Frequent Nanodot readers know that our main interest is longer-term nanotech, but sometimes what’s happening today gets pretty exciting as well.  A quick summary  of recent advances in nanotech used to fight cancer appears in a Computerworld piece by Sharon Gaudin; some excerpts:

Rice University said yesterday that when the nanoparticles deliver dye to the cell, a small bundle of fiber-optic cables attached to a US$400 Olympus E-330 digital camera are used to capture images. The dyes cause the cell nuclei to glow brightly when lighted with the tip of the fiber-optic bundle…

“The dyes and visual techniques that we used are the same sort that pathologists have used for many years to distinguish healthy cells from cancerous cells in biopsied tissue,” said study coauthor Mark Pierce, Rice faculty fellow in bioengineering, in a statement. “But the tip of the imaging cable is small and rested lightly against the [patient's] inside the cheek, so the procedure is considerably less painful than a biopsy and the results are available in seconds instead of days”…

Scientists have been putting a lot of focus on nanotechnology in recent cancer research.

This past January, teams of researchers from three universities jointly developed a nanotechnology cocktail that should target and kill cancerous tumors. The mixture of two different-sized nanoparticles work with the body’s bloodstream to seek out, stick to and kill tumors, according to MIT.

And Stanford University researchers last October announced that they had used nanotechnology and magnetics to create a biosensor designed to detect cancer in its early stages, making a cure more likely. University scientists reported that the sensor, which sits on a microchip, is 1,000 times more sensitive than cancer detectors used clinically today.

A month earlier, researchers at the University of Toronto said they had used nanomaterials to develop a microchip that is sensitive enough to detect early stage cancer. The chip is designed to detect the type of cancer and its severity.

Good news for everyone who might get cancer, which is…everyone.  —Chris Peterson

For years we’ve watched academic degree programs in nanotechnology being announced piecemeal, or in partial lists.  Now it looks like Nanowerk has stepped up to the task of keeping a complete list, sorted by level of degree and country.  See it here: http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/nanotechnology_degrees.php

A handy chart allows users to click through to see all the programs at a given level in a particular country.

From their press release announcing the new database:

Only three years ago, there were no more than 150 programs worldwide – now there are over 250 in more than 25 countries.

Reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of nanosciences and nanotechnologies, these specialized academic degree programs span many disciplines ranging from biology, chemistry, and physics to medicine, engineering, and electronics; even MBAs are offered as dual degree options for nanotechnology students.

While there is an emphasis on Master’s programs, with almost half of all degree offerings, roughly one half of all programs can be found in Europe and one third in North America.

The UK is the country with the most Master’s programs (30) and the U.S. by far has the most dedicated Ph.D. programs (24).

Not surprisingly, with 61 offerings the U.S. is the country with the single most nanotechnology degree and certification programs, followed by the UK (38) and Germany (30).

I wouldn’t want to be the one responsible for keeping this database current!  —Chris Peterson

Nanowerk brings us news of advances at Singapore’s Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology:

Researchers at the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) in Singapore have now successfully demonstrated, for the first time, a lithography-free, direct-write technique for fabricating discrete field-effect transistors, as well as digital logic gates on a single nanowire…

“Our single-step fabrication technique obviates the time-consuming and labor-intensive lithography process, and enhances the fabrication accuracy and yield,” says Roy. “With a higher level of precision and throughput, it can offer a powerful method for rapid prototyping of futuristic nanoelectronic circuits.”

I like that word “futuristic” and hope it’s not just a translation error.  –Chris Peterson

Tihamer Toth-Fejel let us know that the public can comment online today, right now, our views on nanotech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)

President’s Innovation and Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC)

Golden Triangle1 Workshop

1 Golden Triangle: Research Encompassing Information Technology — Biotechnology — Nanotechnology.

June 22, 2010

Webcast at: http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/pcast/100622/

Goal of Workshop: The information from this workshop will provide guidance that will inform the implementation of the President’s Innovation Strategy as outlined in the following document: “A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable Growth and Quality Jobs,” and identify possible studies that might be conducted under PCAST’s overarching activity entitled “Creating New Jobs Through Science, Technology, and Innovation.”

Workshop Question: What are the critical infrastructures, that only government can help provide, that are needed to enable creation of new biotechnology, nanotechnology, and information technology (bio/nano/info) products and innovations that will lead to new jobs and greater GDP?

10:00 am Welcome and Workshop Overview

Shirley Ann Jackson, Co-Chair, PITAC

Eric Schmidt, Co-Chair, PITAC

10:15 am Introductions: How would you respond to the workshop question? Specifically:

• What are the new bio/nano/info technologies with which you are involved that will change the world in the next 10 years? What are the unique opportunities at the intersections of these fields?

• Where is the basic research taking us? What knowledge gaps remain?

• What are the impediments to commercialization and broad use of these technologies?

• What infrastructure is required to properly test, prototype, scale, and manufacture breakthrough technologies?

• Where should the Federal government invest and focus its resources? What Federal policies or programs relating to these technologies are in need of review? Are new programs or policies needed in light of recent and anticipated advances in these fields?

Please illustrate your answer with an exhibit, document, or case study that would help describe or explain your insights.

11:45 am Live Public Comment via Facebook, Twitter, Email, or OpenPCAST website 2

12:00 pm Working Lunch

Keynote: Aneesh Chopra, Chief Technology Officer, and Associate Director, Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President

12:30 pm Discussion of Responses to Workshop Question

2:00 pm Live Public Comment via Facebook, Twitter, Email, or OpenPCAST website

2:15 pm Final Thoughts

2:30 pm Adjourn

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pitac-agenda-june.pdf

Sorry for the late notice!  —Chris Peterson

Not able to attend the Open Science Summit on July 29-31 in Berkeley, California?

We’ll miss you, but you can watch the conference live at:

http://fora.tv/live/open_science/open_science_summit_2010

Put it on your calendar now!  Or we’ll hope to see you in person, especially for the session where I’m speaking: “Safety and Security Concerns, Open Source Biodefense” at 5:15 PM on Friday.  –Chris Peterson

Those of you with a background in organic chemistry will recognize the venerable name of Beilstein, originally a handbook of organic chemistry which evolved into a database, later combined with Gmelin inorganic data to form the Crossfire database.

So the Beilstein brand is a powerful one in chemistry.  Nanowerk brings to our attention that Beilstein is starting an open-access nanotechnology journal, to include ‘Theoretical aspects and concepts of nanotechnology’, with 2007 Feynman Prize winner Fraser Stoddart on the Advisory Board.  From the Beilstein site:

The most important key facts for the Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology are:

• Open Access
  All articles published in the Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology are freely and universally accessible for everyone immediately upon publication: no user registration is required.
• No Publication Fee
  The publication of articles in the Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology is free of charge. The journal is published and financed by the Beilstein-Institut and therefore publishing in the journal is offered without the imposition of any author fees or other publication charges.
• General Publication Criteria
  The main criteria for acceptance of an article for publication in the Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology are high quality, originality, novelty and importance.
• Peer Review
  All articles published in the journal are fully refereed prior to acceptance. Detailed information about the review process is given in the Instructions for Referees. The Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor makes a final decision on the manuscript based on the referees’ recommendations.
• No Page Limit
  There is no page limit for articles in the Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology. Authors should provide enough background information to support the aim of study and the main claims of the paper, but unimportant or trivial information should not be included. The article length should be commensurate with its scientific content.
• Authors Retain Copyright
  Authors retain copyright of their articles. The articles of the Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
• Detailed Experimental Data
  It is the intention of the Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology to publish articles with detailed descriptions of experimental data and procedures.

The Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology offers scientists the unique opportunity to publish their research free of charge in an Open Access scientific journal that is freely available online 365 days a year to any user worldwide.

