« Is nanotechnology already under siege? | Main | Fetman är individuell- inte folkets »
February 01, 2004
The Nanotechnology Coup
By Anders Sandberg
K. Eric Drexler coined the word nanotechnology in the mid 80's as he was considering the possibilities of molecular manufacturing. The idea that technology would eventually be miniaturized to molecular and atomic level was older (Nobel laureate Richard P. Feynman suggested it in a talk 1959) but Drexler was the first to consider the implications. He realized that the consequences were staggering: not just atomically perfect materials, but by assembling atoms as building blocks nearly anything could be constructed with a minimum of waste and pollution, making matter essentially recyclable and as reconfigurable as software. Molecular computers and robotics would enable entirely new possibilities in nearly all areas of life. He set out to demonstrate how these "wild" ideas were feasible within known laws of physics and to promote nanotechnology.
In the early and middle 90's nanotechnology was just speculative ideas, something to interest open-minded researchers, engineering hobbyists and science fiction fans. Despite attempts to show the validity of the concept it was largely ridiculed in Scientific American 1996. But slowly the idea percolated through the scientific community. It went from a wild idea to a radical idea to the next big thing. Suddenly funding for nanotechnology research appeared and it was not just acceptable to study it but a good buzzword to add to the research proposal. But in becoming acceptable research the original meaning of nanotechnology had been diluted. Whereas Drexler was considering operations on the molecular scale using molecular tools, nanotechnology now appears to mean any technology involving extremely small structures. What would in 1994 have been called materials science is now often dubbed nanotechnology. One reason is of course that as it became well funded it was advantageous for researchers to call their research nanotechnology if it involved tiny structures in any way.
This has led to a paradoxical situation where many are eager to talk about nanotechnology and to hype it, but at the same time strongly dismissive of "wild speculation". There is a strong concern within any developing field to keep it serious and avoid being branded as lunatic fringe. But in this case the whole idea emerged from the fringe, making pioneers like Drexler an embarrassment since they do not fit in with the current state of the field. At the same time hype is a temptation: claiming one's work to be revolutionary is a good way of getting funding. But there are acceptable forms of being revolutionary (claiming vastly enhanced industrial outputs) and there are too wild forms of revolutionary (entirely new possibilities, such as human enhancement). The border is blurred and shifts depending on the audience, but in an environment where it is important to sell science hype becomes an essential tool. While hype confuses the possible with the real, it is also vulnerable if somebody out-hypes it: either the listener sees through the lack of substance, or the listener begins to interest themselves with the new issue.
Deep down there are many scientific issues about whether molecular machines will work, if they can be designed or what they will eventually be able to do. Here different scientific and technological approaches clash, since it is hard for a chemist - used to a deductive and craftmanlike approach to matter - to understand the physicist with his simulations and force calculations, not to mention the biologist with his bizarre enzyme menagerie. And vice versa. Much of the debating will likely be quaint and seen as irrelevant within a few years as the disciplines finally link up to a real nanoscience, but at the present tempers are hotter and the stakes higher: who gets to define what is "real" nanoscience?
Meanwhile the emerging field is gaining its critics. They come from the predictable directions, the same directions that criticise biotechnology as having detrimental ethical, safety, social and economical effects. While some criticism (and plenty of Hollywood thrillers) has been aimed at the long-range "wild" possibilities, the most effective criticism in terms of getting politicians involved and funding agencies worried is claims that the safety of nanotechnology is suspect. Especially powerful media-wise are fears that nanoparticles may have environmental or health effects: it ties in with threats we already know (smog, silicosis), is sufficiently uncertain so that no researcher can with good conscience claim things are proven safe and also can be imagined as a threat as large as the listener cares to imagine. Had it been a concrete problem, like the very real and dangerous nanoparticles in diesel exhaust, it would have been far less effective as an attack on the field since it would have invited a practical solution. Now the only apparent solution to the uncertainty is regulation. Regulation is popular among regulators, and if they also promise more money to nanosafety research researchers tend to stay happy. But regulation done before the fact, based more on a feeling that everything important should be regulated, tends to result in excessive, expensive and often misdirected rules.
The irony is that the greens playing the game of fear, uncertainty and doubt are acting symmetrically with the researchers hyping their field: they are both tricks to get funding, attention and influence. Both sides seek the right amount of hype to get interest, but do not dare to get involved in too wild or too fundamental issues in the debate out of fear of losing support.
It is not truly the environmental risks but the potential lack of control over nanotechnology that worries its critics. It is the vision is technology out of control - active devices working on their own, or industry with no oversight. But while experts have good reasons to be calm about the "grey goo" problem or many worries about nanocontamination, that will not calm the public. How are we to trust a researcher who says extensive research has shown something to be safe? The only way to be sure is to become an expert oneself, or find trusted experts. But how do we find trusted experts in this cynical era? Watchdogs like ETC benefit from making people concerned, while a nanotechnology researcher might presumably downplay risks.
Here we come full circle to Drexler's vision again. Rather than announce that utopia was around the corner he spent much thought about the risks of nanotechnology development and how to minimize them. His suggestion was to develop technologies of foresight at the same time: social or digital tools to further knowledge exchange, constructive debate, cross-examination of evidence and views, institutions to engage the public and special interests in dialogue about potential future technologies and their risks and benefits. He founded the Foresight Institute, a nonprofit organisation aiming at improving policy decisions just by pursuing these goals in respect to nanotechnology and other emerging technologies. Over the years it has played an important part in shaping the molecular nanotechnology community and in suggesting safety measures (such as their guidelines on working with self-replicating machines).
The irony is that the rest of the nanotechnology field, in its eagerness to distance itself from its roots in "science fiction" it has also ignored this part of the nanotechnology vision. A short-sighted search for directly applicable practical results becomes pure science or technology, and easily misses the important policy dimensions. But opponents to technology only care about policy and vision. If one can meet them in a policy discussion, guided by a vision more long-range than funding for the next year or a better insulin pump, then the future has a chance.
Posted by Waldemar at February 1, 2004 07:14 PM