One of my relatives once asked me: “I saw a guy talk about nanotechnology in the TV and I was reminded of you. Is that what you do?” How could I explain that making metal oxide nanoparticles for solar cells was different from designing DNA motifs. I reluctantly said “Yes, but mine is slightly different”.
When we hear the word Nanotechnology, we get the feel that it is something new, something different. It is neither. Metal nanoparticles have been in the making for two decades and the vision of DNA nanostructures through self-assembly was seen as early as the early eighties. It is not new. There are very few separate ‘centers’ or departments for nanotechnology in universities and research institutes, but the number is rising. But it does not reflect that actual nanotechnology research is just budding at these places. There are a lot more people working on it in the departments of physics, chemistry, biology, you name it! It is not different. So when people ask me about nanotechnology, I tell them it is the study of any material in the nanoscale. As of now, the relevance is mainly toward physical sciences as there are more applications we see and hear in the market. But in reality, it extends to a far wider spectrum.
It is only the buzz about Nanotechnology that has made this commotion. People should understand that it is the nature of every material to be in any form or any scale, and when we make or work on materials in the range of one billionth of a meter, that is where Nanotechnology steps in. You cannot study the properties of a ceramic material without knowing the physics behind its mechanical strength. You cannot design a drug-delivery nanoshell without understanding the physiological path it has to take to reach the particular cell in the body. How could a DNA nanostructure be designed without knowing the chemical stability of its twists and flips? It is Physics. It is Chemistry. It is Biology. From what I understand, it always gives us a sense of elation when we tell people we do something different. Instead of ‘research in physics’, ‘I work in nanotechnology’ seems hi-fi. I agree it does. But you are ‘scientifically’ still in physics. Science has no boundaries. You cannot separate each field and remain in just one for too long. It is to our convenience that we name each area so that colleagues in that field would be benefited in discussions, and references toward a particular research would be simpler.
A friend of mine once asked me about a master’s program in nanotechnology. I asked him why he wanted to do it since he already had a master’s degree. His reply was that he wanted to do his PhD in Nanoscience. The area you choose for your research is your discretion, until the point it has some relevance with what you studied. You do not have to have a degree in nanoscience or nanotechnology to do your research in the field! If that were the case, how do we have so many institutes in nano when we did not have (or did not even hear) degree programs on nanotechnology and what did our professors specialize in?? A microbiologist could do a research in nanotechnology, so could a chemist. There are no restrictions or requirements.
It has become a trend to include the word (prefix, suffix) ‘nano’ in a research paper and a paper published with ‘nano’ in the title need not involve an actual work in Nanotechnology. On the contrary, any research in Nanotechnology does not have to have the prefix in its title. It will take some time for this craze to end, or submerge. For now, I would rather say I work in the department of Chemistry, specializing is DNA crystallography!
All said, when someone asks me if I’m doing my research in nanotechnology, I would simply say “Yes” and if they tell me they know someone who works in nanotechnology, I’d say “Oh, nice”. And there ends the story.
Nanotechnology, all in one, and one in all.
No comments:
Post a Comment