Responsible Nanotechnology

be still, and listen

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

sit, be still, and listen,

because you're drunk

and we're at

the edge of the roof

— Rumi, 13th century Persian poet, philosopher, and mystic

Вы говорите по-русски?

We are excited to announce that several of CRN's web pages are being translated into Russian by a volunteer.

We expect a high quality translation, but we need to find another volunteer who reads both Russian and English to verify the work for us.

If you can help, please contact me.

Thank you,

Mike Treder, Executive Director

PS - When this is completed, we will have CRN web pages in Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian, in addition to English. Next, we'll be looking for people to help with translations into Arabic, Bengali, French, German, Hindi, Japanese, and perhaps other languages. We want everyone to learn about responsible nanotechnology!

Policy Debate

After pondering my Future Brief essay on "War, Interdependence, and Nanotechnology," blog reader and friend Steve Burgess wrote me with a number of thoughts and questions. The dialogue that ensued is worth posting here, in a slightly edited form.

Steve: The safety in interdependence is a system built on scarcity. If we all need each other, we can’t very well do away with each other. The other side of the equation, however, is that the nationalistic fervor against which interdependence is a bulwark, is itself an outgrowth of scarcity.

Might it not be possible that in a worldwide system of plenty, national borders would not mean as much? Isn’t it likely that, if these riches could be distributed widely, there would be no fuel for the megalomaniacs to stoke, that ethnic and religious tensions would not be able to rise to the level of explosion on a large scale?

Mike: The problem, as usual, is how to get from here to there.

The key phrase above is "if these riches could be distributed widely." If the present distribution of wealth is any indication, it does not seem probable that this will happen naturally.

S: I agree. Distribution is almost always a problem. Otherwise, we wouldn't currently have much in the way of poverty, starvation, and a host of other mortal problems endemic to our globe.

M: I can see at least three major issues.

Issue #1 - How can such distribution be imposed with a minimum of force and conflict?

S: How about by giving it away?

I realize that I'm dreaming a bit here, but suppose enough wealth was generated quickly by smart licensing of early nanofactory technology to pay for nano "missionaries" — like the Peace Corps. If the U.S. government would be resistant, then private Nano Peace Corps volunteers (and hired teachers) could travel all over the world, give solar powered desktop nanofactories away. (For the sake of brevity, let me call them DNFs.)

These DNFs could have a satellite uplink for programming (for making clothes, medical supplies, other DNFs, building materials, and so forth). The villagers, urban dwellers, or other needy people could select products available for their DNFs. To account for illiteracy, products would be selected from pictures on something like scrolling LCD readouts. Certain locals could be trained in their use, and trained to train others in their use. If it looks like some people are trying to gain local power over the population (by controlling the means of production), their DNFs could be deprogrammed via satellite also. This leads to its own ethical questions, of course.

M: Providing free (or nearly free) nanofactories has been a major tenet of CRN's tendered solutions since our founding.

The reasoning behind our proposal, in addition to humanitarian benefits, is to remove the incentive for system hacking and for black markets.

Here's Issue #2 - Is it even ethical to attempt to impose a global system of abundance, superseding national sovereignties?

S: Is it superseding sovereignties to give things away? Is it ethical not to? This is probably a more complex question than my flip answers address, though...

[Steve and I did not pursue this particular question any further, but it's one that needs to be debated seriously.]

M: Okay, Issue #3 - As you said earlier, a society based on lack of scarcity is essentially unprecedented in human history. Even if the basis for it exists in the future, will evolved human psychology be able to make the transition without widespread fighting?

S: I agree that low-cost local (desktop!) manufacturing could lead to economic upheaval. That is absolutely so! And the reason it is so is that all economic systems are built on scarcity.

What we need is a new economic system…one based on plenty. If nanotechnology is controlled and in the hands of the few, I maintain that the odds for catastrophe are much greater than if the benefits can be widely distributed to mankind as a whole.

M: Yes, that is arguably true. But how easy will it be to wrest such unprecedented economic, military, and political power from the "hands of a few" who already control so much today?

S: Again, much of the fighting is due to scarcity. But there surely would be resistance from "those-in-power." It's an important question.

