Nanobots Not Needed
Mike Treder, CRN
BRIEFING DOCUMENT: MARCH 2, 2005
Available immediately for full or partial publication
http://crnano.org/BD-Nanobots.htm
Contacts:
Chris Phoenix (1-305-387-5583) cpho...@CRNano.org Director of
Research
Mike Treder (1-718-398-7272) mtr...@CRNano.org Executive Director
Nanobots Not Needed
SUMMARY: The popular idea of so-called nanobots, powerful and at risk
of running wild, is not part of modern plans for building things
"atom-by-atom" by molecular manufacturing. Studies indicate that most
people don't know the difference between molecular manufacturing,
nanoscale technology, and nanobots. Confusion about terms, fueled by
science fiction, has distorted the truth about advanced nanotechnology.
Nanobots are not needed for manufacturing, but continued
misunderstanding may hinder research into highly beneficial
technologies and discussion of the real dangers.
Nanobots have plagued nanotechnology from the beginning. Eric Drexler's
"Engines of Creation" (1986), which introduced nanotechnology to the
public, described certain kinds of tiny robots with limited capability.
But in some fiction and fanciful speculation, these "nanorobots" or
"nanobots" possess near-magical powers: transforming any object into
anything else, acting as a universal medical device, or destroying
anything they touch. This idea has caused confusion about the actual
goals of advanced nanotechnology[1] research.
Originally, nanotechnology was about building stuff from the atoms up.
"Assemblers" were specialized molecular construction machines.
"Disassemblers" were research tools to figure out how to make things. A
programmable atom-based manufacturing system would be able to build as
many more systems as desired. But all these ideas merged with the
nanobot concept, plus a heavy dose of science fiction, to create the
idea of a single machine that could do it all-and might run wild,
turning the world into a "gray goo" of self-copies.[2]
Meanwhile, the meaning of "nanotechnology" was being stretched. As
funding opportunities increased, researchers in related and distant
fields of nanoscale technology adopted the term to describe work they'd
been doing for decades. By 1992, Drexler had to coin "molecular
manufacturing" and "molecular nanotechnology" to indicate what he
originally meant by nanotechnology.
Studies have shown that most readers don't know the difference between
molecular manufacturing, nanoscale technology, and nanobots. Most
nanoscale technologies use big machines to make small products.
Molecular manufacturing is about tiny manufacturing systems. But those
manufacturing systems are not nanobots.[3] Modern plans for molecular
manufacturing do not involve self-contained nanoscale construction
robots at all.
No one worries about an inkjet printer crawling off the desk and
stealing ink cartridges. Molecular manufacturing systems will be no
more autonomous than inkjets. Early, primitive, microscopic systems
will not even have onboard computers. In advanced designs, called
nanofactories,[4] the molecular fabrication apparatus will all be
fastened down in well-ordered ranks inside a much larger structure. All
designs will be externally controlled and supplied, capable of
producing a duplicate nanofactory in about an hour-but only on
command.
As nanoscale technologies begin to move from the lab to the
marketplace, and attention turns to molecular manufacturing research,
it will be increasingly important for journalists to counter outdated
and incorrect ideas of nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing. Both
scientists and the public have gotten the idea that molecular
manufacturing requires the use of nanobots, and they may criticize or
fear it on that basis. The truth is less sensational, but its
implications[5] are equally compelling.
The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology is headquartered in New York.
CRN is an affiliate of World Care, an international, non-profit,
501(c)(3) organization.
NOTES:
[1] Nanotechnology has several definitions. Today, a widely accepted
definition is any technology involving structures between 1 and 100
nanometers with novel properties. (A nanometer is a billionth of a
meter, roughly the length your fingernails grow in one second.) There
are many ways of building nanoscale structures and materials, and for
each there is a different branch of nanotechnology. Most of these
nanoscale technologies use large tools to create small structures. In
general, these can be understood as traditional industrial or chemical
processes, and not the same thing as molecular manufacturing. For more,
see "What is Nanotechnology?" at http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm, and
"What Is Molecular Manufacturing?" at
http://www.crnano.org/essays05.htm#2,Feb
[2] For more on this worry, see "Gray Goo is a Small Issue" at
http://www.crnano.org/BD-Goo.htm
[3] In the long term, some products of molecular manufacturing systems
could be nanobots (e.g., for medical use), but these are not envisioned
to be metabolizing or self-replicating (at least not by credible
researchers).
[4] See "Bootstrapping a Nanofactory" at
http://www.crnano.org/bootstrap.htm
[5] For information on the risks and benefits of advanced
nanotechnology, see "CRN Research: Overview of Current Findings" at
http://www.crnano.org/overview.htm
John S. Novak, III
In article <d08gd...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Mike Treder, CRN wrote:
Um. One hates to come off sounding rude or snarky, but... is this the
whole document?
> Nanobots Not Needed
> SUMMARY: The popular idea of so-called nanobots, powerful and at risk
> of running wild, is not part of modern plans for building things
> "atom-by-atom" by molecular manufacturing. Studies indicate that most
> people don't know the difference between molecular manufacturing,
> nanoscale technology, and nanobots. Confusion about terms, fueled by
> science fiction, has distorted the truth about advanced nanotechnology.
> Nanobots are not needed for manufacturing, but continued
> misunderstanding may hinder research into highly beneficial
> technologies and discussion of the real dangers.
I will accept the assertion that most people do not, in fact, know the
difference between those terms. However, a footnote to the studies
referenced would make this rather more persuasive. It would make it
more than an assertion, anyway. I also claim that another factor in
the confusion is the tendency to up and change names every few years.
More importantly than either of those two criticisms, is the final
assertion-- that this confusion somehow might hinder research. There's
a clever shift of the pen there from (explicitly) "most people" to
(implicitly) people doing actual research. I'm pretty sure that the
researchers and the layer or two of pocketbook holders are a little
more clued in on those terms than the average everyman on the street.
Very few people write seven or eight digit checks on a whim.
> Nanobots have plagued nanotechnology from the beginning. Eric Drexler's
> "Engines of Creation" (1986), which introduced nanotechnology to the
> public, described certain kinds of tiny robots with limited capability.
> But in some fiction and fanciful speculation, these "nanorobots" or
> "nanobots" possess near-magical powers: transforming any object into
> anything else, acting as a universal medical device, or destroying
> anything they touch. This idea has caused confusion about the actual
> goals of advanced nanotechnology[1] research.
This, too, would have been an excellent place to insert a footnote
about studies supporting your claims. In this case, a study
supporting the claim of layman confusion about the terms would again
have done a world of good. So would a good scientific survey of just
exactly what "advanced nanotechnology research" actually is.
Instead, what we get is a footnote with boilerplate about
nanotechnology and millionths of meters, without any support for the
claims being made. What this does, in effect, is presumptively-- even
presumptuously-- define everyone working on something other than this
paper's preferred course of research to be something other than the
actual goal of advanced nano.
I think that's a bit of an overstretch. Don't you? Unless, uh, you
actually are speaking for all the nanotech researchers out there.
> Originally, nanotechnology was about building stuff from the atoms up.
> "Assemblers" were specialized molecular construction machines.
> "Disassemblers" were research tools to figure out how to make things. A
> programmable atom-based manufacturing system would be able to build as
> many more systems as desired. But all these ideas merged with the
> nanobot concept, plus a heavy dose of science fiction, to create the
> idea of a single machine that could do it all-and might run wild,
> turning the world into a "gray goo" of self-copies.[2]
>
> Meanwhile, the meaning of "nanotechnology" was being stretched. As
> funding opportunities increased, researchers in related and distant
> fields of nanoscale technology adopted the term to describe work they'd
> been doing for decades. By 1992, Drexler had to coin "molecular
> manufacturing" and "molecular nanotechnology" to indicate what he
> originally meant by nanotechnology.
Yes, and then... what was it? Zettatechnology? I submit that this
solves nothing, and contributes to the nomenclature confusion.
> Studies have shown that most readers don't know the difference between
> molecular manufacturing, nanoscale technology, and nanobots. Most
> nanoscale technologies use big machines to make small products.
> Molecular manufacturing is about tiny manufacturing systems. But those
> manufacturing systems are not nanobots.[3] Modern plans for molecular
> manufacturing do not involve self-contained nanoscale construction
> robots at all.
Again, cite the studies. If there's anything that gets up my nose,
it's unsubstantiated claims which are repeated like sledgehammer
blows. What studies? Cite them. How were they conducted? Who
conducted them? You are dedicating an entire essay to the refutation
of these claims-- the reader deserves the opportunity to see them.
(Also, as a sidenote, it is customary to footnote someone other than
your own organization. At least once.)
Also, be very, very careful about absolute claims. Your footnote here
is useful, in that it prevented me from bringing up the numerous
possible uses for nanobots (e.g., medical, which you note;
micromaintenance; sensing and monitoring; and other infrastructure
uses.) But is also contained the absolute statement that *no*
credible researchers are planning nanobots where are either
metabolising or self-reproducing.
And yet, I am presently reading a book chapter (found online at:
http://www.bionano.neu.edu/Nanorobotics.pdf ) which very clearly
outlines their desire to develop nanobots capable of self-replication
when required. They also specifically express the desire to develop a
toolkit of standard parts including rhodopsin, bacteriorhodopsin, and
artificial structures derived from those, to act as solar collectors
for on-site power gathering. If this is not metabolism as you
conceive it, I'm not sure what does. So I ask, does solar collection
match your definition of metabolism?
I must also ask if the authors (Ummat, Dubey, Sharma, and Mavroidis)
are to be considered credible researchers, or not.
