Richard Smalley derides concept of nanobots
from the sigh dept.
Both nanofluidicist and Sander Olson call our attention to comments by Richard Smalley of Rice University in the recently released NSET report on the societal implications of nanotechnoogy. In the report, while making remarks in support of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, Smalley makes reference to the scare that has been raised over the possibility for autonomous, self-replicating nanorobots. According to Smalley, nanobots are "an impossible, childish fantasy," a "fuzzy-minded nightmare dream."
A response to similar comments attributed to Smalley last November appeared in Foresight Update #43.
Read more for an excerpt of Smalley's comment from the report. Smalley's comments appear in the following section of the report:
"NANOTECHNOLOGY, EDUCATION, AND THE FEAR OF NANOBOTS
R.E. Smalley, Rice University
The National Nanotechnology Initiative is a vital step toward reinvigoration of our nationís youth for careers in science and technology. Technology at the nanometer scale where we strive to build in Natureís way at the ultimate level of finesse, one atom at a time, offers our best hope of alleviating human suffering, solving the most vexing of worldwide environmental problems, and raising the standard of living of the burgeoning global population through technical innovation and economic growth. The combination of high tech gee whiz, high social impact, and economic good sense gives the dream of nanotechnology the ability to inspire our nationís youth toward science unlike any event since Sputnik.
Yet there are concerns. Some wonder that the power of nanotechnology may be so great that becomes both its own, and humanityís, undoing. Such fears are deeply embedded in our culture, reaching back to the oldest myths of the Garden of Eden and the Forbidden Fruit. Now in the millennial year 2000 the principal fear is that it may be possible to create a new life form, a self-replicating nanoscale robot, a ìnanobot.î Microscopic in size, yet able to be programmed to make not only another copy of itself, but virtually anything else that can be imagined, these nanobots are both enabling fantasy and dark nightmare in the popularized conception of nanotechnology. They would enable the general transformation of software into atomic reality. For fundamental reasons I am convinced these nanobots are an impossible, childish fantasy. The assembly of complex molecular structures is vastly more subtle and complex than is appreciated by the dreamers of these tiny mechanical robots.
We should not let this fuzzy-minded nightmare dream scare us away from nanotechnology. Nanobots are not real. Letís turn on the lights and talk about it. Letís educate ourselves as to how chemistry and biology really work. The NNI should go forward both here in the U.S. and in major research programs around the planet."
April 28th, 2001 at 6:34 PM
Another case of asking the wrong expert?
Smalley is a Nobel prize winning chemist. He is not, to my knowledge, a noted authority on systems engineering, robotics, or the design of complex structures. His credibility in making these kinds of assertions would be substantial if he were making some argument about what is permitted by the fundamental physical and chemical principles that are his domain of expertise. However, though he hints at such an argument, he does not make one. Instead, he resorts to name calling and hand waving. This does not strike me as behavior becoming of a Nobel laureate.
Is this just academic politics at work or is there some deeper emotional issue behind this?
April 29th, 2001 at 12:24 AM
Re:Another case of asking the wrong expert?
I suggest that Smalley might think it so unlikely it would be possible to carry out a self-sustaining chemical reaction that would destroy all life on earth.
There is no doubt that an assembler can be built. But it is another matter to assert that it would or even could destroy the biosphere. (What about coping abilities? Natural checks and balances? I know your saying ìnatural checks and balances havenít stopped technology thus far but they have in certain instances: Alchemy) I believe that if one accepts the chemical, and indeed chemical "systems," viewpoint it is highly unlikely that nanobots can; one have the power; two have the correct amounts of matter available (stoichiometric reactions, open and closed systems approach); or three have the ability to find the correct amounts (out of control does not imply heinous or malicious intent). I am not going to assert that a Nobel laureate of chemistry does not know how bonds are formed and I don't think anyone is. Right? And if we can forget him because of his background then whose can we accept?
However, any nanobot will ultimately be a concerted effort between a lot of different fields and I think if we dissect what would be needed to make a gray goo scenario we will find it quite impossible from a mathematical standpoint. I mean a decent amount of chemicals that are being looked at are not abundant everywhere are they? (Gold nanodots) I don't believe that the scenario is likely (or is low probability) or that it has a low probability if we watch for problems is the best answer. I think Smalley is playing it correctly, nanotech is a science-public relations nightmare and I think he is doing his best to calm public and technical fears. I for one agree with his approach. If civil and structural engineers stated their worst fears publicly I doubt that we would be building higher sky scrapers for fear they would come tumbling down (ever hear of metal fatigue and wind loads). It is very important to remember that as a technical profession we serve the people and the people serve us by allowing us to use capital and resources. The anti-technologist's (I hate these naive chumps) effort in advanced society is paying off they have even convinced some of the technical higher-ups that "some knowledge" is bad and that "we" should abandon it's pursuit. (Bill Joy, Wired) Smalley is in the public arena calming public fears. I see no problem with this.
