The entrance of the government into nanotechnology development, while probably unavoidable, may or may not be the wonderful thing that Reynolds appears to find it. I can't help but see a similarity to the NASA/Scaled Composites contrast. Perhaps Scaled Composites could achieve what it has only because of the ground broken over the last four decades by NASA. Or perhaps someone else would have done this sooner without the government institutionaliztion of space technology and its funding. I honestly can't draw a conclusion, though my doubts are obvious.

Having the power to dole out research funds also means having the power to determine what avenues of research are legit and which are not. I suspect that the paradigms of Thomas Kuhn may just be the mask on the face of research funding politics rather than the effect of a scientific 'culture'. For example, when the continental drift revolution occurred in geology - a field with comparatively little outside funding- there was none of the clash of old and new paradigms that Kuhn would have predicted.

The one hopeful difference between nanotechnology and space technology is that the means for making ground breaking advances in nanotech may be much cheaper and accessible. It seems to be at the stage of Goddard's rockets right now, so the road ahead may curve in surprising directions. Those who are denied funding may still be able to proceed on their own, perhaps the better for their enforced independence.

don't forget the Feynman contribution to kick-starting nanoscience

I refer you to one of Clarke's laws: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

I have an intuition that a general molecular assembler/disassembler is going to run into energetic problems. But until someone proves my conjecture, I'm perfectly prepared to believe it possible--if rather a long way off.

I refer you to one of Clarke's laws: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

I have an intuition that a general molecular assembler/disassembler is going to run into energetic and/or informational problems. But until someone shows where those problems are, I'm perfectly prepared to believe it possible--if rather a long way off.

>And yes, I do know Eric. Quite well in fact.

Given that you are thanked in the acknowledgements section of Engines of Creation I had suspected this was so. I was planning to ask you about it at some future Samizdata party.

For those who haven't read Engines of Creation(Link), you can see mention of Dale in the Acknowledgements section (Link of the online version (Link) (which I published several years ago).