular manufacturing, or building things one atom at a time. The term was coined by Eric Drexler, author of the nano-devotee's bible Engines of Creation, and one of the leaders in the field since 1976. It's called nanotechnology because components are measured in nanometres (NM) - billionths of a metre, or a thousand million times smaller than a metre. Just to give you some sense of what we are talking about, imagine a cricket ball. To magnify the ball's nano-sized atoms so they were the size of, say, grapes, you would have to blow the ball up to the size of the Earth.

What nanotechnologists want to do is take those atoms (the microscopic building blocks, which, in varying combinations, make up every single thing we know of in the universe, including the human body) and make really small, really useful things out of them.

Nanotechnology as it exists today is an interdisciplinary science, combining advances in physics, chemistry, biology, engineering and computer science. Some nanotechnologists are experimenting with nano-electronics, which involves making tiny parts for tinier, smarter computers. Others are working on bio-nanotechnology, which involves projects like the medical sensors that could be injected into the human body for medical reasons or perhaps used to measure the temperature of cheese in production.

Yet more scientists are working on nano-materials - very small ingredients that can be used in the manufacture of other goods. This is currently the only kind of nanotechnology that has any commercial applications. For instance, a sunscreen being made by a US company, Nanophase Technologies, uses nano-size zinc oxide particles in its lotion, making the usually white-coloured cream transparent because the tiny particles don't scatter visible light.

One day, according to nano-zealots like Drexler, nanomachines will be able to build almost anything we want by assembling it atom by atom - and with no environmental pollution. Consumer goods will be manufactured at virtually no cost and won't wear out because atoms are virtually indestructible and completely recyclable. Medical nanomachines, Drexler imagines, will be able to do basic cell repair, building human cells from the atom up. Tiny nano-sized microcomputers would patrol our bodies like artificial immune systems, destroying viral and other invaders and even - believe it or not - reversing the aging process.

Other nanomachines, he enthuses, will be able to synthesise new super-materials, perhaps a diamond and titanium composite that may be suitable for extraterrestrial travel. And nanocomputers controlling space flight will be so small we'll fit them all into a car-sized craft.

Earth to Drexler? As the NNI proves, serious people are taking nanotechnology seriously. And it's not just the Americans. The US National Science Foundation estimates total nanotechnology funding from countries outside America has jumped from $316 million in 1997 to about $835 million this year. Japan has one of the highest levels of nanotech spending in the world. In Australia it's possible to do a science degree in nanotechnology at Flinders University in Sydney. There are also several centres around Australia dedicated to nanotechnology-specific research, including the NanoMaterials Centre in Queensland.

Nano New Zealand-size

Comparatively, New Zealand research into nanotech is just a nano-sized blip on the global radar. Despite this, local researchers have recently made a breakthrough that, if all goes according to plan, could have major technological and financial consequences for nanotech worldwide.

A group of five academics and some of their students from different disciplines at Canterbury University have been working together on various nanotechnology projects, using the acronym NEST (Nanostructure Engineering Science and Technology group). In September this year the group patented a novel technology that uses atomic clusters to form chains only a few atoms thick - a kind of nano-wire, if you like. In layman's terms, the technology resembles dropping billiard balls (atoms) onto a pool table. The billiard balls form clusters and those clusters eventually form a line. This line can behave like a wire. These kinds of nano-wires have potential for use in the manufacture of various types of nano-sized machines.

The dwindling size of circuits in electronic chips drives much of the interest in nano. Computer companies with large research laboratories, such as IBM and Hewlett-Packard, have substantial research programmes. And once conventional silicon electronics go bust - probably some time in the next 10 to 25 years - it's quite possible that nano-electronic devices will replace them. "All over the world people are trying different approaches to make nanomachines," explains Dr Simon Brown, senior lecturer in physics at the University of Canterbury, and leader of the physics arm of the NEST team. "It's a very early phase in the development of this field and right now all approaches are equally good. We've come up with one that seems to work quite nicely and that could ostensibly put us up there with the big boys."

Brown has just been on a fact-finding mission to Europe, where he's confirmed that NEST appears to be the only research team working on something like this. He's been very encouraged by the reaction he's had to his presentations. "What we were trying to do was think smart on a small budget; we were trying to come up with different combinations of equipment," Brown explains. And after 18 months, NEST achieved its results. "In this case," he says, "we were lucky in that we had the two key technologies within 100m of each other."

Further work is required, but if everything goes according to plan NEST's new nano-wires have the potential to replace what is currently considered the best similar option, the nano-tube. These are basically tubes made from carbon atoms. But the winner of the fight between nano-tubes and nano-wires isn't clear cut. The same month NEST patented its idea, IBM announced a new process to make nano-tubes.

Terry Fullerton, chief executive of the university's commercial arm, Canterprise, reckons NEST's idea may well be better than IBM's because "there are real difficulties with the commercial manufacture of carbon nano-tubes that still need to be overcome". By comparison, NEST's nano-wires are much easier and cleaner to make. Fullerton reckons the NEST discovery could generate major revenue for the university and possibly create a development laboratory with 30 or more scientists. Of course, that's if the NEST group can source funding for further research.

"When you mention nanotechnology you get a surprisingly positive reaction," says Brown. "A lot of people recognise it as the next big thing even though they may not understand the details. But at the moment, he stresses, "there's very little actual business or industry going on that has to do with nanotechnology. Big chip-makers like Motorola and Intel are spending money on research, but that's about it." While Brown admits that historically the link between science and industry is weak in New Zealand, he'd love to see a local company getting involved.

Although there are a variety of possibilities, NEST's research will most likely go in the direction that available funding takes it. Brown believes that presently the most likely outcome might be some kind of chemical sensor. A finished product of some sort using the NEST nano-wires might be around in approximately three years, he says, but probably only if things go faster than usual.

Drexler's dream

And what of the rest of nanotechnology? Will we ever reap the rewards of Drexler's fantastic vision? Well, as Gary Stix, an editor with Scientific American, writes so sagely: "If the nano concept holds together, it could, in fact, lay the groundwork for a new industrial revolution. But to succeed, it will need to discard the overheated rhetoric that can derail any big new funding effort. Distinguishing between what's real and what's not in nano throughout this period of extended exploration will remain no small task."

Want to invest in little things?

"Like the internet, nanotech risks being overhyped," comments global technology strategist Steven Milunovich from Merrill Lynch's offices on Wall Street. "But like the internet, where there's smoke there's fire. We believe selected nanotech applications will become real over the next few years." Milunovich sees nanotech not so much as a product but as a process, which could effect various industries. He predicts five markets forming, with particular emphasis on the first two.

Instrumentation: In any new technology, the first winners are the toolmakers.
Physical: Examples include denser hard drives, smaller and faster chips, and better optical switches.
Biological: Applications look promising with DNA, viruses and proteins.
Materials: Nanotechnology in materials develop-ment is already a significant business.
Futuristic: Outlandish implications for the application of nanotech are interesting but beyond investors' interest.

Cathrin Schaer

Comments from our readers

No comments yet