NanoBCA Recommends: NNCO Webinar – Tues 7/9 Noon-1PM ET

Posted on July 8th, 2019 | No Comments »

The NanoBusiness Commercialization Association (NanoBCA) would like to recommend the 2019 Nano EHS Webinar Series offered by the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO). The details for the next webinar are listed below.

Nanotechnology-Related Standards: Availability and Applications
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Noon – 1PM ET

Click here to REGISTER

SPEAKERS
– Dr. Mark Ballentine (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
– Dr. Scott Brown (The Chemours Company)
– Dr. Katherine Tyner (U.S. Food and Drug Administration)

MODERATOR
Dr. Ajit Jillavenkatesa (National Institute of Standards and Technology)

OVERVIEW
The development and use of nanotechnology-related standards is critical to ensuring validated measurements and methods to specify nanomaterial-containing products. Standards are also necessary for comparative evaluation and assessment of the EHS effects. This webinar will discuss various existing and ongoing standards efforts and will highlight case studies from industry and government on how these standards are being applied and supporting nanoEHS research and safer product design. This webinar will also discuss how interested stakeholders can engage in these efforts.

December 3, 2018, marked the 15th anniversary of the authorization of the NNI. As part of the NNI’s year-long celebration, the 2019 NanoEHS webinar series focuses on the state of the science in this important area.

Please use the login link sent with your registration confirmation email to attend the webinar, or login here

———————————–
We recently completed our 18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference on June 4th in DC. Lisa Friedersdorf, Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office spoke at our event on the topic of Research & Commercialization – 15 Years of Progress with the NNI.

———————————–
NanoBCA INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP

CLICK HERE to become a NanoBCA INDIVIDUAL MEMBER

Annual Individual Membership fee $250

The NanoBusiness Commercialization Association is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, your contribution is tax-deductible.

Features of NanoBCA Individual Membership include:
– Invitation to participate on our monthly NanoBCA conference calls
– Networking Opportunity – access to members who have provided their email addresses for contact from other NanoBCA Members

Our members value the monthly conference calls and annual event.  These are the two major features of NanoBCA membership.

———————————–
Hope you will be able to participate on tomorrow’s NNCO public webinar.

NanoBCA Recommends: NNI Stakeholder Workshop Aug 1-2 DC

Posted on July 1st, 2019 | No Comments »

The NanoBusiness Commercialization Association (NanoBCA) would like to recommend the following National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Stakeholder Workshop.

The Future of the NNI: A Stakeholder Workshop
DATES
Thursday, August 1, 2019
Friday, August 2, 2019

LOCATION
Hilton Washington DC National Mall
480 L’Enfant Plaza
Washington, DC 20024

SCOPE
The NNI has played a pivotal role in fostering and advancing a dynamic nanotechnology ecosystem in support of the initiative’s four goals: advance world-class research, foster commercialization, develop and sustain research infrastructure, and support the responsible development of nanotechnology. Building on this strong foundation, experts from the nanotechnology community will share their perspectives on the key elements required for the nanotechnology enterprise to thrive over the next 15 years.

Click here to view AGENDA

Click here to REGISTER

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact: 2019stakeholderworkshop@nnco.nano.gov.

———————————–
UPCOMING EVENT
ELI Summer School Series 2019: Law & Policy of Products Regulation
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Washington DC and via webinar
Register online by Thursday, July 18, 2019

The life cycle of industrial, agricultural, and antimicrobial chemical products, especially those embedded in consumer products, has gained increasing public attention. Regulators are looking at the entire product lifecycle, including post-discard of product at the end of its useful life, as well as toxicity data. Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Partner, Bergeson & Campbell P.C. (B&C®), will present chemical product regulations matters including risk communication, minimizing legal liability, and evolving policy matters.

———————————–
We recently completed our 18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference on June 4th in DC. Lisa Friedersdorf, Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office spoke at our event on the topic of Research & Commercialization – 15 Years of Progress with the NNI.

———————————–
NanoBCA INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP
CLICK HERE to become a NanoBCA INDIVIDUAL MEMBER
Annual Individual Membership fee $250

The NanoBusiness Commercialization Association is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, your contribution is tax-deductible.

Features of NanoBCA Individual Membership include:

– Invitation to participate on our monthly NanoBCA conference calls

– Networking Opportunity – access to members who have provided their email addresses for contact from other NanoBCA Members

Our members value the monthly conference calls and annual event.  These are the two major features of NanoBCA membership.

———————————–
The NanoBCA was present during the signing of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act on December 3, 2003. The NNI has been at the foundation of our nanotechnology community since day one. As the Executive Director and Founder of the NanoBCA, I will be offering my perspectives on Thursday, August 1st. Hope you will be able to share your views with us in DC!

NanoBCA Conference Call – Thursday 6/20 2PM ET

Posted on June 19th, 2019 | No Comments »

We will be having our monthly NanoBusiness Commercialization Association (NanoBCA) conference call:

Date: Thursday, June 20, 2019
Time: 2:00-2:45 PM ET

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. 
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/227885461 

You can also dial in using your phone. 
United States: +1 (646) 749-3122 
Access Code: 227-885-461

First GoToMeeting? Let’s do a quick system check: https://link.gotomeeting.com/system-check

Please mute your line if you are not speaking.  Thank you.

—————————
AGENDA

2:00-2:05  Opening Remarks
Vincent Caprio
Executive Director, NanoBusiness Commercialization Association (NanoBCA)
vincent@nanobca.org

18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference
Tuesday, June 4, 2019
K&L Gates Washington DC

Click here to view CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
Click here to view CONFERENCE PHOTOS

Lifetime Achievement Award for Paul Stimers, Partner, K&L Gates

2:05-2:15 Observations from 18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference
Recap of Arthur Herman’s Presentation: Envisioning the Quantum Future
Steve Waite, Author

2:15-2:25 EHS Update
Lynn L. Bergeson
Managing Director, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
NanoBCA EHS Chair
lbergeson@lawbc.com

Former EPA Administrators Address Direction of EPA in House Committee Hearing
Recent Federal Developments

2:25-2:40 Legislative Update
Paul Stimers
Partner, K&L Gates
NanoBCA Policy Advisor
paul.stimers@klgates.com

2:40-2:45 Q&A

———————————————-
Looking forward to our call.

Final Agenda: Water 2.0 Conference 6/5 DC

Posted on June 19th, 2019 | No Comments »

Today we are excited to share the Final Agenda for our:

Water 2.0 Conference: Advancing Water Infrastructure Repair
Wednesday, June 5, 2019

REGISTER TODAY $250

CONFERENCE LOCATION
K&L Gates
1601 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006-1600

The Water 2.0 Conference: Advancing Water Infrastructure Repair will focus on the use of data analytics, software, cyber security for water utilities and industrial water users. Participants will include water and energy industry authorities, utilities professionals and representatives from the EPA.

Speakers for the Water 2.0 Conference Include:

The event opens at 8AM with a Continental Breakfast.  Lunch will be served from Noon-1:PM. The conference will conclude after lunch.

AGENDA

8:00-8:30  Registration & Continental Breakfast
K&L Gates, 1601 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-1600

8:30  Opening Remarks and Introductions
Vincent Caprio, Water 2.0 Executive Director & Conference Chair

8:30-9:00  Generation “Next”: Attracting and Retaining the BEST Talent for an Evolving Infrastructure
Kenneth E. Russell, PhD, Consulting Executive and Author

9:00-9:30 Non Revenue Water and the oncoming Infrastructure Crisis in America
Nate Wilson, Water Quality Product Lead, Mueller

9:30-10:00 Reusing Produced Water in the Cheese Industry with MicroEVAP™
Karen Sorber, Executive Chair/CEO, Micronic Technologies

10:00-10:30  At the Edge: The IoT Cyber Security Imperative
Paul Clayson, CEO, AgilePQ

10:30-11:00  Point of Use filtration: How to protect your water while waiting for the infrastructure to be fixed
Bryan Eagle, CEO, Glanris

11:00-11:30  Doing more with less: Simple solution for Corrosion, Scale and Microbial control
Soohyun Julie Koo, President & CEO, IOREX Global Company

11:30-Noon  Water Investing: State of the Union 2019
– Vincent Caprio, Water 2.0 Executive Director & Conference Chair
– Jim Hurd, Director, GreenScience Exchange

Noon-1:00  Lunch

1:00  Conclusion

—————————————————————————
Questions in regard to the event may be directed to:
Vincent Caprio vincent@water2.org

Click here to see completed Water 2.0 events

—————————————————————————
The Water 2.0 Conference Series offers outstanding opportunities to connect with a diverse water-related group of professionals in the heart of Washington DC.  We hope you will be able to join us!

NanoBCA Interview: Mihail (Mike) Roco, Senior Advisor for Science & Engineering, NSF

Posted on May 28th, 2019 | No Comments »

We are excited to share the next interview of our NanoBCA Interview Series. Through this series we offer in-depth interviews with some of the key stakeholders influencing our nanotechnology community today. Many of these dynamic professionals will be participants at our:

18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference
Tuesday, June 4, 2019

REGISTER HERE $250

CONFERENCE LOCATION

K&L Gates
1601 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006-1600

Our next interview is with Mihail (Mike) Roco, Senior Advisor for Science & Engineering, National Science Foundation.

Steve Waite: Thanks for taking time to speak with us today, Mike. You have been involved in nanotechnology at a very high level for many years. How did it all begin?

Mike Roco: I started as a faculty of mechanical engineering at the University of Kentucky in 1981 where I became full professor in four years. While at the University of Kentucky, I received two grants through the National Science Foundation (NSF) to explore ultrafine particle dynamics and multiphase systems and several contracts from IBM and other companies to explore small particles in reverse coating and two-phase machineries. In 1986-1987 I was visiting professor at Caltech and Tohoku University.  In 1990, I proposed a new research program to the NSF for the U.S. government through the Emerging Technologies competition that encompassed the synthesis of nanoparticles at high rates. That program was relatively small, only $3 million per year over a period of six years.

During this time, I realized that research in this area was a much broader topic that crosses and unifies many scientific fields, with potential to become a general-purpose technology. This realization led to collaboration with experts from diverse fields and the preparation of a report titled “Nanotechnology Research Directions: Vision for the Next Ten Years and Beyond.” It was published in 1999 and was adopted by the National Science and Technology Council, White House, as an official report. This became the foundational document for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Later it was adopted in research planning in over 80 countries.  It proposed a unified definition of nanotechnology as well as a 10-year outlook for exploration in key R&D sectors and a vision for the next thirty years. This was equivalent to a phase change for the scientific community. Prior to this, only a few people in physics and chemistry were interested. After the unified definition became accepted, other scientists and engineers from many other fields expressed an interest in nanotechnology. The NSF became the playground for the first phase of nanotechnology research. I should note that there was a lot of skepticism in the scientific and industry communities about nanotechnology when we started out (e.g., What is new? When would be the first product?).

SW: There always seems to be a great deal of skepticism when a revolutionary technology is in its infancy.

MR: Yes. In our case, we used the NSF as a playground to ramp up the research in nanotechnology. Over time, the work in nanotechnology blossomed in the U.S. as well as overseas. I am the founding Chair of the Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science and Engineering set up in 2000 at the White House, the interagency organization that steered the NNI.  Currently I am Senior Advisor for Science and Engineering at the NSF.

SW: As a key architect of the NNI, what did you see as the need for a National Nanotech Initiative?

MR: To provide some context, at that time the President was looking at creating an R&D program that would have a long-term impact and recognition. A competition was organized by the White House under the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and Economic Council. In March 1999, I was invited to the White House in the Old Indian Treaty Room to speak about nanotechnology. Then I proposed the NNI on behalf of an interagency group with an annual budget of $500 million dollars in 2001. They gave me ten minutes. Believe it or not, we ended up speaking for over two hours.

SW: Wow! It sounds like you hit the idea out of the park at that meeting.

MR: It was a seminal event for nanotechnology in the U.S. After the event, the White House gave us approval to speak about the potential for a national program. This work became the foundation for the national science, engineering and technology initiative in nanotechnology, which was unveiled by President Clinton at Caltech in early 2000. By 2019, four Presidents (Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump) have supported the initiative and each highlighted it as a model for S&T national programs.  The cumulative investment is about $27 billion since the inception of the NNI including the 2019 budget estimate. After the announcement of the NNI, nanotechnology has become de facto an international science and technology initiative, a competitive domain between U.S., Europe, Asia and Australia.  The vision of the NNI has been long term in nature (see: “The Long View of Nanotechnology Development: “The National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years”). We saw nanotechnology having an impact on industry and society at large over the course of decades.

To answer your question, the need for the NNI came out of the realization that the control of matter at the nanoscale is important to the entire economy and society. We saw the NNI as fostering the research necessary to control matter at the nanoscale. There was a gap in knowledge between the 1 to 100 nanometer level. People did not have concepts to understand the functioning of matter at this small scale. There was no accepted unifying concept across all the fields. Initially, there was fragmentation. The opportunity we saw with the NNI was associated with the nature of nanotechnology as a general-purpose technology that will have a widespread impact across all sectors of the economy. We saw the NNI as fostering activities that were collegial across scientific fields and across agencies.

We saw nanotechnology evolving through the NNI in three phases. First, one has to develop the basic concepts and components. We envisioned it taking roughly ten years to develop the foundation science and create a library of nanocomponents from most elements of the periodic table. The second phase involved the integration of nanotechnology components in larger structures that are useful nanodevices, biosensors, hierarchical structures of polymers and artificial tissues, to name a few. The third phase, which is expected to be in full effect after 2020, is integration with other systems to be used effectively and economically in almost every product. For all of this to happen, we needed general methods for nanoscale investigation, design, manufacturing, and integration with other emerging fields. By the end of the third decade, the vision is to have methods of design and manufacturing for effective integration of nanotechnology in industry, medicine, space, etc. I think we are on this path.

