New York Times looks at abuse of nanotechnology
from the worth-reading dept.
In the Sept 25, 2001 New York Times, Gina Kolata has an article entitled "When Science Inadvertently Aids an Enemy" in which she looks at both encryption and nanotechnology. Foresight Director Glenn Reynolds and Advisor Ralph Merkle are quoted. Also: "It is a technology whose consequences could be so terrifying that one scientist, Dr. K. Eric Drexler, who saw what it could do, at first thought that he should never tell anyone what he was imagining, for fear that those dreadful abuses might come to pass…With the Asilomar discussions as a model, a group of scientists and others who worried about nanotechnology formed a nonprofit institute, the Foresight Institute based in Los Altos, Calif. Its goal is to prepare society for the transforming powers of new technologies, and, in particular, of nanotechnology…The institute's chairman, Dr. Drexler, originally thought that the best thing to do would be never to disclose nanotechnology's darker possibilities for fear it might give terrorists ideas. But he soon realized that if he could think of these abuses, others could too. So he decided to try to help society prepare for the good uses of the technology and to protect itself against its evil use. Dr. Drexler, Dr. Merkle and others at the Foresight Institute argue that openness is critical toward developing nanotechnology safely." Thanks, Gina.
September 27th, 2001 at 1:15 AM
"Thanks, Gina"?
Although the article didn't say anything really bad about nanotechnology, and although it made Our Guys look good, and although it presented a legitimate view of the risks and the possible courses of action, and although the quotes from Ralph and Eric represented good, logically persuasive arguments, I don't think this article is anything to be celebrating about.
Now and probably for the next several months, any article that puts nanotech and terrorism on the same page, except maybe one with a headline like "Nanotech Offers Solution for Terrorism", is Bad Publicity (TM). People aren't in a mood to consider things rationally in the WTC aftermath… they're in a mood to hide from things that scare them.
The subtle arguments about needing to study defense are going to fall on the least fertile possible ground right now, no matter how reasonably they're presented. The way this likely to be read by a lot of people is "Crypto people released crypto, now regret it, nanotech even more dangerous, worry worry, scare scare, make it go away".
Of course, it's completely reasonable to be concerned. The dangers are real, and I am not suggesting that they should be glossed over. However, this article puts nanotech in the emotional context created by (what I suspect is a very exaggerated and/or distorted view of) Hellman's misgivings about openness in the early days of public crypto. It's being printed in a climate where polls are showing support for an outright crypto ban… and the FBI is speculating in public about crypto having been used to murder thousands. It's being read by an audience that's still in, or barely out of, emotional shock. It's going to provoke exactly the sort of knee-jerk "ban nanotech" responses that might get us all killed, rather than the reasoned "how can we guide the inevitable development" thinking that we need.
Obviously, a reporter has to report what she sees as news, and, obviously, an editor is going to give a story as strong a hook as possible, even if it's a negative one. Once you get past that emotional stuff at the beginning, the article positively strains to present a rational, balanced view, and I think the reporter is genuinely sympathetic to Foresight's approach. Nonetheless, the emotions are there, the climate is what it is, and we could hope for a better context for these very important ideas.
I hope that nobody quoted actually steered that article toward nanotech… it would have been a huge tactical error…