I thought it was a good piece of calming Public Relations as regards the health, safety and environmental benefits and risks of nanotechnology. Backed up with good science and wise policy recommendations, not to "damn with faint praise".


As it addresses the current state and expected applications of nanoscience and nanotechnology, I feel this report misses the train. This is because a great deal of research being conducted "in parallel" as it were in order not only to genetically sequence every species on earth it would seem, but also to catalogue, describe, reproduce, modify, and _apply_ biotechnical appliances embodied in such intracellular machinery, or "organelles" as kinesin filaments, the mitotic spindle, chloroplasts, ion channels (!) and pumps (!), flagellae, and assorted excretors. It is these organelles which are responsible for how individual cells, and bacteria as well, sense and in turn act on their environment.

The low probability and priority placed on the importance of the development of high speed, large object (non microscopic, eg: conventional goods), molecular nanotechnology-based manufacturing is in my view unwarranted and misplaced.

The growth and integration of knowledge in this area will lead to the capability of rapidly manufacturing large objects with high accuracy. The economic implications (ultralow cost goods, and counterfeiting, for instance) let alone the military and intelligence applications are what I was hoping the study would address.

My concern at this time is whether the group or the society believe that these concerns can be addressed without negative political consequences, or if anyone in either group finds my projected scenario and its justification to be flawed.

Remitted Value: $0.02, and thank you all for the opportunity to comment.

Steve Devine