Nanotechnology--What it means for our time

[Arellia]

Well, I finished a paper on Nanotechnology in an english class, and what I learned was pretty interesting...thought I would share it, since the technology is mentioned so much in Trek. The stuff in parentheses like ("National") are citations for the type of essay I did, and can be ignored. It's in argument of funding for the technology, as well, which gives it a stranger edge than a full-on explanation. Otherwise, here you are...

The Future in Nano-Scale

Nanotechnology is an innovative trend occurring in science fields across the board. Small machines, one billionth of a meter in size, which can function on levels of accuracy that no tool from this century could hope to match. These tools have the capabilities to someday treat illnesses,
manipulate chemicals, and change how Humans deal with matter in general. In the words of Ralph Merkle, well-known member of the Foresight Institute of Nanotechnology, �We�ll be able to snap together the fundamental building blocks of nature easily, inexpensively and in almost any arrangement we desire� (�Nanotechnology�). These building blocks could be used for many essential purposes, but the most astounding effect could very possibly resonate in biology. Exploring the structures of a cell would no longer be done in such a disconnected way, with large, awkward tools�molecular biology could be explored on a much more reasonable level. Once understood, cells could be manipulated to function as we would like them to function. Through these means, the eradication of some of humanity�s most deadly diseases could become possible. To do this, cooperation is required from all science fields; from biology and chemistry to physics and computer science. The most immediate need, and perhaps the most overlooked, is funding. Yet in order to fund something so new to society, it must first be understood.

The idea of Nanotechnology is not especially new. Since Richard Feynman went public with his lecture in 1959 entitled �There is Plenty of Room at the Bottom,� the concept had been grasped. In his time, Feynman was truly a radical thinker. He proposed that the real challenge and reward would be the ability to manipulate matter on an atomic level. He imposed the Feynman Prize, an award that is given out annually to encourage newcomers to the field. Little was done in the field of nanotechnology until long after Feynman was dead. In the �80�s, nanotechnology took hold with the invention of super-sophisticated microscopes (National). It was then that scientists could examine the atomic playing field, and begin to get an idea of what could be done within it. What they found was that the proof was in nature. Nature has full control of the same kind of small tools that we would like to harness. According to Christine Peterson, author of �Molecular Nanotechnology,� very few arguments against the feasibility of nanotechnology itself are made today, and the only obstacle to overcome is the complexity of building these mini-machines. In essence, all that�s left to do is put theory into practice. It has the ability to become one of the most essential parts of science, if we only let it.

In medicine and biology, there are many procedures which are impossible to perform as of yet. Cells cannot be physically forced to perform actions that we wish them to. Chemistry has come a long way in this respect, yet the precision is lacking. Drugs that are intended for one issue can have effects on any number of bodily systems. Taking a prescription for something as minor as allergies can very well cause a heart attack, and at times one must wonder if the �good� things drugs do for people is really worth the harm they can cause. And still, Humans with all our drugs and grand procedures have not cured some of our worst diseases. Wars have raged on cancer and AIDS for years while people have been dying, and no matter what form of crude treatment doctors come up with, we still haven�t managed to obliterate the disease. While treatments like radiation, chemotherapy, and constant drug treatments are hit-or-miss at best, nanotechnology is almost certainly possible. The randomness of chemistry could be removed entirely, and with work, the side affects would be minimal. Biomolecular devices, of which nanobots are counted among, have been defined by Wlodzimierz Kozlowski, author of a number of noted papers on nanotechnology, as devices that are processed as biological entities, but are not biological in origin (�Possible�). Nanobots would then theoretically �blend in� to a Human body just as easily as a native cell. It all sounds a little too good to be true, but according to the many documents produced by Foresight in their mission to promote education on Nanotechnology, it�s not a dream; it�s reality. The theories are astounding to see on paper.

One of such theories is the cure of AIDS. AIDS is a deadly disease, caused by the HIV virus which as of now has no formidable enemy. Drugs only relieve suffering temporarily, but they most often become useless in the long-run. The HIV virus cripples the body�s defense systems, rendering powerless T-Cells and antibodies. However, in a presentation given at a Foresight conference by bioengineer Michael Singletary, he pressed that, �Through the prospects of nanotech, it is possible to evoke the response of another part of the body's immune system.� Traditionally, this would not be possible. In the realm of nanotechnology, it is more than feasible. To neutralize a string of the virus, a nanobot would only need to latch on to a string of the virus, and expose a certain type of protein that is usually kept hidden. Exposing this protein would awaken the body�s own blood �Complement��an immune response that could engulf and eliminate both the device and the virus at once. Work still needs to be done in conjunction with the medical and biology fields to find out what kind of protein would best provoke the blood complement, but the idea of it all is sound.

The second theory previously mentioned regards cancer. It has seemed to be a lofty goal for years to cure the disease. Its causes are mythical, and vague at best. It is the second largest killer in the U.S., after heart disease. Surely, few people could argue against the pursuit of viable treatment for this disease. Cytlmmune Sciences, an organization devoted to finding a cure for cancer, believes they may have a solution. Working in chorus with chemistry, they have come to believe that Nanotechnology could be used to physically move the anti-cancer protein known as �TNF� into the position to effectively fight the illness (Hiemstra). To date, TNF is difficult to deliver in proper doses through �normal� treatments. This could very well change with the development of the gold-derived 25-nanometer �particles� they would plan of using. They are continuing to work on this procedure, and would like to have it in a practically applicable form by 2007. Theories have floated around about the possible physical deconstruction of tumors, but the idea of using chemical agents is more widely accepted for the time being. Michigan Labs are also working on an alternative that takes a more diagnostic approach, aiming for a device that would target the cancer cells, then autonomously select and deliver a treatment depending on the situation. Of course, none of these theories are manifested in prototypes yet, as there are currently no devices disease-related or otherwise tested in Humans.

After forty years of acknowledging the existence of nanotechnology, the production is still in its infancy. The credit must be handed to the skeptics, who fear for the negative effects the technology might have, and the risks it might produce. Unfortunately, they are not unfounded. Nanotechnology is not without safety risks. Eric Drexler is thought to be one of the foremost scientists in the field, and even he will acknowledge this. His greatest concern when it comes to design specifications is the level of sophistication required, what he calls �Placement Errors.� In such a small device, the slightest miscalculation could end up disastrous; precision will be key. These types of concerns, though, are trivial in comparison to the moral implications. Humans have demonstrated that we can step up to the
challenge when it comes to designing tools, no matter how precise we must be. It is the danger of nanotechnology in the wrong hands.

Nanotechnology could be used just as easily for saving lives as it could for destroying them. This is obviously not a comforting thought. If restrictions are not put into place, it�s safe to say that the nuclear bomb will start to look humane. To stay ahead of the game in this world, though, sometimes it is necessary to develop greater weapons. For example, in Russia, there is said to be biotoxins that would have no cure should they ever be released (Philipkoski). With nanotechnology, other countries would have a fighting chance against what might otherwise be catastrophic. With restriction, nanotechnology could possibly do more good than harm when it comes to warfare.

A second set of concerns are somewhat less deadly, and more economic. With the new funding to stem-cells, why bother with nanotechnology? Why should we throw more money into a frivolous expenditure, when we�re already sinking into debt? Both have some basis in fact, but they overlook key points.

Stem-cell research is quite obviously controversial. It crosses not only political, but religious lines. Little has been proven in a hard-core manner. As reiterated before, Nanotechnology is based in sound fact. Not only that, but it would be a far less controversial choice when it comes to religion. Members of both political parties have endorsed nanotechnology in the past, a key part to bringing any technology into the public sector (�National�). Both fields of research are important. Curing disease is most certainly a noble cause, but funding one type of research and hoping it will work while leaving another behind is not the most logical of choices. Then again, funding would still be unsure. Many people are afraid of this kind of technology. Changing every aspect of science in one shot is not the easiest situation to adapt to. In this area, Foresight has been working towards educating people about this technology. Jobs will most likely be lost, and many tools we use now would become obsolete under the shadow of one of the most efficient types of machines ever made. Foresight has admitted that this change cannot happen in one, shocking burst; it must happen slowly, and be given time. With this time, people could adapt to the technology, and begin to understand it. It may well take as much time to adapt as it will to create the machines, and it will certainly not be easy.

