Foresight Debate with Scientific American
Additional letters sent to Scientific
American about "Trends in Nanotechnology: Waiting for
Breakthroughs" (April '96):
|
| |
|
 |
Reifman, Dr. Edward
M. Encino, CA |
|
|
| |
|
|
Theriault, P.
Chris Hughes Aircraft |
|
|
| |
|
|
Blenkinsop,
David Crane Valley, Saskatchewan,
Canada |
|
|
| |
|
|
Freitas,
Robert A. Pilot Hill, CA |
|
|
| |
|
|
Kidd, Geoffrey
UC Berkeley, CA |
|
|
| |
|
|
Hughes,
Bernard Timedancer Systems,
Vancouver B.C. Canada |
|
|
| |
|
|
Cochran,
Connor Freff Primenet |
|
|
| |
|
|
Allen, Eric E.
Cornell University |
|
|
| |
|
|
Orta, Robert |
|
|
| |
|
|
Artym, Dr.
Rich |
|
|
| |
|
|
Artym, Dr.
Rich, reply to Rennie, John
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific
American |
|
|
| |
|
|
Hansen,
Steinar Trondheim, Norway |
|
|
| |
|
|
Wallace, James |
|
|
| |
|
|
Gillett, Dr.
Stephen L. Dept. of Geological Sci.,
U. of Nevada |
|
|
| |
|
|
Haw, James
Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University |
|
|
|
Reifman, Dr. Edward M.
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:02:36 -0700
From: ed111@ix.netcom.com
(Edward M. Reifman )
Re: April, 1996 issue of Scientific American
Article: Waiting for Breakthroughs
Editor:
I had thought that I would enjoy finding myself quoted in
your magazine. In fact, I was quite upset that a
reference made in jest to your reporter, Gary Stix, was
used out of context to ridicule nanotechnology and the
conference that we both attended. With a graduate degree
in biomedical engineering as well as dentistry, I do not
consider myself an "aesthete of science and
technology." Dr. K. Eric Drexler, whom Mr. Stix
mocks in his article, "Waiting for
Breakthroughs," is one of many fine researchers
working to advance the field of molecular nanotechnology.
Should I and others learn from these events that we
should not speak to journalists at all, for fear that
they will write something misleading, unfair, and
inherently untrue? That would be a sad lesson for us to
learn.
Edward M. Reifman, DDS
Encino, California
Theriault, P. Chris
From: pctheriault@CCGATE.HAC.COM
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 17:49:00 PST
Encoding: 57 Text
To: foresight@foresight.org
Subject: Copy of letter to Scientific American
Mr. Mr. John Rennie, Editor in Chief, Scientific
American
One of your staff writers, Gary Stix, author of past
Scientific American articles including:
- TRENDS IN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: TOWARD
"POINT ONE"
- TRENDS IN DEFENSETECHNOLOGY: FIGHTING FUTURE WARS
- TRENDS IN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION: THE SPEED OF
WRITE
- TRENDS IN MATERIALS: CONCRETE SOLUTIONS
- TRENDS IN COMMUNICATIONS: DOMESTICATING
CYBERSPACE
- TRENDS IN TRANSPORTATION: AIR TRAINS
- TRENDS IN MICROMECHANICS: MICRON MACHINATIONS
wrote an article titled Trends in Nanotechnology:
Waiting for Breakthroughs in your April issue.
This article has completely changed my opinion of your
magazine. Until I read the article, I thought that I
could rely on your magazine to provide accurate
information with minimal bias. Now, you have published an
article dealing with a subject that I have followed in
detail for many years.
I was mistaken.
Trends in Nanotechnology: Waiting for Breakthroughs was
inaccurate, biased and misleading. I was further saddened
to see the personal attacks on K. Eric Drexler and Ralph
Merkle. Whether or not they are correct in their views,
they are not the field. Such attacks further discredit
your magazine.
I see no reason for an author to avoid trying to prove
that molecular manipulation will not lead to the
capabilities that Drexler and like minds foresee. In your
magazine, I expect the issues to be addressed and the
manner of presentation to be held to a high standard.
I can no longer trust your magazine to be a reliable
source of information.
While the article was clearly negative overall, it did
not point out one clear reason for being so. I find this
amazing. I fully realize that many have trouble with the
vast potentials that those exploring nanotechnology point
out. It would have lent credibility to the article if it
had so much as pointed out one obstacle in the path to
useful nanotechnology that has not been clearly dealt
with in information available in libraries across
America.
