| Well, now, where to begin? My recent rantings
have rippled up and down the nanosphere and have had a far larger
influence on the public debate over nanotech's future than I had ever
expected. Scary. I'll take it from the top, but stay with it until the
end, since there's a narrative flow with a bizarre ending.
I wrote a column in Small Times. Mark Modzelewski of the
NanoBusiness Alliance, wrote an opposing column in Small Times. Both
were excerpted in this
blog entry, which I'll further encapsulate here:
Then the nanoblogosphere (I just made up that term) rumbled and roared:
Chris Phoenix of the Center
for Responsible Nanotechnology:
"Politics these days seems to be more about smearing your
opponents
than about presenting actual facts. Mark Modzelewski says that we've
cooked up a conspiracy theory with a "devious cabal." What we actually
said is that the wording was changed
deliberately and blatantly."
Chris will likely have more to say in a letter to the editor
for the next print edition of Small
Times magazine.
From a blogger who chooses to remain
anonymous:
"I resent this insuation. It's totally inaccurate. I work out
of my
mom's den, not her basement."
From blogger DF
Moore
The idea of Drexler's nanobots is indeed a cool one. I agree.
It seems
exciting. But it would be ridiculous to base national nanotech policy
on achieving something that, as I said before, no one has shown any
scientific reason as to why they should work and plenty of people have
shown scientific reasons as to why the won't work. The commercial
approach that we have now works well. It allows the field to develop on
many different tangents and in all directions.
From blogger Marc
Goodner
"I think this act is another example of government largesse
to
corporate interests, no surprise from this administration. If this
money had gone to academic research, and the ip to the public domain,
without preordained conclusions society would be better off."
Chris Peterson of the Foresight Institute,
writing in Nanodot:
"Note to Mark M.: it is a risky thing to make fun of
bloggers--they can
make a difference. Just ask Trent Lott, the former Senate majority leader."
Robert Bradbury, writing in my discussion
section:
"The problem Howard is that tens of millions of lives,
perhaps even
yours, are likely to be on the line depending on how fast robust
molecular nanotechnology (of the Drexlerian type) develops. I'm one of
the few people who has actually tried to sketch out a possible
development path with costs."
Glenn Reynolds, writing in Tech Central
Station:
"I think that if the nanotechnology business community,
because of the
PR strategy that it has chosen, finds itself scissored between the
scientists and visionaries on one side, and the environmentalists on
the other, it will have cause to regret its rather shortsighted PR
strategy."
Then, it gets really bizarre on Glenn's InstaPundit,
in which Mark shot off this letter:
"Clearly being educated man, I can hardly even fathom how you take
Drexler's fantasies and turn them into reality in your head. As far as
our "pr strategy" as you call it-its not so much pr strategy as a
'reality strategy.' I don't promote nor spend much time worrying about
science fiction and frankly don't even view the
zettatechnology/molecular manufacturing/Foresight folks thinking as on
the table in the environmental debate. I am clearly not between two
poles, as your misguided views on the subject frankly don't constitute
a pole in the landscape as far as I see it. I would say my skills as a
long time political damage control specialist leave me -all ego aside -
a little better skilled then Howard Lovy or yourself at these type of
things. So just the same, I will actually be the one with a degree of
sympathy here. Keep fighting the -strange-if not good fight for your
lost
cause."
And that brings us to the present. Any questions?
Discuss
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment