My comments are not a systematic review of the text. Rather, I give remarks where I found something peculiar or propose improvement. Since this is a workshop report, it is probably not much use to propose fundamental changes.
(The numbers refer to page.paragraph.line - paragraph count includes headlines etc.):
|5.3||reproduce definitions discussed for easier understanding|
|5.6.2||typo, t missing: outside|
|5.6.8||typo, T, B exchanged: PTB|
|5.7.2||"to" missing: … a route to create …|
|6.2.5||truly green manufacturing: here one or a few examples would be good,
and one would like an estimate of the share of such manufacturing in all
|6.4.3||MEMS/NEMS first applications nanoscale on market: 1. MEMS proper
is not nanoscale. 2. microelectronics has just crossed the 100-nm threshold –
is it not larger in total sales?
|6.5.5||DoD major investor: you may want to note figures, e.g. 2003 $ 243
million for NT R&D in the Natl. NT Initiative, the total of which is $ 770 million.
|6.6.2 6||9, reliability: cannot be understood (is it the number of 9s?|
|6.7||water filtration: not much to do with nanoengineering or measurement|
|7.3.3||I have no idea who Gene Rodenberry is (may be better known in UK?)|
|7.5||gray goo: 2080 may be overly "optimistic" – things tend
2050 might be safer.
Why not make an explicit recommendation that some respectable
international science body undertakes a study on feasibility questions of
Has the group taken note of R. Freitas's article (Freitas Robert A. 2000: Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations)?
|7.7.1||Nanomaterials discussion: why here under n-engineering/measurement?
On hazards from nanoparticles, one can make more concrete statements.
You should contact Vyvyan Howard of University of Liverpool (ultra-fine
particle toxicologist, talked at the Green-Liberal/ETC Group hearing in the
European Parliament on 11 June 2003, literature survey in ETC-Group report,
is starting conferences on that issue).
|9.14||3-D: maybe add bulk materials with nanopores to examples (zeolites?)|
|9.16||1-D: add membranes with pores|
|10.7||self-cleaning windows: is there not also a component from surface
shape (many bulges, Lotus effect)? Or does that only apply to non-
|7.10/11||micromachined sensors: are not NT (only MST/MEMS);
why under nanomaterials?
|7.12/13||field emission: add that one needs narrow tips which may be
formed by carbon nanotubes?
|11.4||self-cleaning surfaces are not smart in many concepts (e.g., lotus
effect/hydrophobic: running water drops carry dust with them
|11.10/11||biomaterials: one could add magnetic particles coated with
specific antigens or such used as x-ray contrast medium or to selectively heat
|11.15.2||study biomolecules: why under n-materials heading?|
|12.2.3||quantum lasers: "well" missing?|
|12.5.1||Ohmic: only one "m"|
|12.6/7||Protein misfolding: why not cover under toxicity?|
|12.9.5||why here name authors of publications?|
|12.13.2||bio-interactions of fine particles not well-known: V. Howard cited
hints at damaging effects
Make explicit that nanofibres are counted as nanoparticles here
|13.1.1||There are more workshops upcoming, e.g., the one by V.
Howard (maybe even earlier)
|13.4.1||asbestos comparison: similar text to 12.12.1|
|13.7.3||add "." at end|
|13.10/11||Exaggerated claims: general point, not limited to n-materials|
|14.15.1||15nm for present transistors: somewhat confusing – make clear
relation to ITRS general measure of half-pitch which is now slightly below 100
nm and is predicted to reach 15 nm around 2015
|18.8.9||benefit to mankind: only a side remark here: it is not quite clear
what benefit to humankind would mean. How about new weapons?
applications that seem useful at first but turn out dangerous when used in
masses as with DDT or CFCs?
aren't fullerenes and buckyballs more or less the same?
|19.23.1||double "ll" in crystalline?|
|19.29||self-cleaning glass: why under bio?|
|20.15||lower-case "s" in silicone|
|23.3.3||"e", not "a" in dependent?|
|23.3.4||tens of thousands: per cubic metre?|
|23.10||social/ethical issues: this section is very thin. The US NSF book
on societal implications contain many more potential problems. E.g. less need
for labour? equity? bio-artificial hybrids (brain-machine interfaces) discussed
above pose ethical problems; similar some other non-medical manipulations
of the human body.
On ethical problems from military uses of NT, see
Altmann Jürgen/Gubrud Mark 2002: Risks from Military Uses of
Nanotechnology – the Need for Technology Assessment and Preventive
Control, in: M. Roco, R. Tomellini (eds.), Nanotechnology - Revolutionary
Opportunities and Societal Implications, Luxembourg, European Communities
(available at: http.//www.ep3.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/bvp/riskmilnt_lecce.pdf)
More detailed article will appear:
Altmann Jürgen: Military Uses of Nanotechnology: Perspectives and
Concerns, Security Dialogue 35(1) (March 2004)
|24.3.1||apostrophe missing: public's?|