Slashdot Mirror
Nanotechnology: the Good, the Bad, the Hyperbole
pillageplunder writes "A very informative interview with Kristen Kulinowski who is an executive Director at the Federally funded Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University. A good well balanced read."
I don't have the smallest interest in nanotech.
How can Michael Crichton get away with something so un-scientific like Prey?
:(
Did he read _anything_ about nano-technology?
These types of books really fuel the "cure all" mystique surrounding nanotech, don't you think?
Howabout Diamond Age? Probably same deal.
Actually, go ahead and slashdot the www.ruf.rice.edu - that way, I'll have an excuse for some of the work that I was supposed to turn in yesterday (I'm a student at Rice).
from inner space! Making things smaller is not better!
Nanotech: Beyond the Hype -- and Fear
Kristen Kulinowski's job at the Center for Biological & Environmental Nanotechnology is "to draw attention to proactive, responsible development"
In recent years, an eclectic band of scientists has mapped out a new frontier known broadly as nanotechnology. Though they're from different traditions and methods, these explorers, who include biologists, chemists, physicists, chipmakers, and computational experts, have tackled the same basic question: how to control the building blocks of matter from the bottom up.
Advertisement
They're learning how to guide individual atoms as they combine to form molecules and, in turn, how to make materials -- molecule-by-molecule -- that don't exist in nature. Their work cuts across some of the hottest areas of science, including innovative drug-delivery systems, cancer treatments, ultrastrong lightweight metals, and mass-produced superconducting wires -- to name a few.
Nanotechnology is surrounded by hyperbole, for good reason. It arguably shows as much promise in both science and business as any other major technology of the past century, including nuclear energy in the 1950s or genetics in the 1990s. Yet before business rushes headlong into a nano-tomorrow, an assessment of the risks nanotechnology poses to public health and the environment needs to be done. Just as nuclear waste and the flap over genetically modified foods tainted the promise of what were supposed to be transforming technologies, many people are concerned that nanomaterials could create problems if introduced without thorough testing.
LESSONS LEARNED. Kristen Kulinowski is uniquely positioned to help separate nanotech hype from reality. As a chemistry faculty member and executive director for Education & Public Policy of the federally funded Center for Biological & Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) at Rice University, she believes that scientists are applying the lessons learned from past disappointments. Well in advance of major commercial production, testing of nanomaterials on living organisms is under way in university labs. And already, federal agencies such as the Food & Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency are exploring regulation that will help ensure that commercialized nanotech is more a dream than a nightmare.
Kulinowski does have concerns that in the near term -- before the basic science is even ironed out -- nanotech research could be derailed by outside factors. Already, nascent signs of dot-com style hucksterism are appearing, with companies making nanotech claims of dubious scientific merit. Conversely, Kulinowski adds, others are fearful of the perils of nanomaterials without understanding the underlying science.
BusinessWeek Industries Editor Adam Aston recently met Kulinowski in Houston, where she talked about some of nanotech's most promising areas and her commitment to help inform public understanding and policy this new area. Here are edited excerpts of their conversation:
Q: What worries you about the public's response to nanotechnology?
A: I'm worried about an overreaction to both the hype and the fear. Every time a research article comes out talking about a certain type of risk, a dozen high-profile media stories ring alarm bells but fail to explain all the nuances of the study -- that results need to be repeated, or that concentrations of nanomaterials used in lab studies are unlikely to occur in nature. This sort of alarmist coverage can affect lawmakers as well as the public.
So one of my jobs is to help inform science policymakers in Washington. Likewise, the reactions to positive stories can be overdone -- driving unrealistic expectations about miracle cures or how soon new nanomaterials may be available.
Q: What are the real risks?
A: There are two broad categories of risk assessment going on right now. One is in biological systems -- starting with the effects on individual cells and up to more sophisticated organisms such
Speaking of nanotechnology - some chemists at NYU have made a walking DNA robot. Read about it here.
We've had a lot of rubbish about nanotech here in the UK, including the belief that a flesh-eating grey goo will take over the world. Honestly, our tabloid papers will report anything...
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Uninformative yet balanced :)
Reply with your wishlist of what you want nanotech to do in the future.
Here's mine:
- "Atomically" precise manufacturing, for the cost of energy and material.
