Slashdot Mirror

I personally believe it [molecular nanotechnology] won't have an impact even close to that of computers and the information revolution.

I'm sorry, but I find it really hard to believe you'd still think that way if you'd read a little more on the subject. For light reading, there's the old Engines of Creation and Unbounding the Future, by Eric Drexler. Or you could learn about the hard science which would lead you to your own similar real world implications.

I'm not dismissing it, just being a realist. It won't solve world hunger or peace.

Peace, no - we're still human afterall - but solving world hunger, yes, that's imminently possible.

Sure, we currently have warlords pinching off the food supply in the 3rd world when there's more than enough to go around, but these poor people certainly wouldn't have any trouble smuggling in just one nanoassembler (able to make copies of itself for other villagers). This nanoassembler can then extract all the energy it needs from the sun (stored in fuelcells), and all the infinitely recyclable molecules it needs from the surrounding environment, and can manufacture any desired object bottom-up.

So how is literally dirt-cheap food, clothes, and shelter not revolutionary for starters? I don't think I'm being overly optimistic either; I think I'M being the realist for a technology is only a couple decades out.

--

I personally believe it [molecular nanotechnology] won't have an impact even close to that of computers and the information revolution.

I'm sorry, but I find it really hard to believe you'd still think that way if you'd read a little more on the subject. For light reading, there's the old Engines of Creation and Unbounding the Future, by Eric Drexler. Or you could learn about the hard science which would lead you to your own similar real world implications.

I'm not dismissing it, just being a realist. It won't solve world hunger or peace.

Peace, no - we're still human afterall - but solving world hunger, yes, that's imminently possible.

Sure, we currently have warlords pinching off the food supply in the 3rd world when there's more than enough to go around, but these poor people certainly wouldn't have any trouble smuggling in just one nanoassembler (able to make copies of itself for other villagers). This nanoassembler can then extract all the energy it needs from the sun (stored in fuelcells), and all the infinitely recyclable molecules it needs from the surrounding environment, and can manufacture any desired object bottom-up.

So how is literally dirt-cheap food, clothes, and shelter not revolutionary for starters? I don't think I'm being overly optimistic either; I think I'M being the realist for a technology is only a couple decades out.

--

[...] rolling roads [...]

The matter converters are several years away; once we perfect nanotechnology, they'll start popping up all over the place.

Aside on nanotech: I really like the Foresight Institute's Feynman Grand Prize . In order to win the $250,000, you (or your team) needs to achieve two things:

Specifications for the Feynman Grand Prize require the winning entrant to:

* design, construct, and demonstrate the performance of a robotic arm that initially fits into a cube no larger than 100 nanometers in any dimension, meeting certain performance specifications including means of input. The intent of this prize requirement is a device demonstrating the controlled motions needed to manipulate and assemble individual atoms or molecules into larger structures, with atomic precision; and
* design, construct, and demonstrate the performance of a computing device that fits into a cube no larger than 50 nanometers in any dimension. It must be capable of correctly adding any pair of 8-bit binary numbers, discarding overflow. The device must meet specified input and output requirements.

How about Engines of Creation?

One of the first steps of his idea of nanotechnology is to make nanoassemblers that work with nanocomputers. I'm not exactly holding my breath for this one.

Engines of Creation

This book is a classic reference to nanotechnology and discusses some of the more interesting applications, consecuences, etc.

A Dialog on Dangers, by K. Eric Drexle

In his very first book, Engines of Creation, available online, Eric Drexler laid out the possible consequences of attempts to suppress nanotech research. See chapter 12 especially.

He describes an ambitious program which will allow nanotech to be developed safely, via active shields to protect the environment and sealed assembler labs to allow safe experimentation.

Of course Drexler was far, far ahead of his time, but his analysis should be a starting point for any consideration of the prospects for nanotech development.

It's frustrating that /. posts this sort of thing, but never touches on serious stuff dealing with the Singularity. Bah to the moderators.

For example, the Singularity Institute has a vast array of comp-sci-related interesting stuff about General Artifical Intelligence and its role in the Singularity. The institute and volunteers are working on Flare, a programming language for GAI development.

Then we have the Foresight Institute who have a bunch of scholarly, serious things to say about nanotechnology and its implications.

Just for starters, of course. Then we have a million other resources out there, such as:

KurzweilAI.net
Extropy Institute

at which one can learn about the Singularity and associated topics in context.

But no, we get trash like the spaceship guy. Bah, bah, bah. Reason

The danger of creating a self-replicating organism is commonly called
the "gray goo problem". The organism reproduces exponentially,
has no natural enemies and consumes all available resources.
This problem is taken seriously, as shown by this paper,
although the scare-mongering is usually applied to
self-reproducing nano-technology.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke

Truer words were never spake.

You win the prize. As do a couple of others, technically, but you actually said something interesting in addition to answering the question. ;>

And while the basic science may not seem like magic, the eventual implementation might. Imagine a featureless ball with anti-matter somewhere within that plugs into a fitted hollow and all other necessary steps for the transfer of the matter and the creation of energy take place without any visible activity. Magic. (At least from our limited point of view.)

Well, that will look like magic to people who don't live with the realities of physics, at any rate. Those who do are positively immersed in realities that they can never see.

Which (in my opinion, anyway) doesn't make it a bit less apparently magical. ;)

If the eventual starship driven by the anti-matter engine is built out of nano-built materials, it might look even more magical, or so I'm told by a friend with a background in physics and engineering who follows MNT and nanotechnology in general . The reason? Among the strongest and lightest structural forms in the world are crystals. The lighter your starship is, the more it can carry without sacrificing speed. My friend and others in the MNT community think that nano-built structures, especially those used on spaceships, are likely to make considerable use of crystal forms.

At this point, my often prosaic scientist/engineer friend gets poetic, describing a spacship that looks like something out of Aladdin's cave -- a cluster of gemlike structures that capture, fracture, and throw back light....

