Responsible Nanotechnology

Policy Input Requested

CRN has taken the preliminary position that cooperative international development of molecular manufacturing (MM) capability is the safest course to avoid an unstable arms race and/or extreme economic upheaval, while providing the greatest benefits to the greatest number.

However, this course is by no means guaranteed. It appears more likely that the United States or some other nation (or bloc of nations) will achieve MM through independent programs.

Assuming that a push for international development does not succeed, would unilateral development by the U.S. be the next best option? Or would development by some other entity (India? China? Russia?) be more likely to avoid the gravest dangers? Who should get it first?

CRN welcomes your serious consideration of these questions and requests your input in our process of deliberation and policy recommendation.

Mike Treder

Nice Benefit Package

The final segment (studies 17-30) of CRN's thirty essential studies focuses on "Policies and Policymaking". Recommended studies in this section assume the existence of a general-purpose molecular manufacturing system; all preliminary answers are based on diamondoid nanofactory technology.

Today we'll take a look at study #24: "What beneficial or desirable effects could this have?"

Explore positive factors that will promote the development and deployment of molecular manufacturing (MM).

Subquestion A: How much could the technology reduce illness and disability?

Preliminary answer: Simple things like water filters and fast, cheap, easy medical sensors could make a big difference. At first, rapid diagnosis of disease would allow effective quarantine. Later, the ability to quickly develop products should accelerate medical research and speed the process of finding cures; large-scale quarantine operations may become unnecessary even for new diseases. And the ability to monitor a body in detail and in real time should reduce the risks of new therapies, streamlining research still further. Prosthetic devices, including sensory prosthetics, would be greatly improved.

Advanced automated treatment devices could be made very cheaply, allowing semi-skilled delivery of medical care. Think of automatic defibrillators in airports. Now project that approach into devices with wide-spectrum real-time biochemical sensors that can dispense appropriate medicines.

Surgical robots could become far smaller, more capable and automated, less invasive. Even without bloodstream robots, a catheter-based approach can be used to clean important blood vessels or repair cartilage. A smart catheter could be smaller than a hair, and used by a general practitioner in an outpatient context.

Subquestion B: To what extent could the technology alleviate underdevelopment?

Preliminary answer: A general-purpose self-contained factory could bootstrap a region's productivity in a matter of weeks. The main limiting factor would be the availability of designs to solve local problems. But see Gershenfeld on "fab labs".

Subquestion C: Could this help with food and water shortages?

Preliminary answer: Diamond-building chemistry could not directly make food. But it could make greenhouses, allowing more reliable food production with less resource usage. It could also make water filters and the required energy supply (solar), both for increasing fresh water supplies and treating runoff or wastewater.

Subquestion D: How much and in what ways (e.g. replacing manufacturing, infrastructure, extraction) could it alleviate environmental problems?

Preliminary answer: Most of today's components that rely on extracted materials, such as metals and rare earths, could be emulated with higher performance by nano-built systems. Carbon-based products could be disposed of by clean combustion. More automation means fewer people have to work in factories, reducing transportation requirements for both people and materials. More efficient agriculture could reduce soil loss, water use, and agricultural runoff. Cleanup of existing problems would be easier with better and cheaper sensors and robotics.

Some serious thinkers are concerned about a global environmental collapse in the next few decades, even apart from the Peak Oil problem. Large-scale use of MM could alleviate much environmental pressure, and actively correct many problems.

Subquestion E: Which natural disasters could it prevent or alleviate?

Preliminary answer: Easier access to space makes it much easier to deal with asteroids. Also, vastly cheaper construction of telescopes makes it easier to spot them. Large-scale engineering projects could defuse volcanoes and even calderas by turning them into massive geothermal energy projects. Stronger construction could resist earthquakes and hurricanes. Also, large-scale construction of automated aircraft/helicopters could suppress wildfires and aid in rapid evacuations. Better sensors would allow better prediction of weather and climate. (For more, see Our Molecular Future by Douglas Mulhall.)

Subquestion F: How much could these benefits reduce social unrest?

Preliminary answer: Poverty, contagious and parasitic disease, and hunger could be drastically reduced at extremely low cost. To the extent that these fuel social unrest, the application of these technologies would reduce the unrest. However, new problems such as social disruption and boredom may emerge.

Subquestion G: How much cost savings does this represent?

Preliminary answer: Most sources of product cost would virtually disappear. Even design cost might decrease, as shown by the Open Source software movement. Indirect costs of technological activity, such as pollution, could be substantially reduced.

Subquestion H: How much commercial incentive is suggested by these questions?

