Responsible Nanotechnology

Shape-shifting 'Smart Dust'

From New Scientist:

Thousands of miniscule wireless sensors, or "smart dust", could one-day be used to explore other planets, swirling across the landscape by subtly altering their shape. At least, that's the exotic vision put forward in new computer simulations.

Several different research groups are developing tiny smart dust devices. Each is a few cubic millimetres in volume and can perform simple sensing tasks and relay messages to other such devices over distances of less than a metre. Together, they can be sprinkled across an area or throughout a building, and used to sense chemicals or vibrations, and relay messages from one another back to a central control.

John Barker, an electronics researcher at the University of Glasgow in the UK decided to investigate whether a cloud of similar smart dust "motes" could navigate across the surface of Mars from one point to another, simply by modifying their shape.

On the positive side, this sounds like a memetic introduction to the concept of "utility fog" as envisioned by nanotech researcher J. Storrs Hall (a member of CRN's Global Task Force). The recognition that "smart" millimeter-scale devices might be constructed, networked, and programmed to operate in coordination with each other is a big step toward accepting the idea that smaller such machines should be possible too, from microscale on down to nanoscale.

On the negative side, there is a worry that readers of Michael Crichton's Prey might see these hypothetical devices as a step toward the malevolent (if implausible) demons conjured up in that disappointing novel.

(H/T to KurzweilAI.net)

UPDATE: Here is a BBC article with more details about the planetary-exploring smart dust concept.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Seven Revolutions by 2025

From the St. Cloud Times, in Minnesota, we learn that:

The world will undergo seven major revolutions that will require its population to adapt at the most aggressive rate in history, says a leading expert from the Center for Strategic and International Studies [a nonpartisan and nonprofit think tank based in Washington DC]. Erik Peterson, senior vice president for the center, explains what will drive change through 2025.

And those seven revolutions are?? (Drum roll, please...)

1. Population: A high population growth in developing countries and a decline in developed countries would further increase migration. These changes, particularly an aging population, could affect labor, pensions and public policies.

2. Resources: This could lead to geopolitical conflict and have environmental consequences.

3. Technology: Medical advances could mean people live much longer. Living to 120 years would be possible. Deep computing could lead to serious violations of personal privacy. Leaders will need to respond to new ethical questions and public policy issues.

4. Information: Changes could reduce decision-making time, further complicate issues, and lead to polarized positions and instant pressure.

5. Integration: Income disparities and inequalities will grow.

6. Conflict: Prevention and management of arsenals and equipment will become more critical.

7. Governance: Partnerships between governments, NGOs, the private sector, and international organizations. will play a critical role in addressing the issues highlighted in the seven revolutions.

That looks like a fairly reasonable list. We'd add, of course, a revolution in manufacturing enabled by advanced nanotechnology -- which, in our book, might be the most significant disruptive change between now and 2025.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Hyping Nanotech's Value

Big tip o' the hat to Nanodot for noticing an excellent piece of analysis by Michael Berger at Nanowerk that debunks the "trillion dollar nanotechnology market size hype."

Berger says:

There seems to be an arms race going on among nanotechnology investment and consulting firms as to who can come up with the highest figure for the size of the "nanotechnology market". The current record stands at $2.95 trillion by 2015. The granddaddy of the trillion-dollar forecasts of course is the National Science Foundation's "$1 trillion by 2015", which inevitably gets quoted in many articles, business plans and funding applications...

The problem with these forecasts is that they are based on a highly inflationary data collection and compilation methodology. The result is that the headline figures -- $1 trillion!, $2 trillion!, $3 trillion! -- are more reminiscent of supermarket tabloids than serious market research. Some would call it pure hype. This type of market size forecast leads to misguided expectations because few people read the entire report and in the end only the misleading trillion-dollar headline figure gets quoted out of context, even by people who should know better, and finally achieves a life by itself.

To his credit, Berger doesn't settle for simply poking holes in the inflated statements about nanotech's financial impact. He's also interested in setting the record straight about what nanotechnology really means and what it's almost unimaginable value truly could be.

But before we get to that juicy stuff, let's enjoy Berger's dissection of a Cientifica white paper titled "Half Way to the Trillion Dollar Market," which predicts a "Global Nanotechnology Market" of $2.95 trillion by 2015.

Wow, that's a lot of money! However...

Somewhere in the text of the Cientifica report is this key sentence: "It should be noted that this is not the total value of nanotechnologies included in products, but the total value of the products. Thus a tenth of a gram of nanomaterials costing 10 cents may be included in a drug costing $100 per dose."