Of course, the first example of this type of ship will probably cost considerably more than a ship built out of diamonds and rubies would. <wry grin> But it would be a sight worth seeing in so many ways.... <sigh>

Here's how you make BAD PREDICTIONS:

• Ignore the scientific facts, or guess.
• Forget to ask whether anyone wants the projected product or situation.
• Ignore the costs.
• Try to predict which company or technology will win.

Flying cars could never have been LESS expensive than cars (fighting gravity costs more energy), and safely flying the things in 3D virtually requires guidance computers that are only now just capable.

--

If you're feeling a little too paranoid, check out this link, where the threat of gray (or black) goo is analyzed a bit. It's not as bad as you think; blue goo should be able to protect us ;)

(Quick reference:

gray goo = accidentally released nanobots that eat everything
black goo = deliberately released nanobots that eat everything
blue goo = counter-nanobots that prevent gray/black goo from eating everything)

--

I sure hope the "solar-cell covered Earth" is not the future.

You're thinking short-term. In the longer term, the Earth will be demolished when the sun explodes. What I wrote about was a partial solution for the waste that will create.

I am very little concerned about our environment because nanotechnology is 10-20 years away (perhaps less) and with it we'll be able to clean up all of our messes.

It's like my friends, the day before the cleaning lady gets there the dirty dishes are overflowing in the sink. They know they can make a mess because "the future" will clean it up for them. Not a perfect analogy, but it's funny to visit them a day before their cleaning lady arrives.

I don't think you get it. Molecular manufacturing drastically reduces costs and democratizes the means of production at the same time. I don't have to buy those solar cells (or that Ferrari) from Monopoly-R-Us when I can "grow" my own (bootstrapping the process) using abundant resources. (I could then convert to hydrogen storage myself if I wanted.)

Allow me to quote Drexler, since he explains it better than I can:

The basic argument for low cost production is this: Molecular manufacturing will be able to make almost anything with little labor, land, or maintenance, with high productivity, and with modest requirements for materials and energy. Its products will themselves be extremely productive, as energy producers, as materials collectors, and as manufacturing equipment. There has never been a technology with this combination of characteristics, so historical analogies must be used with care. Perhaps the best analogy is this: Molecular manufacturing will do for matter processing what the computer has done for information processing.

--

Allow me to quote Drexler:

This argument will remind some readers of an old claim--that nuclear energy would lead to "power too cheap to meter." This assertion, attributed to the early nuclear era, has passed into folklore as a warning to be skeptical of technologists promising free goodies.
...
If technologists could be so wrong back then, why believe a similar argument today? We are happy to report that the arguments aren't similar: any argument for "nuclear power too cheap to meter" had to be absurd even given the knowledge at the time, and our argument isn't.

Thanks for playing! :)

--

Here's how you make bad predictions (from UTF):

1. Ignore the scientific facts, or guess.
2. Forget to ask whether anyone wants the projected product or situation.
3. Ignore the costs.
4. Try to predict which company or technology will win.

--

Every second of every day, our genetic material and their supporting machinery regulate an inimaginable number of complex chemical pathways by carrying out the entire range of sensing, analysis and control. If they didn't, we'd just be a mush of amino acids.

Machinery that regulate chemical processes in our bodies are an inherent part of the processes themselves. In fact, it's productive and enlightening to think of biological systems as computational and chemical processes within them as algorithms. Researchers like Prof. Erik Winfree at Caltech are beginning the difficult process of applying this insight into research.

Due to the difference between the environment that DNA computers require and the environment supported by the modern infrastructure we have built for computing, the type of DNA computers studied in today's laboratories will never replace the silicon chip. Also, unlike quantum computing, DNA computing does not offer exponential growth in computing power with the number of elements used. However, DNA computing may find a niche in bioinformatics by offering a way to probe, analyze and ultimately control complex biological processes in vitro.

Hence, research into DNA computing may offer us a way to understand, interact with, and ultimately control nature's algorithms in biological systems.

The challenge for computation over the next century is to overcome barriers in the shrinking of circuit size for conventional computers, create practically useful quantum computers, apply conventional and quantum computers along with experimentation to understand the role of computation in complex processes (notably biological systems), and use the understanding gained to create a unified architecture for computation that will allow us to embed synthetic algorithms into every complex dynamic system we design and create and extend our control to the atomic level. When that happens, nanotechnology will finally fulfill its promise.

Stephen Wolfram, Erik Winfree, Hideo Mabuchi, Jeff Kimble, John Preskill, Bill Goddard, Isaac Chuang are leaders on the bleeding edge of computation. There are many many others I don't know about.

On that note, I will end my foray into wild speculation.

The first journal article on molecular nanotechnology, reproduced
here by permission of the author.

Special thanks from IMM to Jim Lewis for preparing this Web document and
writing the following introduction to the paper:

Presented here is the complete text of the landmark paper that K. Eric Drexler
published in the
in 1981. In this paper he advanced the proposal that the molecular machinery
found in living systems demonstrates the feasibility of doing advanced molecular
engineering to produce complex, artificial molecular machines. A key insight
is his proposal that the engineering problem of designing
proteins to fold in a predetermined way is much easier than the scientific
problem of predicting how natural proteins fold. Appended to this paper
is a short perspective written by Drexler in 1988 in which he notes substantial
progress made in the area of protein structure design compared
to protein structure .

--Jim Lewis

Affiliations listed below for the author are out of date. Current affiliation:
Research Fellow, Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, Palo Alto, California.

[Editor's Note: This page has been optimized for Netscape
2 and later. If you are using a browser, such as Netscape 1.1, that does
not support the html tag for superscripts, please be aware that an
number like "2x109" is meant to be scientific notation for "2
times ten raised to the 9th power," etc.] 1771">Implications for the present

of errors can be minimized through fault-tolerant
design, as in macroscopic engineering.

The emphasis on devices that have general capabilities should be taken in
the spirit of early work on the theoretical capabilities of computers, which
did not attempt to predict such practical embodiments as specialized or
distributed computation systems. The present argument, however, will proceed
from step to step by close analogies between the proposed steps and past
developments in nature and technology, rather than by mathematical proof.
We commonly accept the feasibility of new devices without formal proof,
where analogies to existing systems are close enough: consider the feasibility
of making a clock from zirconium. The detailed design of many specific devices
to render them describable by dynamical equations would be a task of another
order (consider designing a clock from scratch) and appears unnecessary
to the establishment of the feasibility of certain general capabilities.
Protein design
Biochemical systems exhibit a "microtechnology" quite different
from ours: they are not built down from the macroscopic level but up from
the atomic. Biochemical microtechnology provides a beachhead at the molecular
level from which to develop new molecular systems by providing a variety
of "tools" and "devices" to use and to copy. Building
with these tools, themselves made to atomic specifications, we can begin
on the far side of the barrier facing conventional microtechnology.

What can be built with these tools? Gene synthesis i4).

At present, the design of protein systems as complex as a ribosome seems
an awesome task. Indeed, chemists cannot yet predict the three-dimensional
conformation of a natural protein from its amino acid sequence, an ability
that might seem requisite to the design of new proteins. Two considerations
suggest that this obstacle is surmountable: first, the continuing improvement
in protein science and, second, the difference between natural science and
design engineering.

Regarding the first, computer simulation of protein molecules in solution shows promise. As computer technology and
chemical knowledge improve, simulations will increase in accuracy, speed,
and size. Improvement promises new insight into protein behavior and may
permit the designer to modify (simulated) molecules quickly and to observe
their behavior directly.

Regarding the second consideration, natural scientists seek a more general
understanding than design engineers require. Science seeks the ability to
predict the conformations of all natural polypeptides. In attempting this,
protein chemists can search for a minimum-energy chain conformation (in
hope that the protein assumes not a local but a global minimum-energy conformation)
or can attempt to follow the chain-folding
mechanism to find the final conformation (7).
Prediction will be easier if the natural conformation has outstanding stability
or if its folding mechanism proceeds in a sequence of strongly preferred
steps. Unfortunately, natural selection accepts polypeptides that have natural
conformations of low stability (in energetic terms) so long as they exhibit
long lifetimes on the cellular time scale (or renature readily). Similarly,
natural selection accepts any folding process so long as the chain reaches
its natural conformation with essentially 100% yield. Moreover, random mutations
are unlikely to enhance the stability of a particular conformation (or the
predictability of its folding mechanism). Thus, natural proteins tend to
accumulate disruptive changes until they reach the threshold of poor stability
or reduced yield of the natural conformation; only then does natural selection
come into play. Thus, it is little wonder that chemists cannot yet predict
the conformations of natural proteins; they are not designed to fold predictably.

Engineers (in contrast to scientists) need not seek to understand all proteins
but only enough to produce useful systems in a reasonable number of attempts.
An engineer designing a protein that has 1000 amino acids may choose among
some 10randomly selected
sequences would yield a predictable conformation, yet this tiny fraction
represents a vast number of proteins. Through use of strategically placed
charged groups, polar groups, disulfide bonds, hydrogen bonds, and hydrophobic
groups, the engineer should be able to design proteins that not only fold
predictably to a stable structure (sometimes) but that serve a planned function
as well. Even a low success rate will lead to an accumulation of successful
designs. Thus, the difficulties encountered in predicting the conformations
of natural proteins do not seem insurmountable obstacles to protein engineering.

Computer modeling and chemical understanding of biological targets have
already found use in pharmaceutical design (8),
and an artificial 34-residue polypeptide designed to interact with RNA has
been synthesized and found active (9). It has
been proposed to give microcircuitry special sensitivities by adsorbing
engineered proteins onto selected surfaces (10).
The promise of enzyme design in chemical engineering is evident. As protein
science has great promise and difficulties in understanding natural proteins
need not block engineering, the substantial payoffs for improved capabilities
should lead to development of protein design technology. It would be foolish
to underestimate the time and effort that will be required to develop basic
design capabilities and then a broad family of working molecular devices;
still, the path seems clear to achieving the capabilities exhibited by existing
biochemical systems, by copying their features if need be.

A comparison of biochemical to macroscopic components will show the possibilities
of the former by analogy to the latter (Table 1).
With structural members, moving parts, bearings, and motive power, versatile
mechanical systems can be built. Molecular assemblages of atoms can act
as solid objects, occupying space and holding a definite shape. Thus, they
can act as structural members and moving parts. Sigma bonds that have low
steric hindrance can serve as rotary bearings able to support ~ 10-9
N. A line of sigma bonds can serve as a hinge. Conformation-changing proteins
(such as myosin) can serve as sources of motive power for linear motion;
the reversible motor of the bacterial flagellum can serve as a source of
motive power for rotary motion. The existence of this range of components
in nature indicates that power-driven mechanical systems can be constructed
on a molecular scale.

Move things Conformation-changing proteins, actin/myosin
Motors Turn shafts Flagellar motor
Drive shafts Transmit torque Bacterial
flagella Bearings Support moving parts

Sigma bonds Containers Hold fluids
Vesicles Pipes Carry fluids Various
tubular structures Pumps Move fluids Flagella,
membrane proteins Conveyor belts Move components

RNA moved by fixed ribosome (partial analog) Clamps
Hold workpieces Enzymatic binding sites Tools
Modify workpieces Metallic complexes, functional groups

Production lines Construct devices Enzyme
systems, ribosomes Numerical control systems Store
and read programs Genetic system

By analogy with macroscopic devices, feasible molecular machines presumably
include manipulators able to wield a variety of tools. Thermal vibrations
in typical structures are a modest fraction of interatomic distances; thus,
such tools can be positioned with atomic precision. As present microtechnology
(2) can lay down conductors on a molecular
scale (10 nm) and molecular devices can respond to electric potentials (through
conformation changes, etc.), such devices can be controlled by human operators
or macroscopic machines. Further, by analogy with biological sensors, molecular
scale instruments can evidently produce macroscopic signals, indicating
the feasibility of feedback control in molecular manipulations.

Together, these arguments indicate the feasibility of devices able to move
molecular objects, position them with atomic precision, apply forces to
them to effect a change, and inspect them to verify that the change has
indeed been accomplished. It would be foolish to minimize the time and effort
that will be required to develop the needed components and assemble them
into such complex and versatile systems. Still, given the components, the
path seems clear.