SW: It certainly seems that way.

MR: Yes. To give an example. As you know, in semiconductors more than 70% are based on nanoscale phenomena and components if we speak about the U.S. based companies. In advanced chemicals, it is more than 40%.  About the same for pharmaceuticals. We already see that the penetration of nanotechnology is significant, and yet we are still at an early stage, as the concepts and processes are evolving. Nanotechnology is improving continuously. Once we have the methods of how to design economically at the nanoscale level, penetration will accelerate. We knew when we started that we had to develop this foundational knowledge of how to create larger structures from the nanoscale on up. Where we are now, the critical problem is to be able to create by design and to manufacture larger structures that have multiple functions and can be integrated into larger systems.

Another major challenge today is to integrate nano with bio, information, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. Other challenges at the present time include the need to do sustainable nanotechnology for global sustainability and to use nano as a condition for modern biology (e.g., gene editing and nanorobotics for surgery). Nano is now an integral part of the revolution in medicine. Within this field, there is a major challenge for nanotechnology to help create brain-to-brain, brain-to-machine, brain-like devices and hardware systems for artificial intelligence. I would also note that a field that started from nanoscale science and engineering is quantum. There is a focus today on quantum communications and quantum computing that stems from the foundational work we have done in nano.

It is important to note that nanotechnology is a foundational field. Since the year 2000, we have seen many spinoff fields. For instance, in 2003 in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) we created a quantum science and technology group that was a spin off on the NNI. That was done on a more confidential basis for fifteen years. This year we have a quantum initiative at the national level in the U.S. There are more than twenty fields today that started specifically from the NNI research programs. For example, we started a program in metamaterials in 2004. Within a period of three years, we went from one NSF proposal in this area to hundreds of proposals and thousands of publications.

I would also point out that synthetic biology and plasmonics were enabled as part of the NNI up to 2004 and were subsequently spun off. The Materials Genome Initiative initially started from the nanomaterials-by-design modeling and simulation area of focus within NNI. The basic concepts from the nanophononics area formed a foundation and evolved to be integrated in the 2012 National Photonics Initiative. Other notable fields that were spun out of the NNI research programs and at the confluence with other foundational areas are: nanofluidics, carbon electronics, nanotechnology sustainability, nanostructured wood fibers, DNA nanotechnology, protein nanotechnology, and nanoscale-mesoscale systems.

My point is nano is a foundational field that creates a base and has not only created new knowledge, but new fields of science and new disciplines. There are successive phases of growth to a foundational field such as nanotechnology, as well as many players. There is no ending. There is an evolution that takes place over many decades.

SW: Given what you have learned over the years, what types of things would you have done differently, if any, to make the NNI more effective?

MR: The NNI started out as a science project and blossomed into a unified knowledge base and a community that did not exist before. We also have created a flexible infrastructure for research and production. This would not have happened without the organization that went into the NNI. We can also see that the work associated with NNI has inspired other emerging technologies. When I think about what could have been done differently, we have to recognize that when we began we faced some limitations. One limitation was the ability to engage with industry from the beginning. That said, the NanoBusiness Alliance launched in 2001 at an early stage of the NNI. But there was fragmentation within industry, due to various factors, that limited progress. Nevertheless, industry has adopted nanotechnology, even if it has not been widely advertised over the years. Based on our estimates, nanotechnology today accounts for products that cumulatively represent more than 4% of U.S. GDP, which equates to about three quarters of a trillion dollars.

SW: We vividly recall those trillion-dollar projections for nanotech in the world. Are we there?

MR:  Our estimation published in 2001 was that the worldwide revenues from products that have nanotechnology as the key feature for competitiveness would reach one trillion dollars by 2015, of which about one third would be in the U.S.  If we use the Lux Research industry surveys, in agreement with other estimations and extrapolations, we reached both of those worldwide and U.S targets in 2013. Now, I would like to add that another limitation was the inability to develop applications quickly caused slower than expected progress in modeling, simulation and design. For example, as we go to larger structures, we cannot use trial and error like we can do with nanoparticles. If you want to build a system, one has to develop better generalized theories that include all of the phenomena and types of interactions. This, in my opinion, is still a place where we can improve. When I look at Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) I think we have done pretty well overall because we started to focus on this at the beginning. Now the focus is shifting to ELSI (Ethical, Legal and Societal Implications) that have become just as important as EHS because we are moving to larger and more complex systems.

In summary, when I look back certainly some things could be improved. But overall, I think we had a very good macro approach to address the foundational general-purpose technology that is nanotechnology. After 2007, there was a perception that we have the results and now all we need are applications. However, I believe that we must continue to develop the methods for new nanotechnology generations in parallel with translational efforts and applications.

SW: How do you see the NNI evolving in the years ahead?

MR: We have not generalized efficient methods for manufacturing or generalized methods for integration with nanotechnology. In my view, this has to be a focus going forward. We are at the end of the second phase of development I spoke about earlier. The next phase, the third one, will see the development of new architectures for nanotechnology as well as new methods that are generalized and can be applied economically. The moment to capitalize on results we have obtained with the NNI is coming during the next phase, which will take out us to 2030 and beyond. Nanotechnology blossoms into its full potential when you can develop new architectures and integrate it into society economically and efficiently to tackle some of the biggest challenges we see today. We are on the path, but we have a lot more work ahead. I do believe the NNI can continue to play a role in helping to foster the development of nanotechnology in the decade ahead.

SW: You co-authored a book in 2011 titled, Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020: Retrospective and Outlook.” The year 2020 is around the corner. Where are we on your Nanotechnology 2020 roadmap?

MR: That’s a very good question. Almost all the important targets we discussed in the book are on the way. The progress over the past decade has been significant. There is a great deal of work in nanotechnology being done outside of the U.S. There is a realization overseas that now is the time to reap the benefit of nanotechnology, so they are investing more. There is a research challenge as well as a development challenge. I think this has to continue in order to reap the benefits of nanotechnology in the decade ahead. Nanotechnology is an inspirational and enabling field for new science and technology platforms.  Key areas of converging technologies integrated from the nanoscale have been benchmarked in more than 30 countries in the report “Convergence of Knowledge, Technology and Society.” Many visionary ideas were initially advanced in the foundational convergence report, “Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Sciences,” are on their way of realization. 

SW: We have reached the 7-nanometer level in semiconductors. There is a lot of discussion in the semiconductor industry these days about the need for new types of architectures and designs. What role can nanotechnology play in fostering these new architectures and designs?

