An important anniversary went(mostly) unremarked this last December. It was on December 29, 1959, that the late Dr. Richard Feynman delivered an after-dinner talk to the American Physical Society's annual meeting in Pasadena, California. Feynman had not yet attained national prominence as a member of the Challenger Commission or as a Nobel Prize winner; but, he was respected by his colleagues as an important voice in American physics. That talk: "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom" and its consequences were the topic of an
article by Adam Keiper in the Wall Street Journal, and a reply by Dr. Eric Drexler
on his blog: Metamodern.com.
Quoting from the WSJ article:
Feynman said that he really wanted to discuss "the problem of manipulating and controlling things on a small scale." By this he meant not mere miniaturization but something much more extreme. "As far as I can see," Feynman said, the principles of physics "do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom." In fact, he argued, it is "a development which I think cannot be avoided." The physicist spoke of storing all the information in all the world's books on "the barest piece of dust that can be made out by the human eye." He imagined shrinking computers and medical devices, and developing new techniques of manufacturing and mass production. In short, a half-century ago he anticipated what we now call nanotechnology—the manipulation of matter at the level of billionths of a meter.
Some historians depict the speech as the start of this now-burgeoning field of research. Yet Feynman didn't use the word "nanotechnology" himself, and his lecture went for years almost entirely unmentioned in the scientific literature. Not until the 1980s did nanotechnology researchers begin regularly citing Feynman's lecture. So why, then, does one encyclopedia call it "the impetus for nanotechnology"? Why would one of Feynman's biographers claim that nanotechnology researchers think of Feynman "as their spiritual father"?
Keiper remarked on the way that nanotechnology has been 'redefined' in recent years:
Much of the work that now goes under the rubric of nanotechnology is essentially a specialized form of materials science. In the years ahead, it is expected to result in new medical treatments and diagnostic tools, ultraefficient water-filtration systems, strong and lightweight materials for military armor, and breakthroughs in energy, computing and medicine. Meanwhile, hundreds of consumer products using (or at least claiming to use) nanomaterials or nanoparticles went on the market in the past decade, including paints and cosmetics, stain-resistant garments, and bacteria-battling washing machines and food containers.
<snip>
But there is another kind of nanotechnology, one associated with much more hype. First described in the 1980s by K. Eric Drexler, this vision involves building things "from the bottom up" through molecular manufacturing. It was Mr. Drexler who first brought the term "nanotechnology" to a wide audience, most prominently with his 1986 book "Engines of Creation." And it is Mr. Drexler's interpretation that has captured the public imagination, as witness the novels, movies and video games that name-drop nanotechnology with the same casual hopefulness that the comic books of the 1960s mentioned the mysteries of radiation.
Dr. Drexler remarked that the article is "uncommonly accurate;" but, he expressed a desire for "more meat and spices in the soup:"
- More about the scientific basis for the concept of molecular manufacturing (in scientific publications, doctoral work), to balance the talk about implausible prospective wonders,
- Mention of the enormous progress on the research agenda that I’ve advocated from 1981 forward (new fields of science, tens of thousands of papers), to correct the mistaken impression that no Federal R&D funding has gone toward “the kind of nanotechnology that Drexler proposed”,
- In connection with the science-funding politics that Mr. Keiper describes, it would be pertinent to mention the post-2000 redefinition of what “nanotechnology” is, and the reversal of position regarding what it can do; this is on the record in public statements* and official documents.
Dr. Drexler complimented Adam Keiper for his service in pointing out that
National Research Council had called for more Federal research support for the type of nanotechnology that
Eric Drexler has been talking and writing about since 1977.
There's a
good definition of molecular nanotechnology at the
Center for Responsible Nanotechology site.
I'd like to add that I've been following discussion of molecular nanotechnology (
MNT) since I hearing Eric Drexler speak at a conference in 1986. There has been considerable progress since then. A lot people have put their faith in the potentials of a mature, molecular nanotechnology to change the world for the better; these are the "futurists" that Adam Keiper refers to in the WSJ article.
My own feelings are a mixture of hope - and dread! MNT has a great potential to address problems such as climate change, peak oil, water shortages and resource depletion. Much of its promise lies in the fact that its so much more efficient in its use of energy and materials than conventional manufacturing. Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology have pointed out that MNT could reduce the gap between the world's rich and poor or
increase it. It could also result in a
dangerous arms race. This
article by Mike Treder also discusses the promises and threats of molecular nanotechnology.
That's the major reason that I want progressives to get involved in discussion of MNT and public policies on its use and implementation. Given our present trajectory toward a world 'plutonomy,' an economy run by and for the ultra-rich, it's more likely to increase that gap.
I might also point out that China and India have gotten the message about nanotechnology, and
they see it as The Next Big Wave of Outsourcing[/b>].
If you're seriously interested in the history of nanotechnology, check out Dr. Drexler's series on Metamodern:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
