So nanotechnology is supposed to be the 'next big thing' that will save our mundane lives and financial models, or maybe end them both. The Christian Science Monitor, of all places, gets in on the act, with a little more balance than many. The SJ Merc emerges from its schadenfreude long enough to give an editorial endorsement to pouring more government cheese into the emerging sector in an attempt to bring the Valley back to life. Being in a curmudgeonly mood - tax time will do that to you - it's time to wax cynical about nano* (pronounced nano-foo).

Let's start with the National Nanotechnology Initiative cheered in both pieces. This started in the Clinton years as a low budget operation. I mean really low because all it did was relabel projects that were already ongoing, and could fit the loose definition of nano*, into an initiative. With a label non-accidentally close to that of the 'national information infrastructure' program that supposedly invented the Internet, this fit the politician's dream of being able to take credit for something that might happen anyway, without spending any more money. In the worst of worlds this is just double counting, and in the best there might actually be some lateral flow of information between programs that would not otherwise have talked. You can be sure that it's much beloved of program managers whose projects just acquired a modicum of Teflon coating against cancellation. Knowing a good thing when they saw it, the Bush administration kept this initiative on when they took over management. To suppose from its existence that there is a coherent technology base for nano* is vastly over-interpreting.

So what's nano*? In the most cynical interpretation, it's promotion, a great way to push magazines, conferences, and even raise venture funds. A lot of times there is no notion of the nanometer or molecular scale associated with use of the prefix. We recently invested in a company called NanoNexus (formal announcement forthcoming). Now we obviously like the company, people, and products but I'll be the first to admit that the value derived from nano* is restricted to an alliterative company name. (They make chip probers using a proprietary variation of standard sputter/etch technology, should you care, and the results are naked eye visible.) Any term that sweeps in everything from this to MEMS to carbon buckytubes to quantum dots is well past its sell-by date.

Suppose we factor out some of the hype by limiting to actual products mentioned in the CSM article. We've got buckytubes in French tennis rackets, clay bits in tennis balls, anti-graffiti coating of unstated composition, and a number of others. How do you add up this stuff and get to a $1 trillion dollar market size estimate by 2013 by NSF? Tim Harper of CMP Scientica asks the right question:

Do you base [market size] on the value of nanotechnology sold? ...it is better to look at the effect that nanotechnology has on other areas."

For a comparison, consider the photolithography-processed silicon chip market. This is a hundreds of billions juggernaut (albeit with problems of its own). It's populated by dozens of fabs that are broadly speaking compatible in terms of their design input and device outputs. There are thousand of competent designers capable of addressing these problems, and a whole raft of tools for their use. The output devices flow into the hands of OEMs working into computing, communications, and CE markets that form a complex, touching market ecology of value. Now contrast that to the nano* roster - what you see is a collection of point solutions. They are all materials plays in some fashion, but they have precious little in common in basic technology, design and process skills, and target markets. It is in fact a grab bag. From an investors' view, this makes a big difference. There is no horizontal investable market here, no analog to the EDA firm, the fabless chip company, the silicon process technology play. Most every deal stands alone, and must be reasoned through all the way to its impact on a specific target market and the competitive solutions available there.

Is there ever going to be that sort of a horizontal play in nano*, however defined? One of the reasons for all the interest in carbon nanotubes (buckytubes) was the hope that this particular chemistry could become the basis for a generic nano* architecture. So far as I can tell, that hope has been frustrated. From buckytubes we seem to have jumped all the way to the grand Drexlerian vision of the self-replicating nano-assembler, with its dark doppelganger, the all-consuming Grey Goo. From the punditing point of view, this has the advantage of lying somewhere in the indefinite future, so the cheering for the era of abundance to come (or handwringing over the threat) can take place without fear of current accountability. But I would like to ask one question from over here in the cynic's corner: Has anyone come up with a pay case for doing nano* that way? That is, going all the way to the purist view of molecular/atomic level fabrication, including the modern equivalent of the Philosopher's Stone, as opposed to doing something more tactical that might get a large amount of the benefits at the application level. You know, sort of like the Web trashed out the purist Xanadu vision of hypertext touted by many of the same folks? I'm sure I'll get some flamage for this, but I'd just like to see it.

Since fairness says I should be sticking my neck out a bit in the forecasting dept. if I'm trashing on others, here's one: The first horizontal plays in nano* will actually come out of, and contribute to, the silicon juggernaut. Long before anyone seriously consider investment in Grey Goodness, there are going to be hybrid devices that incorporate quantum effects at nanometer scale, and that evade some of the limits of deep submicron processing with molecular level tricks. And they will be created by leveraging off process and design tools originated in the semiconductor industry, not built on a de novo industrial infrastructure.
5:39:03 PM    

What is this? Kids' news show as it says? New Get Saddam board game? Saddam transformers? Whatever it is, those kids look dubious. Anyone on the other side of the water who can clarify and/or translate the logos? Joi? Can't wait to see Saddam or Osama anime with those big eyes... (not!)

(Found via QHate, which is worth checking out - a group blog from Kuwait City. Interesting for the POV from an allied Arab state, but also features hilarious tales of fan-stalking Wolf Blitzer and other journos through the hotels of K City.)

Update: Mike Gerhardt, the blogger who captured and hosts the screen shots, writes to point out that you can click on the images to get a rough translation. Thanks! Guess it really is a kids' show. My hat's off to those trying to inform kids about international affairs at that age - even though they do look like they've been told they've got to eat their broccoli. But I was so looking forward to see the Saddam transformer army toy set in the stores...
10:57:53 AM