Nanotechnology industry, though young, is trying to become a major recipient of Federal government's tax-money spending. Nanotechnology is the umbrella term for constructing materials at the molecular level. To know more about Nanotechnology, please click here. Although this is usual with any new technology taking roots in the U.S., the current technological slowdown has resulted in close monitoring of Federal investments in technological sector by various government and non-government agencies like the watch-group "Citizens Against Government Waste".

The topic is in heated discussion as NanoBusiness Alliance, a major worldwide research group in the field of Nano Technology is pitching high for government funds and investments to support research in this "emerging world standard". The NanoBusiness Alliance is the first industry association founded to advance the emerging business of nanotechnology and Microsystems. As another sign of the industry's increasing seriousness about lobbying Washington, the NanoBusiness Alliance, currently based in New York, will soon open an office in the nation's capital and will include former House Speaker as one of it's members.

For a bit of insider help, the NanoBusiness Alliance has turned to one of the savviest politicians around, who also happens to be a self-described futurist: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich, the politico who once wanted to hand laptops to poor kids, will serve as the group's honorary chairman.

The NanoBusiness Alliance already has learned one of the most important lessons of Washington politics: When asking for money, stay relevant. In an announcement of the event, it played up an anti-terrorist theme: "Nanotechnology is already having a major impact on homeland security (and) disease detection...." (The event was co-sponsored by the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic Party group whose parent organization was once headed by Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.).

People and groups have taken sides regarding the issue of proposed Government funding for NanoBusiness Alliance.

One person whom the NanoBusiness Alliance invited to speak at Thursday's panel discussion was Meyya Meyyappan, director of the Nanotechnology Research Center at NASA Ames and a supporter of Federal spending into new strategic areas. "If (corporations) know it's going to take 15 years, why are they going to invest?" Meyyappan said. "The role has traditionally come through government funding. That's a role, knowledge creation."

No critics of government spending were invited to speak in the panel discussion, but that didn't stop them.

David Williams, a vice president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said in an interview: "We would consider that sort of thing corporate welfare. It's research the government is undertaking and spinning off to the private sector."

Williams said that Government funding is not with a social cause but with a profit motive. Government agencies like NASA and other research institutions receive Government funds to do the research, then patent the technology and sell it to private concerns (which are capable of mass-production) at a profit- thus making the result of the technology more costly to the common man.

Other critics say there's no need for Congress to spend tax dollars when there's overwhelming interest from venture capital firms and tech companies. As is already pointed out by the official website of NanoBusiness Alliance, "Some of the world's largest private-sector companies, including IBM, Motorola, Hewlett Packard, Lucent, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, NEC, Corning, Dow Chemical and 3M have launched significant nanotech initiatives through their own venture capital funds or as a direct result of their own R&D." In such a situation, the critics argue, why doesn't the government spend for other causes like social-security and reducing crime and violence?

The Foresight Institute, a nonprofit group in Palo Alto, California, that says it was "founded to help society prepare for nanotechnology," applauds more government spending. Foresight President Christine Peterson said in an interview: "The fraction of federal funding going to the universities that result in products in the marketplace is not high. Even though the fraction is not high, it may be an excellent investment in the sense that the payoff is high."

Looking toward the future, Peterson said, "Eventually nanotechnology will bring up unique regulatory challenges." But she added: "It's not necessary today. There is no need to be concerned either way, if you're afraid of the regulation or if you want it."

   < < Top > >

This website is a sbg production

Courtesy: ZDnet, Wired