Responsible Nanotechnology

Transnational Regulation

We mentioned in early March that a study team at Arizona State University would collaborate with CRN on exploring legal and governmental questions that may arise from the advent of exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing. The group has now outlined their research agenda and produced an abstract describing their focus:

Transnational Regulatory Models for Molecular Nanotechnology

As Fenyman’s dream of atomically precise molecular machine systems created from the bottom up becomes more real, the geopolitical pressure to regulate nanotechnology will increase. Many nanotechnology advances are likely to present what the National Academy of Sciences recently referred to as the "dual use dilemma" in that they have potential for both beneficial and destructive applications. Potential regulatory models for molecular nanotechnology, particularly at the international level, will benefit from an examination of the successes and failures of prior efforts to regulate dual use technologies. This presentation explores regulatory models with respect to the unique issues raised by molecular nanotechnology. The presentation presents international regulatory precedents, draws analogies, describes the strengths and weaknesses of past applications, considers how molecular nanotechnology may be different, and explores the usefulness of the model as applied to nanotechnology. Specifically, the presentation will describe and evaluate multilateral regulations (e.g., Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Anti-Satellite/ABM Treaty, etc.), multilateral prohibitions (e.g., human reproductive cloning, precautionary principle, etc.), joint development agreements (e.g., outer space treaty, International Atomic Energy Agency, Maritime law, etc.), information secrecy (e.g., export control, restrictions on scientific publication, etc.), control of technology via intellectual property and licensing (e.g., TRIPS, DMCA/DVD descrambling code, etc.), funding and financial incentive programs (e.g., government funded research, research prizes, etc.), and industry and government guidelines/codes of conduct (e.g., UN environmental codes, Foresight Institute guidelines, etc.).

This is a project of Gary E. Marchant, Ph.D., Jonathan Swartz, and Michael Volk at ASU's Center for the Study of Law, Science & Technology. We're delighted with this effort and look forward to seeing the results. Thanks, team!

C-R-Newsletter #18

This month's edition of the C-R-Newsletter has been posted and, for some of you, delivered to your email inboxes.

CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE:

Slashdot Does CRN
CRN Busy-ness
The new C-R-Network
Blog improvement suggestions?
Tell us about enabling tech!
Feature essay: Science vs. engineering vs. theoretical applied nanotechnology

Read the whole newsletter here — and sign up for a free subscription here.

Slashdot Does CRN

CRN has been featured on Slashdot's front page. The article points to our "Overview" page, and quotes our assertion that nanofactories will almost certainly be developed within 20 years. It includes a rather good summary of our position:

In short they claim that molecular nanotechnology manufacturing will solve many of the world's problems, catalyze a technologic revolution, and start the greatest arms race we've ever seen. They conclude the risks are so great that we should discuss how to deal with this technology so that we don't kill each other when it arrives.

As I write this, the article has generated 641 comments. A quick skim shows that a few people are dismissive, a few more are skeptical on technical grounds (which we've answered already), and quite a lot of people recognize that the technology will be powerful and dangerous. One of the main threads is the likelihood of a crackdown on the technology, keeping it away from the people who need it most.

We've gotten about a dozen extra newsletter signups today, and half a dozen "Devil's Advocates" have not only read our page to the bottom, but have responded. Again, usually with technical questions that we've answered elsewhere, such as "What I have yet to see is anything regarding how one can control the nanofabricators." This is covered in detail in our "Nanofactory" paper.

Chris Phoenix

Nanotechnology in Japan

Starting in 1992 (the year Nanosystems was published), Japan spent a decade developing the foundations for bottom-up nanotech. According to this article, they worked on four things:

1) "identification and manipulation of atoms and molecules" -- Obviously of great importance for bottom-up nanofabrication.

2) "formation and control of nanostructures on the surface and at the interface of materials" -- Likewise, very important.

3) "spin electronics" -- I'm not sure why this was in there; possibly to provide a short-term profitable spinoff (no pun intended).

4) "theoretical analysis of the dynamic processes of atoms and molecules" -- This sounds like research into bonding, and quite possibly relevant to mechanochemistry.

The leader, Kazunobu Tanaka, designed a highly interdisciplinary and collaborative working environment. He called for strong university participation. He put together a laboratory with 100 scientists sharing facilities, including cafeteria and relaxation room. He also recommends active use of sabbatical leaves and flexible university curriculums.

According to the article, "Dr. Tanaka says nanotechnology in Japan will not make any progress unless project leaders and researchers with a wide outlook are brought up. He adds that the master plan for developing nanotechnology in Japan should be discussed from the mid- and long-term viewpoint by young researchers with strong physical and intellectual ability."

This sounds to me like a very effective process for developing advanced technology. And this is not just theory; it's been put into practice in a decade-long foundational project that finished two years ago. Japan has now put hundreds if not thousands of research-years into bottom-up fabrication. (It's also worth noting that as of April 1999, 30 private enterprise companies were connected to the "Angstrom Technology Partnership"; see the first image in the sidebar.) And they've had plenty of time to think about the implications and applications.

