Results for ""molecular manufacturing""

Mihail Roco, Senior NSF Advisor on nanotech, gave a plenary talk at the Nanoethics conference recently. One of his slides was on synthesis and control of nanomachines, and noted that about 300 projects had been funded in 2004. Later he referred me to two websites: the NSE site where he said were listed 50-60 NNI-funded centers focused on 3rd-4th generation nanomachines/nanosystems, and the NNI site where a search on awards would show 300-400 grants with nanomachine or nanosystem in the title or abstract. Read More for the results and request for help.

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]…

Over at Soft Machines, debate continues among Richard Jones, Chris Phoenix, Philip Moriarty, and me on the feasibility of molecular manufacturing. Click on Read More below for my response.

Richard Jones over at Soft Machines has comments on molecular manufacturing. Richard: ì[S]ystems that make thingsî should only be a small part of the story. We need systems that do things – we need to process energy, process information, and, in the vital area of nanomedicine, interact with the cells that make up humans and their molecular components. CP: Yes, but as has been repeatedly pointed out, we need better systems that make things in order to build better systems that do things. Manufacturing may be a boring word compared to energy, information, and medicine, but it is fundamental to all. See Read More.

WillWare writes "I saw the preliminary animation at the October conference. It's an incredible aid to visualizing and discussing the ideas of molecular manufacturing. The DVD can help wealthy, influential people wrap their brains around the feasibility and the benefits and thereby vastly expedite development. Every Nanodot reader is a stakeholder in the future, so it might be smart to put our ideas where Foresight can see them."

DavidForrest writes "The Foresight Conference this last weekend was one of the best ever. Kudos to all involved. I hate to nitpick after such a wonderful event, but as a metallurgist, I feel compelled to comment on the "metals are weak" meme that resurfaced several times. More…

HLovy writes "
The Edmonton Journal asks: Will nanoscience repeat ag-biotech fiasco? The story is a rehash of all the issues NanoBot readers have been familiar with for more than a year now. But it gives me a good excuse to go into part of the "tough love" advice I gave to the Foresight Institute during my presentation last weekend.

If the group wants to remain relevant, it needs to address concerns associated with nanotechnology today, and not only this vague "someday" when true molecular manufacturing is in use.

Full commentary on Howard Lovy's NanoBot."