Nanotechnology: Are Molecular Assemblers Possible?

Roland Piquepaille writes "Two experts in the field of nanotechnology, K. Eric Drexler, Ph.D., cofounder of the Foresight Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., and the person who coined the term "nanotechnology," and Richard E. Smalley, Ph.D., a professor at Rice University and winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, exchanged open letters about "molecular assemblers" -- devices capable of positioning atoms and molecules for precisely defined reactions in almost any environment. These letters are making the -- long -- cover story of the current issue of Chemical & Engineering News. At the end of this rich exchange of four letters, they still disagree about the issue. Drexler thinks "molecular assemblers" are possible while Smalley denies it. Who is right? Don't count on me to give an answer. This summary contains some forceful quotes from the original letters."

Comments

Raises interesting questions

[Steve 'Rim' Jobs]

If, in the future, copying physical objects is nearly as easy as copying information on a computer, will corporations lobby to pass laws that make it illegal to do so? In other words, will I be arrested one day for making a copy of my friend's Ferrari?

Re:Raises interesting questions

[Walterk]

Ferraris are not IP, so you could copy it freely. However, this would devaluate all Ferraris and would be frowned upon by the company. Ferrari Inc. would then copyright the design of the car and include a license with your friend's Ferrari.

By this time it will not be possible to buy a Ferrari, but only to license a copy. Therefore official Ferrari licenses will be a hot commodity for the wealthy and they will slap licenses on the car windows, the cars however will not become their property.

Of course thieves will see this trend and nab the licenses out of the Ferrari, instead of the car itself, which will be worthless.

Hence you could copy a Ferrari, but what good would it do you, as it wouldn't be yours anyway.

Re:Raises interesting questions

[tsmccaff]

I don't know if current copyright and patent laws can handle these questions. It is legal for me to carve a replica of a wooden chair with a sawblade. Is that substantially different from having a molecular assembler do the job?

Re:Raises interesting questions

[markfive]

So why not just make a copy of the license?

Re:Raises interesting questions

[jacem]

That is true of course until a Finish auto mechanic name Tinus Lorvads creates a version of the Ferrari from scratch completely free of patented or copywritten source. Of course after this core capability become availably millions of auto mechanics the world over start to make improvements to the Tirrari until through their combined effort a vehicle is developed that can go 1000 MPH gets a million miles to the gallon and is almost impossible to crash.
Most of the major auto makers of course will than start a propaganda campaign about how bad an dangerous the Tirrari is because the builder has to bolt the seats in himself.

Why does this sound familiar?

Jacem

Lest we forget

[carl67lp]

Richard Feynman talked about nanotechnology way back in 1959--before "nanotechnology" was even a word.

It kind of irks me that the person who coins a word gets more credit than a person who talked about the actual process--nearly thirty years prior.

Read Feynman's talk at the Zyvex Web site.

Re:Lest we forget

[kasparov]

Actually, in the above mentioned Feynman lecture, There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom, Feynman talks about making machines that make smaller machines that make smaller machines that make... you get the picture. From the above lecture:

Why can't we manufacture these small computers somewhat like we manufacture the big ones? Why can't we drill holes, cut things, solder things, stamp things out, mold different shapes all at an infinitesimal level? What are the limitations as to how small a thing has to be before you can no longer mold it? How many times when you are working on something frustratingly tiny like your wife's wrist watch, have you said to yourself, ``If I could only train an ant to do this!'' What I would like to suggest is the possibility of training an ant to train a mite to do this. What are the possibilities of small but movable machines? They may or may not be useful, but they surely would be fun to make.

He was not only talking about nanobiology.

Well, I read the letters

[panurge]

I'm not a nanotechnologist but I have had a fair bit to do with the behavior of atoms on surfaces, especially metals. I think that Smalley seems to have a much closer grasp on the real world than Drexler. The idea of a nanobot twisting a pi-bond here and snapping a sigma-bond there seems quite ludicrous; where such reactions occcur in the real world it is because of the properties of the exact molecules involved and is reaction-specific. You can't just say "well, this works with an iron atom in a hemoglobin molecule, so let's make a different carrier molecule with the same geometry, put it on a robot arm and use it to collect up nickel atoms, or whatever". Biology works because over billions of years a limited group of reactions has been found to work on a limited range of materials, in bulk and in carrier liquids. The notion that this means you can just build little tiny cranes and waggle atoms around does not follow.

From reading the letters I don't think Drexler has really addressed the problems raised by Smalley fingers at all, he just tries to brush the problems aside.

They try to come after you

[jetmarc]

It doesn't need molecular technology. They already try to come after you even today. See this nice (and real) example:

http://www.mb-portal.net/html/news/special/2003_ sl r-pl_us.htm

Some guy from Poland "copied" the new Mercedes SLR, long before the real car hits the market. Mercedes tried to buy it from it to get it off the streets. Because that failed, they sue him.

Marc