Responsible Nanotechnology

(Limited) Nano Futures

We've been asked by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University to bring your attention to a set of "Nano Futures" prepared by their group. They are seeking feedback and offering the opportunity for users to revise the sketches in a wiki format.

Here is the list of the six "fictional scenes" they have developed:

Engineered Tissues

Using tissue printing technology, this system is able to build tissues with a vascular structure enabling the building of new organs.

What are your thoughts on synthetically grown tissues and organs?    

Living with a Brain Chip

This cranial chip features a data feed that puts information into the brain while the user is resting. 

What are your thoughts on using cranial chips to enhance cognition?

Automated Sewer Surveillance

Ultra fast sequencing technology is used to analyze the DNA in harvested waste water, thus screening large populations.  

What are your thoughts on tracking individuals using their genetic material?

Disease Detector

Doc in the Box is a device that tracks an individuals protein levels to monitor changes that imply early stage illness or disease before symptoms emerge.

What are your thoughts on diagnosing disease before you are ill?

Barless Prison

NanoCage has developed a caged drug that is injected into prisoners that becomes activated by radio control if prisons cross designated boundaries.

What are your thoughts on a barless prison?

Bionic Eyes

Opti-scan is an optical implant that looks and functions like a normal eye, yet has new enhancements enabling magnification, visualizing infra-red, and night vision. 

What are your thoughts on visual enhancement?

The group readily acknowledges that these sketches are "extrapolations from current nanoscale research." In other words, they have made no attempt to include the potential of advanced nanotechnology. Thus, what they have produced is quite different from the more fully developed scenarios prepared by CRN's Global Task Force, all of which look toward the emergence of molecular manufacturing.

Still, it's a good effort and we encourage you to look into what they've done and considering giving your input.

Mike Treder

Potential for Nano Warfare

By now hopefully you have had time to read and digest all eight of the nanotechnology scenarios recently published by CRN.

One of the most interesting surprises uncovered in our months-long group project of crafting and refining those stories was that nano-based warfare did not automatically come to the fore as a leading topic. We talked about it a lot, but through the process of prioritizing, clarifying, and honing our narratives, the expectation that nations would embark on a nanotech arms race that would lead to war -- well, that story never materialized.

Why should that be? Is it because the prospect of a war fueled by super-powerful, exponentially produced weapons is just too uncomfortable for people to consider? Or are there logical reasons that make the nano arms race and warfare scenario unlikely in the real world?

I could venture a few ideas of my own now, but instead I think I'll leave this out here for you to ponder.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics blog

Breaking the Fever

Note: These scenarios are not predictions, and do not represent outcomes desired by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. CRN intends the scenarios to provide a springboard for discussion of molecular manufacturing policies and societal responses. While each scenario can be understood individually, the real value of the process comes from the comparison of multiple scenarios. A strategic response that appears robust in one scenario may be dangerous in another; an organization, community, or polity using these scenarios to consider how to handle the emergence of molecular manufacturing should strive for responses that are viable across multiple scenarios. Finally, the numbering of the scenarios has nothing to do with importance or priority -- it's a simple reflection of the order in which they were completed.

Scenario #8: Breaking the Fever

Global warming skeptics used to claim that the models climatologists used were wrong. Much to everyone's surprise, they were right. Unfortunately, they were right in the wrong way: the models weren't wrong because they over-stated the impact of global warming; they were wrong because they so severely under-stated it.

We had an inkling 25 years ago, around the turn of the century, when Greenland's glaciers and the Arctic's ice cover started melting faster than anyone had projected. We saw more clues late in the first decade when droughts and heat waves in Europe and Asia lasted far longer than any of the models foresaw. It became obvious to everyone during the next decade, when the IPCC kept resetting the projected arrival of a 3° C increase in average planetary temperature -- long thought to be a devastating "tipping point" in the climate system -- from 2100, to 2070, to 2040. Environmental scientists, politicians and industry all blamed each other for why these predictions kept on being too conservative, but the fact remained: the "global fever" (as scientist William Calvin called it) was advancing far faster than anyone was prepared to deal with.

Back in 2010, conventional wisdom already held that within decades we'd be witness to a planetary disaster on the scale of a world war. Why, then, do we now live in a world increasingly confident of success in turning back global climate disruption? What makes the real 2025 so different from the 2025 we imagined just 15 years ago?

