[extropy-chat] Nanotech educations [was yada yada stem cell research]

[Chris Phoenix]

Robert Bradbury wrote:
 > [on money not speeding up research]
> I don't recall whether or not I mentioned this before --
> this opinion is based on the observation that the U.S.
> threw a lot of money into AIDS "research" in the mid-'80s
> to early '90s.  A lot of those funds were spent unproductively
> because at the time we had insufficient knowledge of where we
> should focus our attention.

The AIDS problem is a lot more constrained than molecular manufacturing. 
   You might be right that we weren't ready to work on the engineering 
of molecular manufacturing.  We've had only a couple of chemical 
families proposed, only one of them (vacuum mechanosynthesis of 
diamondoid) producing high-performance products.  We still don't know if 
that's the most efficient one to develop.  But as far as we can tell, it 
would've worked.  Do you want to argue that we're better off having done 
nothing until more options appeared?

Adrian Tymes pointed out that the process by which one would accomplish 
molecular manufacturing isn't yet defined.  But does that mean we should 
do nothing?  Or that we should work on defining the process?  Is there 
really no model where a researcher could decide to build an MNT lab, 
starting with studying the options and building basic capabilities, and 
preparing for a research push when the path becomes clear?  To me it's 
obvious that this would be worth doing.  Perhaps there's no room for 
gambling when designing labs.  I guess they can only build competence in 
areas that will be sure to be funded every step of the way--and as you 
point out, most people making funding decisions are pretty clueless 
about MNT.

... news flash.  While writing this, I got to thinking about what a 
researcher would do if he wanted to build such a lab and get it funded. 
  You'd have to build a general competence, apply it to something 
near-term, and not admit what you're really interested in.  My first-try 
google search, for ["molecular engineering" site:edu], found a bunch of 
organizations that look very much like what I was picturing!  One of 
them is even researching nanotube mechanical properties (as one of many 
diverse projects).  I find it interesting that they're mostly going 
after medical applications.  (This creates practical problems: much of 
this effort is getting locked into biomolecules.)

So maybe I'm wrong about no one wanting to research molecular 
manufacturing.  Maybe we have a better base than I thought, and it's 
just more covert than I'd like to see.  The problem with being covert is 
that it doesn't let us discuss the implications of the technology.

> Yes, no buyin = no funding = no development.  *But*
> at least my analysis of one of the nanotech development
> paths indicates that it is currently prohibitively expensive.
> My impression is that Chris believes you can cut some corners
> significantly from that perspective.  

No... I believe you can start from a different perspective.  Protein 
engineering is hard, because protein folding is complex.  Using a 
different chemistry that maps fabrication to shape more simply would 
substantially cut the design cost.

> If something is
> perceived as prohibitively expensive you will get no buyin.
> The other side of the coin is that you have to be extremely
> convincing that the corner cutting will work.

I think most people are convinced that it's impossible or intractable. 
Not merely expensive.

 > [Chris Phoenix wrote:]
> > ObNanotech: Research careers in molecular
> > manufacturing are also being
> > energetically discouraged in the U.S.
> 
> Not really true IMO -- you have a combination of the
> disbelievers (Smalley, Whitesides et al) and the
> current nonbelievers (i.e. nanotech will not provide a
> decent short term ROI -- e.g. Modzelewski, Wolfe).
> Of course the "nonbelievers" will change their tune as soon
> as it looks like significant profits are feasible with near-term
> nanotech.  [In business "near-term" is usually 3-4 years or less.]

Based on Modzelewski's statements, I'd put him firmly in the disbeliever 
camp.

I've been told that students are told not even to read the literature in 
molecular manufacturing.  IIRC this was at Northwestern University.  I 
strongly suspect it happens elsewhere as well.

> Chris -- CRN should identify precisely *who* is getting
> funding from NSF and/or international governments for
> nanotech education and it should independently rate
> the quality of education at various nanotech centers/hubs.

This is a huge project.  But a very interesting idea.  Thanks.  (If you 
think it's not a huge project--feel free to find a way to help us.)

Chris

-- 
Chris Phoenix                                  cphoenix at CRNano.org
Director of Research
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology          http://CRNano.org