Donate
Donate

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Author: Foresight Editor

TNT Weekly: deletion of MNT study from nano bill is "a farce"

Issue #13 of TNT Weekly (which will be archived here), the leading nanotech industry e-newsletter, covers the recent deletion of a molecular manufacturing study from the new U.S. nanotech legislation:
" –The plot thickens and the nanotech bill gets sillier–
Last week we had some fun with the recent nanotech bill in the US, especially the plan for a one-time study to determine the feasibility of making things using molecular self-assembly, which makes about as much sense as conducting a one-time study into the feasibility of sharpening a stick with a sharp knife. With a combination of cynicism and naiveté, we assumed that the bill had got away from those who actually understood nanotech and ended up in the hands of politicians who didn't understand the difference between self-assembly and molecular assemblers, the result being a terminological boo-boo in the part that was meant to direct figuring out whether Drexlerian-style molecular nanotechnology (MNT) and molecular manufacturing are actually feasible.
We were not alone. Quite a few people, it seemed, thought that the MNT crowd had been given the chance to make their case or forever hold their peace. Even the sceptics seemed to think this was fair dinkum." Read More for the full story.

C&E News debate being debated on Slashdot: join in

Senior Associate Rosa Wang points out that Nanodot readers may wish to join the fray over at Slashdot, where the Smalley/Drexler debate in C&E News is being discussed in the inimicable Slashdot style.

CRN: "Published Debate Shows Weakness of MNT Denial"

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology has made a statement on the C&E News debate: "NEW YORK ó Attackers of molecular nanotechnology (MNT) received a setback today when a published debate revealed the weakness of their position. The four-part exchange between Eric Drexler, the founder of nanotechnology, and Nobelist Richard Smalley, who contends that many of Drexler's plans are impossible, is the cover story in the December 1 Chemical & Engineering News.

"We have carefully examined the arguments presented by each side," says Chris Phoenix, Director of Research at the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN). "We conclude that Smalley failed to show why MNT cannot work as Drexler asserts." Phoenix has prepared a 6-page review of the Smalley-Drexler debate, including historical overview, technical analysis, and commentary on policy implications. It is available at http://CRNano.org/Debate.htm." Read More for the full release.

More on Smalley-Drexler debate

Nobel Winner Smalley Responds to Drexler's Challenge,
Fails to Defend National Nanotech Policy
Rice University Professor Richard Smalley responds to a longstanding challenge by Foresight Chairman Eric Drexler to defend the controversial direction of U.S. policy in nanotechnology. Their four-part exchange is the cover story of the Dec. 1 2003 Chemical & Engineering News. This could mark a turning point in the development of the field.
Press release
Foresight comments and FAQ
Full text of the exchange
Technical commentary from CRN

Smalley/Drexler debate MNT in C&E News cover story

Nobel Winner Smalley Responds to Drexler's Challenge
Fails to Defend National Nanotech Policy
Rice University Professor Richard Smalley has responded to a longstanding challenge by Dr. Eric Drexler to defend the controversial direction of U.S. policy in nanotechnology. Their four-part exchange sponsored by the American Chemical Society is the Dec. 1, 2003 Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN) cover story. As described by Deputy Editor-in-Chief Rudy Baum, the controversy centers on "a fundamental question that will dramatically affect the future development of this field." This could mark a turning point in the development of the field.
Press release
Foresight comments and FAQ
Full text of the exchange
Technical commentary from CRN

Glenn Reynolds on new nanotech bill

Foresight director Glenn Reynolds gives his views on the new nanotechnology legislation. " It's a victory for people who favor the responsible development of molecular nanotechnology. But it's a small victory, a nano-victory you might say, in the great scheme of things. He speculates on what was meant by the bill's authorizing a study of "molecular self-assembly".

2003 Advocate of the Year: Steve Jurvetson

Foresight Senior Associate Steve Jurvetson, a leading nanotech venture capitalist and frequent speaker at Foresight events, has been named Small Times Magazine 2003 Advocate of the Year. "…he is nevertheless one of a small group of VCs happy to associate with the sector's most far-thinking members. He is hardly averse to being quoted speaking of nanobots floating in human bloodstreams and other scenarios considered way too long-term for VC involvement." Steve's suggestion for the NNI Grand Challenge? "Whether conceptualized as a universal assembler, a nanoforge, or a matter compiler, I think the `moon-shotí goal for 2025 should be the realization of the digital control of matter, and all of the ancillary industries, capabilities, and learning that would engender." We at Foresight like Steve even more than Small Times does.

Intel's 'Nano Inside'

HLovy writes "Intel says it's now a master of the 65-nanometer domain. But are these nanochips truly "nanotechnology?" I was surprised when "Engines of Creation" and "Nanosystems" author Eric Drexler — whom I had assumed to be a molecular manufacturing purist — told me he thought they qualified.

"People sometimes perceive me as saying, 'Oh, you shouldn't use the term this new way,'" Drexler told me in October. "What I've actually been saying is we need to understand that it's being used in a new way … that has a certain relationship to the field."

The complete commentary can be found on Howard Lovy's NanoBot."

Bill Joy today: we need to give the good guys a head start

Bill Joy gives an interview in the December 2003 Wired in which he updates his views on potentially dangerous technologies. The bottom line: "These technologies won't stop themselves, so we need to do whatever we can to give the good guys a head start." The technologies being considered are nanotechnology, genomics, and robotics, by which is meant machine intelligence. [Bill's proposal — giving the good guys a head start — sounds right to me. –CP]

'Societal Concerns' and Scientific Accuracy

HLovy writes "If societal concerns are going to be taken into account, we need to look at how the society is being informed. The new American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center authorized by the nanotech bill should ask that question, as well. Any study on "societal impact" of a technology is also, by definition, a measure of the prejudices and preconceptions the public holds — based in part on how the technology is explained to them. To take a reading of "societal concerns" is to measure popularly held beliefs, rather than scientific fact. Those who have assigned themselves the mission of informing society should, in theory, try as best they can to reconcile the two.

Christine Peterson at the Foresight Institute says that it's ultimately up to the scientists, themselves, if they want their story communicated properly. "It is a responsibility of scientists and technologists to educate the public. If they can't stand to deal with the media, they can go directly to the public via the Web and by writing books." But to do that is to also alienate themselves among their colleagues. Carl Sagan, she pointed out, paid a price in reputation among his peers for stooping so low as to try to communicate effectively to the uneducated.

For the complete commentary, please see Howard Lovy's NanoBot."

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

      Search Foresight Institute