Between journals such as this, and the University of California’s recent action against the Nature group of publications, the world of scientific publishing is being upended.  What do *you* think?  —Chris Peterson

Many Foresight leaders and members will be gathering at this year’s Singularity Summit in San Francisco, expected to draw up to 1100 participants.  It’s a bit pricey, but it’s for a good cause and there are student and referral discounts plus discounts on the hotel rooms.  I can testify that this is a fun and stimulating event, and if a particular talk is not in your area of interest, just go out into the hallway and meet lots of interesting people.  Here’s the press release:

Singularity Summit 2010 in San Francisco to Explore Intelligence Augmentation

Speakers include Futurist Ray Kurzweil, Magician-Skeptic James Randi

Will it be one day become possible to boost human intelligence using brain implants, or create an artificial intelligence smarter than Einstein? In a 1993 paper presented to NASA, science fiction author and mathematician Vernor Vinge called such a hypothetical event a “Singularity”, saying “From the human point of view this change will be a throwing away of all the previous rules, perhaps in the blink of an eye”. Vinge pointed out that intelligence enhancement could lead to “closing the loop” between intelligence and technology, creating a positive feedback effect.

This August 14-15, hundreds of AI researchers, robotics experts, philosophers, entrepreneurs, scientists, and interested laypeople will converge in San Francisco to address the Singularity and related issues at the only conference on the topic, the Singularity Summit. Experts in fields including animal intelligence, artificial intelligence, brain-computer interfacing, tissue regeneration, medical ethics, computational neurobiology, augmented reality, and more will share their latest research and explore its implications for the future of humanity.

“This year, the conference shifts to a focus on neuroscience, bioscience, cognitive enhancement, and other explorations of what Vernor Vinge called ‘intelligence amplification’ — the other route to the Singularity,” said Michael Vassar, president of the Singularity Institute, which is hosting the event.

Irene Pepperberg, author of “Alex & Me,” who has pushed the frontier of animal intelligence with her research on African Gray Parrots, will explore the ethical and practical implications of non-human intelligence enhancement and of the creation of new intelligent life less powerful than ourselves. Futurist-inventor Ray Kurzweil will discuss reverse-engineering the brain and his forthcoming book, How the Mind Works and How to Build One. Allan Synder, Director, Centre for the Mind at the University of Sydney, will explore the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation for the enhancement of narrow cognitive abilities. Joe Tsien will talk about the smarter rats and mice that he created by tuning the molecular substrate of the brain’s learning mechanism. Steve Mann, “the world’s first cyborg,” will demonstrate his latest geek-chic inventions: wearable computers now used by almost 100,000 people.

Other speakers will include magician-skeptic and MacArthur Genius Award winner James Randi; Gregory Stock (Redesigning Humans), former Director of the Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society at UCLA’s School of Public Health; Terry Sejnowski, Professor and Laboratory Head, Salk Institute Computational Neurobiology Laboratory, who believes we are just ten years away from being able to upload ourselves; Ellen Heber-Katz, Professor, Molecular and Cellular Oncogenesis Program at The Wistar Institute, who is investigating the molecular basis of wound regeneration in mutant mice, which can regenerate limbs, hearts, and spinal cords; Anita Goel, MD, physicist, and CEO of nanotechnology company Nanobiosym; and David Hanson, Founder & CEO, Hanson Robotics, who is creating the world’s most realistic humanoid robots.

Interested readers can watch videos from past summits and register at www.singularitysummit.com.

Hope to talk with you there!  (Full disclosure: I am an SIAI advisor.)  —Chris Peterson

Our friends over at Singularity University are described in some detail in a long article in the New York Times.  An excerpt, with names familiar to Nanodot readers as speakers at Foresight conferences:

Some of Silicon Valley’s smartest and wealthiest people have embraced the Singularity. They believe that technology may be the only way to solve the world’s ills, while also allowing people to seize control of the evolutionary process…

Peter A. Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal and a major investor in Facebook, is a Singularity devotee who offers a “Singularity or bust” scenario.

