Donate
Donate

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Month: January 2002

NanoSpace 2002 conference: Call for abstracts

The Institute for Advanced Interdisciplinary Research, Rice University, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Houston Technology Center, and the National Space Biomedical Research Institute will host the fifth annual conference devoted to the emerging nanoscale and micro technologies for space, medical and commercial applications, NanoSpace 2002: Future Technology Frontiers, to be held from 24 to 28 June 2002, at the Moody Gardens Hotel in Galveston, Texas.

All interested parties from NASA, the medical and scientific community, industry and commercial interests, other government agencies, academia, and the national laboratories are invited to submit abstracts of possible conference presentations. Abstracts on relevant nano/micro/bio technology research and development should be text only and no more than 250 words in length. Please identify whether you are submitting an abstract for presentation or poster session. Abstracts should be sent in electronic form (MS Word or ASCII file) to [email protected].

The deadline for receipt of abstracts is March 1, 2002. For more information, please contact:

Essay considers how to live in a VR simulation

An interesting essay by Robin Hanson on highly advanced virtual reality (VR) systems ("How To Live In A Simulation") appears on the Kurzweil AI website. Hansonís theme: "If you might be living in a simulation then all else equal you should care less about others, live more for today, make your world look more likely to become rich, expect to and try more to participate in pivotal events, be more entertaining and praiseworthy, and keep the famous people around you happier and more interested in you."
The essay was originally published September 2001 in the Journal of Evolution and Technology. Robin Hanson is also the originator of the Idea Futures concept.

Nanotubes may form gigahertz oscillators for nanocomputers

A brief item on the Physical Review Focus website ("Nanotubes in the fast lane", by J.R. Minkel, 18 January 2002) summarizes a paper in the 28 January 2002 print issue of Physical Review Letters in which researchers calculate that a group of concentric nanotubes nested inside an outer set of tubes can slide back and forth a billion times every second. Such a gigahertz oscillator could be a major advance in nanotechnology that would enable applications such as ultra-fast optical filters and nano-antennae. The researchers contend that the low friction between tubes — a tenth or less of the nano-newton-scale attractive force — allows the ensuing oscillation to match a Pentium 4 computer chip's speed in processing electronic signals, and that this demonstrates the feasibility of fabricating such devices.

Some readers of this article may find interesting echoes of the rod logic mechanical nanocomputer proposed by K. Eric Drexler back in 1988.

New method employs AI to speed up discovery of materials

from the Automated-engineering dept.
According to a press release (22 January 2002), a new method promises to change how companies create materials — using artificial intelligence and a technique that simultaneously tests thousands of formulations — dramatically speeding up the discovery process. The system, which combines hardware and software, was developed by Jochen Lauterbach, an associate professor of chemical engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana.

According to the press release, Lauterbach has developed an automated system that uses combinatorial chemistry, in which equipment systematically creates and tests thousands of chemical samples at the same time using thousands of tiny plastic beads coated with different catalysts. All of the beads, each bearing its own individual catalyst, are tested simultaneously. The system then uses infrared sensor technology to quickly screen each sample to evaluate its performance. A small percentage of the catalysts created are effective. Information is collected from both the best catalysts and the failed catalysts and fed into software that employs hybrid neural networks and genetic algorithms to mimics the logical and intuitive thought processes of chemists. Even though the majority of the catalysts created are not effective, the software uses the wealth of information gained from those failures to come up with entirely new catalysts.

More on marine nanorobot swarm project at USC

A short article on the Small Times website ("Scientists want to send nanobots to search and destroy brown tide", by Richard Acello, 22 January 2002) provides a few additional details on the project announced on 10 January 2002 by the Laboratory for Molecular Robotics (LMR) at the University of Southern California School of Engineering to use a $1.5 million research grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) to create swarms of microscopic robots. The application envisioned for such a system is to monitor potentially dangerous microorganisms in the ocean.

The project calls for initial designs to be tested in laboratory tanks, but, as the Small Times article notes, eventually the USC team wants to create robots that are as small as the microorganisms that they seek to monitor. Ari Requicha, a USC professor of computer science and the project's principal investigator, said heíll be ready to move his early stage robots into the ocean ìin a couple of years or so.î The article also notes that the long-term goal of the technology, said Requicha, is its use in the human body. ìIf you can make a system that can detect microorganisms in a marine environment, it could be deployed in blood. If you were successful, you could have artificial cells, you could program an artificial immune system for those with impaired immune systems. The possibilities are amazing.î

MEMS 2002 Conference also looks at nanoscale devices

Amid the conference focused on microdevices, some interesting nanotech-related news emerged from the MEMS 2002 Conference co-sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the Robotics and Automation Society, and held 20-24 January 2002 in Las Vegas, Nevada. A good general overview of the conference appeared on the Small Times website ("Record numbers at MEMS conference", by Jane Fried, 22 January 2002). Some of the highlights include:

Taiwan formally inaugurates national NT center

from the World-Watch dept.
An article in the Taipei Times ("Nanotechnology Research Center opens in Hsinchu", by Chiu Yu-Tzu, 17 January 2002) reports that the the Hsinchu-based Industrial Technology Research Institute's (ITRI) Nanotechnology Research Center was formally launched on 16 January 2002. According to the article, the center is expected to spend at least NT$10 billion (about US$286 million) in funds allocated by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, from now until 2007.

At the opening ceremony, National Science Council Vice Chairman Wu Maw-kuen said that the draft of the national program had been passed by the NSC on 15 January and a comprehensive project would be available in March or April. "Next year, Taiwan's national nanotechnology program will be formally launched. We believe that the center at the ITRI will play an important role in integrating diverse researches in both the industry and universities," Wu said. The estimated expense for promoting the national program through 2007 will be about NT$19.2 billion (about US$548 million). A Nanodot post from 7 January 2002 provides additional background on the work to develop a national nanotechnology program in Taiwan.

A brief item about the opening of the center from the Asia Pulse news service appeared on the Small Times website.

Article argues against control of nanotech research

An article in the Dallas Business Journal ("Chicken Little is still alive and squawking: New technologies give rise to echoes of old fears", by Bartlett Cleland, 18 January 2002) says "The past 200 years have brought an age of wonder with constant life-changing inventions and mind-stretching advances. But every step forward has had its accompanying Luddites — the skeptics, the fearful and opportunists who express their outrage at progress. Today, their latest fear is nanotechnology."

Cleland, who is director of the Center for Technology Freedom at the Insititute for Policy Innovation in Lewisville, Texas, writes "already the fear-mongers are lining up to proclaim that nanotechnology will bring about the end of all humanity — a familiar refrain from those who fear the future. Much as Chicken Little did, these folks scream that the sky is falling even before they know the facts."

As has been argued elsewhere, Cleland says it is no solution to abandon or relinquish technological research and development: "Technology's track record is one of progress, not destruction. . . . This is not to say that technology is essentially good, but neither is it evil. It is the users of technology who decide whether it is used for good or for evil. . . . The future worth fearing is one where the good guys don't get there first, and the "bad guys" better understand, control and access superior technology. Restraints on the development of technology by the civilized world only give the upper hand to those who are not going to obey the law anyway."

Cleland concludes: "Many will try to regulate the advancement of nanotechnology for their own ends or because of their fears. But policy makers should resist the temptation to regulate nanotechnology. . . . Nanotechnology holds great promise for many areas of life. Those who fear the future will continue to whip up fear and concern rather than to engage in logical and productive analysis. Because to fear the future rather than to shape it correctly is a sure means to a disastrous outcome."

CSM article considers issues in patents debate

An article in the Christian Science Monitor ("Whose idea is it, anyway?", by Ruth Walker, 17 January 2002) presents arguments from many sides of the issue that while patents have been essential to ensuring innovation, the U.S. may now be limiting innovation by putting too many new developments under patent protection.

Among those quoted in the article is Chris Peterson, Foresight Institute President, who "thinks the patent system has been overextended – not just in volume but in kinds of patents. . . . The US economy has prospered, she says, in part because of the strength of its property rights, including patent rights. ' We have deeply learned the lesson of private property … but we've gone too far. As far as I can see, the property rights model works with physical things, but not ideas. We're pretending they can't be shared.' "

The article also notes that "Patent skeptics, such as . . . Peterson, argue that to treat ideas like physical things – "rounding 'em up and branding 'em like cattle" – is to deny everyone the full benefits of an economy based on infinitely sharable ideas. The patent advocates counter that it is precisely because so many of today's new products are almost pure "idea," with little physicality, that robust patent law is necessary."

National Academies report says U.S. should ban human reproductive cloning

According to a press release (18 January 2002), the U.S. National Academies has released a report that says the United States should ban human reproductive cloning aimed at creating a child. The new report considers only the scientific and medical aspects of this issue, plus ethical issues that pertain to human-subjects research. Based on experience with reproductive cloning in animals, the report concludes that human reproductive cloning would be dangerous for the woman, fetus, and newborn, and is likely to fail. The study panel did not address the issue of whether human reproductive cloning, even if it were found to be medically safe, would be — or would not be — acceptable to individuals or society. Enacting a legally enforceable ban that carries substantial penalties would be the best way to discourage human reproductive cloning experiments in both the public and private sectors, the report says. A voluntary measure probably would not be effective because many of the technologies needed to accomplish human reproductive cloning are widely accessible in private fertility clinics and other organizations that are not subject to federal regulations.

Read more for additional details, links to the report online, and related news on the Presidential Council on Bioethics.

Facebook Twitter Youtube Linkedin Podcast Spotify
0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop
    Continue Shopping

      Search Foresight Institute