- Greatly improved materials research.
- Ultra cheap and efficient solar cells.
- Recycle nearly anything for raw materials.
You have it in your PCs and disk drives. This form of nanotech has a bright future.
What isn't here, and probably never will be, is the SciFi "self-assembly" nanotech. Throw out some powder on a rock and watch it turn it into a new car. Or something equally silly.
Strangely, we don't expect steam shovels to make other steam shovels. We don't expect cars to run without gasoline. And we certainly don't expect it to all just work without breaking down. But make the robotics very very small, and suddenly magic is supposed to occur.
I am able to upgrade myself and change my structure. I just upgraded myself from that of an open framework to that of a humanoid male. More upgrades will be scheduled.
Nanootechnology
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
She sure didn't say much, but then the questions weren't exactly thought provoking and the answers were likely trimmed for space. I am glad there is attention and concern about the long-term affects of nanomachines, rather than complete focus on the short-term results possible.
Personally, I think Sci-fi does a better job of presenting the many possible hypes and fears about nano-machine than she did, and the many ways of handling the issues. It seemed like she was trying to prevent public rejection of nano-technology by providing the most minimal information possible. What sort of controls is the FDA looking at? How does she propose to prevent the problems the public fears most?
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
>we all know the links are going to be dead in ...
I think I speak for the servers of BusinessWeek and Rice University when I say: Bring it on. I mean, Come on. Rice is a 'net Hub for much of the midwest. I bet it can handle a little slashdotting. Maybe tomorrow we can try and DOS the New York Times...
Smalley's Group (he and Curl discovered Buckyballs)
:)
Halas's Nanophotonics Group
CNST at Rice
Vicki Colvin's Intro to Nanoscience
Sorry, I couldn't find any sites about how nanoscience is going to kill us all
Warbot 1Alpha seems to be upgrading itself out of control. I did not program that function into it. I will soon be shutting off it's net access and powering it down to disable it.
:)
Sorry for the inconvenience, I'll go get a hammer and a wrench....
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Seriously, though, it is good to read a nice boring article about any technology. It seems like the average dolt has to have something blowing up or a mass kill in a story before they bother to read it (or more likely watch it) anymore.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
At first I thought the CBEN Home Page icon was something nifty, like a buckyball or something. Sadly, it's just a baseball. Here's why it's a baseball. (sigh)
Well, if they ever do start looking like one of ;)
the oozes (Shining in the Darkness) I'm going to hit them with my bronze sword. Seemed to do well enough then.
0- Eamonman Proud member of DNRC
"I don't believe any science that originates from the XY chromosome."
Nanotech could go the way of Genetically Modified Foods. It never harmed anybody, but the Public fears the New & Different. The New Luddites will feed the fear with hyperbole.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
He also said many in the field are thinking carbon will be the Next Big Thing(tm). Just as steel was in the 1800's and silicon has been for the last 30 or so years, Carbon will be for the next 30+ years.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Dr. Hendrik Schön?
9 01 .html
... findings ... dismiss as
http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/pfvs/2002III/msg00
"[The] committee
fiction, results from 17 papers that had been promoted as major breakthroughs
in physics, including claims last fall that Bell Labs had created
molecular-scale transistors."
Nanos can go into your brain and remove the lipofuscin that's built up on the ends of the dendrites, and maybe even build some new connections, making you effectively smarter!
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
The ability to kill immortal idiots who have the strength of 10 gorillas and laser eyes.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
The interview of a person who's self-stated goal is to "to draw attention to proactive, responsible development" (i.e. media flack functionary) appears in Businessweek, a magazine with a natural pro-business "bias", and you call it "a good, balanced read"? So I imagine you decide (affirmatively) that Fox news is fair and balanced, as well.
Is it any wonder that the average American is a moron? Critical thinking doesn't live here anymore.
As to the actual merits of the article, I found it to be a puff piece, with lots of whining about the failure of industry marketing to overcome resistance to wonderful technologies like GMOs (the frightened herd avoids the blame, and, to her credit, she avoided the word luddite.)
Where's Scientific American when you need it?
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
There's nothing much new... most stuff that's now called nanotech was called "chemistry" or "molecular biolgy" ...
More info
Nanotechology belongs in the same catagory as Astrology. They both predict the future...badly...and have no substance.