I'm encouraged that they appear to be socially conscious. The reason for the sabbaticals is to allow the researchers to "reconfirm the positioning of their own studies in society." And the purpose of the flexible university curriculums is "to respond quickly to changing times and to meet current social needs." But planning with respect to a single society won't be enough to address the planet-scale issues that molecular manufacturing will create.

Chris Phoenix

What’s in a Name?

An interesting note in the MIT Enterprise Technology Review on appropriate use of the nano name...

Nanotechnology: What’s in a Name?

The Foresight Institute's Eric Drexler, who coined the word "nanotechnology" in the 1980s and is one of the field's leading evangelists, has complained for years that the term has been watered down to the point of uselessness by researchers and companies who apply it to almost anything small. Now a legal complaint against Merrill Lynch, of all companies, may help to restore the definition to its original meaning -- technologies that work on the scale of a nanometer, or a billionth of a meter, or less.

The New York Times reports that investment firm Asensio & Company has asked New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer to investigate Merrill Lynch "for including many companies that have little or nothing to do with nanotechnology" in the Merrill Lynch Nanotech Index, a list of 25 publicly traded companies introduced on April 1. Indeed, the index includes drug- and chemical-discovery companies such as Pharmacopeia and Symyx whose only claim to the "nanotechnology" label would seem to be that their products are made of atoms. A Merrill Lynch spokeswoman told the Times that the company is "in the process of performing a thorough and diligent inquiry" into the matter.

The New C-R-Network

Since our founding in December 2002, CRN has experienced significant growth. People often tell us how impressed they are by all that we’ve accomplished in such a short time. It’s nice to hear such things, of course, because sometimes when one is so close to the actual work, it’s hard to appreciate how much progress is being made.

Some members of our Board of Advisors have told us that we should prepare ourselves for even faster growth. Evidently these people, who have more experience in startup organizations than we do, can sense that CRN is nearing a “tipping point”, and that things will start moving even faster for us.

These advisors say we need to be more proactive about developing a strong and dynamic network of supporters, researchers, and potential collaborators. As such, we’ve decided to form the C-R-Network, and we hope you will consider joining.

If you’re interested in being a part of the solution, click here.

Mike Treder

Lessons from History

An article in the December 2003 Smithsonian contains a cautionary tale for U.S. nanotechnology efforts. The article, "Taking Wing: A Century of Flight", tells how America lost the lead in aviation in the decades following the Wright brothers' flight.

William Pickering, an eminent Harvard astronomer, is quoted as saying in 1908: "It is doubtful if aeroplanes will ever cross the ocean. The public has greatly overestimated the possibilities of the aeroplane, imagining that in another generation they will be able to fly over to London in a day. This is manifestly impossible."

Nineteen years later, Charles Lindbergh made the first solo transatlantic flight.

However, the article asserts that "Such disdain chilled U.S. investment in aviation. Between 1908 and 1913, the U.S. government spent only $435,000 on aviation -- less than Germany, France, Chile and even Bulgaria. European inventors and entrepreneurs were soon building better, faster and more stable planes than were the Wrights."

When jets were invented in England and Japan, "In America, military brass put jets on a back burner, convinced the war would be won with conventional airplanes, and lots of them. Diverting resources to work on the unproven jet, authorities insisted, would be a waste of time."

The world's first operational jet flew in the Luftwaffe. "But after the Allies swept through Germany at the end of the war, they recruited dozens of German jet and rocket scientists, including Wernher von Braun, and then took them to the United States in 'Operation Paperclip'."

One might imagine a current mainstream nanotechnologist saying, "It is doubtful if nanomachines will ever do chemistry. The public has greatly overestimated the possibilities of mechanosynthesis, imagining that in another generation nanofactories will be able to build large products in a day. This is manifestly impossible."

And one might imagine history recording that: "Such disdain chilled U.S. investment in molecular manufacturing. Between 1992 and 2004, the U.S. government spent only $2 million on molecular manufacturing -- less than Russia, China, and even Iran. Asian inventors and entrepreneurs were soon building stronger, more stable, and more complex nanomachines than were Smalley and Whitesides."

This revised story has an eerie ring to it: "In America, nanotechnology administrators put molecular manufacturing on a back burner, convinced the market would be won with conventional nanomaterials, and lots of them. Diverting resources to work on the unproven mechanosynthetic fabricator, authorities insisted, would be a waste of time."

Now let's take it just a few years into the future, say 2010 or 2015. In this scenario, the world's first operational nanofactory is used by Chinese forces in the Siberian campaign. "But after the Alliance swept through Russia at the end of the war, they recruited dozens of Russian and Chinese mechanosynthesis and nanomachine scientists and then took them to the United States in 'Operation Stapler'."

Perhaps the most unlikely thing about this tale is the possibility of the side without a nanofactory being victorious in war.