Preliminary answer: The difference between production cost and user value of nano-built products will be astronomical. This provides a high incentive for developing the technology—and then manipulating policy so as to maintain artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity would cancel many of these benefits.

Provisional conclusion: Molecular manufacturing could be a major benefit to humanity, saving lives, mitigating environmental problems and hazards, and reducing misery enough to substantially reduce social unrest. However, all this depends on policy.

Our initial basic findings (preliminary answers and provisional conclusions) for all thirty studies should be verified as rapidly as possible. Because our understanding points to a crisis, a parallel process of conducting these studies is strongly preferred.

We are actively looking for researchers who have an interest in performing or assisting with this work. Please contact CRN Research Director Chris Phoenix if you would like more information or if you have comments on the proposed studies.

Serious Stuff

As we approach the six month mark for CRN's weblog (we debuted on 14 Jan 2004), I want to thank everyone who has made this such a rewarding endeavor. We have written 250 separate posts that have generated almost 1200 comments. Tens of thousands of people have read our blog, and we average well over 300 hits per day.

But beyond the numbers is the quality of your participation. With very few exceptions, your comments have been carefully reasoned, well expressed, and thought-provoking. You have made a significant contribution to the evolution of our positions.

Make no mistake -- this is serious stuff we are dealing with. Advanced nanotechnology offers the potential for elimination of almost all poverty and disease, radical human healthspan extension, much-needed environmental remediation, and extensive human habitation of space, among other benefits. But as we all know, there are also severe risks that must be understood and averted.

As we work toward this understanding, we believe it is valuable to offer tentative solutions. Some of these we will endorse more firmly than others, but all are put forth to stimulate thinking and discussion. CRN is not an ideological organization; our aim is to assist humanity to survive the entry into the nano era. How that can best be done is yet to be discovered. The questions raised by molecular manufacturing are many, but the satisfactory answers are few.

With your help, we are making good progress.

Mike Treder

The Very Very Thin Blue Line

Let's assume, for the sake of argument and to increase our understanding, that unregulated and unrestricted nanofactories are widely available. Then we can ask the question posed by our recommended study #23: "What effect will this have on policing?"

This topic is part of the third segment of CRN's thirty essential studies, on "Policies and Policymaking". Recommended studies in this section assume the existence of a general-purpose molecular manufacturing system. All preliminary answers are based on diamondoid nanofactory technology.

In this study, determine how difficult it would be to make and enforce laws if novel products are readily available through molecular manufacturing.

Subquestion A: Could a 'home appliance' version of the manufacturing technology be used to produce undesirable products?

Preliminary answer: Yes. Just download the blueprint from the Internet. It could be as easy as printing a picture from a Web browser today.

Subquestion B: Could medical advances lead to new and controversial pleasure devices/drugs?

Preliminary answer: Yes. Although the chemistry may not be able to make medical chemical compounds, it could make very sophisticated surgical robots. For example, 'acupuncture needle' type probes (with antibiotic surfaces) that can be used for direct brain stimulation ('wireheading') with relatively low medical risk. Or new kinds of sexual appliances.

Subquestion C: How easily could a black market in these technologies be maintained?

Preliminary answer: For some, more easily than today's drug market.

Subquestion D: How well could lawmaking keep up with newly invented products?

Preliminary answer: Whole new classes of pleasure device? It'll be hard even to decide what's socially acceptable and what's not.

Subquestion E: How much would new weaponry endanger police?

Preliminary answer: See study #20, on military implications. There won't be parity between police and criminals. If criminals have access to advanced weapons, any flesh-and-blood policeman will be in the position of a civilian and police would have to depend on systemic incentives not to kill them. The next likely alternative is that police become paramilitary -- SWAT team or "Robocop" -- or use remote sensor nets and telepresence.

Subquestion F: How would the 'arms race' between invention and detection/defense affect crime? Terrorism?

Preliminary answer: Criminals and terrorists tend to be stupid and unimaginative, but so do bureaucracies. A smart bad guy would find a large range of new opportunities. Again, it'll be difficult to 'harden' civilian targets against crime as well as destructive attack.

Law enforcement expert Tom Cowper suggests that "the biggest unknown is how effective the public police can become -- effectively stopping criminals while effectively preserving civil liberties. This is where concepts such as Net-Centric Policing/Government come into play." In previous conversations with us, he's argued that a key factor is whether we or the terrorists become better at using networks, "augmented reality", and other tech tools.

