Dropping the Bloody Ball

CRN was decidedly underwhelmed by the long-awaited report on nanotechnology risks issued last week by Britain's Royal Society. They took a reasonable and moderate position on dealing with health and environmental concerns associated with current nanoscale technology, but they dropped the bloody ball when it came to molecular manufacturing, opting to stay silent about the far more serious -- if somewhat more distant -- risks arising from that transformative technology.

Commenting on the Royal Society report, David Dickson of SciDevNet raises other serious and valid concerns about "bridging the gap between the promise and the reality of the way that the technology could be used to tackle the needs of the developing world."

He writes:

The list of the potential benefits of nanotechnology to the developing world is a substantial one. These include, for example, sophisticated membranes for cleaning polluted water, the use of human-designed nanoparticles to target and deliver vaccines, nanotech-based 'bone scaffolds' used to repair injuries from road traffic accidents -- recently recognised by the World Health Organisation as a major health challenge in the developing world -- enzyme biosensors that can monitor soil or crop toxicity, and even 'nano-magnets' that can clean up oil spills by attracting oil.

Furthermore, it is already clear that many of the more scientifically-advanced developing nations are already fully aware of the potential benefits to be derived from participating in a global 'nano-economy', and have made substantial investments in research and development that will allow them to do this. A survey carried out by the Joint Centre for Bioethics at the University of Toronto has divided these into three categories: 'front-runners' (China, India and South Korea); 'middle ground' (Chile, Brazil, Philippines and Thailand), and 'up and comers' (Argentina and Mexico).

In some of these cases, progress has already been significant. At the same time, there are signs that the development of the technology within these countries is already creating its own tension. Indian researchers, for example, are already among the world's leaders in carbon-based 'nanotubes' that offer substantial applications at the level of micro-engineering. At the same time, there is some concern at the enthusiasm with which the country's president, physicist Abdul Kalam, has spoken about the use of nanotechnology in designing new weapons systems.

This fits with two points that CRN has made: 1) there is no guarantee that the United States, Japan, or Europe will be the first to develop the capability for exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing; and 2) India (and others?) may be working on advanced nanotechnology already, for the primary purpose of achieving military superiority.

These are the grave and substantial risks of nanotech -- massive job displacement, economic and social upheaval, concentration of unprecedented power in unfriendly hands, an unstable arms race spiraling out of control, and horrifically deadly wars.

We agree, of course, that there are spectacular benefits to be had from this technology, and that those goods should be shared with the whole world. Molecular manufacturing should be developed sooner rather than later; as rapidly, that is, as can be done safely.

It behooves all of us, all around the world, to encourage our governments, our scientific and educational institutions, and any cause-oriented organizations to which we belong, to look further and deeper into both the promise and the peril of nanotechnology. Our survival tomorrow may hinge upon our efforts today.

Mike Treder

Comments

[Kurt]

I have four leads for a CNT growth system that my friend and I are working in India. All four leads are university or national labs and they may try to make their own systems instead. We are trying to convince them to buy from us (for obvious reasons). So, yeah, there is "nanotube: work going on in India. Hopefully, we can close these sales in the next few months.

The comment by Indian's president was with regards to nanotube and nanosensor technology. I don't think that Kalam's remarks were with regards to "molecular manufacturing".

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Kurt--Kalam mentioned Drexler as one of three great nanotechnologists, and cited Nanosystems (rather than, say, Engines) as the reason. Nanosystems is all about molecular manufacturing. Why do you think Kalam wasn't talking about molecular manufacturing?

Chris

[Kurt]

Yes, I know that Kalam talked about Drexler and naosystems in a recent speech. However, the speech was in the context of near term applications such as MEMS and nanosensors. He did mention Nanosystems, but I think more as a "down-stream" possibility, say 20-30 years in the future. Not as something thats likely to be developed in 5-10 years.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Kurt--Any more specific information you can get for us will be greatly appreciated. For example: Has anyone in India made public the results of any study on what it'll take to develop molecular manufacturing? If not, then probably either 1) no such study has been done, or 2) it's been done and the results are interesting enough to keep secret. As time goes by, option 1) becomes rapidly less likely.

Remember that molecular manufacturing promises many orders of magnitude improvement on several fundamental technology dimensions. Even if this were thought to be 20-30 years off, it would be rather important to know when this will happen. Anyone who thinks molecular manufacturing is possible should be doing this kind of study.

Until now, naysayers could claim that no one really thought it was possible. They can't say that anymore. So a continuing lack of results will become more and more interesting...

Chris