Despite that nanotechnology is new and will require funding to get off the ground, it will not be a total economic train wreck. Nanites are small, and would become precise enough to build themselves. They would be self-healing, self-assembling and totally automated, so the cost to the average individual would be strangely low (Kozlowski). No factories would be built, except for the first few nanites, and no experts would be needed to operate them. A very interesting side to this; they would be environmentally sound, as well. Any pollution would be of the most minor form, to the point of nonexistence. Fossil fuels would also be obsolete, since molecularly creating new energy sources would be quick and cost-effective. For even the environment, nanotechnology would be a great asset. And still, skeptics point to decreasing value in forms of matter like diamond, which would be possible to create using nanotechnology. They are not incorrect; many staples would become so easy to obtain that they would no longer be considered of any value.

Even in light of the certain downfalls, Nanotechnology is arguably the only way that Humans as a society will be able to advance. Already we have micro-chips, computers, and technology that seemed frightening to people who lived a mere hundred years ago. Compacting information can only go so far using the �micro� scale; science is continually thinking of things that are smaller, faster, and risks will be present. This endeavor pays for its risks in the currency of cures for diseases and the ability to learn about matter itself in ways we may not even be able to dream of. Yet for now, the studies are theoretical. There have been a number of minor creations such as simple pumps and levers, but nothing yet in the realm of what it could become (Peterson). Many scientists point to the lack of funding.

Without funding, this technology will be slow to come into being. Any small business owner would attest that the start-up costs are the hardest to come up with. Such is the case in nanotechnology. �Until the major U.S. federal research funding agencies step up to the job, the field doesn�t look �real�,� the Foresight Institute has projected; a dismal statement when Foresight is one of the most optimistic organizations of the nanotechnology community (Kozlowski). Indeed, they are correct. In 2000, President Clinton signed the Nanotechnology commission under the advisement of Congress. This initiative did give out certain monies to the field, but the dispersal of the funds through the National Science Foundation is slow in proceeding, and federal involvement in the research is minimal. NASA and the U.S. military hold a standing interest in the field, yet the interest is informal and not actively pursued. It is not surprising that countries like Japan and Australia have kept the U.S. riding their coattails when it comes to our advancement in nanotechnology. The true entrepreneurs in the study are the private companies. Computer empires such as IBM and Hewlett Packard have stepped up to fund the science, along with private, more specialized companies such as the aforementioned Foresight Institute, the Zyvex labs based in Texas, and the major computer-oriented company Sun Microsystems. These companies are, for the most part, energetic and confident in what nanotechnology will produce, but an air of disdain hangs around their hopes for when this might happen. Phaeden Arvous of IBM maintains this idea. �There�s no revolution imminent,� he claims, �No one is going to abandon a trillion-dollar electronics industry to start from ground zero.�

Economically, Nanotechnology is daunting. It would change virtually every field of work, just as much as computers sparked the information revolution. These fears are natural with any new idea, but I truly feel we must set them aside. For advancement of all fields of study, we must continue to research and develop nanotechnology, with more than just the brave private organizations, willing to put their own funds on the line, for the benefits are not so far off as they may sometimes seem.

[Hitchhiker]

Good essay, nice presentation of the issue.

Hmm . . . I think that nanotechnology is a very major scientific advancement on the horizon. The only other two scientific concepts I can think of that equal nanotechnology in importance are finding a Grand Unifiying Theory (that unifies Relativity and quantum mechanics) and the quite interesting yet dazzlingly theoretical field of quantum computing. A GUT would be extremely interesting and controversial, and just the whole idea of a computer that utilizes multiple universes for processing power (hence the whole "theoretical" notion) is quite frightening.

And of course, devices manufactured by nanites would be far more reliable and precise, especially as you mentioned when talking about computer hardware.

Then there's that "self-cleaning glass" they've invented. Nanites would be useful as an alternative to that . . . I've got a bunch of fingermarks on my monitor I'd like to have repaired at the molecular level

I'm potentially worried about the effects nanotechnology would have when it comes to human mortality and athletic performance. Nanites could potentially be the steroid of the future; not just for the body but for the mind. And if we do develop precise machines capable of literally repairing organs at the molecular level, we're starting to fuel the human dream of physical immortality again. As you said, one of the most important things would be restrictions.

Anyway, well done.

[Arellia]

[Republican_Man]

^Yeah...I skimmed through the essay. Fascinating topic and field.

[lionhead]

I thought they where developing Processors with Nano Technology.

[admiral]

[Arellia]

Some stuff that's called "Nanotechnology" is not, in fact, real nanotechnology, they just call it such. There isn't currently any in use, though there are some prototypes--none of the needed sophistication.