Just to be clear here: this means that the nanotechnology market size, as compiled by Cientifica and others, includes the $100 for the entire drug dose, not it's actual 10 cents nanomaterial ingredient. In this example they are therefore expanding their definition of "market" by a factor of 1,000 simply by including the entire product's value, not just the nanotechnology component in it. This methodology is then consequently applied to all industry sectors.

And Cientifica is not alone in hyping nanotech's future value.

Lux Research in a recent report ("Sizing Nanotechnology’s Value Chain") makes a similar stretching exercise as Cientifica by predicting a $2.9 trillion nanotechnology market by 2014. They correctly identify this number as "Sales of products incorporating nanotechnology". According to their example, the value of all Chevy Impalas -- just because the car contains a component that contains nanoparticles -- would be considered part of the nanotechnology market. That's got to be an even higher scale-up factor than the 1,000 X for the drug in the Cientifica example.

Berger finishes his piece by saying:

I guess the point I am trying to make here is that these trillion-dollar forecasts for an artificially constructed "market" are an irritating, sensationalist and unfortunate way of saying that sooner or later nanotechnologies will have a deeply transformative impact on more or less all aspects of our lives.

What's most irritating is that these inflationary distortions are not really necessary. Unless, that is, you are trying to make a case for investing in a revolutionary technology while at the same time ignoring its most revolutionary possibilities.

Earlier in his analysis, Berger says:

Today, there isn't even a clear definition of what nanotechnology is. The CRN blog covered this confusing picture quite nicely in a recent post. [Thanks!] But taking every product that has anything to do with nanotechnology, however miniscule or remote, adding up the entire value chain of these products, and claiming this is "the market for nanotechnology", isn't very helpful either. On the contrary, it contributes to the confusion: first we are told how revolutionary nanotechnology is going to be (think molecular nanosystems such as nanorobots). Then we hear that actually there is quite a discussion going on among experts as to when or whether it's going to happen. And now we read that nanotechnology will be an almost three trillion dollar market within the next 8 years!

Confusing, yes? No wonder we have such a hard time getting people to think straight about nanotech. Berger's piece continues:

First of all, these market size forecasts are dealing with what is called evolutionary nanotechnology. The goal of evolutionary nanotechnology is to improve existing processes, materials and applications by scaling down into the nano realm and ultimately fully exploit the unique quantum and surface phenomena that matter exhibits at the nanoscale. This trend is driven by companies' ongoing quest to improve existing products by creating smaller components and better performance materials, all at a lower cost...

By contrast, truly revolutionary nanotechnology envisages a bottom-up approach where functional devices and entire fabrication systems are built atom by atom. There is no way today to put a market value on this visionary technology and its hypothetical products and it is therefore not covered in any of the nanotechnology market size reports.

Exaggeration and obfuscation are unnecessary (as is redefinition of terms). Without resorting to hype or distortion, we can safely say that the economic impact of atomically-precise nanotechnology-based manufacturing will be nearly incalculable. But in order to accept the reality of that statement, you also must accept the reality of the transformative and potentially quite disruptive implications of molecular manufacturing.

You can't have it both ways. Either nanotech is a revolutionary technology, potentially worth trillions in real dollars and with seriously destabilizing implications, OR it is an evolutionary technology with important -- but only incremental -- impacts and with limited economic value. Which is it?

As we've asked before: Who has the hype?

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Mapping the Metaverse

If understanding and preparing for a dynamically risky future is helped by good story-telling, as we discussed last week, then here is another great example:

The Internet in 2016 will be an all-encompassing digital playground where people will be immersed in an always-on flood of digital information, whether wandering through physical spaces or diving into virtual worlds.

That was the general picture painted in a draft report obtained by CNET News.com that summarizes the conclusions of several dozen pundits who met at the first Metaverse Roadmap Summit last May to prognosticate the "pathway to the 3D Web."

Within 10 years, the report suggests, people may wear glasses that record everything around them. They will likely see little distinction between their real-world social lives and their interactions in digital, 3D virtual worlds. And they'll increasingly turn to services like an enhanced Google Earth that are able to present data on what's happening anywhere, at any time, as it unfolds.

Primary author on the report was scenario master (and CRN Global Futures Strategist) Jamais Cascio, along with Jerry Paffendorf and John Smart. Jamais describes his part of it this way:

My (very large) chunk is the set of scenarios describing four different manifestations of the Metaverse. Here's a taste, from the draft:

The Augmented Reality scenario offers a world in which every item within view has a potential information shadow, a history and presence accessible via standard interfaces. Most items that can change state (be turned on or off, change appearance, etc.) can be controlled via wireless networking, and many objects that today would be "dumb" matter will, in the Augmented Reality scenario, be interactive and controllable. To the generation brought up in an Augmented Reality world, the Metaverse—this ubiquitous cloud of information—is like electricity to children of the 20th century: essentially universal, expected and conspicuous only in its absence.

