Nanotechnology is a term we hear quite a bit nowadays. The prefix nano refers to a unit of size; a nanometer (1 nm) is one-billionth of a meter. It is the smallest unit in nature. A nano is so small that it is difficult to get a real sense of exactly how small it is. If you think of a nano as equivalent to around 10 hydrogen atoms lined up side by side, it may help you picture how small a nano is.

There's a tendency to think that nanotechnology is something new, but that's a popular misconception. Actually, research has been done on nanotechnology for more than 100 years. Nano-sized materials have been in use for about as long. Nowadays, everything that is of nano-size is labeled as being nanotech. The term has come to be used in a very diverse range of fields, such as engineering, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, and pharmacology.

1. I think "smallest" is a better word here.
2. This is a bit different from the original. Ten times the size means １０倍。The idea here is to have ten hydrogen atoms lined up side-by-side.
3. The idea here is to mention that nano-sized materials have been used for about the same length of time as research in nanotechnology.

1. This is a common error. Almost everyone made the same mistake. As we discussed in class, you should be careful when you set up a sentence using the "…too + adj. + to do something"
2. This is unclear. Do you mean to say that a nanometer is ten atoms in size? Or do you mean to say that a nanometer is referring to ten atoms? And why "bonded"?
3. Who is this supposed to help? Atoms? People? You and me? There is no reference to who is supposed to understand this.

1. After you explained this in class, I understood why you used this phrase. However, if you were writing for a general readership audience, you would have to make a decision as to whether your choice of vocabulary is appropriate for the audience.
   
   最終的な読者が専門家か非専門家か、あるいは大人か子供かを考えて翻訳するのは大切なこと。しかし、これを終始意識しながら訳すのは対象言語を母語としない翻訳作業員に負担が大きい。エディタの仕事ではなかろうか。
2. This may be correct, but it sounded a bit awkward to me. Also, are there other types of understanding (in other words, is there a reason why "understanding" has been qualified with "conceptual")?
3. This may be correct, but it sounded a bit awkward to me. Also, are there other types of understanding (in other words, is there a reason why “understanding” has been qualified with “conceptual”)?
4. このに as を入れたほうがよい。
5. but と続くのはおかしい。この場合、たとえば Strange as it may seem, but… より Strange as it may seem, while… のほうである。
6. 余計な情報を入れないほうがよい。

○ 読者層について

米国では、一般的な雑誌類の読者としてvocabulary 除いたsyntax のレベルでeighth graders（中学２年）が想定されている。なお、TVはidiotsが見るものとされているのは日本と同じ。

○ perceive vs. conceive

perceive    五感（＋第六感）で知覚する。 Conceive    思う、想像する（= imagine）。    misconception（思い違い）、concept car（コンセプトカー）、conceptual design (not for production)

○ あまりに微小すぎて，感覚的な見当がつかない

直訳の too small to imagine は論理が成り立たない。too small to see や hard to think と異なり「考えられない、想像できない」ものはない。too…to…という表現を用いるときは背後のロジックを考えなければならない。

「ナノ」に関しては「ヒトの毛髪の太さの数万分の一単位」という説明が一応の手がかりとされる。しかし、だからといって容易に想像できるわけではなく、依然として見当がつかない。

一般には厳格なリンギストの見解に反する語法も慣用されている。Googleで ”too small to imagine” は100件ほどヒットするが、中にはCarbon Nanotechnologies Inc.というナノテク会社の財務担当者の次のような発言がある：

But while the (nanotubes') dimensions are too small to imagine, the potential is measured in billions, said Ray McLaughlin, CFO of the Houston company. He puts the marketing capacity of inventions based on the 30 patents at $4.6 billion over the next five years.

⇒ Imagine, John Lennon

In November of last year, Kirin Brewery Co., Ltd. and NanoCarrier Co., Ltd. announced that they would collaborate in a venture that fuses biology and nanotechnology. The joint research agreement combines NanoCarrier’s drug delivery system (DDS) technology, which features micellar nanoparticles, with Kirin Brewery’s technology for producing fully human antibodies, to develop novel anti-cancer therapeutics using innovative micellar nanoparticle conjugate antibodies.