It is said that power flows from the will of the people. One must agree to be governed in order to be governed. This is even true when the choice to be governed or not are more clear cut, as in societies where you do what they say or die. If charitable distribution of DNFs for the manufacturing of neccessities came in under the radar, or through some kind of altruistic black market (like the Underground Railroad of the 1800s), there might be more choice for people in those kinds of societies. In most societies, a very large percentage of the military on the ground comes from people making economic choices between hunger or poverty and being a soldier. What if they gave a war and nobody came?

But to me, the question you raise is a most important one. Historically, those few who have it are the most interested maintaining their wealth and power. But imagine a market of 6 billion relatively wealthy people. An argument could certainly be made at the outset that we're looking at a win-win.

How to allow for the distribution of plenty is one of the most important discussions to be had. It's also one of the biggest attractors about nanotechnology for me. I am thrilled by the technical, medical, aesthetic possibilities of molecular manufacturing. Space habitats! A beanstalk to LEO made of diamondoid fibers! Medical devices swimming through my bloodstream repairing my cells!

Still, what really turns me on is the possibility that mankind could turn a corner here. We have had technological breakthroughs for a million years, and though they sometimes get forgotten, they'll keep happening. But we've never had a widespread society based on anything other than scarcity. It's something new under the sun and should be allowed to happen.

M: I agree with this, and I appreciate your outlook.

S: I think we've established that these are the key questions — How can the tech be distributed, who sez, and what are the ethics of the situation?

The distribution of self-powered desktop manufacturing machines to meet the necessities of life will indeed blow up our current system based on scarcity. But it will also blow up the ability for leaders to manipulate systems to create scarcity, and hence the need for those leaders to act aggressively to contain their competitors.

M: Ah, but will those leaders go peacefully? How can we show them that it is in their best interests to do so?

S: You’re right, this is the conversation that needs to happen. Perhaps looking at the win-win will help those who are interested in wealth to see such widespread plenty as desirable. Those who live for power-for-the-sake-of-power are not likely to be so persuaded.

I believe that it is an internal sense of powerlessness that drives most of those. They can't sense their own internal power and so must have an external indicator to keep score. The external indicator is how many people they can make jump at will. Maybe we can find a way for those with a need to impose their will on others to begin healing (I can dream!), or to be marginalized. Wealth-seekers and power-seekers need each other in our present economic paradigm. Maybe a new economic paradigm based in plenty will allow this particular interdependence (unholy alliance?) to wither.

We have already begun to have the debate in this country about the value of manufactured goods. Between NAFTA, outsourcing, and other influences, the manufacturing sector of this country's economy continues to shrink. We are already, in a sense, preparing for a true information economy. When desktop manufacturing becomes a reality, it seems to me that the vast majority of the economy, if maintained as a more-or-less free market, will be information and (personal and professional) services.

So perhaps the conversation has already begun, perhaps the groundwork has (apparently unwittingly) been laid. Perhaps we have been given fertile ground for a conscious and deep look at what is inevitably coming, and how to prepare for it.

M: I hope you're right!

Many thanks to Steve Burgess for his penetrating questions and insightful arguments, and for granting permission to post our conversation. Feel free to chime in with your own ideas.

Mike Treder

Environmental Risk

"Another Doomsday, Another Dollar" is a commentary by Charlotte Laws, Ph.D, published on emagazine.com. Dr. Laws refers to "reputable experts" who warn about the danger of "miniature, self-replicating machines that gnaw away at the environment until it is devoid of life." She also says this "could result from a laboratory mishap."

The fearsome possibility of so-called gray goo was raised during the early development of nanotechnology theory. But more recent, detailed analyses of potential pathways to safe exponential manufacturing show that it should not be a primary concern.

Current proposals for development and use of molecular manufacturing involve nothing like free-roaming tiny robots "that gnaw away at the environment," and pose no risk of producing gray goo by accident at any point. The idea that nanotechnology manufacturing systems could run amok is based on outdated information.

There are, however, numerous greater risks from molecular manufacturing that may happen almost immediately after the technology is developed. Worse and more imminent dangers may come, for example, from non-replicating nano-weaponry. Focusing only on gray goo allows more urgent technology and security issues to remain unexplored.

We encourage anyone who plans to write about nanotechnology, especially in the area of future environmental risks and societal dangers, to contact us first, or at least read our material.

Mike Treder

Searching for Balance

At CRN, we routinely and purposely seek balance: emphasizing both benefits and dangers of nanotechnology; conducting both technical and policy research; understanding the legitimate -- but sometimes conflicting -- interests of commerce, security, and freedom of information.

We aim for a realistic outlook somewhere between optimistic and pessimistic, recognizing that all "progress" is not necessarily for the better, but also contending that science and technology on the whole have had tremendous humanitarian impact, and should not be hindered unreasonably.

When we point out the acceleration of change in today's world, it is not because we are starry-eyed technophiles.

Sometimes, accelerating change is bad.

A headline from the BBC says, "Amazon destruction accelerating."

The Amazon rainforest is being destroyed at near record levels, according to new figures released by the Brazilian government. The environment ministry said 26,000 sq km of forest were chopped down in the 12 months prior to August 2004. . .

Deforestation was worst in the state of Mato Grosso where vast swathes of land have been cleared to grow crops. The loss of 26,000 sq km means almost a fifth of the entire Amazon has now been chopped down. . . Just under half of the deforestation occurred in Mato Grosso, where trees have been replaced with soya fields. . .

Environmentalists [fear] that a shrinking Amazon will soon become a net polluter of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide as its absorbing properties are reduced and more and more felled trees are burned.

It is ironic that, in this case, the rainforest is being destroyed so more soya can be grown. Some well-meaning and concerned individuals (like me) have expressed the hope that diets could be shifted on a large scale from animal products to vegetable products, such as soy. But, alas, things are seldom as simple as they seem.

Mike Treder

Help Keep the Dialogue Alive!

The Center for Responsible Technology exists solely on small grants and individual contributions.

Our role in facilitating discussion about the implications of advanced nanotechnology becomes more important every day. The ongoing exchange of ideas in this weblog forum will fuel a critical global discussion in the near future.

Yet we cannot continue to exist without your help.

As of today, making a donation to CRN just got easier!

We have added a direct, secure credit card donation page to our website. Just go to www.CRNano.org and hit the "Donate Now" button to check it out.

And while you're there, please consider making a donation to CRN.

Your contributions will make it possible for us to move forward.

Mike Treder
CRN Executive Director

News Release from CRN

Nanotechnology's long-expected transformation of manufacturing has just moved closer to reality. A new analysis of existing technological capabilities, including proposed steps from today's nanotech to advanced molecular machine systems, was released today by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.

The study, "Molecular Manufacturing: What, Why and How," performed by Chris Phoenix, CRN Director of Research, is available online at Wise-Nano.org. It shows how existing technologies can be coordinated toward a reachable goal of general-purpose molecular manufacturing.

"Molecular manufacturing offers a fundamentally new approach to build things 'from the bottom up'," said Phoenix. "The idea is to use nanoscale machines to create structures with atomic precision. Ultimately, that can result in the ability to make complex products, both small and large, with unprecedented performance and value."

Theories and concepts for molecular manufacturing, first proposed in the 1980's by nanotechnology pioneer K. Eric Drexler, have improved steadily since then. But recent progress is occurring at a faster pace. Less than two years ago, Phoenix published the first detailed architecture for a "nanofactory," a remarkably powerful general-purpose manufacturing appliance that could sit on a desktop. Since then, Drexler, working with John Burch, has developed an improved design that should be significantly more efficient.

Recent developments in DNA synthesis and polymer construction, plus advances in miniaturization and precision of scanning probe microscopes, are rapidly adding pieces to the nanotech jigsaw puzzle.

This new study puts the pieces in place. Presenting research performed by CRN under a grant from NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts, while also updating and combining existing work in related fields, it describes a newly simplified way to develop molecular manufacturing starting with today's technology.

Phoenix describes two approaches for building the initial basic tools with current technology. Other sections outline incremental improvement from those early tools toward the first integrated nanofactory, and analyze a scalable architecture for a more advanced nanofactory. Product performance and likely applications are discussed, as well as incentives for corporate or government investment in the technology. Finally, considerations and recommendations for a targeted development program are presented.