“It may not happen, but there are a lot of technologies that need to be developed for a whole series of problems to be solved,” he says. “I think there is no good future in which it doesn’t happen”…

[Peter Diamandis] is also a firm believer in the Singularity and is a technocelebrity in his own right, primarily through his role in commercializing space travel. At a recent Singularity University lunch, he hopped up to make a speech peppered with passion and conviction.

“My target is to live 700 years,” he declared.

The students chuckled.

“I say that seriously,” he retorted.

Read the whole thing.  (Full disclosure: I am an SU Advisor.)  —Chris Peterson

If you can’t make it to Harvard this weekend, June 12-13, you’ll want to catch the live webcast of the H+ Summit: “Rise of the Citizen Scientist”.  No link yet, but presumably they’ll be putting it on the event homepage before it starts.  Also presumably they will post the videos somewhere for longer-term viewing. UPDATE: HERE’S THE URL FOR STREAMING: http://hplussummit.com/streaming.html

The H+ Summit is a two day event that explores how humanity will be radically changed by technology in the near future. Visionary speakers will explore the potential of technology to modify your body, mind, life, and world.

What will it mean to be a human in this next phase of technological development? How can we prepare now for coming changes?

We foresee the feasibility of redesigning the human condition and overcoming such constraints as the inevitability of aging, limitations on human and artificial intellects, unchosen psychology, lack of resources, and our confinement to the planet earth. The possibilities are broad and exciting. The H+ Summit will provide a venue to discuss these future scenarios and to hear exciting presentations by the leaders of the ongoing H+ (r)evolution.

I was at their December 2009 conference in southern California and it was great.  They’re planning another one for December 2010, again in southern California.  —Chris Peterson

Here at Foresight, we’re always trying to help those looking to move their careers in the direction of nanotechnology.

Now the Wall Street Journal is predicting that this should pay off:

Kelley McDonald has always loved exploring new terrain. In home videos as early as age 3, “I’m always off by myself, looking under rocks or catching and studying bees,” she says. Today, at 18, the Apple Valley, Minn., college student is studying for a science career in the fast-growing field of nanotechnology—working with materials at the molecular or atomic level.

That makes her one of the lucky ones—a young adult whose career passion is in sync with one of the hot jobs of the near future…

Ms. McDonald found her passion through a community-college nanotechnology program funded by the National Science Foundation, where one official foresees hundreds of thousands of job openings in the field in the next five years.

In 1967, the future was “plastics”, according to the movie “The Graduate”.  If that movie were made today, the line could instead be, “I just want to say one word to you — just one word — ‘nanotech’.”  —Chris Peterson

Foresight Feynman Prize winner Nadrian Seeman will share the $1 million Kavli Prize in nanoscience with IBM’s Don Eigler.  From the SciAm blog by Katie Moisse:

Donald Eigler from IBM’s Almaden Research Center in San Jose, Calif., and Nadrian Seeman from New York University will jointly accept the nanoscience prize for illuminating the basic units of matter and the building blocks of nanotechnology.

We are extremely pleased that Ned Seeman, who won our Feynman Prize back in 1995 (see photo), has now received this wonderful recognition and delightful amount of money.  May it happen to our other Feynman Prize winners as well.  Congrats to both winners!  —Chris Peterson

Sander Olson interviewed Jim Von Ehr of Zyvex for the website NextBigFuture.com by Brian Wang.  Here’s an excerpt:

We are confident that we will be able to create simple, blocklike objects within the next five years. From that point, capabilities should grow fairly rapidly. Once simple block objects are created, we can programmably assemble them to make more complex objects. Zyvex has already identified a number of market opportunities for these. Once we get the basic capability of creating these simple objects, we can expand their complexity and sophistication rapidly. From the first integrated circuit to an extremely valuable integrated circuit business ecosystem took a surprisingly short amount of time, compared to previous technological revolutions. I’d expect a Digital Matter ecosystem to also develop rapidly once the basics are in place. Although I don’t feel comfortable making specific predictions as to when molecular manufacturing will emerge, by 2020 we should have rudimentary molecular manufacturing systems in operation. Once we can create these blocks, the technology of molecular manufacturing will advance exponentially. Digital matter will eventually change everything.