Let us also remember that nanotechnology and specifically nanoscience has a whole heckuva lot more to offer us than nanobots, even if it would be or is the ultimate goal.(Thin film technologies, metallurgy, functional materials, cleaner forms of energy, stronger materials, etc.) This is the work that will lead to assembler technology. Certainly there is a lot of material to learn and even create before this is a reality. Application of knowledge is also tough. Tolerances in the form of isotopes and temperature ranges might be problems as well. What I really want to know is how do you build circuits or control systems at this level? How would they be powered? I think if we even had close to a technical idea or concept about these things we could either refute or accept certain viewpoints but since there is none we end up wasting valuable time in our short lives on conjecture and speculation about if it is possible. Science and engineering have come so far because speculation, although it has its place in the creative process, has been left out. As scientists and engineers we should rely on solid calculations and the proof that application of such numbers give us. No one argues on the point that 1+1=2 because it cannot be proven otherwise. Working in macroscale robotics and having taken a course in modern physics (Quantum mechanics) has taught me a great deal about what is and is not possible. I personally speculate far more than I should because I have not yet been able to acquire the technology or the hard-core chemical knowledge that this type of project requires. I have a degree and this means obviously I have learned a decent amount in all three realms of science, engineering and mathematics but even I have no way of predicting where the future will go. I have convinced the state government I live under and my college I have the faculties to do work in this field. If someone has some sort of control system and a solid mathematically backed concept I would love to hear it. But until then I think that judging Smalley or Joy as incompetent on the grounds that they are not systems engineers is insane. I for one, if I must choose, will side with Smalley rather than Joy or nanobot promoters that don't know about the real chemical or quantum world and answer questions like: "how is it controlled?" with theoretical concepts like nanocomputers.
Just how big can we make these things before they can't do anything in the human body or are rather they are considered microbots? These are real questions and if we can't answer these we should all go back to the drawing board.
April 29th, 2001 at 8:33 AM
Smalley's Right, in a Clintonian Sense
"Nanobots are not real." Nope, they're not. Just as airplanes weren't real in 1900.
April 29th, 2001 at 10:20 PM
Re:Another case of asking the wrong expert?
Smalleyís argument comes down to, simply put, ìI have a Nobel prize, and you donít.î Itís the old appeal to authority, the authority in this case being himself, and normally it wouldnít be very credible. However, the real authorities at the molecular scale, the molecular biologists, lend Smalley a world of credibility by their silence. These people routinely engage in wild speculation and surmise regarding complex molecular systems; it's their stock in trade, and has led to some brilliant experiments. Their failure to actively refute Smalley and weigh in on the side of nanobots says volumes. Is there any molecular biologist of stature who can be found to believe in the possibility of nanobots?
April 30th, 2001 at 8:58 AM
Re:Another case of asking the wrong expert?
I think I speak for many Nanodot readers when I say
Huh?
April 30th, 2001 at 12:14 PM
Terminology simply sloppy?
I wonder: does Smalley object to molecular-scale/precision manufacturing in general, or merely to a certain class of devices? He writes:
When he says "nanobot", he seems to mean a single universal free-roving free-eating general assembler/replicator — which *is*, admittedly, the shape of most nanotech in popular SF. Such portrayals usually include a distributed/collective/hive/emergent intelligence.
When *we* (Foresight-aware MNT enthusiasts) say "nanobot", we seem to mean any of a variety of limited special-purpose sensor-effectors; some are assemblers, some replicators, some free-roving or free-eating, but very very few have all four capabilities.
IOW, most of "our" useful/common "nanobots" are no more likely to be threat or savior than a single Unimation-brand robot arm in a factory or lab.
This is IMHO a very odd statement to use *against* MNT, because a modern conception of nanomanufacturing combines elements of both chemistry and biology: specialized devices on assembly lines (like ribosomes and enzymes docked to membranes), employing catalysts that are much smaller than an enzyme (which is burdened by all that floppy protein scaffolding around the active site). The only novel concepts are mechanosynthesis, i.e. forcing a reaction by direct application of pressure, rather than waiting for the reactants to align themselves in solution, or fall correctly into an enzyme's active site; and the eutactic environment, the antithesis of solution (be it a flask or vesicle), in which there are no loose molecules. (Not to be confused with eut*e*ctic, which refers to the melting point of alloys.)
OTOH, this hypothetical MNT factory is much larger than the "nanobots" Smalley seems to be railing against.
May 7th, 2001 at 8:59 AM
Re:Another case of asking the wrong expert?
I don't know about "molecular biologist", but I know about 3 commercial companies that fully intend to assemble "biobots". Biobots are nanobots only they use parts and assemblers from natural biological systems. These ideas have been circulating in the biological community since 1987 when I pointed them out at Extro3 and Glen Evans pointed them out at the TIGR genome conference. The fact that Eric Lander (from the MIT genome center) and George Whitesides (of nanoimprint fame) are advisors for one of these companies (enGeneOS) speaks volumes regarding their thoughts on the feasiblity. This is paradoxical to me since Whitesides is, I believe, in the Smalley/Vogel/Williams/Heath "impossibility" camp. My impression is that these people simply haven't read any of the literature produced by the Drexler/Merkle/Freitas camp and until they do they will keep saying "impossible fantasy" when they are in fact simply "not real" yet.
The experts one should ask about self-replicating nanoscale systems are microbiologists like C. A. Hutchison or E. V. Koonin (look them up in PubMed), not a chemist. If you want to know how long it would take to design the ~300 +/-50 nanoscale parts a nanoscale system seems to need for self-replication you need to talk to companies that deal with design for a living like Boeing or AutoCad.
I agree, it is precisely a case of asking the wrong expert.
Also, worth noting is that Foresight has responded to Smalley's claims. The URL is here/A& gt;.
November 5th, 2001 at 10:45 AM
Minor Correction and some URLs
The year should be 1997, not 1987.
URLs for responses to Smalley's claims include: