After three years of panels, meetings, widespread media coverage, visits from Governor Pataki and Senator Clinton, industrial partnerships from IBM, Tokyo Electron, Intel and others and millions in construction and development of a state-of-the-art research facility for students and faculty...a professor professes that he now questions "the development of the School of Nanosciences and Nanoengineering at the university".
The accompanying video suggest said professor is concerned that resources from other departments may be compromised and things just aren't "fully understood"...
Another Professor, this one a physicist and a nano advocate says, "What I think has occurred is that there is a great deal of confusion on the part of a limited number of faculty. And I think it's unfortunate that they've taken the bully pulpit."
Just as I showed last July, as much as nanoscience stands to bring together disparate disciplines, the humanities and those not receiving government funding from the National Nanotech Initiative will stage such divisive laments.
This is nothing new. A vested interest dictates each of our agendas. Some will always be threatened by change and oppose or ignore potential benefits to avoid uprooting the warm routine comfort of the status quo. (read also as: "i want a piece of the pie, but i don't want to get up to get it. and if i can't have some, you can't either..."
The letter below was ALLEGEDLY (although some have strongly suggested it is a HOAX)
sent to President Andrew Jackson from New York State Governor Martin Van Buren on January 31, 1829.
True or not, it captures a sentiment that represents a vested interest against a very important change at that time, not unlike our time today.