Issue #13 of TNT Weekly (which will be archived here), the leading nanotech industry e-newsletter, covers the recent deletion of a molecular manufacturing study from the new U.S. nanotech legislation:
" –The plot thickens and the nanotech bill gets sillier–
Last week we had some fun with the recent nanotech bill in the US, especially the plan for a one-time study to determine the feasibility of making things using molecular self-assembly, which makes about as much sense as conducting a one-time study into the feasibility of sharpening a stick with a sharp knife. With a combination of cynicism and naiveté, we assumed that the bill had got away from those who actually understood nanotech and ended up in the hands of politicians who didn't understand the difference between self-assembly and molecular assemblers, the result being a terminological boo-boo in the part that was meant to direct figuring out whether Drexlerian-style molecular nanotechnology (MNT) and molecular manufacturing are actually feasible.
We were not alone. Quite a few people, it seemed, thought that the MNT crowd had been given the chance to make their case or forever hold their peace. Even the sceptics seemed to think this was fair dinkum." Read More for the full story. TNTW Issue 13, 2003.
We stay very much in commentary mode this week, looking at the handling of nanotech on the highest, governmental, levels, starting with more on the US nanotech bill.
–The plot thickens and the nanotech bill gets sillier–
Last week we had some fun with the recent nanotech bill in the US, especially the plan for a one-time study to determine the feasibility of making things using molecular self-assembly, which makes about as much sense as conducting a one-time study into the feasibility of sharpening a stick with a sharp knife. With a combination of cynicism and naiveté, we assumed that the bill had got away from those who actually understood nanotech and ended up in the hands of politicians who didn't understand the difference between self-assembly and molecular assemblers, the result being a terminological boo-boo in the part that was meant to direct figuring out whether Drexlerian-style molecular nanotechnology (MNT) and molecular manufacturing are actually feasible.
We were not alone. Quite a few people, it seemed, thought that the MNT crowd had been given the chance to make their case or forever hold their peace. Even the sceptics seemed to think this was fair dinkum.
We first heard otherwise from those within the MNT camp. Then Howard Lovey, in his nanotech blog, had a bit of a go at us for being somewhat glib about the bill and assured us (http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2003_11_23_nanobot_archive.html#106969756709919883) that in fact much thought had gone into the choice of words, and by those who understood nanotechnology, the intention being to exclude any consideration of MNT from the bill. This, he says, was political.
Howard's view has since been firmly backed up from other quarters, some of which could certainly be expected to know the truth of it. Apparently it was indeed political nanotech, or polinanotec to use Howard's neologism. As Howard points out, the NanoBusiness Alliance, who apparently played quite a part in producing the bill, also confirm in their newsletter that M-N-T is O-U-T. Howard, hardly an MNT acolyte, is nevertheless clearly quite upset (http://nanobot.blogspot.com/2003_11_23_nanobot_archive.html#106981883696966495) by this intrusion of political infighting into what might otherwise have been at least a civilised, and possibly enlightening, step forward in a longstanding area of contention. His rather barbed comments reflect the view of many we have heard from and stand in stark contrast to those of one well-connected source, who patiently explained to us that now that nanotech is "hot" it is more in the hands of "businessmen, lobbyists and politicians " than scientists, adding that "the truth is written by those in power that has [sic] rarely been scientists, non profit guys or futurists". These people are apparently not worried that "a couple hundred researchers ñ many abroad ñ are at odds with some wording to a provision".
While we're not quite sure what truth has to do with all this or where the foreign researchers come in, it does seem that we were wrong. The decision to enshrine in law a completely nonsensical study was apparently not a mistake. It was apparently deliberate. What strange times we live in. Being opportunists, however, we would like to volunteer our services to do the study. We're quite curious as to how much money the US government is prepared to pay to answer the blindingly obvious.
We won't even bother to explore the absurdity of the intentional exclusion of any evaluation of the feasibility of making basic molecular machinery from a bill that is quite happy to take seriously the risk of self-replicating nanobots being released into the wild.
We couldn't help noticing that when you open up the bill, the first page presents you with two words, in large, bold, capitals: AN ACT. Indeed. But in what flavour of play? Supporters of MNT may choose a tragedy; we're inclined to opt for a farce. But wasn't politics always thus?
