"Molecular Nanotechnology"

Technical terms that have had a single well-defined usage for more than a decade should not be redefined without very good reason, and certainly not on a whim or for convenience. Not only does that confuse ongoing discussion, it changes the meaning of previous writings and discussions.

For at least a decade and a half, the phrase "molecular nanotechnology" has had a distinct and specific meaning for most nanotechnologists. Eric Drexler defined the term in Nanosystems as "a technology based on the ability to build structures to complex, atomic specifications by means of mechanosynthesis." That's what it has meant since 1992, if not earlier.

Recently, the NSF's Mihail Roco gave a substantially different definition of molecular nanotechnology. Here's what he said:

If you look toward the future, the field is moving very fast from studying simple components – like nanotubes, nanoparticles, quantum dots – to studying active devices and nanosystems. We are also beginning to see investigations into the close integration of these nanosystems for applications, and eventually we'll be developing nanosystems that have very small components that are nanoscale devices and even molecules or macromolecules. At that moment, we will arrive at so-called molecular nanotechnology.

This alternate definition of molecular nanotechnology seems only to require "nanosystems that have very small components that are nanoscale devices and even molecules or macromolecules." There is nothing in it about mechanosynthesis -- chemical synthesis carried out by mechanical systems. Acceptance of this definition effectively negates the preexisting and well-established meaning of the term.

Do words matter? Of course they do. Many articles have been written about the extreme implications of molecular nanotechnology. Roco's redefinition would make those articles almost incomprehensible.

We encourage nanotechnologists, science writers, advocacy groups, and policymakers to understand what these terms mean and resist confusing redefinitions. Although it may be tempting for some to cite Roco's statement as support for molecular nanotechnology in its original sense, that is almost certainly not what he intended; pretending otherwise will only further muddy the definitional waters.

Chris Phoenix

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[NanoEnthusiast]

Ok, this is my list:

Nanotechnolgy - Stolen from the get-go.

Nanofactories - Stolen recently to refer to the production of drugs inside the body by the University of Maryland.

Molecular Nanotechnology - Stolen just now NSF's Mihail Roco.

Am I forgetting any?

Compared to the redefining of nanofactory, this most recent redefinition is closer to the concept the term is based on. Also, unlike the word nanotechnology, these last two terms were not first used by Norio Taniguchi. I'd like to see how the NSF tries to get out of funding real MNT work now, considering that the term has been uttered by Roco!

[Brian Wang]

Roco and others like him are again trying to co-opt a term which has futuristic cache to describe things that are rapidly being achieved. He is moving the goalposts closer for something that while interesting is far more limited.

Just as before nanotechnology meant something revolutionary and became something more evolutionary.

So the shift to molecular nanotechnology was made by CRN and others to define the revolutionary capabilities being able to make largescale systems that are molecularly precise.

This new attempt is to enlargen the target to include other work which is often less complete and without the power of the originally defined work.

[Tom Craver]

Well, assuming he gets away with it, let's pick a new term that others will be too embarassed to steal.

How about "Poofy-atoms Nanotechnology"? or maybe something more descriptive, like "Scalable Mechano-Chemistry".

Hmmm - the other way to look at this, is that we keep making up good marketing names for them to steal, which helps them get funding - so it's helping advance the arrival of MNT.

So we should make up another new name, promote it widely, and then let them steal it yet again if they develop something on the path to MNT. Come up with a name that looks like it may be applicable to a likely next level of technical advances - maybe something based on random assembly creating large quantities of identical simple machines/parts. "Nano Component Technology" perhaps.

[NanoEnthusiast]

Mechanosynthesis is probably the best candidate for a replacement, though I think the MNT definition should still be fought for. The good thing about the word mechanosynthesis is that it is inseparable from the concept of precise and mechanically directed chemistry.

Drexler has proposed renaming MNT to zettatechnology, zetta meaning one sextillion (10^21). I only think this word would be appropriate for the products of a nanofactory which would likely have one or more sextillion parts.