New materials are not without risk

Howard: Good day. I read your blog frequently and enjoy it thoroughly (long time listener, first time caller). On the nanotube/rats story, I am pleased that DuPont is weighing in on the subject. I have worked in the chemical/materials industry for some time. A few years ago, we founded a nanotube manufacturing company (SWeNT) with the University of Oklahoma and ConocoPhillips. The article illustrates why toxicity testing can initially involve less expensive short-term tests using exaggerated, conservative (high-exposure) animal test models. These are valid and important studies. However, the ultimate tests need to closely mimick human exposure (i.e. suspended particulate exposure) at exposure concentrations only perhaps 10-100 fold (not 10,000-1,000,000 fold) above worst-case human exposure. SWeNT and OU are conducting experiments to determine how nanotubes react in living systems. Additionally, we are looking at environmental effects. The bottom line is that new materials are not without risk. For hundreds of years, those risks have been managed by those before us, because it was important to the future of their organization. Let us move forward as an industry, and engage this important debate head-on. Good product stewardship will be the cornerstone of a sustainable and successful nanomaterial industry. Warmest Regards, Mike Moradi SouthWest NanoTechnologies Inc. Related Posts Nanotubes and the tale of the rats Apocalypse Nano The nano-brain barrier

Blood-sucking Nanomachines

All's not quiet on the nanogame front. This just in from TotalVideoGames.com: A new PlayStation2 game called "Nanobreaker." Here's the premise: In a story that bears an uncanny resemblance to the story of The Matrix, in the futuristic world of ‘Nanobreaker’, Nano-technology was originally developed to enrich humankind, but the nanomachines suddenly went awry. The machines began to harvest the blood of humans and the iron of buildings in an effort to construct an army of monster machines. It's up to the player to combat this threat and save the world from apocalypse. Add NanoBreaker to the growing list of "bad" nano impressions that the government is going to attempt to "correct." Sounds to me like the children have already been assimilated. Don't despair, though. Think of it this way: Did the "Star Trek" Generation really view the show as a documentary? Or did it simply fire up the imagination? From the vantage of a few technology revolutions later, I'd say the latter.

Drexler: 'Bait and Switch -- The Coverup'

Dear Howard, You recently wrote that -- "A reader affiliated with the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office challenged me recently on some of my commentaries on molecular manufacturing as a policy goal. The reader said that government funded research on "nanoscale manufacturing" is already under way, pointing me to these projects ... As the NNCO reader pointed out, though, there is research going on in molecular manufacturing -- even government-sponsored research ..." You have been misled by your nameless reader. These projects will not result in molecular manufacturing because they don't aim to develop systems of nanomachines that fabricate atomically precise products by mechanically positioning and joining molecules. Saying that this sort of "nanoscale manufacturing" (lithography, microscale chemical engineering, etc.) is molecular manufacturing is like saying that a paper airplane is a passenger jet. The misrepresentations continue. It's interesting to see how quickly the story is changing. One day we're told that there's no issue because the goal is impossible; the next day we're told that there's no issue because research is already underway. Amazingly, the NNCO sponsors no research whatsoever aimed at the original goal of nanotechnology. With this policy, it cannot deliver on the original promise of the field or fulfill the widespread expectations held by the public. Pretending otherwise compounds the damage. Best Wishes, Eric Drexler Related Posts: 2003: The Year of the Straw NanoMan Nano 'crackpots' seem downright respectable Agitation anticipation

I've Got Male!

  

Notes from my secret lab-OR-atry: Our experiment  in bottom-up manufacturing has entered a new phase, as this mass of molecules begins to look more and more "human." We have identified gender. In the photograph at left, an arrow points toward a protrusion that I have code-named "schmeckle," indicating that the creature is developing along male gender lines. In the photo at right, it almost appears as though the beast is not only self-aware, but happy (the photo has been enhanced to highlight this feature). Perhaps the smirk on its face would not be so evident if it only knew of the names that friends have suggested for it. They include: Martian, Peppercorn, Louie Larry Lovy and Fonzie. Well, we have until June 13 to decide on the name. If you have any thoughts, please send me a memo.

