Nanotechnology, US Government, and Secrecy

Glenn Reynolds has written an interesting, albiet a bit speculative, in regards to the role of the US Government in the possible quieting of nanotechnology research. As Gleen points out, there's some good pre-existing guidelines to research as well, from the Foresight Institute.

Comments

The scary thing about nanotech

[Aexia]

is that it's not^H^H^H easily noticed. But my bloodstream could NOT be chock full of nanoprobes right now, subtley altering me, possibly even changing my thoughts and what I'm NOT typing right now, without me even NOT realizing it. It could NOT lead to some kind of cognitive dissonance where people are being told one thing but they DON'T believe they heard something completely different.

The future of nanotech is a HAPPPY HAPPY scary world.

keep yer pants on

[OxideBoy]

Considering where we are with current nanotech research, I'm a little surprised everyone's so worried about it. What's the forefront of nanotech right now? You have molecular machines, but so far no known way to really make them independently powered or make them self-replicate in anything more than the simplest manner -- "goo" (harmful self-replicating swarms of nanomachines) is a long long long way off, if in fact it's ever possible. While several researchers have used nanotubes to demonstrate some interesting electronic devices, such as single-atom transistors, but the performance offered by such devices is still not "leaps and bounds" ahead of silicon CMOS. More conventional solid-state work is going on in pursuit of quantum computation that the US DoD is sponsoring, not suppressing.

I thought the analogy with 1950s comptuers was interesting, but I think a more appropriate analogy would be 1930s computing -- we're still a long way off.

And did anyone else note that Reynolds of the article didn't cite any sources for these "rumors" of a "nanotechnology clampdown"? Bad journalism + ignorance = hysteria.

and Nanotech != Evil

[pagsz]

Like any other technology, it is not good or evil in and of itself. It just is. What people do with it is either good or evil.

I must admit, there certainly are some scary possibilities with nanotech. Programmable viruses (as mentioned), which could be used to target specific groups or people (program by DNA); imperceptible tracking devices; and any other whacked idea you can come up with.

But there are also some productive possibilities as well. That same DNA programming could be used to detect cancer cells. Or imagine nano-surgical bots, fixing organs without ever having to open up the body again. The possibilities are endless here too.

The point is, the technology is going to go forward anyway. It's not like the U.S. is the only nation on earth researching nanotech. The question is: What do we do with it? Does it remain secret? A potential government monopoly? That would, in my opinion, be worse. The best way to discover the constructive and destructive possibilities of nanotech is to openly explore them; not to let the government say, "Well, that's a potential weapon. No research down that route." As I mentioned before, the same techniques that could allow programmable viruses could also allow DNA-targeted therapies, attacking cancers, bacteria, and (natural) viruses. So what happens then? Does fear trump potential?

That's just what I think. But then again, I don't really know what I'm talking about. I'm just winging it (ten years and counting),

Hype Machine In Overdrive!

[GuyMannDude]

The UN has mentioned that idealy 80% of the world's population would be killed.

Do you have some kind of reference for this statistic or are you just scare-mongering? When you post something far-fetched like that you should include a hyperlink to some corroborating evidence on the web.

From my perspective the entire article by Reynolds was largely hype and scare-mongering. He makes references to rumors and whispers of a military crackdown on nanotech but never mentions where he's getting this stuff from. For all I know, he could have overheard a bunch of tie-dye shirt wearing hippies down at the local coffee-shop/pseudo-intellectual-hangout.

That having been said, I ask is it even possible for the government to suppress something as big as nanotech? A recent issue of Scientific American had a multi-article feature on nanotech and the possible uses. It just seems that this is going to be too big and wide-ranging for even the Pentagon to be able to control. Yeah, he cites some examples in past history of how militaries have tried to suppress "essential" technologies but things are different now. It was easier in "the old days" for the government to control information. With the amount of free-flowing data that we have today I doubt that the government would be able to do a very good job of controlling any exciting new technology. Yes, I understand the important role the Pentagon plays in determining what research gets done. But these people aren't idiots. They realize the best way for the US to gain the lead in nanotech is to just let scientists run for awhile. Maybe in the future they'll try to steer the direction of research. But until I start seeing some evidence of this, I disregard Reynolds and all the rest as revving up the hype machine

GMD

Misconception about nanobots

[2nd Post!]

Why do nanobots have to be metallic and reliant upon the whims of EM?

Virii and bacterium have been doing fine for millions of years without caring about magnetics except where it was an advantage.

Cheese and yogurt, as an example, are produced by the action of special natural nanobots that react and process milk into portable storable food products. Beer and wine, as well.

Nothing says nanobots have to be metallic at all.