Foresight Debate with Scientific American
Still more letters sent to Scientific
American about "Trends in Nanotechnology: Waiting for
Breakthroughs" (April '96):
|
| |
|
 |
Ingram, Russ
IPA, NET |
|
|
| |
|
|
Smith, Bruce
K. , San Rafael, CA |
|
|
| |
|
|
Ware, Will
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Arko, Pace |
|
|
| |
|
|
Wong, Samuel
North York, ON, Canada |
|
|
| |
|
|
Winfield,
Robert James |
|
|
| |
|
|
Carter, Robert
J. Gurnee, IL |
|
|
| |
|
|
Fylstra, Dan
Incline Village, NV |
|
|
| |
|
|
Fylstra, Dan
reply to Scientific
American response to above letter |
|
|
|
Ingram, Russ
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 12:05:09 -0600
From: faymall <faymall@ipa.net>
Organization: IPA,NET
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: editors@sciam.com, foresight@foresight.org
Subject: nanotech
X-URL: http://www.foresight.org/SciAmResponse.html
I usually like Gary Stix' writing, but with all the
subtle innuendos in this article, maybe I should go back
and reread his earlier writings and look for similar
misleading statements.
Russ Ingram (ringram@comp.uark.edu)
Smith, Bruce K.
Smith, Bruce Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:18:51 -0700
From: oresmus@netcom.com (Bruce Smith)
To: peterson@foresight.org
Subject: letter
I sent a letter to Sci Am about the Gary Stix piece, [text
deleted]. After Sci Am publishes its
responses, it's fine to put it on the web site if you want.
To: editors@sciam.com
Subject: letter about Stix April 96 piece
Comparing the careful, detailed, technical scholarship in
_Nanosystems_ and other published work supporting the
possibility of precise, fairly general molecular
manufacturing (sometimes called
"nanotechnology"), to the lack of anything
resembling these qualities in Stix's criticisms of these
ideas (or in the very few other published criticisms that
I've seen), I have to conclude that it is the possibility
that molecular manufacturing is *not* feasible that is
presently supported only by "science fiction",
and that is probably the result of wishful thinking.
Bruce K. Smith
San Rafael, CA
oresmus@netcom.com
Ware, Will
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:41:14 -0400
From: wware@world.std.com (Will Ware)
To: foresight@foresight.org, editors@sciam.com
Subject: The April 96 article on nanotechnology
I am writing to let you know that your April 96
article on nanotechnology was extremely disappointing.
The frequent use of purely personal attacks and the near
absence of substantial content does a disservice not only
to workers in nanotechnology, but yourselves as well, and
ultimately the scientific community at large. I have
expressed my thoughts on the matter in more detail in a
page on the worldwide web, at
http://world.std.com/~wware/mischief.html
It has also come to my attention that you have legally
threatened the Foresight Institute, claiming that their
citations of your article in their response are a
violation of copyright, and suggested to them that the
proper place for their response is your own letters
column. The accuracy of your interpretation of copyright
law is a legal matter on which I can claim no expertise,
but the overall attempt at "damage control" is
transparent and distasteful.
Science is not only about getting one's facts straight.
It is also about free, open debate of conflicting
opinions. As an ethical principle, this is relatively new
in human history, and after several centuries of
scientific progress, it is still not widely accepted
throughout the world. I welcome it as a civilizing
influence, and I would hope that any publication with the
word "Scientific" in its title would agree.
Will Ware <wware@world.std.com>
web <http://world.std.com/~wware/>
PGP fingerprint 45A8 722C D149 10CC F0CF 48FB 93BF 7289
Arko, Pace
Date: 20 May 96 06:09:50 EDT
From: Pace Arko 73542.1601@CompuServe.COM
To: editors@sciam.com,foresight@foresight.org
Subject: An April Fools Prank?
To the Editors of the Scientific American:
I've read Scientific American for many years and, on the
whole, I have been very happy with its coverage. However,
I was disappointed by Mr. Stix' article "Trends in
Nanotechnology" in last April's edition. I am only a
well informed layperson, and perhaps unable to judge, but
the article struck me as biased and sensationalist. It
seemed to avoid the technical issues involved and
suffered from several misconceptions as to what molecular
engineering is and what it is not. Perhaps this is
understandable because the scientific and engineering
communities are not quite agreed on the validity of
nanotechnology, but still, the tone of the article seemed
stronger than necessary.
I imagine you have received endless mail on this
particular topic, but I feel I must include my opinions
as well. I hope that you will print some of these letters
(especially the ones from experts) and Mr. Stix'
responses in future issues or perhaps at your web page on
the internet.
I view this one article as an exception and I look
forward to a return to your well deserved reputation for
levelheaded science journalism.
Sincerely,
Pace Arko
73542.1601@compuserve.com
Wong, Samuel
From: Sam0alicia@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 21:32:57 -0400
To: foresight@foresight.org
cc: Sam0alicia@aol.com
Subject: copy of letter to Scientific American
Sorry for the long delay in forwarding to you a complete copy of
my letter to Scientific American. I don't normally check the mail
on my America Online account, but given that Scientific American
is on America Online, I thought it appropriate.
Please find below the text of the letter sent earlier. Please
don't hesitate to contact me again if you have any further
questions.
[sent to Scientific American]
I read with passing interest the debate on the internet
newsgroup sci.nanotech regarding your article
"Trends in Nanotechnology" in your April 1996
issue. As a student I never liked your publication
because it deos not have the rigour of a refereed
journal, nor the relevance of a true populist publication
like Popular Science. So when my employer recently
offered to pay for my subscriptions, I eventually chose
IEEE and its Spectrum publication. Spectrum somehow
manages to be scientifcally accurate and relevant. My
reading of your recent article on nanotechnology merely
confirmed my decision.
So why am I writing? Your attempt to stiffle public
debate and inquiry by hiding behind copyrights as
communicated by Linda Hertz is outrageous! Develop your
reputation (good or bad) based on the quality of your
publication. Please do not damage the reputation of all
scientific inquiry by your pettiness. I question the
generosity of the Foresight Institute by placing you on
the same side as scientific inquiry as your actions can
be interprested as self-serving and profit-driven. I
encourage you to take up a serious debate with those
familiar with nanotechnology, or risk being made totally
irrelevant.
Yours truly,
Samuel Wong
205 Wynford Drive, #2403
North York, Ontario
Canada M3C 3P4
By CC to the nanotech newsgroup and the Foresight Institute, you
are free to distribute this letter as you see fit. As per
Scientific American's instructions, a hardcopy of this letter has
also been sent to them via surface mail.
Winfield, Robert James
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 12:40:27 -0700
From: robert james winfield <winfield@cpcug.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: editors@sciam.com, foresight@foresight.org
Subject: nanotechnology
I do not understand what the flap about nanotechnolgy
is about, or why one of your authors has chosen to so
blithly dismiss nanotechnology.
To put it bluntly, nanotechnology is stunningly obvious
to anyone with eyes to see and a brain to think.
In the simplest form, nanotechnology posits taking a set
of instructions, written by either humans , or computers
in conjunction with humans, that direct a set of
molecular sized machines to place atoms and molecules in
fairly precise positions to build something.
If you look in a mirror, or at any other form of life,
the realization may slowly come to you that you are the
result of a set of instructions, DNA, read out by RNA,
that molecular sized machines, Ribosomes, use to place
atoms and molecules in fairly precise positions.
I am sure that your fine magazine has a wealth of
information on molecular biology you can use to educate
in the finer points of the above so you can also draw the
same obvious conclusions.
The proof of the concept, that nanotechnology works, is
there. Atomic and molecular manipulation, life in its
myriad forms, should convince even the most doubting of
its reality.
It is merely an engineering process to get there where
life has gone before.
sincerely,
Robert J. Winfield
winfield@cpcug.org
Carter, Robert J.
