I have wondered for months why motes, sensor networks, Zigbee, and nanotechnology don't draw more press coverage. Some of these markets are worth billions, right now. And they are going to revolutionize the world. Always-On will come.

Then, this morning, Howard Lovy explained it all to me.

That's not derision you hear from me today. It's admiration. Because what he writes is right on point, and important.

The fact is there is a big difference between scientific debate and the political debate that must be won before things like sensor networks become commonplace.

To scientists disagreement is normal. It's part of the peer review process.

To political leaders disagreement means danger, and the escalating rhetoric of fierce disagreement represents great danger indeed.

Lovy was writing after interviewing Clayton Teague, recently put in charge of public outreach for the government's nanotechnology program.

Teague is taking a fairly passive approach to publicity. He's not escalating controversies like the recent study that claimed high concentrations of Buckyballs may be dangerous to large mouth bass. Mainstream reporters spun that preliminary work into a horror show, and some in nanotech rose to the bait, attacking the report rather than noting that it was just one preliminary study, not the final word on anything.

The problem, of course, is that all areas of nanotechnology remain a game for elites, for scientists and policymakers in quiet rooms. It's a price Lovey says needs to be paid. Fear is the easy headline right now.

My job, and your job, is to make hope a better headline.