There is a similar paper by a subset of those authors (found online here:
http://www.bionano.neu.edu/Bionanorobotics_Chapter%207_upload.pdf )
which I will admit I have not read (it's on my list after a paper on
artificial bacterial foraging strategies, and an application of same
to electrical design) which dedicates several pages to the topic of
self-replicating nanobots, with a call for more research on the topic
and a mention of ongoing research in the area.
In short, your paper is full of assertions, some of which are
unsubstantianted, some of which I believe to be simply incorrect.
I have no further comments on the rest of your paper, but I include
the rest of it for the convenience of other readers.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net
Jim Logajan
j...@panix.com (John S. Novak, III) wrote:
> In article <d08gd...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Mike Treder, CRN wrote:
>
> Um. One hates to come off sounding rude or snarky, but... is this the
> whole document?
I'm afraid I had a reaction similar to John's. I agree with all his
comments and the best I can do is rephrase some of his objections and
throw in some of my own observations and opinionated opinions:
>> Nanobots Not Needed
>
>> SUMMARY: The popular idea of so-called nanobots, powerful and at risk
>> of running wild, is not part of modern plans for building things
>> "atom-by-atom" by molecular manufacturing.
John's already cited research efforts that void the claim that nanobots
aren't part of "modern plans". I'll just add that *I* still consider
"nanobots" part of the plan. The only aspect of the CRN release that I
can agree with is the implication that the "risk of running wild" is what
drives some of the fear of nanotechnology. But, as John notes, what
matters is who is afraid.
>> Nanobots are not needed for manufacturing,
Nanotechnology of *any sort* isn't needed for manufacturing. Neither is a
knowledge of quantum mechanics, since the industrial revolution was born
prior to either one of these things. It isn't until you get specific
about the problems you want to address if you had control at the
molecular level that the need for nanobots can be addressed.
Manufacturing, per se, is probably a Red Herring when it comes to
addressing the benefits and risks of nanotechnology.
>> Nanobots have plagued nanotechnology from the beginning.
I wonder, was the double entendre in that sentence intended or
accidental? ;-)
> I have no further comments on the rest of your paper, but I include
> the rest of it for the convenience of other readers.
Thanks - I have a few more comments.
>> No one worries about an inkjet printer crawling off the desk and
>> stealing ink cartridges. Molecular manufacturing systems will be no
>> more autonomous than inkjets. Early, primitive, microscopic systems
>> will not even have onboard computers. In advanced designs, called
>> nanofactories,[4] the molecular fabrication apparatus will all be
>> fastened down in well-ordered ranks inside a much larger structure.
>> All designs will be externally controlled and supplied, capable of
>> producing a duplicate nanofactory in about an hour-but only on
>> command.
Comparison with a relatively benign machine, an inkjet printer, belies
the large difference in potential capabilities and impact. On the one
hand we are to believe that a molecular manufacturing system would not
have sufficient intelligence to run autonomously, yet on the other hand
it might need to be intelligent enough to prohibit the manufacture of
anything dangerous. If there are no limits on what a nanofactory can
produce, it can hardly be compared to an inkjet printer - the differences
in output capabilities are humongous. But the intelligence that would
need to be incorporated in such a device to limit it to benign output
would, in my humble opinion, definitely accord it the capability of
crawling off the table to steal raw material!
The ink-jet comparison also happens to highlight an economic problem with
the nanofactory approach: just as ink-jet cartridges are a large profit
center for printer manufacturers, any use of preprocessed raw material
for nanofactories creates a supply choke-hold on users. The economic
miracle that would occur from the use of self-replicating devices that
are free from any form of central control (e.g. able to use unprocessed
raw material from their local environment) is cruelly denied.
In my humble opinion, nanotechnology's greatest benefits are in
improvements in medicine, the alleviation of poverty, and increase in
individual freedoms (due to possible decoupling from the global economy).
I believe the primary motivation of promoting nanofactories over nanobots
is to somehow mitigate the risks of nanotechnology. I consider such risk
avoidance dangerously misguided since, if successful, it would hinder and
delay the really meaningful benefits that only nanotechnology could
provide.
John S. Novak, III
In article <112imdp...@news.supernews.com>, Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Nanobots are not needed for manufacturing,
> Nanotechnology of *any sort* isn't needed for manufacturing. Neither is a
> knowledge of quantum mechanics, since the industrial revolution was born
> prior to either one of these things. It isn't until you get specific
> about the problems you want to address if you had control at the
> molecular level that the need for nanobots can be addressed.
> Manufacturing, per se, is probably a Red Herring when it comes to
> addressing the benefits and risks of nanotechnology.
Many, many things that can be manufactured, can be manufactured
"better" or "more economically" with molecular assembly. (Or so it is
claimed, and I'm not dispputing that.)
>>> No one worries about an inkjet printer crawling off the desk and
>>> stealing ink cartridges. Molecular manufacturing systems will be no
>>> more autonomous than inkjets. Early, primitive, microscopic systems
>>> will not even have onboard computers. In advanced designs, called
>>> nanofactories,[4] the molecular fabrication apparatus will all be
>>> fastened down in well-ordered ranks inside a much larger structure.