Ordinary chemical synthesis relies on thermal agitation to bring reactant
molecules in solution together in the correct orientation and with sufficient
energy to cause the desired reaction. Enzyme-like molecular machines can
hold reactants in the best relative positions as bonds are strained or polarized.
Like some enzymes, they can do work on reactant molecules to drive reactions
not otherwise thermodynamically favored.

These are clearly techniques of great power, yet the synthetic capabilities
of systems based on polypeptide chains might seem limited by amino acid
properties. However, enzymes show that other molecular structures bound
to the polypeptide (such as metal ions and complex ring structures) (11)

can extend protein capabilities. The range of such tools is large and greater
than found in nature. Thus, the synthetic capabilities of enzymes set only
a lower bound on the capabilities of engineered protein systems. Indeed,
as tool-wielding protein systems can control the chemical environment of
a reaction site completely, they should be able, at a minimum, to duplicate
the full range of moderate-temperature synthetic steps achieved by organic
chemists. Further, where chemists must resort to complex strategies to make
or break specific bonds in large molecules, molecular machines can select
individual bonds on the basis of position alone. Conventional organic chemistry
can synthesize not only one-, two-, and three-dimensional covalent structures
but also exotic strained and fused rings. With the addition of controlled
site-specific synthetic reactions, a broad range of large complex structures
can doubtless be built.

Still, the synthetic abilities of protein machines will be limited by their
need for a moderate temperature aqueous environment (although applied forces
can sometimes replace or exceed thermal agitation as a source of activation
energy and reaction sites and reactive groups can be protected from the
surrounding water, as in some enzymatic active sites). These limits may
be sidestepped by using the broad synthetic capabilities outlined above
to build a second generation of molecular machinery whose components would
not be coiled hydrated polypeptide chains but compact structures having
three-dimensional covalent bonding. There is no reason why such machines
cannot be designed to operate at reduced pressure or extreme temperatures;
synthesis can then involve highly reactive or even free radical intermediates,
as well as the use of mechanical arms wielding molecular tools to strain
and polarize existing bonds while new molecular groups are positioned and
forced into place. This may be done at high or low temperature as desired.
The class of structures that can be synthesized by such methods is clearly
very large, and one may speculate that it includes most structures that
might be of technological interest.
Firmness of the argument
The development path described above should lead to advanced molecular machinery
capable of general synthesis operations. As the results of this path can
be shown to have consequences for the present, it is of interest to discuss
the degree of confidence that should be placed in its feasibility.

It might be argued that complex protein or nonprotein machines are impossible
or useless, on the grounds that, if they were possible and useful, organisms
would be using them. A similar argument would, however, conclude that bone
is a better structural material than graphite composite, that neurons can
transmit signals faster than wires, and that technology based on the wheel
is impossible or useless. Nature has been constrained less by what is physically
possible than by what could be evolved in small steps. Thus, the absence
of a proposed kind of molecular machinery in organisms in no way suggests
its infeasibility.

To deny the feasibility of advanced molecular machinery, one must apparently
maintain either (i) that design of proteins will remain infeasible indefinitely,
or (ii) that complex machines cannot be made of proteins, or (iii) that
protein machines cannot build second-generation machines.

In light of the expected improvements in computation, the simplified task
of design engineers (compared with scientists), the possibilities offered
by sheer trial-and-error modification of natural proteins, and the progress
already made in protein design, the first seems difficult to maintain. Further,
even if protein design were to prove intractible (because of difficulties
in predicting conformations), this would in no way preclude developing an
alternative polymer system with predictable coiling and using it as a basis
for further development.

In light of the presence of the needed components for mechanical devices
in the cell, the second seems difficult to maintain. Indeed, the cytoskeleton
provides a fair counterexample.

In light of the results of synthetic organic chemistry and the ability of
molecular machines to make reactions site specific, it seems difficult to
maintain that nonprotein machine components cannot be built and assembled.

Each of the development steps outlined above seems closely analogous to
past steps taken by nature or by technology. Each of these steps can be
accomplished in many ways. To argue their infeasibility would seem to require
some general principle precluding success, and it is difficult to see what
such a principle might be like. Thus, the claim that advanced molecular
technology can be developed seems well founded.

Although the existence of molecular machinery in cells indicates the feasibility
of some sort of artificial molecular machinery, errors in assembly might
limit the synthesis of structures of great complexity. In the cell, molecular
machinery uses DNA to direct the assembly of DNA and other molecules. In
some eukaryotic cells, DNA directs DNA synthesis with an error rate of ~
10-11 per nucleotide added (12).
As engineers commonly design systems to function reliably with many more
failed components than 1 in 1011, such an error rate seems no
barrier to the construction of quite complex devices.

The possibility of low error rates is not surprising. For synthesis systems
permitting error detection and correction (such as DNA synthesis), the net
error rate in assembly can be reduced to roughly the product of the raw
error rate in assembly and the rate at which errors are falsely identified
as correct. As no uncertainty principle prohibits accurate discrimination
between objects of different kinds (such as correctly and incorrectly assembled
molecular structures), no limits to the detection and correction of errors
are apparent.
Applications to computation
Molecular technology has obvious application to the storage and processing
of information. A crude approach would involve literal "molecular machinery"
patterned on the Babbage machine. In a more subtle approach, bits could
be represented by protons, bound electrons, reactive groups, or conformation
changes and transferred by movement of protons or of well-localized electrons
(13), excitons, or phonons. The range of plausible
device speeds is suggested by the 10-6 -sec turnover time for
a fast enzyme, by the 10-13 -sec scale of collisional interactions
(11), and by the 10-16 sec taken
for an electron to cross an interatomic distance at a typical Fermi velocity.

It seems highly likely that a cubic cell 0.1 micrometers on a side (containing
some 108 optimally arranged atoms) can hold a bit or perform
a logic operation and, at the same time, transmit bits through itself to
provide communication from cell to cell in a lattice. If so, then computers
can be built with at least 1015 active elements per cubic centimeter.
In a well-designed computer (with elements closer to their true technological
limit and not laid out in regular cubical cells), this volume estimate should
prove quite conservative. Elements so small will be sensitive to radiation
damage; to be reliable, systems will require a large measure of redundancy.