More from Tom Cowper on this topic: "The issue of molecular manufacturing (MM) mandates dramatic improvements in the way we do policing in the free world. If we are to maintain a free society in an MM world we will have to become very effective at identifying, stopping and incapacitating criminals and terrorists of the future, and do so in a way that does not violate civil liberties. Admittedly a tall order. But as CRN has pointed out, a police state is one definite possibility for the future if government and law enforcement doesn't get its act together and find ways to provide both safety and security, which includes regulating MM to some extent. We don't have to become entirely paramilitary to accomplish this but we will have to employ advanced technologies, including MM created weapons and IT capabilities like TIA. One of the things that we have to keep in mind is the understanding that MM won't exist in a vacuum. The future world within which MM will exist will also be a world where MM will facilitate and be facilitated by advanced AI, macro-robots, intelligent environments, cybernetics, etc. Within that world, our notions of privacy and liberty, derived exclusively from Agricultural and Industrial Age circumstances will have to change. David Brin's Transparent Society is one future concept within which effective policing might be capable of providing both safety and liberty. There may be others."

CRN thinks Tom's emphasis on police (as opposed to military) as a counter to terrorism is worth further attention. Most counterterrorism involves interaction with civilian populations, and police will do that more sustainably than military (both at home and abroad).

Provisional conclusion: Distributed manufacturing of advanced products will pose several substantial challenges to traditional police operations.

Our initial basic findings (preliminary answers and provisional conclusions) for all thirty studies should be verified as rapidly as possible. Because our understanding points to a crisis, a parallel process of conducting these studies is strongly preferred.

We are actively looking for researchers who have an interest in performing or assisting with this work. Please contact CRN Research Director Chris Phoenix if you would like more information or if you have comments on the proposed studies.

Nanofactory Proliferation

Because of the largely unexpected transformational power of molecular manufacturing, it is urgent to understand the issues raised. To date, there has not been anything approaching an adequate study of these issues.

CRN believes that at least thirty essential studies should be conducted immediately. Today we will examine study #22: "How can proliferation and use of nanofactories and their products be limited?"

Note: This is part of the third segment of studies, on "Policies and Policymaking". Recommended studies in this section assume the existence of a general-purpose molecular manufacturing system. All preliminary answers are based on diamondoid nanofactory technology.

This study will explore the challenge of preventing black markets, independent development, etc.

Subquestion A: How easy will it be to detect a development program?

Preliminary answer: Probably quite difficult. Development does not require exotic materials or massive industrial activity. It may require mainly off-the-shelf technology. Researchers will be from diverse and common fields like software engineering and computational chemistry, not concentrated in one exotic field. Depending on the bootstrapping 'recipe', the design effort might be dispersed (networked/teleconferenced), and the entire physical operation might be carried out in one moderate-sized laboratory. And most of the research would not require world-class talent, though a successful program today might well require world-class leadership.

Subquestion B: How much easier will it be to develop a second nanofactory, compared with developing the first one?

Preliminary answer: Reverse engineering will give hints as to which path to take. The definite knowledge that it can be done at all will reduce institutional friction. General technology advances will give a second program more to work with. Any leaks of know-how or software will further reduce the difficulty. It seems likely that the second nanofactory will be an order of magnitude less costly.

Subquestion C: How can nanoscale products be detected?

Preliminary answer: Unknown. Nanoporous filters can trap them. Non-proximal sub-wavelength optics, if they work as claimed, may be able to scan for them at a distance—but there are lots of natural nanoparticles, so recognition is also a problem. MRI may be able to detect at a distance, though resolution is a problem and there may be a theoretical limit.

Subquestion D: How easy will it be to smuggle nanofactories?

Preliminary answer: A fully functional nanofactory, able (given a supply of feedstock, energy, and blueprint software) to make one twice as big (and so on) and thus recreate a full manufacturing capacity, could be just a few microns on a side—small enough to hide inside a human cell. Or any convenient size in between. We don't know of any way to detect something like that without total intrusion of the volume being searched, which probably implies destruction.

Subquestion E: How easy will it be to detect proliferation-related activity?

Preliminary answer: Quite difficult. Especially once the 'recipe' is known, it will be very hard to spot a project—R&D for a nanofactory project may require only a single small lab and a few computers. (For comparison, consider Zyvex.)

Subquestion F: How effective will deterrence be?

Preliminary answer: To someone lacking a comparable capability, a nanofactory would be incredibly valuable. This implies that deterrence will not be successful.

Provisional conclusion: It will be very difficult to limit proliferation of nanofactory technology and possession of bootleg nanofactories.

Our initial basic findings (preliminary answers and provisional conclusions) for all thirty studies should be verified as rapidly as possible. Because our understanding points to a crisis, a parallel process of conducting these studies is strongly preferred.