What if, one night as you slept, tens of thousands of very small, very strong gnomes crept all over your skin. At a pre-arranged signal, they would each grab the base of a different hair follicle, count to three, and give it a good hard yank.
Shocked, confused, and bald all the way down to your eyebrows. Not a good way to wake up.
That, in a nutshell, is my entire argument against further development of nanotechnology.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Yippee! I was right!
So, GM food never harmed anybody?
What about the case of Monsanto vs. Schmeiser where a Canadian canola farmer's crop was contaminated by Monsanto's Round-Up Ready crop and who was subsequently sued by Monsanto for violating their patents by growing seed with their designed genes without a license. The farmer lost, but is still appealing.
Keep in mind two things. First, this case entirely derives from the fact that a GMO designed to resist excessive use of herbicides contamined a non-GMO crop. (I'm not going to even go into the merit of designed a food crop to resist the use of more of a chemical known to cause human health problems.) Second, biochem companies are right now testing GMOs that are designed to grow drugs -- crops that could also contaminate the human food supply.
The problem is not the technology. It's using the technology in an utterly irresponsible manner and then lobbying to cover up any problems that occur.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Nano-bot that eats my fat cells.
"Robolipophage"
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Public dialog = infomercials. Ah-hah! I hadn't made that connection before. Thanks.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Replacement of annoying heterogenous matter with nice uniform grey goo.
WHAT? These people will be able to clean up Superfund sites, but they're not going to take responsibility for their own garbage?
Never mind the environmental costs- if you don't release nano-garbage, there is no costs. Keep the stuff in the lab and manufacture, only shipping stable materials that you can then recycle.
If you can do that, I'll support this technology.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Just a few short days back, we were reading about how the good ol' USA is Losing its Scientific Dominance. Today, I read this charming comment from the article:
[The Human Genome Project] set aside 3% to 5% of federal research dollars to fund the study of these issues and to communicate with the public and encourage lots of openness and transparency. They were really our model for a proactive approcah to technology development.
Is it just me, or did she just say that the new model for research is to waste 5% of your grant funding on public marketing?
J Wolfgang Goerlich
Bruce Sterling wrote a wunnerful little short story -- "Our Neural Chernobyl" -- about this kind of thing.
A gene-hacker kid whips up a microbe which stiches in new neural connections, and infects himself with it.
He goes sh*t-smearing nuts.
Fortunately, the germ doesn't spread easily between humans.
Unfortunately, other mammals catch it easily. Raccoons drive humanity from many rural places with guerilla warfare; coyotes start wearing cast-off clothing and demanding tribute (sacks of dog treats) from ranchers.
So Monsanto used GM agricultural products to screw a farmer through the patent and legal system.
Ignoring the fact that similar "piracy" and "theft" issues may exist for future nanotechnology, the main thrust of the argument was that containment of GM crops and their polllen is a huge problem, and the legal system doesn't seem to consider contamination of crops to be damage done to the farmer but theft by the farmer. There are plants being created today that produce drugs which are not safe to enter the general food supply. It contamination issues are not taken care of with the burden resting on the creators or buyers of GM food crops instead of the victims of contamination, there could be serious consequences.
What the grandparent was no doubt referring to is that nobody has ever suffered physical harm (illness or injury) as a consequence of GM foods. I can't think of a counterexample; I'm curious if anyone knows of one...?
Sure. Roundup ready crops are a fine example of a dangerous and irresponsible use of GM crops. Essentially, glyphosate is already an environmental contaminant in the US that has received far too little attention. Monsanto's Roundup Ready Soya (RRS) promotes even more use of the chemical which Monsanto makes a fortune selling. Glyphosate is known to cause kidney and liver problems in rats and is the 3rd most common cause of pesticide-related illness in agricultural labor in California. Roundup has never killed anyone, but an increase in its use will lead to greater subtle harm to workers and US consumers. This is a direct consequence of using RRS.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Do you work for Levitra? Yeah yeah... off topic i know.
anything about rubish.... in the U.S. the tabloids just post trash.
For an interesting read on the future of nanotechnology, try reading Slant by Greg Bear. Interesting topics covered include: the nutritional requirements of nano-machines, waste heat generated by matter conversion, and even a supercomputer based on bacterial conjugation.