>>> All designs will be externally controlled and supplied, capable of
>>> producing a duplicate nanofactory in about an hour-but only on
>>> command.
>
> Comparison with a relatively benign machine, an inkjet printer, belies
> the large difference in potential capabilities and impact. On the one
> hand we are to believe that a molecular manufacturing system would not
> have sufficient intelligence to run autonomously, yet on the other hand
> it might need to be intelligent enough to prohibit the manufacture of
> anything dangerous. If there are no limits on what a nanofactory can
> produce, it can hardly be compared to an inkjet printer - the differences
> in output capabilities are humongous. But the intelligence that would
> need to be incorporated in such a device to limit it to benign output
> would, in my humble opinion, definitely accord it the capability of
> crawling off the table to steal raw material!
This is an important point, to which no one has *the* answer.
If, fifty years from now, a basement workshop appliance can rip out
pneumonic plague spores, then we're going to have problems--
especially when one considers the intersection of benchtop
nanoconstruction with the internet and encryption techniques. Gives a
whole new meaning to the term "computer virus."
Ah, but of course, that sort of thing poses a special problem for this
essay, doesn't it? By a reasonably broad interpretation, plague
spores are self-replicating, metabolizing nanobots... aren't they? If
they're not, I invite the CRN people to tell me why not, but that's
really a side issue. The real issue I'm raising here is that, even
though the CRN people are waving their arms telling me that
self-replicating, self-metabolizing nanobots aren't necessary and are
a bad idea *doesn't mean that everyone else will agree*.
And becuase not everyone else will agree, that makes it increasingly
likely as time goes on that they will eventually be developed. CRN
telling me airily that it's not necessary doesn't mean that it won't
happen, and in my mind CRN seems to be adopting (intentionally or not)
a sort of a Bill Joy-esque Reliquishment type of argument. "Well, uh,
let's not do that."
My response remains: "Then we will be totally unprepared when someone
unscrupulous does exactly that."
> The ink-jet comparison also happens to highlight an economic problem with
> the nanofactory approach: just as ink-jet cartridges are a large profit
> center for printer manufacturers, any use of preprocessed raw material
> for nanofactories creates a supply choke-hold on users. The economic
> miracle that would occur from the use of self-replicating devices that
> are free from any form of central control (e.g. able to use unprocessed
> raw material from their local environment) is cruelly denied.
> In my humble opinion, nanotechnology's greatest benefits are in
> improvements in medicine, the alleviation of poverty, and increase in
> individual freedoms (due to possible decoupling from the global economy).
I am obligated to snort and chuckle. Resources are not infinitie,
even with molecular assembly. I see no decoupling from the global
economy in the near future, nor do I see it as desireable, unless one
uses the technology to leave the globe.
> I believe the primary motivation of promoting nanofactories over nanobots
> is to somehow mitigate the risks of nanotechnology. I consider such risk
> avoidance dangerously misguided since, if successful, it would hinder and
> delay the really meaningful benefits that only nanotechnology could
> provide.
And leave us flatfooted when the dangerous stuff does, inevitably,
come along.
Jim Logajan
>> In my humble opinion, nanotechnology's greatest benefits are in
>> improvements in medicine, the alleviation of poverty, and increase in
>> individual freedoms (due to possible decoupling from the global
>> economy).
>
> I am obligated to snort and chuckle.
Happy to have provided you a bit of mirth and merriment. ;-)
> Resources are not infinitie, even with molecular assembly.
Nanotechnology should make more resources accessible while at the same time
making the need for them, presumably, less.
> I see no decoupling from the global economy in the near future,
Well... I don't know how many pre-industrial tribes still exist, but I seem
to recall there were still quite a few extant not that many decades ago. I
believe they were effectively "decoupled" from the global economy. Except
for omni-present government presence, even today one can manage a modest
amount of decoupling, depending on the sacrifices one is willing to make.
That said, I don't see any mass outbreak of neo-rugged individualists armed
with nanobots making a break from the global industrial economy anytime
soon either.
> nor do I see it as desireable, unless one uses the technology
> to leave the globe.
The capability to decouple from the global economy would seem to be an
essential requirement for any sustained expansion into space, but I'm not
sure why you think any reduction of interaction with the global economy is
undesirable for those who remain on Earth. Obviously some aspects cannot be
decoupled (e.g. usage of real-estate) but certainly much economic
interaction can be reduced. Are you, perhaps, concerned about the onset of
a "tragedy of the commons" more severe than that which exists now?
sam kayley
"John S. Novak, III" <j...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:112k1de...@news.supernews.com...
....
> I am obligated to snort and chuckle. Resources are not infinitie,
> even with molecular assembly. I see no decoupling from the global
> economy in the near future, nor do I see it as desireable, unless one
> uses the technology to leave the globe.
....
Wherever the resources for self-sufficient farming are available, the
resources for self-sustaining nanotech that doesn't need a gardener, tools
that can't be made onsite, nitrogen salts, or much water are also available,
the only ongoing inputs from the global 'economy' being new information
where upgrades are desired.
Chris Phoenix
John S. Novak, III wrote:
> In article <d08gd...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Mike Treder, CRN wrote:
>
> Um. One hates to come off sounding rude or snarky, but... is this the
> whole document?
Yes, it's the whole document.
You do come off sounding rude and snarky. Let's see if I can answer
without sounding defensive.
> I will accept the assertion that most people do not, in fact, know the
> difference between those terms. However, a footnote to the studies
> referenced would make this rather more persuasive.
I was thinking of two general nanotech studies, one in the US and one in
Britain, showing that many people still have never heard of nanotech,
and many of those who have can't give any kind of definition. I don't
have the references handy, but they've been in the news.
> More importantly than either of those two criticisms, is the final
> assertion-- that this confusion somehow might hinder research. There's
> a clever shift of the pen there from (explicitly) "most people" to
> (implicitly) people doing actual research. I'm pretty sure that the
> researchers and the layer or two of pocketbook holders are a little
> more clued in on those terms than the average everyman on the street.
> Very few people write seven or eight digit checks on a whim.
I was not saying that researchers might be confused, but that popular
confusiong might do political damage that could hurt research.
I'm not so sure that funders aren't confused. Some of them don't know
what molecular manufacturing is about--they just know that they're
opposed to Drexler.
In any case, there was no shift of the pen.
> .... So would a good scientific survey of just
> exactly what "advanced nanotechnology research" actually is.
>
> Instead, what we get is a footnote with boilerplate about
> nanotechnology and millionths of meters, without any support for the
> claims being made. What this does, in effect, is presumptively-- even
> presumptuously-- define everyone working on something other than this
> paper's preferred course of research to be something other than the
> actual goal of advanced nano.
Well, from one point of view, everyone doing scientific research into
nanotech is doing "advanced" work. That's not how I meant it. I think
a reasonable definition for advanced nanotech (in the absence of any
formal definition for a non-technical phrase) is the ability to build
precise molecular structures incorporating terabytes of blueprints. I
don't see any way to do that other than molecular manufacturing. This
is going out on a limb a bit, so feel free to suggest technical
alternatives.
>>Studies have shown that most readers don't know the difference between
>>molecular manufacturing, nanoscale technology, and nanobots. Most
>>nanoscale technologies use big machines to make small products.
>>Molecular manufacturing is about tiny manufacturing systems. But those
>>manufacturing systems are not nanobots.[3] Modern plans for molecular
>>manufacturing do not involve self-contained nanoscale construction
>>robots at all.
>
> Again, cite the studies. If there's anything that gets up my nose,
> it's unsubstantiated claims which are repeated like sledgehammer
> blows. What studies? Cite them. How were they conducted? Who
> conducted them? You are dedicating an entire essay to the refutation
> of these claims-- the reader deserves the opportunity to see them.
Sorry it got up your nose. In the original version, the formatting made
it clear that the first paragraph was a summary of the rest of the
document, so the claim was not repeated, just restated.
It was not written as an academic paper, and I tried to avoid dull
phrasing; if you were expecting academic work with footnotes, then you
may have seen the style as "sledgehammer blows." Sorry.
> Also, be very, very careful about absolute claims. Your footnote here
> is useful, in that it prevented me from bringing up the numerous
> possible uses for nanobots (e.g., medical, which you note;
> micromaintenance; sensing and monitoring; and other infrastructure
> uses.) But is also contained the absolute statement that *no*
> credible researchers are planning nanobots where are either
> metabolising or self-reproducing.
>
> And yet, I am presently reading a book chapter (found online at:
> http://www.bionano.neu.edu/Nanorobotics.pdf ) which very clearly
> outlines their desire to develop nanobots capable of self-replication
> when required.
This chapter certainly includes uncautious language. I'm surprised it
didn't get up your nose as well: "This programming capability would form
the core essence of a bionano robotics system and hence enables them
with immense power." (p. 23) And their illustration 15A (p. 22) is only
an artist's conception--the protein helices are smaller than atoms, and
it includes a propeller for motility--but it's described as though it
were an actual proposal.
> They also specifically express the desire to develop a
> toolkit of standard parts including rhodopsin, bacteriorhodopsin, and
> artificial structures derived from those, to act as solar collectors
> for on-site power gathering. If this is not metabolism as you
> conceive it, I'm not sure what does. So I ask, does solar collection
> match your definition of metabolism?
Toolkits are good. I liked what they said about developing toolkits in
the first part of the chapter.
No, solar collection does not fit what I mean by metabolism. Metabolism
requires at least the ability to arrange (e.g. break down) disordered
chemicals into a more useful state. Solar collection is energy supply.
