Responsible Nanotechnology

Democratizing Medicine

At the Earth & Sky site, research scientist Michael Roukes, from the Kavli Nanoscience Institute at Caltech, says this about nanotechnology and medicine:

It's become clear that we can think about biological systems, medical systems, in the same way we think about bits of information flowing through digital computers.

Roukes adds that nanotech will deliver medicine into the hands of individuals, allowing the possibility to instantly diagnose and treat disease:

I think the most profound—I use this word repeatedly—transformative potential that this technology has is to basically democratize modern medicine. One can have very, very detailed real-time diagnostics in one's home that will create this ensemble with a genetic predisposition, environmental stressors and current physiological state. And all this information can then be uploaded, if a person wants, to some sort of large-scale Google-like cluster of computers and out of that, various proclivities, current conditions, an understanding of a person's global medical state at that time can be derived. I think this is absolutely inevitable and will happen.

And, of course, it's not only in the field of medicine, but also in energy production, education, information, communication, transportation and, ultimately, economic disparity that nanotechnology can serve as a democratizing catalyst.

The key word to remember, though, in the quote above from Roukes is potential. Nanotech may have the potential "to basically democratize modern medicine," but just saying so doesn't make it happen. Any technology is only a tool, and what happens when that tool is placed in the hands of users -- and those who wield power -- will be determined by the choices we make (or don't make) between now and then.

(Hat tip to Nanotechnology Now)

Mike Treder

Responsibility to Protect

Gareth Evans is President of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group and co-chair of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, based in New York. Today on "To the Point," a program that airs on National Public Radio (US), Evans was a guest of host Warren Olney, and they had the following exchange...

Olney: Time is growing short, according to all concerned, particularly the Secretary-General of the UN who can't even get through on the phone to the leader of the junta in Myanmar. How long do you think it will be before the pressure builds in such a way that the international community will feel ashamed?

Evans: Well, I think there's already a very large measure of shame, and it's coming through the discussions I'm hearing at the EU here in Brussels, and it's coming through from what people are telling me is being said around the corridors in the UN.  Whether that can be converted to a willingness to formally authorize some kind of more intrusive intervention is a very hard call; it's too difficult for a lot of people to contemplate.

But, whether or not it creates a sense that there's just enough moral outrage out there and enough good rational grounds out there for one or two countries to take the bit between the teeth and actually do something creative and adventurous and get that aid in there, come what may, that pressure for that to happen is building up very very substantially.

I hope that this message is somehow getting through to the generals, that they are listening -- because the world is not going to stand by and let another catastrophe involving a million or more people to die. It's just not going to be allowed to happen. Times have changed, and we don't have that indifference that people seem to have managed for previous centuries. There's just too much consciousness, too much media attention, too much concern out there, and I don't think that voice can be ignored.

With the death toll continuing to mount in Burma/Myanmar; with the generals who run the country reported to be hoarding supplies and preventing relief from reaching the worst struck areas; and with fears of an even larger man-made catastrophe caused by avoidable contamination, disease, and starvation -- the possibility of a UN-sanctioned international invasion to defy the ruling junta and bring aid to those who so badly need it apparently is being considered.

Last week, we wrote that a lesson might be learned from this disaster, that we (the free world) might just decide that our moral obligation to protect the defenseless from needless suffering could be seen as so strong that it trumps the sovereign rights of irresponsible states. We're frankly surprised -- but pleased -- to find that we are not alone in this thinking.

There's no question, of course, that all this is far easier to say than to do. But we believe it's a good sign that cosmopolitanism is gaining strength, and not for philosophical reasons alone.

Since the founding of CRN, we have been concerned that the unprecedented power of molecular manufacturing and the potential for exponential proliferation of nanofactory technology may make it essential to create an international administration to regulate it. That may not prove to be necessary, but just in case it does, it would be helpful if the world already had experience in managing global challenges with a collaborative consensus approach.

Mike Treder

Q: A Moral Obligation?

Cyclone Nargis flooded the entire coastal plain of southern Burma. The satellite picture on top was taken before the storm hit. The one on the bottom was taken Monday.

