NSF Misses the Point on Nanotechnology
Mike Treder writes "A recent report published by the U.S. National Science Foundation highlights their systematic failure to address the most important issues raised by nanotechnology. By ignoring the societal impacts of molecular manufacturing, they miss the major significance of the technology."
Mike Treder continues.
First described by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman in 1959, programmable nanoscale manufacturing systems are expected to slash the cost of manufacturing while greatly increasing product performance. Tiny supercomputers, rapid medical advances, self-contained automated desktop factories, and advanced weapons are only a few of the consequences.
"Molecular manufacturing needs to be addressed, and the NSF report is a big distraction," says Mike Treder, Executive Director of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN). "They present themselves as asking the right questions, but the answers are worse than wrong: they are simply off-topic."
In June 2004, the National Science Foundation convened a meeting of science policy representatives from 25 countries and the European Union to discuss how to carry out nanotechnology research and development "in a responsible manner." Unfortunately, they addressed only near-term nanoscale technologies such as nanoparticles. The most important long-term consequences of nanotechnology were ignored.
As an example, a question in the report about whether nanotechnology will be "inherently continuous or inherently disruptive" leads to a digression about "novel properties that only become evident at the nanoscale." In fact, nanotechnology will be disruptive because of molecular manufacturing.
"Molecular manufacturing is an inevitable consequence of advanced nanotechnology," says Chris Phoenix, CRN's Director of Research. "This is not acknowledged in the NSF report. We need to prepare for revolutionary changes, not just incremental improvements like new nanoparticles."
CRN urges the National Science Foundation and other organizations to correct this error, and begin addressing the long-term consequences of nanotechnology.
For more information, see CRN's web page on U.S. nanotechnology policy at http://crnano.org/us-policy.htm
The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology is headquartered in New York. The mission of CRN is to raise awareness of the issues presented by nanotechnology: the benefits and dangers, and the possibilities for responsible use. CRN is an affiliate of World Care, an international, non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization.
September 21st, 2004 at 7:45 AM
What you plant, you shall harvest
Language is the mirror through which we view the world. Corrupt language, and the vision you see in the mirror shall be corrupted as well. If you wonder why NSF, and pretty much everyone else, is not thinking about MNT, look no farther than the word "nanotechnology". NSF report is about "nanotechnology", which in today's language means "any technology with nanoscale features", so their questions and their conclusions are correct. When the meaning of the word, which once applied only to MNT, was broadened to include everything, MNT became an ultra-special subset of it. When Foresight popularized its magical benefits, MNT became an ignored ultra-special subset, because its implementation was (and still is) unspecified, because its benefits sound too good to be true (and we know what that means), because nanobots are presented as a lifeform (and only God may create life without committing blasphemy), and because its function is considerably more difficult to understand in a world that still does not really believe in atoms. If you are unwilling to stand by the name, and force everyone to accept that "nanotechnology" should only mean "assemblers", there is no reason to be surprized when everyone but you starts using the word for other purposes. What we should do at this point is accept that "nanotechnology" really does mean "everything" these days, invent another word, and then demand funding for it
September 24th, 2004 at 1:47 AM
Re:What you plant, you shall harvest
Atom itself a molecule of constructs, where it is relatively dwarf to another such unit and so the Nanoscience is appropriate to classify the explorations on the nature in a top-to-bottom approach, in which the illusive molecular manufacturing is having illusive social impacts due to our optimism to supersede the nature.
October 4th, 2004 at 4:01 PM
NSF and Atomic Holographic Optical NanoStorage
I know for a fact NSF invited the inventor back to DC to make a presentation to NSF and academics.
The inventor was praised for his concepts by NSF but was blasted and insulted by the hard drive storage companies in attendance. The hard drive business doesnt want any nanotechnology that advances data storage and threatens their strangle hold on the market.
This same thing is happening in other areas where corporate America feels threatend.
If anyone should be blamed for NOT doing anything to advance science IT IS CORPORATE AMERICA PROTECTING THEIR TURF and KILLING Innovation.