Responsible Nanotechnology

Molecular building blocks

A couple of interesting articles in C&E News this week: molecular building blocks forming covalent templated structures.

Buckytubes have been used to guide formation of a new buckyball polymer. Start with C60O (epoxide buckyballs--a buckyball with one oxygen atom stuck to it) dissolved in supercritical CO2. Deposit them in buckytubes. Let the CO2 escape. Heat the tubes. The oxygen, and a neighboring carbon, form bonds between adjacent buckyballs. Mechanically confined chemistry, in the absence of solvents.

Branched polymers allow the creation of three-dimensional structures rather than the long floppy chains formed by linear polymers. Dendrimers are an example, but they're basically spheres like Koosh balls. Now a branched polymer has been discovered that'll self-assemble on micro-scale surfaces to form templated structures. The surfaces are created by ionic surfactants or triblock copolyethers. What this means is that the configuration of the polymers can be controlled by a very weak guide.

All that's needed for molecular manufacturing is one material that can build shapes which can catalyze or guide the programmable building of shapes and machines in that material--and of course, lots of R&D to learn to control it in the lab. The more we learn, the easier it will get. Could this polymer be an adequate building block? We can't tell, because no one (that we know of) has developed the research infrastructure to study the question. It wouldn't be that hard to do. Sooner or later, a good building block will be invented. Whoever is ready will find it surprisingly easy to develop MM. And everyone else will be unprepared for it.

Of course, the first MM may use a relatively weak material, or rely on extremely expensive feedstock, or only work underwater, or have some other limitation. But how long will it take to get from there to diamondoid or graphene MM? Well... again, no one knows.

More mainstream molecular manufacturing

[Update 11-28-04: As pointed out by an alert reader, the date on the slides--illegible unless you click to enlarge--is 1995. A pointer to the slides had been forwarded to us recently, so I had assumed they were new. --Chris]

Guess who said this?

"Micro-robots made via contemporary techniques for nanomanipulation and nanofabrication are a logical nearer-term step toward the more-difficult, longer term goal of constructing artificial nanometer-scale machinery, such as molecular assemblers."

MITRE Corporation is a large, mainstream research organization. Their Nanosystems Group has been working on molecular electronics for years. But they're acknowledging molecular assemblers as a goal. They see it as a way to build molecular computers cheaply. First copy--high cost. Subsequent copies--very low cost. The fourth slide cites Eric Drexler as a source for this "economic trend analysis."

Their plans aren't based on mechanosynthesis--rather, they apparently expect that the programmable properties and operations will be achieved by chemistry and molecular assembly. But what they're planning to do is complex enough that the first copy will have to be built by scanning-probe systems that can place individual molecules.

Molecular manufacturing doesn't require mechanosynthesis. But plans like these bring programmable nanoscale manipulation closer. Mechanosynthesis still looks like a good way to build the strongest, stiffest materials and smallest features. And talking about assemblers makes it more politically feasible to work on them.

Chris

Nanoscale tech advances

A common way to grow carbon nanotubes is to deposit carbon from a vapor on a catalyst. But non-nanotube carbon eventually coats the catalyst. A group has discovered that adding a bit of water removes the unwanted carbon, making very regular nanotube arrays. The nanotubes are also quite long; they grew them 2.5 mm long (about 1/10 inch) in only ten minutes.

One possibility that occurs to me is to use long tubes for connecting macro-scale actuators to micro- or nano-scale machinery. Centimeter-length tubes might be doubled and twisted into nanoscale loops, used to hook and pull things. Of course, a single nanotube would be like a rope rather than a stick, but a bundle of tubes could be stiffer.

Speaking of twisted bundles of tubes, researchers have also learned how to spin pure carbon nanotubes into a yarn. The paper just published sounds similar to research reported in 2002.

On the theoretical side, scientists have designed (but apparently not yet built) a "nano locomotive" molecule that can move like an inchworm with substantial force, driven by six different frequencies of laser light pulsed in sequence. "The molecular locomotive could someday be used to automatically deliver molecular building blocks with nanometer accuracy, according to the researcher." It can move at a few microns per second. And it looks like by varying the sequence of light, it could be driven in either direction.

