Nanotechnology: Asking the Small Questions
Stephen Catchpole

Molecular nanotechnology refers to studies in the design and construction of objects on a molecular scale. Though in its infancy, nanotechnology is already being applied to produce a range of new materials – from atomic-size solar cells¹ and electrical circuits, to potential surface coatings for use in clothing, paints and even future space habitation!²

Soon scientists might be able to construct useful devices from individual molecules, with a size in the order of tens of microns. Compare that to a human hair, around one hundred microns in diameter! Much research effort is being directed in this area, with one lofty goal being the production of miniature self-replicating robots, dubbed ‘nanites’.

As with any technological breakthrough, the potential environmental impact of nanites needs to be addressed before they are introduced. Concerns have also been raised over what constitutes ethical use of nanites, given that military and law enforcement authorities have started to show interest. Already influential thinkers and senior figures in the technology age have weighed in for the debate over nanites, each with some compelling arguments. Soon lines will be drawn in the sand – separating those who see them as a harbinger of doom and those who believe they will bring a new dawn for humanity.
Those who fear an apocalyptic event are actually led by influential thinkers and technologists, hardly the ‘Luddites’ commonly associated with criticism of science. Perhaps one of the most outspoken advocates of technological caution is Bill Joy, former Chief Scientist at Sun Microsystems. His article in Wired Magazine called “Why the Future Doesn't Need Us” mounts a strong case for prudence: “A bomb is blown up only once - but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of control”.³ While in this case he is talking about using nanotechnology to create weapons, he also emphasises the risk of a ‘grey goo’ event – where due to a flaw in its design or programming, a nanite reproduces itself until there are no raw materials left, covering the earth with its ‘offspring’. The result might not necessarily be grey or gooey – but it could lead to mass extinction on Earth.

Michael Crichton, a science-fiction author with a reputation for sticking to issues near the cusp of development, has written a novel called Prey, in which this grey goo phenomenon becomes a real risk. In the pursuit of military technology and profit, scientists create self-replicating nanites that escape the lab and begin to decimate local wildlife. They spread exponentially like bacteria but are eventually contained. Prey may be intended as a cautionary tale; in fact, Crichton even includes this warning in an introductory chapter called “Artificial Evolution in the Twenty-first Century''.

Though the focus of debate may be on military applications, nanites will undoubtedly bring numerous other benefits to society – allowing us to achieve things previously impossible. The group who see only bright lights on the horizon contain individuals no less prominent. Ray Kurzweil, who created the first reading machine for the blind, has come to be one of the strongest advocates of the Libertarian ideal in technology. In fact, Joy's initial article was in response to Kurzweil's book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, in which Kurzweil envisioned a utopia brought about by technology. In this future, nanotechnology would allow us to extend our life spans, as nanites roamed through our bodies to cure disease.

Freeman Dyson, a respected physicist and writer who was asked to debate opposite Joy at the World Economic Forum in 2001, compares banning nanotechnology to the efforts to ban the free press in England in the seventeenth century. He takes the poet John Milton's argument for books, that we “have a vigilant eye how [they] demean themselves as well as men; and thereafter to confine, imprison, and do sharpest justice on them as malefactors”. Dyson feels that scientists can be self-regulated and, only if they prove themselves to be untrustworthy, should they be limited.⁴ To limit scientists now may possibly delay or deny us all the future benefits of nanotechnology.

Many science fiction authors see the evolution of nanotechnology materials to be necessary for the evolution of humanity beyond its earthly bounds. In his sequels to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Arthur C. Clarke proposed a space elevator that would require materials that are orders of magnitude stronger than steel as the cable. NASA scientists believe they may have found this material in carbon nanotubes, if they can successfully scale up production. Using such a space elevator we could finally cut the cost of getting into space to a level where human exploration of the solar system would become affordable.⁵

In all likelihood the way forward lies in the middle ground. The social risks inherent in nanotechnology can be reduced if policy makers act responsibly. The Foresight Institute, one of the sponsors of a recent conference on nanotechnology, has published a set of guidelines on molecular technology.⁶ These guidelines would require any self-replicating device to be prevented from replicating through technological means beyond the limits imposed upon it by its human creators. Nanites would require specific 'vitamin' chemicals to reproduce, so that if somehow they did not obey a command to stop reproducing they would soon run out of raw materials. Code used to reproduce nanites would be encrypted so that any random 'mutation' like those that cause cancer in human cells would instead cause the robot to stop working. The guidelines also recommend that governments legislate against those who fail to follow these guidelines.

In any event, despite some advances, such as a robot arm now being capable of producing a copy of itself out of spare parts^,7 self-replication of the sort feared by Joy and others is still years, or even decades from being possible. Technology to manipulate matter at the molecular level with any degree of precision is still in the realm of science fiction. However, as the Pacific Research Institute suggests, ‘vehement’ debate is inevitable when this technology comes closer.⁸ Given a fair chance, nanotechnology will change the world. The question we must now ask is: “should we let it?”

Stephen Catchpole is a Mechatronic Engineering Student at the University of New South Wales, specialising in intelligent mobile robotics.

References

1. Peyton, C. March 29, 2002, 'Researchers move closer to plastic, cheaper solar power cells', The Sacramento Bee, [online at] http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/1987845p-2201460c.html

2. Britt, R. April 23, 2001, Smart Coating Developed to Build Future Martian Homes, [online] http://space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/nano_mars_010423.html [20/10/03]

3. Joy, B, April 2000, 'Why the future doesn't need us', [online], Wired 8.02, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html?pg=1 [20/10/03]

4. Freeman J. Dyson, February 13, 2003, 'The future needs us', New York Review of Books, [online at] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16053

5. Macey, R, September 20, 2003, 'Tie me to the moon', Sydney Morning Herald, [online at] http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/19/1063625214015.html

6. Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Technology, June 4, 2000, [online]
http://www.foresight.org/guidelines/current.html [20/10/03]

7. Exponential Assembly, Zyvex Corporation, 2003, [online] http://www.zyvex.com/Research/exponential.html [20/10/03]

8. Reynolds, G, November 2002, 'Forward to the future: Nanotechnology and regulatory policy', Pacific Research Institute Briefing, [online at] http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/techno/forward_to_nanotech.pdf

CRICOS Provider Code: 00098G