Nanomation

The nano meme continues to pick up steam. I'm among the Pong generation, so I might be lost in this game space, but it's clear that game programmers and marketers know a cool prefix when they hear it. So, in no particular order, here are some of the latest games and videos with a nano theme: Deus Ex: Invisible War (Xbox) According to this review from 1up.com: You're Alex D., a nanotech-enhanced agent whose gender you choose at the start of the game, and just like JC, you in the middle of a tense battle for the future of planet Earth. The WTO is the primary caretaker of the world these days (they're also the outfit that trained you), but a new religion, known as the Order, has increased its political power in recent years. (It also may or may not be behind a [nanotech] terrorist attack that just leveled Chicago, but let's worry about that later.)" "The WTO is calling on him to report back to headquarters, but he also has a friend in the Order who says that the WTO's using him as a guinea pig for their experiments and that he should desert that scene as soon as possible. More reviews can be found here, here and here. Zaion: I Wish You Were Here - Epidemic (Vol. 1) (anime video) This review from DVD Empire just about sums it up: Nanotechnology is one of the current hot topics in various fields of science and medicine. Essentially, the idea is that small machines can be made and programmed to perform a host of different tasks, sight unseen, with endless possibilities. Recent television shows, including Andromeda and Jake 2.0 explore some applications of such technology, albeit by greatly advancing what we can do today. A newly released OVA anime series, Zaion: I Wish You Were Here 1: Epidemic, explores the idea in another way, this time as a means to combat an alien virus." The premise of the show was that a meteor crashed into the Earth and deposited a virus; much like in the mainstream hit Species. The virus invades the cells of people and turns them into powerful monsters. Episode One: Encounter: The world is under attack from a virus thought to have come from a meteor. The scientists dealing with it dub it M34 as it's the 34th strain of virus originating from the source and it has fought all attempts at a cure. The world governments keep it a secret in order to prevent mass panic, and the group CURE is empowered to use any means necessary to wage a battle against its victims. The military arm of the organization, NOA, is full of soldiers who are treated with nanotechology and have tiny machines coursing through their veins that repair damage and form a protective body armor/weapon system to fight the enemy. Episode two: Soon, it is discovered that the virus is adapting to the nanobots and no one is safe. And here's what SciFi.com says about it: The Zaion series leaves many details unexplored, but it skims across a few pertinent details—the NOA soldiers are nanotech-enhanced warriors whose bloodstreams are filled with microscopic "nano machines." In times of stress, those robots flock to the skin, extrude through the sweat glands, and expand to form armor." Synnamon: Facing Mecha, Part 7 (graphic novel) Here's a blurb from 2000AD Review: Of course, a planet composed entirely of artificial intelligences has been done before, but the ideas here are strong ones, particularly the idea of nano-technology being used like a virus to infect and control the galaxy." James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing (Nintendo GameBoy Advance, PlayStation 2, GameCube) Here's a plot synopsis from the Electronic Arts news release. James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing once again finds the world's greatest secret agent fighting to save the world from a diabolical madman; former KGB agent Nikolai Diavolo. Armed with metal-eating nanotech, Diavolo's private army will steamroll the forces of the free world, unless Bond and CIA agent Mya Starling can stop Diavolo's forces in Egypt, Peru and New Orleans, culminating in a deadly battle beneath Moscow's Red Square!" There's more, but I'll save them for later.  Meanwhile, I'm introducing crass commercialism into the NanoBot. Click the links to the right, and pieces of nano culture can be yours.

It's a Nano World After All

I went to Epcot in 1982, the year it opened, and my geeky teenage brain  was marvelously entertained, although many of the "predictions" just never materialized. I wonder what the next generation will say about the nanotechnology exhibit that just opened. I'm sure this exhibit, developed by Cornell and Ithaca Sciencenter will inspire some young minds. Boy this looks fun! It looks like a "Fantastic Voyage" type trip for 5- to 8-year-olds, which sounds incredibly unjust to big kids like me, who would love to check out the "giant blood drop" and play Adventures in Tiny Things! It runs until March 1. I doubt I'll get down to Florida, so, please, if you're in kindergarten through third grade and you're sneaking onto Mom or Dad's computer to read a nano blog, check out the exhibit for me and report back! (Also, you really need to get out a bit more).

News in a NanoSecond

• Nanotubes are good for the brain. Nannoparrtikles badd 4 brayn.
• Bring out your dead in Detroit.
• "And last, but not least, there is Blogcritics' own Howard Lovy, whose excellent blog NanoBot is one of THE most comprehensive sources for nanotechnology information around." Aww shucks.

Nanotubes and the tale of the rats

This Reuters report on how nanotubes will kill you (if you're a rat) was a prelude to Nanotox 2004 next week in the U.K. The news conference was a way to generate some media buzz in advance and get reporters all jazzed up over an event at the Royal Microscopical Society. Of course, Small Times' man in London will be there, so you can expect some first-rate reporting, with proper context.

The British scientists, meanwhile, were telling rat tales, pointing to DuPont toxicologist David Warheit's recent study on the toxicity of single-wall carbon nanotubes in rats.

Yes, it's DuPont that did the study, so you can read what you want into it, but the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) at Rice University had also looked at the results.

