As reported by James Pethokoukis at USNews.com, Mark Modzelewski’s views on why a study of molecular manufacturing was changed to “molecular self-assembly” in the new U.S. nanotech bill: “There was no interest in the legitimate scientific community ñand ultimately Congress ñ for playing with Drexler’s futuristic sci-fi notions.”
So how does this fit with having the technology on the Dec. 1, 2003 cover of Chemical & Engineering News? A longer quote from the USNews.com article: The original House version of the bill did contain an explicit passage that unmistakably referred to Drexlerian molecular manufacturing, including use of the phrase “self-replication.” It appears that in substituting the word “assembly” for “replication,” some savvy bill writer performed a bit of legislative jujitsu to leave Drexlerís approach out in the cold. After all, why investigate the feasibility of self-assembly when itís already been proved possible? I asked Mark Modzelewski of the NanoBusiness Alliance about this very issue. His group was a big backer of the bill. Modzelewskiís response: “Frankly, we already know what the bill asks for is possible, but the bill will allow us to look at `to what extent.í It is possible that some aspects of `molecular manufacturingí might be investigated, but knowing the parties influencing the study, I doubt it. There was no interest in the legitimate scientific community ñand ultimately Congress ñ for playing with Drexler’s futuristic sci-fi notions.”
