A recent article in the venerable Financial Timesproposed a sort of nanotechnology equivalent to theoft-mentioned digital divide(the idea thatthe benefits of digital technology appear to accrue to the wealthy while the poor are left out). At issue in the articleis whether developed economies and poorer nations are separated in their respective access to nanotechnology. <\/p>\n
So, is there a nanotech divide? <\/p>\n
The answer probably lies somewhere between yes and no, depending on the metric you use. But I would argue that nanotechnology has been one of the most egalitarian fields in technology history. <\/p>\n
First, you can look at where the money goes. On this count, nanotechnology is basically the same as any other emerging technology: the initial targeted applications are those that can sustain the price premium for using a new and expensive technology. <\/p>\n
However, nanomaterials can already be found in inexpensive items ranging from odor-resistant socks to plastic beer bottles. So as the manufacturing technologies have matured and ramped up, we have seen prices fall and the democratization of nano-enabled products spread. <\/p>\n
But I've often argued that analyzing nanotech's impact purely on economic terms can be misleading. It is usually a stretch to try to draw parallels between an emerging technology like nanotech and a developed field like information technology. Nanotech is still in its commercial infancy. <\/p>\n
Instead, let's focus just on nanotechnology research, which constitutes the bulk of the activity in the field today. With nanotech, we are probably witnessing the most democratic and open-access research ever in a new technology. <\/p>\n
Every day, articles along every conceivable line of nanotech research are publishedand made available on the web, with an increasing number of articles being published with open access to everyone. If there remains a divide here, it stems from a digital dividenot from nanotech itself. <\/p>\n
We see this open access play out in the way that most research is now conducted: through international research groups working in cooperation with each other. This has actually been proven through quantitative analysis. Nanotechnology research is international and depends on cross-border cooperation if it is to succeed. Granted, most of this research goes on in developed nations, but not exclusivelyover 35 countries have announced funding for nanotechnology initiatives. <\/p>\n
Finally, you can look at who's benefitting from nanotechnoloy. On that front, their are numerous projects that target developing countries, like improved membranes for creating clean drinking waterand systems tosterilize medical equipment in remote regions of the world. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of an emerging technology in which so much of its R&D and its financial backers are so heavily invested in making an impact in the developing world. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
View post: <\/p>\n
There Is No Nanotechnology Equivalent to the Digital Divide<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A recent article in the venerable Financial Timesproposed a sort of nanotechnology equivalent to theoft-mentioned digital divide(the idea thatthe benefits of digital technology appear to accrue to the wealthy while the poor are left out). At issue in the articleis whether developed economies and poorer nations are separated in their respective access to nanotechnology Continue reading