I bring reliability to bleeding edge technology as a
career. I hope to someday be part of the process to bring
nanotechnology to the same usefulness as electronics,
optics and cryogenics in my projects. This goal was in no
way illuminated by the April 1996 Scientific American
article Trends in Nanotechnology: Waiting for
Breakthroughs.
P. Chris Theriault
Hughes Aircraft El Segundo, CA
pctheriault@ccgate.hac.com
Blenkinsop, David
From: David Blenkinsop <david.blenkinsop@sasknet.sk.ca>
To: "'editors@sciam.com'" <editors@sciam.com>
Cc: "'foresight@foresight.org'"
<foresight@foresight.org>
Subject: "Trends in Nanotech" hatchet job
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:51:54 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: David Blenkinsop, Crane Valley, Saskatchewan,
Canada
To: The editors, Scientific American magazine
As a nonscientist with an interest in nanotechnology, I
was quite disappointed with the overall tone of your
"Trends in Nanotechnology" article (April
1996). While the article does contain some interesting
information, including mention of the advanced or
speculative consequences that people tend to see in this,
the main focus seems quite negative, almost irrationally
skeptical. The article presents a long list of objections
to nanotechnology, all of which, I believe, have been
answered or dealt with in theoretical outline over the
past fifteen years, since Eric Drexler's 1981 paper in
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Proceedings. Surely
the case in favor of molecular construction could have
been explained more clearly, even if much is still only
an outline and not a practical working reality?
Possibly the worst part of this article is the air of
ridicule, including remarks about certain nanotech
researchers being "alienated from the
mainstream", "guffaws from many
scientists", etc. To put down certain forecasts or
conclusions simply because they seem outlandish isn't
particularly scientific, although it's somewhat
understandable. One might hope that a popular magazine
like Scientific American would keep an open mind toward a
key issue that interests the public, particularly as
there is nothing clearly impossible about nanotechnology.
As one example of scientific criticism of nanotechnology,
I would note the comment from British chemist David E. H.
Jones, to the effect that molecular robots (or
assemblers) wouldn't be able to build anything, "as
they wouldn't know where they themselves are". This
is a kind of "expert" criticism that
flabbergasts those of us who know something about it,
since even today's factory robots seem able to do useful
work without necessarily having to know their own
location! If nanotech theorists like Eric Drexler make
big leaps from the limited reliability of today's robots
to the considerably better projected reliability of
assemblers, that might be criticized on some level, but
it certainly has little to do with whether the assemblers
know where they are or not! On the most basic level, we
are talking about machines that need only make repetitive
motions in a tightly controlled environment, so if
reliability can be addressed (which Drexler has done, in
theory) you should be able to have large scale molecular
manufacturing.
Admittedly, it is true that, after a decade or more of
theory, we still have no practical method of direct
molecule building. Some success has been had with
synthesizing protein based machines, but that in itself
is an arduous and roundabout procedure. What is really
needed here is to be able to start building molecular
structures step by step, even if the scale, complexity
and speed of construction are extremely limited at first.
To achieve this goal, proponents see the possibility of
attaching a reactive tip to a scanning microscope probe
and using that for the step by step deposition of
molecules onto a work piece. Unfortunately, your article
barely addresses the difficulties of making such a first
molecular manipulator, and raises no prospects at all for
overcoming those difficulties. The result is an article
that is basically a hatchet job on a potentially good
idea, maybe even an earthshaking idea.
In considering this, I wonder if critics' objections are
motivated as much by the lack of practical breakthroughs
as by a desire to keep the future from seeming too
strange and science fiction-like? Perhaps it is more
comfortable to laugh off a new idea and thus avoid being
asked to participate? A great many of these objections
have the ring of past objections to other technical
developments, as in "man can't fly because they'll
never build an engine powerful enough". What I
really want to know is whether we are progressing in
general capabilities to the point where molecular
manipulators will be attainable, and if not, then exactly
why not! Double-talk about how these things need a power
supply that you just can't build, or whatever, is of no
help to anyone, and I am not impressed with experts who
support such stock objections.
Sincerely,
David Blenkinsop
Freitas, Robert A.
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 01:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Freitas <rfreitas@web1.calweb.com>
To: editors@sciam.com
Subject: Nanotechnology
RE: Gary Stix, "Trends in Nanotechnology: Waiting for
Breakthroughs," Scientific American (April 1996):94-99.
