[extropy-chat] Smalley-Drexler Debate Analysis

[MIKE TREDER]

Eric Drexler and Richard Smalley recently have been exchanging views about 
Drexler’s version of nanotechnology and Smalley’s objections to it. Their 
back and forth written debate is the cover story in today's Chemical and 
Engineering News 
(http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.html).

As described in the press release shown below, CRN has prepared an 
independent review of the Smaller-Drexler exchange (see 
http://CRNano.org/Debate.htm).

Mike Treder

Executive Director, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology - 
http://CRNano.org
Director, World Transhumanist Association - http://transhumanism.org
Executive Director, New York Transhumanist Association - http://nyta.net
Founder, Incipient Posthuman Website - http://incipientposthuman.com
Executive Advisory Team, Extropy Institute - http://extropy.org
KurzweilAI "Big Thinker" - http://kurzweilai.net/bios/frame.html

==================

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Published Debate Shows Weakness of MNT Denial

NEW YORK — Attackers of molecular nanotechnology (MNT) received a setback 
today when a published debate revealed the weakness of their position. The 
four-part exchange between Eric Drexler, the founder of nanotechnology, and 
Nobelist Richard Smalley, who contends that many of Drexler's plans are 
impossible, is the cover story in the December 1 Chemical & Engineering 
News.

"We have carefully examined the arguments presented by each side," says 
Chris Phoenix, Director of Research at the Center for Responsible 
Nanotechnology (CRN). "We conclude that Smalley failed to show why MNT 
cannot work as Drexler asserts." Phoenix has prepared a 6-page review of the 
Smalley-Drexler debate, including historical overview, technical analysis, 
and commentary on policy implications. It is available at 
http://CRNano.org/Debate.htm.

Drexler, who single-handedly launched the field of nanotechnology in the 
late 1980's, believes that mechanical control of chemical reactions can form 
the basis of powerful manufacturing systems. Smalley has tried for years to 
debunk the possibility of such manufacturing, since it could in theory lead 
to scary consequences such as tiny machines building exponential copies of 
themselves at the expense of the biosphere.

In 2001, Smalley published an article in Scientific American claiming that 
mechanical control of reactions would require impossible "magic fingers." 
But in the current debate, Smalley agreed that "something like an enzyme or 
a ribosome ... can do precise chemistry." The question to be answered now 
is: What kind of chemistry can an enzyme-like chemical system do?

Smalley attempts to define limits, and fails. He claims that enzymes can 
only work under water, but this is untrue, as almost two decades of 
published research have shown. With this crucial support missing, his 
remaining case against mechanical chemistry falls apart. At this point, no 
one knows the limits of such a system. As far back as 1959, Nobel-winning 
physicist Richard Feynman said it should be possible "to synthesize any 
chemical substance." Work by Drexler and others over the past decade has 
shown that even a much more limited capability should be sufficient to 
develop manufacturing systems that can duplicate themselves.

"Smalley's factual inaccuracies, his unscientific and vehement attacks on 
MNT, and his continued failure to criticize the actual chemical proposals of 
MNT, demonstrate that it is time to move beyond this debate," says Mike 
Treder, Executive Director of CRN. "It’s time to focus on the technical 
proposals and the serious societal implications that we can no longer afford 
to ignore."

During the past decade, detailed proposals have been developed for the 
architecture and technology of molecular manufacturing systems. Such 
proposals cannot be tested fully in the absence of laboratory work and 
targeted research, but enough is known to initiate action based on existing 
work. The proposals are sufficiently detailed to support a much more 
thoughtful critical study than has yet been done, and such a study would 
result in further refinement of the proposals.

"We can—and we must—begin to quantify the expected capabilities of molecular 
manufacturing systems," says Phoenix. "What substances and devices can they 
build? How rapidly can they work? How easy will it be to design products for 
these manufacturing systems? How much will it cost to create such a system, 
and how quickly will that cost decrease over time?"

Treder adds, "Now that even Richard Smalley is talking about the 
capabilities of enzymes in molecular manufacturing, instead of impossible 
magic fingers, we hope that facile and ungrounded denials of MNT will no 
longer be credible."

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology is headquartered in New York. CRN 
is an affiliate of World Care, an international, non-profit, 501(c)(3) 
organization. For more information on CRN, see http://www.crnano.org/.

Press release link -- http://CRNano.org/PR-Debate.htm

_________________________________________________________________
Is there a gadget-lover on your gift list?  MSN Shopping has lined up some 
good bets!  http://shopping.msn.com