Newshound Notebook

Note: These scenarios are not predictions, and do not represent outcomes desired by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. CRN intends the scenarios to provide a springboard for discussion of molecular manufacturing policies and societal responses. While each scenario can be understood individually, the real value of the process comes from the comparison of multiple scenarios. A strategic response that appears robust in one scenario may be dangerous in another; an organization, community, or polity using these scenarios to consider how to handle the emergence of molecular manufacturing should strive for responses that are viable across multiple scenarios. Finally, the numbering of the scenarios has nothing to do with importance or priority -- it's a simple reflection of the order in which they were completed.

Scenario #7: Newshound Notebook

Excerpts, 2013-2018

24 Jun 2013 - China’s economic growth continues to astound. I just checked with the Hypernet for earlier forecasts, and it turns out that a few years ago (in 2007), people were predicting that China would exceed the U.S. as the world’s #1 economy by around 2025. Now, the common wisdom is that it will happen no later than 2018. Amazing!

19 Sep 2013 - A lot of reports are coming in about big problems in China with parts of their population who have not benefited from the country’s economic boom. By some accounts, as many as a billion Chinese have effectively been left behind…and they’re not happy about it.

25 Oct 2013 - Huge numbers of disaffected Chinese are now taking part in organized protests, often resulting in clashes with police and military riot squads. By “organized,” I don’t necessarily mean planned and announced in advance. Flash mob actions are far more common; people tell each other by mobile phone and t-pad (texting) where they’re going to meet and then, suddenly, thousands are there. Sometimes tens or even hundreds of thousands. The government tries to stay ahead of these events by monitoring civilian electronic communications and by using sophisticated satellite image analysis to predict the direction of mob flows, but it doesn’t always work.

9 Dec 2013 - Reports are sketchy, scattered, and hard to confirm, but it looks like the protests/riots in China are getting worse, that is, larger and more violent. They’re also spreading so fast that no one seems able to determine how many there actually are. It’s a big country, in both area and population, so there are literally hundreds of places, scattered over millions of square kilometers, where huge crowds can gather almost instantly. This kettle is boiling hot -- will it explode?

A Goal Postponed

Note: These scenarios are not predictions, and do not represent outcomes desired by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. CRN intends the scenarios to provide a springboard for discussion of molecular manufacturing policies and societal responses. While each scenario can be understood individually, the real value of the process comes from the comparison of multiple scenarios. A strategic response that appears robust in one scenario may be dangerous in another; an organization, community, or polity using these scenarios to consider how to handle the emergence of molecular manufacturing should strive for responses that are viable across multiple scenarios. Finally, the numbering of the scenarios has nothing to do with importance or priority -- it's a simple reflection of the order in which they were completed.

Scenario #5: A Goal Postponed

The middle of the first decade of the millennium saw a slow shift toward acceptance of molecular manufacturing. Not only its proponents, but unaffiliated scientists as well, began to acknowledge that the idea of molecular machines building molecular machines might be worth pursuing. The supporters of the approach began to draw a cautious breath of relief. By 2007, at least one group (the Nanofactory Collaboration) was working toward atom-by-atom fabrication of diamond, a company with a history of successful lab research (Zyvex) was working toward atomically precise silicon shapes, and DNA technology was making great strides forward.

Few observers close to the field expected molecular manufacturing to be a victim of its own success. In hindsight, the irony was inescapable and almost predictable: each partial success and modest step forward siphoned off more and more interest from the ultimate goal of exponential nanoscale manufacturing using molecular tools.

It started with Zyvex LLC's announcement in 2011 that their Atomically Precise Manufacturing project had succeeded in building two-dimensional structures on a silicon surface with every atom exactly where it was planned to be. This was rightly seen as a major accomplishment: in precision and throughput, it went well beyond the 1994 laboratory demonstrations of the Aono group. Furthermore, Zyvex announced that three-dimensional structures, perhaps including layers of diverse materials, were in the works. Several spinoff technologies, including biomedical sensors and fast electronic circuits, were quickly pursued.