An electric motor does not metabolize.
> I must also ask if the authors (Ummat, Dubey, Sharma, and Mavroidis)
> are to be considered credible researchers, or not.
I don't know the researchers, though I recognize Mavroidis's name. But
the quality of the chapter is inconsistent. Parts are, frankly,
semi-literate. "This is a traditional method, which has been in use
since quite sometime for designing bio molecules." This may be a
second-language problem, but it should have been edited. I also note
that the first reference gets Drexler's name in the wrong order.
Other parts of the chapter are over-ambitious and under-supported.
Without knowing who wrote which part (and suspecting that some parts may
have been written/compiled by anonymous grad students) I would hesitate
to task the listed authors with the wilder projections.
But perhaps you're right--it appears possible that these researchers are
actually proposing free-floating self-contained self-actuated
self-controlled molecular manufacturing systems. It's certainly
possible to get that idea from reading the less technical parts of the
chapter. I wouldn't have expected this. Maybe I'll write Mavroidis and
see whether he intended to give that impression.
It's great to see ideas of engineered molecular robotic systems get
published. But I wish they had not been published in a chapter that
listed evolution as a desirable property of nanosystems, with no support
or clarification.
Note that in Figure 18, the machines are fastened down. That doesn't
fit the popular conception of nanobots.
The long-term projections and descriptive rhetoric in this chapter do
appear to contradict what I wrote. The actual technology and plans
appear far more sedate. In the end, I'm left unsure whether they're
planning externally controlled, fastened-down, engineered machines and
only mentioning the other stuff to be futuristic, or whether they
actually think evolution and autonomy are desirable research goals.
> There is a similar paper by a subset of those authors (found online here:
> http://www.bionano.neu.edu/Bionanorobotics_Chapter%207_upload.pdf )
> which I will admit I have not read (it's on my list after a paper on
> artificial bacterial foraging strategies, and an application of same
> to electrical design) which dedicates several pages to the topic of
> self-replicating nanobots, with a call for more research on the topic
> and a mention of ongoing research in the area.
The paper has a lot of overlap with the previously cited one. (The
English is better.) I note that their approach to self-replication
appears to be limited to a self-templating self-assembly paradigm: "To
create any system with self replicating mechanism we need to first find
out its most stable state, then we need to calculate its behavior in the
extrinsic gradients and then we need to excite it with energy and supply
of intrinsic materials so that it replicates."
Everyone, please copy me by email on any reply you want me to see; I
don't usually have time to follow sci.nanotech discussions.
Chris
--
Chris Phoenix cpho...@CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology http://CRNano.org
Dwayne
People fear what they do not understand.
Dwayne
Glenn Martin
"Dwayne" <ddc...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:112t6l4...@news.supernews.com...
>
> People fear what they do not understand.
>
> Dwayne
>
So I understand, and it frightens me!
Glenn Martin
Eivind Kjorstad
Mike Treder, CRN wrote:
> SUMMARY: The popular idea of so-called nanobots, powerful and at risk
> of running wild, is not part of modern plans for building things
> "atom-by-atom" by molecular manufacturing.
Unfortunately this summary also summarises what is wrong with this
document. There's this story where two people discuss and it goes like
this:
Person A: No real 68-er eats fish-fingers.
Person B: But, person so-and-so *DOES* eat fish-fingers.
Person A: Yes, but no *REAL* 68-er eats fish-fingers.
Your blanket statement that nanobots are not part of modern plans for
building things atom-by-atom is similar. There are indeed plans for
building things atom-by-atom with the help of nanobots, but you would
presumably anser: Yes, but no *MODERN* plans include nanobots.
> Studies indicate that most people don't know the difference between
> molecular manufacturing, nanoscale technology, and nanobots.
And here is the second problem;
*WHICH* studies ? No, that doesn't need to be in the introduction, but
it should be SOMEWHERE. You make a lot of rather strong claims in this
document, and say that several of them are supported by studies. But
not a single time do you reference any of those studies.
> Nanobots have plagued nanotechnology from the beginning. Eric
> Drexler's "Engines of Creation" (1986), which introduced
> nanotechnology to the public, described certain kinds of tiny robots
> with limited capability. But in some fiction and fanciful speculation,
> these "nanorobots" or "nanobots" possess near-magical powers:
> transforming any object into anything else, acting as a universal
> medical device, or destroying anything they touch. This idea has
> caused confusion about the actual goals of advanced nanotechnology[1]
> research.
This I agree with. It's even quite understandable. A cursory reading of
Engines of Creation *does* indeed give you the impression the things
are nearly magical. You need to spend quite a bit of time before you
start discovering that there *are* limits, and what those limits are.
Not all of the devices described by Drexler are all that limited by the
way. He includes the general assembler. A general assembler as
described by drexler certainly could not in any way turn into grey goo,
but it's also not exactly a device with "limited capability".
> Studies have shown that most readers don't know the difference between
> molecular manufacturing, nanoscale technology, and nanobots.
Again: Which studies ?
By the way, this is likely true for *any* modern technology.
> Molecular manufacturing is about tiny manufacturing systems. But those
> manufacturing systems are not nanobots.
More unsubstantiated claims. Why not ? For that matter, since you're
obviously trying to clear up misunderstandings, how come that nowhere
in the paper do you explain what exactly, in your opinion, a nanobot
is. You give examples of things that in your opninion are *not*
nanobots, but you fail to say why, and you fail to say what a nanobot
is. This doesn't clear up anything at all.
> No one worries about an inkjet printer crawling off the desk and
> stealing ink cartridges.
An inkjet printer is also not capable of producing a new inkjet-printer.
> Molecular manufacturing systems will be no more autonomous than
> inkjets.
More claims. Still no attempt to substantiate.
Eivind Kjrstad
John S. Novak, III
In article <112rt9c...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Phoenix wrote:
>> Um. One hates to come off sounding rude or snarky, but... is this the
>> whole document?
> Yes, it's the whole document.
> You do come off sounding rude and snarky. Let's see if I can answer
> without sounding defensive.
rather than the actual article under consideration, I had no wish to
make the same mistake. I had to ask.
>> I will accept the assertion that most people do not, in fact, know the
>> difference between those terms. However, a footnote to the studies
>> referenced would make this rather more persuasive.
> I was thinking of two general nanotech studies, one in the US and one in
> Britain, showing that many people still have never heard of nanotech,
> and many of those who have can't give any kind of definition. I don't
> have the references handy, but they've been in the news.
That's, uh, not what I would consider a sufficient or a reasurring
answer. A footnote is a pretty simple thing to add.
>> More importantly than either of those two criticisms, is the final
>> assertion-- that this confusion somehow might hinder research. There's
>> a clever shift of the pen there from (explicitly) "most people" to
>> (implicitly) people doing actual research. I'm pretty sure that the
>> researchers and the layer or two of pocketbook holders are a little
>> more clued in on those terms than the average everyman on the street.
>> Very few people write seven or eight digit checks on a whim.
> I was not saying that researchers might be confused, but that popular
> confusiong might do political damage that could hurt research.
I'm curious as to the mechanism you see for this damage.
> I'm not so sure that funders aren't confused. Some of them don't know
> what molecular manufacturing is about--they just know that they're
> opposed to Drexler.
I think most funders are smart enough to consult with experts (if they
don't keep them on staff as a matter of course) before writing very
large checks. Most big dollar funders are not fools.
Who is your intended audience for this piece?
>> Instead, what we get is a footnote with boilerplate about
>> nanotechnology and millionths of meters, without any support for the
>> claims being made. What this does, in effect, is presumptively-- even
>> presumptuously-- define everyone working on something other than this
>> paper's preferred course of research to be something other than the
>> actual goal of advanced nano.
> Well, from one point of view, everyone doing scientific research into
> nanotech is doing "advanced" work.
That's sort of my point.
> That's not how I meant it. I think
> a reasonable definition for advanced nanotech (in the absence of any
> formal definition for a non-technical phrase) is the ability to build
> precise molecular structures incorporating terabytes of blueprints. I
> don't see any way to do that other than molecular manufacturing. This
> is going out on a limb a bit, so feel free to suggest technical
> alternatives.
This is still a "No True Scotsman" type of argument.
You could counter this with an argument from authority, but since this
entire discussion (and I don't mean this Usenet thread, I mean this
larger discussion in the field) turns on which authority you happen to
believe, that course is not available to you.
The hard truth here is that there are multiple authorities, and they
disagree with each other. The No True Scotsman approach, where you
assert that only your definition of nanotechnology is advanced, is
a classic fallacy. Even if I agreed with you, I would be morally
obliged to point this fallacy out, and penalize you fifteen yards for
unfair rhetoric.
My definition is not at issue. Yours-- and your support for it-- is.
>> Again, cite the studies. If there's anything that gets up my nose,
>> it's unsubstantiated claims which are repeated like sledgehammer
>> blows. What studies? Cite them. How were they conducted? Who
>> conducted them? You are dedicating an entire essay to the refutation
>> of these claims-- the reader deserves the opportunity to see them.
> It was not written as an academic paper, and I tried to avoid dull
> phrasing; if you were expecting academic work with footnotes, then you
> may have seen the style as "sledgehammer blows." Sorry.
But you did give me a work with footnotes.
You just didnt' give me a work with useful footnotes.
>> And yet, I am presently reading a book chapter (found online at:
>> http://www.bionano.neu.edu/Nanorobotics.pdf ) which very clearly
>> outlines their desire to develop nanobots capable of self-replication
>> when required.
