By Bright B. Simons (baronsimon)
Published on english.OhmyNews.com
2006-06-30 05:03 (KST)
QUOTE
Less is More? Small is Beautiful?
Nanotechnology may change the world as we know it.
If in anger or frustration, you tear out a tuft of your hair and, upon calming down, decide to remove a strand from the disheveled mass, and after staring forlornly at it for a while proceed to splice it into a 100,000 pieces, you would - in Britain for instance - be promptly sectioned under the Mental Health Act and committed to the nearest psychiatric institution.
But you could always console yourself with the fact that uniquely among all mankind you are the only person capable of producing something at nanoscale unaided by equipment or specialist training. And if even that is small comfort, rest assured that upon your release from detention corporations from all four corners of the Earth will be rolling over themselves to pay you money - tons of it - for your singular skill.
For, nanotechnology is already big business, and promising Heaven to all manner of business entities.
It undertakes to revolutionise every branch of science, and not surprisingly, for it is not a single field. It is an array of scientific disciplines and technologies all focused on empowering scientists to control the most fundamental levels of the scientific process -- the very atoms and molecules that constitute all matter.
To appreciate one of the chief attractions of the field, you have to understand something of the geometric motivations behind much of science. Geometry, being the science of space, from the time of the ancient Greeks, has always been involved in attempts to push the boundaries of scientific knowledge and define the coordinates of human intellect within the vast breadth of an expanding universe.
Einstein's ideas of relativity were revolutionary because they transformed the way we viewed our physical environment by displacing the ideas of Euclid which had informed the work of previous luminaries like Isaac Newton and Galileo. By giving us a new sense of space, he opened the path for even more revolutionary ideas of physical dimension such as quantum theory to flourish.
But whereas Einstein's system was highly suited to notions of the very big, they proved irritatingly cumbersome when one wanted to deal with the very small.
To appreciate the geometry of the most miniscule of spaces, wholly novel sciences had to emerge.
Thus has geometry continued to drive advances in scientific knowledge. In the specific case of nanotechnology, for instance, the realization that small structures generally possess larger surface areas than large ones has prompted continuing attempts to control ever smaller devices in contexts where complex patterns comprising several components are required to fit together. A very crude way of putting it is that the smaller the device, the larger the surface area and thus the more optimal the space available to the task of constructing highly complex systems.
The idea goes by the rather intimidating name of "miniaturization" and underlies many of the processes in the fields of microelectronics, photonics and others central to modern telecommunications and information technology.
However there is a minor contention whether the majority of techniques and applications associated with miniaturization can be classed under the broad heading of nanotechnology. Generally experts in the field prefer to restrict scientific activities within the nano-realm to processes operating on scales of 100 nanometers or below. As the hair analogy illustrated, splicing a single strand of human hair into about one thousand pieces will bring one somewhat within the boundaries covered by this particular science.
Then there is also a widespread preference by experts to categorise what is and what is not strictly nanotechnological according to whether one is hierarchically combining nano-scale structures into organized patterns to achieve specific ends or whether one is simply "shaping down" a chunk of some structure towards greater and greater diminutiveness. That is: the so-called "bottom-up" and "top-down" debate.
Generally, it is believed that true nanotechnology has to do with the ability to manipulate nanoscale mechanisms to perform in a sort of purposive symphony rather than simply the ability to construct smaller and smaller structures.
Getting small molecules and even individual atoms to obey the scientist's touch is indeed this novel science's greatest promise.
Imagine what the ability to influence reactions in single cells will mean for medical specialists concerned with managing conditions in tiny but vital structures in the human body such as the optic nerve which connects the sense of sight to the brain's cognitive capacity to interpret the sensations it receive.
The idea of molecular machines that will allow non-invasive operations to be performed on parts of the human body by carrying specific active agents to specific sites in the body and staying to regulate dosages and monitor progress before self-disintegrating is simply awe-inspiring,. Such "pharmaceutical delivery systems" must sound a marvelous note of relief to the millions of cancer sufferers around the world who endure regularly the current crude treatment methods, none of which are in effect much more than improvements on the mediaeval concept of healing by blood-letting.
Nanosystems can be incorporated into a vast array of products and designed to self-activate during, say, storage or uptake. They can even be so designed to break up products at the end of their life/use -cycle and thus save the environment from the inundation of harm-causing waste.
What all this brings to mind is a notion of "activating" our physical environment.
Imagine contact lenses embedded with individualized signal processors that communicate with "active" surfaces in private and public spaces. Bus shelters that only display adverts suited to your purchasing habits and restaurant decors that rearrange to boost your appetite according to your peculiar dietary habits.
Or perhaps the word is "seamlessness."
Clothing that change in width and porosity to reflect weather conditions and surgical enhancements- plastic surgery- that respond better to the environment than ordinary skin tissue; in each case the essence being that adaptation becomes an effortless continuum that eliminates all the pain of change and transformation.
But look closely at what I have done. I have fallen victim to the classic science fiction trap: an assumption that scientific progress belongs in autonomous packages of self-regulating trends. That is that economic considerations, political competition at state and international levels, and cultural restraints do not at all matter in how quickly technologies are adopted and allowed to grow.
Scientific interests must succumb to the overall pressures prevailing in any society. Scientists must jostle for funds and access to resources just like all other stakeholders. They must justify the costs of technology adoption and assure the holders of the public purse and the custodians of private chests that consumer behavior, influenced as it is by both the rational and the irrational, will develop in sync with the technology under discussion and therefore that sustainable deployment is at least likely.
Already, some commentators are forecasting doom rather than utopia as the consequence of rapid progress in nanotechnology.
Michael Crichton's book "Prey" is one of the more readable alarmist commentaries. In the novel swarms of nanoparticles developed to operate at the macro-level acquire a consciousness of their own, the ability to self-generate and mass-replicate, and much more frighteningly a taste for human flesh. Even worse they develop the ability to colonise the minds and bodies of their victims as well, using these as mere shells to enhance their hunting expeditions.
Far-fetched it may be, but even the most temperate minds do not dismiss concerns about nanotechnology out of hand.
In 2002, the Center for Global Dialogue based in the quiet Swiss town of Ruschlikon assembled a highly diverse gathering of high-powered stakeholders in the Global nanotechnology industry for, perhaps, the first major conference tasked with developing a "strategic risk framework" for nanotechnology. The Center for Global Dialogue is financed by the Swiss insurance giant Swiss Re.
Quite appropriately too. For if nanotechnology is going to benefit from extensive adoption across diverse settings, entrepreneurs will need to convince investors that someone is willing to share the burden of risk. And nobody qualifies more to be that "somebody" than the insurance industry.
As the Director of the CGD, Walter Anderau, explained to myself and a group of visitors a few weeks ago, insurance is about "risk" and not simply hazard. There is a need for extensive information to be collected about the potential harmful effects of nanotechnology if insurers are to be able to build the models of "uncertainty" that underpin insurance practice.
For instance, one has to be able to determine what probabilities exist for nano-components in say cosmetics to penetrate into undesired corners of the human body and pose a danger to the consumer. Having both absolute "uncertainty" and absolute "certainty" about such matters precludes "insurability." If the event is definitely going to happen, then the "exposure" of the insurer to risk is infinite and therefore there is no point in getting involved. However, if you have no idea whatsoever whether an event could even happen, then-- voila-- how do you decide what premiums to charge?
Thus, as was hinted earlier, it is not simply a question of developing and deploying ever more powerful nanotechnological systems. There are investors to woo, insurers to convince and of course public opinion to be prepared. Perhaps, it is the last challenge that may ultimately prove the most decisive influence on all the rest.
Not many people are aware that nanoparticles are already all around us in the form of so-called "ultrafine particles" from the byproducts of combustible materials, mainly petroleum derivatives. Research on how these substances as well as others such as coal dust and ashes from various industrial processes impact on our general health will be instrumental in helping shape public perceptions about nanotechnology.
But, even so, there remains the issue of so called "inherently less predictable" risks. Think of the "weaponisation" of nanoparticles by warring states; their potential adoption by terrorists as substitutes for chemical and biological agents made scarcer by tighter security and protective measures; or their accidental release into the environment and their subsequent interaction with organic forms of matter. (See a brief assessment of disquiet about nanotechnology here.
You know, estimates by the Progressive Policy Institue suggest that the global market for counterfeit goods is valued at over 600 billion dollars, which includes more than a tenth -- and in some regions a quarter-- of all medicine sales and a third of all software sales. That volume of sales equals half of all US exports of goods and services. Invariably, the incentive for terrorists to dope counterfeited consumables with harmful substances and then release them into the marketplace remains a potential threat of a seriousness that varies according to varying levels of paranoia.
The thing though is that, at least, such substances will be detectible using routine methods. Dangerous or rogue nanoparticles may prove a much more daunting challenge both to detection and to remedial systems.
Regardless how far-fetched such fears may be, in an increasingly risk-averse world, they are but just one reason why one needn't hold one's breath about the prospect of nanobots delivering us any soon from the drudgery of having to make do with clothes and kitchenware which require washing after every use.