The appalling disaster suffered by the citizens of Burma (Myanmar) raises a difficult moral question. Before considering it, let's review the scope of the devastation:

Burma, already the poorest country in Southeast Asia, shows all the signs of total collapse. It's been four days since the killer cyclone ripped across the Irrawaddy delta in Burma's south and devastated the city of Rangoon -- home to 6 million people -- before cutting a swathe through the jungle on the Thai border.

But the government of General Than Shwe, 75, doesn't appear to have the situation in hand or be able to coordinate disaster relief. The military isn't even in a position to give a rough overview of the true scope of the catastrophe. . .

The region affected by the storm has a population of just under 24 million people. Many of them are now likely to have no roof over their heads. In addition, their wells are polluted and a large part of the rice harvest has suffered serious damage.

Could some of this death and destruction have been avoided?

It is already clear that the weekend's cyclone in Burma was the worst storm that has ravaged Asia since a cyclone killed tens of thousands in India in 1999. It is also the most devastating natural disaster since the tsunami of December 2004 laid waste to large parts of coastal regions in South and Southeast Asia. Then, more than 230,000 people died in Thailand, Indonesia, South Asia and Africa.

Once again, many deaths could have been prevented in Burma if the government had warned its people about the impending disaster. But nothing of the kind happened. "The only thing that was broadcast over the radio on Friday was the propaganda for the bogus referendum next Saturday," said Aung Zaw, editor of the Thailand-based opposition magazine Irrawaddy. Burma's military wants to use the May 10 referendum to secure its power after the elections promised for 2010.

As a result, the civilian population in the affected areas was completely unprepared when Cyclone Nargis hit the south coast of Burma around midnight on Friday. Many of the coastal inhabitants support themselves by fishing and so a large number of boats must have been at sea at that point. It is still not clear what happened to those boats.

But, instead of taking quick and straightforward action to help its suffering population, the junta continues to only think about its political situation and how to stay in power.

So, as Westerners, enjoying a fortunate position of freedom and prosperity, is it enough for us to shake our heads, cluck our disapproval of the military leadership, and make a small donation to humanitarian relief?

For most of us, that probably is a reasonable and understandable response. In fact, we can be rightly proud of our willingness to freely send aid when others suffer natural disasters.

But the larger moral question is not so easy to answer.

It seems clear that a different, more responsible government would have given their citizens earlier warning. It's also clear that this is not the last time that a huge disaster -- whether cyclone, earthquake, drought, fire, or flood -- will strike a vulnerable population yoked with a bad government that disregards their safety.

Given those two points, do we have a moral obligation to do something in advance of the next disaster? And, if so, what?

In general, I am not a proponent of intervening in another sovereign nation's internal politics. But are there times when intervention is warranted? When we see tens of thousands of poor people dying and millions more left homeless and helpless, should we not be moved to prevent the next such occurrence?

This post is not intended to offer a prescription, but just to raise the question. What's your answer?

Mike Treder

Top-Bottom & Wet-Dry

The NIST press release that we wrote about on Tuesday contained this passage:

In his 1986 book, The Engines of Creation, K. Eric Drexler set down the long-term aim of nanotechnology—to create an assembler, a microscopic device, a robot, that could construct yet smaller devices from individual atoms and molecules.

For the last two decades, those researchers who recognized the potential have taken diminutive steps towards such a nanoassembler. Those taking the top-down approach have seen the manipulative power of the atomic force microscope (AFM), a machine that can observe and handle single atoms, as one solution. Those taking the bottom-up approach are using chemistry to build molecular machinery.

However, neither the top-down nor the bottom-up approach is yet to fulfill Drexler's prophecy of functional nanobots that can construct other machines on a scale of just a few billionths of a meter.

We can picture the top-down and bottom-up dichotomy this way:

Another way to illustrate different approaches being taken toward the goal of building a nanotech assembler (which CRN prefers to call a "fabricator") is Wet vs. Dry:

Some researchers favor the "wet-nano" approach, typically using self-assembly to make structures that can mimic biological behavior while accomplishing designed tasks. Others insist that the best way to arrive at a high-functioning atomically-precise molecular fabricator is to work in vacuum, which is called "dry-nano."

But the point of this blog entry is that all these approaches -- top-down, bottom-up, wet-nano, dry-nano -- are working toward the same end point. And while it's still not clear whether one or another of them is the best way to go, as each moves forward, they are in fact coming closer to convergence.

