Would this sound like a potentially world-changing substance worthy of scientific attention and funding?

That substance is graphene, a single layer of graphite with hexagonally arranged carbon atoms (visualized as chicken wire).

Now imagine that the mechanical properties of this substance aren’t measured yet, as was the case for graphene before 2009. Imagine further that there is no way to grow or isolate the single-layer crystals in their free state, as was the case for graphene before 2004. Stepping back in time yet further, imagine that the theoretical work predicting massless charge carrier behavior hasn’t been carried out yet, as was the case for graphene before 1984.

Peeling back these milestones, we can see that if the scientific question being asked is “What can be realized from here?” then the graphene timeline played out characteristically, with major advancements coming primarily from opportunity-based research. In other words, over 50+ years, from the initial theoretical work on graphene in 1947 until stable monolayers were achieved in 2004, there was limited vision of what end-goals might be achievable and limited drive to get there.

What happens when a different question is asked, specifically “What can be realized according to physical law?” This is the key premise of the exploratory engineering approach, a methodology proposed by Eric Drexler for assessing the capabilities of future technologies. He points out, for example, that the principles of space flight had been worked out long before science and industry advanced enough to get to actual launch.

For initial space flight development, the answers to the two questions above were dramatically different: what could be done in practice was far behind what had been established as theoretically possible, and there was no defined path between them. By identifying what was achievable according to physical law, the longer-term goal of space flight entered the consciousness of physicists, engineers, and politicians, bringing great minds and great resources to the challenge.

With the benefit of similarly future-focused knowledge, perhaps graphene might have received far more attention far sooner. Consider this: the groundbreaking experimental work that sparked the field as we know it today was the discovery that single-layer graphene could be extracted from a piece of graphite by (essentially) pressing cellophane tape against it and peeling it away. In other words, a decades-long roadblock to achievements in graphene research was not a matter of inadequate supporting technology but one of limited scientific attention.

Here graphene serves as a useful illustration of how progress could potentially be hindered when opportunity-based research is relied upon exclusively. Scientific advancement could benefit significantly from deliberate, exploratory engineering. Perhaps there are numerous other ‘graphenes’ right now, going unnoticed or under-prioritized, because we are failing to ask: what can be realized according to physical law?
-Posted by Stephanie C

I think in the longer term it will be the way we make our products. It will mean that they incorporate computation, they incorporate the ability to change their shape, they are perhaps multipurpose products. At some point it starts to sound like science fiction, and there is a reason for that. When you look ahead two or three decades, if what you see at that stage does not look like science fiction, then you’re not trying, you’re not thinking ambitiously enough. …

The interview ends with two interesting questions. (1) When can we expect advanced nanomachinery to be commercialized? After acknowledging the range from optimistic to pessimistic predictions: “… let’s say that in 25 years maybe we will see some really dramatic stuff happening.” (2) Will any technologies not be affected in some way by advanced nanotechnology? “… I personally don’t see a technology area that will not be impacted by nanotechnology.” Do these two answers seem on target?

The clear winner with 3,097 votes — 35 per cent of the total — is Catherine McTeigue’s prediction of nanorobots that will repair cancerous cells:

Nanorobots fight the medical battles of the future

“Say the word “cancer” and people are fear-ridden. Projects being undertaken to harness nanotechnology and develop nanorobots to enter into the human body and repair cancerous cells, without the need for life-changing, disfiguring and painful chemotherapy, will have the greatest impact in the next 30 years. Watching loved ones suffer will be a thing of the past as the robots aid speedy recoveries, mortality rates drop, and as the technology is used more frequently, so will the cost, that oft deciding factor. An enormous step forwards for all mankind, in the form of a microscopic creature.”

The winning suggestion is a bit vague as to just what kind of medical nanorobots are envisioned. Recent posts (here, here, and here) suggest that near-term, incremental nanotechnology could be successful in curing cancer by selectively killing cancer cells while sparing normal cells. However, the phrase “repair cancerous cells” suggests advanced medical nanotechnology, of the type Freitas has proposed, that could be capable of molecular level repair of cells rather than necessarily killing cancerous cells. On the other hand, using near-term nanotechnology to deliver into cancer cells siRNA or miRNA to alter cellular gene expression might also make it possible to “repair cancerous cells”. The next poll we would like to see is something to the effect of “How do you think medical nanorobots will be developed over the next 30 years?”

…On the tree of robotic life, humanlike robots play a particularly valuable role. It makes sense. Humans are brilliant, beautiful, compassionate, loveable, and capable of love, so why shouldn’t we aspire to make robots humanlike in these ways? Don’t we want robots to have such marvelous capabilities as love, compassion, and genius?

Certainly robots don’t have these capacities yet, but only by striving towards such goals do we stand a chance of achieving them. In designing human-inspired robotics, we hold our machines to the highest standards we know–humanlike robots being the apex of bio-inspired engineering.

In the process, humanoid robots result in good science. They push the boundaries of biology, cognitive science, and engineering, generating a mountain of scientific publications in many fields related to humanoid robotics, including: computational neuroscience, A.I., speech recognition, compliant grasping and manipulation, cognitive robotics, robotic navigation, perception, and the integration of these amazing technologies within total humanoids. This integrative approach mirrors recent progress in systems biology, and in this way humanoid robotics can be considered a kind of meta-biology. They cross-pollinate among the sciences, and represent a subject of scientific inquiry themselves.…

Looking forward, we can find an additional moral prerogative in building robots in our image. Simply put: if we do not humanize our intelligent machines, then they may eventually be dangerous. To be safe when they “awaken” (by which I mean gain creative, free, adaptive general intelligence), then machines must attain deep understanding and compassion towards people. They must appreciate our values, be our friends, and express their feelings in ways that we can understand. Only if they have humanlike character, can there be cooperation and peace with such machines. It is not too early to prepare for this eventuality. That day when machines become truly smart, it will be too late to ask the machines to suddenly adopt our values. Now is the time to start raising robots to be kind, loving, and giving members of our human family.…

The problem of how to ensure friendly AI is important enough that it seems wise to investigate multiple paths toward that goal. Perhaps improving humanlike robots is one such path.

Do not rage against the machine. Embrace the machine.

That is the core message of Michio Kaku’s “Physics of the Future.” …

Nanotechnology will be at first rare and expensive and, by the end of the century, commonplace and cheap, largely fulfilling the predictions of pioneering scientists such as Richard Feynman and Eric Drexler. In a world where programmed molecular assembly powered by sunlight can produce almost anything out of raw materials, material wealth will be widespread. …

Prof. Reynolds agrees with Prof. Kaku’s “largely optimistic view” of nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and the future overall, but points to one disturbing passage that concerns the present—not the future:

The most disturbing passage in “Physics of the Future” doesn’t concern the future; it’s about the present. In that passage, Mr. Kaku recounts a lunchtime conversation with physicist Freeman Dyson at Princeton. Mr. Dyson described growing up in the late days of the British Empire and seeing that most of his smartest classmates were not—as prior generations had been—interested in developing new forms of electrical and chemical plants, but rather in massaging and managing other people’s money. The result was a loss of England’s science and engineering base.

Now, Mr. Dyson said, he was seeing the phenomenon for the second time in his life, in America. Mr. Kaku, summarizing the scientist’s message: “The brightest minds at Princeton were no longer tackling the difficult problems in physics and mathematics but were being drawn into careers like investment banking. Again, he thought, this might be a sign of decay, when the leaders of a society can no longer support the inventions and technology that made their society great.”

The future belongs to those who show up. Mr. Kaku’s description of that future is an appealing one. But will we show up?

Is Prof. Dyson’s assessment an accurate description of the current state of Western civilization in general and the US in particular? My (thoroughly non-scientific and limited) casual observations suggest that it is. The workhorses of the scientific enterprise are postdoctoral research associates (and to a lesser extent, graduate students). When I began my research career in the early 70s most postdocs were American and most of the ones who were not were European. When I (briefly) attempted to get back into research last year nearly all the postdocs I saw were Asian (not Americans of Asian descent, but visitors from Asia). It is wonderful that American universities attract such talented, energetic visitors, but worrisome that we are no longer “growing our own”. Is the US making the necessary effort to “show up” for the future?

University of Nottingham physicist Philip Moriarty is one of the few scientists who has been able to do extensive research into molecular mechanosynthesis. In 2004 Moriarty engaged in a debate with Chris Phoenix over the feasibility of molecular manufacturing. In 2008 Moriarty received a grant from the British Government to examine the viability of mechanosynthesis. In this Next Big Future interview with Sander Olson, Moriarty discusses the progress that has been made during the past decade, the challenges of working with diamond, and the prospects for building components out of silicon and diamond.

Question: You began the project for experimental work on molecular mechanosynthesis about five years ago. How is the project going?

Answer: The mechanosynthesis project has actually only been running for about 2.5 years now and the initial goal was to explore the possibility of atom-by-atom assembly on diamond surfaces, i.e. to test the viability of Drexler’s original vision of making components out of diamond. But as Drexler himself recently pointed out diamond is a very difficult material to work with. As a result, in Nottingham we have a parallel effort focused on silicon, which is much, much easier to work with than diamond. For example, we only very recently achieved atomic resolution using non-contact atomic force microscopy on a hydrogen-passivated diamond surface. Moving beyond imaging to atomic manipulation of the diamond surface is going to be much more challenging than for silicon. …

Question: If you succeed, will that prove the viability of molecular manufacturing?

Answer: It will prove the viability of key aspects of Drexler’s mechanosynthesis ‘machine language’ – i.e. single atom chemistry driven solely by mechanical force and employing pre-determined tip structures/tip tools. By the time I retire (~ 2040!), I’d really hope that we are at the point where we could simply instruct a computer to build nanostructures, and let the computer handle all the details – no human operator involvement required. But this is very far from proving the viability of molecular manufacturing. It’s also very far from the scenario that, for example, Ray Kurzweil put forward back in 2000: “Around 2030, we should be able to flood our brains with nanobots that can be turned off and on and which would function as ‘experience beamers’ allowing us to experience the full range of other people’s sensory experiences…
Nanobots will also expand human intelligence by factors of thousands or millions. By 2030, nonbiological thinking will be trillions of times more powerful than biological thinking.“

Question: So you are still a skeptic of the concept of molecular manufacturing?

Answer: I am a skeptic. I believe that the concept of molecular manufacturing – of creating macroscopic objects atom by atom for any material, is flawed. I do not believe that this technique can be scaled-up to manufacture macrosized objects for arbitrary materials. In “Nanosystems” Drexler makes a careful and clever choice of the type of system required for mechanosynthesis/molecular manufacturing, taking into account the key surface science issues. I’ve never been able to see why it is then claimed that these schemes are extendable to all other materials (or practically all elements in the periodic table), for the reasons I discussed at considerable length in my debate with Chris Phoenix.
But I want to take this opportunity to give credit to Drexler. He has been the subject of a lot of criticism – some of it rather non-scientific and ad hominem- from what might be described as the ‘traditional’ (i.e. non-molecular manufacturing) nanoscience community. Drexler deserves significant kudos for the concept at the heart of the molecular manufacturing scheme; single atom chemistry driven purely by (chemo)mechanical forces is demonstrably valid. Richard Smalley, despite raising other important criticisms of the molecular manufacturing concept, misunderstood key aspects of mechanosynthesis and put forward flawed objections to the physical chemistry underlying Drexler’s proposals.

The accomplishments of Professor Moriarty and his team certainly represent a major milestone along the road to advanced nanotechnology. It remains to be seen whether the proponents of diamond mechanosynthesis as the most direct route to developing a nanofactory (molecular manufacturing) will be able to overcome the problems underlying Moriarty’s skepticism, or whether modular molecular composite nanosystems will prove a better path. What is clear from this and other items we have reported here is that there is an abundance of promising leads that justify much greater support than is currently available for the development of advanced nanotechnology (high throughput atomically precise productive nanosytems).

Note added one day later: thanks to Robert A. Freitas Jr. for passing along this link to the YouTube version of the above mentioned video.

…Intel CEO Paul Otellini has said “it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip, and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States.” He has also said that not long ago “our research centers were without peer. No country was more attractive for start-up capital. We seemed a generation ahead of the rest of the world in information technology. That simply is no longer the case.”

Capital markets (and with them our leadership in IPOs) are fleeing the U.S., with the latest development being the acquisition of the NYSE by Deutsche Börse. Having learned nothing from the impact of punishing the innocent with Sarbanes-Oxley, Congress has unleashed an open-ended rulemaking frenzy under Dodd-Frank. Who knows what that will bring, but it’s a safe bet it will work out well for large organizations like GE while entrepreneurs and real innovators are losers again. And as always, tighter environmental regulations and data requirements are promised (ostensibly to ‘crack down’ on polluters, though the more likely result is that better replacement innovations simply won’t even be attempted). …

So despite the Einsteinian insanity of arguing yet again for sensible innovation policy, let’s connect all of this with why nanotechnology (other than via Moore’s Law, a battery, three protein/liposome/polymer cancer drugs, and some low-impact consumer applications) has not yet lived up to its hype, at least as measured by venture capital investment, successful investor exits (A123 and ???) and high-wage job creation in the U.S. (A123 and ???). …

Except for the biggest and lowest risk opportunities (e.g. better drop-in replacement batteries with one new component, blockbuster drugs) the process can’t even get going when small companies have to pay big company prices for regulatory compliance to access a small initial opportunity (consistent with limited ability to ramp production), and both investors and customers find the cost, risk and uncertainty hurdles too high to overcome. This is compounded by the worsening U.S. environment for startups and investors. It is small wonder, really, that the two-year old ‘recovery’ certainly doesn’t feel like one in the hardware/materials manufacturing sector.

But nanotechnology and nanomaterials, along with the production techniques to deliver them, are still new compared to the chemical industry, and there is still hope that badly needed societal innovation might occur in support of enabling their economic and social benefits. One thing that is clearly required is a far more enabling regime for startups and low-volume first applications. One possible scenario for this is a fast-track, light-regulatory-touch path for green nanotechnology: nanomaterials and nanomanufacturing developments conducted according to the principles of green chemistry. Another way to say this is safe-by-design (to the extent possible, based on what we know) products produced by green-by-design manufacturing processes.

Progress has been made on this vision, and we’re ready to discuss concrete criteria for what constitutes green nanotechnology, standard/simplified characterization protocols and enabling policies. And that’s exactly what we intend to do at GN11, Greener Nano 2011, May 2-3 at Hewlett-Packard’s Cupertino site in the heart of Silicon Valley. We’re assembling a great program and attendance of the right people and organizations to “Advance Applications and Reduce Risks” – including the risk of not innovating in the first place.

There is no time to lose, because other countries (especially in Asia) seem determined to win the opportunity to lead in 21st century manufacturing.

Skip Rung is certainly addressing an important problem. As someone who has followed nanotechnology closely since 1986, I have to say that, despite substantial advancements in nanoscience and nanotechnology, progress has been disappointing in two areas: (1) there has not been major investment in developing advanced nanotechnology (high throughput productive nanosytems) based on the Feynman vision as articulated by Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle, and Robert Freitas; (2) advances in nanotechnology have not launched a large and rapidly growing nanotechnology industry in the way that advances in semiconductor manufacturing and integrated circuits launched the computer industry. A vibrant industry focused on near- and intermediate-term applications advances the technology base needed to develop advanced applications. Many early nanotechnology enthusiasts were drawn from the computer industry because they perceived the possibility of a parallel course for nanotechnology development. However, the anemic growth we have witnessed in nanotechnology reminds me more of the biotech industry. When I was in the early phase of my career as a molecular biology researcher 35 years ago, the development of recombinant DNA technology inspired the hope that learning to produce in bacteria otherwise difficult or impossible to obtain molecules like interferons would launch a huge biotech industry that would rival the size and importance of the computer industry. Actual growth, while real, was much more modest because it turned out we had only scratched the surface of the necessary underlying science. The immune system was much more complicated than we realized, the genome was a vast, unexplored frontier, and the existence of such crucial phenomena as epigenetic regulation and RNA interference was unsuspected. Has the growth of the nanotechnology industry been slow because we are still as ignorant of nanoscience as we were of biology in 1976? Or is Skip Rung correct that government policies are at fault? There are clearly significant environmental, health, and safety issues with some nanomaterials that need to be managed so that we do not create a public relations nightmare for the fledgling nanotechnology industry. Can government provide necessary regulation without strangling innovation?

I was invited to a select salon at Science House with Hybrid Reality Institute to discuss the future of nanotechnology a few weeks ago. It turned out to be a lot of fun meeting interesting people and speaking about what I love but it did dawn on me that during that dinner that people thought nanotechnology was no longer happening. …

Now I have not written about nanotechnology for a couple of years now and most of the hype done by others in this sector which I did not care for has died down much in the last several years. This does not by any means nanotechnology has stalled. You just have not heard about it so much because the PR machines stalled because those responsible left for greener nanotechnology pastures. …

James Jorasch, founder of the Science House, at that salon mentioned that perhaps nanotechnology needed a PR campaign again and I would have to agree. However, it may need some new blood and energy injected into it.

Does Nanotechnology Need PR, and, if so, what kind of PR? Since its founding in 1986, Foresight has focused on advanced nanotechnology—high throughput atomically precise manufacturing—what it will be like, how we get there, the opportunities it offers, and the dangers we want to avoid. Our principal efforts have been the Feynman Prizes for progress toward Feynman’s vision of advanced nanotechnology, our Foresight Institute Molecular Nanotechnology Conferences, and the Technology Roadmap for Productive Nanosystems.

Meanwhile, there has been enormous progress in the broad area of nanoscale science and technology, supported in large part by the US National Nanotechnology Initiative and similar programs in other countries. Technologies developed from this research have already led to a large number of consumer products identified by their manufacturers as nanotechnology-based. As of early 2011, The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies has identified 1014 such consumer products. Looking ahead a few years, the Foresight Nanotechnology Challenges focused on the near-term and intermediate-term development of nanotechnologies (not necessarily atomically precise) that could address major challenges facing humanity.

Given that “nanotechnology” is an umbrella term covering a range of topics, is Pearl right that nanotechnology needs a PR campaign, and one with new energy? If so, what kinds of efforts would be most effective? Do we need to do a better job making the long-term goal of advanced nanotechnology more vivid? Plotting paths to get there from where we are now? Highlighting exciting laboratory progress and current applications? Identifying intermediate goals that might accelerate progress toward long-term goals? What efforts should Foresight prioritize?

U.S. Risks Losing Global Leadership in Nanotech

While the U.S. still leads the world in nanotech innovation by virtue of its size, Japan, Germany and South Korea are doing a better job of bringing technology to market, says Lux Research.

In terms of sheer volume, the U.S. dominated the rest of the world in nanotech funding and new patents last year, as U.S. government funding, corporate spending, and VC investment in nanotech collectively reached $6.4 billion in 2009. But according to a new report from Lux Research, countries such as China and Russia launched new challenges to U.S. dominance in 2009, while smaller players such as Japan, Germany and South Korea surpassed the United States in terms of commercializing nanotechnology and products.

Now, I don’t know why this may be the case, but speaking as someone running a small nonprofit in the U.S., the paperwork alone is a huge burden, and I know it’s worse in the case of for-profit companies and larger organizations.  —Chris Peterson

An article in New Scientist with the optimistic title “Artificial life forms evolve basic intelligence” gives an update on how two specific examples of computational artificial life is doing in terms of evolving to have more interesting behavior.  An excerpt:

Brains that have been evolved with HyperNEAT have millions of connections, yet still perform a task well, and that number could be pushed higher yet,” he says. “This is a sea change for the field. Being able to evolve functional brains at this scale allows us to begin pushing the capabilities of artificial neural networks up, and opens up a path to evolving artificial brains that rival their natural counterparts.

See the comments after the article for useful discussion.  A field to keep an eye on.  —Chris Peterson