This issue of NanoNews-Now covers preparing for nanotech in a series of interviews we call Possible Futures. Editor Rocky Rawstern asked questions of organizations that are making a concerted effort to enlighten the public and our government and business leaders as to the potential of nanotechnology. Among those interviewed were Dr. Patrick Lin, Research Director of The Nanoethics Group; Dr. Elizabeth Keating, the Director of the Science, Technology and Society Program at the University of Texas at Austin; Mike Treder, Executive Director of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology; Dr. Susanna Hornig Priest, Associate Professor and Director of Research, College of Mass Communications and Information Studies at the University of South Carolina; and Dr. Jeremy Ramsden, Professor of Nanotechnology at Cranfield University, and Editor of Nanotechnology Perceptions. As a special bonus to our subscribers (and pertinent to this month's topic), we received permission to reprint a select group of quotes from the recently released book The Singularity Is Near by Ray Kurzweil. If you are a Nanotechnology investor, click here for important information that could change the way you invest. Find the nanotech patent information you are looking for faster, easier, and in greater detail than any other publication - GUARANTEED. "The NanoTech Transfer Report provides me with the information I need to stay in touch with the leaders in the field. Great product!" — Douglas W. Jamison, Vice President Harris & Harris Group Inc. www.hhgp.com Try it FREE for 60 days! There is NO RISK.

Table of contents: Patrick Lin Elizabeth Keating Mike Treder Susanna Hornig Priest Jeremy Ramsden Ray Kurzweil Quotes News Useful Links Next Issue Glossary Editorial Calendar About Us Advertise Contact

University Technology Transfer & Patents Learn More		Only the news you want to read! Learn More		The latest news from around the world, free		Full-service, expert consulting Learn More
Advertisement

Rocky Rawstern Editor, Nanotechnology Now

Patrick Lin, Ph.D. Research Director The Nanoethics Group www.nanoethics.org

NN: How is The Nanoethics Group helping to prepare for the likely near-term societal, environmental, and technological implications of nanotechnology?

As our name implies, we focus on the ethics or moral evaluation of nanotechnology's possible impacts and applications. Currently, the study of nanotech's implications is incomplete without an ethics component. For instance, experts might be able to anticipate a list of possible benefits and harms from nanotechnology in a given area, but how do we determine whether the benefits outweigh the harms? Just because something has a downside or is opposed by a segment of our population doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it - every initiative has its costs.

So the questions we'd tackle are foundational to the study of nanotech's impact and include: How strict is the Precautionary Principle - should we ban nanotech products until all environmental and public health issues have been addressed? In the near term and similar to the steroids debate, should we be permitted to use nanotech to enhance our bodies, as opposed to heal patients in true need? Richard Branson of Virgin Air plans to offer commercial space travel by 2008, which could benefit from lighter, stronger materials and more efficient power sources through nanotechnology - but what are the ethics of introducing humans to outer space or other planets, especially given the damage we've already done to our own planet?

Therefore, The Nanoethics Group is filling in a big piece of the puzzle. We are helping to identify harms and conflicts that may arise from nanotechnology as well as evaluate possible scenarios in a moral framework, which has been missing. Common sense, intuition and public attitudes are important, but as professional ethicists, we can help articulate the reasons why a certain scenario should be desired or not.

Industry groups and experts, by the way, have been calling for the study of nanotechnology's implications, but so far, we haven't really seen any reports or research that do little more than repeat these calls. It's good to galvanize people into action, but at some point, you have to do the work that's required.

NN: How has the public perception of nanotechnology changed in the past three years? What issues still concern you regarding public perception? How can those issues be ameliorated? What is The Nanoethics Group doing along those lines?

It seemed that the only people aware of nanotech a few years ago were mainly scientists and investors interested in productizing that research. Yes, the public has had a taste of nanotech through pop culture, such as the movie The Hulk or, the usual example, Michael Crichton's book Prey - but that's like studying urban crime by watching Batman. It's an unbalanced or insufficient look at the subject.

Now, nanotech is making its way more into our daily vernacular, but there's still not enough public education about what nanotech truly means or implies. The public just has a vague understanding that nanotechnology is about making really tiny things. Just ask the guys in charge of naming Apple's new iPod nano, which is a misnomer.

Besides the lack of study in nanoethics, an issue that causes us great concern is this: there is a lot of good research coming from universities and other organizations about the societal impact of nanotechnology - but the supply chain is stuck: these findings are not making their way out of the ivory tower or industry circles and into the broader public. (Which is ironic, given that universities exist to educate people.)

There is also still a lack of balance in today's discussions about nanotechnology's implications. Typically, the most vocal groups are on the fringes, predicting gloom and doom or calling for full research bans. On the other side, business groups are ignoring a growing chorus of concern - which is very dangerous, as the biotech industry has learned - and still feeding an "irrational exuberance" in a technology we don't yet adequately understand.

All the while, organizations doing much of the heavy lifting in thinking about these issues - such as Foresight Nanotech Institute and Center for Responsible Nanotechnology - are not getting the broader attention they deserve, because much of their efforts are geared towards guiding policy ... which is a practical and important matter, but this kind of research typically does not get the public engaged, who has neither the time nor technical background to jump into such a detailed discussion.

The Nanoethics Group hopes to change that by focusing on educational initiatives, including partnering with leading universities. Our field is especially conducive to public participation, because most everyone has some sense of ethics, and ethics can often be stripped of technical details in order to focus on the "big picture" or the moral principles behind a dilemma. We are not activists or industry watchdogs, but rather our strengths are in research and teaching, from a classroom setting to literary channels to conferences to other public relations activities. We also have much business experience to advise companies in nanoethics issues, which will be important since these research labs and businesses are on the frontlines of nanotechnology.

NN: If you had the collective ear of world leaders, what would you tell them regarding strategies to improve the prospects for humanity in the coming age of advanced nanotechnology? (advanced nanotechnology = Molecular Manufacturing (MM), or even Limited Molecular Manufacturing (LMNT) as described by Chris Phoenix of CRN).

If we can leave world leaders with one thought, it is to take a step back to understand the ethical principles that guide human action, or if that's too much to ask, at least surround yourself with critical thinkers, not politicians or those with pre-set agendas. (Not just in nanotechnology, but it would help resolve many other conflicts!) That will give us the best chance at arriving at sound policy decisions. But this means more than having strong beliefs - for example, if someone were dogmatically religious for no reason other than that was their upbringing - but also having an "examined life", which includes giving opposing viewpoints fair consideration.

It's not a coincidence that some of history's best leaders and influencers - from Marcus Aurelius to Thomas Jefferson to, arguably, Henry Kissinger and Nelson Mandela - have strong moral convictions that are supported by their examination or thinking about related philosophical issues (though none of them was or is perfect). This is what Plato urged in the "philosopher-king"...a leader who has given critical thought to the issues that affect the people.

After the spectacular failures and controversies in ethics in recent times, people are recognizing again the essential role ethics must play in everything from politics to business to our everyday relationships. Companies, for example, are hiring chief ethics officers and consultants to help guide them through the murky waters of privacy concerns and establish fair practices, since people tend to favor businesses who act responsibly. Hospitals need ethicists to help with decisions about life and death, which doctors are not formally trained to do, at least to the extent they should be. (This is not a criticism of doctors - we want them to focus on what they do best, the healing arts, and leave non-core matters to others. Division of labor works.)

NN: In your most optimistic moments, how do you see life in the year 2020? And in your most pessimistic? What do you consider to be the driving factors in each case?

I believe Ray Kurzweil pointed out that, given the exponential rate of Moore's law, the difference between now and the next 20 years can be compared to the relative progress we've made in the entire 20th century. So look at, for instance, the improvements made in the automotive field from 1900 to 2000. That's the order of progress we supposedly should expect in the next 20 years.

So if no one in 1900 could reasonably predict or even envision what life would have been like in 2000, then I'd say that we can't predict life in 2020, if Kurzweil and Moore are right. Even more recently, if we went back to 1990, I don't think we could imagine the new industries enabled by technology or the Internet life we have now in 2005.

Of course, some scientists we've spoken to believe that Moore's Law will hold for only 10-20 more years, because the engineering improvements needed to continue that rate of progress is about to hit a wall. We can only miniaturize computer processors so far without solving major hurdles in taking the tremendous heat they will generate out of the systems as well as in providing the power source required. And because nanotechnology adds complexity to engineering, we have to start over again in a sense - taking many steps back before we can move past where we even are today. So maybe life won't change that much in 15 years, but I guess we won't really know until we get there.

Optimistically, I hope that nanotechnology will be rapidly deployed to give us safe products that actually improve lives and solve real problems, such as giving Third-World countries access to clean water, reliable energy or more food. Of course, we can already do much of that today, but we don't because it is still very expensive. Companies and governments don't see the return-on-investment in helping others. So a key driver of this will be whether these nanotech solutions are simple and cheap enough to distribute where needed, even though there's not much profit in it, at least in the near term.

Pessimistically, attitudes and beliefs don't change as rapidly as technology, which is why many keep saying that ethics is always lagging. Rather, ethics tends to have a slow and steady evolution and then spikes of revolution. The beliefs we take to be obviously true today - for example, that we should respect people of all colors, sex, religion, and so on - took much blood, sweat and tears over the last century alone to establish (and we're still not done!). People might be hardwired to be self-interested, and we know that it is possible to have "enlightened self-interest", but it takes much work.

A key driver of this is will be whether we can engage people in a broad dialogue about how we want our future to be - to actually plan ahead. We have a rare opportunity to control much of our own destiny now, with emerging technologies as our tools. And this effort needs to involve serious ethical study and reflection up front, not as an afterthought or a reaction to an undesired event. By then, it may be too late.

Dr. Elizabeth Keating Associate Professor Department of Anthropology Director, Science, Technology and Society Program The University of Texas at Austin Home page

NN: How is the STS Program helping to prepare for the likely near-term societal, environmental, and technological implications of nanotechnology?

