Foresight Debate with Scientific American
Email from SciAm, with no Foresight comments
To read this text with links and Foresight's responses
embedded, see Round 3.
To read Drexler's summary of the debate, see Round 4.
May 10, 1996
Dear Foresight Institute:
Ralph Merkle and you were kind
enough to invite us to respond to your comments
concerning Gary Stix's nanotechnology article,
"Waiting for Breakthroughs," in the April 1996
issue of Scientific American. We have followed with
interest the considerable feverish discussion about it
and would like to answer as follows:
Dr. Merkle and other commentators
make a number of points, but none of them persuasive. Scientific American stands by the
article and by its major conclusion: that although
nanotechnology attracts ardent support among bright,
creative people, most researchers working in allied
areas--including ones embraced by the nanoists
themselves--think that the actual science in
nanotechnology has gaping holes, and that there are few
chances those holes will ever be filled.
Drexler and like-minded individuals
engage in what many materials scientists feel is wild
speculation about the future of technology. The field's
proponents do much more than calculate thermal effects on
little gears. The most prominent scientists at the
Foresight conference--Whitesides, Smalley, Fraser
Stoddart--have little faith that a self-replicating
assembler will ever be made. Yes, they attended the
conference, but ask them directly about what they think
about Drexler's vision and you'll hear another story.
Smalley talked explicitly about his doubts during a
presentation at the conference.
One of the article's central points
is that these laboratory researchers have reported a
number of advances in their field, many of which suggest
real applications. None of them, however, sees their work
as moving toward making assemblers. Drexler's
vision of manipulating matter at the molecular scale had
a wonderful futuristic allure when Engines of Creation
first appeared in the mid-1980s. But it hasn't moved very
far beyond this original statement (theory and computer
models are insufficient proof of the ultimate feasibility
of these concepts). Because of this stagnation, there is
a chance that the Engines of Creation version of
nanotechnology will become increasingly irrelevant--even
though some other implementation of nanotechnology may
indeed take off.
Perhaps the best way to rebut the
accusations of incompetent journalism is to go through
general categories of them one by one.
1) The article lacked technical depth:
As should be unnecessary to explain, an overview article
in a printed magazine for the general reading public is
not the same as a literature review in a journal. To
fault it for lack of technical depth is like faulting a
swimming pool for lack of trout. A more telling criticism
would be that the technical summaries in the article are
factually wrong, which brings us to....
2) The article is riddled with
errors.
The Foresight Institute and Merkle
certainly have the right to disagree with the article's
conclusions. But they have set forth few specifics of how
facts went awry. The rebuttal does claim that Edward
Reifman, the dentist who appears in the article's lead
paragraph, was quoted out of context, that he made the
remark in jest. But when Reifman was contacted during a
routine fact-checking call prior to publication, he did
not deny the quote, nor did he say that it was made in
jest. In fact, he acknowledged what he had said before
and even went on to remark that Drexler now has amassed a
significant group of followers.
In the conclusion of his commentary,
Merkle writes, "A few people were quoted in a way
which suggested they had a technical criticism of the
feasibility of nanotechnology. The quotes were
rebutted." Actually, Merkle has only disagreed with
them. Given that the people in
question are the likes of George Whitesides, Julius
Rebek, Jane Alexander and others, they can muster
technical arguments in support of their position, much as
Merkle has. To imply otherwise, in Merkle's words again,
"is not only insulting, it's... very... very...
_dumb_!"
3) The article sets forth an
erroneous definition of nanotechnology. Many definitions
of nanotechnology were put forth at the Foresight
conference in November. The article makes the point that
people define it in different ways. Neither Drexler nor
Merkle had much of a problem with the definition of
nanotechnology in the article when the text was
fact-checked with them before publication.
4) The article is a personal attack
on Drexler.
Where do we suggest that the man's
personal traits invalidate his technical arguments?
Scientists are real people with both strengths and
weaknesses; good science journalism depicts them as such.
In recent years, Scientific American has profiled dozens
of major scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, while
describing their opinions, prejudices, personal foibles
and mannerisms. Drexler received no different treatment.
(For better or worse, even if the foundation of
nanotechnology seemed impeccable, Drexler would still
sound like Mr. Peabody to Gary Stix.)
Also, though Merkle asserts that the
article "is not about nanotechnology so much as it
is about Drexler," that is wishful thinking on his
part. Any fair-minded reading of the article shows that
the many technical criticisms leveled against
nanotechnology by various scientists are not merely ad
hominem.
5) The article is tabloid
journalism, dwelling on gossip rather than science.
Were we wrong to point out the hype
rampant in nanotechnology? What continues to attract most
people to the field is not the technical challenge, but
rather the promise of rectifying the most basic social
ills, such as death and poverty. At the Foresight
conference in November, Drexler talked about how a
nation's capital stock might be doubled in an hour using
nanotechnology. An hour? In an interview with Scientific
American, Ralph Merkle said he didn't want to be a member
of the last generation to die, a reference to how he
believes nanotechnology might one day allow his head to
be thawed so he could live on forever.
These remarks go beyond a mere
assessment of technical feasibility. Rather they seem
indicative of the chief reason that people are attracted
to the vision of nanotechnology put forward by Drexler
and Merkle. Everyone wants to be rich and live forever.