Chris

Ps. For readers in the U.S.: Happy Thanksgiving!

Diamond-building Proposal

Radical nanotechnology has taken a big step closer to the lab.

One kind of molecular manufacturing uses mechanosynthesis: transferring a few atoms at a time from a mechanically positioned "tool tip" to a growing workpiece. The idea is to build programmable shapes by doing a few reactions many times in programmable positions. This way, just a few reactions can be used to build an almost unlimited range of shapes.

Robert Freitas, the nanomedicine expert, has been working on how to build diamond using mechanosynthesis. He has previously posted a proposal to find a comprehensive set of diamond-building reactions that could be used to build arbitrary shapes; he thinks this may need as few as six to ten tool tips. And he thinks these tips can be found in as little as five years and $5 million.

But that's theory, and now Freitas is talking practice. He's just posted a transcript of the talk he gave at the recent Foresight conference.

The talk covers a lot of ground in detail. First, he overviews his previously published work (with collaborators at Zyvex) simulating a two-atom transfer from a tool tip to a diamond surface ("dimer deposition"). Then, he goes through four steps that could be used to build a diamond mechanosynthesis tool. The idea is to synthesize a tool tip molecule, deposit it on a surface to orient it, add a large "handle," and end up with a tool tip molecule attached to a nanopositioner, having a reactive dimer that will bond to a diamond surface when positioned correctly.

Step 1: Synthesis of Capped Tooltip Molecule
Step 2: Attach Tooltip Molecule to Deposition Surface in Preferred Orientation
Step 3: Attach Handle Structure to Tooltip Molecule
Step 4: Separate Finished Tool from Deposition Surface

He doesn't say a lot about step 1, other than that they're working on it and similar molecules have been synthesized as well as found in nature. Sounds to me like they're waiting till they write a patent.

He presents at least two alternate pathways for steps 2 and 3. One way to attach a multi-micron "handle" to the molecule is simply to use a CVD diamond-growing process; this has already been experimentally demonstrated on other molecules. Very clever! Step 4 should be accomplished simply by pulling.

Once the tip is free of the surface and held by the manipulator, it can be used to test dimer-deposition reactions.

This all looks doable today. It's only a fraction of the way to diamondoid molecular manufacturing. But it's a very important fraction. If it works, it will demonstrate once and for all that mechanically guided diamond-building vacuum chemistry is feasible. The recipe is detailed enough that it's already hard to argue it can't work. The claim that diamond-building can't be used to build machine parts seems likely to lose most of its remaining credibility.

Chris

Unanswered Questions, Part 2

When will the technology for exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing be developed, and where will it be developed first? Who will own or control the technology, and what are the economic, environmental, military, and societal implications?

The question of when is still unanswered. This is because no one has dedicated the necessary time and money to establish a reliable timetable. The United States Congress came very close to doing this in 2003. The final House of Representatives version of the recently passed 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act included a requirement to "examine the current state of the technology for enabling molecular manufacturing," and to determine "the estimated timeframe in which molecular manufacturing may be possible."

If this had been carried through, we would be much closer to answering the question of when molecular manufacturing will be developed. Unfortunately, this provision was deliberately removed from the bill at the last minute.

So we still don’t know when, and we don't even know where. Preliminary results of a study by CRN indicate that China may be the most likely place for the technology to be developed. Based on a number of contributing factors, including politics, educational focus, and economic incentives, the results suggest that leadership in this technology might emerge first in China, Japan, Europe, India, or even Brazil, before the United States.

The study is still in progress, but it seems obvious that these findings could be significant, given what we know about the potential power offered by molecular manufacturing technology.