We can't say for sure how soon, but with all of the research going on today, it seems a near certainty that desktop nanofactories (or their equivalent) will be produced within the next decade or two. CRN's biggest concern is not whether they will become a reality, but what the effects will be upon the world and its inhabitants.

Numerous environmental, humanitarian, economic, military, political, social, medical, and ethical implications of molecular manufacturing must be studied and understood. Plans must be formulated for managing this transformative and potentially disruptive new technology. All that will take time, lots of time. We'd better get to work.

Mike Treder

 

Geoengineering: Go slow! Carbon reduction: Hurry!

Environmental scientist Joseph Romm, on his Climate Progress blog, tells us that...

...all our dawdling on climate action this decade is having real impact on the atmosphere:

• Concentrations of CO2 jumped 2.4 ppm in 2007, taking us to 385 ppm (preindustrial levels hovered around 280 through 1850).
• That is an increase of 0.6% (or 19 billion tons). If we stay at that growth rate, we’ll be at 465 ppm by 2050 — and that assumes (improbably) that the various carbon sinks don’t keep saturating (see here and here).
• Levels of methane (a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) rose last year for the first time since 1998, perhaps an early indication of thawing permafrost.

In Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald describes the unwelcome news with this headline:

Carbon output goes off the chart

In its annual index of greenhouse gas emissions, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, rose 0.6 per cent, or 19 billion tonnes, last year.

What do they mean by "off the chart"?

First, we can look at this graph (below) from the NOAA, which shows the continuing rise in global carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. The red line shows the trend together with seasonal variations. The black line indicates the trend that emerges when the seasonal cycle has been removed.

[Click image to enlarge]

But an even more striking way to look at the evidence is to compare today's atmospheric CO2 levels with levels from the last 420,000 years:

Note that the chart above was produced in 1999, and shows modern CO2 levels at less than 300 parts per million (ppm). If you extended the red line to our current level of about 385 ppm, then it truly would be "off the chart."

The alarming correlation with global average temperatures (gold line) suggests that we likely will experience highly dangerous warming conditions over the next several decades -- indeed, unprecedented over the previous half-billion years -- leading to extreme climate chaos.

So, what can be done?

Is geoengineering part of the solution? Should we start making plans, for example, to inject massive amounts of sulphates into the atmosphere to simulate the effects of numerous volcanic eruptions, thereby creating a cooling effect?

No, probably not...

Pumping tiny sulphate particles into the atmosphere to create a sunshield that would keep the planet cool was first suggested as a solution to global warming by Edward Teller, a physicist was best known for his involvement in the development of the hydrogen bomb.

Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, US, used computer models to see how a sulphate sunshade would affect the ozone layer, which protects us from harmful UV rays. She says it could have "a drastic impact".

An article from Cosmos magazine reports it this way:

A plan to inject sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere, as a quick fix to counteract global warming, may drastically increase Arctic ozone depletion and slow the recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, researchers warn. . .

One scheme proposes that the sulphate aerosols could be used to whiten clouds and cool the planet. The idea is based around a cooling effect detected after the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, a Filipino volcano that pumped sulphates into the atmosphere.

To probe the idea further, researchers in Germany and the U.S., led by Simone Tilmes at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, analysed atmospheric data following the eruption. But what they found suggested that the sulphates would also react with chlorine in the cold conditions of the Arctic and Antarctic to deplete atmospheric ozone.

The Cosmos article also says:

A number of 'geoengineering' schemes have been proposed in recent years as possible ways for us to deflect the Sun's heat or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Examples include positioning giant mirrors in orbit around the Earth in order to deflect sunlight, seeding clouds with seawater to increase their whiteness and therefore reflectivity, and 'ocean fertilisation', whereby algal blooms are stimulated to encourage the capture of CO2 from the atmosphere.

None of these plans have been proven on a large scale, and most are infeasible due to high costs or potentially dangerous side effects.

As we have stated before, CRN believes that some geoengineering approaches may have merit, but that they should be studied in great detail before being attempted, and that they should be modeled extensively and, if possible, trial tested. The risk of unanticipated consequences is just too great for us to act precipitously.

Jamais Cascio, CRN's Global Futures Strategist, puts it this way:

Should geoengineering be required, it should be done as carefully and as reversibly as possible. More research into geoengineering is especially important in order to know what not to do.

If climate disaster hits faster and harder than anticipated, desperate people will try desperate measures, including geoengineering. We need to be able to identify the choices that won't just make things worse.

Is all this gloomy enough for you?

We have a serious problem on our hands, and the cure might turn out worse than the disease.

But just to pile things on even more, check this recent news about a stunning climate feedback: Beetle tree kills release more carbon than fires. From Joe Romm:

New reseach published in the journal Nature, “Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change,” quantifies the current and future impact just from the beetle’s warming-driven devastation in British Columbia:

...the cumulative impact of the beetle outbreak in the affected region during 2000–2020 will be 270 megatonnes carbon... This impact converted the forest from a small net carbon sink to a large net carbon source.

[Picture shows forests turned red by beetle.]

No wonder the carbon sinks are saturating faster than we thought (see here) — unmodeled impacts of climate change are destroying them:

Insect outbreaks such as this represent an important mechanism by which climate change may undermine the ability of northern forests to take up and store atmospheric carbon, and such impacts should be accounted for in large-scale modelling analyses.

This sounds like something from the plot of an apocalyptic eco-disaster novel. Unfortunately, it's not fiction, but fact.

What can we do instead?

If it wasn't before, it should be abundantly clear by now that we need to mount an aggressive, Apollo-like program to convert as much energy production as possible from fossil fuels to clean, renewable sources.

CRN favors deep investments in wind, solar, tidal, wave, and geothermal energy infrastructures. One often overlooked part of the solution is concentrated solar thermal power, and new generations of nuclear energy production should be considered as well.

What we must not do is sit around and wait and debate and delay while CO2 levels grow past the 400 ppm mark over the next eight years. They are going to grow to that level and beyond no matter what we do, of course, but our best hope to stop the increase and keep them below 450 ppm is to get working immediately.

We -- and by that I mean the whole world, but especially the United States -- should have started in earnest long ago. But now, we can't afford to wait any longer.

Mike Treder

Open Source Nanoscience

In an essay on "Our Biotech Future," Freeman Dyson writes:

The domestication of biotechnology in everyday life may also be helpful in solving practical economic and environmental problems. Once a new generation of children has grown up, as familiar with biotech games as our grandchildren are now with computer games, biotechnology will no longer seem weird and alien. In the era of Open Source biology, the magic of genes will be available to anyone with the skill and imagination to use it. The way will be open for biotechnology to move into the mainstream of economic development, to help us solve some of our urgent social problems and ameliorate the human condition all over the earth. Open Source biology could be a powerful tool, giving us access to cheap and abundant solar energy.

What is interesting is that we could easily substitute 'nanotech' for 'biotech' in the above paragraph and give it just as much meaning. Take a look:

The domestication of nanotechnology in everyday life may also be helpful in solving practical economic and environmental problems. Once a new generation of children has grown up, as familiar with nanotech games as our grandchildren are now with computer games, nanotechnology will no longer seem weird and alien. In the era of Open Source nanoscience, the magic of molecular manufacturing will be available to anyone with the skill and imagination to use it. The way will be open for nanofactories to move into the mainstream of economic development, to help us solve some of our urgent social problems and ameliorate the human condition all over the earth. Open Source nanoscience could be a powerful tool, giving us access to cheap and abundant solar energy.

In fact, I'd previously written something quite similar about the "domestication" of nanofactories:

Product design will be made simple by CAD (computer aided design) programs—so simple that a child can do it—and that’s no exaggeration. New product prototypes can be created, tested, and refined in a matter of hours instead of months. No special expertise is needed. Just imagination, curiosity, and the desire to create.

To maximize the latent innovation potential in nanofactory proliferation, and to prevent illicit, unwise, or malicious product design and manufacture, CRN recommends that designers work (and play) with modular "nanoblocks" of various sizes and composition to create products. When combined with automated verification of design safety and protection of intellectual property, this will open up huge new areas for originality and improvement while maintaining safety and commercial viability.

Working with nanoblocks, designers of all ages, nations, and backgrounds can create to their hearts’ content. The combination of user-friendly CAD and rapid prototyping will result in a spectacular synergy, enabling unprecedented levels of innovation and development. Among the many remarkable benefits accruing to humanity from nanofactory proliferation will be this unleashing of millions of eager new minds, allowed for the first time to freely explore and express their brilliant creative energy.

So it appears that we and Dyson are thinking along the same lines, expecting bright futures for these powerful new technologies as they cross the threshold from laboratory to general use.

But still, questions must be raised. Can this be done safely and responsibly?

This is from another part of Dyson's essay:

If domestication of biotechnology is the wave of the future, five important questions need to be answered. First, can it be stopped? Second, ought it to be stopped? Third, if stopping it is either impossible or undesirable, what are the appropriate limits that our society must impose on it? Fourth, how should the limits be decided? Fifth, how should the limits be enforced, nationally and internationally? I do not attempt to answer these questions here. I leave it to our children and grandchildren to supply the answers.

How soon, then, should we begin the process of answering these questions? And in comparing nanotech and biotech, is either more urgent to address than the other?

CRN would contend, of course, that rapid progress being made toward molecular manufacturing makes it imperative that we find answers to many important questions, and that we do it soon -- before the technology catches us unprepared. Especially since the game-changing shift from a pre-nanofactory world to a nanofactory-enabled world could turn out to be sudden, swift, and wrenchingly transformative.

Others might well say the same about biotech and be equally correct. The point is that the future is rushing toward us -- or we toward it -- as though we're driving extremely fast on an unmarked road in the dark with no signs or markers to follow.

Where are we going?

Mike Treder

Civilization's Demise

From the cover story of New Scientist magazine's April 5 issue:

Doomsday scenarios typically feature a knockout blow: a massive asteroid, all-out nuclear war or a catastrophic pandemic. Yet there is another chilling possibility: what if the very nature of civilisation means that ours, like all the others, is destined to collapse sooner or later?

A few researchers have been making such claims for years. Disturbingly, recent insights from fields such as complexity theory suggest that they are right. It appears that once a society develops beyond a certain level of complexity it becomes increasingly fragile. Eventually, it reaches a point at which even a relatively minor disturbance can bring everything crashing down.

Some say we have already reached this point, and that it is time to start thinking about how we might manage collapse. Others insist it is not yet too late, and that we can -- we must -- act now to keep disaster at bay.

A Resource Collapse?

Jamais Cascio, CRN's Director of Impacts Analysis, continues his ambitious series on "The Big Picture" with the latest installment -- "Resource Collapse" -- posted today at his Open the Future blog:

Truism #1: Human society's continued existence depends on the sustained flows of a variety of natural resources.

Truism #2: What that set of natural resources comprises can change over time.

We (the human we) have pushed the limits of many of the resources our civilization has come to depend upon. Oil is the most talked-about example, but from topsoil to fisheries, water to wheat, many of the resources underpinning life and society as we know it face significant threat. In many cases, this threat comes from simple over-consumption; in others, it comes from ecosystem damage (often, but not always, made worse by over-consumption). . .

It's a long entry, and one I strongly encourage you to read in full.

It may also be worth comparing what Jamais wrote today with this recent article from the Wall Street Journal, which we highlighted last week.

Advanced forms of nanotechnology -- in particular, molecular manufacturing -- could have a significant impact in addressing the precarious resource squeeze. It's hard to say, however, how soon these emerging technologies will be able to make a big difference... which is why we urge "full speed ahead" on making use of existing and available solutions while at the same time continuing to pursue more futuristic alternatives.

Mike Treder

To Forestall the Worst

Why not do it all?

Why not start erecting wind farms wherever they make sense? Why not go forward immediately with projects to tap energy from the tides, from the waves, and perhaps even from deep geothermal sources? Why not set up large community solar collectors in every city, town, and village?

Why not require all new construction, both commercial and residential, to make use of passive heating and cooling techniques, and to recycle gray water? Why not demand that any major new building development must achieve LEED Platinum certification?

Why not aim for a total conversion of all new vehicles to be electric by 2020?

Climate Talk Sea Change

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. CLICK HERE TO SEE SOURCE.

For the first time in a long time, we're seeing some encouraging signs in the climate change debate. The last such point was probably two years ago with the release of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. That film (and website) pushed the conversation forward better than anything else before it.

Since then, however, the debate has lagged a bit as attention has shifted to other areas. But in recent weeks, I've noticed a strong increase in the number and quality of discussions about climate change dynamics, implications, and possible remedies.