... And Not a Drop to Drink

Note: These scenarios are not predictions, and do not represent outcomes desired by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. CRN intends the scenarios to provide a springboard for discussion of molecular manufacturing policies and societal responses. While each scenario can be understood individually, the real value of the process comes from the comparison of multiple scenarios. A strategic response that appears robust in one scenario may be dangerous in another; an organization, community, or polity using these scenarios to consider how to handle the emergence of molecular manufacturing should strive for responses that are viable across multiple scenarios. Finally, the numbering of the scenarios has nothing to do with importance or priority -- it's a simple reflection of the order in which they were completed.

Scenario #5: ... And Not a Drop to Drink

Water is crucial to the tiny island nation of Singapore. Surrounded by the salty sea, they get 50 percent of their potable water from rainfall and must import the other 50 percent. As of 2007, Singapore had a water purchase agreement with Malaysia, acquiring fully half of their nation's water supply through a dual pipeline running across the Straits of Johor. The Malaysia-Singapore agreement was due to run out in 2011, however, and an intractable disagreement over the price of water had caused negotiations to stall.

In an effort to increase water supply, catchments, recycling, and desalination projects had been in the works in Singapore since the early ‘00s, along with aggressive water conservation practices. Aiming for water self-sufficiency, they opened their first desalination plant in 2005. At the time, experts suggested that Singapore could become the world's leading hub for water recycling and desalination technologies and could export this technology widely, based on their previous success with economic initiatives in science and technology.

In 2009, terrorist attacks severely damaged the massive Malaysia-Singapore water pipelines. Among the top suspects was Jemaah Islamiyah, a group of Southeast Asian Islamic Jihadists based in Indonesia but with cells in Malaysia. They had a history of attempted attacks on Singapore, but had been successfully foiled before. The attack this time was on the Malaysian end of the pipeline and Singapore believed that Malaysia, which is largely Islamic, had not tried hard enough to prevent it. Malaysia was known to be unhappy about Singapore’s close political and economic ties to the U.S., and Singapore also suspected that allowing the pipeline damage was a convenient tactic by Malaysia to leverage the water renegotiations. Neither Malaysia nor Singapore were eager to pay for rebuilding the pipeline, and their relationship became increasingly difficult and antagonistic; in the end, no new agreement was reached.

Draconian water conservation efforts were initiated in Singapore starting in early 2010, and the compliant populace went along. Singapore was able to purchase some water from other neighbors such as Indonesia, but they remained desperate for an independent water supply. This critical shortage provided the impetus for considerable investment of money and energy over the next few years. A well-funded joint government-commercial effort drew experts from around the world and invested heavily in an R&D infrastructure, developing nanotechnologies to produce high-volume, high-efficiency water filtration systems suitable for recycling. A small but significant fraction of this effort was aimed at a general-purpose molecular manufacturing capability.

Presidential Commission

Note: These scenarios are not predictions, and do not represent outcomes desired by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. CRN intends the scenarios to provide a springboard for discussion of molecular manufacturing policies and societal responses. While each scenario can be understood individually, the real value of the process comes from the comparison of multiple scenarios. A strategic response that appears robust in one scenario may be dangerous in another; an organization, community, or polity using these scenarios to consider how to handle the emergence of molecular manufacturing should strive for responses that are viable across multiple scenarios. Finally, the numbering of the scenarios has nothing to do with importance or priority -- it's a simple reflection of the order in which they were completed.

Scenario #4: Presidential Commission

Presidential Commission on Molecular Manufacturing
Analysis: Origins of the Present Crisis

Executive Summary
August 14, 2019

The present struggle over dominance in the arena of nanomanufacturing technologies does not derive from a single cause.

The Commission found that the widely-held view (encouraged by administration leaks) that the crisis arose due to misbehavior on the part of non-governmental research groups (both corporate and academic) does not in fact explain the origins of the present situation; neither does the analysis, more prevalent in academic circles, that the nanotechnology strategies of the current generation of Russian leadership triggered the crisis. The position held by the opposition party, that the crisis derives from a series of policy missteps on the part of the current and previous administrations, is equally insufficient.

Alone, each of these explanations is incomplete. Together, however, they form the skeleton of a useful analysis of our current dilemma, and in doing so, suggest useful directions for how to resolve the crisis.

