Building a broader nano-network.

• Author: Kerr, Ian

1. Introduction

   Although there is a broadening social interest in the development of a powerful and general nanotechnology, the public discourse to date has largely avoided a comprehensive examination of its social dimensions, focussing instead on what is and is not scientifically possible. In this regard, much attention has been paid to the feasibility of Richard Feynman's famous 1959 vision, i.e., whether it is possible to manufacture complex molecules atom-by-atom. (1) Whether Feynman's hunch is correct--that "it would be, in principle, possible for a physicist to synthesize any chemical substance that a chemist writes down"--has been fiercely debated in the scientific literature and the popular press.

   The most famous version of this debate, the recent point/counterpoint exchange between Richard Smalley and Eric Drexler, (2) illustrates a deep division within the nanotechnology community. Consider the following snippets:

   Smailey: "The central problem I see with the nanobot self-assembler then is primarily chemistry. If the nanobot is restricted to be a water-based life-form, since this is the only way its molecular assembly tools will work, then there is a long list of vulnerabilities and limitations to what it can do. If it is a non-water-based life-form, then there is a vast area of chemistry that has eluded us for centuries ... Please tell us about this new chemistry." (3)

   Drexler: "[T]o visualize how a nanofactory system works, it helps to consider a conventional factory system. The technical questions you raise reach beyond chemistry to systems engineering." (4)

   Smalley: "I see you have now walked out of the room where I had led you to talk about real chemistry, and you are now back in your mechanical world. I am sorry we have ended up like this. For a moment I thought we were making progress.

   But, no, you don't get it. You are still in a pretend world where atoms go where you want because your computer program directs them to go there." (5)

   Drexler: "Some chemists with careers tied to the old paradigm (based on random molecular motion in liquids) seem confused and threatened by this different and more powerful approach. ... Members of the old guard instead have assured one another that MNT is 'an impossible, childish fantasy'--in short, that there is nothing to learn. Having failed to master the basic principles of MNT, they see its revolutionary promise and dangers as false, and try urgently to dismiss it." (6)

   Smalley: "You and people around you have scared our children. I don't expect you to stop, but I hope others in the chemical community will join with me in turning on the light, and showing our children that, while our future in the real world will be challenging and there are real risks, there will be no such monster as the self-replicating mechanical nanobot of your dreams." (7)

   The above compilation of soundbytes from the public exchanges between Smalley and Drexler over the past few years is not meant to provide full coverage, nor even a summary of their scientific positions. Quite to the contrary, these remarks were very purposefully selected to demonstrate that there are other things at play besides the testing of hypotheses--that this is not mere scientific discourse.

   While this debate has been extremely influential within scientific circles, it is suggested that such discussion is not particularly useful in the broader policy arena. In our view, despite their good intentions, this is not the best way for prominent scientists to assist in the development of appropriate regulatory structures for nanotechnology. This type of rhetorical exchange is not the best enabler of sound policy and planning.

   Although the development of sound social policy about a given technology must certainly commence with considerations about what is presently foreseeable, in this brief article we suggest that it is also important to contemplate possibilities that are not necessarily congruent with today's forecasts. We further suggest that scientific forecasting is itself an insufficient social safeguard against a technology said to have the potential to revolutionize our ability to control and manipulate matter. As an alternative, we propose, policy makers ought to embrace a foresight model that aims to develop a broader network of social participants in their deliberations about the future regulation of nanotechnology.

2. Mend the Gap

   Policy-making is inherently a challenging task--a task made more difficult when faced with future uncertainties. In the face of rapid change, it is not good enough to simply debate about what we think is and is not scientifically possible today. Nor is it sufficient to state that "[t]here is no scientific evidence to support the notion that nanoparticles and nanotubes--the main components of many nanotech-based products--pose risks on human health and the environment." (8) While such statements, if true, are an important claim in advancing the argument that the perceived risks of nanotechnology are likely to be overestimated and overrated by mass media and the like, the policy debate does not and ought not to end with the conclusions of our science de jour.

   Rather, we must learn how to co-ordinate science and technology policy so that we can plan for alternative futures. This will involve broadening the debate...