The definition of nanoscience
This afternoon we had a “panel session” where several of the leading experts in the field talked about several interesting topics. To be experimental, I’m writing this as I listen to the panel, so if it doesn’t flow quite as well as it might, you’ll know why - but you’ll also get a first hand account, posted the moment the session is done!
The first was what is the definition of nanoscience, nanotechnology and “quantum nanoscience”, the actual topic of this conference. The view was that it’s importance to have a clear and accessible defintion of what nanoscience is so that it couldn’t be distorted and get a bad brand name as has happened to terms such as “nuclear” and “genetic engineering”. Apparently, when the media reported on this conference, all the reporters wanted to talk about was how likely it was for an army of self replicating nanomachines to take over the world!
Although there was some disagreement (a lot of which comes down to semantics, in my opinion) the general concensus is that nanoscience is the control and manipulation of objects (e.g., atoms!) on the nanoscale, meaning around 1 billionth of a metre. (For comparison, an atom is typically around a 10th of a nanometre.) The importance of this particular defintion is that it distinguishes between simply making small things (like biology does, making molecules) and actually being able to control them and use them. Hence, things like nanomachines that might heal our body or repair the space shuttle are all applications of nanoscience.
Quantum nanoscience, then, is a subset of this where quantum effects come into play and we can’t use “classical” models to explain what happens. One interesting thought, though, was that part of the role of a quantum nanoscientist might not just be to try and make ever smaller objects, but to try and make larger objects that still need to be explained by quantum mechanics, hence showing we really live in a quantum world (and, hopefully, making some useful devices in the process).
The next question was regarding the “Big Questions” in quantum nanoscience. Discussions included:
- the difficulties in mass producing large numbers of these devices, to the point where we’re combining them in the same way that we combine transistors to form a pentium chip
- the need to understand and control decoherence (the washing out of quantum by the environment) so that we can control when we have a quantum nanodevice and a classical nanodevice
- whether we can build a quantum nanoscale device that actually violates some prediction of quantum mechanics…and then explain it!
Finally, they asked what the big social and ethical issues are regarding quantum mechanics. Again, the issue of public perception of nanoscience was brought up, particularly with news reports on new “nanomachines” and bad science fiction movies. (Did anyone read Michael Crichton’s Prey? Pretty ridiculous, really!) One of the chemists on the panel pointed out that biology already does much of this - it creates highly efficient nanomachines that can detect light, convert sunlight into plant food, and more. Why should it be any different here?
One good point was the issues with health dangers of nanoparticles - if you breath in nanoparticles, could it have reprecussions 20 years down the track? It’s therefore important to have very open and very thorough testing, and that we don’t just say “It’s fine!” and expect everyone to take our word. They cited several examples of medicines or chemicals that were “shown” to be safe, but which later turned out to be harmful or even deadly. I agree, but I’d like to hope that we now have a more rigorous testing procedure, and I’d be concerned about being too vocal about it - I think it is important that people do trust the experts of a field, rather than one lone crackpot who thinks that a microwave oven causes you to grow a second head.
Finally there was an interseting discussion on the implications of developing technology that might be used for “evil” (I’m paraphrasing 
Ultimately, we (scientists) don’t control the technology we develop - governments, industries and even the voting public will ultimately decide how or if the technology is applied. It’s therefore important for us to do outreach and education, and make sure that everyone can make an informed decision on how this technology should be used. It was also suggested that thought should be given to possible applications of nanotechnology to major world issues - water shortage, global warming, etc. - and perhaps taking a more global view on where the field should be heading. Another speaker expressed a slightly pessimistic, but perhaps realistic, view that nanotechnology wouldn’t go towards benefiting everyone, but would instead by focussed towards extending the lives of the richest people, and increasing the divide between have and have-nots.
Will nanotechnology produce the same revolution as microtechnology, which lead to microchips, computers and the internet? Perhaps not, but judging by the research discussed this week it’s going to be interesting. On that note, I’m going to wrap up this “coverage”. It’s remarkably hard to type and listen at the same time, so apologies if this wasn’t as coherent as it could have been (there’s a pun there for the quantum physicists amongst you…)
Off to the conference dinner now!