NNI classes nanobots as science fiction
NNI confused by SciFi: Howard Lovy's blog Nanobot brings to our attention this item under "Nanotech Facts" on the NNI website (your tax dollars at play): What are nanobots? And are they fantasy or reality? (near bottom of page).
From What are nanobots? And are they fantasy or reality?:
Such creatures do not exist and many scientists believe they never will, saying nanoscale materials are simply too small to manipulate for such purposes – and if someone wanted to create something destructive, there are many easier ways to do so.
That said, technologies, starting with fire, are abused at times. For this reason, laboratories are closely monitored and research is peer-reviewed. Research funding is withheld from less-than-worthy projects and from those with questionable credentials or reputation.
One safeguard against potential abuses is training scientists to consider the ethical implications of the research they perform. Government regulations are always possible should there appear need. Today-and as far as scientists can see-anything resembling nanobots remains in the realm of science fiction.
March 16th, 2004 at 9:33 AM
Nanobots do exist
Well, this is obviously misinformation. Nanorobots have existed in the form of bacteria for billions of years and humans have been making use of selected bacteria (for fermentation purposes) for several thousand years as well as engineered bacteria for 30+ years (to produce antibiotics, insulin, etc.).
I have sent an email note to Dr. Roco at the NSF/NNI with respect to this misinformation and will update this thread as I receive responses.
Robert
March 16th, 2004 at 10:45 AM
Re:Nanobots do exist
I don't think these scientists believe in the rubbish that comes out of their mouths most of the time. In this case, I think that they do believe nanobots are possible, but are only dispelling it to quell public fear.
Human stupidity is infinite.
March 16th, 2004 at 12:39 PM
Leap of negativity
I am surprised that the author of this list makes a leap from the term nanobot to its use as a destructive weapon. Perhaps, I misuse the terminology, but I view the term nanobot as describing a nanoscale robot, plain and simple. I actually have a fairly positive view of such an idea but maybe I don't watch enough of the sci-fi that has influenced the author.
March 20th, 2004 at 12:42 AM
nano-engineering
From one side its good & cheap des-infofmation tactics (analogous new-energy).
From other side this attitide outflow from conception of NanoAct about self-organization & arte-fact (man-making thing) and definition of nanoENGINEERING. See ilustration in NanoLetters, Chemistry of Material, Langmuir od ASC – they are overflow NATURAL nanobot arounf tips of microscopes.
Vladimir Astachine
http://astachine.narod.ru
Project "Artificial intelligence and Nanotechnology in Context of Russian Idea" (in Russian language) on CD free.
March 22nd, 2004 at 3:02 PM
Nanobot Dismissal
The whole tone of the nanobot section is about allaying fears the public may have. Given that the agenda seems to be dismissing public fears at all costs, we have to wonder about its objectivity. Smalley seems to adopt the same line of attack. Dismissing Molecular Manufacturing as Sci-Fi, thus allaying peoples fears. It may well be that molecular manufacturing is impossible, but I want someone to explain exactly why its impossible and also explain how nature manages to achieve it, despite its impossibility . Handwaving dismissals do no-one any favours.
March 25th, 2004 at 7:09 AM
Re:Nanobot Dismissal
I have to disagree. The claim would appear to rest on the fact that the public is generally well enough informed that they could have fears with respect to nanotech. I really doubt that is the case. Go down to your local grocery store and ask the checkout clerk or climb into a taxicab and ask the driver if they are afraid of nanotech. At this time I would give you good odds on 49 out of 50 people asking you "what is nanotech?". The average person is clueless about what biotech is and that has been around since the mid-70s. So I do not think the public fear argument is a justification for being anti-nanotech.
It is of course completely reasonable to want the "impossibility" to be explained. It would seem to require that mechanosynthesis be shown as impossible (very doubtful) as well as other possible paths to nanotechnology based on biotechnology are impossible as well (very very doubtful). To date that has not been done (IMO).