Month: March 2005

Very quick summary from the first full day of the University of South Carolina nanoethics conference: many calls for greater and earlier ("upstream") participation by social scientists and ethicists in nanotechnology R&D decisions, repeated evidence of continued confusion between molecular manufacturing and gray goo, much concern about the possibility of human enhancement, a few admissions that ethicists may have a conflict of interest in taking funds from agencies tasked with developing the technology they are questioning. Repeated assertions that the public does not trust scientists — in Europe. Audience mostly academic/gov't social scientists/ethicists with very strong European presence, almost no Asian presence, very few nanoscientists/nanotechnologists. Fun discussions in the hallways; as is so often the case (including at meetings I put together), many of the best parts of the conference take place informally. Some of the most interesting talks will be on Days 2 and 3.–CP

Mike Treder writes "SUMMARY: The popular idea of so-called nanobots, powerful and at risk of running wild, is not part of modern plans for building things ìatom-by-atomî by molecular manufacturing. Studies indicate that most people don't know the difference between molecular manufacturing, nanoscale technology, and nanobots. Confusion about terms, fueled by science fiction, has distorted the truth about advanced nanotechnology. Nanobots are not needed for manufacturing, but continued misunderstanding may hinder research into highly beneficial technologies and discussion of the real dangers.

More…. [Ed. note — well worth reading]…

Andrew Pollack of the NYT reports: "The open-source movement, which has encouraged legions of programmers around the world to improve continually upon software like the Linux operating system, may be spreading to biotechnology. Researchers from Australia will report in a scientific journal today that they have devised a method of creating genetically modified crops that does not infringe on patents held by big biotechnology companies. They said the technique, and a related one already used in crop biotechnology, would be made available free to others to use and improve, as long as any improvements are also available free. As with open-source software, the idea is to spur innovation through a sort of communal barn-raising effort." I have met the project's leader Richard Jefferson — impressive fellow.–CP

Judy Conner at Foresight brings to our attention: "A new European Commissioned-funded project, Nanologue www.nanologue.net, is launched this week, bringing together leading researchers from across Europe to facilitate an international dialogue on the social, ethical and legal benefits and potential impacts of nanoscience and nanotechnologies…Nanotechnology could have a radical impact across many fields, from drug delivery to textile manufacture, environmental monitoring to microprocessing. With potential social and economic benefits will come responsibilities for ensuring social, ethical and legal concerns are met while enabling competitive advantage for European business."

Rick writes "The European Commission has recognised the European Nanoscience & Nanotechnology Master of Science course as an Erasmus Mundus Master. Participating in this course are Delft University of Technology (The Netherlands), Leiden University (The Netherlands), Leuven University (Belgium), Dresden University of Technology (Germany) and Chalmers University of Technology (Sweden). In the near future, France will also join the consortium. Background information follows…

From Eurekalert: "A team of scientists led by biophysicist Stuart Lindsay from the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University have created the first reproducible single molecule negative differential resistor and in the process have developed a groundbreaking experimental technique that provides a 'roadmap' for designing single molecule devices based on biochemistry…the main value of the finding is not so [much] in having found a molecule that could be developed into a working electrical switch, as it is in discovering some critical design parameters that should make possible future successful research in designing molecular devices. 'We have a working rational roadmap now for how to do this and we're already hard at work applying it to a wide variety of potentially exciting applications,' [Lindsay] said." Credit KurzweilAI.net

Janet Rae-Dupree of the San Jose Business Journal reports that Microsoft is an investor in Nanochip, which uses AFM arrays to read and write chips with up to a terabit per square inch. They're not at the atomic level yet, but wait: "While the term 'atomic force' may make it sound like the data is being stored by manipulating individual atoms, the truth is that each individual bit is made up of hundreds of molecules, [CEO Gordon Knight] says. 'That's the beauty of this technology,' he says. 'It does have legs. We can see it getting finer and finer in the future with better tips and better media.' " Credit KurzweilAI.net

Today, March 1, is the last day to submit your comments on the Meridian Institute's paper on nanotechnology and the poor: "The information generated during the on-line consultation process will help focus and inform deliberations of a multi-stakeholder dialogue group, referred to as the Global Dialogue on Nanotechnology and the Poor: Opportunities and Risks (GDNP), which will meet for the first time in the spring of 2005."

By a staff reporter at India Daily: "Fourth, the most dangerous Nano-application use for military purposes is the Nano-bomb that contain engineered self multiplying deadly viruses that can continue to wipe out a community, country or even a civilization. Militaries all around the world is about to embark upon the use of Nano-materials, Nano-bots and Nano-technologies that will make current Weapons of mass Destruction look miniscule. Armies of enormous strengths can be wiped out slowly without even fighting a single battle. The soldiers may never know that they have been nano-poisoned." Three causes for concern here: first, the errors in the article (e.g., viruses would be biotech, not nanotech); second, the possibility of over-reaction; and third, the real issues raised by military use of advanced nanotech in the longer term.