NanoCreationism
HLovy writes "Having covered the Foresight Institute conference in October and now the business-focused NanoCommerce 2003, I can see now the extent of the contrast between these competing visions. I have not taken any kind of scientific poll, but judging from the conversations I've had with many of the people here, I can safely confirm for the MNT believers something they likely already knew: They are indeed being marginalized by those who speak for the nanotech business community, and proudly so. I used the term "believers" on purpose because one source told me that arguing with a Drexlerian is akin to debating a Creationist: There's simply no winning, since they take their beliefs on faith. I countered that most Creationists do not desire or seek proof — the very definition of faith — whereas MNT proponents are actively pursuing proof.
I don't want to talk about who said what to me and when, yet, since my interviews are not yet complete and I don't want to help launch another round of name-calling, but one of my sources brought up what I feel is a valid criticism of Foresight, the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology and others: The more they launch public attacks against those who disagree with them, the less inclined the nanotech business leadership will be to even invite them to the table, for fear their words will be used against them.
For the complete commentary, please see Howard Lovy's NanoBot."
February 13th, 2004 at 10:10 AM
Remaining Adamant
Who cares about the rest of the industry? I personally would never like to work with people who can't admit that they're wrong. People who say things are impossible are fools, because, in reality, nothing is impossible, it's just some goals are more difficult to achieve than others. Drexlerian MNT is going to be one of those difficult goals, something of which we have all admitted a long time ago – but it is not, by any means, impossible to achieve.
While it may be true that some of us are a bit extreme with our ideas and beliefs in nanotech, it does not mean we should stop voicing those opinions, just because some us fear that the industry will spurn us even more than they do now. If we let the rest of the industry conquer our resolve, we will eventually become like the rest of those simpletons, and believe that our goals are, indeed, impossible. We can't allow that to happen.
February 13th, 2004 at 2:36 PM
Nanodevelopment
It seems to me that it is very easy to resolve the difference of opinions between "nanobusiness" and "MNT" fans. In nanobusiness it is simple — it is "have you done your 'due diligence'?". In academia it is "have you done your homework?"
With respect to the due diligence that people in business should expect, there is a question list outlined in this comment. Now, the due diligence that is required for specific business proposals varies — anyone who invests in a nanotech business should be aware of the market, the developement risks, etc. If the business people are selling this "yada yada yada" business investment (which at the current time is most probably a nanomaterials investment) they should also be selling you when to get out of the "yada yada yada" investment because that may be when the yield on the investment will decline. If the business proponents cannot describe both how the investment will yield greater than average returns in the short term and how it will decline (perhaps due to the development of effective MNT) in the long term then perhaps they have not "done their homework". If any business proposal does not include when when investment prospects will decline due to the development of effective MNT then I would assert that such people have not done their necessary due diligence. (This means the entire venture capital industry is on notice that this is a requirement for public offerings.)
Any nanobusiness to present an investment which does not include a serious assessment of MNT is most probably an irresponsible act on the part of the board of directors of the corporation. One which may involve legal actions if they have failed to deal with the development of MNT in a responsible fashion.
Bottom line — many, if not all, corporations must make a strong assertion that the development of MNT cannot happen (wishful thinking) or they must demonstrate that they are prepared to deal with it.
Robert
February 13th, 2004 at 2:51 PM
Re:Nanodevelopment
Question: How are these corporations going to deal with MNT?
My Answer: They can't, which is why they fear it – hence the reason why they are so defensive about the subject.
I'd like your input on how they could possible deal with it. The only possible solution I see is the 'adapt or die' scenario…and even then, the corporations are going to lose all of their power anyway. It's a lose/lose situation for them — which is a very good thing.
February 14th, 2004 at 8:12 PM
I agree with Howard
Things are getting too wrapped up in personalities here. Instead of pointlessly reiterating Nanosystems, Feynman, Drexler and so on, why not start pointing to names we've never heard of?
Foresight, perhaps understandably, often points to work by Merkle, Fritas, Drexler and so on but this only increases the perception that Foresight is a personality cult and fan club.
How about increasing credibility by pointing to other research out there that ties into enabling MNT? If advocates can point to this, that can say, "See? It's not just us. We're not a lunatic fringe."
February 14th, 2004 at 10:20 PM
An example
How about increasing credibility by pointing to other research out there that ties into enabling MNT? If advocates can point to this, that can say, "See? It's not just us. We're not a lunatic fringe."
I agree completely. Along those lines, here's a quiz. Who wrote the following?
Through inducing chemical reactions at a single-molecule level with the STM tip, various underlying reaction processes can be studied on an atomic level. Chemical relationships like the Ullmann equation can be confirmed. New chemical reaction pathways may be discovered. However, one should be cautious in making direct relationships between the natural and tip-induced reactions. Under the influence of the tip, reactions that otherwise might not occur in nature can be forced to proceed. But this is exactly the advantage for nanotechnology because synthesis of individual human-made molecules, never before seen in nature or made in chemical reactors, may eventually become a possibility. Construction of single molecules on a one-at-a-time basis using the STM tip as an engineering tool (60) may require creating basic building blocks, bringing them together to an assembling place, and then joining them to form a desired molecule. This entire process is somewhat similar to the assembling process of automobiles or electronic commodities such as televisions, computers, etc., in a factory production line.
Basic blocks for construction of a molecule can be atoms, molecules, or radicals. By selective bond breaking with an STM tip, unnecessary parts of a molecule can be cleaved, thereby creating active sites. Such molecules can be used as basic blocks to join with other deliberately prepared species to build a new molecule. The individual molecules may also be constructed with the STM tip and collected for further use as basic blocks for the assembly of larger molecules.
The ability to bring these basic blocks to an assembling place with atomicscale precision is an important and integral part of the process. A crucial step in the bond-formation procedure is the proper alignment of molecular blocks so that they can be joined in a geometrically correct way. For this, reorientation and repositioning of molecules in the desired way with atomic-scale precision is necessary. At sufficiently low temperatures, this can also be achieved by using the STM tip. Molecules with specific functions, to be used in nanoelectronic and nanomechanic devices, may be constructed, and their physical and chemical properties may be studied in situ with STM spectroscopy techniques on an individual basis. Even though direct industrial application of single-molecule construction may not be possible in the foreseeable future, the knowledge of how to construct the molecule can initiate a mass-scale production. Thus, with these achievements in molecular-manipulation possibilities with the STM, an entire new dimension for future nanoscience and technology is now wide open.
Sounds like it's straight from Nanosystems, doesn't it? In fact, it's "FUTURE PROSPECTS OF SINGLE-MOLECULE CHEMICAL REACTIONS" from "STM CONTROL OF CHEMICAL REACTIONS: Single-Molecule Synthesis" by Saw-Wai Hla and Karl-Heinz Rieder (Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2003. 54:307ñ30), obviously channeling Eric Drexler – who, by the way, isn't credited at all in the bibliography. (All the 'loud' capitalization is theirs, not mine.) Modulo phrases such as "At sufficiently low temperatures…" (which are necessary because of the limitations of their approach, not an intrinsic limitation of mechanosynthesis) and "…direct industrial application of single-molecule construction may not be possible in the foreseeable future…" (some people can see further than others), this seems to me like what Mr_Farlops calls "other research out there that ties into enabling MNT".
If Drexlerian nanotech is a religion, then I think we have converts at Ohio University (Athens) and the Freie Universitat Berlin – and maybe at Reviews of Physical Chemistry. The "faith" seems to be spreading, and I think it will continue to spread, as it continues to establish a solid publication record in the major journals. Amen!
February 16th, 2004 at 1:19 PM
Re:I agree with Howard
Understood. But one cannot point to every single reference without devoting years to the process (which is what Drexler, Merkle and Freitas have done). If people are wrapped up in personalities it is because they recognize the amount of work which has been done.
For example, I would estimate there are currently at least half a dozen and perhaps up to a dozen references that could be cited related to the STM (or AFM) assembly efforts cited by qftconnor. Combine that with parallel assembly methods and self-assembly methods and you are talking perhaps 50+ papers. It takes hours to days to cite this many references effectively. The reason one cites D/M/F is because they cite hundreds (or thousands) of other references. Nanosystems for example contains 339 references and Nanomedicine Vol. I contains 3728 references. Precisely how many of those (or their derivatives since scientists have certainly not stopped work in the last 5-10 years) do you want me to cite in a conversation to avoid the perspective of being some type of "cult of personality" fanatic?
Nanotech critics have largely failed to do their homework. I will admit this work is not easy — it has taken the better part of a decade for me to understand much of Nanosystems. But as qftconnor points out people *are* making progress. It is slow but it is steady. The people who have taken the time to really look at the literature know that. The people who have not are the "nonbelievers". I strongly suspect that even if one dumped the all of the references cited in Nanosystems and Nanomedicine on top of the heads of the "nonbelievers" they would not choose to convert.
Robert
February 17th, 2004 at 4:08 AM
Current nanosynthesis bibliography
It has been brought to my attention that the Foresight Institute has recently made available a complete technical bibliography of the current state of positional mechanosynthesis. And while some of the papers are by Drexler, Merkle and Freitas, there are certainly many more by other authors.
I would hope that this would satisfy Mr. Farlops request that MNT advocates are not a "lunatic fringe".
And mechanosynthesis is *not* the only path to MNT, I'm aware of at least two companies, Molecubotics and Robiobotics that were founded based on ideas involving biotechnology based approaches to MNT.
Robert
February 20th, 2004 at 2:55 AM
Minor correction regarding Robiobotics
Due to the expiration of the Domain Name Server service, the public robiobotics.com domain was stolen and does not point to the correct IP address at this time.
A URL for Robiobotics that will work for now is here. It is hoped that the resolution of this problem will be soon but it has to work its way through the ICANN bureaucracy.