The next unanswered question is who will own or control it. The answer appears to be directly related to the where question. CRN believes that unilateral ownership of such a powerful capability -- whether by a corporation, a sovereign nation, or even a small bloc of nations -- presents grave risks. We support cooperative international management of molecular manufacturing for a variety of important reasons. However, until the question of where this technology will be developed can be answered, it’s hard to say who will control it.

Significant effort has been put into answering the what question -- understanding the economic, environmental, military, and societal implications of molecular manufacturing. Ongoing research by CRN and other entities has begun to illuminate these areas. But the answers at this point are all contingent, and they range considerably in the beneficial or deleterious expectations of these impacts, based on the unanswered questions of when, where, and who.

If made widely available at low cost (the raw materials should be very cheap), molecular manufacturing systems could solve many of the world's problems. Simple products like plumbing, water filters, and mosquito nets -- made on the spot -- would greatly reduce the spread of infectious diseases. The efficient, cheap construction of strong and lightweight structures, electrical equipment, and power storage devices would allow the use of solar power as a primary and abundant energy source. Computers will become stunningly inexpensive and could be made widely available, improving communication, education, and government accountability. Much social unrest can be traced directly to material poverty, ill health, and ignorance. Molecular manufacturing could greatly reduce these problems, but only if it is wisely administered.

If corporations or governments try too hard to restrict distribution and legitimate access is not provided, a black market will quickly develop. The risk here is that unauthorized manufacturing systems may not have the necessary safety measures built in. All sorts of dangerous products -- from weapons to poisons to microscopic surveillance devices -- could be made at low cost in mass quantities. To complicate matters, tiny manufacturing systems could be used to make bigger ones, and each large one could make thousands of duplicates. Smuggling of these systems would be impossible to prevent. Some solution will have to be found.

Another concern is so-called gray goo, a hypothesized nanodevice that would take in raw materials from the environment and make innumerable copies of itself. In theory, if such a contraption were not countered, it could severely damage the biosphere. Fortunately, to design something like this would be extremely difficult, and devices of this type would have no commercial or even military use, since more specialized non-replicating devices would be far more efficient. So it’s unlikely that anyone would build a device that could run amok and become gray goo by accident, and military or commercial organizations would have little interest in building such a thing on purpose. However, the prevalence of computer worms and viruses indicates that some people do build stuff like this for fun.

Finally, one more dark scenario. As noted above, the United States may not be the first to develop exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing. If the world’s only superpower suddenly discovers that it has fallen far behind and that an enemy nation is on the brink of success, they may tempted to attack preemptively, or may enter into an arms race that probably will be unstable and thus may result in war with weapons of unprecedented power.

Based on all of these very real possibilities, it is vital that we make greater and more rapid progress in answering the four major questions:

· When will molecular manufacturing become a reality?
· Where will it be developed first?
· Who will own or control the technology?
· What will be the economic, environmental, military, and social impacts?

It’s impossible to overestimate the effects these developments may have on society and on our individual lives. Informed preparation is essential. We urge governments, non-profit organizations, and industry associations to set a high priority on investigating these critical issues. Leaving huge questions about nanotechnology unanswered is a risk we can’t afford to take.

Mike Treder

Unanswered Questions, Part 1

These early years of the 21st century are a time of rapid advances in science and technology. Every day brings news of startling developments in fields such as genetic engineering, neuroscience, and nanotechnology.

So what will the near future actually bring us? Human beings that glow in the dark, like our bioengineered pets? Robot servants? Flying cars? Genuine artificial intelligence? Or something even more exotic?

There is good reason to believe that within the next 10 to 20 years, the most significant changes to society will go far beyond glowing people or flying cars. Many of them may result from exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing, made possible by advanced nanotechnology.

Exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing -- that’s a mouthful, but what does it mean? Let’s take the phrase apart to see why it is so important.

MANUFACTURING: The ability to make products, in this case ranging from clothing, to electronics, to medical devices, to books, to building materials, and much more.

MOLECULAR manufacturing: The automated building of products from the bottom up, molecule by molecule, with atomic precision. This will make products that are extremely lightweight, flexible, durable, and potentially very ‘smart’.