Read the whole thing.  The page includes other relevant info and links as well.  —Chris Peterson

The U.S. President’s Council on Advisors on Science and Technology requested public input on a number of manufacturing topics including “molecular-level, atomically precise production.” Foresight joined with our sister organization IMM to produce a statement on Atomically Precise Manufacturing, now posted on the OpenPCAST site, with public voting and commenting still continuing, so join in the discussion:

We address this question as it relates to Atomically Precise Manufacturing (APM), a critical technology specifically cited in one of PCAST’s White Papers for this question:

“ISSUE: What should be the Federal Government’s role in the development of production processes and related sensing, measurement, and analytical capabilities for molecular-level, atomically precise production.”

This has been a central question for both the Foresight Institute and the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing since our inceptions in 1986 and 1991, respectively. Our position is that the development of Productive Nanosystems—high volume, lost-cost assembly systems for atomically precise products—is of strategic importance to our nation. Projected benefits promise clean and abundant energy, permanent cures for serious diseases, a clean environment, and the security of advanced capabilities for a strong national defense. APM will dramatically reduce the cost of manufacturing most commercial products, paying for its development costs many times over, but the technical challenges and development time horizon have precluded major initiatives by industry players.

In addressing the question of consortia, we broaden our response to consider a range of complementary approaches. The scientific and engineering challenges needed to develop Atomically Precise Manufacturing requires a focus and commitment that extends well beyond the limitations of a consortium-based activity, and is best handled by a mix of programs that focus on different strengths:

- Consortia
- Incentive prizes
- 3-5 year Fixed Fee Small Business Initiatives
- DOE or NIH Grant Programs
- Major DoD or NASA Acquisition Programs

A table comparing the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches is available at: http://imm.org/images/IMM-FI-R&DLeverageTable.jpg

SBIR/STTR projects are useful as quick ways to provide funding to smaller teams in industry and academia, stimulating innovative R&D projects toward APM in the short term. Incentive prizes (Xprize, DARPA challenges) are particularly good at organizing entrepreneurial teams to integrate and make operational technologies that have been developed, but are immature. Consortia will take longer to organize, but can leverage private capital and create incentives for industry to cooperate on a massive precompetitive R&D base.

To create focused research results that will provide major advances in Energy and Medicine, and a flow of knowledge to the industry teams, we recommend the use of grant programs funded by NIH and DOE. These target areas are detailed in the Technology Roadmap for Productive Nanosystems, available at www.foresight.org/roadmaps

Developing APM systems requires a long term commitment on the order of 10-15 years. For the complex and focused systems integration and engineering program that we envision, the structured discipline developed for major federal acquisitions by NASA and DoD is an ideal approach. Awarding two or three prime contracts with alternative development approaches (as with the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship program) will provide more widespread participation, reduce overall risk, and accelerate development to the benefit of all.

Unlike in most large federal acquisition programs, and certainly unlike in a typical consortium-based effort, there are major policy issues to be addressed at the national and international levels. The impact of APM on the economy, nationally and internationally, will require an engaged discussion from a wide range of stakeholders. And the technology will be dual-use—mandating DoD involvement toward objectives that are stabilizing and positive for global security.

Many rewards and challenges await. This is a program worthy of becoming our highest national priority, with the attendant devotion of our best minds and strongest spirits.

Respectfully submitted,

David Forrest, President of IMM and Senior Fellow with the Foresight Institute
Neil Jacobstein, Chairman, Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, CEO, Teknowledge
Christine Peterson, President, Foresight Institute

We hope you’ll log into the site and indicate your views of the above.  Special thanks to Dr. David Forrest, President of IMM and Senior Fellow at Foresight, for his key role in preparing this statement.  —Chris Peterson

Foresight Feynman Prize winner Robert Freitas brings to our attention the first published theoretical study of DMS (diamond mechanosynthesis) tool-workpiece operating envelopes and optimal tooltip trajectories for a complete positionally controlled reaction sequence, which he did with colleagues in Russia.

