Foresight Update 10
page 5
A publication of the Foresight Institute
 Kantrowitz:
Solutions, not Sacrifice
Advisor Profile by Dan Shafer
Prof.
Arthur Kantrowitz of Dartmouth is at it again. A man whose
life has been filled with and, perhaps, characterized by the
building of bridges and the creation of transitions, has made
another grand leap. If the past is any indicator, we'd all be
well-advised to pay attention to where he's landing.
His career has moved from a starting point in atomic science into
fluid mechanics, where he applied the ideas of modern physics and
thereby made direct contributions to the space program,
particularly in re-entry from space. From there, he bridged
disciplines once again as he applied the principles of fluid
dynamics to blood flow and hematology. As a result, he has played
a major role in research and development of cardiac assist
devices and has made contributions to the understanding of blood
clotting processes. From physics to hematology is two giant
steps, but Kantrowitz has made them seem natural, almost
inevitable.
Kantrowitz, a member of the Foresight
Institute Board of Advisors, is focusing most of his energies
these days advocating a philosophy of optimism. More than a
philosophy, his approach to the great scientific questions of our
time is a hard-boiled, policy-oriented method for dealing with
the problems being created by our technologies. When such an idea
emanates from the mind that conjured up the Science Court of
the mid-1970s and called attention to "The Weapon of
Openness" available to America in the 1980s (see Foresight
Background, No. 4), it ought to carry more than the usual
weight of authority.
The greenhouse effect? If it turns out to be real--and Kantrowitz
leaves little doubt he believes the jury is still out on the
issue--it ought, he says, to serve as a trigger to solution, not
a call to sacrifice. "If the ozone layer is depleted and is
being consistently further depleted, we have to figure out
something to do about it. Rather than using such phenomena as
instruments to force us to sacrifice, we should see them as a
call to find solutions. There must be some creative way of fixing
it. For example, maybe some chemistry grad student is sitting
right now with a chemical solution that would create ozone where
it's needed. I don't suggest that this is a real solution, only
that we ought to be thinking about solving the problem rather
than sacrificing. Religious movements, rather than technological
breakthroughs, are built on sacrifice. If--without considering
how to solve the problem--we go into a program of sacrifices
whose costs are measured in trillions of dollars, this is a
creature of the deepest pessimism. Maybe it's time we took
climate control seriously instead of simply succumbing to the
problem."
Space colonization? Again, only pessimism has kept it from a
success that we would already be enjoying. "If we had a
really adventuresome space program, we'd already have people
living in space. If we had a space transportation system designed
by some competitive process rather than by some version of a
centrally planned economy--which works no better for such tasks
than it did for Eastern Europe--we'd have solved the problems
years ago."
In general, Kantrowitz tells us, "Pessimism leads us to
minimize risks and therefore reduces the rate of change by making
innovation difficult." He points out that, "An
optimistic society realizes that mistakes will be in proportion
to our technology. Furthermore, we must remember that the
problems we bequeath our successors will be solved by their
technologies, which will inevitably be well beyond ours." As
a result, Kantrowitz finds himself largely unworried by some of
the technological issues that cause hand-wringing by many other
scientists and the general public.
Although he advocates an open and optimistic approach to science
and technology, he does not believe such development should be
completely unbridled. "In a pessimistic society such as the
one we have created, regulation is good. We place paramount
importance on being safe. If anyone wants to innovate, we must
see that he takes all responsibility for any harm. As a result,
our young people are turning away from science and medicine and
towards law. Although it is clear that we need some method for
correcting malpractice of various sorts, we can't survive if the
only such system is one designed of, by, and for the
lawyers."
It is at this point that Kantrowitz echoes some of the highly
original thinking that characterized his mid-1970s proposal to
create something called a Science Court. This body would resolve
factual disputes between scientists by means of an adversary
proceeding. Kantrowitz proposed the idea as a result of his
1975-76 work with the Presidential Advisory Group on Anticipated
Advances in Science and Technology. Among other things,
Kantrowitz saw this approach as a way of avoiding the "trial
by public opinion" in which he sees too many such
disagreements being resolved today. "This process," he
explains, "would be conducted as an academic function.
Instead of addressing themselves to the public, scientists with
legitimate opposing views would address themselves to each other
as expert adversaries." In fact, Kantrowitz called for a new
norm in scientific behavior which would insist that, "Any
scientist who addresses himself to the public must then be
willing to answer questions from expert adversaries."
