Well, now, where to begin? My recent rantingshave rippled up and down the nanosphere and have had a far largerinfluence on the public debate over nanotech's future than I had everexpected. Scary. I'll take it from the top, but stay with it until theend, since there's a narrative flow with a bizarre ending.

I wrote a column in Small Times. Mark Modzelewski of the NanoBusiness Alliance, wrote an opposing column in Small Times. Both were excerpted in this blog entry, which I'll further encapsulate here:

Chris Phoenix of the Centerfor Responsible Nanotechnology:
"Politics these days seems to be more about smearing youropponentsthan about presenting actual facts. Mark Modzelewski says that we'vecooked up a conspiracy theory with a "devious cabal." What we actuallysaid is that the wording was changeddeliberately and blatantly."

Chris will likely have more to say in a letter to the editorfor the next print edition of SmallTimes magazine.

From a blogger who chooses to remainanonymous:
"I resent this insuation. It's totally inaccurate. I work outof mymom's den, not her basement."

From blogger DFMoore
The idea of Drexler's nanobots is indeed a cool one. I agree.It seemsexciting. But it would be ridiculous to base national nanotech policyon achieving something that, as I said before, no one has shown anyscientific reason as to why they should work and plenty of people haveshown scientific reasons as to why the won't work. The commercialapproach that we have now works well. It allows the field to develop onmany different tangents and in all directions.

From blogger MarcGoodner
"I think this act is another example of government largessetocorporate interests, no surprise from this administration. If thismoney had gone to academic research, and the ip to the public domain,without preordained conclusions society would be better off."

Chris Peterson of the Foresight Institute,writing in Nanodot:
"Note to Mark M.: it is a risky thing to make fun ofbloggers--they canmake a difference. Just ask Trent Lott, the former Senator."

Robert Bradbury, writing in my discussionsection:
"The problem Howard is that tens of millions of lives,perhaps evenyours, are likely to be on the line depending on how fast robustmolecular nanotechnology (of the Drexlerian type) develops. I'm one ofthe few people who has actually tried to sketch out a possibledevelopment path with costs."

Glenn Reynolds, writing in Tech CentralStation:
"I think that if the nanotechnology business community,because of thePR strategy that it has chosen, finds itself scissored between thescientists and visionaries on one side, and the environmentalists onthe other, it will have cause to regret its rather shortsighted PRstrategy."

Then, it gets really bizarre on Glenn's InstaPundit,in which Mark shot off this letter:
"Clearly being educated man, I can hardly even fathom how you takeDrexler's fantasies and turn them into reality in your head. As far asour "pr strategy" as you call it-its not so much pr strategy as a'reality strategy.' I don't promote nor spend much time worrying aboutscience fiction and frankly don't even view thezettatechnology/molecular manufacturing/Foresight folks thinking as onthe table in the environmental debate. I am clearly not between twopoles, as your misguided views on the subject frankly don't constitutea pole in the landscape as far as I see it. I would say my skills as along time political damage control specialist leave me -all ego aside -a little better skilled then Howard Lovy or yourself at these type ofthings. So just the same, I will actually be the one with a degree ofsympathy here. Keep fighting the -strange-if not good fight for yourlostcause."