He writes, “This paper represents the first extensive DMS tooltip trajectory analysis, examining a wide range of viable multiple degrees-of-freedom tooltip motions in 3D space that could be employed to recharge the hydrogen abstraction tool, a key reaction set in DMS.”  The published paper appears in the Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience.

ABSTRACT. The use of precisely applied mechanical forces to induce site-specific chemical transformations is called positional mechanosynthesis, and diamond is an important early target for achieving mechanosynthesis experimentally. A key step in diamond mechanosynthesis (DMS) employs an ethynyl-based hydrogen abstraction tool (HAbst) for the site-specific mechanical dehydrogenation of H-passivated diamond surfaces, creating an isolated radical site that can accept adatoms via radical-radical coupling in a subsequent positionally controlled reaction step. The abstraction tool, once used (HAbstH), must be recharged by removing the abstracted hydrogen atom from the tooltip, before the tool can be used again. This paper presents the first theoretical study of DMS tool-workpiece operating envelopes and optimal tooltip trajectories for any positionally controlled reaction sequence – and more specifically, one that may be used to recharge a spent hydrogen abstraction tool – during scanning-probe based ultrahigh-vacuum diamond mechanosynthesis. Trajectories were analyzed using Density Functional Theory (DFT) in PC-GAMESS at the B3LYP/6-311G(d,p) // B3LYP/3-21G(2d,p) level of theory. The results of this study help to define equipment and tooltip motion requirements that may be needed to execute the proposed reaction sequence experimentally and provide support for early developmental targets as part of a comprehensive near-term DMS implementation program.

Work to keep an eye on.  —Chris Peterson

Bill McDonald brings to our attention the U.S. Congressional campaign of Mike Stopa, a Harvard nanotechnologist and physicist.

This is probably the first time that a nanotechnologist has run for Congress.

However, his profession may not get much attention, as his campaign is focusing on other issues.

It will be interesting to see whether, as a fiscal conservative, he favors or opposes federal spending on nanotech.  Could be a tough decision for him!

As a 501(c)3 organization, Foresight does not support or oppose political candidates.  —Chris Peterson

Kevin Bullis reports in Technology Review:

Now Paul Rothemund, a computer scientist at Caltech, with a background in biology, has developed a relatively inexpensive way to quickly design and build arbitrary shapes and patterns using DNA — and, he says, it’s simple enough for high-school students to use…

It’s really spectacular work. I’m extremely excited about it,” says William Shih, professor of biological chemistry and molecular pharmacology at Harvard Medical School, who is now working to extend Rothemund’s technique to building three-dimensional structures. Rothemund’s work, he says, has taken the small field of DNA nanotechnology and “opened it up to becoming a mainstream tool by making it one or two orders of magnitude cheaper and easier to do.”

Nadrian Seeman, the New York University chemist who pioneered the use of DNA for constructing complex shapes, says, “By moving up in scale, he is able to produce more intricate and larger patterns than were practical with previous approaches. This is an exciting advance which is likely to revolutionize pattern formation on this scale.”

Both Rothemund and Seeman are winners of the Foresight Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology.  Bravo, Paul!  (Update: this story is from 2006! oops)  —Chris Peterson

John Faith brings to our attention a writeup by Annalee Newitz over at io9.com which colorfully describes a new achievement by Foresight Feynman prizewinner Nadrian Seeman and team at NYU and Nanjing U.:

Today in Nature, a group of researchers announced they’d successfully operated the first assembly line populated entirely by nanobots. The bots in question are molecular machines made from strands of DNA, and each one has four “feet” that walk on a specially-prepared surface covered in chemicals that direct the bot’s motion. It also has three “arms” to carry cargo – in this case various sizes of gold particles. These gold particles can bind together into eight different products.

