In a letter published in Chemical & Engineering News, 28 June 2004, p.4, under the title "Nanotech challenge," Eric Drexler called for a dialog on the physical and engineering specifics of proposals to build molecular assemblers. Drexler wrote: "The recent publication of an additional letter to the editor (C&EN, May 17, page 5) regarding the Nanotechnology Point/Counterpoint (C&EN, Dec. 1, 2003, page 37) suggests that readers are still interested in this exchange. To date, although I've heard of scientists who endorse Richard E. Smalley's conclusions, none has been willing to endorse the core of his new argument (that water is essential to controlled chemical synthesis)."
Nanotech challenge
published in Chemical & Engineering News, 28 June 2004, p.4
The recent publication of an additional letter to the editor (C&EN, May 17, page 5) regarding the Nanotechnology Point/Counterpoint (C&EN, Dec. 1, 2003, page 37) suggests that readers are still interested in this exchange.
To date, although I've heard of scientists who endorse Richard E. Smalley's conclusions, none has been willing to endorse the core of his new argument (that water is essential to controlled chemical synthesis). Some of the earlier letters to the editor instead repeated old speculations that a thermodynamic limit might preclude precise molecular manufacturing, but this argument would speak with similar force against the existence of crystals and living systems. Design studies in this area fully reflect such basic principles as the atomicity of matter and the laws of thermodynamics, and the rest of chemistry and physics besides.
Given the ongoing interest in this topic, I (and my colleagues) would welcome an opportunity to respond to informed criticism of the published literature on molecular manufacturing. If the opponents to molecular assemblers can point to specifics and elevate the discussion to one of physics and engineering, this dialogue would present a key breakthrough regarding open, productive discussion of these important issues. Indeed, if our arguments are faulty, this discussion would put an end to such questions in a decisive manner. Otherwise, it appears the questions will center on graphical display conventions.
If no opponents present themselves, then perhaps an article covering recent and past progress in mechanosynthetic modeling would advance the discussion.
K. Eric Drexler
Palo Alto, Calif.
