Responsible Nanotechnology

A Thought for the New Year

The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.

— Eleanor Roosevelt

Diamond Now or Diamond Later?

K. Eric Drexler, founder of the field first known simply as nanotechnology, then as molecular nanotechnology, and now as molecular manufacturing, has raised a bit of a ruckus within the advanced nanotech community.

On his new blog, Metamodern, Drexler openly challenges the assumption that diamond mechanosynthesis (using mechanical means to combine carbon atoms into diamond molecules, then make structures, and eventually products) is a good first step for researchers to pursue.

Eric uses forceful language to indicate his frustration:

How did the idea of molecular manufacturing — a general approach to organizing mechanosynthesis — been become so closely identified with making diamond?

[D]iamond is in many ways a true wonder-material... Diamond does, however, have a grave shortcoming: synthesis has been, and continues to be, difficult and expensive. Stubbornly so.

The methods I’m familiar with require either high temperatures and ultrahigh pressures, or highly reactive gas-phase species interacting with a hot surface in a vacuum chamber. Neither process is suited to atomically precise control. Advanced mechanosynthetic methods (of the sort analyzed in Chapter 8 of Nanosystems) will eventually erase this problem, but the emphasis here is on the words “advanced” and “eventually”...

Considering the difficulties of diamond synthesis, why treat diamond mechanosynthesis as if it were a necessary first step toward molecular manufacturing? Building a tiny bit of diamond this way would of course be an impressive lab demo, but the plausible technologies for achieving this seem difficult to extend, and I doubt that they would be very useful in any general sense.

It appears that Eric is actively trying to distance himself from those advocating the early pursuit of diamond mechanosynthesis, even as he acknowledges that the ideas he now objects to are drawn from his own writings. (This is reminiscent of his partially successful attempt to disown grey goo, an effort that hasn't worked entirely and in fact has backfired in some ways; various journalists act as though Drexler is simultaneously withdrawing all his early ideas concerning nanotech, not just his worries about out-of-control replicators.)

In response, Robert A. Freitas Jr. and Ralph Merkle, founders of the Nanofactory Collaboration and former colleagues of Drexler, quickly restated their commitment to the diamond mechanosynthesis approach by stating:

There appears to be some confusion as to who is advocating the direct-to-DMS approach to molecular manufacturing. We are.

Our assessment is that diamondoid mechanosynthesis (DMS), including highly-parallelized atomically-precise diamondoid fabrication, is the quickest currently feasible route to a mature molecular nanotechnology, including nanofactories.

We do not think that DMS is a “necessary first step” for molecular manufacturing, and we wish the best of luck to those pursuing other paths. However, we do think DMS is a highly desirable first step, since it offers a much faster route to mature nanosystems than competing approaches. We disagree with the statement that “diamond synthesis seems almost irrelevant to progress toward advanced nanosystems.” We have a favorable view of the feasibility of the direct-to-DMS approach – a favorable view supported by hundreds of pages of detailed analysis in recently-published peer-reviewed technical journal papers and by gradually-evolving mainstream opinion.

CRN is, and always has been, neutral on whether "direct-to-DMS" is more or less likely to succeed than other approaches. Our focus remains on the implications of exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing, whenever and however it is achieved. We're closely monitoring progress toward that end in as many areas as we can follow and will keep you posted if this current controversy results in any sort of new agreements or clarification on goals and methods.

Mike Treder

Nano's "Big Kick" Coming Soon

Is it fair or reasonable to examine all the societal and technological change that occurred during the 20th century, and project a roughly equivalent amount of change in this century? Would that be expecting too much change, or perhaps too little? How much power will modern, accelerating technologies possess by the year 2100, 92 years from now?

Today we are pleased to have a guest blog entry from Tihamer Toth-Fejel, a senior research engineer at General Dynamics Advanced Intelligence Systems, a science advisor to the Lifeboat Foundation, and a member of CRN's Global Task Force. He asks:

What kind of technology did we have 92 years ago?

One of the points to remember is that Moore’s Law is exponential — or even faster, if Ray Kurzweil is correct. So it’s not really a question of what kind of technology did we have 92 years ago...we should ask about 920 years ago, or even 9200 years ago.

In other words, if Freitas, Merkle, and Moriarty succeed next year, all heck will break loose. Not immediately, of course, but diamond is a very useful engineering material.  If we could use it to make cars and buildings, we would.  Everything depends on availability and cost — and both depend on technology.

Four years from now, the Zyvex-led DARPA Tip-Based Nanofabrication project expects to be able to put down about ten million atoms per hour in atomically perfect nanostructures, though only in silicon (additional elements will undoubtedly follow; probably taking six months each).  At a standard Moore’s Law exponential growth rate (doubling time of 18 months), this Patterned Atomic Layer Epitaxy (Zyvex’s approach) will only get us up to 23,058,430,092,136,939,520,000,000 atoms per hour by 2100 — a few hundred pounds worth.

On the other hand, does atomically precise tip-based nanofabrication follow Moore’s Law?  If we take Eigler’s 35 xenon-atom IBM emblem in 1990 as the start, then that gives us a doubling time of just over 12 months, and that adds up. By 2012, we’ll be doing about ten times better than Moore’s law. And that is without the big kick.

This is the big kick: What happens when we use probe-based nanofabrication to build more probes?

It’s starting to happen now (see “Thermal Actuated Multi-Probes Cantilever Array for Scanning Probe Parallel Nano Writing System” by Watanabe, Isono, et al).  Chad Mirkin, who also has another piece of the DARPA Tip-Based Nanofabrication project, has already used 55,000 dip pen nanolithography tips to make 1,600 100 nm dots in under 30 minutes. (Mirkin is using standard microphotolithography MEMS to make the dots; this is the most conservative approach to productive nanosystems. The others include Structural DNA — Rothemund, Nanorex, et. al — and Schafmeister’s Bis proteins, plus a few more not as promising.)

What happens when productive nanosystems get built, and are used to build better productive nanosystems?  The exponential increase in atomically precise manufacturing capability will make Moore’s law look like it’s standing still.

As Tihamer suggests, we seem to be on the cusp of building nanoscale machines that can build other nanoscale machines. Following that "big kick," the only practical limits on how much power the technology can provide will be software design and human imagination.

Mike Treder

350 or bust?

350

James Hansen, NASA's chief climate scientist and the first to warn about global warming more than two decades ago, recently wrote:

If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO² will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm (parts per million) to at most 350 ppm.

Speaking at last week's UN climate conference in Poznan, Poland, Nobel prize-winner Al Gore called for a new global goal of limiting carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to 350 ppm -- current levels are already over 380 ppm, up from about 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution began.

An ambitious organization aptly named 350.org is working hard to bring attention to what they call "the most important number on the planet."

It's the new number for climate scientists, one they will emphasize with increasing force and in growing unanimity. Once there was a time when 550 ppm was thought to be a point we should not exceed and at which our world might be reasonably safe; more recently that ceiling was lowered to 450 ppm. Now it's becoming accepted that we'll have to shoot for 350 or bust.

Russia's Crash Nano Program

Michael Berger, our friendly colleague over at Nanowerk, has done a brilliant job of reviewing and analyzing Russia's nanotechnology crash program:

In terms of gross domestic product (GDP), Russia ranks as the eleventh largest economy in the world. But while many smaller countries such as Australia or South Korea, not to mention all of the bigger nations, have invested steadily and broadly in all areas of nanosciences and nanotechnologies for years now, Russia has had no coordinated science policy, no industrial policy, and no commercial industrial base to develop its nanotechnology capabilities. Until last year, that is. In April 2007, the Russian president signed off on a public policy paper that ordered a multi-billion dollar program to develop a world-class Russian nanotechnology industry by 2015.

That's just one paragraph from Michael's content-rich but succinct description of how Russia stands compared to the rest of the world, and where they aim to go over the next several years:

The approach that Russia has chosen rests largely on a central organization -- the Russian Corporation of Nanotechnologies (Rusnano).

According to Rusnano's business strategy document (pdf download, 1.3 MB), the Corporation's mission is to "implement public policy with the purpose of Russia’s joining the number of the world leaders in the field of nanotechnology." Although it intends to cooperate with other Russian economic development organizations such as the Investment fund of the Russian Federation, the Development and Foreign Economic Activity Bank, the Joint Stock Company 'Special Economic Zones, or the Russian Venture Company, Rusnano is intended to be the central organization for all nanotechnology related developments.

Interestingly, although the country lacks a broad and developed nanoscience research infrastructure, Rusnano's self-declared major priority is a commercial focus on investment projects and it mentions these industries as core: aerospace, rocket and space, nuclear, and energy.

From CRN's perspective, we are most interested in watching for signs of -- or open announcements about -- a plan to develop molecular manufacturing.

NNI Risk Assessment FAIL

In 2001, the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) was established by Congress to:

• Advance a world-class nanotechnology research and development program.
• Foster the transfer of new technologies into products for commercial and public benefit.
• Develop and sustain educational resources, a skilled workforce, and the supporting infrastructure and tools to advance nanotechnology.
• Support responsible development of nanotechnology.

While these are all long-term goals, and although nanotech research and development is still in its infancy, it is reasonable at this point to assess how well the NNI is progressing toward these four goals.