ROBERT J. CARTER 4587 Covenant Ct. Gurnee, IL 60031
September 15, 1996
Jack Hanley, Chief Executive Officer
Scientific American, Inc.
415 Madison Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017-1111
Mr. Hanley:
You have no idea how disappointed I was in Scientific
American when I read Gary Stix's tabloid article in April
about K. Eric Drexler and nanotechnology with at least 14
errors and 4 omissions by my count (attached). Given my
view of Scientific American's search for scientific truth
and brilliant illumination of scientific truth during the
28 years I've been reading it, I was even more
disappointed and embarrassed by your editor's reply in
August, "And with all apologies to Drexler, we think
that readers of the critique will find little in the way
of specific cited errors." With all apologies to
your editor, he either didn't read the internet critique
he cites or attempted to cover up past mistakes, hoping
no one would notice.
He bases part of his reply on the faulty journalistic
assumption defining an error as misquoting a source. In
fact, if you properly quote a source whose statement is
in error, then you are in error by representing his
statement as fact. In other words, I expect a higher
sense of journalistic morality and integrity from
Scientific American than I would from supermarket
tabloids.
Your course appears clear. First, you must publish an
apology for a poorly written article if you are to
maintain credibility. Second, you should focus debate on
nanotechnology. Challenge the best minds in the world to
review Nanosystems by Drexler and address the feasibility
of the technology.
Very truly yours,
Jake Carter
Attachment: Errors and omissions in Scientific American:
cc: John Rennie, Editor in Chief
"Trends in Nanotechnology, Waiting for Breakthroughs,"
Scientific American
Gary Stix, staff writer, April
SciAm p.94 col 1, p1, L1 - "That's the messiah" opening
line 'quote' from M. Reifman
Error- quoted out of context; twisted to infer a secret
confidence to be taken seriously; not the case according to
source.
SciAm p.94 col 1, p1, L3 - "strange mix of scientists ,
entrepreneurs, ..."
Error- belongs on an editorial page. Who thinks this is a
strange mix? ... Gary Stix!
SciAm p.94 col 1, p1, L3 - "his own acolytes"
referring to Drexler
Error- editorializing by Stix. Alter boys aren't typically
used in scientific conferences.
SciAm p.94 col 1, p2, L1 - "Nanotechnology is ...
structures ... that measure up to 100 nanometers"
Error- This is not the definition of molecular
manufacturing this article attempts to focus on.
SciAm p.94 col 2, p2, L2 - refers to Edward M. Reifman as
"the dentist"
Omission- Reifman holds a graduate degree in biomedical
engineering... What are Stix's credentials?
SciAm p.94 col 2, p3, L3 - What inspires "actual
researchers" ... is ... more "pragmatic"
Error- editorializing by Stix, implied meaning: Drexler is
not a researcher and his is an impractical (nonpragmatic)
view of molecular nanotechnology. Who says? Gary Stix says.
SciAm p.94 col 3, p3, L1 - "Drexler ... guru ... pedantic
... cartoon character"
Error- editorializing by Stix, bordering on slander.
SciAm p.95 col 2, p2, L3 - " ... Feynman used to toy
playfully with the notion ..."
Error- Stix attempts to twist Feynman's interest in
Nanotechnology as he did earlier in the article with
Reifman's statement. What Feynman actually said was,
"The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not
speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by
atom. It is not an attempt to violate any laws; it is
something, in principle, that can be done; but in practice,
it has not been done because we are too big." Toy
playfully with the notion, indeed! Dead men can't defend
themselves against poor journalism.
SciAm p. 97 col 2, Heading- "Real Nanotechnology"
Error- Stix implies Drexler's computational and
theoretical work is fake or "unreal".
Omission- In fact, IBM Zurich used computational models to
design a molecule that could be precisely positioned on a
surface, at room temperature and in ultra high vacuum. They
then verified that the molecule favored by
"computational experiments" also worked
experimentally. Generally, the scientific community expects
quantitative computational theory to lead the way to valid
experimental results.
