Open Source Nanotechnology

dschl writes "There is a draft article linked from NanoTechnology Magazine about Open Sourcing Nanotechnology Research and Development. It is written by a sociologist, and covers some interesting issues including patent pooling, open source licensing for intelluctual property in Nanotech, and increased safety by using an open source model. "

Comments

And it's a good thing...

[tbo]

Imagine what could happen if one group got way ahead of everybody else in nanotech... They might get cocky and accidentally cause the grey-goo problem (world reduced to goo by accidentally escaped nanomachines), or intentionally unleash destructive nanomachines on the world.

Perhaps this "open source" nanotechnology policy should be enforced. The only way to ensure nobody grabs for power using nanotech is to make sure everyone has it...

Story made for Slashdot

[Durinia]

wow...of all the combinations of favorite Slashdot topics, this is the one I least expected...

hmm...maybe next we'll get "RIAA sues nanotech firm for distrubuting music for free using nanobots"

Re:Story made for Slashdot

[chancycat]

Nah - it would have to be: "Nano-LEGO space robots from the ISS have started massive free distribution of DeCSS and Napster source via GPL-infringing Perl methods, all sponsored by an [evil/confused] Microsoft."

open source nanotech? sounds dangerous to me.

[spam-o-tron mk1]

Has anyone even considered the gray GNU scenario?

Bruce

Open sourcing nano might be dangerous

[levik]

Imagine if everyone had access to it. The good that can potentially be done is pretty staggering (if you think medicine, manufacturing, etc). But what about the bad?

Imagine biological warfare, etc. Engineering viruses using tiny particles.

The reason that Open Source workse so well for Linux and Apache is that you cannot hurt anyone with Linux and Apache, so even if some militant terrorist organization sets up a Linux box and strats serving up pages, the dangers are few and indirect.

Having nano go open source might be a bigger problem. I think the chances of a corporation turning it to "evil" uses are much slimmer than terrorists doing so given unrestricted access.

Not yet...

[KFury]

It seems to me that Open Source has finally taken off because the tools to contribute to the movement are readily available. there are free compilers and you don' thave to have any special hardware to lend a hand to projects. Because of this, hobbyists can join a greater culture and make a contribution.

I don't see this happening with nanotech for a while. Not only are there very few pieces of machinery that can be used to construct things on a nano scale, but they're already booked with other projects.

Sure some of these projects could be distributed under open source, but there's a fundamental difference between releasing something under GPL and having a culture that can actually make use of it. Otherwise, it's not much different than public-betaware only an elite can use...

Kevin Fox

It's good to see the humanities represented

[Anne Marie]

Whatever your personal views, we all can agree on one thing: nanotechnology is going to do to human civilization what the invention of the steam engine and limited liability corporation did in previous centuries. That's why it's important for us to get the perspectives of all areas of academia and intellectual disciplines and why I'm happy that sociologists like Bryan Bruns are starting to examine nanotech and its implications and methods: are we doing what we should? Are we using the best methods available? What social and structural changes ought to be made?

Sure, the scientists developing nanotech are qualified to make the technical decisions necessary to achieve their goals: building better technology -- it's what they do, and it's what they get paid for. But as we've learned from the atomic revolution of the mid 20th century, we can't leave these important decisions to scientists alone. They may not intend to produce monsters, but their focus on development without regard to consequences makes them often ill-suited to decide how to go about doing so. It's why managers and ethics boards exist, and it's good to see some fresh academic blood here.

This is for MODELING

[Thalia]

Does anyone even bother reading the article? This is to use open source to develop further molecular modelling software. Of course, such software would be useful for nanotech, but that's not the point. This type of technology already exists, see for example the Catalogue of Molecular Biology Programs, some of which are open source, like Garlic, and MMTK. The actual creation of nanotech can't be open sourced, since the requirement to create it can not be bought off the shelf. (Well, if you have a few million, you probably could buy it.) The primary prerequisite for open source research is that the materials are relatively cheaply and easily available to the general public. Thalia

But..

[glowingspleen]

"Whatever your personal views, we all can agree on one thing: nanotechnology is going to do to human civilization what the invention of the steam engine and limited liability corporation did in previous centuries."

Yeah, only steam engines aren't small enough to sneak up on your, slip into your bloodstream, and hack your cells to death. This technology scares me simply because we are moving far too fast without considering the risks.

Why should we not be open-sourcing this? Because you are only accellerating the time it takes some rogue with cash to either grey-goo the planet or take out everyone with a certain eye color just for fun. This is no trivial matter. It WILL happen in this century.

Re:But..

[tetrad]

People said the same thing about atomic weapons when they were developed, and where did that big scare lead us?: no where.

Of course, atomic weapons are one of those fields that's just about as "closed source" as you can get. Admitttedly the things have been around for half a century now, so nukes aren't as secret as they used to be. Still, one could argue that the reason we haven't had to worry about nuclear weapons is that the few nations that have had them have generally worked pretty hard to make sure no one else acquired them.

Gray Bull

[CaseyG]

The more I learn about how nanotechnology is actually happening, the less concerned I am about a "Gray Goo" scenario.

Nanotechnology, as it is currently designed (and in very few cases, implemented), is incapable of self-replication. The von Neumann "Universal Constructor" is sufficiently distant from present technology as to remain essentially fictitious. Additionally, the von Neumann model relies on both an independant instruction-control system (microcumputer or otherwise), and a supply of prefabricated components. Want to stop a von Neumann? Stop making parts.

The Drexler architecture, using chemical rather than mechanical manipulators, is closer to modern theory, as it mimics the effects of current biotechnology and organic chemical manufacturing, but still relies on an independant instruction-control system.

In both cases, the instruction-control system (referred to in the link above as a "universal computer") must be capable of infinitely variable tasks for the device to be useful. It must have the instruction set necessary to create another example of itself, and any instructions required by its target manufacturing process. It only requires sufficient memory to replicate, as any manufacturing process can be broken down sufficiently to use subprocesses infinitely simpler than self-replication

Regardless, the "universal computer" is unnecessary to the end goal of nanorobotics. A localized instruction-broadcast system can direct the nanorobots in any tasks relevant to their location, and would prevent any manufacturing, self-replicative or otherwise, while out of range of this signal.

"Don't worry, be nano." :)

-c.
--

Some damage has been done already

[Anonymous Coward]

On a related note, patent-related lawsuits between major players nearly destroyed the scanning probe microscope industry a few years ago and is probably holding back advances. Digital Instruments has a patent on "digital feedback SPM" and went around suing SPM companies that had an A/D card somewhere in their feedback loop.
Scanning probe microscopes are important in some nanotech research, so patent fights are already hurting nanotech.

I've seen patents on nanotech dating to 1989, and I didn't look very hard. The irony is that much nanotech research is government-funded, but the Universities will then sell the patents to companies and thus deprive the taxpayer of the benefits of research that the taxpayer paid for. I think it's an outrage!

Open source nanotech? The SALVATION of the world!

[d.valued]

Funny!

You read the Jargon File? I am reminded of the blue goo versus gray goo.

For those of you who aren't aware of the two, the Gray Goo is evil stuff, skews the world to pollution and toxic waste... while Blue Goo is anti-gray, restoring the Natural Order of Things. It produces oxygen, replants the rainforest, scrubs sulfur oxides out of the atmosphere, recreates extinct species, cleans the oceans...

I think that OS Hardware and Nano in particular is the best way of making sure that there IS a Blue Goo which can overcome closed, corporate Gray.