Research Directions

Today's announcement from Cornell University researchers about simple machines that can self-replicate created a predictable range of responses, from gee-whiz to ho-hum to oh-no! Our opinion?

First, this is a fine piece of graduate level research. In addition to being a proof of concept, the modular nature of their approach suggests numerous valuable applications. It might be the first in a long row of dominos to fall, as other researchers, students, and even basement hobbyists try out their own novel designs.

Second, any references to scary stories about gray goo ought to be dismissed as irrelevant. Before someone writes another article or headline to that effect, they need to read this.

Far more significant for the future of nanotechnology, but not generating 1% of the coverage that replicating robots got, is this short interview with New York University chemist Ned Seeman. We've written before about the remarkable work that he and his team are doing.

Regarding how DNA might help build new types of computers, Seeman says:

As things in the computer world keep getting smaller, they're reaching the point where top-down approaches--trying to make big things smaller--are hitting the wall. What we're doing is building from the bottom up--taking little things and make them bigger.

That's an excellent summation of why advanced nanotechnology -- not just current nanoscale tech -- will be truly revolutionary.

Most of today's nanotechnologists use big, complex things to make tiny, simple things, but the aim of molecular manufacturing is to develop tiny, complex things that make bigger things. These goals both involve nanotechnologies, but in a sense, they face in opposite directions.

Mike Treder

Comments

[Jamais Cascio]

Mike, I really wouldn't characterize my post on WorldChanging about this as "oh no!"

The two bits in the (brief) post that could be construed as suggesting apprehension -- "Bill Joy must be tearing his hair out right about now" and "The scariest thing in the report? The note that one of the Cornell researchers has since moved to work at Microsoft" -- were intended as tongue-in-cheek comments, not warnings.

And nowhere do I mention grey goo. I mean, really. We *all* know the goo will be green.

[Mike Treder, CRN]

Jamais, I could see the bulge in your cheek, but I'm afraid some readers might not. When your first sentence (which is as far as many will read) suggests that Bill Joy is upset with the news, then your post easily could be viewed as a note of alarm.

Maybe I'm overly alert to anything that smacks of nano fear mongering. I know for certain that was not your intention, but writings on the web are notoriously easy to misinterpret.

As for goo, you didn't mention it at all; I was just taking the opportunity to get in another lick for debunking of that pesky meme.

[Jamais Cascio]

"When your first sentence (which is as far as many will read) suggests that Bill Joy is upset with the news, then your post easily could be viewed as a note of alarm."

I suppose that's possible, but they'd have to be pretty new readers. WorldChanging has been pretty clearly enthusiastic about the potential upsides of nanotechnology (while conscious of the need for careful study of potential problems) and critical of Bill Joy-style panic.

But I appreciate the sensitivity to implied fear mongering. I get the same kind of raised hackles when I see people implicitly dismissing global warming or evolution.