1.

Today we’re going to look at an important area of science, namely nanotechnology. So what is
it? Nano means tiny, so it’s science and engineering on the scale of atoms and molecules. The
idea is that by controlling and rearranging atoms, you can literally create anything. However, as
we’ll see, the science of the small has some big implications affecting us in many ways.
There’s no doubt that nanotechnology promises so much for civilisation. However, all new
technologies have their teething problems. And with nanotechnology, society often gets the
wrong idea about its capabilities.
Numerous science-fiction books and movies have raised people's fears about
nanotechnology - with scenarios such as inserting little nano-robots into your body that monitor
everything you do without you realising it, or self-replicating nano-robots that eventually take
over the world.
So how do we safeguard such a potentially powerful technology? Some scientists recommend
that nano-particles be treated as new chemicals with separate safety tests and clear labelling.
They believe that greater care should also be taken with nano-particles in laboratories and
factories. Others have called for a withdrawal of new nano products such as cosmetics and a
temporary halt to many kinds of nanotech research.
But as far as I’m concerned there's a need to plough ahead with the discoveries and
applications of nanotechnology.
I really believe that most scientists would welcome a way to guard against unethical uses of
such technology. We can’t go around thinking that all innovation is bad, all advancement is bad.
As with the debate about any new technology, it is how you use it that’s important. So let’s look
at some of its possible uses.
Thanks to nanotechnology, there could be a major breakthrough in the field of transportation
with the production of more durable metals.
These could be virtually unbreakable, lighter and much more pliable leading to planes that are
50 times lighter than at present. Those same improved capabilities will dramatically reduce the
cost of travelling into space making it more accessible to ordinary people and opening up a
totally new holiday destination.
In terms of technology, the computer industry will be able to shrink computer parts down to
minute sizes. We need nanotechnology in order to create a new generation of computers that
will work even faster and will have a million times more memory but will be about the size of a
sugar cube.
Nanotechnology could also revolutionise the way that we generate power. The cost of solar
cells will be drastically reduced so harnessing this energy will be far more economical than at
present.
But nanotechnology has much wider applications than this and could have an enormous impact
on our environment. For instance, tiny airborne nano-robots could be programmed to actually
rebuild the ozone layer, which could lessen the impact of global warming on our planet. That’s a
pretty amazing thought, isn’t it? On a more local scale, this new technology could help with the
clean-up of environmental disasters as nanotechnology will allow us to remove oil and other
contaminants from the water far more effectively. And, if nanotechnology progresses as
expected - as a sort of building block set of about 90 atoms - then you could build anything you
wanted from the bottom up. In terms of production, this means that you only use what you need
and so there wouldn't be any waste.
The notion that you could create anything at all has major implications for our health. It means
that we’ll eventually be able to replicate anything. This would have a phenomenal effect on our
society. In time it could even lead to the eradication of famine through the introduction of
machines that produce food to feed the hungry.
But it’s in the area of medicine that nanotechnology may have its biggest impact. How we detect
disease will change as tiny biosensors are developed to analyse tests in minutes rather than
days.
There’s even speculation nano-robots could be used to slow the ageing process, lengthening
life expectancy.
As you can see, I’m very excited by the implications that could be available to us in the next few
decades. Just how long it’ll take, I honestly don't know.

2.
3.
4.
MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

There's some news about sports news we want to talk more about. For years, ESPN has been
the big name in sports broadcasting showing live events, reporting news, hosting talk shows
about sports, airing documentaries about sports. But the network has also been making news
itself for losing millions of subscribers in recent years and in the wake of that, losing hundreds
of staff.

Last week, there was another layoff - some 100 employees were let go, including well-known
names who covered the NFL and college hoops and so on. We were wondering why this is
happening and why it matters, so we called Max Chafin. He's a writer for Bloomberg
Businessweek. He's been writing about all this. We reached him in Vancouver where he's
attending the TED conference. Max, thanks so much for taking time out of the conference to talk
with us.

MAX CHAFKIN: Thanks for having me.

MARTIN: So last week's layoffs are just the latest. There was a massive layoff in 2015 like some
300 staffers were let go. Why is this round of layoffs getting so much attention? And why is all
this happening?

CHAFKIN: So the reason this is getting attention is because these are in some cases well-
known names. These are people who were on-air talent - combination of people who are on
Sports Center which is ESPN's kind of signature sports highlights show - it's actually the first
show that ever aired on ESPN - and you have some sort of beat reporter.

So these are people that fans know about, and the other reason that this is getting attention is
because it's part of this long-running story that we've been seeing playing out over the last few
years where ESPN which for a time was probably the most powerful entity in all of sports and
maybe arguably the most powerful entity in all of media has now been suddenly laid low by
what's known in the industry as cord-cutting which is to say people who are deciding not to
subscribe to cable anymore which cuts directly to their bottom line.

MARTIN: ESPN obviously is kind of pushing back against this idea that the network has been
kind of knocked off its lofty perch, for example, you know, Scott Van Pelt, one of their big stars
has been very vocal about this. He says that there really is no near competitor. They still are
making billions of dollars, and they have like hundreds of thousands of subscribers and still get
more per subscriber than any other entity. So what's the big deal?

CHAFKIN: That's all true. I mean, ESPN is one of those businesses that is like so good it should
be, you know, illegal. They don't just get more money per subscriber than anybody else, they
get, I think, more than double anybody else. So the thing that is a little bit troubling is the trend.
And ESPN has been dealing with these subscriber losses in recent months that are historically
enormous - losing more than half a million subscribers in a single month.

And the other thing that's happening to them is that their costs have gone up a lot in recent
years, so a single Monday night football game - just the rights to show Monday night football on
a single night costs more than, like, an entire season of "Game Of Thrones." So they're in this
kind of box where on one hand, their costs are going up and their revenues are not going up as
much as they're accustomed to. And so that's putting them in this position where they have to
start cutting.

MARTIN: So, Max, before we let you go, there are some who might be listening to our
conversation and say why do I care about that? And what would you say?

CHAFKIN: That's kind of a good point. But I do think that the thought of ESPN being diminished
or sports in our culture being diminished would be unfortunate. I mean, it's a big part of how a
lot of us go through our lives and understand things about the world and things about ourselves
and go through these wild, emotional swings. And if that were to all go away, I mean, that
would be really sad.

And the other thing is probably worth saying is that ESPN does do some amazing journalism.
The O.J. documentary "O.J.: Made In America" won an Academy Award and was obviously
about this running back who'd ran a lot of yards, but it also kind of gave you this story of race in
Los Angeles. That was new to a lot of people and was important. So I think if they were to go
away would be very unfortunate.

MARTIN: That was Bloomberg reporter Max Chafkin He was kind enough to speak to us from
Vancouver where he's attending the TED conference. Max Chafkin, thanks so much for
speaking with us.

CHAFKIN: Thanks for having me.