> This chapter certainly includes uncautious language. I'm surprised it
> didn't get up your nose as well: "This programming capability would form
> the core essence of a bionano robotics system and hence enables them
> with immense power." (p. 23) And their illustration 15A (p. 22) is only
> an artist's conception--the protein helices are smaller than atoms, and
> it includes a propeller for motility--but it's described as though it
> were an actual proposal.
But I'm not critiquing that chapter, right now. I'm critiquing your
article. There's really only one fundamental question to be answered,
which got posed later on.
>> They also specifically express the desire to develop a
>> toolkit of standard parts including rhodopsin, bacteriorhodopsin, and
>> artificial structures derived from those, to act as solar collectors
>> for on-site power gathering. If this is not metabolism as you
>> conceive it, I'm not sure what does. So I ask, does solar collection
>> match your definition of metabolism?
>
> Toolkits are good. I liked what they said about developing toolkits in
> the first part of the chapter.
>
> No, solar collection does not fit what I mean by metabolism. Metabolism
> requires at least the ability to arrange (e.g. break down) disordered
> chemicals into a more useful state. Solar collection is energy supply.
> An electric motor does not metabolize.
I could argue those semantics, but I don't need to; the ADP/ATP cycle
is very much a part of their scheme, and seems to fit your definition
as well.
>> I must also ask if the authors (Ummat, Dubey, Sharma, and Mavroidis)
>> are to be considered credible researchers, or not.
And here's the fundamental question.
> I don't know the researchers, though I recognize Mavroidis's name. But
> the quality of the chapter is inconsistent. Parts are, frankly,
> semi-literate. "This is a traditional method, which has been in use
> since quite sometime for designing bio molecules." This may be a
> second-language problem, but it should have been edited.
I'm pretty sure that was a draft, but, reading a number of IEEE
journals as part of my monthly diet has left me all but immune to the
butchery of my native language.
Yes, even IEEE articles should be editted for grammar. Sadly, they
aren't, and I am not in a position to reform the entire field. (I
will, however, copy edit any technical paper anyone sends me for a
nominal fee. I won't even ask for credit. And I'll spend more time
worrying about it than I do for a typical Usenet post.)
> I also note
> that the first reference gets Drexler's name in the wrong order.
A footnote quibble?
Gutsy move.
> Other parts of the chapter are over-ambitious and under-supported.
> Without knowing who wrote which part (and suspecting that some parts may
> have been written/compiled by anonymous grad students) I would hesitate
> to task the listed authors with the wilder projections.
>
> But perhaps you're right--it appears possible that these researchers are
> actually proposing free-floating self-contained self-actuated
> self-controlled molecular manufacturing systems. It's certainly
> possible to get that idea from reading the less technical parts of the
> chapter. I wouldn't have expected this. Maybe I'll write Mavroidis and
> see whether he intended to give that impression.
>
> It's great to see ideas of engineered molecular robotic systems get
> published. But I wish they had not been published in a chapter that
> listed evolution as a desirable property of nanosystems, with no support
> or clarification.
Yes, well. To be perfectly blunt about this, I could shorten some of
my objections to your piece thus: "I wish you had not published a
paper asserting public ignorance and defining contentious terms, with
no support or clarification." (Well, you do footnote some other CRN
papers, but that's just setting up CRN as the authority on the term,
which I simply do not accept. I will not, in fact, accept any
authority on these terms until someone by God builds something and
becomes a real authority. I'm hardheaded that way. Those CRN papers
don't even have authors listed on their primary pages.)
So here we are, then.
> Note that in Figure 18, the machines are fastened down. That doesn't
> fit the popular conception of nanobots.
That is a diagram showing a nanobot assembly floor, e.g., a floor that
is assembling nanobots. The figure does not imply that they remain on
that floor while operating.
> The long-term projections and descriptive rhetoric in this chapter do
> appear to contradict what I wrote. The actual technology and plans
> appear far more sedate. In the end, I'm left unsure whether they're
> planning externally controlled, fastened-down, engineered machines and
> only mentioning the other stuff to be futuristic, or whether they
> actually think evolution and autonomy are desirable research goals.
>
>> There is a similar paper by a subset of those authors (found online here:
>> http://www.bionano.neu.edu/Bionanorobotics_Chapter%207_upload.pdf )
>> which I will admit I have not read (it's on my list after a paper on
>> artificial bacterial foraging strategies, and an application of same
>> to electrical design) which dedicates several pages to the topic of
>> self-replicating nanobots, with a call for more research on the topic
>> and a mention of ongoing research in the area.
>
> The paper has a lot of overlap with the previously cited one. (The
> English is better.) I note that their approach to self-replication
> appears to be limited to a self-templating self-assembly paradigm: "To
> create any system with self replicating mechanism we need to first find
> out its most stable state, then we need to calculate its behavior in the
> extrinsic gradients and then we need to excite it with energy and supply
> of intrinsic materials so that it replicates."
> Everyone, please copy me by email on any reply you want me to see; I
> don't usually have time to follow sci.nanotech discussions.
Gosh.