Concern might be raised about the cost of such intricately patterned matter,
either because of labor or energy requirements. It seems clear, however,
that molecular-scale production systems can be completely automated (what
use is there for hands?). Thus, labor costs of production (including production
of additional production equipment) can approach zero. The energy needed
to produce molecularly engineered material will generally be greater than
the energy needed to produce ordinary materials of similar bulk composition,
but analogy suggests that the energy cost need not be vastly greater than
for the production of biological materials. In many cases (e.g., advanced
computers or any of a number of applications not discussed here), the unique
value of the products would make such energy costs unimportant, even if
energy costs remained high.
Some biological applications
Molecular devices can interact directly with the ultimate molecular components
of the cell and thus serve as probes of unique value in studying processes
within the cell. Further, molecular devices can characterize a frozen cell
in essentially arbitrary detail by removal and characterization of successive
layers of material (atomically thin layers, if desired). Although the amount
of data involved is large (a typical cell contains billions of protein molecules),
the physical bulk of a device able to store and manipulate this amount of
data will be quite small.

The change of temperature and water distribution during freezing modifies
cell structures in several ways, primarily by physical displacement of structures
by ice crystals and denaturation of proteins by concentration of solutes
in the residual liquid (14). With frozen tissue,
knowledge of normal structures (membrane geometries, natural protein structures)
and analysis of frozen structures (position of ice crystals, position of
denatured proteins) should permit quite accurate reconstruction of the nature
of the tissue before freezing.

Such procedures would have special utility in analyzing the structure of
tissue in the brain. Unlike, say, muscle or liver tissue, the function of
brain tissue depends on the detailed three-dimensional structure of intertwined
cells and their interfaces. The freezing process is far too slow to stop
such dynamic processes as action potentials and synaptic transmission; short-term
memory, however, is suspected to involve chemical modification of the neurons,
and long-term memory is believed to involve the growth and modification
of neuronal structures, particularly synapses (15).
At the modest freezing rates possible in substantial pieces of tissue, ice
crystals may be expected to nucleate and grow in the intercellular fluid,
displacing the cell membranes as they do so (16).
Electron micrographs, however, show that synapses (like many intercellular
junctions) involve complementary structures on both sides of the intercellular
gap, which should provide information enough to reconstruct the pre-freezing
configurations of the cells almost regardless of ice crystal locations.

The ability to reconstruct the prefreezing structure of tissue, when combined
with the general synthetic capabilities outlined above, will make feasible
the physical restoration of tissue damaged by ordinary freezing through
characterization, reconstruction, and restoration of successive segments
of frozen material. Although restored to a frozen condition, such tissue
would lack the characteristic damage caused by the freezing process. As
many tissues can survive the gross insult of ordinary freezing (17),
it seems likely that most could survive freezing followed by repair. The
remaining mode of damage would seem to be denaturation of proteins sensitive
to cold alone during the thawing process. Should cell components of some
species prove sensitive to short periods of cold, they could presumably
be modified to resemble those of hardier species (hamsters can survive freezing
of half their body water; ref. 17) without changing
either cell function or DNA.
Implications for the present
The existence of a path to an advanced molecular technology has implications
for the present. As with all technologies, long-range promise should tend
to increase interest in undertaking the early steps, even beyond the interest
springing from more immediate benefits. The longer the expected wait, however,
the less the interest.

On the other hand, molecular engineering of materials and devices can extend
the capabilities of technology many fold in many areas. The implications
of the feasibility of molecular technology are important to present day
speculations concerning the probable behavior (and likelihood of existence)
of extraterrestrial technological civilizations. Similarly, those concerned
with the long-range future of humanity must concern themselves with the
opportunities and dangers arising from this technology. Finally, the eventual
development of the ability to repair freezing damage (and to circumvent
cold damage during thawing) has consequences for the preservation of biological
materials today, provided a sufficiently long-range perspective is taken.
Conclusion
Development of the ability to design protein molecules will, by analogy
between features of natural macromolecules and components of existing machines,
make possible the construction of molecular machines. These machines can
build second-generation machines able to perform extremely general synthesis
of three-dimensional molecular structures, thus permitting construction
of devices and materials to complex atomic specifications. This capability
has implications for technology in general and in particular for computation
and characterization, manipulation, and repair of biological materials.

I thank C. Peterson, P. Morrison, J. Lettvin, A. Kantrowitz, and C. Walsh
for their comments and criticism.



1. Feynman,
R. (1961) in Miniaturization, ed. Gilbert, H. D.
(Reinhold, New York), pp. 282-296.

2. Krumhansl, J. A. & Pao, Y. H. (1979)
Phys. Today 32 (11), 25-32.

3. Itakura, K. & Riggs, A. D. (1980) Science
209, 1401-1405.

4. Nomura, M. & Held, W. (1974) in Ribosomes,
eds. Nomura, M., Tissiers, A. & Lengyel, P. (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory,
Cold Spring Harbor, NY), pp. 193-203.

5. McCammon, J. A., Gelin, B. R. & Karplus,
M. (1977) Nature (London) 267, 585-590.

6. Scheraga, H. A. (1978) in Versatilty
of Proteins, ed. Li, C. H. (Academic, New York), pp. 119-132.

7. Karplus, M. & Weaver, D. L. (1976) Nature
(London) 260, 404-406.

8. Gund, P., Andose, J. D., Rhodes, J. B. &
Smith, G. M. (1980) Science 208,

1425-1431.

9. Gutte, B., Dannigen, M. & Wittschieber,
E. (1979) Nature (London) 281, 650-655.

10. Anonymous (1980) Semicond. Int.
3 (5), 10.

11. Walsh, C. (1979) Enzymatic Reaction
Mechanisms (Freeman, San Francisco), pp. 33, 38.

12. Drake, J. (1969) Nature (London)
221, 1132.

13. Chance, B., Mueller, P., DeVault, D. &
Powers, L. (1980) Phys. Today 33 (10), 32-38.

14. Fennema, O. R. (1973) in Low-Temperature
Preservation of Foods and Living Matter, eds. Fennema,
O. R., Powrie, W. D. & Marth, E. H. (Dekker, New York), pp. 476-503.

