Slashdot Mirror
Responsible Nanotechnology Interview
cynical writes "WorldChanging has a lengthy interview with Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, a non-profit group helping to make sure molecular manufacturing is developed as safely as possible. In the article they talk about their policy task force (which includes folks like Ray Kurzweil, David Brin, and Jaron Lanier), the risks and benefits of nanofactories, and why open source is so important to the responsible development of nanotechnology."
I don't know how durable WorldChanging's servers are, but just in case, here's a coral cache of the article:
e s/004078.html
http://www.worldchanging.com.nyud.net:8090/archiv
Additionally, here's the web site for the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology: http://www.crnano.org/
Other links:
* Wikipedia article
* Responsible Nanotechnology blog
* Wise-Nano: their collaborate website (i.e. wiki) for "studying the facts and implications of advanced nanotechnology"
(I tried to post this anonymously, but Slashdot gave me a "There was an unknown error in the submission" error. I guess I'll have to risk being modded down for karma-whoring.)
Chris Pheonix and Mike Treder are both infected by nanites!
Somebody quick help them, they are all over their faces.
They also have a nice graph showing the links to the development stages and what aims and benefits it gets.
Strangely absent are steps II and III. One of them has to be Military, any guesses on the other one?
liqbase
Discuss. :)
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
Just what I want, some 14 year old nerd turning the world into grey goo because he was playing with open source nanotechnology and thought he could make a great PacMan clone ...
while foreign countries in an area of the world I won't speficially mention, will go balls-to-the-walls with potentially dangerous nanotech research by unethical means.
Who will win the nanotech race?
This reminds me of the actions of a certain Korean cloning researcher who recently got caught in a scandal.
IMHO, ethics has finally come within sight of a potential head to head battle with progress, in that ethical nations will have a disadvantage against unethical nations.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
WorldChanging: So, to start -- what is the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology hoping to make happen?
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology: We want to help create a world in which advanced beard technology -- nano-beards -- is widely used for beneficial purposes, and in which the risks are responsibly managed. The ability to manufacture highly advanced nano-beard products, such as those adorning our own faces right now at an exponentially accelerating pace will have profound and perilous implications for all of society, and our goal is to lay a foundation for handling them wisely.
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful
"Molecular manufacturing" is absolutely pure 100% unadulterated science fiction right now. There's a possibility that some of the concepts discussed might be utilized in some sense in 20-50-100 years, but quite honestly, do we really need a "Center for Responsible Nanotechnology" right now? They would be more useful campaigning for more research into how exposure to radiation can give people superhero powers.
n/t
Mmmmm...grey goo
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
... just like America practices safe biotechnology. Did you lot ever ...
find out where the militarised anthrax was coming from? It seems to
have gone quiet on that front
Responsible nanotechnology? NO!
DeusEx!
I loved that game...
There always will be malicious use for nanotech by notorious governments and private firms, no amount of "responsible" scientists will change human behaviour. I'd suggest reading Prey by Michael Crichton to comprehend the true extent and ease with which certain people could develop serious threats using nanotech. Not to say all is doomed when nanotech hits mainstream, I'm bracing myself for at least a few nasty surprises along the way.
Hasn't the Foresight Institute been doing this for many years?
http://www.foresight.org/
Interesting article though. I dig reading about nanotech, its the coolest sci-fi-ish tech thats just around teh corner somewhere.
Bloody hell. Every time there's a global warming story, some goon who's mistaken a thriller novel for a scientific paper cites Crichton as evidence that it's all a lefty environmentalist conspiracy. Now Crichton gets raised as an authority on nanotech.
That does it. Next time there's a story on genetics or cloning, I'm going to say it's a bad idea because look what happened in Jurassic Park.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I found a nanite that looks like Elvis!!! ...now where did I put it?
The U.S.A. fudges moral boundaries in modern warfare (no examples necessary, par for the course...) and many other developing and third world countries. These people will achieve nothing worthwhile.
They must be joking. On the contrary, the tool to make them should remain under heavy control and guarded like a nuclear warhead.
I mean, the geek analogy would be to say that you want to give everyone a PHLAK distribution, while our body runs an unpatched Win ME.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Whenever the morality, ethics, or safety of Nanotechnology is brought up I think of the Excellent book by Michael Crichton... While I do agree with everything in the interview and how safety and open source would benefit it... I can't stop and think back to that book.
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
But everything in books is true. They found out that hobbits were real didn't they?
"Prey" is a very bad book to learn about nanotech threats from. However, I would recommend two others:
Crescent City Rhapsody by Kathleen Ann Goonan demonstrates by example the threat of nanoplagues and what they can do. She has other novels in this series dealing with similar subjects, which I also recommend.
Anvil of Stars by Greg Bear has a lot of information about interstellar warfare with nanotechnological weapons.
Sadly, there aren't any more that I've seen. Most authors fall into the same pits as Michael Crichton, as illustrated in "Assemblers of Infinity" and "Blood Music", and seldom "get it" when it comes to the subject of nanotech warfare.
Given that the "real" experts on this project are "folks like Ray Kurzweil, David Brin, and Jaron Lanier", I don't see how Crichton is any less of an authority. He's probably the only one of them who has taken an organic chemistry class.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Software patents may be a mess, but chemical ones are generally not.
Please don't assume the problems of software patents extend to all types. They don't.
. . .ethical nations. . .
And unicorns.
KFG
They are speculating so far out that it would be something like Grover Cleveland trying to pass regulations on solar power generators.
There is no reason to be worrying about technologies that are many decades in the future, outside of the pure fun of idle speculation. Taking yourself seriously, though, probably means you have a screw loose or three.