Besides the inherent problems in public opinion holding sway over
scientific evaluation, Kantrowitz sees another evil in the
current system. "The present pernicious practice of
advertising factual information in all kinds of media is
aggravated by the fact that someone decides which scientists and
facts will receive even that kind of a hearing." He points
out that when politicians and media representatives have
questions, they call people they view as experts, generally
people who appear on their call lists or on the call lists of
their colleagues. "This practice means that the new
thinkers, the innovative idea people, are the least likely to
receive an objective hearing, or even to get access at all,"
Kantrowitz points out.
Dan Shafer is an author and consultant in computation and
emerging technologies.
Molecular
Artworks
Under the title "Nanotechnology and the Miniature
Arts," the journal Leonardo has issued a call
for papers dealing with artworks created on very small scales.
The journal focuses on the interface between art, science, and
technology. Specific topics of interest include: history of
miniature art, genetically engineered artworks, artworks
invisible to the naked eye, theoretical aspects of scale, and
scientific visualization of microscopic phenomena.
Anyone who has seen high-quality molecular modeling programs
running on a color monitor may agree that molecular artwork is
already being routinely created. Interested authors should send
manuscript proposals to Pamela Grant-Ryan, Managing Editor,
Leonardo, 2030 Addison St., Suite 400, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA.
Electronic mail can be sent to the following e-mail address: isast@garnet.berkeley.edu.
Letters
The Foresight Institute receives hundreds of letters
requesting information and sending ideas. Herewith excerpts:
I am writing to represent the academic debate team of Henry Ford
II High School, Sterling Heights, Michigan. We have studied and
researched the topic of nanotechnology for some time now, and
have developed a debate case to increase space exploration via
nanotechnology which won first place at a recent tournament. On
behalf of my team, I extend our thanks to Eric Drexler and the
Foresight Institute for developing this captivating and important
field. If possible, I would like you to send us any available
information on the subject of nanotechnology. Anything you send
will be greatly appreciated.
Brian Wassom
Sterling Heights, Michigan
We have prepared a package of materials for high school
debaters. Due to the large number of debaters, we ask that a $4
donation accompany each request.
Do proceedings exist for the First Foresight
Conference on Nanotechnology? How may I obtain or purchase
them?
Also, I am very interested in the idea of simulating
nanotechnological concepts in order to examine problems or
potential designs of simplified molecular machines, mainly for
educational or instructional purposes. By this I do not mean
complex protein folding computations. Are you aware of work being
done in this area? I am thinking of a demonstration program more
like Richard Dawkins's BIOMORPH, a program based on simplified
physical laws. Please let me know if you know of anything along
these lines, and whether writing a program like this would be a
waste of time at this point.
Robert L. Virkus
Dallas, TX
A proceedings volume is in progress, edited by James Lewis of
Oncogen in Seattle. We'll let you know when it's available.
[Editor's note: Articles about this book appear in Update
12 and in Update
15. The Book
Order Form may be used to order this book from the
Foresight Institute.]
There has been and continues to be a great deal of work being
done on computer modeling of molecular systems, both simple and
complex. The simplest programs are used to draw molecules: they
may know how many bonds each atom can make and at what angles.
Molecular mechanics programs can take a designed structure and
minimize its energy, i.e. find the most stable configuration. The
most computation-intensive programs use quantum mechanical
methods to calculate the properties of molecules and of chemical
reactions. In our next issue we plan to review a new molecular
mechanics package for the Mac II. Before you write you own
software, we'd advise a thorough inspection of programs already
available.--Editor
I'm passing along another tidbit related to Internet computer
access, which may interest the Chicago/Midwest readers of Foresight
Update. In the Chicago area there is a public-access UNIX
bulletin board system; the modem number is 312-714-6568. The
first two weeks of full Internet access are free. A donation of
$40 per year is asked to continue Internet access. All the
Internet goodies are available as far as I know, including
sci.nanotech...
John Papiewski
Palatine, IL
Foresight encourages those with online capability to join in
the nanotechnology discussion taking place in the sci.nanotech
USENET newsgroup.
Books
of Note
Books are listed in order of increasing specialization and
reading challenge. Your suggestions are welcome. And remember, if
a book's price looks too high, your library should be able to get
it through interlibrary loans.--Editor
Intellectual Compromise: The Bottom Line, by
Michael T. Ghiselin, Paragon House, 1989, cloth, $24.95. A
critique of academia, explaining how and why it strays from its
own ideals. Explains why a large portion of intellectual work is
now going on outside academia in, e.g., think tanks. Warning: may
frighten students away from academic careers.
A Handbook of Computational Chemistry, by Tim
Clark, Wiley-Interscience, 1985, cloth, $38.50. A practical guide
to molecular mechanics and molecular orbital calculations.