15. Entingh, D., Dunn, A., Glassman, E., Wilson,
J. E., Hogan, E. & Damstra, T. (1975) in Handbook of Psychobiology,
eds. Gazzinga, M. S. & Blakemore, C. (Academic, New York), pp. 201-238.

16. Fennema, O. R. (1973) in Low-Temperature
Preservation of Foods and Living Matter, eds. Fennema,
O. R., Powrie, W. D. & Marth, E. H. (Dekker, New York), pp. 150-239.

17. Fennema, O. R. (1973) in Low-Temperature
Preservation of Foods and Living Matter, eds. Fennema,
O. R., Powrie, W. D. & Marth, E. H. (Dekker, New York), pp. 436-475.

PROTEIN ENGINEERING:
A 1988 view of some 1981 predictions
K. Eric Drexler

Visiting Scholar, Stanford University. Box 60775, Palo Alto, CA 94306

A 1981 paper [1] discussed de novo protein design as part of a long-term
strategy for developing complex molecular devices and systems. It presented
arguments against the view that the fold-design problem is an extension
of the classical (and still unsolved) fold-prediction problem (i.e.,
predicting folds from sequences without homologous models), a view which
has discouraged efforts at design.

Fold prediction is a scientific problem: it must deal with naturally evolved
sequences, but natural selection's 'design goals' enforce only the physical
reliability of folding -- not its human predictability. This results in
folds of only minimal stability. Fold design, in contrast, is an engineering
problem. Protein engineers, exploiting their freedom of design, can work
with sequences artificially selected for superior predictability and stability
of folding. These observations indicated that "the difficulties encountered
in predicting the conformations of natural proteins do not seem insurmountable
obstacles to protein engineering" [1].

In accord with the implications of this argument, we have seen the successful,
de novo design of a globular protein (alpha-4) [2,3] while the classical
fold prediction problem remains unsolved [4]. Likewise confirmed has been
the suggestion that design can increase protein stability beyond that enforced
by natural selection. In recent years, deliberate single-residue modifications
have raised protein stabilities through a variety of mechanisms [5,6]. Owing
to design choices consistently biased toward stability, the protein alpha-4
has a stability of 22 kcal/mole, substantially greater than the 4-9 kcal/mole
of typical natural proteins of similar size [3].

Successful protein engineering marks a milestone in a research agenda leading
toward capabilities of broad technological significance [1,7].
References

[1] K. E. Drexler, "Molecular engineering: An approach to the development
of general capabilities for molecular manipulation." Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci., 78: 5275-5258 (1981).

[2] S. P. Ho and W. F. DeGrado, "Design of a 4-Helix bundle protein:
Synthesis of peptides which self-associate into a helical protein."
J. Am. Chem. Soc., 109: 6751-6758 (1987).

[3] L. Regan and W. F. DeGrado, "Characterization of a helical protein
designed from first principles." Science, 241:
976-978 (1988).

[4] T. E. Creighton, "The protein-folding problem." Science,
240: 267, 344 (1988).

[5] L. J. Perry and R. Wetzel, "Disulfide bond engineered into T4 lysozyme:
stabilization of the protein toward thermal inactivation." Science,
226: 555-557 (1984).

[6] B. W. Matthews, H. Nicholson, and W. J. Becktel, "Enhanced protein
thermostability from site-directed mutations that decrease the entropy of
unfolding." Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 84: 6663-6667
(1987), and included references.

[7] K. E. Drexler, Engines of Creation, Anchor/Doubleday
(New York, 1986).

• Engines of Creation (by K. Eric Drexler, Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986)
• Unbounding the Future (© 1991 by K. Eric Drexler)

• Engines of Creation (by K. Eric Drexler, Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986)
• Unbounding the Future (© 1991 by K. Eric Drexler)

1. Nanotechplanet's Nanotechnology FAQ
2. Foresight's FAQ about Molecular Nanotechnology
3. Richard Feynman's ``There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom'' (an old classic that essentially started the field).
4. Engines of Creation (by K. Eric Drexler, Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986)

But, of course, on Star Trek it was just a tacky uniform on its own. :)
--

I think bio-terrorism style nano attacks will come right at the beginning of nanotech. We are only going to be 2-10 years into use of nanotech when people start exploding inside and dropping dead. Unless Moore's law breaks that's 8-13 years from now.

Circulatory nanite attacks will come first because medical use of nanites will come second only to small scale microprocessors. Exclusive patented copyright software rights to cures for cancer, AIDS and all blood borne disease will drive companies to stop at no financial end to adapt dry vacuum based molecular machines and circuitry to the circulatory system. They will succeed in a few years time.

When the first person implodes, we have one maybe two years to build really strong nanite based immune systems and distribute it to everybody we care about before humanity begins to die by the billions. But I'll bet you any amount of money the companies will stall the release of their intellectual property long enough to eliminate all of humanity.

If our government must step in immediately after the first nanite terrorist attack, and suspend all IP penalties for inventors. If not, this will come to bloodshed, and one side will be fighting the IP police not for TV sitcoms but for their lives.

The geeks will survive regardless, ignoring IP law and working together in an underground fashion to build such a supplemental immune system.

People adept at sharing IP and information underground may be the only to survive. We need to limit the scope of patents and the duration of copyright. Most of all we need our government to acknowledge in law that there are circumstances when taking owned IP and releasing it to the public domain for the public good is acceptable. We won't have time to argue about precident later.

Of course if we survive that we will need to re-adapt to a life of sword play. What? You think bullets will slow someone with 150 times the oxegen content of a normal human?

In fact, I bet there are more evil uses of this technology than there could be benifits.

If you really feel that way, you must have a serious lack of imagination.

Utility Fog is just one of the creative ideas that has been come up with.

Go to the Foresight Institute web site and read Engines of Creation and Unbounding the Future if you want to see how much benefit is possible from molecular machines.

Nanotechnology can pose a great threat to our survival.