In their experiment, the scientists succeeded in guiding a nanobot to pick up the three gold particles, each held by other bots. It walked up to each bot, grabbed the gold cargo, and moved on to the next bot to do the same thing.

Technology Review also covers the news:

“We show how to program [the walker's] behavior by programming the landscape,” says Milan Stojanovic, a biomedical engineer at Columbia University who developed the walker. “It enables us to think about adding further complexity: more than one molecule interacting and more complicated commands on the surface. What we hope to do eventually is to be able to [use nanobots to] repair tissues.”

See the original article in Nature.  Exciting times to come — bring it on!  —Chris Peterson

For many of us, it’s our desire to preserve and restore the environment that brought us into the work of pursuing molecular nanotechnology in the first place.  How do we keep going over the decades that this goal is taking to accomplish?

One way is to restore our enthusiasm for the goal through films such as “Oceans“, the documentary now showing in mainstream movie theaters.

Breathtaking is the best way to describe it.  Repeatedly I saw images I never imagined before and often wondered “how could they have obtained this footage?”  Lucasfilm helped with the film, narrated by Pierce Brosnan.  It’s worth sitting through the credits to see some coverage of how the movie was made.

This is one you want to see on the big screen.  Thanks to Scott Banister for the tip!  —Chris Peterson

The Mark, “Canada’s daily online forum for news, commentary, and debate,” has published a commentary that primarily takes a negative view of the use of nanotech (or any tech) for life extension:

Extreme life extension raises other interesting, yet troubling questions. Significant life extension could have serious implications for individual identity; what if we change too much over the course of a highly extended life? Will we eventually lose psychological continuity with our earlier lives, thereby becoming different people and in turn defeating the purpose of life extension? Will identity and narrative have coherence? Or perhaps we humans are sufficiently adaptive to deal with a greatly extended life. At this point, there’s really no way of knowing…

What we’d do with extended life and who it would be available to begs the question, “Would it be a good thing?” There may well be merit in life extension if it helps us maximize our potential as humans and make a greater social contribution.

There is a simple answer to this debating.  Boomers should stick around, keep working, and help pay off the national debt(s).  And while we’re at it, we can help clean up the environment.  It’s not fair to leave these tasks as burdens on the next generation.  —Chris Peterson

I’ll be speaking at the following event. If you miss the early registration rate, you can get 20% off regular registration with the discount code ‘Foresight’:

Open Science Summit 2010: Updating the Social Contract for Science 2.0

July 29-31 International House Berkeley
http://opensciencesummit.com

Ready for a rapid, radical reboot of the global innovation system for a truly free and open 21st century knowledge economy? Join us at the first Open Science Summit, an attempt to gather all stakeholders who want to liberate our scientific and technological commons to enable an new era of decentralized, distributed innovation to solve humanity’s greatest challenges.

In the last ten years, a collection of burgeoning movements has begun the herculean task of overhauling the outmoded institutions and worldviews that make up our global scientific governance system. Proponents of the Access to Knowledge movement (A2K) have united around the principle that data and knowledge are “anti-rivalrous,” the value of information increases as it spreads.

Open Access Journals have demonstrated a new path for publishing that utilizes the power of the internet to instantly distribute ideas instead of imposing artificial scarcity to prop up old business models. “Health 2.0” entrepreneurs are seeking to apply the lessons of e-commerce to empower patients.

However, these different efforts are each working on a piece of a problem without a view of the whole. It is not sufficient or realistic to tweak one component of the innovation system (eg, patent policy) and assume the others stay static. Instead, dynamic, interactive, nonlinear change is unfolding.

The Open Science Summit is the first and only event to consider what happens throughout the entire innovation chain as reform in one area influences the prospects in others. In the best case scenario, a virtuous circle of mutually reinforcing shifts toward transparency and collaboration could unleash hitherto untapped reserves of human ingenuity.

Hope to see you there!  —Chris Peterson