Steve Jurvetson pops up again in The New York Times discussing funding for nanotechnology. The somewhat odd sounding And I might point out that internationally, the U.S. is not number one or number two. We’re number three, if you consider the EU as an entity and if you consider Japan as an entity makes us wonder what Japan could possibly be considered as, and indeed where the US would be if it were not considered as an entity.
The my funding is bigger than yours name calling often hides the true story. In some cases funding goes to additional researchers and equipment, in others it pays for the architects, builders, plumbers and plasterers of the new nanoscience centres.
We recently heard of one European nanotechnology initiative where the majority of the money was spent on buildings, and another where almost ten million pounds went to the consultants administering the program.
It’s not how big it is; it’s what you do with it we are reliably informed.