Nuclear weapons pose a great threat. Genetic engineering poses a great threat. New technology always brings new dangers along with new benefits.

The fact is, nanotechnology is coming. Attempts to stop it are futile - and will likely result in bringing around the bad effects originally predicted. Trying to stop or slow it isn't the right approach if you want to prevent it from being used in negative ways.

All it takes is one bozo to put an = where he should have put an == to turn the whole planet into grey goo. I've been programming for nearly two decades now, professionally for a decade. I've followed behind other programmers. I would not trust 99.999% of them (Including myself, by the way) to program nanomachines.

If the level of competency of engineers designing molecular machines is that horrid, then, well, we have nothing to worry about.

Molecular machines that would self-replicate out of control isn't exactly an EASY thing to create. It's not like someone making a machine to snatch CO2 molecules from the air will accidentally insert an extra line of code that will make it turn into something that creates grey goo. You have to set out to make such a machine - and there really is no use to making something that will replicate out of control from elements abundant in the environment.

There are multiple BASIC ways to prevent such a scenario - such as using a trace element in the machine that isn't widely available will make sure that you won't have widespread goo.

The nanotech books Engines of Creation and Unbounding the Future, both available on-line at the Foresight Institute, both discuss this issue in detail.

Runaway machines turning all matter into more machines created by accident are a far remote possibility. Now, ones created maliciously are a bit of a different story.

Disasterbation is a useless mental activity you should try to give up.

Anyway, it seems the Japanese are way more gungho for this tech than we are... maybe we'll get a rerun of the 80s in the 2020s?

Foresight is to nanotech awareness, what the EFF is to online freedom; so donate if you care about the direction this new technology is going.

--

Actually, look closely at the structure of the legs, and compare to this picture. It's an enormous virus! And, boy, are we in trouble.

If I want information on nanotech and its future, I'll go to foresight.org and see what K. Eric Drexler has to say. These petty lobbyists have nothing to offer.

Probably because each one does a tiny bit of a computation. How many transistors are there in a modern chip? Uh-huh. Now you get the idea.

When you're dealing at the atomic scale, just flipping a lever or doing something mechanical takes the place of all those little electrons flowing through logic gates.

Given the level of our technology, I suspect that these little DNA "computers" are a lot more like a transistor than they are like a Pentium IV.

To get your head around things at this scale, go to http://www.foresight.org/ They've got several excellent nanotech books there that you can download electronically for no charge. Well worth it.

Pat

This story has been mentioned on one of my favorite websites, Glenn Reynolds' InstaPundit.com.

Glenn is a professor at the University of Tennessee College of Law. The majority of his writing is on the intersection between advanced technologies and individual liberty. One example is Environmental Regulation of Nanotechnology: Some Preliminary Observations, from the April, 2001 Environmental Law Reporter.

Reproduction is not required for life. Life can be defined completely on the basis of metabolism. Both mutation and selection are required for evolution. The problem is you have to have relatively intelligent life to figure out how to engineer metabolic components so they do not wear with time (you can avoid wear entirely at the molecular level). If you can replace or repair damaged components, one need not have any requirement for reproduction and any evolution desired can be entirely self-directed. The fundamental problem with molecular nanocomputers is radiation damage. Decay of radioactive elements and cosmic rays provide enough energy to break molecular bonds. As a result you need a fair amount of redundency and majority logic to have molecular computers with reasonable lifetimes. Drexler has covered this extensively on pgs. 154-160 of Nanosystems

The commonly cited "gray goo" scenario is a sort of nanotech worst case: nanites that can convert almost any naturally occurring matter (including biomatter) into more identical nanites. Robert Freitas has done some analysis concluding that gray goo would either work very slowly, or throw off a huge amount of heat which could be detected by a thermal monitoring system of geosynchronous satellites. Drexler has observed that making a gray goo nanite is likely to be an enormous engineering challenge.

These kinds of topics pop up on sci.nanotech with some frequency. Here are some discussions: November 1996, March 1997, September/October 1997. My own thinking is that we want to ensure that the development of defensive measures outpaces the development of offensive weapons. A step in the right direction would be for the good guys to maintain a development/design/simulation effort that clearly outpaces anything the bad guys can do. (This obviously sidesteps the issue of who gets to define "good guys" and "bad guys", and whether the good guys become corruptible given a commanding technological lead.)

The commonly cited "gray goo" scenario is a sort of nanotech worst case: nanites that can convert almost any naturally occurring matter (including biomatter) into more identical nanites. Robert Freitas has done some analysis concluding that gray goo would either work very slowly, or throw off a huge amount of heat which could be detected by a thermal monitoring system of geosynchronous satellites. Drexler has observed that making a gray goo nanite is likely to be an enormous engineering challenge.

These kinds of topics pop up on sci.nanotech with some frequency. Here are some discussions: November 1996, March 1997, September/October 1997. My own thinking is that we want to ensure that the development of defensive measures outpaces the development of offensive weapons. A step in the right direction would be for the good guys to maintain a development/design/simulation effort that clearly outpaces anything the bad guys can do. (This obviously sidesteps the issue of who gets to define "good guys" and "bad guys", and whether the good guys become corruptible given a commanding technological lead.)

I've long been a supporter of The Foresight Institute. A few years ago, they started mixing Open Source/Free Software into the memes they were promoting (nanotechnology -- first, informative, and later once people accepted that it was possible, toward policy).

One of their messages is that everything will be essentially free in the future, as nanotechnology will bring the cost of manufacturing down to basically the cost of sunlight.

Already, we're starting to see that happen. Software copyright infringement has been going on since copyrighted software started being published. Music has been taped and shared with friends. Even videos are copied. Only now, technology is allowing us to make perfect digital copies. Even before nanotechnology has arrived, the trend of technology has driven prices of many goods down -- some to essentially zero, to those with the appropriate technology.

So my long-winded reason is this: I write free software because it's all going to be free anyway, within about a decade. I might as well improve others' lives with my efforts -- and gain some recognition. As ESR stated, it's a gift economy, and people are judged by their contributions.