We are actively looking for researchers who have an interest in performing or assisting with this work. Please contact CRN Research Director Chris Phoenix if you would like more information or if you have comments on the proposed studies.

Setting the Record Straight

A nanotech blog called TNT Log continues to attack us by reporting inaccurate versions of our writings.

Most recently, they complained about a blog entry we wrote on Indian president Kalam's call for military nanotechnology development, accusing us of "racing off into a whole nanoTsunami of unconnected technologies of dubious relevance. We particularly enjoyed the comments about making your home secure against nanobots by staying indoors and breathing filtered air."

In fact, the filtered-air comments were not ours. One of our readers posted them in the comment section of our blog -- in response to a different article which had been published four days previously.

A few months ago, TNT Log accused us of "advocating the use of Nanomedicine as a physics reference book" -- which we did not -- and further accused us of reacting to their criticism of us -- which we had not: we reacted to their baseless ridicule of Robert Freitas's work.

In response to that, CRN's Chris Phoenix repeatedly tried to contact Tim Harper (the publisher of TNT Log) and work things out constructively. So far, Harper has been "too busy" to talk -- but not, apparently, too busy to find new ways to twist our words.

We don't mind criticism, even when it's mean-spirited. But statements that are factually incorrect and defamatory are another matter altogether. Since Tim and his writers seem determined to attack us and unwilling to communicate, the best we can do is set the record straight. We hope that repeated public correction of their inaccuracies will inspire them to raise their standards of reporting.

From Russia, A Roadmap

Diamond nanotechnologies are highway to automated mechanosynthesis -- base of cheap manufacturing for new generations of nanotechnology equipment, construction materials, computers, energy transformers, weapon and intelligence systems, medicine and civilian defense infrastructure.

So says a newly published "industrial report" from Russia. The report claims to include a roadmap to automated diamond mechanosynthesis, as well as information on mechanosynthesis equipment, mechanical computing, and scaling of mechanosynthesis.

As far as we can tell from the description on their website, this looks like an endorsement of everything Eric Drexler wrote in Nanosystems, with one crucial addition: the roadmap to mechanosynthesis of diamond, which appears to be based on a detailed survey of synthesis and analysis methods for diamond.

We find it surprising, and encouraging, that this was not kept as a military secret. However, without reading the report, we don't know how much new work is in it. But even if it were only a repackaging of previous molecular manufacturing work, it would still be significant. And the combination of contemporary diamond research with "proposed time estimations and probable roadmap from current technologies to automated diamondoid mechanosynthesis" implies that they have something new to contribute. (As soon as we obtain a copy of the report, we will provide a complete analysis.)

We can't predict what effect this will have on the course of molecular manufacturing development and use. It seems likely, though, that this publication will increase global interest in molecular manufacturing, and thus speed up development to some degree -- especially if it publicizes a roadmap detailed enough to be converted to policy or experiment. We at CRN also hope that this report will help to focus discussion on the actual proposals, rather than on years-old discredited strawmen like atom-grabbing fingers.

The Truth About Science

"Should science tell the truth?"

That's the opening line of a superb new opinion piece from Lawrence Lessig in Wired magazine. Lessig starts by lamenting the reaction from some quarters to Bill Joy's infamous April 2000 "relinquishment" article:

Suddenly, nanotech replaced Y2K as the nightmare du jour. And this in turn inspired some scientists, hoping for funding, to push a very different approach -- not the bottom-up vision of molecules manufacturing things, but a top-down system of human-controlled machines making ever smaller stuff. There was lots that could be done without nanobots. Buckyballs, nano-building blocks, had already been discovered; nanoscale computer chips were just on the horizon. The billions that Clinton had offered could be put to good use, scientists promised. There was really no need for scientists "to scare our children," Nobel Prize-winning chemist Richard Smalley scolded, with talk about self-replicating monsters.

Then things turned really ugly. For it wasn't enough for some to argue against building tiny assemblers. The world of federal funding would only be safe, critics believed, if the idea of bottom-up nanotech could be erased. Molecular manufacturing, Smalley asserted, was "just a dream," and "simple facts of nature [would] prevent it from ever becoming a reality." . . . But as Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, later told me, it's hard to call molecular manufacturing "impossible" when it's precisely what living cells do every moment of the day. It may be hugely complex, he said, and as all agree, it is certainly years away. "But I would hesitate," this sensible administrator admitted, "to call it impossible."

So why do some scientists say it can't be done? As the editors of Chemical & Engineering News put it, Smalley's "objections go beyond the scientific." . . . We dissemble rather than reason, because we can't imagine rational government policy addressing these reasonable fears.

Right on. I'd like to reprint the whole column here, but the folks over at Wired might not appreciate that. So your homework assignment for today is: READ THIS COLUMN, and then send it to someone else!

Mike Treder

Stairway to Heaven

Give me somewhere to stand, and I will move the earth. - Archimedes

We're not quite ready for that yet, but with a bus-sized spacecraft circling Saturn, and with serious discussion of a space elevator to be built soon, almost anything someday may be possible.

A company called LiftPort Group says:

Recent advances in technology, most notably the development of carbon nanotube composites, now appear to make building a space elevator feasible. Initial research reports on building the space elevator that draw upon these discoveries have now been completed. As proposed in these reports, the space elevator will consist of a carbon nanotube composite ribbon stretching some 62,000 miles from earth to space. The elevator will be anchored to an offshore sea platform near the equator in the Pacific Ocean, and to a small counterweight in space. Mechanical lifters (robotic elevator cars) will move up and down the ribbon, carrying such items as satellites, solar power systems, and eventually people into space. LiftPort's plan is to take the concept from the research laboratory to commercial development.

LiftPort Group even goes so far as to post an April 12, 2018 "Countdown to Lift" target date on their website.

And this, from an article in Popular Science:

Physicist Brad Edwards was researching at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the late '90s when he overheard a colleague say that such an elevator couldn't be built for 300 years. Edwards, though, was familiar with carbon nanotubes -- nanoscale carbon structures 60 times stronger than steel. He did some calculations and hasn't yet found a reason why a space elevator can't be built. Last year Edwards became director of research at the Institute for Scientific Research in Fairmont, West Virginia, and received $500,000 from NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts to flesh out a plan.

The times, they are a-changin'. - Bob Dylan

New Nano Economy

Continuing our look at CRN's thirty essential studies, we turn to the effect that advanced nanotechnology might have on the economy. This is part of the third segment of studies, on "Policies and Policymaking". Recommended studies in this section assume the existence of a general-purpose molecular manufacturing system. All preliminary answers are based on diamondoid nanofactory technology.

Study #21 is: "What effect will this have on macro- and microeconomics?"

It has been predicted that a sufficiently advanced and general-purpose molecular manufacturing technology could have a significant transformative and potentially disruptive effect. This must be explored.

Subquestion A: How quickly can new products be invented, designed and distributed?

Preliminary answer: As described in other studies, this can be extremely quick due to fast prototyping, point-of-use manufacture, and low risk.

Subquestion B: How will distributed manufacturing affect the supply chain?

Preliminary answer: It will eliminate the supply chain for superseded products and their components.

Subquestion C: How will automated manufacturing affect jobs?

Preliminary answer: It will eliminate manufacturing jobs for superseded products, as well as related transportation, storage, and extraction jobs. It may create design and installation jobs (though a lot of installation can be done robotically). Compare manufacturing jobs with the percentage of population involved in agriculture from 1900 to today: 37.5% to 0.5%, almost a two order of magnitude decrease.

Subquestion D: How will increased material self-sufficiency affect international and local trade?

Preliminary answer: Trade in raw materials and finished products will be reduced. Depending on policy, trade in intellectual property may be either reduced or increased.

Subquestion E: How will simpler material requirements affect extraction?

Preliminary answer: Extraction will probably be unnecessary to support diamondoid manufacturing, though limited quantities of fossil fuels may be useful as a carbon source.

Subquestion F: Will energy production, storage, and/or distribution be impacted?

Preliminary answer: The ability to collect and store solar energy cheaply will greatly reduce the need for fossil fuels and the power grid. Also, products (including houses) can become much more efficient, further reducing energy demand.

Subquestion G: How much incentive will there be to use molecular manufacturing?

Preliminary answer: Its products will be multiple orders of magnitude better on several counts. Also, they'll probably be at least one order of magnitude cheaper to produce, and completely bypass substantial parts of the current production and distribution chain.

It's said that a tenfold improvement (one order of magnitude) is sufficient for a new product or method to displace existing ones. Nanofactory-built products greatly exceed this criterion, so new companies could out-compete existing ones that are not quick to adopt it.

Provisional conclusion: This is likely to have a large and rapid effect on economics of manufactured products. Existing businesses that don't adopt it will be out-competed by new businesses.

Our initial basic findings (preliminary answers and provisional conclusions) for all thirty studies should be verified as rapidly as possible. Because our understanding points to a crisis, a parallel process of conducting these studies is strongly preferred.

We are actively looking for researchers who have an interest in performing or assisting with this work. Please contact CRN Research Director Chris Phoenix if you would like more information or if you have comments on the proposed studies.