Nanotechnology: Are Molecular Assemblers Possible?

Roland Piquepaille writes "Two experts in the field of nanotechnology, K. Eric Drexler, Ph.D., cofounder of the Foresight Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., and the person who coined the term "nanotechnology," and Richard E. Smalley, Ph.D., a professor at Rice University and winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, exchanged open letters about "molecular assemblers" -- devices capable of positioning atoms and molecules for precisely defined reactions in almost any environment. These letters are making the -- long -- cover story of the current issue of Chemical & Engineering News. At the end of this rich exchange of four letters, they still disagree about the issue. Drexler thinks "molecular assemblers" are possible while Smalley denies it. Who is right? Don't count on me to give an answer. This summary contains some forceful quotes from the original letters."

Yum

[grub]

How long would it take one of these assemblers to make a cup of "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot"?

Re:Yum

[sznupi]

or "Bomb, Hydrogen, 20 megatons"

From the article:

[Steve 'Rim' Jobs]

In lectures and in a September 2001 article in Scientific American, Smalley outlined his scientific objections to the idea of molecular assemblers, specifically what he called the "fat fingers problem" and the "sticky fingers problem."

Aye, this is something that almost all /.ers have had to face at one point or another.

It's The Snack Food, Stupid!

[tds67]

Drexler thinks "molecular assemblers" are possible while Smalley denies it.

They are possible, and Twinkies(TM) provide the proof. They are manufactured with absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever, and this is only possible if vitamins and minerals are screened out at the molecular level.

Scaring children - classic quote from Smalley

[fruey]

Leading up to my visit, the students were asked to write an essay on "Why I Am a Nanogeek." Hundreds responded, and I had the privilege of reading the top 30 essays, picking my favorite five. Of the essays I read, nearly half assumed that self-replicating nanobots were possible, and most were deeply worried about what would happen in their future as these nanobots spread around the world. [...]

You and people around you have scared our children. (emphasis mine)

So there, Smalley wins, he got scared children into the debate. Only thing likely to win debates better are beautiful women's tears, knockout punches, and defaulting by just leaving the room in a huff.

Re:Yum

[Anonymous Coward]

Or "Catherine Zeta-Jones, naked, wet."

Re:Raises interesting questions

[mirko]

If everyone is driving a Ferrari I'd rather have something different.

Well, had you written "Rolls Royce" instead of "Ferrari", I'd have whinned something like : "if it's perfect, I don't care if it's not unique"... ;-)

Re:Raises interesting questions

[freeze128]

If you're going to copy your friend's Ferrari one atom at a time, you better start now....

Re:Raises interesting questions

[Anonymous Coward]

I make a copy of my friend including the DNA and put my brain in him, and then I drive the ferrari wheeeeeeee!!!!

Re:Yum

[AJWM]

The risk, of course, is ending up with something almost but not completely unlike tea.

Especially if your replicator is another fine product of Sirius Cybernetics.

Re:Raises interesting questions

[TheRaven64]

Make sure you run your downloaded design through some kind of malware detector, or you may find that you've just created a duplicate of the goatse guy...

My summary

[mec]

I read Engines of Creation, got all fired up, went back to undergraduate school for a second undergraduate degree in chemistry, and really loved quantum mechanics. But organic chemistry opened up a serious can of kick-butt on me!

So I can read the debate but damned if I can make an intelligent contribution to it. Maybe I can translate it down a little:

Drexler: Yo, machine-phase chemistry is the bomb. We can put atoms wherever we want and make anything we want!

Smalley: No you can't, dork. Atoms are not little balls and bonds are *really* not little sticks. You can't build molecules like tinkertoys.

Drexler: Enzymes do it in nature, therefore it's possible.

Smalley: Well, if you wanna make more better enzymes, great, but enzymes only work in water-based living cells and it's kinda hard to grow a cell phone from organic components.

Drexler: My machine-phase chemistry will be to living enzymes as a metal airplane is to a bird.

Smalley: Whatever. Go do your "machine-phase chemistry" and come back when you've actually built something. Hint: I think it's gonna take you 200 years.

I think Smalley is wrong when he says that it's by nature impossible. And I think Drexler is wrong when he says nature has already provided an existence proof. I think we should get started on those 200 years of work and see what we can do!