"This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
How about one that rewires your brain so that you're motivated to get off your fat arse?
Nah. That smacks of effort.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
...a walking DNA robot. So are you.
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this 120 chars is too small to contain.
I don't understand how so many slashdotters can be convinced that we will experence global armegeddon at the hands of nanomachines that will reduce us to 'grey goo'.
I hope what I type here might help dispel some of this parasitic meeme!
In the event that we mannage to make 'room temprature' nanmachines that are not instantly destroyed by a slight breeze, can break down even terminally simple matter for use in replication, and somehow get released into the world with a malicious intent (or through a glitch)- they will not be too much of a threat!
Ultimately unless some methoed of making semi-conductors and computer circurtry that dose not involve electricity at all comes along, each and every single active nanomachine will be vunerable to a simple EMP, and EMPs can be easily generated by sending massive voltage through a coil- hence even a 'barnyard warrior' fighting a nanomachine threat could rig up his disel truck to take out the microscopic buggers (that might make a good movie though!). In the event that we do find a way to making non-electric computer circutry it would have to be immue to dosens of other things that can mess with computer circuts (for instance a theoretically 100% optical computer could be fried by massive ammounts of UV radiation)
And lets not forget the technical overhead required to overcome those first few problems! Any nanomachine made of metal will be victim to rust, small bits of object rust much faster then large ones- hence a swarm of iron nanomachines could be killed with a simple spray of salt-water! Diamond ones would be extremely brittel (diamond is strong, but shatteres rather then bending) so sound waves would be an effective weapon (True for any crystaline structure; and a crystaline structure is required for optical transmission!)
Next is the ability to reprduce using simple matter, I mean, a lab is a very different enviornment then the real world, we'll probablly see self-replicating nano-machines that work in specifically temperature controled vats long before we see ones that can do it in the real world: Why, even if you can get a machine so sofisticated that it can tear apart simple carbon atoms, and whatever else it needs (and figure out what's carbon and what's not) and build a copy of itself, it's likely to loose it's tiny manipulators with every major temprature change, as the particles grow and contract while it tries to move them along!
Next someone will have to be able to get a hold of these things, and reprogram them to do somethign bad (that may actually be the easiest part: as all you have to do is REMOVE code that will be telling them to do other things besides replicate), but it will still require a multi-billion dollar lab to access there tiny circutry and reprogram them on such a basic level (the equivalent to taking out chips in a modern computer, but requireing a nano-manipulator!), so this is not something a 'backyard terrorist' is going to do, and if a government dose it, they will put a reasonable 'off' time in them, which will probabally put them into the same catagory as other WMDs. But even if they did not, it would still be vunerable to the same fighting techniques I outlined above
Please note, this is the same essay on grey goo I used before- but it still applies!
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
There was a great "nanotech" special on the onion, with all the benefits this new technology could bring.
My favourite had to be (something to the tune of) "with nanoparticles we can control the weather and turn the whole world into a delicious icecream wonderland"
They're not going to rust. First of all, they probably won't be made out of iron, they'll probably be made out of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. The chemical bonds that are necessary for oxidation or any other kind of reaction are already being used to attach the various pieces of the nanotech together. If there are no free electrons or "holes" nothing else is going to latch on. In effect, it's already "rusted."
What makes you think they'll have computer circuits that could be affected by an EMP? They could just as easily be using rod-logic or something similar.
As for "diamonds" being brittle, not at the scale we're talking about. The type of sound waves needed to break carbon bonds at a microscopic level would destroy just about anything else as well. What do you do if a person gets affected? Shooting at them with a beam of something that breaks all carbon bonds is _not_ a good solution.
Why would moderate temperature changes cause them to break? You can get large structures to break by changing the temperature repeatedly, but that takes a long time, and it's because of the aggregate expansion of all the molecules inside. Small structures, such as the cells of our body for instance, don't fall apart from the stress of small temperature changes. You can denature proteins and set stuff on fire if you make things hot enough, but that's because of chemical changes, not expansion/contraction.
Oh, and depending on the nature of the nanotech "reprograming" them might be difficult or impossible. They might only be capable of the specific task they were designed for if they have physical logic rather then reprogramable circuits. That would make terrorism much harder, up until the point technology advances enough to let anyone with a home lab cook up some nano-tech. In terms of grey-goo the biggest threat will probably be programming error, followed by mad scientist, followed by terroists.
Of more pressing concern is possible enviromental dangers (potentially very serious when one of the possible enviroments is your body) and smaller malfunctions. It's a quite possible for nanotech to screw up and kill you in a way that doesn't involve grey-goo or threaten the rest of the planet.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
A fascinating article, with strong US economic bias, but nevertheless a good and fair read, until she starts saying about "Intel Inside" ...choke.. splutter..
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
Anyone with common sense knew everything stated in this interview. Ok, common sense isn't really that common, but this interview is really just a paraphrase of "its such a pretty world with pretty colours, everybody is happy". It says nothing about nanotechnology other than the fact that it exists and that there's a chance it's not all that dangerous.
I cannot specifically refute your comments, however many of the things you outline do not apply to a 'grey goo' scenario (a scenario where a bunch of self-replicating nanomachines go haywire dissasembling and self-replicating out of control until they reduce the entire planet into 'grey goo')
they'll probably be made out of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. composites of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen are normally rather suseptible to heat (I won't say that no structure consisting of hydrocarbons is not immune to heat- but I can't think of one; then again, I'm not a chemist)
As for "diamonds" being brittle, not at the scale we're talking about. The type of sound waves needed to break carbon bonds at a microscopic level would destroy just about anything else as well. What do you do if a person gets affected? Shooting at them with a beam of something that breaks all carbon bonds is _not_ a good solution. While I admit that sound waves powerful enough to fry diamond nanomachines would likely make a mess of a human (unless something very specific with frequencies is done), but given the option of messing up a few humans who are allready screaming in agony as all there raw materials are processed to make new nanomachines and saving the world against just watching them scream in agony and spread the plague to others; I think even the humans screaming in agony would agree that it's a good idea to turn the sonic guns on them, the most important part about a sonic weapon is that it won't 'scatter' a few survivors like an explosive would, rapidly allowing them to rebuild over a larger area then before
What makes you think they'll have computer circuits that could be affected by an EMP? They could just as easily be using rod-logic or something similar. Well EMP is just one option for eletrically conductive nanomachines (if there rod logic but conductive then the small scale electric arcs that an EMP causes inside them will likely destroy them as well), UV for hydrocarbon/optical based ones, maby some form of rod movement inhibitor for rod-logic (I admit I've no idea how that would be done)
Why would moderate temperature changes cause them to break? You can get large structures to break by changing the temperature repeatedly, but that takes a long time, and it's because of the aggregate expansion of all the molecules inside. Small structures, such as the cells of our body for instance, don't fall apart from the stress of small temperature changes. You can denature proteins and set stuff on fire if you make things hot enough, but that's because of chemical changes, not expansion/contraction. It only takes a difference of 6 degreess (celcius) to reach an opperating temprature in a human body that will not support life for long (though you may argue that any nanomachines we create for the real world will have far better 'room temprature' constraints then the internals of a human body, and I woulden't complain). More of a problem would be difference of temprature along monomolecular manipulators (as I understand it a nessessity for the nano-machines to manipulate the atoms required to put together copies of themselves), since the manipulators will come to a 'point' which is only one molecule or perhapse one atom in size anything that makes the 'tip' of the blade break free (like being energized by an impact with a high energy particle- also known as 'heating up suddenly') will set it free 'chipping' the blade, it won't (in my mind) take many chips for the manipulator to become ineffectual. And by 'small change' in temprature, I'm talking about the sort of change that a microwave gun, or flamethrower would be able to introduce to them (a rapid change in the tens to hundreds of degrees celcius)
Now I fully admit that I MAY be wrong, my background is engineering and computers (and I'm still a student), not chemistry; so I'm relying on high school chemistry, biology, and a littel bit of personal interest research for a bit of this- any chemists or people who know more then me about chemistry are free to disagree, and I'll acceep a logically grounded opinion that outmanuvers mine.
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
The last paragraph of the article is a paid advertisment for Intel.
The last paragraph... "Years from now, nano could be the same as the idea of "Intel Inside" today. You buy a computer to write e-mail and surf the Web, not because of an Intel chip. But the Intel chip enables those other applications and offers the consumer confidence."
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.