At the University of Texas at Austin we are pursuing several goals we feel are important in terms of preparing society for near-term societal, environmental, and technological implications of nanotechnology. For example, we recently organized the world's largest Civic Forum on Societal Impacts of Nanotechnology (link). Three hundred members of the Austin community listened to a panel of nanoscientists, moderated by a scholar from the LBJ School of Public Policy, a scholar whose specialty is critiquing technology policy. The participants then engaged in a role-playing scenario about possible impacts of new nano technologies, through a complex situation of occupations, goals and a fictional public crisis. The mayor of Austin and the University President spoke at the event, demonstrating their recognition of its importance (one of our goals is to demonstrate the need for public attention and investment of time). Another way we are building awareness in preparation for impacts of nanotechnology is to build activities and dialogues between natural scientists, engineers, and social scientists in order to get the best minds together to plan and predict ways to ensure that new nanotechnologies are developed with the best outcomes for societies. We recently launched an online journal, Nanolog to stimulate public discussion and participation (link)

NN: How has the public perception of nanotechnology changed in the past three years? What issues still concern you regarding public perception? How can those issues be ameliorated? What is the STS Program doing along those lines?

The public is becoming more aware of nano, but it is still relatively unaware. Scientists are realizing they want to counter perceptions the public might have due to reading novelistic accounts. The universities have an important role, I believe, in educating the public both about the scientific issues and about the societal issues. Web pages, films, and other educational materials are vital in this effort. At the STS program at the University of Texas at Austin, we continue to develop our web page; we have produced over one hundred Power Point slides and a 16-minute film to educate about nanotechnology (these are available free on our web site for teachers and anyone who is interested). We also recently held a large Civic Forum, as described above.

NN: If you had the collective ear of world leaders, what would you tell them regarding strategies to improve the prospects for humanity in the coming age of advanced nanotechnology?

I would tell them it is urgent to demand that funding be allocated to bringing scholars, government leaders, members of the public, and business together to collectively contribute their expertise to building the best possible future, knowing what we know about our most difficult societal problems (social inequalities, digital divide, environmental concerns, new global economies, communication, prejudicial thinking).

NN: In your most optimistic moments, how do you see life in the year 2020? And in your most pessimistic? What do you consider to be the driving factors in each case?

I am very optimistic about our continued ability to innovate and share our innovations with others. I believe we need more "out of the box" thinking, i.e. how to value each other's contributions to society in new ways, how to value giving, how to understand our relationship to the "family of humankind" which is incredibly diverse and different in fundamental ways in terms of thinking, attitudes and perceptions. This is our greatest challenge: ­to live in a global community and not to misunderstand or disrespect each other, and not, of course to aggress violently against each other. In the year 2020 I believe we could see a much greater cross-cultural understanding and sophisticated engagement over shared problems. In my most pessimistic I see societies allowing their leaders to engage in short term problem solving which are not well considered in terms of the long term.

Mike Treder Executive Director Center for Responsible Nanotechnology

NN: How has the public perception of nanotechnology changed in the past three years?

Increased awareness; we're now hearing much more often from people who have recently learned about nanotech and want to know more.

NN: What issues still concern you regarding public perception? How can those issues be ameliorated? The public is still confused about what molecular manufacturing is and how it relates to nanoscale technologies.

Those issues can be ameliorated by improved education: presenting the idea of molecular manufacturing without nanobots; letting the public and policymakers see that scientific skepticism about molecular manufacturing is fading rapidly; and providing facts and illustrative examples to show how amazingly powerful and general-purpose molecular manufacturing will be.

NN: If you had the collective ear of world leaders, what would you tell them regarding strategies to improve the prospects for humanity in the coming age of advanced nanotechnology?

1. Nano will give you far more choices, options, issues than exist today with nukes--but equally powerful.
2. Without wise decision-making *that cares for people you're not responsible for* things could turn out very badly. With wise decision-making, things could be very good, with little need for competition on today's issues.
3. Wisdom must be grounded in knowledge, and sufficient knowledge doesn't exist yet.

NN: In your most optimistic moments, how do you see life in the year 2020? And in your most pessimistic? What do you consider to be the driving factors in each case?

Our most pessimistic moments read like bad science fiction, and our most optimistic sound like hopelessly naive utopia. However, in 2005 the human race already has the technology to destroy civilization, and also has the technical capability to provide everyone on earth with a decent standard of living. Molecular manufacturing will bring these choices into sharper focus.

The driving factors for pessimistic outcomes are human nature: greed, fear, and shortsightedness. When these are institutionalized, and when those institutions fight, people are trampled.

The driving factors for optimistic outcomes are that people often become better--more generous and less malicious, to people in larger circles--as their own situation improves.

Dr. Susanna Hornig Priest Associate Professor and Director of Research, College of Mass Communications and Information Studies at theUniversity of South Carolina

NN: How has the public perception of nanotechnology changed in the past three years? What issues still concern you regarding public perception?

