Nanotechnology, US Government, and Secrecy

Glenn Reynolds has written an interesting, albiet a bit speculative, in regards to the role of the US Government in the possible quieting of nanotechnology research. As Gleen points out, there's some good pre-existing guidelines to research as well, from the Foresight Institute.

Did I miss something?

[BennyTheBall]

Where exactly does he mention what are the indications that the govt is trying to take controll over nanotechnology? Sorry if im being naive or missing the obvious..

research squelched?

[brarrr]

As an student who will be entering grad school in materials engineering this fall with the intention of doing research in nanotech type things (opto electronics and molecular electronics) this is mostly horseshit. (also doing research on constructing photonic band gap materials currently)

The state of nanotech (a word that is surely to become a buzzword more overused any before) is such that no useful devices will come from current research for years. Compare it to the creation of the mechanical computer. The ideas are there certainly, but the execution in a useful mannar are long off. We just cannot control the exact placement of single atoms well enough, and possibly never will due to thermal energy (kT being larger than the intermolecular forces)

Certainly there are and will be uses for nanotech in the near future, but none will be NEMS (nano electro mechanical systems) or other machinations or devices. Also it will be years before any 'intelligent' device could be created that could do more than just move from one place to another.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about all that is in the field (comp sci, materials, bio, chem, physics) of nanotech, but it really is in an infancy. The current threat of anything being used harmfully is as far away as anything being use for good. There will be some things that will be 'censored' but those will be the monumental jumps in logic and technology that make the science become engineering, and useful products.

Re:Nanotech != Good.

[DarenN]

I think it's sad that we all have to think this way. Nanotechnology, and specifically the branch of nanatechnology known as molecular manufacturing is the bright light on the horizon. It _could_ be used to for good. Making goods with no imperfections, from the molecular level for instance.

Think spacecraft that don't fail, all manufacturing producing 100% "perfection" rates, no failures. Goods that last for longer, and are more reliable.

And what about the workforce. Oh, wait a minute. Seeing as virtually everything will be made by nanomachines, that removes any form of slavery....

Unforunately, no-one in the current power structure wants these things. Goods that don't fail mean no replacement or servicing. Machines that can build houses quickly, and perfectly, kill the building industry. There goes a vast number of your workforce. And there's more!

Basically, the advent of nanotech and molecular manufacturing will mean a seismic shift in our social structures and way of life, and like all such things, will be viewed as threats (like the tecnology that exists now) by those at the top of the food chain, because they threaten the power balance. And it's a sad indictment that this is so.

I mean, can you see the 1st world bringing the rest of the world to a par with them? I can't, to be honest. From what I've seen and heard, there are too many vested interests, too many chiefs, and none of them want to listen to the indians. Otherwise, frankly, there wouldn't be nearly as much suffering in the world (remember that the world already produces enough food by volume to feed everyone on the planet, but economics, and I'm sure, politics prevents it)

Medical nanotechnology such as the nanites that could extend lifespan by repairing the minor damages that eventually knock us off is wayyy cool too, but again, FUD will hold us back. How many will say "They're out to get us" when the time comes? Lots I can think of :)

Anyway, I'll leave my rant here :) But I would encourage you all to think what a world where unskilled labour is virtually unecessary, and everything is high quality and low cost. Because that's what nanotech will ultimately mean

Misconception about nanobots

[2nd Post!]

Why do nanobots have to be metallic and reliant upon the whims of EM?

Virii and bacterium have been doing fine for millions of years without caring about magnetics except where it was an advantage.

Cheese and yogurt, as an example, are produced by the action of special natural nanobots that react and process milk into portable storable food products. Beer and wine, as well.

Nothing says nanobots have to be metallic at all.

They're hiding it in plain site! Sneaky bastards!

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is a bunch of crap. The government, oh yes, hiding their National Nanotech Initiative in plain site at http://www.nano.gov/ . Granted some of the 2003 700+ million US$ goes to DOD/etc, but a good chunk of it goes to NSF/NIH and other public, open, research driven funding organizations. Note the 300 US$ increase in funding from 2001-2003.

http://www.nano.gov/2003budget.html

Tinfoil hats are so 1985.

What the military wants out of MEMS...

[Anonymous Coward]

The military (DARPA, Special forces, NRL) recently hosted a conference entitled Scientists Helping America [sysplan.com] which I attendeded. You can read notes on what kind of applications to nanotech and MEMS the military is interested in this [sysplan.com] big PDF document.

It seems the DARPA guys read a lot of SciFi too.

Topic include:

• Signature Reduction
• High Bandwidth/Reachback Communications
• Underwater Communications
• Unmanned Systems
• Batteries/Fuel Cells
• Remote Sensing
• Advance Training Systems
• Bioengineering/ Chem-Bio Defense
• Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)

I'm posting anonymously because I am PI for two MEMS projects for the military.

Is Everyone on this thread a doofus luddite?

[slashnot007]

I work on nano technology, and at a secret government lab no less. So maybe I can say something intelligent. First, its pretty scary how misinformed the commentary here. what is nanotech? actually there is no such thing. its a marketing buzzword I put in my proposals to get them funded. One of the main funding sources for NANOtech is going to be the department of energy and the National Institutes fo health. nobody got upset when we all were talking about "microtechology" for the last 20 years. And that was an amorphous term too. And why anyone would think the governement would want to supress this is beyond me. With NIH and SBIR funding for this at record levels the answer is quite the reverse. The problem is that many of the nano-tech fronteirs are not ready for commercialization. thus Much of the funding is going to be governmental till certain breakthroughs happen. Certainly where it is looking viable, such as carbon nano-tube applications industry is jumping all over it. as for nanobot viruses. go buy yourself a slurpee and rent another startrek video gomer. good old biological viruses will do just fine for now and the forseable future. No one with any sense takes nanoviruses seriously. In fact its by studying cells and genomes and, most importantly, protein complexes that we will learn how to make self assembling molecular machines. and were no where along that path. Want to read up on this. see the DOE web page on the Genomes-to-life program. that's what that is all about. what science is on the verge of is using self assembling compounds to make hyper sesnistive transducers. like noses and such. Someday we will be able to clear landmines by sniffing them out. and even that is not practical yet.

Re:I dont see a problem here....

[Saige]

US definition of evil:

anything that impedes freedom. pretty straight foreward.

Like Ashcroft's campaign to take away the freedom for people to commit suicide in Oregon - that the voters approved, twice?

Like the fact that you don't have the freedom to marry whomever you wish?

Like the fact that in some states, you don't have the freedom to have sex with another adult of the same sex? (even if the laws aren't that enforced)

That in some areas of the country, women don't have the freedom to live in a house in large numbers? (sorority houses are banned in places such as Evansville, IN, because they're defined as a "brothel")

I can go on and on about how many ways the government willingly impedes freedom.

"Freedom" is a buzzword in America that isn't really taken seriously.