I'll cut to the chase on the tale of the rats.The study concludes, in part:

"Exposures to high-dose (5 mg/kg) SWCNT produced mortality in ~15% of the SWCNT-instilled rats within 24 h postinstillation. This mortality resulted from mechanical blockage of the upper airways by the instillate and was not due to inherent pulmonary toxicity of the instilled SWCNT particulate."

Kevin Ausman CBEN's executive director, supplied me with a wonderfully understandable translation during a conversation I had with him a month ago in Chicago:

What that means is that if you look at just the cross-sections of the lungs, "Uh-oh. Bad things are happening." If you look at the biochemistry of what's going, almost nothing seems to be going on. And so the normal biochemical tags for, "something bad is happening" aren't telling something bad is happening."

Here's my translation of the translation: The rats were definitely dead (and I believe they are still dead, although I have yet to confirm this). The nanotubes were definitely the guilty party. But the late rodents met their rat makers by suffocation, and not necessarily from any poison in the tiny tubes.

Plus, what the researchers did, as Ausman explained it to me, was basically disperse the nanotubes into a soap-and-water solution and inject it into the lungs, avoiding the whole issue of how the nanotubes ever got there in the first place.

This is how science works. Small steps, each study building on the conclusions of others. Nanotubes might, as the slogan goes these days, turn out to be the "next asbestos," but it is far too early to convict them of anything except being in the wrong rats at the wrong time.

For more on DuPont and nanotubes, here's an excellent report from The News Journal of Delaware. And more background can be found on Small Times here and here.

Everything and the kitchen counter

You want to know what we're talking about here, listen to my man Mike Treder:

The technology described in this article is molecular nanotechnology (MNT). This is a big step beyond most of today's nanotech research, which deals with exploring and exploiting the properties of materials at the nanoscale. Industry has begun using the term nanotechnology to cover almost any technology significantly smaller than microtechnology, such as those involving nanoparticles or nanomaterials. This broad field will produce important and useful results, but their societal effects – both positive and negative – will be modest compared with later stages of the technology.

MNT, by contrast, is about constructing shapes, machines, and products at the atomic level – putting them together molecule by molecule. With parts only a few nanometers wide, it may become possible to build a supercomputer smaller than a grain of sand, a weapon smaller than a mosquito, or a self-contained nanofactory that sits on your kitchen counter.

Interesting stuff no matter where you stand on the kitchen counter. Now, suspend your disbelief or belief, and just read it.

Uh-oh ...

Quick! Everybody look busy! (see visitor at bottom)

From the Pooh-Bah of Punditry

Now, here's some instapunditry with punch:

"THE UNITED STATES NANOTECHNOLOGY BUSINESS is pooh-poohing the prospects for true molecular manufacturing, in no small part because it thinks -- wrongly in my opinion -- that by doing so it will forestall Luddite assaults on nanotechnology. But I spoke recently with one U.S. nanotech researcher who fears that the consequence of this attitude will be to forestall ground-breaking research here (while people focus on things like nanopants and comparatively modest improvements in materials and electronics) and allow other nations to get the jump on us."

But wait, there's more here.

It's about vision, not nanobots

A reader affiliated with the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office challenged me recently on some of my commentaries on molecular manufacturing as a policy goal. The reader said that government funded research on "nanoscale manufacturing" is already under way, pointing me to these projects.

I responded that those are all very worthwhile areas of study, especially since they appear to reflect a healthy balance between the advancement of nanotech as both a business and a science. Government funding for these kinds of projects -- on a piecmeal basis -- has been going on for a while, and I'm certain will continue. These researchers are the ones who are doing the important work, away from the spotlight, and will emerge with some amazing discoveries in nanoscale manufacturing.

In fact, the spirit of these kinds of grants runs counter to the words I'm hearing from some government and business spokespeople, who have declared nanoscale self-replication (and I'm not certain that the projects cited delve into that) to be impossible.

To me, the separate issue is one of government vision and priorities. My main argument is that U.S. policymakers need to rise above the commerce side of the debate and help encourage development of nanoscience without letting business interests become the sole driver of the research. As this NNCO reader pointed out, that is not entirely the case, but reading the nanotech bill alone, you'd think that the government's central goal was to spin off companies and develop new products. Is that it?

The proposed center to study nanotech's impact on society is a step in the right direction, but with only one model of nanotechnology deemed legitimate, I'm not certain what exactly will be studied. Many of the "societal and ethical implications" research that I've come across either assumes that molecular manufacturing is feasible, or is concerned with how to fight negative or misleading images of nanotechnology.

In other words, is the study of "societal implications" another way to control the message by stamping out all "incorrect" images of nanotech? It's very bizarre. I hear all the time that the nanotech business community and the government want to avoid another "GMO"-type controversy. So, its solution is to create a center on ethics that will discuss how to manage and conrol image and public perception?