"We've done an end-to-end analysis of molecular manufacturing's goals as well as some ways to get there," said Phoenix. "More important, this study shows that development of the technology will be both highly desirable and relatively straightforward. It's probably not as far away as many people think, which means it's time to begin discussing the ramifications, both positive and negative."

"Molecular Manufacturing: What, Why and How" does not directly address the societal, environmental, medical, economic, military, security, and geopolitical implications of the technology's introduction. However, those topics are explored in other papers and articles on CRN’s website.

Relevant resources:

"Design of a Primitive Nanofactory" (Phoenix)
"Productive Nanosystems: From Molecules to Superproducts" (Drexler/Burch)
"What is Nanotechnology?"
"What is Molecular Manufacturing?"
"Thirty Essential Nanotechnology Studies"

Development Shock

Imagine 20 years ago, before the Internet invaded our lives, how hard it would have been to predict what your children and grandchildren would be facing.

Yes, and imagine 20 years ago, or even 10, reading a column like the one quoted above. In it, Susan Greenfield writes about individuality, alludes to human brain augmentation, and questions the meaning of identity. She is, by the way, a professor of pharmacology at Oxford, director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, and author of Tomorrow's People: How 21st-Century Technology Is Changing the Way We Think and Feel.

Now, imagine 20 years ago, before the Human Genome Project was even begun, seeing a mainstream media series like MSNBC's "Human Evolution at the Crossroads." Oh, yes, 20 years ago there was no MSNBC.

In recent years, items like these have become commonplace. Books titled Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies--and What It Means to Be Human, Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future, and More Than Human: Embracing the Promise of Biological Enhancement appear in bookstores and libraries everywhere.

Why? Because the future is now. It is all around us as part of our lives, and we are part of it. Change occurs today faster than ever, and although some may suffer from Future Shock, most make the transition from yesterday to tomorrow unaware of how great a step they have taken. I call this phenomenon "Unconscious Confirmation," the tacit acceptance of new technologies, abilities, and ways of life through passive assent.

Of course, not everyone is willing to agree that the future is now. The rise of religious fundamentalism in both East and West can be seen, at least partially, as a response to accelerating societal transformations.

CRN contends that development of distributed general-purpose molecular manufacturing systems will result in an even steeper curve of change. The shift looks so abrupt that we commonly refer to it as "The Step" (whether the step is up or down will depend on decisions that are made within the next several years). It might be called a discontinuity, except that some form of society, it is hoped, will still be functioning afterwards.

This kind of talk sounds apocalyptic to many people, and some say that CRN would be wise to tone it down a little (see comments). We believe it is essential, however, to be forthright, even if that puts us at risk of being branded as fanatics or alarmists. Because the stakes are so high, we're willing to weather criticism.

By the way, for an extreme example of avoiding criticism by toning down projections, take a look at this absurd timetable for future human evolution. A million years until Homo sapiens is significantly changed? I don't think so.

Mike Treder

U.S. Research and Policy

Last year, CRN criticized the US National Science Foundation for "missing the point on nanotechnology." We took exception to a report (PDF) they issued following a meeting of science policy representatives from 25 countries and the European Union convened by the NSF to discuss how to carry out nanotechnology research and development "in a responsible manner."

Unfortunately, that meeting and report addressed only near-term nanoscale technologies such as nanoparticles. The most important long-term consequences of nanotechnology were ignored. As an example, a question in the report about whether nanotechnology will be "inherently continuous or inherently disruptive" leads to a digression about "novel properties that only become evident at the nanoscale." In fact, nanotechnology will be disruptive because of molecular manufacturing.

By ignoring the societal and environmental impacts of molecular manufacturing, the NSF missed the major significance of the technology. Our objection is that they purported to address responsible research and development of nanotechnology, but didn't. They presented themselves as asking the right questions, but the answers provided were worse than wrong: they were simply off-topic.

Howard Lovy, CRN's esteemed (and embattled) colleague, wrote an entry today on his blog pointing out the discrepancy between the advanced nanotech research many people think the US government supports, and the actual nanoscale technologies they are funding.

