Responsible Nanotechnology Interview

cynical writes "WorldChanging has a lengthy interview with Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, a non-profit group helping to make sure molecular manufacturing is developed as safely as possible. In the article they talk about their policy task force (which includes folks like Ray Kurzweil, David Brin, and Jaron Lanier), the risks and benefits of nanofactories, and why open source is so important to the responsible development of nanotechnology."

Coral cache of article and other links

I don't know how durable WorldChanging's servers are, but just in case, here's a coral cache of the article:

http://www.worldchanging.com.nyud.net:8090/archive s/004078.html [nyud.net]

Additionally, here's the web site for the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology: http://www.crnano.org/ [crnano.org]

Other links:
* Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]
* Responsible Nanotechnology blog [typepad.com]
* Wise-Nano [wise-nano.org]: their collaborate website (i.e. wiki) for "studying the facts and implications of advanced nanotechnology"

(I tried to post this anonymously, but Slashdot gave me a "There was an unknown error in the submission" error. I guess I'll have to risk being modded down for karma-whoring.)

Wow

Chris Pheonix and Mike Treder are both infected by nanites!
Somebody quick help them, they are all over their faces.

They also have a nice graph showing the links to the development stages and what aims and benefits it gets.
Strangely absent are steps II and III. One of them has to be Military, any guesses on the other one?

Intellectual property

IP must be protected at all costs; we cannot have people manufacturing patented and copyrighted molecules on their desktops like we have people irresponsibly trading copyrighted intellectual property (books, movies, and music) today.

Discuss. :)

Re:Intellectual property

It is very possible that desktop manufacturing will - in the beginning at least - cause the same problems as P2P downloading does today, including so-called "pirating" of designs, because all atomically precise blueprints can be shared just like an .mp3 file today. The only difference will be the dimensions: While P2P "only" affected the music, software and movie industry, desktop manufacturing will affect almost every branch of industry that produces physical products. I think the results of this cannot be underestimated. It will bring the equivalent of free/open source to the physical world and thus to everyone who can download it, and there will be editors to modify them at one's discretion. Just like today, there will be broad attempts to vilify the free alternatives, but just like in software today, people will not be willing to pay for a spoon design if there's a perfectly working spoon design available (and with less bugs at that :) any more than they would pay money to get a calculator program.

Add to that the possibility of desktop feedstock refining: just throw in the old stuff to break it down and get something new out of its atoms, and you get a veritable revolution at your hands.

The alternatives are clear: Designs are restricted at the manufacturer's will, programing the nanofactory is illegal under the DMCA, and feedstock is sold by the hp principle: give away the factory, earn money through the proprietary feedstock cartridges. Pay for every time you assemble a product, even if you paid for its design already. DRM galore.

Which is it going to be?

Oh joy open source grey goo!

Just what I want, some 14 year old nerd turning the world into grey goo because he was playing with open source nanotechnology and thought he could make a great PacMan clone ...

prediction: America practices safe nanotechnology

while foreign countries in an area of the world I won't speficially mention, will go balls-to-the-walls with potentially dangerous nanotech research by unethical means.

Who will win the nanotech race?

This reminds me of the actions of a certain Korean cloning researcher who recently got caught in a scandal.

IMHO, ethics has finally come within sight of a potential head to head battle with progress, in that ethical nations will have a disadvantage against unethical nations.

nano-beard update

From TFA:

WorldChanging: So, to start -- what is the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology hoping to make happen?

Center for Responsible Nanotechnology: We want to help create a world in which advanced beard technology -- nano-beards -- is widely used for beneficial purposes, and in which the risks are responsibly managed. The ability to manufacture highly advanced nano-beard products, such as those adorning our own faces right now at an exponentially accelerating pace will have profound and perilous implications for all of society, and our goal is to lay a foundation for handling them wisely.

For goodness' sake!

"Molecular manufacturing" is absolutely pure 100% unadulterated science fiction right now. There's a possibility that some of the concepts discussed might be utilized in some sense in 20-50-100 years, but quite honestly, do we really need a "Center for Responsible Nanotechnology" right now? They would be more useful campaigning for more research into how exposure to radiation can give people superhero powers.

Obligatory Homer Simpson joke

Mmmmm...grey goo

Safe nanotech? Nah

There always will be malicious use for nanotech by notorious governments and private firms, no amount of "responsible" scientists will change human behaviour. I'd suggest reading Prey by Michael Crichton to comprehend the true extent and ease with which certain people could develop serious threats using nanotech. Not to say all is doomed when nanotech hits mainstream, I'm bracing myself for at least a few nasty surprises along the way.

What the hell is it with /. and Michael Crichton?

I'd suggest reading Prey by Michael Crichton to comprehend the true extent and ease with which certain people could develop serious threats using nanotech.