Negative Drivers

Note: These scenarios are not predictions, and do not represent outcomes desired by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. CRN intends the scenarios to provide a springboard for discussion of molecular manufacturing policies and societal responses. While each scenario can be understood individually, the real value of the process comes from the comparison of multiple scenarios. A strategic response that appears robust in one scenario may be dangerous in another; an organization, community, or polity using these scenarios to consider how to handle the emergence of molecular manufacturing should strive for responses that are viable across multiple scenarios. Finally, the numbering of the scenarios has nothing to do with importance or priority -- it's a simple reflection of the order in which they were completed.

Scenario #3: Negative Drivers

A story of death and redemption in three acts...

Things fall apart; the center does not hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world
2008-2011

What a difference a year can make. In early '09, when the new president took office, all of the news was about just how tolerant and forward-looking the American public had become. Oh, the media kept sniping, and the losing ticket found lucrative homes in think tanks, but there was a real sense, back then, that we'd really turned a corner, and that the future was looking bright. Some of us even dared to have some hope for the future.

Not the scientists, though. Environmental doomsayers were getting all of the press, but they were hardly the worst Cassandras out there. The World Health Organization had been fearing mutations in the H5N1 flu virus that would allow non-avian vectors since 2006, when scientists have discovered a mutation that could make it more readily transmissible. Little did we know that, before the president had issued her first state of the union address, we were already lost—and the WHO had missed the real threat. Everyone called it the Rot.

Positive Expectations

Note: These scenarios are not predictions, and do not represent outcomes desired by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. CRN intends the scenarios to provide a springboard for discussion of molecular manufacturing policies and societal responses. While each scenario can be understood individually, the real value of the process comes from the comparison of multiple scenarios. A strategic response that appears robust in one scenario may be dangerous in another; an organization, community, or polity using these scenarios to consider how to handle the emergence of molecular manufacturing should strive for responses that are viable across multiple scenarios. Finally, the numbering of the scenarios has nothing to do with importance or priority -- it's a simple reflection of the order in which they were completed.

Scenario #2: Positive Expectations

2008: ¡Fabbers Libre! - When the first "late beta" version of RepRap—the "replicating rapid-prototyper"—is released in early 2008, critics have a field day. It's slow. It's clumsy-looking. It can't actually replicate itself without adding a few key commercial parts. But where critics see an ugly duckling, design students, DIY hackers, and open source enthusiasts see a swan-in-the-making. By the summer, dozens of novel fabber projects emerge (some forked from RepRap, but most based on original designs), and by the fall, some have actually produced devices that an adventurous home user could play with. Forward-looking strategists at mega-retailers and mass manufacturers feel a distinct chill run up their collective spine.

The open fabber era had begun, and through the end of the decade, free and open source software hackers around the world turn their attention to hardware. A few start-ups begin selling the (licensed... usually) work of the various amateur and academic fabrication research programs; using fabber-based production methods, they quickly get the price down to a few hundred dollars. These appliances, under constant improvement by the global user community, can make a growing catalog of simple solid polymer products. Most are based on standard digital designs available online, but there's a highly-regarded ad hoc community of user-creators, working at the cutting-edge of fabber product design.

Initially, for non-technical users, there are a couple of drawbacks to the adoption of a home fabber. The first, and for many critics the most obvious, is the question of just how cost-effective home fabbing can be in a world of globalized pennies-per-hour labor. On the surface, the purchase of a plastic doodad made literally half-a-world away and shipped by the millions makes more sense than home creation—at least at current prices. This surface advantage doesn't last, however; by the end of the decade, rising fuel costs, carbon taxes, and cyclical trade tensions have significantly eroded that cost difference.

CRN Scenarios Published!

Each of CRN's nanotech scenarios have been posted here for discussion...

Introduction to the Series (Dec 11)
Scenario 1:  Secret Military Development (Dec 11)
Scenario 2:  Positive Expectations (Dec 14)
Scenario 3:  Negative Drivers (Dec 18)
Scenario 4:  Presidential Commission (Dec 21)
Scenario 5:  ... And Not a Drop to Drink (Dec 25)
Scenario 6:  A Goal Postponed (Dec 28)
Scenario 7:  Newshound Notebook (Jan 1)
Scenario 8:  Breaking the Fever (Jan 4)