1. On the first one, pretty well, I'd say. Many other countries are investing heavily in nanotechnology, but the US is generally regarded as the world leader in accomplishment.
2. On the second goal, it is still very early, but a few products are incorporating early generation nanotech and are beginning to find profits.
3. As for the third goal, that's a heavy load, and it doesn't appear yet as though a great deal of progress has been made. Educational resources are meager, and as for the rest, it likely will require a much larger budget than the $1 billion or so the NNI has had in recent years. Perhaps the incoming administration will set higher priorities in this area.
4. But it's the fourth goal -- responsible development of nanotechnology -- where the NNI is really failing. And we're not the only ones to say so. 

Pine Beetles Make Global Warming Worse

Seen from a certain vantage point, ours is an ugly world, beset with terrorism, human trafficking, starvation, oppression -- the list goes on an on. Of course, we could also make a list of lovely things -- music, flowers, babies, starscapes -- and those should be enjoyed.

But in our view, to enjoy the beauty at the cost of ignoring the ugliness is irresponsible.

So let's take a look at one nasty bit, the epidemic destruction of North American forests:

The mountain pine beetle, an insect pest, is destroying massive swaths of American lodgepole pine. But that's only the beginning of the bad news.

Far worse from a climate perspective is the fact that, as Joe Romm reported earlier this year, beetle tree kills are releasing more carbon into the atmosphere than forest fires:

Global warming has created a perfect climate for these beetles. Milder winters since 1994 have reduced the winter death rate of beetle larvae in Wyoming from 80% per year to under 10%, and hotter, drier summers have made trees weaker, less able to fight off beetles.

No wonder the carbon sinks are saturating faster than we thought — unmodeled impacts of climate change are destroying them.

Insect outbreaks such as this represent an important mechanism by which climate change may undermine the ability of northern forests to take up and store atmospheric carbon, and such impacts should be accounted for in large-scale modelling analyses.

Can you see the cycle?

1. Beetles infest trees
2. Trees die and can't absorb CO2
3. More C02 in atmosphere brings milder winters and drier summers
4. Trees are weakened by climate change

1. Beetles infest more trees
2. More trees die and can't absorb CO2
3. Etc.

As our planet's surface -- including both oceans and forests -- becomes less able to absorb all the excess carbon dioxide that we humans keep pumping into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates, the only possible outcome is accelerated global warming.

Then we risk a runaway climate feedback cycle, potentially resulting in as much as 6^oC warming by 2100. 

So, enjoy the beauty, smell the flowers, kiss the babies, rejoice in living. But take a little time, as well, to learn more about threats to our beautiful world and think about the challenges we are presenting to those babies.

Now is the time for us and our leaders to take action and change course, away from danger and toward a better and more responsible future for all.

Mike Treder

Memo to Barack Obama

Shortages are not in short supply these days, here in the USA: we have a shortage of credit, a shortage of jobs, a shortage of budget revenue, and a shortage of good will from around the world.

But one thing not in shortage is advice for the incoming President. It seems everyone is offering a "Memo to Barack Obama" promoting his or her favored cause.

Alright then, here is ours, in two parts.

Part One was posted previously, on November 21. It was titled "The Magnitude of Risk" and contained a seven step plan to confront global warming and climate change. First on the list was a targeted effort to develop molecular manufacturing, combined with an equally well funded and strongly emphasized effort to research and understand all the implications of the technology.

In today's Part Two of our Memo to Barack Obama, we have simplified the advice to three short sentences, following an introductory statement:

Dear Mr. President-Elect,

In addition to tackling the current economic crisis, managing two overseas wars, overhauling the broken health care system, and restoring confidence in the agencies and departments of the Executive, we urge you not to ignore the looming danger of climate change caused by global warming.

We know you have pledged to make this a top priority in your new administration and we trust you to do so. Amid the many challenges you will face, nothing is likely to have a more lasting effect on the citizens of the United States and their descendants, all the people of the world and their descendants, and indeed the Earth itself in all its beauty and the fragile balance of its ecosphere.

Action is required now. Not in 2015 or 2020, but immediately, starting on January 20, 2009. We believe the most crucial objectives can be summarized in three major points:

1. Drastically reduce energy production from fossil fuels as quickly as possible
2. Launch a crash program to develop clean and efficient alternative energy sources
3. Get every major country in the world on board

Inaction could be fatal, literally, to many members of our species and to thousands of other entire species. We know you know that. 

Fortunately, solutions are available. Both existing and emerging technologies can be brought to bear and make a huge impact on the problem. Our area of specialty -- advanced nanotechnology -- offers especially promising opportunities for greenhouse gas reduction, climate change mitigation, and sustainable energy generation.

We promise to support your efforts and those of other world leaders who are willing to take the tough stands and to do what's right even when it may not be easy or popular. We think you are that kind of leader and we ask you to reward our belief in your ability to take on this greatest of all challenges.

With sincere best regards,

Mike Treder
Executive Director
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology

Bonus for blog readers! Here is some news about a new (at least to me) source of energy that might be applied to point two above:

The new device, which has been inspired by the way fish swim, consists of a system of cylinders positioned horizontal to the water flow and attached to springs. As water flows past, the cylinder creates vortices, which push and pull the cylinder up and down. The mechanical energy in the vibrations is then converted into electricity. . .

The scientists behind the technology, which has been developed in research funded by the US government, say that generating power in this way would potentially cost only around 3.5p per kilowatt hour, compared to about 4.5p for wind energy and between 10p and 31p for solar power. They say the technology would require up to 50 times less ocean acreage than wave power generation. . .

Michael Bernitsas, a professor of naval architecture at the University of Michigan, said it was based on the changes in water speed that are caused when a current flows past an obstruction. Eddies or vortices, formed in the water flow, can move objects up and down or left and right.

"This is a totally new method of extracting energy from water flow," said Mr. Bernitsas. "If we could harness 0.1 per cent of the energy in the ocean, we could support the energy needs of 15 billion people. In the English Channel, for example, there is a very strong current, so you produce a lot of power."

A Crucial Misconception

Alex Fuss, lead researcher for CSC's Digital Disruptions report, offers some interesting predictions about the future in this interview published by Financial Times. [Hat tip to Nanotechnology Now]

Among other things, he says:

We will be able to print out toys, parts, furniture, designs and more from the net using three-dimensional printers. Today 3D printers cost $20,000 and can only print prototypes. But maybe beyond 2013 you'll actually be able to print a pair of sneakers in your size. . .

There will be no more lies. You'll still be able to have secrets but only if you can keep them off the net. Privacy will be available but only to those who can afford to pay for it. For most people, privacy will end in 2013, or a little beyond that. . .

Quantum computing will shatter current encryption techniques, jeopardising anything that relies on encryption, such as credit card transactions, and requiring new approaches to information security. Using an electron spin as opposed to an electron charge in quantum computing would mean all the cryptography we have today would have to be rethought. . .

Unfortunately, he gets one thing very wrong:

From 2025 to 2050 and beyond, nanotechnology will give us the capability to create anything, molecule by molecule, atom by atom. The technology is at very early stages but it is definitely going to happen. For example, it will be possible to create a piece of wood. But self-replication is crucial, otherwise the technology won't scale up. What's needed is nano parts that self-assemble -- that way you can mass-produce anything. [emphasis added]

This is a common misconception that still persists although it has been obsolete for a decade and half. Obviously, Alex Fuss has not read Nanosystems (published in 1992), nor any of the hundreds of pages on our website and others that expound on those ideas.

But all he really needs to know is contained in a press release issued by CRN a few years ago, titled "Leading nanotech experts put 'grey goo' in perspective." Here is the key paragraph:

Contrary to previous understanding, self-replication is unnecessary for building an efficient and effective molecular manufacturing system. Instead of building lots of tiny, complex, free-floating robots to manufacture products, it will be more practical to use simple robot arms inside desktop-size factories. A robot arm removed from such a factory would be as inert as a light bulb pulled from its socket. The factory as a whole would be no more mobile than a desktop printer and would require a supply of purified raw materials to build anything.

Self-replication is not crucial for the technology to scale up. Advanced nanotechnology -- exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing -- will be achievable without it. And perhaps even sooner than Fuss expects.

Mike Treder

Society's Secrecy Fetish

A hot topic of conversation at last week's CRN/IEET seminar on Global Catastrophic Risks was the whole issue of privacy, surveillance, security, and anonymity.

In honor of that probably endless and always fascinating debate, I'm going to repost an entry we made here in 2006 that garnered a lot of discussion. The title was Privacy and Accountability:

"You need not be paranoid to fear RFID," says an op-ed piece this week in the Boston Globe. A new book called Spychips by Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre is what prompted the fear. What are "spychips"?

That's Albrecht's preferred name for a technology called radio frequency identification technology, or RFID. If you use a Mobil Speedpass to pay for gasoline, you're already using RFID. Your Speedpass contains a microchip and a small antenna that allows it to broadcast information to a receiver. The chip has no power source of its own. Instead, it picks up radio signals from an RFID chip reader, turns these radio waves into electricity, and uses the power to broadcast data to the reader.

Hiawatha Bray, who wrote the op-ed, says:

Somebody needs to sit down and think this through. Dozens of companies and government agencies are planning to use RFID to track nearly every move we make. And although many of the individual applications make sense, what would happen if they were all implemented, without oversight or restraint? We'd then live in a world in which everything we own gossips about us behind our backs.

Should we be panicking about RFID tags? Is it wrong for merchants and manufacturers to know our shopping habits?

Back in the good ol' small towns of yesteryear, everyone knew everyone and it was virtually impossible to keep any secrets about how you lived. Was that so bad?