Rumblings in the Nano World!
Eric Drexler
Richard Smalley
An Open Letter to Richard Smalley From Eric Drexler
Prof. Smalley:
I have written this open letter to correct your public misrepresentation of
my work.
As you know, I introduced the term "nanotechnology" in the mid-1980s to
describe advanced capabilities based on molecular assemblers: proposed
devices able to guide chemical reactions by positioning reactive molecules
with atomic precision. Since "nanotechnology" is now used label diverse
current activities, I have attempted to minimize confusion by relabeling the
longer term goal "molecular manufacturing". The consequences of molecular
manufacturing are widely understood to be enormous, posing opportunities and
dangers of first-rank importance to the long-term security of the United
States and the world. Theoretical studies of its implementation and
capabilities are therefore of more than academic interest, and are akin to
pre-Sputnik studies of spaceflight, or to pre-Manhattan-Project calculations
regarding nuclear chain reactions.
You have attempted to dismiss my work in this field by misrepresenting it.
>From what I hear of a press conference at the recent NNI conference, you
continue to do so. In particular, you have described molecular assemblers as
having multiple "fingers" that manipulate individual atoms and suffer from
so-called "fat finger" and "sticky finger" problems, and you have dismissed
their feasibility on this basis [1]. I find this puzzling because, like
enzymes and ribosomes, proposed assemblers neither have nor need these
"Smalley fingers" [2]. The task of positioning reactive molecules simply
doesn't require them.
I have a twenty year history of technical publications in this area [3 - 12]
and consistently describe systems quite unlike the straw man you attack. My
proposal is, and always has been, to guide the chemical synthesis of complex
structures by mechanically positioning reactive molecules, not by
manipulating individual atoms. This proposal has been defended successfully
again and again, in journal articles, in my MIT doctoral thesis, and before
scientific audiences around the world. It rests on well-established physical
principles.
The impossibility of "Smalley fingers" has raised no concern in the research
community because these fingers solve no problems and thus appear in no
proposals. Your reliance on this straw-man attack might lead a thoughtful
observer to suspect that no one has identified a valid criticism of my work.
For this I should, perhaps, thank you.
You apparently fear that my warnings of long-term dangers [13] will hinder
funding of current research, stating that "We should not let this
fuzzy-minded nightmare dream scare us away from nanotechnology....NNI should
go forward" [14]. However, I have from the beginning argued that the
potential for abuse of advanced nanotechnologies makes vigorous research by
the U.S and its allies imperative [13]. Many have found these arguments
persuasive. In an open discussion, I believe they will prevail. In contrast,
your attempt to calm the public through false claims of impossibility will
inevitably fail, placing your colleagues at risk of a destructive backlash.
Your misdirected arguments have needlessly confused public discussion of
genuine long-term security concerns. If you value the accuracy of
information used in decisions of importance to national and global security,
I urge you to seek some way to help set the record straight. Endorsing calls
for an independent scientific review of molecular manufacturing concepts
[15] would be constructive.
A scientist whose research I respect has observed that "when a scientist
says something is possible, they're probably underestimating how long it
will take. But if they say it's impossible, they're probably wrong." The
scientist quoted is, of course, yourself [16].
K. Eric Drexler
Chairman, Foresight Institute
----------------------------
1. Smalley, R. E. (2001) Of chemistry, love and nanobots - How soon will we
see the nanometer-scale robots envisaged by K. Eric Drexler and other
molecular nanotechologists? The simple answer is never. Scientific American,
September, 68-69.
2. Drexler, K. E., D. Forrest, R. A. Freitas Jr., J. S. Hall, N. Jacobstein,
T. McKendree, R. Merkle, C. Peterson (2001) A Debate About Assemblers.
3. Drexler, K. E. (1981) Molecular engineering: An approach to the
development of general capabilities for molecular manipulation. Proc. Natnl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A.. 78:5275-5278.
4. Drexler, K. E. (1987) Nanomachinery: Atomically precise gears and
bearings. IEEE Micro Robots and Teleoperators Workshop. Hyannis,
Massachusetts: IEEE.
5. Drexler, K. E., and J. S. Foster. (1990) Synthetic tips. Nature. 343:600.
6. Drexler, K. E. (1991) Molecular tip arrays for molecular imaging and
nanofabrication. Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology-B. 9:1394-1397.
7. Drexler K. E., (1991) Molecular Machinery and Manufacturing with
Applications to Computation. MIT doctoral thesis.
8. Drexler, K. E. (1992) Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing,
and Computation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
9. Drexler, K. E. (1992) Molecular Directions in Nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology (2:113).
10. Drexler, K. E. (1994) Molecular machines: physical principles and
implementation strategies. Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular
Structure (23:337-405).
11. Drexler, K. E. (1995) Molecular manufacturing: perspectives on the
ultimate limits of fabrication. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London A (353:323-331).
12. Drexler, K. E. (1999) Building molecular machine systems. Trends in
Biotechnology, 17: 5-7.
13. Drexler, K. E. (1986) Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of
Nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
14. Smalley, R. E. (2000) quoted in: W. Schulz, Crafting A National
Nanotechnology Effort. Chemical & Engineering News, October 16.
15. Peterson, C. L. Testimony before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives, 9 April 2003.
16. Smalley, R. E. (2000) quoted in N. Thompson, Downsizing:
Nanotechnology---Why you should sweat the small stuff. The Washington
Monthly Online, October.