The four scenarios -- Augmented Reality, Lifelogging (hello, Participatory Panopticon!), Virtual Words, and Mirror World -- all reflect differing levels of emphasis on what I saw as the two primary spectra describing the evolution of this technology: augmentation versus simulation, and intimate technologies versus extimate technologies.

You can find a graphic at Jamais's blog that orients the four alternate futures. The full article at CNET is also well worth reading.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Can technology be stopped?

Jim Von Ehr is founder and chief executive of Zyvex, established in 1997 as the world's "first molecular nanotechnology company."

Von Ehr is quoted extensively in the Dallas Morning News article on nanotechnology that we highlighted yesterday. He discusses advanced nanomaterials, reinforced with carbon nanotubes, and the amazing potential of nanomedicine.

The article also describes nanotech applications for "the next generation of high-definition televisions" and for "ever more powerful processors" to enable super-powerful computing.

And is that all? Apparently not.

Mr. Von Ehr said there's a growing consensus among scientists that nanotechnology will develop beyond those applications...

The [U.S.] federal government is also betting that nanotech will soon evolve into almost science fiction-level products.

However, not everyone is happy with these expectations.

Some environmental groups and other organizations have called for additional research and, in some cases, outright bans...

But Jeff Wacker, a futurist with Electronic Data Systems, said bans and moratoriums would be misguided since other countries are already delving into nanotech.

Google, for example, has a Web site called Google Trends where you can see how popular certain search terms are in different cities and countries around the world. Mr. Wacker pointed out that while the U.S. isn't in the top 10 of countries that do the most searches on nanotechnology, Iran is No. 2. [emphasis added]

"I don't think they're planning to use nano to feed the world," Mr. Wacker said. "Technology can't be stopped. Our job is not be afraid and cry the sky is falling, but to recognize the potential problems upfront and prevent them from becoming the problems they could be."

We're not sure whether Iran is planning to use nanotech to feed the world -- nor, for that matter, whether anyone else is either. But we think Wacker is correct in suggesting that attempts to halt or slow technology development in one location will only see it developed quickly somewhere else. For this and other reasons, CRN is on record as opposing any sort of moratorium on nanotechnology R&D.

We support the responsible development of advanced nanotechnology -- not because we believe the technology is safe, but because we believe it is risky -- and the only realistic alternative to responsible development is irresponsible development.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Post Mortal Syndrome

COSMOS Magazine On-line has posted the first few chapters of Post Mortal Syndrome, a new science fiction thriller about life extension and intelligence expansion by Damien Broderick and Barbara Lamar, available for free download.

"It's allegorical rather than scientifically exact, a sort of optimistic answer to Flowers for Algernon, and is an attempt to reach (and entertain) a large non-specialist audience with some upbeat transhumanist ideas," says Broderick.

Science fiction writer/editor Damien Broderick, an honorary senior research Fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia, holds a multi-disciplinary PhD from Deakin University in the comparative semiotics of science and literature, and has written more than 30 books. He and co-author Barbara Lamar are both members of the CRN Global Task Force.

(Hat tip: KurzweilAI.net)

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Mild, Wild, and Magical

From an article yesterday in the Dallas Morning News:

Jeff Wacker, a futurist with Plano-based Electronic Data Systems Corp., said the evolution of nanotech into the consumer arena will be marked by three phases.

"I think there's the mild, I think there's the wild, and I think there's the magical," he said.

At the "mild" end of the scale in the next few years are lighter, stronger, frictionless and more efficient upgrades to existing materials, such as in airplane wings, solar panels and batteries.

At the "magical" conclusion, 10 years or more down the road, consumers can expect to see nano assemblers, minuscule factories using billions of molecule-size machines to build nearly any product imaginable out of a pile of raw materials.

Okay, so "factories using billions of molecule-size machines to build nearly any product imaginable out of a pile of raw materials" is an excellent description of a nanofactory. And the time frame of "10 years or more down the road" seems to fit neatly into CRN's projection that nanofactory technology is likely to be developed by 2015, and almost certainly will be by 2020.

The article also refers to a nanotech study published last month (which we discussed here) by the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress:

By the 2015 to 2020 time frame, the authors predict, nano robots will be patrolling the human body, repairing damaged DNA and sending you a summary of your physical condition.

