June 15, 2007 (Vol. 27, No. 12)
Rating:
Strong Points: Good coverage of nanotechnology
Weak Points: Nothing significant
Summary:
Are you getting a little tired of the ‘nano’ prefix? If you are, you may want to stay away from the Nanontechnology and Nanoscience site, which prominently features on its opening page, four sections entitled NanoBase (a material database), NanoLink (a collection of nanotech links), NanoRisk (a nanoprofessional’s newsletter), and NanoBlog (a daily nanotechnology feature article). Worse, the front page is subtitled, “NanoWerk.” Okay, you were warned. Diving into the content, one discovers that nanotechnology is worthy of the attention it gets. As one article on the opening page points out, carbon nanotubes provide hope of extending Moore’s law of computing for at least a few more years and that nanotechnology is essential for integrating biochemical analyses onto the lab-on-a-chip devices. I must object, though, to the use of the term ‘nanoverse’ to refer to the universe of nanotechnology. Is no suffix sacred when it comes to use of the nano prefix?