MR: Nanotechnology offers the opportunity to develop new architectures for computing. We have gone a long way in developing new nanoscale components. Now we have to go to the next phase to create new principles and new architectures at the nanoscale level. Computation in the cell is at the nanoscale level. Computing in the quantum is at the nanoscale level. Computing for photonics and optics is at the nanoscale level. We were discussing quantum when we launched the NNI. A separate spin-off program was created for quantum in 2003. Nanotechnology has the potential to usher in new architectures for semiconductors and for computing such as quantum. The field for these new architectures is completely wide open. In addition, AI offers new ways to design, manufacture and use nanosystems.  A key challenge is building the nano-enabled hardware to be suitable and work well with the AI software.

I should add that the NSF currently has a collaboration with the SRC (Semiconductor Research Corporation) and NIST. There are nearly two dozen new ideas of how to progress, even in the nanoelectronics domain. The scientific and engineering challenges we see in semiconductors today are even richer than they were twenty years ago when the NNI was launched.  Benchmarking of new computing elements and their assemblies using convergence performance criteria is a promising opportunity of selecting priorities.

SW: How do you see the NSF’s role in nanotechnology evolving in the years ahead? 

MR: NSF is addressing all the fields of nanoscale science and engineering. We have about 6,000 active awards focused on upward research going from quantum, to biosensors, to building nanostructures using bio principles from synthetic biology. A portion of these are in so-called core programs where you leave people open to proposing any idea while others are conceptually-driven top-down, so-called big ideas or focused solicitations. In parallel, we have three other activities. One is to create the infrastructure focused on the academic field. The second is education and training. In education we look to various methods, from individualized learning, to virtual reality to using convergence methods. Thirdly, we look to societal implications of the research done and possible applications. The NSF has the most focus on this area. We also look at economic, environmental, health, and ethical issues related to nanotechnology development and the development of other emerging fields in connection with nanotechnology.

I should add that the NSF has a lot of international collaborations. More than 20 percent of the 6,000 awards have formal international collaborations. We train 10,000 students per year, which is a large number. We have about 30 large centers and about 14% of all awards made by the NSF have nanotechnology inside in the last five years. In addition, NSF annually funds about 25 new SBIR/STTR nanotechnology awards, as well an increasing amount for Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI) for joint academe-industry research awards, I-Corps for innovation training linking completed basic research professionals to entrepreneurs and industry, and INTERN for graduate student internships in industry.

SW: What type advice would you give to a high school student today who is interested in nanotechnology?

MR: Nano is exciting, is futuristic, it applies to all of the material world, and is highly rewarding. For the past several years, NSF has organized a national competition for high school students called Nano Generation. We give prizes to the winners. Next year, this will be merged together with the Museum of Science activities across the U.S. For a high school student, it is essential to follow this line of thought: The specific fields of jobs changes continually. However, if you learn something more foundational, you can cross from one field to another. To have a good salary in the U.S., you need to have a good education. Considering that nanotechnology is a general field that crosses and intersects with many fields, if you learn nanoscale science and engineering well you can find a job in many fields. Secondly, if you have a background in nanotechnology you may have a higher qualification that will put you in a better position to have an interesting and fulfilling job. From a broader intellectual point of view, nanotechnology offers a grand perspective of nature, and how things work around us.  

SW: Last question for today, Mike. What type of advice would you give to policymakers today with respect to encouraging the development of nanotechnology in the future?

MR: I do this every day. There are many challenges ahead, increasingly more sophisticated and more impactful. The main technical direction I think now is to construct larger nanostructured systems with more atoms, information and complexity contents that can be integrated economically and to work together with information, quantum, bio and artificial intelligence. Nanotech cannot strive in isolation. Nano is the foundational technology from which other technologies can emerge and evolve. The convergence with other foundational fields such information technology and cognitive science to name a couple, can help foster sustainable economic development.

From my vantage point, nanotech becomes part of the solution in many fields. It is not a solution just for a final product. From the beginning it has to be integrated with other ideas. Those who do nanoscience and engineering are engaged in multidisciplinary science that includes bio, cognitive, information and other fields. In fact, nanotechnology is one of the foundational fields together with digital technology that are general purpose in nature. As a confirmation, nanotechnology is critical to all newly announced WH Industries of the Future (March 2019) to receive priority in funding: Artificial Intelligence, Advanced Manufacturing, Quantum Information Science, and 5G networks. In summary, I see nanotechnology evolving to larger, more sophisticated systems that maintain the nanoscale behavior at the smaller scale while at the same time integrating with other emerging technologies.

SW: Thank you for your time today, Mike. The NanoBCA commends you for all of the great work in nanotechnology you have done over the years. We wish you all the best in the future.

——————————
Steve Waite is the author of several books including Quantum Investing and Venture Investing in Science.

——————————
I hope you enjoyed this month’s interview. Our 18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference offers outstanding opportunities to connect with a diverse nanotechnology-related group of professionals in the heart of Washington DC.  We hope you will be able to join us on June 4th!

Agenda Update: Water 2.0 Conference 6/5 DC

Posted on May 28th, 2019 | No Comments »

Today we are excited to share an Agenda Update for our: 

Water 2.0 Conference: Advancing Water Infrastructure Repair
Wednesday, June 5, 2019

REGISTER TODAY $250

CONFERENCE LOCATION(S)

We will be meeting at 10:00am for a continental breakfast at the law offices of K&L Gates1601 K Street, NW, Washington, DC.From there we will proceed to Russell Senate Building, Room 385 where the conference will be located.

Speakers for the Water 2.0 Conference Include:

AGENDA

10:00-11:00  Registration & Continental BreakfastK&L Gates, 1601 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-1600

Opening Remarks and Introductions
Vincent Caprio, Water 2.0 Executive Director & Conference Chair

11:00-11:30  In transit to Capitol Hill – Russell Senate Office Building

11:30  Conference Presentations begin at Russell Senate Office Building – Room 385

11:30-Noon Innovation as a Service
Alan Hinchman, Chief Revenue Officer, GrayMatter Systems

Noon-12:30 Kenneth E. Russell, PhD, Consulting Executive and Author

12:30-1:30  Lunch

1:30-2:00  Nate Wilson, Water Quality Product Lead, Mueller

2:00-2:30  Karen Sorber, Executive Chair/CEO, Micronic Technologies

2:30-3:00  At the Edge: The IoT Cyber Security Imperative
Paul Clayson, CEO, AgilePQ

3:00-3:30 Point of Use filtration: How to protect your water while waiting for the infrastructure to be fixed
Bryan Eagle, CEO, Glanris

3:30-4:00  Soohyun Julie Koo, President & CEO, IOREX Global Company

4:00-4:30  Water Investing: State of the Union 2019
Vincent Caprio, Water 2.0 Executive Director & Conference Chair
Jim Hurd, Director, GreenScience Exchange

4:30  Conclusion

—————————————————————————
Questions in regard to the event may be directed to:
Vincent Caprio vincent@water2.org

Click here to see completed Water 2.0 events

—————————————————————————
The Water 2.0 Conference Series offers outstanding opportunities to connect with a diverse water-related group of professionals in the heart of Washington DC.  We hope you will be able to join us!