It was determined that a feasibility study on MNT was not the best use of government resources, but a center for image control was deemed money well spent.

As the NNCO reader pointed out, though, there is research going on in molecular manufacturing -- even government-sponsored research -- just as there are government-funded projects to study societal and ethical implications. As the nanotech bill was being formulated, though, it was determined that research into societal and ethical implications should come together into a new center, while research into nanoscale manufacturing -- for various reasons -- was determined to be too "out there," not the best use of government resources and certainly not worthy of a national goal.

Shameless self-promotion

First, you learn it here, then from every fool on the street.

Unauthorized uses of 'nano'

Cease and desist orders are being sent to the following perpetrators:

Britney Spears' Nano-Nuptials

The fruit passes under the Autoline, which needs barely a nano-second to identify each piece by size.

Celebrating the 40-year anniversary of the school, St. Catherine had a Nano Nagle celebration on Nov. 21.

Albanian Prime Minister Fatos Nano

News in a NanoSecond

IEEE Spectrum: Weather-monitoring dust nothing but vapor

"Nanotechnologist" joins "midwife," "hemp farmer" and "bubble-tea maker" as a career of the future

MIT has nano stuck in reverse

'Pilotless morphing plane? I'll believe it when I don't see it.

Love in the Time of Crichton

Michael Crichton's "Prey" is in paperback, and apparently available in Thailand. Here's a piece of a review from the Bangkok Post:

"Authors are expected to exaggerate to make their point and Crichton is no exception. Having characters assume shapes of one another, change sex, appear and disappear, kissing the choice way of passing on infections are a bit much. Not least when bodies turn to dust, then reform.

"Swarms of micro-processors and laboratory-developed molecules have intelligence and are able to reproduce, melting down micro-chips in human machines. They enter the engineers via kissing at the facility, with the exception of Jack and his assistant Mae."

Makes you wonder whether Rick Smalley's argument against molecular nanotechnology was based on a reading of "Prey":

"You still do not appear to understand the impact of my short piece in Scientific American. Much like you can't make a boy and a girl fall in love with each other simply by pushing them together, you cannot make precise chemistry occur as desired between two molecular objects with simple mechanical motion along a few degrees of freedom in the assembler-fixed frame of reference. Chemistry, like love, is more subtle than that. You need to guide the reactants down a particular reaction coordinate, and this coordinate treads through a many-dimensional hyperspace."

Speaking of "Prey," I thought I'd make myself known on the Michael Crichton message board and see if anybody in that audience is interested in delving deeper.

And from NanoDot, comes news of a speech by Crichton at CalTech, in which he derides "consensus science." Crichton says:

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics."

Apparently, Mr. Crichton has been following nanotech nonfiction, as well.

Update on human nanofactory experiment

     

Excellent, excellent. My experiment in bottom-up molecular manufacturing is proceeding as planned. Note the self-assembly evident between Nov. 3 at left and Dec. 29 at right. The subject is apparently a future NBA or WNBA star. Gender is still undetermined, as the specimen would not hold still long enough, yet it seems to resemble my wife in its tall physical stature. Spouse says the creature's apparent "monkey head" (photo at right) must come from my section of the gene pool.

News in a NanoSecond

• You're in the Navy now, space cadets; begin night-vision blogging
• Ten-Hut, LCpl Mickey Lovy! There's nano for jarheads
• "Nanotechnology has transformed life on Earth forever ..." Oh, the TransHumanity!
• Will the coming age of InstaStuff cure 'crass materialism?'
• Microsignal now broadcasting on a more-popular prefix
• See? It's not so bad to be "dumb as a doorknob"
• Is there a bit of NanoBot influence in the Top 10? Here's a shoutout to Robert Paull for Number 6, as we count 'em down.
• Anybody know how a "nano" blog can go public? Quickly?

News in a NanoSecond

• Play the Lotto, win nano
• Proposed state slogan: ''Pennsylvania: Just Say Nano"
• Everything old is nano again

2003: The Year of the Straw NanoMan

Ronald Bailey, in his very reasonable piece about the "growing peril" of a nanotechnology moratorium," asserts that anti-nano activists "cannot be lightly dismissed."

I agree to a point, having made similar assertions myself, but after speaking and listening to a number of business and government leaders, I can't help but think that activists like Pat Mooney of the ETC Group might be the best thing that's happened to the nanotech industry.

When it comes to the environmental debate, the handful of people who call for a moratorium on nano research conveniently play the role of the straw enemy of nanoprogress, since their pseudoscience can easily be attacked. That is what I was thinking as I listened to Phil Bond, the U.S. Commerce Department's undersecretary for technology, give an eloquent speech recently in Chicago. He told the audience of businesspeople that a nanotech research moratorium would, itself, be "unethical" because it would delay development of technologies that could improve the quality of human life and the environment.

