On March 2, 2005, CRN issued a new briefing document titled "Nanobots Not Needed." We said:
The popular idea of so-called nanobots, powerful and at risk of running wild, is not part of modern plans for building things “atom-by-atom” by molecular manufacturing. Studies indicate that most people don't know the difference between molecular manufacturing, nanoscale technology, and nanobots. Confusion about terms, fueled by science fiction, has distorted the truth about advanced nanotechnology. Nanobots are not needed for manufacturing, but continued misunderstanding may hinder research into highly beneficial technologies and discussion of the real dangers.
This was in response to some of the scare stories that circulate periodically. However, in that same briefing document, we also said:
In the long term, some products of molecular manufacturing systems could be nanobots (e.g., for medical use), but these are not envisioned to be metabolizing or self-replicating (at least not by credible researchers).
Already, nanotechnology researchers are working toward the creation of tiny medical devices that some are calling nano-robots. These earliest implements will not be built by mechanosynthesis and may not be atomically precise, and so we should not view them as examples of molecular manufacturing. They likely will be very expensive to produce and limited in their ability. Nevertheless, the concept is paving the way for people to understand the potential value of nanomedicine.
This is from a story posted on the website of a Denver, Colorado, TV station:
To most people, the word "nano" refers to an electronic device that plays music. However, to a growing community in Colorado, the whole world will soon be impacted by a far different kind of "nano."The word refers to a new body of research involving the manipulation and construction of strange new materials, one atom at a time.
Scientists have long known that materials often behave differently on an atomic and sub-atomic scale. However, it's only recently that they have learned how to actually begin building devices on such a tiny scale. The result is a burgeoning world of exotic machines that will eventually impact every human being.
Dr. Rahmat Shoureshi, dean of the School of Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Denver, predicts a future where molecule-sized robots do everything from curing cancer to warning of imminent bridge collapses. He says the most immediate thing that will impact people is the development of radical new ways to cure disease.
"It's not that far from reality," Shoureshi said. "These tiny machines are already in the works here at DU and at other universities, not only in the U.S., but globally. It's going to take a while to get FDA approval, but in terms of the technology readiness we will have those machines ready in five years. When you look at the level of advances of technology that we see in university and government labs, then you realize it's close."
He predicts we'll have sophisticated nanomachines working "in five years." Could it happen that fast?
DU researchers are working on exotic devices such as a shoe insole that calculates biological and balance problems in the elderly. Assistant Professor Corinne Lengsfeld showed off the new device. She says the insole will actually warn its wearer of an impending fall.Lengsfeld says scientists are facing one roadblock in their quest for nano-robots that will seek out and destroy such diseases as cancer. That roadblock involves teaching the robots which cells to attack.
"I don't think it's pie in the sky. Once we get past this roadblock there's going to be a flood of advancements that are going to happen. I don't think the average individual sees all the work that's happening," Lengsfeld said. "You're going to see cures to diseases that we didn't think were curable, and I think that those will evolve rather quickly. You will be surprised how fast it will happen. This could be an astounding advancement in medicine."
They sound quite optimistic at the University of Denver.
Another person well known to be a techno-optimist is futurist Ray Kurzweil, a member of CRN's Global Task Force on Implications and Policy. In a recent interview with the BBC, Kurzweil said this:
"I've made the case that we will have both the hardware and the software to achieve human level artificial intelligence with the broad suppleness of human intelligence including our emotional intelligence by 2029," he said."We're already a human machine civilisation; we use our technology to expand our physical and mental horizons and this will be a further extension of that."
Humans and machines would eventually merge, by means of devices embedded in people's bodies to keep them healthy and improve their intelligence, predicted Mr Kurzweil.
"We'll have intelligent nanobots go into our brains through the capillaries and interact directly with our biological neurons," he told BBC News.
The nanobots, he said, would "make us smarter, remember things better and automatically go into full emergent virtual reality environments through the nervous system".
Of course, not everyone is happy about this. Leo Hickman, for example, who writes an "ethical living" column at the Guardian, has some concerns:
But, seriously, should we really be looking forward with relish to this highly significant staging post on the journey from science fiction to science fact? Are we prepared, both as a species and a civilisation, for the implications of passing the famous Turing Test -- when a human can no longer tell the difference in conversation between another human and a machine?
And on engadget -- currently the world's most popular blog -- Evan Blass discusses (and dismisses) warnings from some academics that nanotech may be moving too fast. My favorite bit was a commenter who wrote:
Nanotech potentially dangerous. In other news, fire is potentially hot.
Noted.
Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics blog
Comments