Final Agenda: 18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference 6/4 DC

Posted on May 28th, 2019 | No Comments »

Today the NanoBusiness Commercialization Association (NanoBCA) is excited to share the Final Agenda for our:

18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference
Tuesday, June 4, 2019

REGISTER HERE $250

CONFERENCE LOCATION

K&L Gates
1601 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006-1600

This year’s event will feature experts from private industry, representatives from government agencies, and public policy leaders who will address the opportunities and challenges in the ongoing commercialization of nanotechnology-based products and nanomaterials.

AGENDA

8:00-9:00  Registration & Continental Breakfast

9:00-9:30  Opening Remarks
– Vincent Caprio, Executive Director, NanoBCA
– Paul Stimers, Partner, K&L Gates
– Steve Waite, Author, Venture Investing in Science & Quantum Investing

9:30-10:00  Doyle Edwards, Director, Government Programs, Brewer Science

10:00-10:30  Matthew Putman, PhD, CEO, Nanotronics Imaging

10:30-11:00 Lisa Friedersdorf, PhD, Director, NNCO

11:00-11:30  Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Director, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

11:30-12:15  Arthur Herman, PhD, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; New York Times Bestselling Author; Pulitzer Prize Finalist

12:15-1:00  Lunch

1:00-1:30  Jim Phillips, Chairman & CEO, Covenant Ventures

1:30-2:00  Penelope T. Salmons, President/COO, Fibrtec Inc

2:00-2:30  Hugues Jacquemin, CEO, OCSiAI LLC

2:30-3:00  Samuel Brauer, PhD, Principal, Nanotech Plus, LLC

3:00-3:30  Anis Rahman, PhD, Chief Technology Officer, Applied Research & Photonics, Inc

3:30-4:00  Marco Curreli, PhD, Founder & Executive Director, Omni Nano

4:00-4:30 Deb Newberry, CEO, Newberry Technologies

4:30-5:00  FBI: Economic Espionage Program – Topic: Intellectual Property Theft/Industrial Espionage

5:00-6:00  Post-Conference Networking


—————————————————————————
NanoBCA Interview Series

The NanoBCA Interview Series offers in-depth interviews with some of the key stakeholders influencing our nanotechnology community today. Many of these dynamic professionals will be participants at our 18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference. Below you will find links to interviews featuring:

Greg Schmergel
Co-Founder, Chairman & CEONantero, Inc.

Paul Stimers
Partner
K&L Gates

Arthur Herman, PhD
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
New York Times Bestselling Author
Pulitzer Prize Finalist

—————————————————————————

18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference Media Partner

Precision Nanomedicine

—————————————————————————
Questions in regard to the event may be directed to:
Vincent Caprio, Executive Director, NanoBCA
vincent@nanobca.org

—————————————————————————
Our 18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference offers outstanding opportunities to connect with a diverse nanotechnology-related group of professionals in the heart of Washington DC.  We hope you will be able to join us!


Speaker Announcement: Water 2.0 Conference 6/5 DC

Posted on May 8th, 2019 | No Comments »

Today we are excited to share a Speaker Announcement for our next Water 2.0 Conference.

Water 2.0 Conference: Advancing Water Infrastructure Repair
Wednesday, June 5, 2019

CONFERENCE LOCATION(S)

We will be meeting at 10:00am for a continental breakfast at the law offices of K&L Gates1601 K Street, NW, Washington, DC.From there we will proceed to Russell Senate Building, Room 385 where the conference will be located.

Speakers for the Water 2.0 Conference Include:

Mark Modzelewski, General Partner, Treeline Interactive

Paul Clayson, CEO, AgilePQ

Alan Hinchman, Chief Revenue Officer, GrayMatter Systems

Nate Wilson, Water Quality Product Lead, Mueller

Karen Sorber, Executive Chair/CEO, Micronic Technologies

Kenneth E. Russell, PhD, Consulting Executive and Author

Jim Hurd, Director, GreenScience Exchange

Vincent Caprio, Water 2.0 Executive Director & Conference Chair

—————————————————————————
Questions in regard to the event may be directed to:
Vincent Caprio vincent@water2.org

Click here to see completed Water 2.0 events

—————————————————————————
WATER NEWS

Trump and Pelosi both claim progress after infrastructure meeting
Los Angeles Times

Democrats say Trump agrees to $2 trillion for infrastructure, but details unclear
USA Today

Trump, Pelosi infrastructure talks invite skepticism
The Hill

Flint’s Water Crises Started 5 Years Ago. It’s Not Over.
The New York Times

Microplastics are raining down from the sky
National Geographic

At our current pace it’ll take 80 years to repair all the structurally deficient bridges in the US, a report finds
CNN

Jerry Merryman, Inventor of the Pocket Calculator, Dies at 86
Newsweek

————————————
The Water 2.0 Conference Series offers outstanding opportunities to connect with a diverse water-related group of professionals in the heart of Washington DC.  We hope you will be able to join us!

Agenda Announcement: 18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference 6/4 DC

Posted on May 8th, 2019 | No Comments »

Today the NanoBusiness Commercialization Association (NanoBCA) is proud to announce Arthur Herman, PhD, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, New York Times Bestselling Author and Pulitzer Prize Finalist as a speaker at our 18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference. We recently interviewed Arthur Herman for our NanoBCA Interview Series. Click here to read the interview. We are very excited to have Arthur join us on June 4th in DC!

18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference
Tuesday, June 4, 2019

REGISTER HERE $250

CONFERENCE LOCATION

K&L Gates
1601 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006-1600

This year’s event will feature experts from private industry, representatives from government agencies, and public policy leaders who will address the opportunities and challenges in the ongoing commercialization of nanotechnology-based products and nanomaterials.

AGENDA

8:00-8:30  Registration & Continental Breakfast

8:30-9:00  Opening Remarks
– Vincent Caprio, Executive Director, NanoBCA
– Paul Stimers, Partner, K&L Gates
– Steve Waite, Author, Venture Investing in Science & Quantum Investing

9:00-9:30  Doyle Edwards, Director, Government Programs, Brewer Science

9:30-10:00  Arpana Verma, PhD, Chief Science Officer, NanoMech

10:00-10:30  Matthew Putman, PhD, CEO, Nanotronics Imaging

10:30-11:00 TBD

11:00-11:30  Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Director, Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

11:30-12:15  Arthur Herman, PhD, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; New York Times Bestselling Author; Pulitzer Prize Finalist

12:15-1:00  Lunch

1:00-1:30  Jim Phillips, Chairman & CEO, Covenant Ventures

1:30-2:00  Penelope T. Salmons, President/COO, Fibrtec Inc

2:00-2:30  Hugues Jacquemin, CEO, OCSiAI LLC

2:30-3:00  Samuel Brauer, PhD, Principal, Nanotech Plus, LLC

3:00-3:30  Anis Rahman, PhD, Chief Technology Officer, Applied Research & Photonics, Inc

3:30-4:00  Marco Curreli, PhD, Founder & Executive Director, Omni Nano

4:00-4:30 Deb Newberry, CEO, Newberry Technologies

4:30-5:00  FBI: Economic Espionage Program – Topic: Intellectual Property Theft/Industrial Espionage

5:00-6:00  Post-Conference Networking

—————————————————————————
NanoBCA Interview Series

The NanoBCA Interview Series offers in-depth interviews with some of the key stakeholders influencing our nanotechnology community today. Many of these dynamic professionals will be participants at our 18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference. Below you will find links to interviews featuring:

Greg Schmergel
Co-Founder, Chairman & CEO
Nantero, Inc.