As outrageous as it sounds, the report notes that a lot of the groundwork for this technology is already being laid: "Since the path from initial discovery to product application takes 10 to 12 years, the initial scientific foundations for these technologies are already starting to emerge from laboratories."

And then it goes on to describe the nanocar, which we told you about last year:

Rice University, for example, has demonstrated that molecular machines are possible with its "nanocar." Last year, researchers at the school revealed that they had attached a motor to the molecule-size vehicle. The motor is powered by a beam of light, making it the first nanovehicle with its own engine. Roughly 20,000 of the cars could be parked side-by-side across the diameter of a human hair, the scientists said.

Lead researcher James Tour said that scientists are merely simulating the processes found in nature when they create the nanocar and use other tiny machines to build individual products.

"We want to construct things from the bottom up, one molecule at a time, in much the same way that biological cells use enzymes to assemble proteins and other supermolecules," Dr. Tour said in a news release. "Everything that's produced through biology – from the tallest redwood to largest whale – is built one molecule at a time. Nanocars and other synthetic transporters may prove to be a suitable alternative for bottom-up systems where biological methods aren't practical."

It appears that light bulbs are going on throughout the mainstream media, and even among high-level government groups, recognizing that the revolutionary, "magical" potential of nanotechnology is not that far away.

Tomorrow I'll follow up with more on this article.

(Hat tip: Rocky Rawstern)

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Your Right to Think

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.

— Hypatia of Alexandria

Tag: quotes

The Singularity Institute

In the coming decades, humanity will likely create a powerful artificial intelligence. The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (SIAI) exists to confront this urgent challenge, both the opportunity and the risk.

That's the mission statement, or raison d'être, of the Singularity Institute. We're glad that they exist and appreciate their work (although we may not agree with all their positions). Among other results of molecular manufacturing, one highly significant impact could be its enabling of far greater computing power, perhaps leading to the issues that SIAI is addressing. It's important that such organizations do the hard work to understand the implications of recursively improving, greater-than-human intelligence, and identify possible steps to ensure the beneficial development of AI.

SIAI has made a number of significant announcements recently, including the addition of Ray Kurzweil to their Board of Directors, and Neil Jacobstein and Dr. Barney Pell to their Board of Advisors. They have added Bruce Klein as Director of Outreach, Dr. Stephen Omohundro as Research Advisor, and Dr. Ben Goertzel as Director of Research.

Videos of speakers at last year's Singularity Summit at Stanford University have just been released, SIAI has created an ambitious R&D Program, and perhaps most impressively, they have announced a $400,000 Matching Challenge. CRN congratulates SIAI on these many accomplishments.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

"Molecular Nanotechnology"

Technical terms that have had a single well-defined usage for more than a decade should not be redefined without very good reason, and certainly not on a whim or for convenience. Not only does that confuse ongoing discussion, it changes the meaning of previous writings and discussions.

For at least a decade and a half, the phrase "molecular nanotechnology" has had a distinct and specific meaning for most nanotechnologists. Eric Drexler defined the term in Nanosystems as "a technology based on the ability to build structures to complex, atomic specifications by means of mechanosynthesis." That's what it has meant since 1992, if not earlier.

Recently, the NSF's Mihail Roco gave a substantially different definition of molecular nanotechnology. Here's what he said:

If you look toward the future, the field is moving very fast from studying simple components – like nanotubes, nanoparticles, quantum dots – to studying active devices and nanosystems. We are also beginning to see investigations into the close integration of these nanosystems for applications, and eventually we'll be developing nanosystems that have very small components that are nanoscale devices and even molecules or macromolecules. At that moment, we will arrive at so-called molecular nanotechnology.

This alternate definition of molecular nanotechnology seems only to require "nanosystems that have very small components that are nanoscale devices and even molecules or macromolecules." There is nothing in it about mechanosynthesis -- chemical synthesis carried out by mechanical systems. Acceptance of this definition effectively negates the preexisting and well-established meaning of the term.

Do words matter? Of course they do. Many articles have been written about the extreme implications of molecular nanotechnology. Roco's redefinition would make those articles almost incomprehensible.

We encourage nanotechnologists, science writers, advocacy groups, and policymakers to understand what these terms mean and resist confusing redefinitions. Although it may be tempting for some to cite Roco's statement as support for molecular nanotechnology in its original sense, that is almost certainly not what he intended; pretending otherwise will only further muddy the definitional waters.

Chris Phoenix

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog