Responsible Nanotechnology

Toward the Spike

Don't miss this short but potent interview with writer Damien Broderick, conducted by one of my favorite science reporters, James Pethokoukis. Here's a sample:

Developing technologies such as molecular manufacture—nanotechnology—will allow the very engines of productivity to be copied cheaply and distributed widely. If that happens (and it will only occur if we find ways to prevent portable nanofactories from making lethal weapons available to any child or psychopath), the gap between rich and "poor" might not sting as much.

Damien's non-fiction book, The Spike, was one of the works that inspired me to learn more about nanotechnology, and eventually to co-found CRN. Definitely recommended.

Not-So-Smart Dust

Thanks to alert reader Rocky Rawstern of Nanotechnology Now for pointing out this tidbit that showed up on Yahoo News, of all places:

A Canadian plan to cast a supersized net to enable Internet access across the province of Alberta is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers top communications "winnovation" for 2004.

With winners come losers. IEEE fellows designated a plan to deploy nine billion tiny airborne weather probes as one communications innovation that is destined to fail.

To pick this year's winners and losers, fellows of the nearly 400,000 member IEEE "considered the feasibility of the goals described by the project leaders themselves," Zorpette told NewsFactor. "We analyzed these goals in light of technical and technology-related factors: regulation, competition, relevant technology, market trends and more."

Based on the "smart dust" concept -- self-organizing networks of sensors that monitor chemicals in a factory or troops on a battlefield -- IEEE's loser in 2004 is the Global Environmental MEMS Sensors project, or GEMS.

"GEMS proposes a global network of tiny airborne probes to improve weather forecasting," IEEE editor Erico Guizzo told NewsFactor. "We talked to experts from several fields -- from nanotechnology to remote sensing -- and the conclusion was that such flying probes face huge technology barriers and that satellites could do a better job ... monitoring weather on a global scale."

Author Michael Crichton already raised concerns about smart particles attacking people in his book "Prey." Similar issues would plague the GEMS project, Guizzo explained.

"Deploying billions of these invisible and intrusive probes would certainly raise a number of political, environmental, health and privacy-related questions," Guizzo said.

Millennium Project

In case you haven't heard about it -- the Millennium Project is an important and visionary effort of the American Council for the United Nations University (ACUNU). It's an ongoing, globe-spanning, far-reaching attempt to describe in some detail various future scenarios. Risks and opportunities that may develop over the next 25-50 years are explored, and various proposed solutions are evaluated. The project is managed by Jerry Glenn (on the Board of Advisors for CRN) and Ted Gordon. Well worth your time to explore, and perhaps to participate.

The Looming "Nano-Divide"

The University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics issued a report yesterday warning of a looming nano-divide between have and have-not countries. You can read a summary here, or the full report here.

Here is an analysis from CRN Director of Research Chris Phoenix:

The report's authors call for a new international network to assess emerging technologies for development, identify the potential risks and benefits of nanotechnology (NT) incorporating developed and developing world perspectives, and explore the effects of a potential 'nano–divide'.

Such a global network would serve as a focal point to commission and collect research results, promote awareness of the potential applications of NT for development, create new regulatory regimes (or build upon existing ones) for managing NT's risks and promoting global public goods, and provide a forum for all stakeholders – government, industry, academe and citizens groups – not just in developed but also developing countries, whose interests to date have been largely ignored.

Concerns that need consideration include: How long will nanomaterials remain in the environment? How readily will nanomaterials bind to environmental contaminants? Will these particles move up through the food chain and what will be their effect on humans? How will the incorporation of artificial materials into human systems affect health, security and privacy? Who will control the means of production and who will get to debate the risks and benefits? What will be the effects of military and corporate control over NT?

The United States of Empire?

This week's New Yorker magazine includes a penetrating analysis of U.S. foreign policy. A lot to think about here as we move rapidly into an uncertain future.

Touchy, Touchy

Fellow blogger Glenn Reynolds published a perceptive Tech Central Station column today on differing visions of nanotechnology. Then he got an, er, interesting response from Mark Modzelewski, who heads up the NanoBusiness Alliance, a corporate lobbying group.

Simmer down, Beavis.

Accelerating Progress

Designer insects, flexible paper-like computer screens, and no more deaths from cancer -- sounds like science fiction, right? Nope, it's science fact, or soon to be. The times they are a changin', and fast.

Horse Droppings

At CRN, we’re often approached by people who say they learned about the dangers of nanotechnology from reading Prey, the popular science fiction novel by Michael Crichton. We have to admonish those readers that while the book may be good escapist reading, it doesn’t contain a lot of good science. We hope they will study other less sensational and more technically rigorous works to get a proper understanding of nanotechnology’s perils, and its promise.

But Crichton is a very smart man and a serious thinker about scientific issues, as well as a good novelist. Here, for example, is an excerpt from a recent lecture he gave to students at Caltech:

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Crichton goes on to say that making predictions about the year 2100 from our perspective in 2004 is nothing but folly, and of course he’s right. But the quote above also illustrates the foolishness of people who insist that the world can’t possibly be changed as much by nanotechnology in the next decade or two as CRN claims it will.

It’s Up to All of Us

CRN offers a series of eight future scenarios — necessarily simplified, intended to provoke thinking and constructive feedback.

Future 8:

The truth is that we are creating the future right now, today, all of us. How are we doing? Are we conscious of the impact that today’s decisions will have on tomorrow’s world? Are we taking into account the long-term implications of our sometimes short-term thinking?

Here’s one thing you can do, right now. Send a link to this blog to someone you think should be reading it. Thank you!

Your Turn

CRN offers a series of eight future scenarios — necessarily simplified, intended to provoke thinking and constructive feedback.

Future 7:

Create a plausible scenario that we haven’t thought of yet. Surely among the many smart, educated, future-oriented readers of this blog, there are at least a few of you who can submit a believable future that we have overlooked.

[ 18 hours of silence....... ]

Okay, maybe not. Apparently we have covered all of the plausible scenarios, or at least the major ones. But if you think of something else that should be considered, please let us know.