Paul Stimers
Partner
K&L Gates

—————————————————————————
18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference Media Partner
Precision Nanomedicine

—————————————————————————

Questions in regard to the event may be directed to:Vincent Caprio, Executive Director, NanoBCA
vincent@nanobca.org

—————————————————————————
Our 18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference offers outstanding opportunities to connect with a diverse nanotechnology-related group of professionals in the heart of Washington DC.  We hope you will be able to join us!



NanoBCA Interview: Arthur Herman, Senior Fellow, The Hudson Institute

Posted on April 23rd, 2019 | No Comments »

The NanoBusiness Commercialization Association (NanoBCA) is excited to share the next interview of our NanoBCA Interview Series. Through this series we offer in-depth interviews with some of the key stakeholders influencing our nanotechnology community today. Many of these dynamic professionals will be participants at our:

18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference
Tuesday, June 4, 2019
K&L Gates Washington DC

REGISTER HERE $250

This month we are excited to share the following interview with New York Times bestselling Author and Pulitzer Prize Finalist, Dr. Arthur Herman. Dr. Herman is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington DC.

Steve Waite: Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today, Arthur. There is a lot of ground to cover. Let’s start with the work you are doing on quantum technology, which encompasses nanotechnology. What inspired you to get involved with quantum technology?

Arthur Herman: I wrote a book titled, “Freedom’s Forge: HowAmerican Business Produced Victory in World War II,” that was published in 2012. It became a big hit, both in business circles and in the U.S. defense department. There was a lot of discussion in the book about how to return to the principles that underlay the building of the Arsenal of Democracy, which we seem to have gotten very far away from in terms of a big, labyrinth, bureaucratic organization we see today. I’m working with the DoD on ways in which to get back to those principles. Getting involved with the DoD has got me interested in the ways in which technology and national security, and defense technologies, are engaged in an interplay and the way in which policy shapes the evolution of technology, and likewise how the evolution of technology shapes national policy.

They brought me to the Hudson Institute to work on these kinds of issues, initially in energy and then in the area of cyber security and cyber deterrence. One day, we had as a visitor here, Mike Rogers who is the former Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the House. He mentioned quantum computers and the possible future threat of a quantum computer for decrypting public key encryption systems and networks. I suddenly had this flash in my mind of a scene from the movie, Sneakers. In the movie, an eastern European scientist devised a black box that instantly decrypts all encryption systems and lays bare the secrets of the National Security Agency. The code phrase for the black box is “no more secrets.” It struck me that this is a fascinating technology. That was about three years ago. Since then, I have become more interested and delved into it from the point of view, both from the threat of quantum computing, but also the huge opportunities that come from tapping into the power quantum-based technologies. I find quantum technology an irresistible subject.

SW: Very interesting, Arthur. You launched the Quantum Alliance Initiative (QAI) at the Hudson Institute. It appears to be kindred with what Paul Stimers is doing with the Quantum Industry Coalition. Tell us about the QAI.

AH: The QAI was set up to accomplish two things. The first is to foster collaboration and bridge the gap I was seeing in the quantum technology landscape. What I noticed when I surveyed that landscape was a kind of stove piping of effort among the various communities that were working on quantum computing and quantum cryptography. They were not talking to each other, and in many cases, were actually rather suspicious of each other. I realized that the people in each group had different scientific backgrounds. A lot of people who are working in quantum computing have backgrounds in physics, while a lot of people working on quantum and post-quantum cryptography had mathematics backgrounds. Neither group seemed to have much interest in what the other was doing.

One of the messages I wanted to send through the QAI is to urge the people working quantum encryption to pay attention to what the people who are working on quantum computers are doing and vice versa. I believe the people working on quantum computing need to be fully cognizant of the development of ways to protect and secure data in the future because of the implications quantum computers have for cyber security. Ultimately, if we are going to have quantum key distribution networks they are going be networks built around quantum computers.

The second mission of the QAI has to do with the notion that the U.S. cannot win the quantum race by going it alone. In many areas, such as quantum communication and post-quantum cryptography, we have key allies, like Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who are major contributors to exciting developments in quantum technology.

The reason we call it The Quantum Alliance Initiative is we are looking to internationalize, to build a strong and vibrant alliance for the U.S. in its quantum efforts, and to build a strong alliance between the different quantum communities: quantum communication, quantum secure cryptography and quantum computing. We want to bring these all together so there is an ongoing dialogue and discussion. Our first conference in October 2017 was the very first to try to achieve this in Washington. This is the direction we’ve been going in all along.

I should mention that we are also reaching out to other technology communities. We just had a conference on quantum and artificial intelligence. We had an event on quantum and the problem surrounding intellectual property. Our mission is to help people not think of this as some kind of exotic, science fiction, fantasy world, but one that can address fundamental principles that apply to all emerging technology through what is happening in the quantum area.  

SW: That makes a lot of sense. There is a great deal of hype, and at the same time, skepticism about quantum computers. Where is the hype and skepticism coming from and how do we navigate through it all?

AH: One feeds the other. Let’s be honest. We have companies crowing about their latest advances in quantum computing and making bigger and bigger claims about future developments. This type of behavior generates skepticism. One of the ways to navigate through hype is to internationalize your perspective. Look at the effort the Chinese are putting into quantum. They are going at it in a very deliberate and strategized way. According to the recent report from CNAS in China’s quantum effort, government spending on China’s flagship National Laboratory of Quantum Information Science in Hefei will amount to $15.76 billion over the next five years. At the same time, they are aggressively pursuing advances in quantum communication. They launched their quantum satellite. Their Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) network connects Shanghai and Beijing. By contrast, U.S. government spending on Quantum Information Science (QIS) over the next five years, counting the $1.25 billion authorized under the Quantum Alliance Initiative Act, plus the $200 million the U.S. government normally spends through other programs, amounts to $2.25 billion, which is 14 percent of what China is investing. 

Now, the quantum skeptics, some of whom I have spoken to here in Washington, think this is ridiculous. I understand the skepticism, but this is how revolutionary technologies get launched. Once quantum repeaters come into play – and there are people who are working diligently on this today – there will be more breakthroughs. Then you will see the QKD networks really become more than just simply science experiments. What you will see is something that will provide hack-proof information connections. And this is exactly what the Chinese are doing and what they have been thinking about for the past four years. If you look at their record on patent applications going back to 2015 they lagged behind the U.S. in quantum computing, but they are the world leader in quantum communication patent applications. That tells you they are moving ahead on this front in a major way.

I would also point out that the quantum computing skeptics do not yet seem to fully appreciate the potential for a cyber security and privacy disaster. There is a growing recognition of this threat that was recognized by The National Academy of Sciences report on quantum computing. Let me quote from that report: “Even if a quantum computer that can decrypt current cryptographic ciphers is more than a decade off, the hazard of such a machine is high enough, and time from transition to a new security protocol is sufficiently long and uncertain, the prioritization of the development, standardization and deployment of post-quantum cryptography is critical for minimizing the chance for a potential security and privacy disaster.” The upshot of this message is you better get ready and the time to start is now. There is not much the skeptics can say to refute this statement.

I have to say I encounter a lot of quantum skeptics in my travels throughout the world. My sense is that a lot of them do not understand how quantum technologies work because they don’t have the backgrounds required to understand it. Even the quantum skeptics have to concede that the very possibility of such a threat to cyber security and privacy means that you have to make major changes to the way in which encryption works. I think even the skeptics can agree on the need today to develop agile solutions, not just for quantum cyber security threat, but also for the current classical threat. If you don’t have agile PKIs (i.e., Public Key Infrastructure) that can be updated and can evolve with the technology, then you are going to constantly fall behind and playing catch up.

SW: What are some of the major market opportunities for producers of quantum technology over the next three to five years?

AH: I should first note that I look at quantum technology from the point of view of national security policy, not from the point of view of investment. That said, I see several active areas of opportunity today. One is quantum software for quantum computers. As quantum computing hardware develops, there is going to be a huge demand for ways in which to program them. Another area is the development of quantum materials. There is a need for new materials, to develop ways to facilitate entanglement and finding ways in which materials allow the qubits to do the seemingly impossible. Right now, the challenge with qubits is that any contact with any kind of matter – boom! They are gone. Quantum materials that can facilitate and ease that transition will be important, whether for quantum computers, as Michelle Simmons is trying to do with developing a microchip for quantum computers – or whether you are talking about Quantum Random Number Generator (QRNG) and QKD. If you have quantum materials that facilitate entanglement from one node to the next you don’t have to start over at each node, then you have QKD repeaters that can take off from there.

Another area I would mention is quantum sensors. Quantum sensing is already here and already in use. Developments there would be of interest to Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. Lastly, I would add quantum communications, and in particular, hardware that would be useful to U.S. government agencies. I have some thoughts on this area of quantum opportunity but would prefer not to discuss it at the present time.

SW: We appreciate your perspectives on near term quantum opportunities. What are some of the major challenges and impediments for producers of quantum technology today?

AH: We have a lousy export control regime at the present time that limits the possibility for international cooperation and also retards our ability to have a truly innovative quantum technology ecosystem. If you place all the stress on everything having to be U.S. made, it will be challenging to do this if you are freezing out international partners. In the larger picture, export control as status quo limits our possibilities in a lot of advanced technologies, not just in quantum. And, of course, the current regime is associated with the concern that the technology will end up in the hands of the Chinese. It is an understandable concern. However, as we are finding with the current furor over 5G, we are going to have a tough time convincing even our close allies to shy away from using Chinese technology in this area if we don’t have a reasonable and viable alternative to offer. We are having a big problem with that and 5G, and I believe we are going to have even more of a problem with regard to quantum. We must also keep in mind that many U.S. companies working in this area are global with offices all over the world, including China.

The other major challenge is associated with something we’ve already touched on, and that is the walls and lack of cooperation within the quantum community. This is a big problem. We know from the work in nanotechnology over the past two decades that we need cross-disciplinary and multidisciplinary interaction to foster advancement and spark new thoughts, ideas, partnerships, and, ultimately innovation.

SW: Right on, Arthur! Given all of the challenges today, are you concerned that the U.S. may fall behind in the development of quantum technologies?

AH: Well, let’s compare what is going on in China with what is going on here in the U.S. at the current time. Over the next five years the U.S. federal government will be spending $14.25 per second on QIS, whereas China’s government will be spending $99.49 or nearly $100 per second, almost seven times the amount the U.S. is spending. If we subtract the NQI Act money, which still has not been appropriated yet, we’re looking at $6.34 per second, or fifteen times less than China is spending. By comparison, the European Union, which is slated to invest $550 million in QIS over the same five years, is looking at a spending rate of $3.48 per second.    

SW: We know that the amount of spending does not necessarily correlate with the amount of innovation. The two Steves at Apple (Jobs and Wozniak) had a much smaller research and development (R&D) budget than IBM when they started out, but Apple was the far more innovative company in the personal computer segment.

AH: Totally. Money is never the answer, and that is one of the mistakes the Chinese may make. But having said this, notice what the Chinese have done. The money that they are spending is not in R&D. They steal the R&D from us. It is really fascinating to look at the big Chinese IT firms like ZTE and Huawei. These companies generate an enormous amount of patent applications and are at the forefront of where the technology is going, but their R&D budgets are extremely low. The R&D is done for them by the American companies, European companies, as well as American and European universities. They just help themselves to whatever it is useful to them. What is scary about the difference in the money being spent on quantum technology in China versus the U.S. is that the money in China is being spent on the application of the technology, the building of infrastructure, the hiring of staff, the creation of a workforce that is devoted and focused entirely on these technologies.

In the end, what it really reflects is a comprehensive national strategy which the Chinese have, and which a lot of our European partners have as well. We haven’t really developed a national quantum strategy in the U.S. We have a lot of very able people and a lot of programs that are underway that are being led by the U.S. government. But there is no comprehensive strategy at the present time.

SW: Yes. Paul Stimers and I talked about this during our NanoBCA interview last month. Given what the Chinese are doing today, do you see quantum technology as a moonshot challenge?

AH: Given the stakes involved, and the opponent we are dealing with, which is China, I think there is a need for a moonshot type offense. I say this with two caveats. The first is that it can be done with a fraction of the expenditure that we see in China today. I don’t believe we need to spend all that much money. Second of all, it is one in which the drivers will have to be private industry and the entrepreneurs. In other words, it’s not so much picking winners and losers. Nobody wants that to happen. It is a peril because the temptation is so great. We’ve seen that failure with areas like Green Energy.

SW: Boy, did we ever. What a disaster.

AH: Solyndra is a case study in how bad this could go. What you have to do is build in the safeguards to prevent this from happening. But what is really necessary is summing up all the animal spirits and exuberance and keeping everybody pointed in the right direction. That’s where a national strategy will come in handy. We can set certain types of benchmarks for what we want to achieve, where we want to see resources going, the allies with whom we want to work and the international players with whom we don’t want to work. The Chinese are totally unprincipled about what they help themselves to and what they are going to do with these technologies. There is very little to be gained and a great deal to be lost by allowing them to be players in the R&D ecosystem, because that is where they have been able to leverage their advantage. We have to find way to screen them out, while also inviting our foreign partners, as well as our own homegrown entrepreneurs, to work together. I don’t think it’s going to be that complicated to do this. The real challenge is educating lawmakers, decision makers and the general public as to what quantum technology is really all about.

SW: You are a regular contributor to Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, and other popular media outlets. Do you find your work on quantum technology generating greater interest among the general public?

AH: Here is the way I would measure that. The amount of time I have to spend in each column explaining what quantum computing is has been shrinking. It used to be two paragraphs and it is now down to one paragraph. Increasingly, going forward, I think it will be down to a sentence. That is a sign to me that something is happening. The first article I wrote for The Wall Street Journal on quantum computing in 2017 I had to write a column that was three times longer in order to get the editor – who is a very smart guy, by the way, and whose background is in technology and science – on board with what a quantum computer does and how it is different from a classical computer. I don’t have to do this type of explanation anymore. That’s a sign of progress.

The real challenge we face in trying to foster an informed public and informed decision makers, is trying to navigate around the hype that is being generated by the companies themselves who are involved with quantum technology. We face a challenge to come up with a more realistic timeline for where this technology is going and have a more sober assessment about the risks involved and how difficult it is going to be if we do not start dealing now with the future threat.

SW: I want to switch gears now and discuss some of the great books you have written. You published a book in 2013 titled, “The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization.” Tell us about the inspiration for that book.

AH: The roots of that book lie in my first book, “The Idea of Decline in Western History.” There is also a link to another book I wrote titled, “How the Scots Invented the Modern World.” In writing these books what I was coming to understand was the degree to which the declinists tended to be philosophers influenced by Plato whereas the more optimistic view, the one I actually subscribe to with regard to the progress of civilization, tended to follow much more of an Aristotelian way of thinking. From that, I was able to begin to say maybe what we are really seeing here unfolding is two conflicting worldviews. One, arising from the philosophy of Plato and the other arising from the philosophy of Aristotle, which was specifically directed against, as a reply to and refutation of his old teacher’s theories of nature, of society, of politics, etc.

SW: Fascinating! Please continue.

AH: If we look at the history of western ideas and culture going all the way back to Hellenistic times, the successors to Plato and Aristotle, we see this constant tug of war between these two different world views. It is this tug of war and the tension between the two that has given western civilization its unique dynamic that everyone has recognized. Why is it that western civilization is so adaptable? What is it that is able to undergo renaissances and a rebirth of principles, even in times when its future is at its darkest and it is most in doubt? In the book “The Cave and the Light,” the reason is that it is the dynamic tension – the dynamic balance between the world view of Plato and the world view of Aristotle, which are ultimately irreconcilable – that is fundamental to giving western civilization its creative impetus.

SW: You mentioned several books you have written. We could talk about your other books, including “1917: Lenin, Wilson, and the Birth of the New World Disorder,” the Pulitzer Prize finalist, “Gandhi and Churchill,” and “To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World,” but there isn’t sufficient time today. However, inquisitive minds do wonder and have to ask: What is the next book about and when will it be released?

AH: The new book is on the Vikings. It discusses the Scandinavian contribution to not just western civilization, but the whole way in which history has been shaped, including the history of the United States. I am hoping to finish the manuscript this summer and expect the book to be out in spring 2020.

SW: Very good! We look forward to reading it. If somebody asked you to state your overall mission with your work and books, what would you tell them?

AH: If I have any overall mission, it’s making sure technology supports freedom not tyranny. We need a path forward that shows us how to be part of the modern world, without being devoured by it. A path the Scots understood, and the Vikings and their descendants and admirers have instinctively felt. My grandparents on both sides include Norwegian immigrants. The story of the Scandinavian migration to America is a very powerful one. It is, I think, a way of restoring some faith in what America represents. One of the important themes of the new book is: Why are we always so fascinated by the Vikings? A large part of the book discusses the Vikings and the way in which Scandinavia had in the shaping of western civilization once the Roman Empire collapsed. Scandinavian culture has enormous impact on what that looks like.

The reason we are so fascinated by the Vikings is because what is encapsulated in the Viking experience is the core of what every child goes through in terms of confronting unseen dangers. The human experience of going out, feeling the fear, and doing it anyway. In the Vikings we have a people venturing into new lands, including America. People who venture out into the unknown, confront their deepest fears and greatest dangers, and overcome them in order to build a new life from themselves and their families. This is what the whole Vikings experience encapsulates and why I think we are so perennially fascinated by it.

SW: I have one final question for you today, Arthur. Looking out over the next couple of years, what are the one or two positive developments you think might surprise people? Is there anything you are excited about that’s not on many people’s radar screens today?

AH: I would say one of the things, which I think goes back to my book, “1917: The Birth of the New World Disorder,” is that the roots of the worldview, which has dominated over the last century, are eroding. This worldview is really driven by a progressive and Marxist – and ultimately, Hegelian worldview – which is that government in the hands of a leadership elite, could achieve a kind of utopian reality where all human needs and wants would be met. We see this in the political sphere right now. It lingers on. I am sensing a growing discontent with this type of worldview. There is a realization that with this view people no longer count, and in which culture and community are seen as being basically erased or being homogenized in ways that human beings lose their identity. What I see taking place is a shift of rediscovering the importance of roots. I don’t mean identity politics. I’m talking about the ways in which nation states, whether it is the United States, Israel or Norway, Denmark and Sweden, and what it is that makes it possible for human beings to be happy in a community, is that sense of shared values and shared culture which is distinct from and different from other cultures. That the effort toward homogenization, far from making us happier, is actually a major source of chaos and disorder.

In conclusion, while I think there are a lot of things to be concerned about today, including the state of our colleges and universities outside of science and technology here in the U.S, I am sensing a growing disenfranchisement with the Marxian world view, that it is not working. You look at what’s going on in the U.S., in Europe and Scandinavia. People are realizing that there are things that are undercutting what makes people happy and what makes nations function properly. These are harbingers of things to come. In many ways, the new book on the Vikings, which I’ve tentatively titled, “The Viking Heart,” is about how that story may, in fact, have a happy ending.

SW: Thank you, Arthur. It has been wonderful speaking with you today. We thank you again for your time and wish you all the best with your quantum technology-related work and book writing endeavors.

Steve Waite is a member of the NanoBCA Advisory Board and author of several books including Quantum Investing and Venture Investing in Science.

I hope you enjoyed this month’s interview. Looking forward to seeing you on June 4th in DC!