In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

6 Probe Microscopy and the Path to Nanotechnology Commercial production of STMs and AFMs accelerated the dramatic growth of probe microscopy. It would be next to impossible to locate every piece of research generated with a probe microscope or every commercial SPM sold, but we can get a clear sense of how commercialization ampli- fied research output by examining some crude proxies. By the rough metric of the Science Citation Index, annual production of probe-microscopy articles rose slowly from the STM’s invention through 1989, only hitting 220 to 250 articles per year at the end of that period.1 But in the 1990s, annual publication rates rose much faster, zooming to more than 4,000 articles per year at the end of the decade. (See figure 6.1.) That inflection point at 1990 coincided almost exactly with the introduction of Digital Instruments’ AFM and with a similar inflection point in NanoScope sales. Information from DI’s advertising and newsletters suggests that the company shipped about eight NanoScopes per month before 1990, and that in the years 1990–2000 it shipped more than 19 units per month.2 The total number of commercial STMs and AFM must have been much larger; after all, DI wasn’t the only supplier. In 1993, Business Week estimated DI’s market share at about 50 percent—a reasonable estimate for the rest of the decade too.3 Insofar as nearly all of the first-wave commercial SPM makers entered the business around 1989, it is likely that their sales rose at least as sharply after 1990 as DI’s. In any case, it is evident that there were many more probe microscopes in existence after 1990 than before, and that the community’s research productivity rose accordingly. Somewhat less obviously, commercialization led to a diversification in the ways an individual could be a probe microscopist. In the 1990s, as was noted in chapters 4 and 5, probe microscopy spread to a number of 164 Chapter 6 disciplines, including physics, chemistry, materials science, biology, surface science, electrical engineering, and geology. STM and AFM were usually first carried into these disciplines by individuals who had either built a microscope for themselves or worked closely with a builder. But the technology spread much more quickly once those early adopters’ colleagues began buying commercial microscopes for routine use. The availability of commercial microscopes was also necessary for their spread through various industrial sectors. A few corporate basic research labs could afford to build their own instruments, but industrial process control or analytical labs needed to make measurements, not microscopes. Quite a few people still built their own microscopes, of course. But, again, commercialization introduced new ways for an individual to be a microscope builder. Some abjured commercial instruments as not sensitive enough for their very precise or specific experiments. Some bought all or part of a commercial microscope and then modified it to meet their needs. Some developed improvements to probe-microscope technology in the hopes that a microscope manufacturer would commercialize their work. My point is Digital Instruments and other companies made it possible for users of probe microscopes to connect to other users in an entirely new way. Some tried, as before, to stay at the forefront of innovation in the technology, but now companies like DI were there to compete with them or to co-opt them. Others remained active users, but after 1990 they increasingly directed their feedback and demands to DI and its competitors rather than to research groups like Hansma’s, Quate’s, or Binnig’s. Customers could now add an AFM to their complement of other instruments, perhaps using it only occasionally, with little attention to the nuances of its operation and little interest in connecting with other users. An academic department—or a multi-department center, or a shared equipment facility —could now buy an AFM for use by graduate students from all over campus. Probe microscopes therefore became a technology to which people could orient either quite strongly or very weakly. STM users or AFM users could make a large investment of time, money, or expertise in these tools if they desired; or they could tell one technician or grad student in their lab to get AFM training and hardly ever think of probe microscopy again. They could see it as something that they alone, among their organizational or disciplinary colleagues, were interested in; or they could see it as something that almost...

Share