Gentlemen:
As co-editor of the historic 1980 NASA study of
self-replicating machine systems (Advanced Automation for
Space Missions, NASA CP-2255, 1982), I was astonished to
see this concept decried as "science fiction"
in the pages of Scientific American, a magazine which has
been publishing articles praising the idea for nearly
half a century (e.g. John G. Kemeny, "Man Viewed as
a Machine," (Apr 1955):58-67; Edward F. Moore,
"Artificial Living Plants," (Oct 1956):118-126;
L.S. Penrose, "Self-Reproducing Machines," (Jun
1959):105-114). NASA's robots-assembling-robots
replication demonstration, first proposed in 1980, now
occurs daily in Japanese factories. Self-reproducing
software such as worms and viruses prowl the Internet,
preying on unprotected PCs, networks and mainframes.
Machine replication has been extensively studied. It is
eminently feasible.
Robert A. Freitas Jr.
Pilot Hill, California
Kidd, Geoffrey
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 08:11:52 -0800
From: Geoffrey Kidd <sehlat@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
Organization: U. Cal. Berkeley
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: editors@sciam.com, foresight@foresight.org
Subject: "Waiting for Breakthroughs"
X-URL: http://www.foresight.org/SciAmResponse.html
I have read both the original article and the
Foresight Institute's response to it. I found the article
to be no different in tone or style from what I would
expect to find in a "hit piece" written for
"National Enquirer." The language used is
biased, and Stix' prose is marbled with loaded words. The
work contains a number of ad hominem attacks on Eric
Drexler, but not one single valid technical criticism of
any of the ongoing studies of nanotechnology. If I may
point out, oratory does not count in science, only
results. Stephen Hawking is not a particularly impressive
orator, for obvious reasons, but there is not a physicist
on the planet who doesn't listen to him with respect.
I see little point in belaboring you. I will only
summarize my reaction to the article by saying that it
confirms an opinion I have long been developing that your
magazine needs to be retitled, under Truth in Advertising
laws, to "Politically Correct Multicultural
Something-or-Other"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pain was a valuable teacher; the universe
whispered to you in pleasure, talked to you in
reason, but with pain, It shouted.
-- S. M. Stirling "Drakon" Baen Books, 1996
Geoffrey Kidd <*> -- sehlat@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Hughes, Bernard
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 18:27:52 -0800
From: Bernard Hughes <bernardh@wimsey.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: editors@sciam.com
CC: foresight@foresight.org
Subject: Nanotechnology article
X-URL: http://www.foresight.org/SciAmResponse.html
Dear editors
I was appalled to read the article on Nanotechnology in
your recent issue. Your writer adopted a style more
suitable to People magazine than a factual journal. I am
usually impressed with your treatment of current
research, but in reporting on speculative engineering you
seem to completely lost your way.
Your writer quite missed the point of looking at likely
technologies at the limits of the possible. The impact of
such technology needs to discussed before we get there.
Choices we make now will affect what we develop later. To
say we shouldnt discuss the results before we implement
them seems to be stuck in the dark ages of technology
policy.
This is one reader who will view your future articles
with some skepticism. I would draw your attention to the
Science and Technology section in the Economist. Their
writers (23 Mar pg 85) packed in more accurate reporting
in four paragraphs than yours did in four pages.
Bernard Hughes
Timedancer Systems.
Vancouver B.C. Canada.
Cochran, Connor Freff
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 19:09:05 -0800
From: BEBOP <connorfc@primenet.com>
Organization: Primenet
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: editors@sciam.com, foresight@foresight.org
Subject: Your normal standards were not met
X-URL: http://www.foresight.org/SciAmResponse.html
Sirs:
Skepticism is a healthy thing for science. Foolish
skepticism is not. I expect better journalism from your
magazine than was shown in your article on the recent
nanotechnology conference.
Whether or not there ever will be nanotechnology as
envisioned by Drexler, Merkle, et al, is a challenging
question. It should be directly addressed, not dodged.
If I were to criticize the article writer's approach and
conclusions on the basis of his skin condition, preferred
mode of dress, social skills, or musical tastes, I would
be not just silly, but aggressively so. To denigrate the
possible validity of nanotech as a field by resorting to
digs at Eric Drexler's speaking style, tea-drinking
habits, etc., is no less absurd.
The laws of physics don't care about these things, and
neither should SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. In the end it is only
those laws, not anyone's attitude (neither Drexler's nor
your reporter's) that will determine which visions of
nanotechnology turn out to be "science fiction"
and which turn out to be science we simply haven't yet
realized.
Please: less bias, and more thought.