Bloody hell. Every time there's a global warming story, some goon who's mistaken a thriller novel for a scientific paper cites Crichton as evidence that it's all a lefty environmentalist conspiracy. Now Crichton gets raised as an authority on nanotech.

That does it. Next time there's a story on genetics or cloning, I'm going to say it's a bad idea because look what happened in Jurassic Park.

Foresight

Hasn't the Foresight Institute been doing this for many years?

http://www.foresight.org/ [foresight.org]

Interesting article though. I dig reading about nanotech, its the coolest sci-fi-ish tech thats just around teh corner somewhere.

wow!

I found a nanite that looks like Elvis!!! ...now where did I put it?

Open Source ?

They must be joking. On the contrary, the tool to make them should remain under heavy control and guarded like a nuclear warhead.

I mean, the geek analogy would be to say that you want to give everyone a PHLAK distribution, while our body runs an unpatched Win ME.

Why is it...

Whenever the morality, ethics, or safety of Nanotechnology is brought up I think of the Excellent book by Michael Crichton... While I do agree with everything in the interview and how safety and open source would benefit it... I can't stop and think back to that book.

Purdue Nanotech Center Opens This Week

Here's [insideindi...siness.com] something covering the opening of the new Purdue nanotech center...perhaps relevant for someone who can use the after-knowledge...

Related to a letter I wrote last week...

I heard a rumour the other day, and I have to say I was delighted when I heard it. My friend told me that Marriott is taking customers into the 21st century by spiking nanobots into their shampoos so that guests can be tracked throughout the hotel and provided services without even presenting a room key. For example, I noticed it right away at my current stay when I approached the concierge lounge and the doors were open. I was greeted by the attendant, and offered food, drinks, snacks, and all the television I could watch. I saw several episodes of Jeopardy and America's Funniest Videos. The video that won on Tuesday night was this lady jumping around doing half-cartwheels and doing a face plant after receiving a diamond ring. What a good laugh that was.

My point is that I was greeted without showing any identification, room key, or stating my name or room number. How else would the concierge have known? I figured my friend was right - nanobots. I think putting nanobots in the shampoo is ingenious, since not only is the process seamlessly integrated into a normal routine of all guests, but they are undetected by the human eye and harmless to the scalpal regions. Imagine all the possibilities - no more room keys, knowing when young children venture into the pool area without supervision, and express checkout - all because of sensors interacting with the nanobots from the shampoo.

I'm sure that there are all sorts of exciting surprises to come. If you want to send me some of them, that would be fantastic. I can say that I hope you at least never replace your real staff with robot staff, because I find they're all super friendly and a pleasure to talk to. I think we're at least a few years off from having robots like that!

Thanks,

Greg

Richard Smally V. Eric Drexler

As a chemist, it sometimes gets to me when Engineers and Computer Scientists take extrapolations from our macro-scale world, and then translate them down to the nano-scale, without recognising how terribly diffrent the two are. Mechanosythisis and machinephase matter are simply silly concepts on the nano-scale. Atoms and molecules are not nice stable things which will sit still and alow you to pluck them from one position to another. No, they are constantly moving and bouncing into one another at high speeds, changing their shape, and undergoing small reaction constantly.

Richard Smally, who shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his co-discovery of the Buckyball once tried to point this out to Eric Drexler in a published series of articles. [acs.org], but the nano-enthusiast will not be disauded, no matter how well versed in the subjet matter their opponents.

As for "responsible nanotechnology." Nature has already crated her own version of "grey goo" which we would be hard pressed to copy. That is the simple bacteria. While the cover the Earth, we are in no more danger of them starting to grow out of control and devowering all our resources then we are the nano-technologists every getting machine-phase matter working.

Talking heads with *no credentials*

This article highlights one of my pet peeves: people with no technical background in physics, chemistry, or biology who somehow become talking heads on the subject of nanoscale science that garner world-wide attention. Seriously, look at their website [crnano.org]. Explain to me what gives them professional credibility on this issue. This is as bad as Michael Crichton testifying before Congress about climate change last fall. Besides being loud and writing a novel, what actual qualifications does he have to be taken seriously?

There are plenty of actually qualified people worrying about things like the toxicology of nanomaterials, and environmental impacts of nanomaterials. Indeed, Rice University has an NSF-funded center [slashdot.org] on exactly this topic. Responsible scientific research is a good thing - assuming that unqualified people can appreciate the technical issues is not.

Pie in the sky?

So, according to this article:

• Nanotechnology will solve world hunger!
• Nanotechnology will solve the energy crisis!
• Nanotechnology will end pollution!
• Nanotechnology will get us into space!

You are free to draw your own conclusions.