Freitas on the future

Thanks for the accurate coverage, Howard. You obviously "get it." Where you suggest:

"The two camps are, in fact, involved in completely separate endeavors. What they should be doing is pointing to one another as simply operating on different levels of the nanotech timeline."

I completely agree, and this is, in fact, the stance I've always taken since the start, trying to create a broad definition of "nanomedicine" and stating explicitly the long-term nature of the specific nanorobotic vision to avoid having my work being labeled as hype. For example, see http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/FutureNanofabNMed.htm (2002) and my more recent nanomedicine survey papers to be published in 2005 which actually spend as much time describing the fascinating and extremely useful achievements of nearer-term non-nanorobotic nanomedicine and nearer-term biotech nanomedicine as they do describing my longer-term vision of diamondoid medical nanorobotics.

Unfortunately, such attempts at inclusiveness have not always been welcomed or understood.

Best wishes,
Robert A. Freitas Jr.

NanoBot Backgrounder
Stop worrying and learn to love nanobots
How big is nano?
Nanobots: Body and antibody
Do no harm: Don't forget Freitas