We have documented this policy confusion before, and we're not the only ones who have noticed it. Referring to US nanotechnology spending priorities, an editorial in the latest issue of The New Atlantis said:

Clearly, Congress desired at least some federal funding to be spent on pursuing molecular manufacturing, but instead virtually all of it has gone into far more mundane nanoscale research. The research the government is presently funding will lead to useful progress in several fields, but molecular manufacturing could lead to revolutionary breakthroughs in production, medicine, aerospace, and more.

There is reason to think that these inconsistencies may soon be sorted out. The first report from a committee formed to evaluate activities and progress of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative is due next month. We supported the committee with briefing papers, and our Director of Research, Chris Phoenix, attended numerous sessions in February and spoke on one expert panel.

Our hope is that the apparently earnest endeavors of the committee will result in a recommendation for further intense studies of molecular manufacturing along the lines of those proposed by CRN.

Mike Treder

Conference of Citizens

By publishing their recommendations [PDF] for nanotechnologies, citizens in Madison, Wisconsin, hope to have an influence on government, scientists, media, and the public.

Modeled on a deliberative process pioneered in Denmark in the 1980s, Madison's first consensus conference aimed to allow area citizens to consider the promises and perils of nanotechnologies before they reach the market. . . There are two premises of the consensus conference approach. First, in democracy, we assume that citizens are entitled to a say in all matters that affect their lives. Science and technology often are treated as an exception to this value. . . Second, consensus conferences are based on the belief that lay people are able to understand complicated technical matters and sometimes can offer insights that experts do not consider.

CRN endorses both premises above. In fact, it's hard to imagine a legitimate argument against them.

North Carolina State University researchers conducted a survey last year designed to gauge U.S. public perceptions about nanotechnology. As we stated at the time, the results were encouraging. Public opinion about nanotech risks and preferred long-term goals seemed sensible and wise to us. Underestimating or, even worse, devaluing the ability of citizens to understand issues and offer useful insights is foolish and wrong.

On the other hand, it's equally wrong and foolish to rely solely on public opinion. Experts should be listened to. The idea that "science is too important to be left to scientists" is one we have challenged before. Especially in a field such as molecular manufacturing, a deep understanding of the relevant science is indispensable.

CRN believes that when science raises profound ethical and social issues, the whole of society needs to take part in the debate. That includes lay people, specialists, and elected representatives.

In Madison, the citizen group drafted a series of recommendations [PDF] covering health and safety regulations, research and research funding, media coverage and information availability, and public involvement. In those areas, their ideas are mostly just common sense. Only a few might generate opposition.

However, they did not avoid controversy altogether. Three specific recommendations are worth addressing here:

We recommend that nanotechnology not be used to generate weaponry.

As appealing as that sounds, it seems highly unlikely to be followed. Far more probable is an arms race involving nano-built weaponry. Our analysis suggests this would be an unstable situation that easily could result in devastating war.

CRN shares the hope that such weapons never will be developed, but we think a more feasible approach is to seek an international treaty governing production and use of nanotech weapons. The sticky part, of course, is enforcement. How to accomplish that is still an open question, but well worth trying to answer -- because the alternative is simply too terrible to contemplate.

We recommend that regulatory agencies not use nanotechnologies to invade citizens' privacy.

Again, this sounds like a nice idea. Maybe by raising the issue now, before the capabilities are developed, citizen groups can generate so much public opposition that the authorities won't dare defy them. Maybe...but it's doubtful. A more realistic solution might be non-governmental, open-source labs, supported by grassroots contributions and private foundations, to develop nano-built surveillance capabilities to "watch the watchers."

We recommend the formation of an international agency that would consider nanotechnology issues.

This has a familiar ring to it. We've been calling for something similar for more than two years. It's good to hear others doing the same.

Our only complaint about the report from the consensus conference in Madison, Wisconsin, is that they focused mainly on short-term issues such as nanoparticle safety. By limiting their scope to today's nanoscale technologies, the group failed to address numerous larger issues raised by molecular manufacturing.

Nanotech arms races, economic disruption, environmental destabilization, widening gaps between rich and poor, an unprecedented concentration of power -- these and more challenges await us in the near future. Citizens groups can and must take on these problems, with urgency.

Mike Treder