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

[Robert J. Bradbury]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Chris Phoenix, commenting on my comments wrote:

> The AIDS problem is a lot more constrained than molecular manufacturing.

Oh??? Its bad enough that it has a robust system for stealing replication
resources but it is self-evolving on top of that.  I would hardly consider
that "constrained" when one is trying to figure out how to stop it...
(That is why some of the resources were misspent in the early days --
we did not fully understand *what* we were dealing with and what
the potential pitfalls were -- (we are up to something like 3 or 4
vaccine trial failures at this point).

> But as far as we can tell, it would've worked.
I would agree that we could probably have developed simple diamond
mechanosynthesis by now if a greater amount of attention had been
focused on it.  I am less confident with respect to the extremely
varied assembly chemistries that might be required for the parts
Eric, Ralph & Josh have designed where they make very creative use
of atoms other than carbon.

> Do you want to argue that we're better off having done
> nothing until more options appeared?

No.  But as Adrian points out we aren't exactly doing nothing.
There are lots of buckytube startups, a few nanochemistry startups,
Zyvex is taking a slow top-down approach to nanomanipulators,
we have the nano-ink-pen stuff from Northwestern, several groups
including IBM demonstrating self-assembly for increased data
storage and/or other aspects of nanoelectronics, a lot of interesting
work going on with quantum dots at both the corporate and Natl. Labs.
level, etc.

This suggests to me that our approach to nanotech is similar to
the way I used to eat Ice Cream Sandwiches.

When I was in Junior High School I always used to get an Ice
Cream Sandwich at the cafeteria for lunch.  I would of course
eat the healthier aspects of my lunch (typically a sandwich
made by my mother) while waiting for the Ice Cream Sandwich
to soften a little.  Then I would unwrap the Ice Cream Sandwich.
I would remove the top chocolate wafer and eat that.  Then I would
remove about 2/5 of one end of the bottom chocolate wafer and eat
that.  Then of course the 2/5 of the other end of the bottom chocolate
wafer.  What resulted was about 1/5 of a chocolate wafer (about
an inch or so) with about 5 inches of softened Ice Cream suspended
upon it.  Timing was important here because if the Ice Cream became
too soft this ended up being a very messy process.  I could then
consume in 3 bites first one end of the Ice Cream, then the other
end and finally the remaining ice cream and chocolate from the center
of the sandwich.

Mind you there were only a couple of individuals who remained
my friends through Junior High School who would sit with me at
lunch and could observe this process on a regular basis...

We shall henceforth call this the Bradbury Ice Cream Sandwich
analogy for Nanotech Development.  In its short form it can be
summed up as "we are nibbling around the edges".

I'm not saying that is good -- I'm just observing that is what
seems to be taking place.

Yes, I would agree that it would be nice to have multiple labs
focused on real MNT using perhaps each of the 4 or more processes
we could probably outline to get there (mechanosynthesis, a
combination of retrosynthesis and organic chemistry, lithography,
etc.).  But until we have have *real* proof of concept I do not
see the pressure (either from within the scientific community
(bottom up?) or from government (top down?)) to make it happen.

Could we not have previous examples of this in the history of technology
development? The one which comes to mind is the time from the development
of the theories that were the basis of atomic fission to the demonstration
of the atomic reactor in Chicago to the detonation of the first atomic
bomb in New Mexico.  But I suspect if we really go back and look at things
like the airplane or the automobile engine or even the steam engine they
were relatively long processes.

> 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.)

Perhaps not so bad -- people get less excited about yet another new
flat screen technology based on buckytube electron emitters (I've
had a flat screen on my laptop for something like 7 years and it
works just fine...) compared with something like nanoshell [1]
technology that may be able to effectively eliminate tumors.

Now of course this stuff tends to be passive nanotech rather
than active nanotech as we might desire -- but again its a
process of figuring out the best way to eat the sandwich.

> The problem with being covert is
> that it doesn't let us discuss the implications of the technology.

Understood -- but this is your area of expertise/focus.

> No... I believe you can start from a different perspective.  Protein
> engineering is hard, because protein folding is complex.

Granted -- but three things are combining to mitigate this --
1) The known structures of more proteins is rapidly increasing (tens of
   thousands now) and you can work by varying known structures;
2) The domain (phase space) of protein folds seems to be closing (we
   have the structures of many [a thousand or so] folds and the
   rate of discovering new folds seems to be slowing significantly.
   I.e. there are only so many ways proteins can fold and we know
   most of them.
3) Both distributed computing strategies (Folding at Home) as well as
   computational approaches (Blue Gene/P) are going to make this
   much smaller problem.

So protein engineering is on a path towards being much more tractable.

> Using a different chemistry that maps fabrication to shape more simply would
> substantially cut the design cost.

Granted.  And I've been relatively surprised at the rate at which
people have been advancing self-assembly and related processes
towards this.

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

Yes.  Both of these paradigm/mind-set needs to be broken.

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

Recent comments (at least in some news items) suggest that Modzelewski may
be adjusting his position.  Though I haven't reviewed Modzelewski's
or Wolfe's CVs recently -- my impression is that Wolfe at least
has some experience with Biotech -- and if that is the case his
position is more strategic/contrived than serious (unless he
really doesn't get it).  Modzelewski I would expect to play to
the crowd of popular opinion that will support NBA -- and of
course that means people who haven't read any of the proper
literature.

> 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.

Interesting -- *if* so then you need to launch a strong campaign
against this -- I can't imagine a class on bioethics (or philosophy
or history of biology, etc) where one is told to *not* read reasonable
literature if only to find out why it may be wrong (e.g. Lamarckian
inheritance).  Sounds like it is more likely that the profs/admins
don't want to deal with sticky issues as to where the literature
is incorrect (which means they would actually have to *read* it).

Re: rating nanotech educational environments...

> 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.)

I don't think it is *that* huge -- you may be able to get a grant
from the NSF on the process of rating how the programs are doing.

Steps I might take are:
a) Use either the web and/or a call to the NSF to find out what Univs.
   are being funded (and/or any international centers mentioned in the
   news).
b) Determine who the directors are.
c) If its a Univ. order a course catalog from each school and review
   it for details about any nanotech programs (or perhaps do this online).
d) Give a call to the directors and query them about specific courses,
   course materials, etc.

Just (a & b) on the web would give people like Devon a significant
heads up -- once it is on the web the directors will know they
are in competition.  Carefully structure survey questions in (d)
so they start out moderately neutral (e.g. focus: nanoelectronics,
quantum dots, nanofluidics, etc.) and then slowly crank down the
screws.  You can eventually get to the point where you ask the
directors point blank things like "Have you or any of the professors
being funded by the NSF under your nanocenter grants using either
Nanosystems or Nanomedicine as part of their course materials?"

Then its a simple task to setup a matrix that people like Devon
can review.

If you review the course presentations you might keep your eyes
peeled for courses where it would be particularly appropriate
for the students to have copies of Nanosystems or Nanomedicine.
I could see an approach where we get a grant from one or more
Foresight SAs to purchase the textbooks and hand them out
to the students as they enter such classes.  Its kind of
hard for professors to ignore texts that everyone in the
class got for free...

It also tells me which classes I should audit, sitting in the
back of the room and speak up loudly when the Prof. messes up.
[I've been known to do that.... -- I must have a suppressed
desire to play the bad cop.]

Robert