• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed

  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« Hype, Part 4 | Main | We Love Lovy »

June 21, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kevin McCarrell

Is there a reference or some evidence that backs up your claim that "intensive studies of molecular manufacturing" is what the public expects and wants?


Dear CRNano,
I would like to see intensive studies of molecular manufacturing performed.
Thx from: a member of the public.

Mike Treder, CRN

Kevin, here's some info in that direction...



I get it now:

"Who has the hype... the non-MM or the MM-crew?"


Kevin McCarrell

I don't see how the Cobb/Macoubrie study backs up your claim. Their telephone survey found that 80% of Americans had heard little to nothing about nanotechnology. How does this show that the public expects and wants "intensive studies of molecular manufacturing"? I concede the point that most mentioned "new ways to detect and treat human diseases" as the most important potential benefit of nanotechnology, something which could likely involve molecular nanotechnology (although nano-based drug delivery is not really considered MNT, and it is a new way to treat human diseases). However, when 80% have heard little to nothing about nano, the study hardly shows that the public expects or wants anything from nanotechnology.

Also, as much as I like Howard Lovy's blog, a comment by him saying that the government has sold the public nanobots, but is giving them stain-resistant pants, is not quite the scientific evidence I was looking for.

The comments to this entry are closed.