The physicist and quant Scott Locklin doesn’t think highly of Nanosystems. You can find his 2010 blog post about it easily enough.
Drexler’s doctorate seems fishy to me as well. One, he got it from MIT’s Media Lab, and not from a real department of science or engineering.
Two, the gadgeteers and artists who do stuff at the Media Lab have to produce real things which they can get to work. Drexler hasn’t done that, and that adds further to my sense of scandal about his doctorate.
And three, the Wikipedia page for the Media Lab lists its notable associates, their achievements and their publications. It doesn’t mention Drexler or a “nano” anything, like the Media Lab people who have a say over the page’s content feel embarrassed by the Drexler episode now.
I checked the original article. I agree. There’s not much sign Locklin actually read Nanosystems, AFAICT, and at this point I’m not much inclined to give benefit of the doubt.
The physicist and quant Scott Locklin doesn’t think highly of Nanosystems. You can find his 2010 blog post about it easily enough.
Drexler’s doctorate seems fishy to me as well. One, he got it from MIT’s Media Lab, and not from a real department of science or engineering.
Two, the gadgeteers and artists who do stuff at the Media Lab have to produce real things which they can get to work. Drexler hasn’t done that, and that adds further to my sense of scandal about his doctorate.
And three, the Wikipedia page for the Media Lab lists its notable associates, their achievements and their publications. It doesn’t mention Drexler or a “nano” anything, like the Media Lab people who have a say over the page’s content feel embarrassed by the Drexler episode now.
You’re Mark Plus, right?
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2010/09/scott-locklin-on-nanotechnology-and-drexler/
Verdict: Locklin is “Flamebait.”
I checked the original article. I agree. There’s not much sign Locklin actually read Nanosystems, AFAICT, and at this point I’m not much inclined to give benefit of the doubt.