Without the Ni/Bo doping, this is like trying to design a wind turbine without copper, without magnetism. A PZT economy seems expensive. There’s been a food crisis, a developed world recession, and probably England will win the World Cup before progress in this field occurs (hahaha obviously just kidding about soccer Argentina is getting revenge)

The case of DNA nanotechnology is an interesting one; this is clearly now an active and well-funded field, despite the fact that at no point has anyone called for a national initiative in the area, nor is the field particularly close to any marketable products that would pull in any industrial interest.

How remarkable! A massively influential and extremely important area of (nano)science arising “organically” with no external driving strategy from the funding bodies/research councils nor any consideration of future economic impact. Who’d have thunk it?

Apologies for the sledgehammer sarcasm, Richard – couldn’t resist. As you know, the issue of having to lay out (in some detail) potential (economic) impact in grant proposals has been exercising me and many others of late .

Best wishes,

Philip

Rob, with respect to how to find money – the short answer is simply to identify relevant agencies and write some proposals. A longer answer would consider the dynamics by which research fields take off and become self-sustaining. The case of DNA nanotechnology is an interesting one; this is clearly now an active and well-funded field, despite the fact that at no point has anyone called for a national initiative in the area, nor is the field particularly close to any marketable products that would pull in any industrial interest. For a long time it was sustained by the single-minded enthusiasm of Ned Seeman, then beginning in the late 90’s we saw more and more talented people being drawn into the field, both established scientists and bright newcomers. This sets up a dynamic combining mutual competition and mutual support, which brings about a self-reinforcing cycle of high profile papers being published and successful funding proposals being written.

2003
http://www.molecularassembler.com/Papers/JNNDimerTool.pdf

2004
http://www.molecularassembler.com/Papers/JCTNPengMar04.pdf

2005-6
http://www.molecularassembler.com/Papers/JCTNPengFeb06.pdf

2006
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp061821e

2007
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp071797k
http://www.molecularassembler.com/Papers/DPTMotifs.pdf

2008
http://www.molecularassembler.com/Papers/MinToolset.pdf

F&M: “(9) there have been zero years, not 15 years, of “intense research” on diamondoid nanomachinery (as opposed to “nanotechnology”). Such intense research, while clearly valuable, awaits adequate funding”

RJ: “Firstly, even accepting the very narrow restriction to diamondoid nanomachinery, I don’t see how the claim of “zero years” squares with what Freitas and Merkle have been doing themselves, as I know that both were employed as research scientists at Zyvex, and subsequently at the Institute of Molecular Manufacturing.”

The research on diamondoid nanomachinery and mechanosynthesis done by us during our four respective years at Zyvex (Freitas 2000-2004, Merkle 1999-2003) additionally included mainly one PhD part-time during 2001-3 and another PhD part-time during 2002-5. I’d estimate about $900K was directly spent on this effort during 1999-2005. Total funding provided by IMM for our work has not exceeded $100K. A couple of other people have written a paper or two. It’s difficult to regard efforts by a small handful of people collectively supported by $150K/yr (on avg) or less over the last 15 years as “intense research”, compared, say, to the $1B/yr invested by the U.S. NNI employing tens of thousands of researchers since 2001. The correct perspective is that there have been 15 years of “modest research” by a few, but zero years of “intense research”, on diamondoid nanomachinery and mechanosynthesis.

RJ: “Secondly, there has been a huge amount of work in nanomedicine and nanoscience directly related to these issues. For example, the field of manipulation and reaction of individual atoms on surfaces directly underlies the visions of mechanosynthesis that are so important to the Freitas/Merkle route to nanotechnology dates back to Don Eigler’s famous 1990 Nature paper; this paper has since been cited by more than 1300 other papers, which gives an indication of how much work there’s been in this area worldwide.”

Indeed. The existence of these analogous and supportive technologies (e.g., SPM, PALE, NEMS, MEMS) underlies our growing confidence that mechanosynthesis and, ultimately, diamondoid nanomachinery and the rest of the mechanical paradigm for nanomedicine, are feasible technical objectives.

RJ: “(3)…They’re certainly chemically inert, but the use of “biocompatible” here betrays a misunderstanding; the fact that proteins adsorb to diamond surfaces is experimentally verified and to be expected.”

We understand that nanorobots will need biocompatible coatings. There’s a sizeable literature on protein adsorption to diamond, and related topics, most of it summarized or cited in Nanomedicine Vol. IIA: Biocompatibility (Landes Bioscience, 2003).
http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMIIA.htm

RJ: “I’m grateful that the cited page acknowledges my earlier post Six Challenges for Molecular Nanotechnology. However, being aware of these and other challenges doesn’t make them go away.”

RJ: “(1) …The reasons for this are still aren’t clear, as the fundamental mechanisms by which brushes suppress protein adsorption aren’t yet fully understood.”

RJ: “(2) nanorobot gears…within sealed housings…To date I don’t see a convincing design for these.”

RJ: “(5) …The equilibrium surface structure will depend on shape and size, of course, but you won’t know until you do the calculations or have some experiments.”

RJ: “(6) …diamondoid nanomachines are going to be rather floppy…we need to see some simulations of dynamic friction in “properly designed rigid nanomachinery”.”

We entirely agree and are seeking resources to help us address these and other challenges
http://www.molecularassembler.com/Nanofactory/Challenges.htm
and to perform urgently needed designs, simulations, and calculations (with experiments following theory to conserve money). Perhaps you could suggest collaborators or funding sources to accelerate our item-by-item progress through both our lists? Without significant resources, it’s difficult to produce more than 1-2 high-quality technical papers per year.

Robert A. Freitas Jr.
Ralph C. Merkle

“Are soft and hard machines at odds with each other? Surely not. Soft biomolecules and hard inorganic solids have worked together since a bacterium first succeeded in gluing itself to a mineral grain, and perhaps long before, at the origin of life itself. There is no gap between soft and hard nanomachines: The technologies form a continuum, and working together, they can form a bridge.”