Chris Phoenix

Falling Behind

New York Times op-ed columnist Thomas Friedman says:

I was just out in Silicon Valley, checking in with high-tech entrepreneurs about the state of their business. I wouldn't say they were universally gloomy, but I did detect something I hadn't detected before: a real undertow of concern that America is losing its competitive edge vis-à-vis China, India, Japan and other Asian tigers, and that the Bush team is deaf, dumb and blind to this situation.

Here are more excerpts from his disturbing commentary:

Other executives complained bitterly that the Department of Homeland Security is making it so hard for legitimate foreigners to get visas to study or work in America that many have given up the age-old dream of coming here. Instead, they are studying in England and other Western European nations, and even China.

Still others pointed out that the percentage of Americans graduating with bachelor's degrees in science and engineering is less than half of the comparable percentage in China and Japan, and that U.S. government investments are flagging in basic research in physics, chemistry and engineering.

Friedman notes the concerns of Craig Barrett, the C.E.O. of Intel, who laments the disappointing interest of U.S. schoolchildren in science competitions, when compared to similar events in China.

For now, the U.S. still excels at teaching science and engineering at the graduate level, and also in university research. But as the Chinese get more feeder stock coming up through their high schools and colleges, "they will get to the same level as us after a decade," Mr. Barrett said. "We are not graduating the volume, we do not have a lock on the infrastructure, we do not have a lock on the new ideas, and we are either flat-lining, or in real dollars cutting back, our investments in physical science."

Two months ago, we reported that American biotech researchers are worried about falling behind in stem cell research. This was from a story in the Boston Globe:

Many researchers see embryonic stem cells, which can develop into any type of cell in the body and could help treat a variety of diseases, as one of the most promising and challenging fields in science. But since the August 2001 decision by the Bush administration to restrict funding for the work that can be done using those cells, American scientists have watched momentum in this field shift to other countries with rules that are more clearly defined and more financial support from their governments.

We point all this out not because we are cheerleaders for U.S. business, but because falling behind in basic research could result in a molecular manufacturing breakthrough taking place in a country that is not friendly to basic human rights or to Western democracy. It could lead to a panicky, ill-considered reaction once this breakthrough becomes known, and that prospect is frighteningly dangerous.

Mike Treder

Growing Acceptance

Earlier this week, CNN posted an article titled, "Will nanotech save the world or is it mostly hype?"

That sort of headline would seem to suggest a mostly skeptical treatment of the topic. But, lo and behold, the second paragraph of the article says:

While its benefits are still years away from reaching the public, scientists hope nanotechnology -- the manipulation of atoms as raw materials -- will eventually live up to the hype it's received for its potential to advance medicine, electronics and manufacturing.

Not so skeptical after all. Perhaps the tide is shifting.

Now look at this description of a May 2004 symposium on the biomedical applications of nanoelectromechanical systems (bioNEMS), sponsored by the Center for Interdisciplinary Research of the University of Southern California and the National Cancer Institute:

About one half of the symposium will be devoted to cancer. The emphasis throughout the day will be on nano (not micro) systems, and in vivo (not in vitro) applications. A fulll-fledged nanosystem (e.g., a nanorobot) is expected to have overall dimensions on the order of a micrometer but will be made from nanoscale components with sizes ~ 1-100 nm.

Note that it takes a thousand 100-nm parts to make a 1-micron robot. So this conference is talking about fairly complex and advanced devices. It appears that the ideas of molecular manufacturing are finally becoming acceptable for academic discussion.

Enabling Technologies

Yet another sub-wavelength technology has been discovered, according to SpaceDaily:

Think of a microscopic milling machine, capable of cutting just about any material with better-than-laser precision, in 3-D -- and at the nanometer scale. In a paper published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, University of Michigan researchers explain how and why using a femtosecond pulsed laser enables extraordinarily precise nanomachining.

This one is really powerful: it removes 20-nm chunks of material with a laser. The fact that it can even work in 3D, building tunnels, could make it a significant enabling technology for molecular manufacturing.

Elsewhere, Betterhumans has an article called "Nanoscale Manufacturing Possible with Enzyme Ink". It says:

Tiny patterns carved in gold have demonstrated the potential of an enzyme ink for nanoscale manufacturing. Researchers from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina say that the patterns are a proof of principle that enzymes, biological catalysts used widely in industry, can be used to create nanoscale structures.

"We wanted to see if we could steal functionality from biology to make the complex structures we need," says research leader and biomedical engineer Ashutosh Chilkoti. "In an afternoon, we inexpensively created a nanostructure that would have taken weeks to develop using expensive, traditional methods of etching circuits into chips."

Researchers are exploring different techniques for engineering nanoscale structures on an industrial scale. Few have laid down chemically active biological molecules on a surface, says Chilkoti. Writing with enzyme ink is therefore considered an important advance for nanoscale manufacturing.

Advancements such as these are not yet creating general-purpose molecular manufacturing. But they are rapidly filling the nano toolbox with techniques and capabilities that will enable the critical breakthrough far sooner than most people expect -- and maybe before we are prepared for the consequences.