Bruce
18th November 2004, 10:12 AM
I'm not sure exactly how it got started or proliferated, but it was my first introduction into how science works in the real world.
What is the real significance of nanoscience? A single molecule behaves according to the laws of chemistry. You can't expect a molecule to behave like a rubber ball because it's virtually unaffected by gravity, it has no hard boundries, elastic properties, ect. Physical properties relate mostly to inter-molecular forces and don't apply to individual molecules. When you have small clusters of molecules, the laws of chemistry still apply, but the laws of physics begin to come into play. As you deal with bigger and bigger clusters, physics becomes more applicable. The nanoscale region happens to be the size range that represents the dividing line between chemical properties and bulk (physical) properties. Scientists have recognized this for centuries. It's not a new concept, so why all the buzz about nanoscience?
"Buzz" is the key word here. Mass hysteria can be very profitable. I don't know who the first person was that coined the term "nano", but it was a small spark that started a raging fire. When I was in high school, the buzz term was "fourth phase of matter". Much like the buzz term "eighth wonder of the world", it was used to get your papers published. The "fourth phase of matter" was used to "sell" plasma, buckey balls, super critical fluids, and a host of other scientific curiosities of the time. "Green chemistry" was the buzz term of the early and mid '90's. "Nano-X" appeared when I was in graduate school.
It started out almost as a joke. Want to gaurantee that your paper will be published? Just put the prefix "nano" in front of every word. It was a joke at first, but when the nano-craze took hold, people started taking it seriously. By 1999, just about every science related journal and magazine article had something to do with nano. It got so much attention, that president Clinton put forth a mult-billion dollar funding program for the advancement of nano-science. That's when all hell broke loose.
By the time I graduated, small Nano-companies like NanoMet began popping up. They enjoyed all kinds of media attention because of the Nano title. Employers were asking for people with nano-science degrees (huh?) and asking their employees how their work related to nanoscience. Everyone wanted to buy a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) to show off their nano-scaled whatever. Madness, pure madness.
So is nano-mania a good thing or a bad thing? Well, it's both actually. The bad thing is that it's easy for con artists to take advantage of the hysteria. Not just the hucksters selling nano-water on the street corners, but business opportunists that are "riding the wave" of nano-mania, starting up small companies and hoping to make a quick buck before the mania wares off. I'm always tempted to apply to these companies, but I know it's very risky. Remember the "dot-com" craze? The good thing is, that for scientist that really are trying to make advancements in science, it's an easy and rich source of funding. All you need to get funding for your project is a few SEM pictures showing some pretty features, and put the word "nano" in front of all your nouns.
So how do you tell the difference between real nanoscience and fake nanoscience? My question is, what the hell is the definition of nanoscience? What is the nano size region? 1-1000 nm? A fine grain of sand can fit into that size region. I could sell NanoSand, scientifically engineered for maximum play quality for your child's sand-box, environmenally safe and non-toxic. If you make a carbon nanotube that's two inches long, can you still call it a "nano-tube"? I ping-pong ball is about 4x10^7 nm in diameter. Where does it end?
I've heard news recently that some of the small nano-businesses are starting to go bankrupt. I think nano-mania is already starting to go away. So what's the next buzz word in science? I've seen a few articles about "macro-molecular" chemistry. That sounds like a winner to me. I better get a head start on re-arranging my resume.
;)
What is the real significance of nanoscience? A single molecule behaves according to the laws of chemistry. You can't expect a molecule to behave like a rubber ball because it's virtually unaffected by gravity, it has no hard boundries, elastic properties, ect. Physical properties relate mostly to inter-molecular forces and don't apply to individual molecules. When you have small clusters of molecules, the laws of chemistry still apply, but the laws of physics begin to come into play. As you deal with bigger and bigger clusters, physics becomes more applicable. The nanoscale region happens to be the size range that represents the dividing line between chemical properties and bulk (physical) properties. Scientists have recognized this for centuries. It's not a new concept, so why all the buzz about nanoscience?
"Buzz" is the key word here. Mass hysteria can be very profitable. I don't know who the first person was that coined the term "nano", but it was a small spark that started a raging fire. When I was in high school, the buzz term was "fourth phase of matter". Much like the buzz term "eighth wonder of the world", it was used to get your papers published. The "fourth phase of matter" was used to "sell" plasma, buckey balls, super critical fluids, and a host of other scientific curiosities of the time. "Green chemistry" was the buzz term of the early and mid '90's. "Nano-X" appeared when I was in graduate school.
It started out almost as a joke. Want to gaurantee that your paper will be published? Just put the prefix "nano" in front of every word. It was a joke at first, but when the nano-craze took hold, people started taking it seriously. By 1999, just about every science related journal and magazine article had something to do with nano. It got so much attention, that president Clinton put forth a mult-billion dollar funding program for the advancement of nano-science. That's when all hell broke loose.
By the time I graduated, small Nano-companies like NanoMet began popping up. They enjoyed all kinds of media attention because of the Nano title. Employers were asking for people with nano-science degrees (huh?) and asking their employees how their work related to nanoscience. Everyone wanted to buy a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) to show off their nano-scaled whatever. Madness, pure madness.
So is nano-mania a good thing or a bad thing? Well, it's both actually. The bad thing is that it's easy for con artists to take advantage of the hysteria. Not just the hucksters selling nano-water on the street corners, but business opportunists that are "riding the wave" of nano-mania, starting up small companies and hoping to make a quick buck before the mania wares off. I'm always tempted to apply to these companies, but I know it's very risky. Remember the "dot-com" craze? The good thing is, that for scientist that really are trying to make advancements in science, it's an easy and rich source of funding. All you need to get funding for your project is a few SEM pictures showing some pretty features, and put the word "nano" in front of all your nouns.
So how do you tell the difference between real nanoscience and fake nanoscience? My question is, what the hell is the definition of nanoscience? What is the nano size region? 1-1000 nm? A fine grain of sand can fit into that size region. I could sell NanoSand, scientifically engineered for maximum play quality for your child's sand-box, environmenally safe and non-toxic. If you make a carbon nanotube that's two inches long, can you still call it a "nano-tube"? I ping-pong ball is about 4x10^7 nm in diameter. Where does it end?
I've heard news recently that some of the small nano-businesses are starting to go bankrupt. I think nano-mania is already starting to go away. So what's the next buzz word in science? I've seen a few articles about "macro-molecular" chemistry. That sounds like a winner to me. I better get a head start on re-arranging my resume.
;)