GENERAL-PURPOSE molecular manufacturing: A manufacturing technology that will find many applications across many segments of society. Its extreme flexibility, precision, high capacity, and low cost will cause rapid adoption almost everywhere, and therefore will have disruptive effects in many industries.

EXPONENTIAL general-purpose molecular manufacturing: The word exponential refers to the rapid pace -- probably unprecedented -- at which this technology may be deployed. A compact automated molecular manufacturing system will be able to make more manufacturing systems. We’re talking about factories that can build duplicate factories -- and probably do it in less than a single day. The math is simple: if one factory makes two, and two factories make four, then within ten days you could have one thousand factories, in ten more days a million factories, and ten days after that a billion factories. Within the span of just a few weeks, in theory, every household in the world could have one of their own, to make most of the products they need, at just the cost of raw materials.

Exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing means a manufacturing system capable of making a wide range of technologically advanced products, far superior to what we have today, much cheaper, much faster, and able to multiply its own source of production exponentially.

The consequences of this are mind-boggling, to say the least. It could mean the drastic restructuring of whole industries, including mining, refining, transportation, storage, and wholesale and retail distribution. It could mean millions of jobs lost, or shifted. It could represent a radical transformation of traditional power structures, which may not come about easily, or peacefully. It could also mean opportunities like we’ve never had before to relieve poverty, prevent illness, and offer education to millions of people in developing nations.

We urgently need to answer four questions:

· When will this happen?
· Where will molecular manufacturing be developed first?
· Who will own or control the technology?
· What are the economic, environmental, military, and societal implications?

Tomorrow we'll look for answers to these important questions.

Mike Treder

Risks and Rewards

At CRN, we spend a lot of time thinking about, writing about, and talking about the severe risks that molecular manufacturing (MM) may bring. We don't always enjoy this focus on the negative; however, we see the potential dangers as real and quite threatening, and believe it is our obligation to raise public awareness about them.

It should be emphasized, though, that studying and discussing only the negatives misses half the picture.

The very factors that make molecular manufacturing so dangerous -- the rapid prototyping and unlimited manufacturing, and the immense complexity and power of the products -- also provide unprecedented opportunities for positive outcomes.

Even a small fraction of the raw capability of MM would be sufficient to satisfy the world's humanitarian needs for generations to come. Another fraction could multiply the economy and enrich every owner of the technology. And only a small fraction of nano-built products are unacceptably dangerous.

Simply averting the risks is not enough. Any proposed solution must take into account the tremendous rewards that advanced nanotechnology offers as well.

What is required is not blanket permissiveness or blanket restriction, but careful administration of each separate risk and benefit. It will take time to design and implement such administration, and it will be important in the nearer term to prepare for responsible administration by implementing responsible development.

Nanofactories vs. Chimeras

Which sounds more like science fiction: human livers grown inside sheep for transplant recipients, or a desktop factory that can rapidly make advanced, atomically-precise products? What's more unsettling: creating human-pig chimeras for medical research and therapy, or developing a manufacturing technology that allows for a dangerously unstable arms race?

Human-pig chimeras are here already*. Sheep-grown livers and desktop factories may not be far away. And the nano-based arms race is a grim spectre overshadowing the accelerating advance of technology.

Oddly, there is plenty of discussion among bioethicists and policy influencers -- including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences -- about issues of genetic engineering, while almost no attention is being paid to the transformative, potentially disruptive impacts of molecular manufacturing.

Medical ethics are, for the time being, outside the purview of CRN (although as advanced nanotechnology comes to bear in that area, we certainly will state our opinions). But we strongly urge government, industry, and interest groups to proactively address the social, ethical, and political issues raised by productive nanotechnology, taking full account of the possible disruptive changes in areas as diverse as manufacturing, military hardware, and medicine.

*UPDATE: For those who don't have/want Washington Post access (registration is free), here is another link to the story discussed above. Thanks to alert reader Mike Deering for finding this alternate source.