My impression as a researcher in this area (I have just now had an article on public perceptions accepted the Journal of Nanoparticle Research and have another currently in press in Public Understanding of Science) is that the public opinion climate for nanotechnology remains largely positive. I tend to think some of the expectations of negative public reaction have been overstating the case. Americans in particular tend to be optimistic about technology. I could be wrong, but in general I don't see the same kind of challenges ahead for nano as we saw for various forms of bio, which seemed to cross culturally defined boundaries in ways that made people especially uncomfortable.

However - and this is an extremely important caveat - there are different 'publics' for nano, and while some people are positive across the board, others are asking questions about risks, ethics and regulation as well as about benefits, and about opportunities for public discussion and a public voice rather than just about the science. We do need to encourage discussion in all these areas so that people have the opportunity to develop thoughtful opinions, and we need to demonstrate that the scientific and policy communities are addressing problems as they arise and listening to what ordinary people think.

Many of the activities of the USC NanoCenter, such as the South Carolina Citizens' School of Nanotechnology and our recent conference on nanotechnology law and ethics, address these challenges.

The following responses come from the USC NIRT Annual Report to External Advisory Board (PDF), and represent just a portion of the work being done at USC and the NanoScience & Technology Studies: Societal and Ethical Implications project.

NN: What is the USC NanoCenter doing to educate it's students and the public on nanotechnology?

The NIRT’s educational efforts can be divided into two parts, one that focuses on what we call the “nano-literate campus,” and a second that focuses on outreach beyond the university. Our nano-literate campus effort had a good year, both in terms of courses that concern societal and ethical interactions of nanotechnology and in terms of our “Nano Scholars” program, where a group of undergraduate students pursue a variety of research efforts mentored by faculty members. During spring 2005, in cooperation with the South Carolina Honors College we put on the “Nano Semester, ” a collection of four courses, each focusing on a specific aspect of societal and ethical interactions of nanotechnology. We also developed a variety of enhancements for all the students in all of the Nano Semester courses that included meetings with several invited speakers (Kristen Kulinowski from CBEN, Neal Lane from Rice, Alfred Nordmann from Darmstadt), and participation in our Nano Ethics conference.

Our premier outreach program, The South Carolina Citizens’ School of Nanotechnology, presented two more rounds, in Fall 2004 and Spring 2005. We continue to experiment with it and add innovations. In the coming year we hope to develop more ways to assist other institutions that want to create their own citizens’ schools of nanotech, and to gain insights from their experiences.

The USC NIRT has a strong ethos of including undergraduate students in our work. In Spring semester 2005, we intensified our opportunities for students by offering the “Nano Semester,” a repertoire of four undergraduate seminars, an independent study which functioned as a seminar, and three plenary speakers. The courses overlapped somewhat in their readings and topics, but they presented different, complementary perspectives from the humanities and social sciences on the question of societal and ethical interactions with nanotech.

On March 2-5, 2005 the University of South Carolina held an international conference on the ethics of nanotechnology. A call for papers was distributed to professional organizations and networks in the United States, Canada, and Europe. The call for papers described the conference thus:

Nearly 100 abstracts were received, and approximately half of those were accepted for the conference program. Conference presenters came from ten countries: the United States, Canada, Germany, France, England, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, and Australia with participants from several more countries including Japan. (The complete call for papers and program are available at http://nsts.nano.sc.edu/conferences.html).

The South Carolina Citizens' School of Nanotechnology [SCCSN] is a dialogue between experts and nonexperts to build public understandings of nanotechnology and societal/ethical interactions with nanotech, so that nonexperts can have an active and constructive voice when they participate in nanotechnology policy. The first round took place in Spring 2004; during the 2004-05 academic year, we offered a second round [SCCSN.2] in Fall 2004 and the third [SCCSN.3] in April 2005.

A major accomplishment of the Nano Scholars was the creation of News From the Bottom, the first scholarly nanotechnology journal completely written and edited by students. NFB features work by students (excepting those with a PhD) and nonacademics on the epistemological, historical, professional, ethical, legal, and societal implications of high and converging technologies, specifically nanotechnology. Through the exchange of ideas between students in programs studying nanotechnology, our hope is that a dialogue on the issues will start and a community of student scholars can be fostered. We aim to be less formal and more generally informative than your average academic journal in order to best serve our intended audience. The journal is currently served online at www.schc.sc.edu/nfb/.

“NanoCulture” and “Science Studies” are a pair of over-lapping seminar presentations at USC. During the 2004-05 academic year, “NanoCulture” had fourteen presentations and “Science Studies” had eleven. Speakers included both USC faculty and various external speakers. These two series are valuable to the NIRT as a way to instigate and continue cross-disciplinary exchanges.

During the 2004-05 year, members of the USC NIRT published one edited book, four special issues of journals, and 34 articles. Another book is forthcoming, as are an additional special journal issue, and 19 articles.

(Ed.'s note: I encourage anyone wishing to learn more to visit their website at nsts.nano.sc.edu. This is - in my opinion - the premier university nanotech ethics program in the US, and perhaps in the world.)

Jeremy Ramsden Professor of Nanotechnology at Cranfield University, and Editor of Nanotechnology Perceptions

NN: How has the public perception of nanotechnology changed in the past three years? What issues still concern you regarding public perception? How can those issues be ameliorated?

People are becoming more aware of it, but there are huge divergences, even in the fairly homogeneous group of developed countries. And nanotechnology will impact the developing world even more.

There is still a long way to go regarding public perception, especially among industry leaders, politicians, and other professionals. That’s the audience we aim to reach with Nanotechnology Perceptions. So more people need to read it! We deliberately went for a printed publication so that people can have it in their pocket or briefcase and read it on a plane, train etc., while enjoying a drink in an airport lounge...

But how to achieve that? I don’t have a good marketing idea. People are bombarded with so many demands on their time...

NN: If you had the collective ear of world leaders, what would you tell them regarding strategies to improve the prospects for humanity in the coming age of advanced nanotechnology?

Implementation is key. We already have the technology to solve a multitude of problems. But there are even 300 year-old discoveries that have not filtered through to leaders and legislators yet!

NN: In your most optimistic moments, how do you see life in the year 2020? And in your most pessimistic? What do you consider to be the driving factors in each case?

See my article “Music of the nanospheres” in the first issue of Nanotechnology Perceptions (1). Optimistically, I would see maintaining a healthy balance between technology and humanity as possible. There are several pessimistic scenarios, either too much technology as in the film “I, Robot” or E.M. Forster’s story “The machine stops,” or a return to a dark ages type of existence (which were perhaps not as dark as is generally thought, so humanity would presumably again emerge from that).

(1) An excerpt: "Nanotechnology is predicted by both its promoters and detractors to be a 'unique and overwhelmingly powerful force that will affect all aspects of social life.' The neutral view merely sees nanotechnology as continuing existing technological trends. Curiously, the promoters are remarkably unimaginative in their vision of the nanotechnology age (*). We are promised better (quieter and more comfortable) cars and aeroplanes, and cravats and windows that do not need washing. The more ambitious promoters enthuse over 'smart' clothes that autonomously respond to changes in fashion, without considering that the vastly increased amount of leisure time available to most people should also increase the amount of time that they can spend in thinking, and hence perhaps become more rationally dismissive of fashion. They worry, in a scenario of universal plenty, about the necessity for companies to make profits, without considering whether the joint stock company will continue to be the most appropriate and advantageous way of organizing commerce. They view nanotechnology as offering new capabilities for military forces to develop 'uninhibited combat systems to enhance national security,' without considering whether 'national security' will still have any meaning in an individualized, globalized world. In other words, the vision constructed by the promoters is one of dismal banality, based on an extremely unadventurous extrapolation of present trends, ignoring the limitations in those trends that have become rather obvious to many observers. It is a vision in which 99% or more of the potential of nanotechnology is thrown away."

(*) Notable exceptions to Ramsden's "unimaginative in their vision" are the Foresight Nanotech Institute and the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.

Click to see larger version of cover

In my opinion, Ray Kurzweil should be considered a national treasure for his accomplishments. Kurzweil is a renaissance man, with many inventions to his credit, including the:

• omni-font optical character recognition, the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind
• first CCD flat-bed scanner
• first text-to-speech synthesizer
• first music synthesizer capable of recreating the grand piano and other orchestral instruments
• first commercially marketed large-vocabulary speech recognition

(read more about Ray here)

Whether or not you accept Kurzweil's theory of double exponential growth rate in technology (1), the rate of new technologies being introduced into everyday life is increasing at a pace far exceeding the historical precedent.

A constant stream of new gadgets, toys, and everyday products bombards today's consumer. From smaller, more functional cell phones, PDA's, and digital cameras, to PC's that 10 years ago were only found in commercial, industrial, and business settings (and for an order-of-magnitude higher costs and lessor functionality). Other advances include: functional clothing that resists stains or wicks away order-causing moisture; lightweight, stronger materials in auto parts and sports equipment; and nanoclays and nanocomposites used in packaging, these are just a few of the items we are seeing today.

A recent thread at Slashdot captures the notion of rapid technological growth pretty well:

Rewind your brain 15 years (to 1990) and imagine what you'd think if I told you (that in 2005):

• Your computer will be roughly 1,000 faster than what you're using today. You will probably have more than 4,000 times the memory, and a fast hard drive that stores over 100,000 times as much as that floppy you're using. You can buy these supercomputers for less than $500 at Wal-Mart.
• That computer will be hooked into a self-directed network that was designed by the Department of Defense and various universities -- along with nearly 400,000,000 other machines. Your connection to this network will be 10,000 times faster than the 300 baud modem you're using. In fact, it will be fast enough to download high-quality sound and video files in better than realtime.
• There will be a good chance that your computer's operating system will have been written by a global team of volunteers, some of them paid by their employers to implement specific parts. Free copies of this system will be available for download over the hyperfast network. You will have free access to the tools required to make your own changes, should you want to.
• You will use this mind-bendingly powerful system to view corporate sponsored, community driven messages boards where people will bitch about having to drive cars that are almost unimaginably luxurious compared to what you have today.

The above illustrates just how rapidly technologies advance. Accordingly, I highly recommend The Singularity Is Near, Kurzweil's latest book. Whether or not you agree with everything Kurzweil predicts, I believe everyone who takes the time to read TSIN will come away understanding the rapid pace of advanced technologies and get a glimpse of many of the technologies we'll see in the coming decades; technologies that will have as profound an impact on our lives as everything that has come before.

We received permission to reprint select portions of The Singularity Is Near from the chapter on nanotechnology. These tidbits should give you a general idea of what one of our great thinkers believes to be true regarding what is being called the most important (and potentially disruptive) technologies of the 21st century.

From the Chapter Nanotechnology: The Intersection of Information and the Physical World

On Computing

By 2030 the price-performance of computation and communication will increase by a factor of ten to one hundred million compared to today. Other technologies will also undergo enormous increases in capacity and efficiency.

On Manufacturing

Manufacturing using molecular nanotechnology fabrication will also be far more energy efficient than contemporary manufacturing, which moves bulk materials from place to place in a relatively wasteful manner. Manufacturing today also devotes enormous energy resources to producing basic materials, such as steel. A typical nanofactory will be a tabletop device that can produce products ranging from computers to clothing. Larger products (such as vehicles, homes, and even additional nanofactories) will be produced as modular subsystems that larger robots can then assemble. Waste heat, which accounts for the primary energy requirement for nanomanufacturing, will be captured and recycled.

The energy requirements for nanofactories are negligible. Drexler estimates that molecular manufacturing will be an energy generator rather than an energy consumer. According to Drexler, "A molecular manufacturing process can be driven by the chemical energy content of the feedstock materials, producing electrical energy as a by-product (if only to reduce the heat dissipation burden).... Using typical organic feedstock, and assuming oxidation of ­surplus hydrogen, reasonably efficient molecular manufacturing processes are net energy producers."

Products can be made from new nanotube-based and nanocomposite materials, avoiding the enormous energy used today to manufacture steel, titanium, and aluminum. Nanotechnology-based lighting will use small, cool, light-emitting diodes, quantum dots, or other innovative light sources to replace hot, inefficient incandescent and fluorescent bulbs.

Although the functionality and value of manufactured products will rise, product size will generally not increase (and in some cases, such as most electronics, products will get smaller). The higher value of manufactured goods will largely be the result of the expanding value of their information content. Although the roughly 50 percent deviation rate for information-based products and services will continue throughout this period, the amount of valuable information will increase at an even greater, more than offsetting pace.

On Energy

Energy requirements will grow far more slowly than the capacity of technologies, however, because of greatly increased efficiencies in the use of energy ... A primary implication of the nanotechnology revolution is that physical technologies, such as manufacturing and energy, will become governed by the law of accelerating returns. All technologies will essentially become information technologies, including energy.

... once we have MNT (molecular nanotechnology)-based manufacturing, we will be able to produce solar panels (and almost everything else) extremely inexpensively, essentially at the cost of raw materials, of which inexpensive carbon is the primary one. At an estimated thickness of several microns, solar panels could ultimately be as inexpensive as a penny per square meter. We could place efficient solar panels on the majority of human-made surfaces, such as buildings and vehicles, and even incorporate them into clothing for powering mobile devices. A 0.0003 conversion rate for solar energy should be quite feasible, therefore, and relatively inexpensive.

Terrestrial surfaces could be augmented by huge solar panels in space. A Space Solar Power satellite already designed by NASA could convert sunlight in space to electricity and beam it to Earth by microwave. Each such satellite could provide billions of watts of electricity, enough for tens of thousands of homes. With circa-2029 MNT manufacturing, we could produce solar panels of vast size directly in orbit around the Earth, requiring only the shipment of the raw materials to space stations, possibly via the planned Space Elevator, a thin ribbon, extending from a shipborne anchor to a counterweight well beyond geosynchronous orbit, made out of a material called carbon nanotube composite.

On the Environment

Emerging nanotechnology capabilities promise a profound impact on the environment. This includes the creation of new manufacturing and processing technologies that will dramatically reduce undesirable emissions, as well as remediating the prior impact of industrial-age pollution. Of course, providing for our energy needs with nanotechnology-enabled renewable, clean resources such as nanosolar panels, as I discussed above, will clearly be a leading effort in this direction.

By building particles and devices at the molecular scale, not only is size greatly reduced and surface area increased, but new electrical, chemical, and biological properties are introduced. Nanotechnology will eventually provide us with a vastly expanded toolkit for improved catalysis, chemical and atomic bonding, sensing, and mechanical manipulation, not to mention intelligent control through enhanced microelectronics.

Ultimately we will redesign all of our industrial processes to achieve their intended results with minimal consequences, such as unwanted by-products and their introduction into the environment.

On Medicine

A prime example of the application of precise molecular control in manufacturing will be the deployment of billions or trillions of nanobots: small robots the size of human blood cells or smaller that can travel inside the bloodstream.

This notion is not as futuristic as it may sound; successful animal experiments have been conducted using this concept, and many such microscale devices are already working in animals. At least four major conferences on BioMEMS (Biological Micro Electronic Mechanical Systems) deal with devices to be used in the human bloodstream.

