Responsible Nanotechnology

The Students' Bottom

News from the Bottom claims to be "the only online student journal" addressing "the implications of nanotechnology." I guess that's true, because I haven't heard of any other student journals doing that.

Anyway, they have just issued their first 2006 Call for Papers [PDF] to graduate and undergraduate students.

Associate Editor Peter Coolidge says:

In this issue, we are looking to give a thorough background of nanotechnology in practice, as well as to try to explain the theory of what goes on to make "nano" so different. We also strive to present information regarding current nanoscience research projects, their unique objectives, and/or the social/ethical implications of such research. Don't shy away from contributing!

You heard the man. The deadline for submissions is Friday, February 24th, 2006. Get off your bottom and start writing!

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Nanotech Lessons from Bioweapons

The U.S. National Academies have just released a report, "Globalization, Biosecurity, and the Future of the Life Sciences."

The report makes very interesting reading. I'll start by quoting a paragraph on rapid technological change:

Many of the technologies discussed in this chapter create novel opportunities for scientists (and others) to explore aspects of biological and chemical diversity that cannot be accessed through natural mechanisms or processes. Given the unpredictable nature of technological change, it is difficult if not impossible to describe in definite terms what the global technology landscape will look like in 5 to 10 years, both with regards to the emergence of technologies with dual-use applications and the global geography of future breakthroughs. New, unexpected discoveries and technological applications in RNAi and synthetic biology arose even during the course of deliberations by this Committee. If this report, with the same charge, were prepared even just a year or two in the future, many of the details presented in this chapter would likely be different. [emphasis added]

In other words, they simply can't predict what will be developed even within a near-term planning horizon. Things are changing too quickly.

The chapter then proceeds with a survey of recently developed technologies. For example, a technique called DNA shuffling "allows for the simultaneous mating of many different species." This is not just proposed--it has already been used, and in at least some cases, has worked significantly faster than standard selection/evolution. Another phenomenon, RNA interference, may be usable to switch off genes with the delivery of only a few molecules per cell.

The executive summary is well worth skimming. It raises several concerns:
- That the US may be losing its preeminent position in life sciences, due to "the increasing globalization of science and the international dispersion of a wide variety of related technologies."
- That focusing on known bio-weapon pathogens may miss the bigger picture of non-traditional attacks.
- That laws such as PATRIOT and the Bioterrorism Response Acts may discourage research that could be helpful to the U.S.
- That a "well-coordinated public health response" (which they point out would be useful for several kinds of natural disasters as well as bio-attack) has been needed, the need has been acknowledged, and despite "substantial efforts since September 11, 2001" the result is "woefully ineffective."

In addition, the executive summary comments on the usefulness of international treaties: "Such international conventions should not be considered the solution to the issues society confronts today with respect to potential harmful use of advances in the life sciences, nor should they be cast aside and ignored. Despite their limitations, the Committee appreciates their value..."

The final paragraph of the executive summary shows a lack of faith in governmental preparedness and coordination. (It may be worth noting here that "overwhelming tropical cyclone" was one of the natural disasters they listed.)

It remains unclear how the country's response to a future biological attack will be managed. How will the responses of many different federal departments, e.g., the Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Justice, Defense, and the myriad agencies within them, be effectively integrated, and who will control operations and ensure that they are adequately interfaced with local and state governments and public health agencies? Although well beyond the scope of the Committee's charge, the development of an effective means of integrating the responses by multiple governmental agencies would provide the nation with perhaps the most necessary of "tools" with which to meet any future challenge.

Several comparisons can be made with molecular manufacturing:
- The relevent technologies will change rapidly--too rapidly to predict what will happen a decade from now.
- Breakthroughs can come out of left field and be rapidly incorporated in useful technologies.
- Breakthroughs can come from all over the world.
- Government will likely be unprepared to coordinate a response.
- Restrictive laws may be counterproductive.
- A variety of responses will be needed.
- Ongoing, targeted, wide-ranging study of the effects and how to deal with them is urgently required.

Nanotechnology vs. Climate Change

There are several strong indicators that the earth's climate is changing, including the melting of Arctic ice. (This melting has progressed to such an extent that Canada and the US are now squabbling over the right to police the new Arctic shipping lanes.)

It seems likely that one contributor to this change is the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, which in turn is probably a result of burning gigatons of fossil fuel.

In the absence of radically new technology, we are unlikely to stop burning gigatons of fossil fuel any time soon.

If we overwhelm the earth's current climate equilibrium, we could find things moving--quite rapidly--to a new equilibrium. How rapidly? As noted in this review on our blog, climate can change in as little as a decade.

We have written about climate change several times before: here, here, and here, for example. And we have already mentioned that molecular manufacturing, due to its ability to ramp up general-purpose manufacturing capacity with astonishing speed, is perhaps the only technology that could provide an economically feasible solution.

This post is motivated by two recent pieces of news. First, James Lovelock, the scientist who developed the "Gaia" hypothesis that life helps to regulate climate, now says that the regulation is failing fast, and by the end of this century most of the earth will be uninhabitable by humans. This is, of course, a radical position, and it remains to be seen whether it will survive the avalanche of criticism it will surely attract. Separately, it remains to be seen whether he is right.

The second piece of news is that NASA's chief climate scientist, James Hansen, has gone public with claims that NASA is trying to muzzle him. He says that the trouble started when he complained about other government climate scientists being muzzled.

If the technological capabilities of molecular manufacturing are used effectively, disastrous climate change could be stopped in its tracks and reversed. A combination of global sensor arrays, massive computational resources, and large-area sunlight deflectors could allow climate to be understood and manipulated.

But if unstable climate, and/or unstable global economy, and/or unstable fossil fuel supplies, and/or institutional resistance to molecular manufacturing, conspire to halt its development before general-purpose exponential manufacturing is achieved, we may lose our best hope to solve the problem. Or, if the technology is developed but is administered poorly (perhaps because of government-imposed failures of scientific accountability), then the problem is unlikely to be solved effectively.

These scientists are saying bluntly that impending climate problems are a risk to human civilization. Hansen is quoted as saying, "We can't let it go on another 10 years like this. We've got to do something." Ten years is a very short time period--molecular manufacturing may not be developed sooner than that, and it's certain that no other technology will be able to replace fossil fuels on that time scale.

In order to understand the implications of molecular manufacturing, we need to know the context in which it will be developed. It is starting to look like global climate change (and certainly awareness of the problem) could affect that context. Substantial new findings seem to be arriving every few months. CRN will continue to monitor breaking news in climate science.

Chris Phoenix

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Googling for Nanotechnology, continued

The fifth entry in a Google for the word "nanotechnology" is the Institute of Physics journal Nanotechnology. They focus on research, which means lab work, which means they don't publish molecular manufacturing theory. This is a change from the mid-90's, when they published a number of theoretical papers by Ralph Merkle.

The sixth entry is for the Institute of Nanotechnology. Their description of nanotechnology is quite broad, including lab-on-a-chip devices (which aren't nanotech at all, by most definitions I've seen) and also including what they refer to as bottom-up molecular nanotechnology. Even there, their description appears broad enough to include advanced chemistry, rather than being focused on productive nanosystems. Their list of nano books includes Our Molecular Future and Engines of Creation, both of which focus on molecular manufacturing.

The seventh search result is for Nanotechnology Industries, a nanotech portal. They have both nanoscale and MM-related news.

The eighth link points to the How Stuff Works entry on "How Nanotechnology Will Work." This entry is all about molecular manufacturing--the first two pages describe how products will be built by nanomachines working atom-by-atom, and nanoscale technologies aren't even mentioned until the third page.

The ninth link is to Scientific American's nanotech page. This page links to several articles on nanoscale physics results. It does not link to any of their articles on molecular manufacturing. This is probably just as well, because their treatment of MM has been of pretty poor quality. A couple of their articles have even inspired detailed rebuttals (and here's the second rebuttal) from people at the Foresight Institute and the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing.

The tenth link is outdated; it used to be a nano page hosted at Xerox PARC, where Ralph Merkle used to work. It's safe to assume that this was a molecular manufacturing-related page.

The eleventh link is... CRN's website! At least some of the time. Yesterday we were at the top of the second page; today it's another SciAm link, and we're number 12.

In summary, out of the top ten Google results for the word "nanotechnology," six or seven of them accept that molecular manufacturing is coming or at least post news about it, and only one or two are in active denial. Because Google's PageRank algorithm is based more or less on the quality of incoming links, we can conclude that a lot of people on the Web think molecular manufacturing-related sites are worth reading.

Googling for Nanotechnology

A Google for nanotechnology shows quite a diverse set of messages.

The first link is to a technical page at Zyvex, a company that intends to develop affordable, precise, large-scale manufacturing using nanoscale tools. Essentially, this is molecular manufacturing. The linked page goes into detail on why nanoscale fabrication machinery is important, and provides informative links to other molecular manufacturing sites.

The second link points to the home page of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. They have a very broad definition of nanotechnology: basically, anything interesting at the 1-100 nanometer scale. The home page gives the impression that nanotechnology is mainly about nanoparticles, their uses, and their environmental and health risks. Their FAQ does not mention molecular manufacturing.

The third link points to the home page of the recently-renamed Foresight Nanotech Institute. Along with a new name, Foresight has a new focus: advancing the benefits of nanoscale technologies. A cutting-edge technical proposal on their site related to molecular manufacturing research has been downgraded. A few weeks ago, Foresight acquired a new president; we will be watching to see whether they regain any of their original focus on molecular manufacturing.

The fourth link goes to Nanotech-Now.com, an excellent nano news and portal site that covers both nanoscale technologies and molecular manufacturing. They have published several interviews with CRN. Rocky Rawstern, their nanotech editor, won the well-deserved 2005 Foresight Communication Prize.

To be continued...