1. While this segment may add some interesting information to the sentence, the Japanese original does not actually say this. Before adding something to a translation, you should always think about whether you are helping the reader understand the sentence, or if you are just adding extra information. You can't take responsibility for adding something, because you can’t change the Japanese original.
2. This doesn't sound too good. I think the sentence would sound better if you could find some way of expressing the technology as being proprietary or that the company "has a technology," rather than owning it.

1. I don't think this is necessary. If there is an agreement forming a collaboration, we can take it for granted that it has been agreed to.

DDS is a means or form of delivering drugs that is capable of controlling not only how effective the drug is or when the drug will take effect, but also the side effects. DDS has been in use since the 1970s, and the Japan Society of Drug Delivery System has been holding symposiums in Japan since 1985. One type of DDS pharmacotherapy is targeting, which enables drugs to be delivered very effectively to the exact site that requires treatment. As a result of targeting, side effects can be kept to a minimum, and medical care can be provided that does not negatively impact the patient's quality of life. We have just stepped through the gateway to an era where medical treatment can be delivered directly to the site of an ailment in a nano-sized form that is even smaller than the micro-sized gimmicks in the classic science fiction film "Fantastic Voyage." A variety of pharmaceuticals are being developed, including nano-sized capsules (micellae, nanospheres, or liposomes) that are designed to resist being digested in the stomach and release the medication contained within only after being delivered directly to the affected spot in the intestines. There are also drugs that can specifically target and destroy cancer cells.

1. I don't think the purpose of the sentence is to say that the medical treatment focuses on the quality of life. I think it wants to say that the medical treatment takes QOL into consideration, or tries not to have a negative impact on it.
2. You may want to avoid using "We saw." You only need to mention that such a movie was made. (Unless you want to admit that you have actually seen the movie, in which case you would say "I say.."

1. Whenever you express a period like this, you need to define it by adding the definite article "the"; so this should be "…in the 1970s"
2. You are implying that "targeting" is the only type of DDS. Is this true? Or is targeting only one type of DDS?

1. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, if you are thinking about your readership, you need to be aware of what vocabulary they may or may not understand. I'm afraid I actually had to look in the dictionary to find this word. This may mean that you are writing over the heads of your audience.
2. Although I am a fan of science fiction movies and I, personally, like Raquel Welch, you have to decide whether or not the addition of information that is not in the original text is a good idea. Does the extra information make the sentence easier to understand or make a point clear? If not, you may be unnecessarily clouding up the original intent of the author.
3. While the basic meaning of this word is correct, the nuance is generally negative, so I would think twice about using it here. It gives the technology a negative, menacing character.

NanoCarrier, founded in 1996, is an R&D-driven venture enterprise. Ichiro Nakatomi, NanoCarrier's president and CEO, has experience and expertise in a diverse range of fields, possessing not only a PhD. in pharmacology, but also having served a stint as the vice-president of business development of an American company. To develop and expand DDS technology in Japan, Nakatomi and two university professors formed NanoCarrier. NanoCarrier’s activities focus on the research, development, and production of new therapeutic and diagnostic drugs, with a focus on nano-bio technologies for DDS. The company targets mainly its micellar nanoparticles for use in such products as pharmaceuticals, gene therapy, and diagnostic reagents.

1. This probably isn't the normal way we express this term. We usually just say that someone has a PhD. in pharmacology.
2. This term would be capitalized only if it is the official name of the department (this name appears in the company profile or on an employee's name card).

1. Are you sure Nakatomi worked for a business development company? Or did he work in the business development department of an American company?

1. Is this the most common word we use to express this idea? Is business incubated or developed? Is there a difference? And finally, which word is your readership more likely to understand?
2. To be more consistent with the other elements mentioned here, you may want to use the term "gene therapy" or "genetic treatment."

○ ビジネス開発
business development  -  新規ビジネス（モデル）の開発
business incubation  -  新興ビジネスの育成、支援

Misc. points

• 定冠詞theは、続く語の先頭が母音でも「ザ」と発音することがある。Eh?
• ソーステキストの記述に不審や不明な点があれば必要に応じてクライアントに連絡するが、一般には訳注（NB）か脚注を用い、本文には手を加えない。
• このテキストでも「など」が４回、「等」が１回出てくるが、これは煩わしい。しかし官公庁（等）では責任回避（等）の事情もある。
• Dictionaries basically confuse you. I personally hate 研究社's Green Goddess. 50% of ALC (Eijiro) are garbage; though it is useful if you're looking for compound words
• head = toilet (Navy jargon)