Giga and Nano! Innovation comes in all size scales and materials tonnages

摘要

Some years ago at the beginning of the ‘nano’ buzz, on the plenary platform at the renownednHannover Messe (Fair), a well prepared reporter, Ulrich Schnabel, from Die Zeit interviewed me,nliterally, for some hours. He then produced a long report – over a full page in the paper, Die Zeitn(August 3, 2000), which he titled, ‘Giga statt nano’ (Giga instead of nano). I had been closelyninvolved in initiating some of the very earliest attention to the possible benefits of nanosizes innmaterials in science and in technology; e.g. via organising the first MRS symposium with this title,nand probably the first National Science Foundation center using the same ‘magic’ word. Yet, in thenHannover speech I had been critical of the emerging over-emphasis on ‘nano’. Now, seven yearsnlater, from a Research and Development policy perspective, matters are even worse. My thementhen, as now, was simple. ‘Nano’ is a fine and ‘intriguing’ theme for emphasis in a corner ofnscience: new stuff; ‘beautiful’, fascinating pictures, and even ‘cool’ computer assisted graphics innliving and ‘enhanced’ colour. Scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron microscopynused in all their glory. But how much more than images can most of nano really become? Will thenpublic that pays for all this, really get a fair return? From my forty years of active science policynanalysis I made the case against over-emphasis in science policy, made on the basis ofneuphonious, vaguely scientific, ‘halo-words’ as my famed sociologist colleague, Ivan Illich, hasntermed such. For decades I had asked in hearings before US Congressional Committees, how itnwas justified to spend public money on highly speculative astronomy, billions of miles removed innspace, and aeons in time. I had not reckoned on the powers of the beautiful images of the galaxiesnon the public mind! Year upon year, newspapers and magazines carried essentially unintelligiblenby, but emotionally connecting to mysterious images, for a hungry public. It was enough to warpnpolicy. Is ‘nano’ following that model? I had argued against a series of such policies within science,nand especially in the ‘Superconducting supercollider’ with its convenient acronym SSC. (We wonnthat battle!) ‘Ceramic engines’ and ‘High Tc superconductors’ similarily: both proved to be majornlosses for the national efforts that pursued them. A prudent, concentrated effort, till productsnemerged, would have saved billions and not distracted many borderline scientists from the goodnmaterials research that they were doing!