Looking Ahead

I was asked recently by a group of nanotechnology researchers to provide what I see as the current best-estimate timeline for the eventual development of molecular manufacturing. They seemed impressed by my answer, so I decided I would share it with you...

In our first official statement on estimating a timeline for molecular manufacturing, issued in April 2003, CRN said, "MNT [molecular nanotechnology] is coming soon—almost certainly within 20 years, and perhaps in less than a decade." In July 2004, we revised that to say, "It might be become a reality by 2010, likely will by 2015, and almost certainly will by 2020." After leaving it like that for three and half years, we changed it again in December 2007 to, "It might become a reality by 2010 to 2015, more plausibly will by 2015 to 2020, and almost certainly will by 2020 to 2025."

I just realized now, believe it or not, that the current statement seems closer to what we originally posted than does the more aggressive timeline that was in place between the other two. In any case, our intention has never been to predict exactly when personal nanofactories will become a reality, but to raise awareness and stimulate investigation so that society can adequately prepare for the potential impacts.

However, because we cannot rule out the possibility of a secret crash program that began some years ago and could be nearing completion, we can't state categorically that molecular manufacturing is still at least X years away—and we would not be true to our mission if we did not continue urging those who will listen to prepare for its earliest plausible advent.

From my perspective as a fairly frequent public speaker, it appears that the knee-jerk objections to molecular manufacturing theory have subsided very substantially, and I almost never hear them now. This doesn't mean, of course, that inertia against nanofactory-oriented research and in favor of basic nanoscale technologies does not persist; it does and it will linger and continue to inhibit funding for some time.

My belief, though, is that there is at least a 50% chance that within the next several years, at least one rich nation or large multinational corporation will look at the huge potential payoff from developing nanofactory technology first and will fund a dedicated program. Whether that's public or covert (or perhaps Open?) is anyone's guess. I've posted a beginning analysis of all the dimensions that must be considered when looking at how, when, and where mature molecular manufacturing will emerge at this location.

Meanwhile, if a dedicated and well-funded nanofactory development program is not undertaken within, say, the next ten years, then it seems almost certain that incremental advances in related technologies will make the final steps fairly obvious and inexpensive by the early 2020's at the latest.

Final thoughts: Our current research suggests that molecular manufacturing will arrive suddenly, perhaps within the next ten years, and almost certainly within the next twenty. If it takes the world by surprise, we will not have systems in place that can deal with it effectively.

No single organization or mindset can create a full and appropriate policy—and inappropriate policy will only make things worse. A combination of separate policy efforts will get in each other's way, and the risks will slip through the cracks. By the time this technological capability arrives, we must have accomplished several things that each will take significant time.

First, we must understand the risks. Second, make policy. Third, design institutions. Fourth, create the institutions—at all levels including international levels, where things move slowly. This could easily take twenty years. If advanced nanotechnology could arrive in ten or fifteen years, then we'd better get to work.

Mike Treder

Comments

[Hal]

One data point is the time frame for winning the Foresight Institute's Feynman Grand Prize, http://www.foresight.org/GrandPrize.1.html :

"To win the Feynman Grand Prize, entrants must design and construct a functional nanometer-scale robotic arm with specified performance characteristics, and also must design and construct a functional nanometer-scale computing device capable of adding two 8-bit binary numbers."

It's quite an ambitious goal and arguably would require something close to molecular assemblers, or to use today's preferred language, nanofactories.

I created a betting claim on the on-line Foresight Exchange game back in 1996 that lets players bet on the date on which the prize will be awarded. Betting markets have been found to be remarkably accurate in terms of providing unbiased predictions of future events. FX is a play-money betting game but it has been around for a long time and research has shown that predictions from such games are about as good as predictions from real-money betting.

http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=FyGP

Current betting prices imply an expectation that the prize will be awarded in the 2022-2023 time frame, consistent with Mike's original 20-year forecast.

[kurt9]

"No single organization or mindset can create a full and appropriate policy."

This is the reason why the whole institutional mindset should be rejected. Large scale human institutions are bureaucracies. It is a law of nature that bureaucracy is inherently dysfunctional. Thus, the idea that nanotech should be "managed" by a single institution or combination of institutions is inappropriate. Indeed, nanotech is simply the extension of the information revolution to material objects. Thus, the whole concept of centralization is obsolete.

The best approach is to forget about hierarchy and think about decentralized networking instead. If one really does believe in the possibility of this kind of nanotechnology, one should promote open-source development based on decentralized networks instead.