As far as talking to politicians, however, I'd couch it more in terms they can understand. Like "why be a politician?" or "why be a weekend warrior?" or "why be an amateur artist/musician?" or "why do birds create songs and share them with the world?" (That last one's easy -- territorial posturing -- something a politician surely understands.)

Have you ever heard Clarke's 3rd Law?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Infovore's corrolary:

A sufficiently advanced Nanotechnology + a sufficiently advanced AI = Unstoppable Grey Goo.

I agree with Hawkings and Vinge. We need IA to hold back AI.

IV

No need; it's in Chapter 4. Just follow that link, and search for the word "billion", and read the paragraph under your cursor.

My guess is that 150 million atoms is more like the requirements for an assembler system or perhaps even a self-replicating system.

150 million is for a general-purpose assembler capable of self-replication. And then he rounds up to a billion just to add margin for error.

steveha

There are two problems the chemists have. First, they haven't read the material. Second, Drexler is proposing to precisely assemble millions to billions of atoms and the chemists think that is infeasible. That is why programmers can accept nanotechnology to a greater degree than chemists -- manipulating a million or a billion "bits" is something they regularly have to deal with. For chemists the idea is nightmare.

I'd urge readers to educate themselves with regard to the material before they comment on it. If we have to spend all of our time attempting to erase malformed memes we will never get a chance to work on developing new ones.

You may find an expanded copy of my letter to the editors here.

Whitesides is a chemist and while he has made huge contributions to that field, particularly with his nano-imprint lithography, for which he won a Foresight Prize several years ago, he is not, unfortunately, someone who understands molecular nanotechnology. For that you have to read Drexler's take from the same issue which is here.

Readers of scientific literature must do "reputation" analysis. Would you trust a life-time COBOL programmer to comment on whether or not your JAVA code was well written or crap? I think not. One should judge the Whitesides article from the same perspective.

See Foresight vs. Scientific American -- they've been adversaries of nanotechnology for many years.

For example, Drexler focused on mechanical computers, with little rods moving back and forth. Does he think nanoscale quantum computers, driven by electricity, can never work? No, but for his book he wanted to focus on things he could be sure would work. Because nature includes little machines, he was sure you could use little machines to build things like tiny computers.

His first book, Engines of Creation, is pretty much about existance proofs. He figures you can probably make an assembler with just 150 million atoms, so then he assumes it will take a billion atoms (just to be on the safe side) for the rest of the discussion.

And in his discussion of how we will get these magic assemblers, he said that one possible route was biological: use tailored cells to make new cells that are closer to what we want, and iterate. He isn't ignoring biology, or reality.

The article is weak. Read Drexler's book instead; it's online so you can read it now for free.

Engines of Creation

steveha

For example, Drexler focused on mechanical computers, with little rods moving back and forth. Does he think nanoscale quantum computers, driven by electricity, can never work? No, but for his book he wanted to focus on things he could be sure would work. Because nature includes little machines, he was sure you could use little machines to build things like tiny computers.

His first book, Engines of Creation, is pretty much about existance proofs. He figures you can probably make an assembler with just 150 million atoms, so then he assumes it will take a billion atoms (just to be on the safe side) for the rest of the discussion.

And in his discussion of how we will get these magic assemblers, he said that one possible route was biological: use tailored cells to make new cells that are closer to what we want, and iterate. He isn't ignoring biology, or reality.

The article is weak. Read Drexler's book instead; it's online so you can read it now for free.

Engines of Creation

steveha

Check out PriorArt.org -- they are collecting submissions from the community, for free, to create a database of prior art to combat absurd patents with.

It was created with the help of the Foresight Institute , which also runs a Slashdot-like interface at NanoDot.org .

(PS NanoDot appears to currently be down.)

What "massive amounts of energy"?

and the fact that no-one has developed a self-replicating machine outside of theory.

... yet. Why does the fact that no one has done it yet mean that it can't happen?

That said, it's not clear how likely accidental "grey goo" would be. I'd be more concerned about intentional grey goo.

Neal Stephenson did a good book on nanotechnology called The Diamond Age.

That was not a book on nanotechnology, that was a novel that had a particular version of nanotechnology as part of the context.

Some people have written good books on nanotechnology, Here's a list.

For real thought on this, see "Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations" at http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Ecophagy.html.

Maybe so, but there are arguments to be made against the gray goo scenario based on energy availability, such as this one

I think it's most likely that this will degenerate into the kind of global warming he-said she-said which lets lawmakers do whatever the hell they want, and justify it with the science they prefer.

The foresight institute's official definition of "molecular nanotechnology":

Thorough, inexpensive control of the structure of matter based on molecule-by-molecule control of products and byproducts of molecular manufacturing.

From the web page of the University of Washington Center for Nanotechnology (the first PhD. program in nanotechnology in the world, I believe):

Nanotechnology refers to the ability to manipulate individual atoms and molecules, making it possible to build machines using molecular building blocks or create materials and structures from the bottom up, designing properties by controlling structure.

From the sci.nanotech FAQ:

Nanotechnology is an anticipated manufacturing technology giving thorough, inexpensive control of the structure of matter. The term has sometimes been used to refer to any technique able to work at a submicron scale; Here on sci.nanotech we are interested in what is sometimes called molecular nanotechnology, which means basically "A place for every atom and every atom in its place."

The main reason, I believe, that this work can be considered nanotechnology is because it takes advantage of the concept of self-assembly. Self-assembly is the property of certain molecules to spontaneously assemble themselves into ordered super-molecular structures. Looking for ways to take advantage of self-assembly processes is a major focus of state-of-the-art nanotechnology.

Suppose I happened to be born with exceptionally good genes. Excellent health, 20/10 vision, 170+ IQ, good looks, the works. Now suppose I wanted to sell my (super)-sperm. There's nothing fantastic about it--sperm banks already exist, and nobody raises much of a fuss. Now suppose I were an average joe, but had modified my germ-line cells to produce the super-sperm mentioned previously. Is it now wrong? Why? What's the difference?

google cache (site was down it. URL too long to post one line for verification as well)
http://www.foresight.org/SciAmDebate/Round3.html
http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/jt4.htm