Mike Treder

Working Within the System

To make a difference you have to be in the system. -- That's the message from George Atkinson, science and technology advisor to the U.S. Secretary of State, in a keynote address at NanoForum 2004, an annual conference sponsored by SEMI (Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International).

Atkinson said scientists and engineers must become a part of 'the system' if they are to wield political influence. "If the science and technology community is unable or unwilling to effectively become more engaged in the political process then I'm not so sure we're going to enjoy the same level of success."

The level of success he refers to is the longstanding United States lead in research, development, and deployment of new technologies. Several speakers at the conference expressed concerns about losing that edge.

During a panel session it was pointed out that nanotechnology funding in the U.S. has been flat for the past two years, while funding in Asia is now equal to the U.S. and would continue to rise. "We are at a major risk of losing this race in nanotechnology unless we have commitment to fund basic research," said Anantha Sethuraman, vice president of marketing for FEI Company.

CRN has pointed out before that other nations are rapidly gaining the capacity for development of advanced technologies -- and specifically molecular manufacturing -- in advance of the United States. For the U.S. to assume an inevitable advantage is fallacious and foolhardy; if exponential manufacturing is achieved first in a nation unfriendly to freedom, the consequences could be disastrous.

Robert Doering, senior fellow and technology strategy manager at Texas Instruments, said that legislators need to view science and technology funding as an investment, not a cost. "The investment in technology that can be made by the government should pay for itself many, many times over," he said.

We would add that such publicly-funded research should include not only technical matters, but also serious studies of the potentially disruptive impacts of molecular manufacturing.

As noted above, conference attendees were urged by George Atkinson to become part of 'the system' in order to insure adequate funding for research. We agree, but it's equally important to recognize that the system itself may have to change in order to cope with the unprecedented challenges introduced by molecular manufacturing.

Mike Treder

Nanotechnology and Risk, Part 5

Today we complete our series of five installments analyzing nanotechnology and risk...

Earlier this week, we began with Part 1, an overview of existing nanoscale technologies, and Part 2, assessing the risks of nanoscale technology. Part 3 described molecular manufacturing, while Part 4 reviewed the risks of molecular manufacturing.

Part 5: Conclusion and Recommendations

The term nanotechnology applies to two very different fields. Nanoscale technology risks arise largely from medical and environmental risks of nanoparticles, which is being addressed by organizations such as Rice University's CBEN and projects such as the U.K. Royal Society's report and the U.S. National Science Foundation's recent workshop. It appears that this risk has been recognized and is being addressed, though industry as well as environmental groups encourage more public funding for studies of nanoparticles.

Nanoscale technology of all sorts is haunted by worries about the effect of misunderstandings concerning molecular manufacturing. Developers of nanoscale technology will want to avoid being linked with either premature expectations or fears arising from more powerful but distant molecular manufacturing. Denial of molecular manufacturing is not a good strategy and probably never was; there is too much experiment and theory supporting it, and the arguments against its feasibility are increasingly hollow. Instead, industry representatives should work to educate the media and the public on the differences between nanoscale technologies and molecular manufacturing.

As molecular manufacturing develops, it will become a source of risk for a wide range of institutions, including those not involved in developing it. The effects of a manufacturing revolution could be extremely widespread, disrupting even geopolitical and macroeconomic stability. The first step in preparing for this is to build a reliable body of knowledge about the fundamental technical possibilities and their social, economic, and policy implications. Unfortunately, almost nothing is known about how all these effects will play out.

No commercial or governmental organization has taken serious steps to study molecular manufacturing and lay the foundations for sensible policy. A few organizations including the NSF are making noises about global policy implications, but are nonetheless engaged in ignoring or denying molecular manufacturing. To begin filling the void, CRN introduced the Wise-Nano project, a collaborative website for researching the facts and implications of advanced nanotechnology. We believe that a cooperative affiliation of international study efforts offers the best opportunity to promote good policy and reduce risk. Wise-Nano.org is an initial step in that direction.