With Freitas's respirocytes (robotic red blood cells) a runner could do an Olympic sprint for fifteen minutes without taking a breath. Freitas's robotic macrophages, called "microbivores," will be far more effective than our white blood cells at combating pathogens. His DNA-repair robot would be able to mend DNA transcription errors and even implement needed DNA changes. Other medical robots he has designed can serve as cleaners, removing unwanted debris and chemicals (such as prions, malformed proteins, and protofibrils) from individual human cells.

In General

Nanotechnology promises the tools to rebuild the physical world-our bodies and brains included-molecular fragment by molecular fragment, potentially atom by atom. We are shrinking the key feature size of technology, in accordance with the law of accelerating returns, at the exponential rate of approximately a factor of four per linear dimension per decade. At this rate the key feature sizes for most electronic and many mechanical technologies will be in the nanotechnology range-generally considered to be under one hundred nanometers-by the 2020s. (Electronics has already dipped below this threshold, although not yet in three-dimensional structures and not yet self-assembling.) Meanwhile rapid progress has been made, particularly in the last several years, in preparing the conceptual framework and design ideas for the coming age of nanotechnology.

By the 2020s molecular assembly will provide tools to effectively combat poverty, clean up our environment, overcome disease, extend human longevity, and many other worthwhile pursuits. Like every other technology that humankind has created, it can also be used to amplify and enable our destructive side. It's important that we approach this technology in a knowledgeable manner to gain the profound benefits it promises, while avoiding its dangers.

(1) But a serious assessment of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential. In exponential growth, we find that a key measurement such as computational power is multiplied by a constant factor for each unit of time (e.g., doubling every year) rather than just being added to incrementally. Exponential growth is a feature of any evolutionary process, of which technology is a primary example. One can examine the data in different ways, on different time scales, and for a wide variety of technologies ranging from electronic to biological, and the acceleration of progress and growth applies. Indeed, we find not just simple exponential growth, but "double" exponential growth, meaning that the rate of exponential growth is itself growing exponentially. These observations do not rely merely on an assumption of the continuation of Moore's law (i.e., the exponential shrinking of transistor sizes on an integrated circuit), but is based on a rich model of diverse technological processes. What it clearly shows is that technology, particularly the pace of technological change, advances (at least) exponentially, not linearly, and has been doing so since the advent of technology, indeed since the advent of evolution on Earth.

Read more here link

(2) link

The industries that nanotechnology will likely have a disruptive effect on in the near term include the following: (Amounts are Billions of US Dollars) $1,700 Healthcare $600 Long Term Care $550 Electronics $550 Telecom $480 Packaging $450 U.S. Chemical $460 Plastics $182 Apparel $180 Pharmaceutical $165 Tobacco $100 Semiconductor $92 Hospitality / Restaurant $90 US Insurance $83 Printing $80 Corrosion Removal $57 US Steel $43 Newspaper $42 Diet Supplement $40 Diet $32 Publishing $30 Catalysts $27 Glass $24 Advertising $18 Cosmetics $13 Chocolate $10 Battery $5 Blue Jeans $4 Khakis $2.8 Fluorescent Tagging Figures are from: The Next Big Thing Is Really Small: How Nanotechnology Will Change the Future of Your Business. J Uldrich & D Newberry. March 2003 Read our review Our Review The Superswarm Interview The Superswarm Option Nanoveau - This column will cover the science, the speculation, and (occasionally) the politics of nanotechnology and related topics. If you want to know what nanotech is about, and how and why it will change everything we know-Nanoveau is for you. Got Nanotechnology? If not, read this: Our Molecular Future: How Nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics, and Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Our World. Douglas Mulhall, March 2002 Read our review

Nanotechnology has the potential to enhance human performance, to bring sustainable development for materials, water, energy, and food, to protect against unknown bacteria and viruses, and even to diminish the reasons for breaking the peace [by creating universal abundance].
—National Science Foundation Nanotechnology Report

Nanotechnology has given us the tools . . . to play with the ultimate toy box of nature-atoms and molecules. Everything is made from it.... The possibilities to create new things appear limitless.
—Nobelist Horst Stormer

The net effect of these nanomedical interventions will be the continuing arrest of all biological aging, along with the reduction of current biological age to whatever new biological age is deemed desirable by the patient, severing forever the link between calendar time and biological health. Such interventions may become commonplace several decades from today. Using annual checkups and cleanouts, and some occasional major repairs, your biological age could be restored once a year to the more or less constant physiological age that you select. You might still eventually die of accidental causes, but you'll live at least ten times longer than you do now.
—Robert A. Freitas Jr.

