As requested I have commented on the Royal Society Report. I did this by Annotating
the pdf form of the document.
You can see from my comments that I do not have too many radical disagreements
with your summary of the findings and the observations from the workshop(s).
Perhaps my major conclusions are as follows :-
- Nanotechnology is a broad concept, not an entity with a physical geometry
threshold. There will be many avenues for investing; some will be valuable,
but most will turn out to be black holes.
- It will (in all probability) develop into a valuable underpinning of society,
but we must be careful to dispel hype about it.
- My definition is "Technology where the size of features necessary
to deliver its macro-scale functionality is measured in nm". This allows
software, electronic, optical, mechanical and passive interpretations. It
also allows larger and smaller features or dimensions to be present.
- That enhanced evolution (Biology) will be the most effective way to deliver
nano-machines. And that these could be available in the very short term. A
limiting factor to the exploitation of this will be the development of effective
I hope you find these ramblings useful/relevant.
Ian Phillips (ARM)