Of course, you can't argue with that. He's right. However, in effect, Bond and others are rallying the nanotech troops by telling them who their enemies are, and warning of dire consequences if these enemies crash through the city walls and begin to plunder and pillage. The only way to fight is to gather around the "correct" nanotech vision as defined by the government and business community.

I'm not talking solely about the marginalization of the kind of nanotechnology proposed by Drexler and others. Since the science behind molecular manufacturing is too complicated to debunk in sound bites, they needed a Rick Smalley up there to misrepresent Drexler's ideas, and then open the straw Drexler up to ridicule.

But the more-subtle trick is that by identifying enemies – whether it's environmentalist hippie wackos or science-fiction enthusiasts with no social lives – the business community has taken control of the nanotechnology vision and agenda.

Business interests, of course, represent an important piece of the total nano puzzle, but it is not the only piece. I have nothing against business. Some of my best friends are … Well, I also believe in the American cliché that greed can, indeed, be good, if you tap into corporate self-interest. DuPont is on the advisory board of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology because it makes business sense to be there. You can also expect some new studies on the environmental impact of nanomaterials to come out of DuPont in the coming months. The company certainly does not want to find out a few years from now that its products are harming people or the environment – or at least are perceived to be harmful. Bad for business.

I also believe that business is a necessary tool to enable the larger vision. Businesspeople can be visionaries, themselves. I've even met a few. But they, alone, almost by definition, will not necessarily follow through with the high-minded ideals espoused now by government and business leaders – not when the profit motive is the only guiding principle.

Do you want proof? Well, wasn't the Internet supposed to enable a new world of democratic participation and equal access to information? Sure, we'll get closer to that ideal, eventually. But right now, with commerce the sole driving force of the Internet Revolution, we have only one truly successful e-commerce model: pornography.

So, since everybody is doing a "year in review" piece, here's mine in a "nanosecond." Nanotech purists cannot see how nanotechnology could be treated as merely a business proposition, while businesspeople cannot see how it could be treated as anything else.

And that brings us to 2004. Here's to a truly nano New Year.

Happy Holidays to all.

'How The Schmirk Stole Nanotechnology'

By popular demand, enjoy:

'How The Schmirk Stole Nanotechnology'
(A Fantasy of Science)

With abject apologies to Dr. Suess

By J. Storrs Hall

Every Nerd down in Shopton
Was a Future-o-phile...

But the Schmirk
Thought the future they wanted
Was VILE!

The Schmirk hated the future! Hated nanotechnology!
Rejected the vision, no hint of apology!
Wanted people to age without cell repair,
and never have cars that could fly through the air.
(It is not understood, what could cast this great pall,
Tho t'was rumored his brain was two sizes too small.)

Nobody knows why, but consider the following:
The Schmirk had a penchant for public-trough wallowing.
If the Nerds got the grant money, surely, he figured,
his own cut of the take was quite sure to be jiggered.
For the stuff that he claimed he could do in his lab
Looked, beside nanotech, just a bit drab.

So he stood in his lab with his anger fermenting,
for surely in Shopton the Nerds were inventing.
Molecular gadgets! Atomically true!
Tips that did chemistry! Undid it too!
Assemblers to build us a bridge to the stars;
Programmable matter; and yes, flying cars!

Whatever his motives, the Schmirk, on the eve,
of a great science breakthrough, could only feel peeve.
He hated the Nerds and their whole future vision,
And sneered at their plans with no little derision.
"They're playing with molecules," muttered the Schmirk.
"They're building machines, and they're making them work!"

"They've designed nanofactories!" Snarling and scoffing,
"Home synthesizers are soon in the offing!"
Then he growled, with his schmirk fingers nervously drumming,
"I MUST find a way to keep nano from coming!"

It was quite bad enough they would have flying cars,
and personal spaceships, and houses on Mars;
But the thing that most greatly disgruntled the Schmirk,
Was the prospect of people not having to work.
They would chatter and travel and party and play,
Oh, they'd play, and they'd play, and they'd play EVERYDAY!

That was something the Schmirk couldn't stomach -- No way!

So he sneered with a scowl and a frown on his brow,
"I MUST keep this Breakthrough from coming!
...But HOW?"

Then he got an idea!
An awful idea!
THE SCHMIRK
GOT A WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA!

"Here is what must be done," said the Schmirk with a sneer,
And he called in his minions from far, wide, and near.
"We'll discredit the science, spread doubt and derision,
Politically swaying the funders' decision!"
And he quickly distributed papers and articles,
Detailing troubles with moving small particles.

Then the Schmirk told his minions -- they, scientists all,
All grasping for funding for labs large and small,
"That isn't physics, materials science,
Not even chemistry; join my alliance --
It doesn't matter what you used to do;
We're ALL doing NANOTECHNOLOGY too!"

So they went, hat in hand, down to old Foggy Bottom,
And they dickered for grants -- and by cracky, they got 'em!
"See? WE're nanotech now," said the Schmirk in a huff.
"You Nerds down in Shopton, you're pretty small stuff."
We've got the funding, and we've got the labs,
And all the ideas you had, they're up for grabs."

But the Schmirk didn't stop at that -- "No," he averred,
"I'll stop any funding for even one Nerd!"
So he called in his minions again, did the Schmirk,
And said "Find me proof that THEIR nano WON'T WORK!"

So his minions at once hurried back to their labs,
And prodded and poked what they had on their slabs,
And dickered and whined till their voices were shrill,
And returned to the Schmirk and said, "Sorry... IT WILL!"

But the Schmirk wasn't flustered. "No problem," he said.
If I can't find the proof, I'll invent it, instead!
So he stuffed up a strawman or two, very fat,
and blustered importantly, right through his hat.
He baited and switched! He insulted and slurred!
He postured and pandered -- but spoke not a word
Of a technical nature; the crafty Schmirk knew
How to stay off the subject of what's really true.

So he jawboned and backbit and spread innuendo,
And claimed the Nerds were just playing Nintendo;
It was just science fiction, religion, and games;
While calling them "dreamers" and other bad names.

So the Schmirk got the funding -- he got ALL the money.
No bureaucrat noticed that something was funny:
He'd promised them nanotech wonders and fun,
telling everyone else that it couldn't be done!


Then the Schmirk took the money, with morals quite stinky,
back to do yesterday's science ... how dinky!

Then a funny thing happened -- in labs the world over,
People saw that TRUE nano could put them in clover.
So in spite of the ridicule, quashing their fears,
They soon started building molecular gears,
Also bearings and shafts -- with no help from the voters,
The next thing you saw was molecular motors.

Then came the announcement, with no warning tremblor,
Someone had successfully built an assembler!

The Schmirk was astounded, as if by a blast;
He hadn't stopped nano -- just made US come last.

And then, for what may be the first time that year,
A new thought occured -- and it wiped out his sneer:
For while, as the Schmirk stood and wrestled the thought,
He learned what for years he'd pretended he'd taught:
What if knowledge and science were not just a game?
Maybe truth -- for its own sake -- was better than fame?

And then the true meaning of science burst through,
And the Schmirk realized something the Nerds always knew:
Nature's book never closes. The knowledge is there
For any who'll read it -- if only we dare.

T'isn't quite clear what happened; but some people say
That the Schmirk's tiny brain grew three sizes that day.
So he hurriedly went to the lab, it appears,
To work on molecular motors and gears.

So he now helps humanity reach for the stars,
And he himself -- the Schmirk --
built the first house on Mars.

News in a NanoSecond

• Italian "nano" story before Google English translation … and after
• Nano's beginning to look a lot like commerce
• Amen, brother George; your son is living proof that the children are skeptical, not "scared."
• Speaking of "new chemistry …"

Bang! Zoom! To The Moon!

Wall Street Journal columnist Alan Murray says President Bush plans to call for a "moon shot -- or its moral equivalent -- in the State of the Union address ..." Murray writes that what's needed is a "national goal that all Americans can feel good about," and he has a few suggestions (subscription only). Here's one:

There's also probably a worthy national goal in the field of nanotechnology, but I haven't figured out what it is. The Commerce Department's Bruce Mehlman insists the ability to manipulate matter at the atomic level promises "more change in the next 30 years than we saw in all of the 20th century." In a recent speech, he offered this as an example: "Imagine having your clothes adjust to changing weather conditions, monitor your vital signs, or protect your wounds." Hmm.

Hmm, indeed.

Discuss

News in a NanoSecond

Here's a TV episode plot synopsis via Filmjerk.com:
Century City: “To Know Her, has the lawyers working
on a nano-rape. A woman’s ex-boyfriend injects her
with nanobots so he can feel everything that she feels."
tvtome.com says Century City, a CBS show that will launch in January,
is a "legal drama set 50 years in the future that will speculate
on how the legal system will change by then."

Scientists hatch their weevil plans for living nanosphere factories.

Christine Peterson's Elements of Vision

Nonspooky nanopundit

Discuss

Agitation anticipation

Sorry again for the prolonged NanoBot silence. I'm on another deadline cycle, and I spent an unusual amount of time writing my column for the January/February issue of Small Times Magazine. As you might have guessed, I'm writing about the nanotech bill. I'm feeling some extra self-imposed pressure on this column because of the unique nature of my particular readership, which is a mix of business leaders, government officials, scientists, futurists, molecular manufacturing proponents and journalists.

