"You can find academic and industrial groups doing some relevant work, but there isn't a focus on building complex molecular systems. In that respect, Japan is first, Europe is second, and we're third"
About this Quote
Drexler contrasts scattered, relevant research with a sustained, programmatic drive to engineer complex molecular systems. His hierarchy is less about scientific talent than about institutional intent. Where organizations explicitly target atomically precise, integrated structures rather than isolated effects or materials, progress compounds; where work is diffuse, it stalls at demonstrations rather than architectures.
Japan comes first because of a culture of precision engineering and long-horizon industrial strategy. Corporate labs at firms like NTT, NEC, and Hitachi, backed by ministry roadmapping and tight links between manufacturing and research, have historically excelled at turning microscopic control into reliable production. The same mindset that produced world-class machine tools, robotics, and semiconductor process control translates naturally to molecular-scale manipulation and metrology. When scanning probe techniques opened the door to atomically resolved work, Japanese groups were primed to integrate them into broader engineering programs rather than treat them as mere curiosities.
Europe follows with deep strengths in surface science, physical chemistry, and instrumentation. Institutions such as IBM Zurich and Max Planck helped pioneer tools and theory needed for atomically precise work. Yet, despite excellence, the landscape is fragmented by national funding silos and uneven industrial pull, which slows the leap from laboratory feats to coordinated system-building.
The United States, in this reading, suffers from short-term incentives and funding conservatism. Talent and resources abound, but they are channeled into safer, incremental nanomaterials, biotech, or semiconductor nodes rather than ambitious molecular manufacturing. Public debates that fixated on speculative risks and high-profile disputes diverted attention from roadmapping and integration. Even major initiatives labeled nanotechnology often prioritized near-term deliverables over the architecture-level goals Drexler advocates.
The point is a provocation: leadership in molecular systems depends on organizing for complexity. That means coherent programs that connect theory, design, synthesis, assembly, and verification into a pathway toward atomically precise, functional systems, not just individual breakthroughs.
Japan comes first because of a culture of precision engineering and long-horizon industrial strategy. Corporate labs at firms like NTT, NEC, and Hitachi, backed by ministry roadmapping and tight links between manufacturing and research, have historically excelled at turning microscopic control into reliable production. The same mindset that produced world-class machine tools, robotics, and semiconductor process control translates naturally to molecular-scale manipulation and metrology. When scanning probe techniques opened the door to atomically resolved work, Japanese groups were primed to integrate them into broader engineering programs rather than treat them as mere curiosities.
Europe follows with deep strengths in surface science, physical chemistry, and instrumentation. Institutions such as IBM Zurich and Max Planck helped pioneer tools and theory needed for atomically precise work. Yet, despite excellence, the landscape is fragmented by national funding silos and uneven industrial pull, which slows the leap from laboratory feats to coordinated system-building.
The United States, in this reading, suffers from short-term incentives and funding conservatism. Talent and resources abound, but they are channeled into safer, incremental nanomaterials, biotech, or semiconductor nodes rather than ambitious molecular manufacturing. Public debates that fixated on speculative risks and high-profile disputes diverted attention from roadmapping and integration. Even major initiatives labeled nanotechnology often prioritized near-term deliverables over the architecture-level goals Drexler advocates.
The point is a provocation: leadership in molecular systems depends on organizing for complexity. That means coherent programs that connect theory, design, synthesis, assembly, and verification into a pathway toward atomically precise, functional systems, not just individual breakthroughs.
Quote Details
| Topic | Science |
|---|
More Quotes by Eric Drexler
Add to List
