Bobpursley, could you please check if the following paragraph is written using a correct scientific terminology? Thank you.
1) Nanotechnology is the design, characterisation, production and application of structures, devices and systems by controlling shape and size at nanometre scale.
2) Tracks the development of nanotechnology are infinite and the human being does not yet know all the possibilities as well as the risks. It could bring profound changes to society and to the revision of concepts such as scientist or natural.
3) The scientist could be consider as a “New Prometheus”: like fire, donated by Prometheus, could be for men a great resource, but at the same time a threat if they had not been able to manage it, so the nanotechnology could constitute a revolutionary change if man learns to know the full potential and risks, in order to benefit from the all the possibilities of its.
4) Some scientist has developed possible (and catastrophic) scenery of the future.
5) In 1986, Eric Drexler has published “Engines of Creation”, a scientific dissemination in which shows not only the theoretical bases of nanotechnology, but also a series of speculation about the possible consequences of the arrival of a nanotechnology enhanced about the condition of humanity and the planet.
I assume the sentences 1-5 are sequential to make a paragraph.
1) OK, you used British spelling, which is permissible.
2) I recommend < The possibility of nanotechnology are infinite and no one knows the yet consequences of that technology>
3) <The developers of nanotechnology could be considered as ....
4) This sentence makes no sense to me.
5) <In 1986, Eric Drexler published...
Overall, the paragraph contains a mix of accurate scientific terminology and some incorrect or unclear language. Here is a breakdown of each sentence:
1) The first sentence is a correct definition of nanotechnology, using appropriate terminology such as "design," "characterisation," "production," and "nanometre scale."
2) The sentence starts well by stating that the development of nanotechnology has infinite tracks, but it becomes unclear when it mentions "the revision of concepts such as scientist or natural" - it is not clear what is meant by this.
3) The sentence tries to draw a parallel between the scientist and the mythical figure Prometheus, but the language is confusing. The comparison of nanotechnology to fire is apt in terms of its potential benefits and risks, but the sentence structure makes it difficult to understand the intended meaning.
4) The sentence is grammatically incorrect. Instead of saying "Some scientist has," it should be "Some scientists have."
5) The fifth sentence is a well-stated fact about Eric Drexler's publication and its exploration of the theoretical bases and possible consequences of nanotechnology.
To improve the paragraph, consider the following revisions:
- Sentence 2: Clarify what is meant by the "revision of concepts such as scientist or natural" to make it more precise.
- Sentence 3: Restructure and clarify the sentence to effectively convey the parallel between nanotechnology and the Prometheus myth.
- Sentence 4: Correct the grammatical error by using "Some scientists have."
- Rearrange the sentences to improve the flow and coherence of the paragraph.