"If nanotechnology ... at maturity achieves even a fraction of its promise, it will force the reassessment of global markets and economies and industries on a scale never experienced before in human history. Imagine the emergence of a nanochip that tomorrow would deliver over 50 gigahertz of speed with the processing power of ten supercomputers for the price of a quartz watch and smaller than a key chain. What might the economic impact on the computer industry be overnight? Imagine a super strong and inexpensive material to be used for pipe insulation, construction and manufacturing that would eliminate the market for steel and plastic. How might that influence the economy?"
—Dr. James Canton, CEO & Chairman, Institute for Global Futures

"Nanotechnology has a mortal lock on being tomorrow's gold mine. It will produce trillions of dollars in new wealth over the next century. It's sure to reshape every industry it touches -- computing, materials, health care and so on."
—Rich Karlgaard, Publisher, Forbes

Molecular nanotechnology (MNT) manufacturing can solve many of the world's current problems. For example, water shortage is a serious and growing problem. Most water is used for industry and agriculture; both of these requirements would be greatly reduced by products made by molecular manufacturing. Infectious disease is a continuing scourge in many parts of the world. Simple products like pipes, filters, and mosquito nets can greatly reduce this problem. Information and communication are valuable, but lacking in many places. Computers and display devices would become stunningly cheap. Electrical power is still not available in many areas. The efficient, cheap building of light, strong structures, electrical equipment, and power storage devices would allow the use of solar thermal power as a primary and abundant energy source. Environmental degradation is a serious problem worldwide. High-tech products can allow people to live with much less environmental impact. Many areas of the world cannot rapidly bootstrap a 20th century manufacturing infrastructure. Molecular manufacturing can be self-contained and clean; a single packing crate or suitcase could contain all equipment required for a village-scale industrial revolution. Finally, MNT will provide cheap and advanced equipment for medical research and health care, making improved medicine widely available. Much social unrest can be traced directly to material poverty, ill health, and ignorance. MNT can contribute to great reductions in all of these problems, and in the associated human suffering.
From Benefits of Molecular Manufacturing

Molecular nanotechnology (MNT) will be a significant breakthrough, comparable perhaps to the Industrial Revolution—but compressed into a few years. This has the potential to disrupt many aspects of society and politics. The power of the technology may cause two competing nations to enter a disruptive and unstable arms race. Weapons and surveillance devices could be made small, cheap, powerful, and very numerous. Cheap manufacturing and duplication of designs could lead to economic upheaval. Overuse of inexpensive products could cause widespread environmental damage. Attempts to control these and other risks may lead to abusive restrictions, or create demand for a black market that would be very risky and almost impossible to stop; small nanofactories will be very easy to smuggle, and fully dangerous. There are numerous severe risks—including several different kinds of risk—that cannot all be prevented with the same approach. Simple, one-track solutions cannot work. The right answer is unlikely to evolve without careful planning.
From Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

From Our Molecular Future: How Nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics, and Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Our World, by Douglas Mulhall:

• What happens to the monetary system when everyone is able to satisfy his own basic material needs at very low cost?
• How would we use cash when digital manufacturing makes it impossible to differentiate a counterfeit bill or coin from the real thing?
• What happens to fiscal policy when digital information, moving at light speed, is the major commodity?
• How fast will monetary cycles move compared to, say, the ten- or twenty-year cycles of the late twentieth century, when products and patents go out of date in a matter of months instead of years?
• What happens when we don't have to worry about trade or social services for our basic needs, because most of what we need is provided locally with digital manufacturing, and the biggest trade is in information?
• How do we control the excesses of the ultrarich, the overabundance of the molecular assembler economy, and the challenge to intellectual property laws created by intelligent, inventive machines?
• What happens if half of all jobs are made redundant every decade?
• What happens to the War on Drugs when there's no import, export, or transport of contraband because drugs can be manufactured in a desktop machine using pirated software downloaded from the Internet?
• What happens to democratic controls when individuals can get as rich as small governments in a year or so?
• What's the relevance of insurance if many things are replaceable at very low capital cost, but liabilities from software are potentially unlimited?
• How should organized labor react when molecular assemblers and intelligent robots eliminate most manufacturing jobs?
• What is the nature of work going to be?
• What happens to land prices when an individual can build a tropical farm under a bubble in North Dakota, and get there from New York in an hour?
• What happens when everyone can go everywhere, whenever they want, and work from wherever they want?

Return to Top

Useful Links

Center for Responsible Nanotechnology

Foresight Nnaotech Institute

KurzweilAI.net

Singularity.com

Ethical Issues in Nanotechnology

Return to Top

Issue #30 will cover Investments . It will land in your mailbox December 5th, 2005.

Infamous Quotes:

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." Western Union internal memo, 1876
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Physicist and mathematician Lord Kelvin, President of the British Royal Society, 1895
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." - Charles H. Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899
"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." - Robert Milikan, Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1923
"Theoretically, television may be feasible, but I consider it an impossibility-a development which we should waste little time dreaming about." - Lee de Forest, inventor of the cathode ray tube, 1926
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." IBM's Thomas Watson, 1943
"Landing and moving around on the moon offer so many serious problems for human beings that it may take science another 200 years to lick them." - Science Digest, August 1948
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." Popular Mechanics, 1949
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." Ken Olsen, Digital Equipment Corp, 1977

And the lesson is? It's a tough game to call.

Need advice? Check out NanoStrategies

© Copyright 1999-2005 7thWave, Inc. All rights reserved. More information on copyright, and disclaimers regarding the content of this newsletter can be found here