Sincerely,
Connor Freff Cochran
Allen, Eric E.
To: editors@sciam.com, foresight@foresight.org
cc: eallen@CS.Cornell.EDU
Subject: article on molecular nanotechnology
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:42:10 -0400
From: "Eric E. Allen" <eallen@CS.Cornell.EDU>
I am writing in response to your article in the April
issue concerning molecular nanotechnology. I've been an
avid reader of your magazine for quite some time, which
is why I must say that I was very disappointed in the
level of journalism displayed in that article. Once the
ad hominem attacks are eliminated, it becomes little more
than a gravely misinformed piece of propaganda.
Considering the large base of readers who rely on your
magazine to acquire basic information on the latest areas
of scientific research, I find your publishing of such an
article to be extremely irresponsible. I implore you to
at least provide your readers with the online refutation
of the Foresight Institute at
http://www.foresight.org/SciAmResponse.html.
Unfortunately, considering the lack of responsibility
in publishing this article, I'm afraid that I can no
longer support your magazine in buying it, and I can only
hope that you'll not allow such incidents to occur in the
future.
Sincerely,
Eric E. Allen
Orta, Robert
1996 13:24:30 -0700
From: Robert Orta <rorta@ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: editors@sciam.com, foresight@foresight.org
Subject: April 1996 Article, "Waiting for
Breakthroughs"
X-URL: http://www.foresight.org/SciAmResponse.html
Ladies and Gentleman:
Upon the insistence of my college chemistry instructor,
Dr. E.W. Cook, I used Scientific American as a source for
my research on nanotechnology/molecular manufacturing. I
was pleasantly surprise to find that a current issue of
Scientific American contained an article on my topic.
Scientific American was highly praised to myself and
other students in my class, as an excellent source of
precise and technical material on scientific topics. To
my knowledge, this periodical is one of the most
influential publications in the scientific community.
Your Article in the April issue, "Waiting for
Breakthroughs"(by Gary Stix), greeted me with
fascinating visualizations and a satisfiable portion of
informative pages on nanotechnology/molecular
manufacturing. The first sentence of your article
"That's the messiah", had the makings of a
disturbing fixation with K. Eric Drexler from the start.
As I read on, I became acutely aware of the vexed tone
the aurthor cradeled for not only Mr. Drexler but also
for the validity of the subject being discussed
throughout the article. I was hoping to learn more about
the science and research involved in this new field of
science. It seemed the bulk of the article was concerned
with creating a mysticism about nanotechnology, whereas
the focus should have remained on the past and current
work being done to realize this technology.
I find it disheartening to bring this information to your
attention. I hope, in the future, I can expect to see
more of the writing that Scientific American is known and
respected for.
Sincerely,
Robert Orta
rorta@ix.netcom.com
Artym, Dr. Rich
96 18:07:45 0100
Sender: rartym@galacta.demon.co.uk
From: "Dr. Rich Artym"
<rartym@galacta.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: editors@sciam.com, foresight@foresight.org
Subject: Trends in Nanotechnology: lost SciAm sale.
X-URL: http://www.foresight.org/SciAmResponse.html
Dear Sirs,
With reference to your article 'Trends in Nanotechnology'
in the April issue, I have been a strong supporter of
Scientific American for decades, but now must sadly bow
out. If I wished to read non-technical posturing, I would
go to the tabloid press.
You have lost a sale, and will not regain it unless you
withdraw support for the published item.
With regret,
R.Artym.
Artym, Dr. Rich, reply to Rennie,
John
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:26:25 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: peterson@foresight.org
From: foresight@foresight.org
(Judy Hill)
Subject: Re: Reply from SciAm
From: "Dr. Rich Artym" <rartym@galacta.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Reply from SciAm
To: SCAletters@aol.com
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 09:34:00 +0100 (BST)
Cc: foresight@foresight.org
Reply-To: rich@galacta.demon.co.uk
Dear John Rennie, [Editor-in-Chief, SciAm]
In message
<960419095337_378447499@emout07.mail.aol.com> you
write:
You did not detail what bothered you about it, and
so I cannot discuss or defend it with you, but I will
say that although you consider the article to be
"non-technical posturing," its observations
and conclusions are supported by many serious
researchers in the physical science community.
I am afraid that is not a scientific defense: many
serious researchers supported the notion that the Earth
is flat. Science is not about the personal support of
scientists, but about the mathematical consistency of
theories and their relationship to numeric experimental
observations. Your article committed the unpardonable
scientific sin of quoting only opinions and almost
entirely disregarding hard technical detail of any sort,
which is exceedingly unusual for SciAm. It was
"posturing" because it stayed so clear of
technical detail that it contained almost nothing that
can be disputed from a technical standpoint, which is the
only kind of standpoint appropriate to science and, I
would hope, to SciAm. The article reduced almost entirely
to a personal statement of lack of belief that
nanotechnology is possible, and quite blatantly avoided
mentioning any hard detail since this quite universally
supports the opposite view. Indeed, it went to
extraordinary lengths to avoid presenting any answers
from the technical literature, despite clearly knowing
about the sources.
I am afraid that this was not a case of an article
containing a few errors: it was a deliberate fabrication
of an anti-nanotechnological stance using only the
techniques of tabloid journalism, and totally devoid of
even the slightest lay scientific validity.
I hope that this explains what "bothered me about
it": the title of your otherwise-excellent journal
contains the word "Scientific". The article was
not.
Regards,
R. Artym.
Hansen, Steinar
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:26:55 +0200
From: Steinar Hansen <Steinar.Hansen@due.unit.no>
Organization: Norsk Simulatorsenter
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: editors@sciam.com, foresight@foresight.org
Subject: Nanotechnology article
X-URL: http://www.foresight.org/SciAmResponse.html
I have just finished reading Gary Stix' article on
Nanotechnology in your april number and is appaled at the
use of strongly biased language and hidden arguments in
the text. I have always found Scientific American to be
one of the best popular science magazines available in
the world and your articles usually are both objective,
neutral and interresting to read. Unfortunately is seems
that you have in this case accepted an article which is
none of the above. I strongly suggest that you allow an
unbiased presentation of nanotechnology to be presented
in a later issue.
To give a definition of nanotechnology in full:
nanotechnology is a manufacturing technology able to
inexpensively fabricate, with molecular precision, most
structures consistent with physical law. In my opinion
the possibility of nanotechnology, which the article
seems to contradict, is evidently possible in that it
already exists. Not only does it exist, it has existed
for several billion years in self replicating organisms
in nature. Whether or not our present capabilities seem
sufficient to copy nature in making self replicating
systems is one of the major issues in nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology addresses the issue of whether it is
possible to- and if so can we develop the capabilities to
make systems which can position atoms in a precise manner
and by this make self replicating systems. As I have
already given an example of an existence proof, the first
part of this issue should be clear. The second part can
only be answered in time by our developments in the
relevant fields, such as chemistry, material sciences,
computer science, medicine and probably many others which
now seems unnecessary. Our feelings today about whether
or not such a development may bring about consequences
which seems to be too mind boggling to comprehend should
not be seen as any objective proof. A farmer 300 years
ago would probably not have believed that we ever could
have developed robots, computers or (to him more
interresting perhaps) tractors. This might be the
timescale for development of nanotechnology and then
again it might not. One thing is certain the development
of nanotechnology is not and never will be impossible.
Steinar Hansen
Trondheim, Norway
Wallace, James
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:02:37 -0700
From: jrustyw@ix.netcom.com (James Wallace )
Subject: April 96 Article on Nanotechnology
To: editors@sciam.com
Cc: foresight@foresight.org
Dear Sirs,
I have been a frequent reader of your magazine for some
years. I found the article on Nanotechnology in your
April 96 issue to be very interesting. After reading it I
decided to seek out additional information on the
subject. I was greatly dismayed to discover that your
article was less than fair in its presentation of the
subject and the people involved. You have done an
enormous disservice to your readers by publishing such a
blatantly biased and ill-conceived article. Further, I am
shocked at your attempts to squelch an open debate on the
content of the article by threatening the Foresight
Institute for reproducing portions of the article in
their rebuttal. If this is not "fair use", I
can't conceive what would be. Your attempt to stifle this
use of the article is outrageous and chilling.
I expect that you will do the right thing, thereby
salvaging your reputation, and either admit the weakness
of the article or publish the Foresight Institute's
rebuttal in full. If I do not see some such action I will
feel compelled to no longer purchase your magazine and to
encourage my friends and acquaintances to do the same.
From the time I was in high school I looked to SA as a
solidly respectable journal on diverse scientific issues.
I would be greatly saddened to discover that such trust
on my part had been misplaced.
Sincerely,
James "Rusty" Wallace
jrustyw@ix.netcom.com
The contents of this posting represent the opinions of
myself and are not intended to represent the opinions of
my employer. Recipients of this posting have my
permission to distribute and/or publish the contents.
