Meanderings on the new Nanotechnology.com

Building a new nanotechnology.com has been challenging and fun, but for the emerging and dynamic small technology "industry" it represents a giant leap forward. The community needs rational central network to allow for the creation of facile and useful relationships, and the world outside the nanotech community needs a sharp, concise, approachable center to interact with and from which to learn and make contacts.

Yesterday one of the most famous names in US nanotechnology informed me that we could not count on his team for ANY content, a reasonable business decision based on their high-end consulting model. Of course they need help promoting some of their businesses (conferences and newsletters, and we will help, because they do a great job), but even though I suggested they delay release of their work on our site for 2-4 months so as not to dilute their value to their paying clientele, they stood fast.

These are smart guys, but this train is leaving and we have more than enough content committed to make nanotechnology.com the center of the nanotechnology world and the foremost destination site in the "space." In fact, except for folks who give advice for a living, it's hard for me to imagine who would need more than what will be on our site over the next few months.

Isolationism will not benefit folks in this industry. We're trying to be ecumenical without catering to the nut cases. Everyone who joins us will benefit. Those who don't, won't.

Look, the world only needs one good nanotechnology.com.

We can agree to disagree: Maybe you think molecular machines are a pipe dream; maybe I think they're 10 years out. You think nano-based computer memory is 5 years away; I think it's 15. You think government grants are socialism; I think the world of them. I like the Foresight Foundation; you like the NanoBusiness Alliance. I'm a nanotechnology purist; you include MEMs, microfluidics and microelectronics. You think APPX is a nanotech company; I think it's a biotech company. yada yada yada

Scientific and technical communities abound. Business and industry associations exist. There is much news and opinion. There are even competent interviewers and interesting bloggers. But it is so scattered, and it is almost ALL of so little use to investors and others who want to participate in the revolution, but don't have a ticket. NANOTECHNOLOGY.COM IS THAT TICKET.

Nanotechnology in August 2005

Though I read the Drexler book 17 years ago in August 1988, and, colored by that, thought about my own private, science fiction version of nanotechnology for more than a decade, I did not get serious about its implications for my career until 2001. Introduced to leading bionanoscientist, Erkki Ruoslahti, MD, PhD via some serious serendipity in that year, every month I spent learning about nanotechnology sent its returns spinning yet another year into the future.

After 8 months of research and conference attending beginning in mid 2001, the profits I had envisioned in 2004-2010 had been moved in my mind out to 2012-2018, and I threw in the towel on my dreams of a Nanotech Fortune.

While others got their venture capital firms more fully invested in nano, and a couple newsletter writers rushed early efforts, I thought it was way too soon, and closed up shop, though Dr. Ruoslahti and I kept up our communications on a more limited basis.

By mid 2003 Nanotechnology was becoming a household word in the investment world because the president was going to sign the National Nanotech Initiative in November of that year. CNBC beat the drum and it seemed as every month went by the fruits of nanotechnology moved a year closer.

By September 2003 we started rebuilding our Scientific Advisory Board, and I started outlining the first book on successful investing in nanotechnology and other "small technologies" like microfluidics, MEMs and microelectronics, Nanotech Fortunes: Make Yours in the Boom; Winning Strategies.

There is a LOT more to the story, but that's enough for now.

Today, the world of nanotech is a bit of a confusing mess; not unlike biotechnology in 1983. The people who count (some scientists, nano-execs, and an extremely limited number of professional investors), really get it; the people who really count (investment bankers and the investing public), know next to nothing.