Includes information on MM2, a molecular mechanics program
well-suited to the design or molecular machinery. For working
chemists and molecular systems engineers.
Intermolecular and Surface Forces, by Jacob
Israelachvili, Academic Press, 1985, cloth, $107. Densely-packed
information for the serious molecular systems engineer; a modern
classic.
JBIS
on Nanotechnology
In honor of its 60th anniversary, the Journal of the
British Interplanetary Society is dedicating the opening
issue of its Celebration Series to the topic "Nanotechnology
in Space." JBIS is known for publishing
exploratory engineering work on space development and
exploration.
The issue is scheduled for October 1992 and will be edited by
Salvatore Santoli. Dr. Santoli reports that he plans to interpret
the term nanotechnology as Foresight does, i.e. molecular
manufacturing, or thorough control of the structure of matter. He
is actively soliciting papers for the issue.
For further information on this special issue, or to propose a
paper topic, contact the issue's editor at the following address:
Salvatore Santoli FBIS, via A. Zotti 86, I-00121, Rome, Italy. To
submit completed papers, enclose a note indicating that they are
meant for this issue and mail to: Executive Secretary, British
Interplanetary Society, 27/29 South Lambeth Road, London SW8 1SZ,
England. Decimal paragraphing and SI units must be used; contact
BIS for their "Guidelines for Authors."
Federal
Comments on Nanotechnology
Views on nanotechnology from three U.S. government research
agencies were expressed recently in response to inquiries by
Congressman Bill Green.
The most detailed response was received from the head of a
laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, part of the National
Institutes of Health (NIH). Excerpts follow:
"I share the view that these [Drexler's] calculations
and reasonings are interesting and promising and should be
considered seriously...Stunning examples from biomedical
research, chemistry, and physics demonstrate the potential of
engineering at the molecular level. All this has been
accomplished by scientists from these disciplines
cooperatively applying the traditional scientific principles
of experimentation and theory. Recently, a third discipline
has been added: computational science, or computational
simulation. The latter approach depends on powerful,
scientific computers; it permits simulations of such realism
(even at the atomic level) that it is possible to explore the
boundary between the feasible and the infeasible. This is
certainly relevant to the nanotechnology we are discussing.
"Much of the current revolution in biology arose from
the study of viruses; they were treated as prototypical
organisms and, at the same time, research showed that,
indeed, they are precise, engineerable assemblages of
molecules...
"Strong, long-term public support, and to a lesser
extent, private support, have paid off mightily. However, we
must be certain of continued support in such new directions
as nanotechnology. Predictions of the future can be
unreliable, but there is clearly justification for optimism
and committed effort to further study and research on
nanoscale, self-replicating molecular machines in return for
the expectation of long-term practical developments."
A Division Director at the National Science Foundation wrote
"With the exception of medical applications, nanotechnology
is a research area that would be appropriate for support by the
National Science Foundation. Aspects of this research area are
already supported by several research programs at the
Foundation."
A spokesman for the R&D at the Environmental Protection
Agency was less informed--"a direct relationship to work
being done at the EPA was not readily apparent"--but
requested further information on environmental applications.
Both of the positive responses were obtained from government
scientist/administrators who were already acquainted with the
nanotechnology concept through traditional sources of technical
information. One of the Foresight Institute's goals is to
maximize the number of scientists introduced to the idea in this
way, rather than in the media or from nontechnical sources.
Foresight members who wish to introduce the concept of
nanotechnology to scientists or government leaders are urged to
call our office (415-324-2490) for advice before proceeding.
Thanks to Congressman Bill Green and Foresight member Alvin
Steinberg for stimulating the above correspondence.
Media
Watch
The Summer 1990 issue of Caltech's magazine Engineering
& Science mentioned nanotechnology in an article
reviewing various nanometer-scale efforts at that institution.
Included was coverage of STM work by Prof. John Baldeschwieler,
an participant of the First Foresight Conference on
Nanotechnology.
The June 3 issue of The Sunday Correspondent
(London) explained nanotechnology as part of a review of the book
Engines of Creation,
now available in Britain from Fourth Estate. The June/July High
Technology Careers magazine covered nanotechnology as an
approach to building exotic materials. The July 1990 Computer
Shopper (London) described the bottom-up approach to
nanotechnology in an article by Adrian Owen. The August 1990
issue of Self magazine briefly covered the prospects
for advanced medicine using nanotechnology, including
"molecular surgery."
From Foresight Update 10, originally
published 30 October 1990.
Foresight thanks Dave Kilbridge for converting Update 10 to
html for this web page.
|