Respected science journalist ignorant of nanotech?

from the chemistry-isn't-technology? dept.
David Coutts writes "I'm just finishing "Genome: The autobiography of a species in 23 chapters" by respected science journalist Matt Ridley…Genome is a good book, and I can recommend it…What prompted me to post to Nanodot.org was the chapter on Self Assembly (Chapter 12, featuring developmental genes from Chromosone 12). Ridley opens the chapter by highlighting useful human analogies for most things we find in nature. Examples given are bats using sonar, the eye is a camera, natural selection is trial and error etc. However, Ridley states that there is no such analogy for self assembly. Nature can grow a human (or other creature) from a single cell, but there is "no human analogy at all" in our technology for self assembly. Hmm – how about nanotechnology? I found this a useful reminder that the concept of nanotechnology is both unfamiliar and alien to the vast majority of people." Read More for David's full post. CP: One could argue that synthetic organic chemistry technology is entirely based on self-assembly. The structures made are often not found in nature. David Coutts writes "I'm just finishing "Genome: The autobiography of a species in 23 chapters" by respected science journalist Matt Ridley. He has written articles for the Economist & Daily Telegraph in the UK. I've also read his excellent "The Origins Of Virtue", and have a copy of his "The Red Queen:Sex & The Evolution of Human Nature" ready to read. Genome is a good book, and I can recommend it. The book is laid out so as to feature a story in each chapter centered around a gene from 1 of the 23 chromosomes from the human genome. It not only tells the story of genetic research, but presents a good overview of our current understanding of our our own genes. What prompted me to post to Nanodot.org was the chapter on Self Assembly (Chapter 12, featuring developmental genes from Chromosone 12). Ridley opens the chapter by highlighting useful human analogies for most things we find in nature. Examples given are bats using sonar, the eye is a camera, natural selection is trial and error etc. However, Ridley states that there is no such analogy for self assembly. Nature can grow a human (or other creature) from a single cell, but there is "no human analogy at all" in our technology for self assembly. Hmm – how about nanotechnology? I found this a useful reminder that the concept of nanotechnology is both unfamiliar and alien to the vast majority of people. This even includes some science-fiction fans that I know, and clearly includes people whose job it is to know about and write about science! Admittedly Ridley's book is not about nanotechnology, but he is so sure of himself when he declares such a technology does not exist. He goes on to say "Imagine trying to design a piece of hardware (or software, for that matter) that could do something analogous to this feat. The Pentagon probably tried it, for all I know: 'Good Morning, Mandrake. Your job is to be make a bomb that grows itself from a large blob of raw steel and a heap of explosive. You have an unlimited budget and one thousand of the best brains at your disposal in the Mexican desert. I want to see a prototype by August. Rabbits do it ten times a month. So it cannot be that hard. Any questions?' " It's the tone that gets me. To Ridley, the idea is just so stupid! I guess I'm used to the idea of nanotech, so I find it hard to read such words from a scientist (he has a doctorate from Oxford University). To me, if nature can do it then sooner or later we will learn how to do it and will do it better! I don't think that's arrogance, it's just a matter of time and effort. Am I being unfair? It would be great to let Mr Ridley in on the Big Secret. But it's not a secret, is it? Nanotech crops up in all sorts of magazines these days, so what's his excuse? In time, Nanotech & genetics will probably become convergent technologies. So Ridley has some catching up to do! David"