I've taken positions that might annoy some of Small Times' core business readership, so I need to take extra care (not that I don't ordinarily do that, anyway!). I have a feeling that every word will be scrutinized and criticized.

I'm a big boy, and I can take it. But I've gathered a great deal of insight from the major figures on all sides of the debate over nanotechnology's future, and feel an extra sense of responsibility to make sure I characterize their positions properly, even if I ultimately disagree with them. What I don't want to become is simply another loud voice. It's tough to do that in 850 words, so some of what was left on the cutting room floor will end up on this blog.

Small Times doesn't like me to give my magazine stuff away for free until after the print edition comes out, so you'll need to wait until mid-January to read it. Basically, though, I simply ask a few questions. Isn't our nanotech future too important for only one model to be deemed legitimate, and the others marginalized? And who's driving?

Discuss

Eine Kleine Nanomusik

I've rarely strayed from nano on this blog, but I'll do it now because ... well, because I can. My brother bloggers at Slashdot are all abuzz over a cool new product built by my actual genetic brother. Gloolabs, whose CTO is this Dan Lovy character, produced a new Java powered home entertainment device that will simplify sharing computer music files among computers and stereos in connected homes. Gloolabs' Gloo is Java middleware that puts an iPod-like interface on music files it "discovers" around the network. Gloo is available now on one device that runs embedded Linux.

Gloolabs is currently taking orders for the $250 MacSense HomePod, the first Gloo-based device, which will ship in January 2004. A limited quantity of the $350 Developer Edition is available now.

The open-source nano people who read this blog might be interested in knowing that Gloolabs is currently bootstrapping a Gloo developer community. Maybe the NanoBot readers who are trying to build a desktop molecular assembler could add a Gloo feature to make it play some cool tunes while you plot world domination.

Oh, not mentioned on the Gloo site is the fact that another of my brothers, Elliot Lovy, is one of the tireless behind-the-scenes coders. Yes, I encourage shameless nepotism. Prove you're related to me and I'll promote your product. OK. Back to nano ...

Discuss

Is nano business nanotechnology? 'Irrelevant '

Dean Takahashi, in his Mercury News report on Nano-Tex, does something that I haven't seen in most other general-interest "nanopants" stories. He drives directly to the scene of the collision: the crossroads of nanobusiness and nanoscience. He does it in just four concise paragraphs. Pay special attention to the last one.

On the other hand, some would argue that Nano-Tex's brand of nanotechnology, which assembles a tiny but simple structure at the nanometer scale but doesn't create any complex devices at that level, isn't really nanotechnology.

"It's really just better chemistry,'' said Robert Morris, director of the IBM Almaden Research Center in San Jose. "It doesn't mean that nanocomputers are just around the corner.''

Nano-Care inventor David Soane counters that Nano-Tex really has created a nanotechnology product because the company designed its chemicals to assemble themselves into precise structures on a molecular level. "There really is an art to it,'' said Soane, who serves as Nano-Tex's chairman.

On a business level, it's irrelevant whether Nano-Care is "true'' nanotechnology. In just a couple of years, Nano-Tex has licensed Nano-Care to about 50 apparel companies. Sprayed onto jeans, it is the stuff that makes clothes sold by Levi's, Eddie Bauer, Gap and Old Navy stain-resistant."

Discuss

'All The News That's (---) To Print'

The New York Times is running a letter to the editor from Eric Drexler in today's Science section. In it, Drexler responds to last week's NYT piece on the molecular manufacturng debate. Drexler believes the reporter framed the issue improperly by focusing, again, on "nanobots," rather than his real molecular manufacturing ideas.

However, according to a note Drexler forwarded to me, the Times discarded a key quote from his letter and modified the last sentence, thus failing to completely set the record straight.

Here's a link to today's edited letter as it appeared in the New York Times (You'll need to register for free to read it), and below is the original, unedited text of the letter, as sent to me by Drexler:

To the Editor:

Re: "Yes, They Can! No, They Can't,'' (Dec. 9): The article says the nanotechnology debate is about "whether it is possible to build a nanobot.'' This ignores the central issue - the feasibility of molecular manufacturing - in which nanobots play no role. Indeed, the article quotes my statement that nanofactories will use "no swarms of roaming, replicating nanobots.''

The article neglects critical policy and security issues. Molecular machinery will increase manufacturing productivity a million-fold, yet our national nanotechnology effort now excludes work toward this goal. In a competitive world, continuing this policy would amount to unilateral disarmament.

Focusing on imaginary nanobots may appeal to a fraction of your readers, but it leaves the serious science and policy issues unexamined.

Dr. K. Eric Drexler
Los Altos, Calif.

Discuss

Drexler on 'Drexlerians'

Here are excerpts from a couple of e-mails I recently exchanged with Eric Drexler, the author who first popularized nano, yet now finds himself persona nano non grata among the businesspeople and politicians who have taken the nano name.

Eric Drexler: Regarding the following on your blog:

"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."

Indeed, it would seem that the other side, which can cite no refereed papers, no defensible scientific arguments, more closely resembles the creationists. Indeed, for them, "There's simply no winning," but because they have no sound arguments for their position.

On a related, point, why does everyone call this work "Drexlerian"? To do so ignores the work of Merkle, Freitas and others, and needlessly personalizes what should be a question of scientific and technical analysis. Indeed, I'd love to see an extended critical discussion of molecular manufacturing that made no reference to "Drexler" or "nanobots", just to see whether the critics have anything coherent to say that does not depend on attacking their habitual, scientifically irrelevant targets.

Me: I think you probably already know the answer to your question on why they pick on those poor little hypothetical nanobots: Because it's done with a kind of wink to the current nanotech business community whose goals are to bring existing nanotechnology to market. They want to distance themselves as far as possible from the idea of "nanobots" because their brand of nanotechnology is finally emerging as a legitimate industry with products to sell. They fear that association with sci-fi-sounding "nanobots" would place loosen their foothold on legitimacy in the business and investment communities.

Drexler: I think I understand their strategy, but it is profoundly misguided. By equating molecular manufacturing with "nanobots" and making false claims about the impossibility of both, they amplify confusion and undercut their own credibility. As a basis for claims of safety, this just won't work. The nanotech business community would do better to embrace the modern understanding of the subject, which includes a simple fact -- that developing and using molecular manufacturing simply doesn't require building scary little self-replicating robots.

Indeed, in the Chemical & Engineering News exchange, I use the term "nanobot" only once -- to reject Prof. Smalley's characterization -- stating that molecular manufacturing will use "no swarms of roaming, replicating nanobots." Prof. Smalley ignores this and continues to confuse molecular manufacturing with "nanobots", using the term a dozen times. I began the exchange by stating that "I have written this open letter to correct your public misrepresentation of my work." The misrepresentation continues.

Me: Interesting comments on the term, "Drexlerian." I've been guilty of using it a few times, too, without even thinking of asking Drexler himself whether he wants to become an adjective. But the word is out there in the culture and has taken on a life of its own in the debate. Its meaning can be either derogatory (Drexlerian = Raelian?) or imply foresight and vision, depending on who is using it.

Like it or not, the name of "Drexler" is no longer your own. Its use does not negate the efforts of others because it's come to describe and symbolize much more than your work, but also that of Merkle, Frietas and probably many others who will come after you. The challenge for you, though, is to draw attention not only to scientists who disagree with you, but also to the many who not only agree but are beginning to prove and demonstrate your theories. That, I think, is the only way to counter any impression that this is about Drexler vs. the rest of the world.

Drexler: I cannot control what people say, but I can urge that they speak more constructively. When critics use my name as a label, they evade the real issues -- of science, technology, and policy -- and lower the discussion to the level of personalities.

Discuss

The Money, the Politics and the Politics

Sounds like I missed a great discussion in Palo Alto: "Nanotechnology: The Money, The Science and Politics of the Next Big Thing," sponsored by the Cato Institute. Fortunately, David B. Hughes supplied some insights for Nanodot, the Foresight Institute's discussion board. For a change, I'll let another writer make many of the points I've made previously on this blog, and give you some excerpts:

The consensus seems to be that Drexler and his opponents are not communicating very well, because they are speaking two different languages. Drexler is a scientist and refuses to budge from high-minded scientific and academic principles, and standard protocols of open inquiry and fair discussion. The NNI is a political animal, speaking evasive bureaucratese and always mindful of their constituents. Ne’er the twain shall meet, conceptually.

...

Many attendees commented on the perceived lack of principle of Drexler’s rivals. I repeatedly heard phrases such as ‘straw-man,’ ‘circular arguments,’ ‘bait and switch,’ ‘moving the goal posts,’ and the like applied to the NNI position and debating strategy. It seems pretty clear that Drexler owns both the moral and scientific high ground in the argument, though many seem to think he’s politically in over his head, outflanked and outnumbered, and ultimately can’t win.

Discuss

News in a NanoSecond

• Build your own home-brew scanning probe microscope here and scanning tunneling microscope here.


• From the NanoForum in Trieste:

  The session on 'societal aspects and communication' was concluded by Mihail Roco, coordinator of the US national nanotechnology initiative. He regretted the often polarised debate, particularly in the media, which is dominated by those with little knowledge.

  Au contraire mon nano frere, have you met Small Times' Genevieve Oger?

• Kroto: Too many nanocooks spoil the collaborative broth.

Discuss