[Editor's note: See details of this molecular
manipulation at IBM Zurich's
web page]
SciAm p. 97 col 3, p 3, L 2 - " ... David E. H. Jones ...
has provided a pointed critique of the idea ... "
Omission - Stix fails to mention the Foresight Institute's
rebuttal
of Jones' critique. In the rebuttal, Jones' lack of
knowledge in the area became obvious. Each of Jones' points
was addressed.
SciAm p. 98 col 2, p1, L1 - Quote from Jones, " ...
nanotechnology need not be taken seriously. It will remain just
another exhibit in the freak show that is the boundless-optimism
school of technical forecasting."
Error- journalistic assumption defining an error as
misquoting a source. In fact, if you properly quote a source
whose statement is in error, then you are in error by
representing his statement as fact. Since Jones has been
successfully rebutted, Stix is in error.
SciAm p. 98 col 3, p2, L4 - "Barth observes ...
considerations that could make many of Drexler's nanodevices
impossible to build."
Omission- What are these considerations? I see only one
reference, "stability of ... intermediate steps"
Error- Molecular
Assembly Sequence Software (MASS) has not indicated this
difficulty using a variant of established retrosynthetic
analysis taken from classical chemistry.
SciAm p. 99 col 1, p1, L1 - Barth's " message to an
Internet bulletin board ... molecular nanotechnology has the
makings of a mass social/political movement or a religious faith
in the traditions of Marxism or Christianity."
Error- focuses away from technical issues.
Omission- Stix is only too happy to use Internet quotations
when it suits his misguided purpose. He fails to mention all
the Internet factual data not supporting his premise.
SciAm p. 99 col 1-3 Entire text under heading "On the
Border of Science and Fiction"
Error- focuses away from technical issues.
SciAm p. 99 col 3, p1, L1 - "Nanoism resembles a form of
postmodern alchemy ..."
Error- Who says? Gary Stix does! Editorializing.
SciAm p. 99 col 3, p4 & 5 - 1974 Caltech, Feynman speech
on cargo cult science twisted by Gary Stix to suit his own
purposes.
Error- Feynman didn't mention anything resembling
molecular nanotechnology in his cargo cult speech. In fact,
he had supported it's technical feasibility. His own son
confirmed this. Dead men can't defend themselves from poor
journalism.
Fylstra, Dan
Letters published with permission from Daniel H. Fylstra
July 7, 1996
Lorraine L. Terlecki
Circulation Director
Scientific American
415 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017-1111
Dear Ms. Terlecki:
Enclosed is my recent subscription renewal solitication,
to which I will not be responding. With some sadness, I
am "giving up" on Scientific American. I've
been a subscriber in some years and not in others,
depending on my time available for reading, but I have
always been interested in Scientific American. I'm afraid
I can't say that any more. The reason is the steady
decline in the quality of your coverage of science.
You occasionally still publish excellent articles,
usually written by leading experts in a field. But the
articles and columns by your staff writers that I've read
in the past year are no better than the "science
coverage" in a typical daily newspaper. Sometimes,
today's Scientific American more resembles Omni than the
magazine from which I used to learn so much.
The last straw was the article on nanotechnology by Gary
Stix in your April 1996 issue. I had expected an
educational article, but quickly discovered that this was
a "people in science" story. Even as such, its
coverage of the scientific issues was so poor (and so
one-sided) it was embarrassing -- and its cartoon-like
characterization of Dr. Eric Drexler was completely
uncalled for. I may not agree with Drexler, but I have at
least read his books and considered his arguments,
something which Gary Stix and your editors apparently did
not feel obliged to do.
Ironically, it was in the April issue (in "From the
Editors") that you quoted Rufus Porter's description
of Scientific American as "a paper that will
instruct while it diverts or amuses them, and will retain
its excellence and value, when political and ordinary
newspapers are thrown aside and forgotten." If you
really think that you are still meeting this standard,
you should know that, where I used to save a tall stack
of back issues of Scientific American for future
reference, I now find myself throwing them out with the
weekly magazines and the daily newspaper.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel H. Fylstra
P.O. Box 6740
Incline Village, NV 89450
Fylstra, Dan: reply to Scientific
American response
Letters published with permission from Daniel H. Fylstra. This
letter is a reply to a response from John Rennie, Editor in Chief
of Scientific American, to the above
letter.
August 25, 1996
John Rennie
Editor in Chief
Scientific American
415 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017-1111
Dear Mr. Rennie:
Thank you for taking the time to write to me on August
6th, in response to my letter to Lorraine Terlecki. I had
not expected a reply, especially from the Editor in
Chief, and I applaud your involvement.
Evidently, the nanotechnology article stirred quite a
response of which mine was just a sample. I learned about
the debate on the World Wide Web and have now read the
many comments on both the Scientific American and
Foresight Institute Web sites, including your letter to
Foresight on May 10th, and Drexler's reply on May 14th.
I've also seen (on your Web site) the Letters to the
Editor you printed in your August issue. I felt this was
a good selection -- though the contrast between the
richness of the Web debate, which sprung up overnight,
and the limited print coverage which occurred four months
later was striking.
I hope you sense the desire on the part of many people
for a more in-depth, substantive article on the
scientific and technical issues in nanotechnology. I
believe you've acknowledged that the April 1996 article
did not address the issues in any depth, and this was
part of my disappointment.
In your May 10th letter you say, "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." My
impression is quite the reverse. There are certainly some
"true believers" around the fringes of
Drexler's camp who are attracted by the grand
"promise," but I believe the majority of the
people interested in Drexler's work, particularly in
Silicon Valley, are primarily motivated by the technical
challenges. I think you've misread these people, who are
also likely readers of Scientific American.
The other part of my disappointment with Gary Stix's
article was its ad hominem criticisms of Drexler. You've
defended this as coverage of the "hype rampant in
nanotechnology." I am a real skeptic and agree that
a critique of "nanohype" is needed -- as long
as it is technically complete and done in a balanced way.
But I found it impossible to read your article as
"balanced." From its choice of words (e.g.
"acolytes" and "devotees"), to its
choice of quotes ("that's the messiah") to its
selective inclusion of fanciful elements of Engines of
Creation and selective omission of Drexler's refereed
publications, this article seems slanted from the outset
towards the goal of depicting Drexler's and Merkle's
nanoscience as "unsound." How do you defend
your off-hand dismissal of Drexler's M.I.T. Ph.D.
research (published in the award-winning Nanosystems) as
"a plea for respectability ... I am not a
flake?" How do you justify the transparently made-up
distinction between "nanoists" and "real
nanotechnology?" I am sure that a few readers
cheered, and others with no knowledge of this area were
impressed -- but to anyone with even a little background,
and a sense of fair-mindedness, your article comes across
as inexcusably one-sided. This would be poor practice in
any magazine, but it is truly unworthy of a publication
like Scientific American. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but
please understand that I and other readers expect the
best from you, and we were sorely disappointed.
In Eric Drexler's reply to you on May 14th, he
specifically challenged you to commission, or write
yourself, "a public, scientific criticism ... of the
technical content of the case made in Nanosystems."
He has certainly put his credibility squarely on the
line, making only the reasonable request that the
criticism be confined to his own published work. While
nanotechnology normally just makes it to the bottom of my
"top ten" interests, I must say that this
Scientific American controversy has gotten my attention.
Should you take up Drexler's challenge, I hope you will
let me know -- it would motivate me to re-subscribe to
Scientific American in order to see it.
Thanks for your interest.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel H. Fylstra
P.O. Box 6740
Incline Village, NV 89450
Note: A recent addition to the discussion is "TOO HARD?", an editorial by
Stanley Schmidt published in the January 1997 issue of Analog
Science Fiction and Fact.
The
letters column from the August 1996 Scientific American
|