Gillett, Dr. Stephen L.
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:05:22 -0700
From: gillett@seismo.unr.edu
(Steve Gillett)
To: foresight@foresight.org
Subject: SciAm Bullying
I had not taken the SciAm stuff too seriously before, but their
attempt to force you to remove the quotations in your rebuttal on
your Web page made me extremely angry. Hence the following
letter.
I would strongly encourage Foresight not to cave in to such
bullying, as I think there are deep issues of free speech and
intellectual integrity involved here, and (as a layperson,
admittedly) I would think it extremely unlikely that any legal
challenge of theirs could succeed. Certainly, my reading of the
"fair use" tests (in the Web pages you cited) would
seem to admit of no ambiguity whatsoever; "comment",
"criticism", and "purpose" would all seem to
cover it easily. I would assume, however, that you've gotten an
attorney's formal opinion on this issue.
Stephen L. Gillett
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/15/96
Scientific American, Inc.
415 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10017-1111
To whom it may concern:
Your demand that the Foresight Institute remove its
detailed rebuttal of your article on
"Nanotechnology" (4/96 issue), on the basis of
an alleged violation of _Scientific American_'s
copyright, is outrageous. After an article largely
characterized by ad hominem innuendo with negligible
technical content (an approach seemingly more appropriate
to _People_ than to _Scientific American_, though that's
a separate issue), such an attempt to deny the targets a
chance to respond point by point to your contentions is
not just heavy-handed but directly contrary to the very
spirit of the free and open interchange of ideas.
As for your claim that _Scientific American_'s letter
column is the "proper way" to comment on
articles: _Scientific American_'s letter column is not
the only, or indeed necessarily the most appropriate,
venue for the discussion of issues raised in the
magazine, and certainly my layperson's reading of the
"fair use" provisions of the copyright law
would seem to give scant support to such a sweeping
claim. Attempting to channel discussion and squelch
criticism in such a way, moreover, is also directly
contrary to the fundamental nature of scientific inquiry
and thus is likely to seriously damage _Scientific
American_'s credibility. This would not seem to be in
your interest.
Stephen L. Gillett, Ph.D.
Instructor/Research Associate
Dept. Geological Sciences
University of Nevada
Reno, NV 89557
Haw, James
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 16:55:00 -0500
From: Professor James Haw <haw@chemvx.tamu.edu>
Organization: Texas A&M University
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: editors@sciam.com, foresight@foresight.org
Subject: Foresight Lacking
X-URL: http://www.foresight.org/SciAmResponse.html
Dear Editor:
Congratulations on a fine article by staff writer Gary
Stix. The rambling tirade created on the Web by the
Foresight Institute to attack (advertise) your effort
reminds me of some of the "Cold Fusion" Web
sites. As much as I liked Richard Feynman's work
including his amusing 1959 lecture, I can't resist the
parallels with the appeals to the authority of Feynman's
co-laureat Julian Schwinger by the cold fusion mafia. In
his last years Schwinger became isolated from the
mainstream scientific community, and shortly before his
death wrote down some theoretical ideas about cold
fusion. Thus, every cold fusion propoaganda piece drips
with references to "Nobel Lauriate Julian
Schwinger". Feynman gave his "nano"
lecture at the hight of his intellectual powers, but he
did not intend to become a nano-Moses. Were he still with
us, he would either vehemently reject the appeal to
authority or, more likely, play along until he saw a way
to turn it into a prank.
Of course, the purpose of Scientific American is to
provide information to the general public and this
differs somewhat from the mission of Science or Nature.
Had a critical article appeared in such a journal, I
suspect that such a vehement result would not have
occured. I notice the parallels with, for example, the
repeated attacks by cold fusion advocates of the
journalism of Gary Taubes, Frank Close etc. and the
comparitive neglect of critics who publish in the
scientific literature. I would be curious to know the
extent to which members of the general public are being
solicited for investment in Nanothis or Nanothat. I quote
from the Foresight Institute web page, "If you'd
like a higher level of involvement, you may wish to join
our Senior Associate program. By pledging an annual
contribution of $250, $500, $1000, or $5000 for five
years, you are brought into the circle of those most
committed to making a difference in nanotechnology."
I think that says it all.
If you think my comments would make a suitable letter to
the Editor in Scientific American, please e-mail me, and
I'll prepare a second draft for you.
Thank you.
Jim Haw, Professor of Chemistry
The
letters column from the August 1996 Scientific American
|