NNI classes nanobots as science fiction

NNI confused by SciFi: Howard Lovy's blog Nanobot brings to our attention this item under "Nanotech Facts" on the NNI website (your tax dollars at play): What are nanobots? And are they fantasy or reality? (near bottom of page).

Questioning why molecular manufacturing is dismissed

Dismissing Drexler Is Bad for Business, a Betterhumans column by Simon Smith: "Ignoring the potential of molecular manufacturing won't make it go away, so why is the US nanotech industry painting its advocates as kooks?"

Nanotechnology subsidies and regulation

A letter, End Subsidies for Nanotechnology, published by the Washington Post in response to the story "For Science, Nanotech Poses Big Unknowns" (see Nanodot post) claims that government funding of nanotechnology will undermine self-regulation of industry via the liability market.

Request for help from Nanodot readers: Google experts needed

From Foresight president Chris Peterson — Dear readers: I am writing a journal article about the history of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and am having trouble finding a reference. It was a quote (direct or indirect) by Stan Williams of HP on the question of whether naming the new program with the word 'nanotechnology' was seen at the time as causing a problem, due to the word already being associated so closely with molecular nanotechnology (or nanobots, etc — don't remember the wording). I saw this on the web and now cannot find it again. His name might be listed as Stanley rather than Stan. Can you find this URL? I'll come up with some kind of prize for whoever finds one I can use. Email to [email protected]. Thanks! UPDATE: it may have been taken down, in which case maybe the Internet Archive would have it?

NanoCreationism

HLovy writes "Having covered the Foresight Institute conference in October and now the business-focused NanoCommerce 2003, I can see now the extent of the contrast between these competing visions. I have not taken any kind of scientific poll, but judging from the conversations I've had with many of the people here, I can safely confirm for the MNT believers something they likely already knew: They are indeed being marginalized by those who speak for the nanotech business community, and proudly so. I used the term "believers" on purpose because one source told me that arguing with a Drexlerian is akin to debating a Creationist: There's simply no winning, since they take their beliefs on faith. I countered that most Creationists do not desire or seek proof — the very definition of faith — whereas MNT proponents are actively pursuing proof.

I don't want to talk about who said what to me and when, yet, since my interviews are not yet complete and I don't want to help launch another round of name-calling, but one of my sources brought up what I feel is a valid criticism of Foresight, the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology and others: The more they launch public attacks against those who disagree with them, the less inclined the nanotech business leadership will be to even invite them to the table, for fear their words will be used against them.

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

Molecular recycling a difficult goal

The following interchange between Foresight President Christine Peterson and Our Molecular Future author Douglas Mulhall resulted from a Small Times column by Mulhall titled Incorporate disassembly into every self-assembled nanotech product, first brought to our attention by Senior Associate Robert Bradbury. In this article, Doug Mulhall says that nanotech products are already being produced which cannot be disassembled by current technologies, even incineration or (presumably) by acids, etc. Foresight President Christine Peterson asks readers whether this is true; can examples be cited? "This seems unlikely to me, but I'm willing to be educated if there are indeed examples of this."

Open letter to NanoBusiness Alliance affiliates

Nanotechnology Delusion: many nanotechnology advocates are upset about NanoBusiness Alliance Executive Director Mark Modzelewski's comments on MNT and Foresight director Prof. Glenn Reynolds (see More intemperate words from Mark Modzelewski).

More intemperate words from Mark Modzelewski

Glenn Reynolds comments at InstaPundit.com on email he received from Mark Modzelewski of the NanoBusiness Alliance calling Reynolds's recent TechCentralStation column on nanotechnology "delusional fantasies and rantings."

Letters about Drexler/Smalley debate

Ralph Merkle writes: "The December 1st 2003 issue of Chemical & Engineering News carried a debate between Drexler and Smalley about the feasibility of molecular manufacturing. The January 26th 2004 issue devotes a little over two pages to letters on the debate. Of the eight letters published, five supported molecular manufacturing, one was clearly opposed, and two seemed skeptical."

Nanotechnology 2003: The year in review

What do you think were the most important nano-related developments of 2003? What were the downsides and upsides of nanotechnology's breakthrough into the mainstream?

Phillip Ball from Nature magazine makes his case, from a British perspective, here.

0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop