Page 286 – Foresight Institute

Gaming the Future: The Book!

D'Souza: Tech progress can bring moral progress

from the both-gains-and-dangers dept.
Foresight director Jim Bennett brings to our attention this item from Red Herring by Dinesh D'Souza on whether technology can further tradition human values: "The critics focus on the moral dangers of technology. Those dangers–of technological hubris and undermining human dignity–do exist, and we should debate them. But what the critics miss is the possibility of moral gains. Used correctly, technology can generate moral progress by strengthening and affirming our highest values, as we have seen it do in the past. Technology doesn't just offer us the chance to be better off; it offers us the chance to make a better society." His examples are the ending of slavery, emancipation of women, and extending human lifespan.

UTA Prof foresees medical nanorobots

from the so-there-TNT-Weekly dept.
Prof. Wiley Kirk of the Center for Nanostructure Materials and Quantum Device Fabrication (NanoFab) at University of Texas at Arlington was quoted in the Fort Worth Business Press (Dec. 6, 2001): "Dr. Kirk, who began moving atoms in the NanoFab center this summer, describes exciting potential medical developments utilizing nanostructures. 'We could have tiny robots circulating in the bloodstream to deliver drugs to cancer cells without harming healthy cells. They might bring extra intelligence to artificial limbs, eyes and hands." The research team also envisions these robots clearing clogged arteries or repairing damaged tissue, as well as the possibility of repairing defective DNA in human cells." The news article appears to be unavailable online.

Online discussion of "engaging the Greens" on nanotech, relinquishment

Anonymous Coward writes "Greenpeace, noted peace and ecology NGO, is hosting a debate on arms races and relenquishment – it's unofficial but is pretty detailed. It appears that the organization is debating Bill Joy's arguments and the general strategies of de-escalation and relenquishment."

More on this discussion was posted by jbash, who writes "People around Foresight are always talking about how we (whoever "we" are) need to go and engage the Green types (whoever they are) and talk about the implications of nanotechnology machine intelligence, and whatnot. Well, I was tracing some links from this very site, and, lo! I found one of "them" saying something about engaging "us".

Read more for the lengthy remainder of jbashís remarks.

NOTE: The Greenpeace site is extremely sssslllooooowwwww . . .

Global Greens discussing common AI and ALife policies

Anonymous Coward writes "The Global Green Parties are discussing common policies regarding artificial intelligence and artificial life. Please come contribute."

C/NET Investor covers nanotechnology

from the Most-scientists-believe? dept.
A fairly decent investment-oriented article on nanotechnology appeared on the CNET News.com website ("Is small the next big thing?", by Tiffany Kary, 11 February 2002; the article also appears on the ZDnet website at http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-833739.html). As the article notes, "The revolution won't happen overnight, and even nanotechnology's biggest supporters acknowledge that the field could become the next craze–think dot-coms–in which hype outruns real application and business sense. Nevertheless, recent developments indicate that the science is progressing well beyond the "white paper" stage. For starters, the government, tech titans and venture capitalists are pouring money into the field, producing breakthroughs that have enabled several companies to make nanotechnology product announcements. These prospects have grabbed VCs' attention."

The article notes the increasing level of research activity, government and private financing, and interest by the investment community, and surveys important work by companies ranging from giants like IBM and Hewlett-Packard down to start-ups such as Nantero.

Looking farther ahead, the article makes the somewhat incredible claim that, while nanorobots are hypothetical, "most scientists believe there will be some form of "molecular assembler" within the next 20 years, and that the device will serve a concrete purpose." The article then follows a typical pattern in presenting of the ideas proposed by Eric Drexler, followed by the "grey goo" willies of Bill Joy, and the distancing dance skeptics perform when confronted with long-term possibilities of advance molecular nanotechnology. The article quotes Josh Wolfe of Lux Capital, a nanotech-oriented venture capital firm: According to the article, Wolfe said he has seen plenty of business proposals based on such ideas, but he considers them implausible.

"It's utter nonsense–thoughts that you can change the economy because you can manufacture things instantaneously at your desk by just hitting a button," Wolfe said. . . . As far as Wolfe is concerned, any technology based on the "Drexlerian vision of nanotech"–that is, the self-replicating assembler–should be put in its place. These far-out ideas should "promote ethical debates and get people involved," but "investors should not be looking at that type of thing," he said.

[Thanks to David Wallace Croft and Patrick Underwood for posting a notices about this item.]

More on Bush FY03 budget: not all the news is good.

Analysts and pundits are looking over the big increase in nanotech-related R&D funding requested by the Bush Administration on 4 February 2002.

Coverage of the budget announcement can also be found on the Small Times website ("Bush calls for 17 percent increase in spending for nanotech programs", by D. Brown, 5 February 2002).
An article from United Press International ("Nanotech initiative's focus: Measurement", by S. Burnell, 10 February 2002) provides some additional commentary, and includes a short interview with Mihail "Mike" Roco, a senior advisor on nanotechnology at the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), which receives almost one-third of total federal nanotech funding. NSF will support a diversity of programs in different areas, Roco said: "This reflects, in a way, that nanoscale science and engineering will affect society at large. It's basically a foundation on which industry eventually will change its business; it's a way in which maybe we'll change our understanding of the world, even of life." Roco also said a long-term goal is the development of a nanotechnology workforce: "In the long term, NSF will try to address the educational aspects that are critical for this whole enterprise. In 2003, we'll train and educate about 5,000 students and faculty; this is probably a small number if you consider the rate of increase of nanoscale science and engineering. In 10 or 15 years, we'll need in the range of 800,000 nanotechnology workers, so the NSF will focus on preparing this workforce of the future."
An extensive article by Doug Brown on the Small Times website ("Bush proposes deep cuts to program that funds high-risk nanotechnology", 11 February 2002) points that not all aspects of the Bush budget proposal are positive. According to the article, the Bush administration is seeking cut funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) in the Department of Commerce from about $185 million to $107.9 million , a reduction of over 42%. The ATP has spent about $128 million on nanotechnology in recent years, and companies involved with the ATP projects have met the federal dollars with $121 million of their own money.
For a general overview of the areas where the U.S. federal R&D budget is being increased and decreased, see the Preliminary Analysis of R&D in the FY 2003 Budget from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Budget and Policy Program. The analysis does not specifically mention nanotechnology funding figures.

Jurvetson on Nanoelectronics

Kevin Keck writes "Steve Jurvetson, Senior Associate and well-known VC, will be speaking and leading a panel entitled "Nanoelectronics: The Quantum Leap from Theory to Practice" at Stanford Business School on Tuesday, February 19, sponsored by the MIT/Stanford Venture Laboratory. On the panel are Stan Williams, Director of Quantum Science Research at HP; Randy Levine, CEO of ZettaCore; Scott Mize, CEO of AngstroVision; and Kyepongjae (KJ) Cho, Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University."

Nanotubes Could Make Ships Lightweight, Superstron

LawrenceTrutter writes "The Space.com story, Microscopic Nanotubes Could Make Ships Lightweight, Superstrong , discusses the predictions made by NASA's Nanotube team. Several applications of the nanotubes mentioned in the article include composite, nanoelectronics, biomedical applications, energy storage, and thermal materials.

Dr. Richard Smalley of Rice University is also quoted in this article. There is also a brief report on Richard Smalley's team progress."

Materials Today highlights molecular electronics

from the Molectronics dept.
The cover and a pair of feature articles in the February 2002 issue of Materials Today, an international magazine devoted to the latest research and policy news for materials researchers in academia, industry and government, highlight "Molecular electronics: the future of computing". The two feature articles are available on the MT website, as Adobe Acrobat PDF files. (Note: the PDF files have been print-disabled, so you can only view the articles online.)

"Introducing molecular electronics" by Mark Ratner. This article introduces the basic concepts of molecular electronics, looks at the promise that molecular electronics holds, and describes the fundamental questions that still have to be answered for these promises to be fulfilled. Ratner, a Professor of Chemistry at Northwestern University, was one of the visionary co-inventors of the concept and scientific study of molecular electronics. He was awarded the 2001 Feynman for Theoretical Work at the Ninth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology in November 2001.
"Moletronics: future electronics" by Kwan Kwok with DARPA and James Ellenbogen of MITRE Corp. This extensive and well-illustrated article surveys recent work in the field of molecular electronics.
"Nanowires take the prize" (not available online) is a news item and interview of Charles Lieber, a molecular devices researcher at Harvard who was awarded the 2001 Feynman Prize for Experimantal Work. "We have these things as chemical or building blocks there to be manipulated. You can combine things that you just didnít think you could combine. You can bring functionality to the table that really isnít possible by other means," says Lieber.

Company touts dendrimers for drug delivery, biowarfare sensors

from the (world-authority-on-nanotech?) dept.
A rather breathless article in the Australian Daily Telegraph ("AIDS cure closer: expert", 4 February 2002) describes a visit to Australia by Professor Donald Tomalia, whom the article describes as "the world authority on nanotechnology", to trumpet work by Dendritic Nanotechnologies Ltd, the joint-venture of Melbourne-based pharmaceutical company Starpharma and Brisbane-based diagnostic firm Panbio. Tomalia is a leading researcher in the field of starburst dendrimers, a type of complex, tree-like spherical branching polymer molecules, at Central Michigan University in the United States. Dendritic Nanotech was formed in August 2001 to develop products using "dendrimer nanotechnology"

Australia would pioneer the application to humans of the synthetic molecular structures to prevent and cure diseases such as STDs, malaria and Hepatitis B, Prof Tomalia told reporters in Sydney. According to the article, dendrimers were being touted by Dendritic Nanotechnologies as having implications for anything from preventing tumour growth to curing AIDS to detecting biological warfare.

Dr John Raff, CEO of Starpharma, said the Australian federal government had committed A$6 million to the company's research. He said the Australian army was embracing nanotechnology, following in the footsteps of the U.S., which was equipping its army with detection devices against germ warfare. "The opportunities of broadscale protections against a range of respiratory viruses is enormous," he said. "The US army has made a very serious commitment to the nano area. The army intends to give every foot soldier out there devices to detect biological threats. That is now a reality. Australia is just now coming into this very exciting area," he said.

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Search Foresight Institute