Here's something covering the opening of the new Purdue nanotech center...perhaps relevant for someone who can use the after-knowledge...
LOL
I heard a rumour the other day, and I have to say I was delighted when I heard it. My friend told me that Marriott is taking customers into the 21st century by spiking nanobots into their shampoos so that guests can be tracked throughout the hotel and provided services without even presenting a room key. For example, I noticed it right away at my current stay when I approached the concierge lounge and the doors were open. I was greeted by the attendant, and offered food, drinks, snacks, and all the television I could watch. I saw several episodes of Jeopardy and America's Funniest Videos. The video that won on Tuesday night was this lady jumping around doing half-cartwheels and doing a face plant after receiving a diamond ring. What a good laugh that was.
My point is that I was greeted without showing any identification, room key, or stating my name or room number. How else would the concierge have known? I figured my friend was right - nanobots. I think putting nanobots in the shampoo is ingenious, since not only is the process seamlessly integrated into a normal routine of all guests, but they are undetected by the human eye and harmless to the scalpal regions. Imagine all the possibilities - no more room keys, knowing when young children venture into the pool area without supervision, and express checkout - all because of sensors interacting with the nanobots from the shampoo.
I'm sure that there are all sorts of exciting surprises to come. If you want to send me some of them, that would be fantastic. I can say that I hope you at least never replace your real staff with robot staff, because I find they're all super friendly and a pleasure to talk to. I think we're at least a few years off from having robots like that!
Thanks,
Greg
I gotta have more cowbell.
I first read http://www.crnano.org/overview.htm about 3 years ago.
If you haven't read it, you should read it too. Try to keep an open mind--try to imagine what the future might be like if their predictions come true!
I agree, I started to read TFA, but I soon realized that it read like someone in 1960 promising flying cars by 2000.
Actually, the fact that we didn't have flying cars in 2000 was more of a political issue than a technological issue. After all, would you really want Grandma traveling at high velocities through the air?
Think about how crappy we drive on the roads and imagine all the damage and death by drunk drivers alone in flying cars. Imagine is the local terrorist could just hop in a flying car and drive into a building.
No... That was just optimistic thinking not about technology in the 60's but on human nature. Truth be told we won't see flying cars until all our ground cars are automated and are under control of AI with no manual over ride.
However, think of it like this... These guys are talking about Atomic bombs and their ramifications, but today is 1906 and we won't have a bomb until 1945.
Given their ability to terminate all life on the planet and provide us with endless benefits it wouldn't hurt to go ahead and discuss their ramnifications before we just let it happen willy nilly. (Atomic bomb/nano weapons vs nuclear energy/replicators)
I mean we were only a flip switch from blowing ourselves away several times during the cold war and if today is 1906 we've got two more World Wars before we hit 1945 (2045).
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Richard Smally, who shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his co-discovery of the Buckyball once tried to point this out to Eric Drexler in a published series of articles., but the nano-enthusiast will not be disauded, no matter how well versed in the subjet matter their opponents.
As for "responsible nanotechnology." Nature has already crated her own version of "grey goo" which we would be hard pressed to copy. That is the simple bacteria. While the cover the Earth, we are in no more danger of them starting to grow out of control and devowering all our resources then we are the nano-technologists every getting machine-phase matter working.
why do you assume no "evil" comes out of america?!
--- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme,
but quite honestly, do we really need a "Center for Responsible Nanotechnology" right now?
One word: Cytotoxicity.
Nanotubes and buckyballs are so small that they can infest your lungs and bloodstream in no time. I recall reading a research paper about buckyballs being able to destroy DNA when they get to the cells.
Just imagine the consequences from an outbreak in a nanomaterials factory.
This is NOT about grey goo and other sci-fi monsters... This is about potentially toxic materials (materials that nature is NOT prepared to deal with) on the loose. Do we know how to deal with such disasters? Is there a way to get rid of toxic molecules after they reach the sea? At least oil spills are somewhat recoverable because oil doesn't fall to the bottom of the sea, but what about soluble particles? What will happen to the species contaminated with them?
No, it's not a trivial problem. And as they say, better safe than sorry.
This article highlights one of my pet peeves: people with no technical background in physics, chemistry, or biology who somehow become talking heads on the subject of nanoscale science that garner world-wide attention. Seriously, look at their website. Explain to me what gives them professional credibility on this issue. This is as bad as Michael Crichton testifying before Congress about climate change last fall. Besides being loud and writing a novel, what actual qualifications does he have to be taken seriously?
There are plenty of actually qualified people worrying about things like the toxicology of nanomaterials, and environmental impacts of nanomaterials. Indeed, Rice University has an NSF-funded center on exactly this topic. Responsible scientific research is a good thing - assuming that unqualified people can appreciate the technical issues is not.
- Nanotechnology will solve world hunger!
- Nanotechnology will solve the energy crisis!
- Nanotechnology will end pollution!
- Nanotechnology will get us into space!
You are free to draw your own conclusions.No, I will not work for your startup
Including salary, benefits, equipment, facilities, and support staff. "Big Pharma" and the major chemical companies have thousands of PhDs eac.
Someone has to pay those salaries, or your drug wouldn't exist in the first place. It really is that simple.
building self-replicating nanobots. Hell, get back to me when someone even demonstrates that it is even possible to do so in principle.
majid aldo's right and I made an oversight... the US, or any company therein, is quite capable of doing evil things with nanotechnology... hence the creation of the nano-ethics initiative.
My post optimistically assumed that America would be more aware of nanotech ethics than certain other countries, and that assumption remains yet to be proven.
I'm sorry for any arrogance my post conveyed.
The REAL argument is how will ethical nations, in general, compete against unethical nations, in the coming and inevitable biotech and nanotech arms race?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!