Given these factors, covering nanotechnology as a
techno-sociological phenomenon is wholly appropriate.
6) The article misuses the name of
Richard Feynman. Molecular nanotechnologists tend to use
Feynman's name as evidence for their claims only when it
suits them. In his book Unbounding the Future,
Drexler quotes Feynman as saying that the ability to move
atoms one by one would ultimately be "useless"
because chemists would come up with traditional methods
of making new substances.
Would Richard Feynman have bought
into a technological vision that purports to solve the
problems of death and poverty, with little experimental
evidence to support these assertions? Would he have
called it cargo cult science? Interesting questions--but
also irrelevant: Feynman's ideas have lasting value, but
his opinions would not change the technical shortcomings
of the field an iota.
7) The article was biased.
Scientific American is, if anything, biased in favor of
new technologies and scientific concepts. Nanotechnology
is an exciting idea. We entirely understand why so many
people are drawn to it--when Engines of Creation
came out, some of us were very enthusiastic about the
promise of nanotechnology. And who would not like to live
in a world where technology makes it possible for
virtually any dream to come true? But one of the jobs of
good journalism is to determine whether some dreams are
simply that.
The article contains extensive
passages in which Drexler and other proponents make their
case for nanotechnology. The fact remains, however: many
of the leading researchers in materials science and
chemistry do not place much store in it. None of the
chemists who gave presentations at the Foresight
conference wrote to protest the portrayal of their views
in the article. In fact, responses to the article from
chemists and other professionals have been positive,
congratulating us on pointing out shortcomings that more
congratulatory articles about nanotechnology generally
overlook.
8) The article fails to show that nanotechnology is
impossible. The article is not trying to show that
nanotechnology is impossible. Showing that any
speculative technology is impossible is itself
impossible--we can't prove a negative proposition. On the
other hand, it is entirely incumbent on nanotech's
proponents to show that what they hope to achieve is
possible. Stix's article reports that they have not yet
done this, and that many technical experts doubt they
ever will.
Does the fact that Drexler's goal
may not be impossible mean that it should be pursued? A
recent book, The Physics of Star Trek, claims that
the laws of physics do not preclude something resembling
a warp drive, which the Enterprise uses to travel faster
than the speed of light. Is that a technological problem
to which we should therefore devote significant financial
and intellectual resources?
As proof of the validity of
nanotechnology, some advocates (including Merkle) like to
point out that our world is thoroughly populated with
self-replicating, molecule-manipulating entities. True,
but none of them is based on Drexler's notion of an
assembler, a molecular construction mimicking the
mechanics of factory equipment. The molecular technology
of cells is sui generis: a ribosome is nothing like a
robot. Some definitions of nanotechnology may embrace
such solutions, but if so, how do they differentiate
nanotechnology from more advanced biotechnology? Why does
there not seem to be more interest among nanoists in
modifying cell organelles rather than reinventing the
wheel at the submicron scale?
And finally...
9) Scientific American is trying to
repress debate on the article. This is not a criticism of
the article, but it is a charge leveled at the magazine
by some participants in this discussion, and it deserves
to be addressed. In a letter to the Foresight Institute,
the magazine pointed out that Dr. Merkle's quotation of
our entire article--even with his own commentary
interspersed throughout it--is frankly a violation of our
copyright, and asked that the article's text be removed
from the Web site. In its reply, the institute has argued
that this republication of the article is allowed under
the "Fair Use" provisions of the copyright law.
Some people who have learned of Scientific American's
request apparently equate it with the Church of
Scientology's efforts to curb the Web publication of its
secret writings.
How are we squelching debate? We're
not trying to stop anyone from criticizing the
article--frankly, we appreciate the extra attention. We
only asked that no one infringe on our copyrighted text
in the process by posting the entire thing online.
Scholars don't need to reprint _War and Peace_ to comment
on it, after all. But in making that request, we're not
drawing a veil of secrecy around anything. We've
published the article, for heaven's sake. Anyone who
wants to read it in its entirety can buy the magazine,
look at it in a library, or read it on America Online.
As to whether we are entitled to
make that request: Fair use, as defined in section 107 of
the Copyright Act of 1976, does allow critics and
scholars to quote from published works. Yet nothing in
the law automatically entitles anyone to quote a text in
its entirety. In fact the law says that the amount of
quoted material and the degree to which the republication
of the work may interfere with the author's ability to
derive income from it both bear on the question of
infringement. Merkle quoted the entire article and put it
on the Web at the same time the magazine was selling on
the stands, thus creating a disincentive for people
interested in his criticisms to check them against Stix's
original.
Our lawyers and the institute's
lawyers could fight out the merits of our respective
arguments, but they are not going to. Why? Because we in
Editorial have asked our business colleagues not to press
the case, though they would surely win it. We've decided
that the ongoing discussion of Stix's article is more to
the magazine's benefit than to its detriment.
So where does this leave us? In his
conclusion, Merkle writes, "Scientific American
should stop evading the fundamental technical question:
given the currently accepted understanding of natural
law, is nanotechnology feasible or is it not?" It's
hard for us to believe anyone who has read the article
would think we have sidestepped that question, but we
don't mind answering it again: sorry, but far too many
serious scientists say it is not.
Sincerely,
John Rennie
Editor in Chief
Scientific American
Gary Stix
Staff writer
|