Or, on the other hand, worry about hairs that pull out and splinter into pieces on their own when we fly into rage, prompting that dreaded visit by the men in the white overcoats.
Nanotechnology may change the world as we know it.
If in anger or frustration, you tear out a tuft of your hair and, upon calming down, decide to remove a strand from the disheveled mass, and after staring forlornly at it for a while proceed to splice it into a 100,000 pieces, you would - in Britain for instance - be promptly sectioned under the Mental Health Act and committed to the nearest psychiatric institution.
But you could always console yourself with the fact that uniquely among all mankind you are the only person capable of producing something at nanoscale unaided by equipment or specialist training. And if even that is small comfort, rest assured that upon your release from detention corporations from all four corners of the Earth will be rolling over themselves to pay you money - tons of it - for your singular skill.
For, nanotechnology is already big business, and promising Heaven to all manner of business entities.
It undertakes to revolutionise every branch of science, and not surprisingly, for it is not a single field. It is an array of scientific disciplines and technologies all focused on empowering scientists to control the most fundamental levels of the scientific process -- the very atoms and molecules that constitute all matter.
To appreciate one of the chief attractions of the field, you have to understand something of the geometric motivations behind much of science. Geometry, being the science of space, from the time of the ancient Greeks, has always been involved in attempts to push the boundaries of scientific knowledge and define the coordinates of human intellect within the vast breadth of an expanding universe.
Einstein's ideas of relativity were revolutionary because they transformed the way we viewed our physical environment by displacing the ideas of Euclid which had informed the work of previous luminaries like Isaac Newton and Galileo. By giving us a new sense of space, he opened the path for even more revolutionary ideas of physical dimension such as quantum theory to flourish.
But whereas Einstein's system was highly suited to notions of the very big, they proved irritatingly cumbersome when one wanted to deal with the very small.
To appreciate the geometry of the most miniscule of spaces, wholly novel sciences had to emerge.
Thus has geometry continued to drive advances in scientific knowledge. In the specific case of nanotechnology, for instance, the realization that small structures generally possess larger surface areas than large ones has prompted continuing attempts to control ever smaller devices in contexts where complex patterns comprising several components are required to fit together. A very crude way of putting it is that the smaller the device, the larger the surface area and thus the more optimal the space available to the task of constructing highly complex systems.
The idea goes by the rather intimidating name of "miniaturization" and underlies many of the processes in the fields of microelectronics, photonics and others central to modern telecommunications and information technology.
However there is a minor contention whether the majority of techniques and applications associated with miniaturization can be classed under the broad heading of nanotechnology. Generally experts in the field prefer to restrict scientific activities within the nano-realm to processes operating on scales of 100 nanometers or below. As the hair analogy illustrated, splicing a single strand of human hair into about one thousand pieces will bring one somewhat within the boundaries covered by this particular science.
Then there is also a widespread preference by experts to categorise what is and what is not strictly nanotechnological according to whether one is hierarchically combining nano-scale structures into organized patterns to achieve specific ends or whether one is simply "shaping down" a chunk of some structure towards greater and greater diminutiveness. That is: the so-called "bottom-up" and "top-down" debate.
Generally, it is believed that true nanotechnology has to do with the ability to manipulate nanoscale mechanisms to perform in a sort of purposive symphony rather than simply the ability to construct smaller and smaller structures.
Getting small molecules and even individual atoms to obey the scientist's touch is indeed this novel science's greatest promise.
Imagine what the ability to influence reactions in single cells will mean for medical specialists concerned with managing conditions in tiny but vital structures in the human body such as the optic nerve which connects the sense of sight to the brain's cognitive capacity to interpret the sensations it receive.
The idea of molecular machines that will allow non-invasive operations to be performed on parts of the human body by carrying specific active agents to specific sites in the body and staying to regulate dosages and monitor progress before self-disintegrating is simply awe-inspiring,. Such "pharmaceutical delivery systems" must sound a marvelous note of relief to the millions of cancer sufferers around the world who endure regularly the current crude treatment methods, none of which are in effect much more than improvements on the mediaeval concept of healing by blood-letting.
Nanosystems can be incorporated into a vast array of products and designed to self-activate during, say, storage or uptake. They can even be so designed to break up products at the end of their life/use -cycle and thus save the environment from the inundation of harm-causing waste.
What all this brings to mind is a notion of "activating" our physical environment.
Imagine contact lenses embedded with individualized signal processors that communicate with "active" surfaces in private and public spaces. Bus shelters that only display adverts suited to your purchasing habits and restaurant decors that rearrange to boost your appetite according to your peculiar dietary habits.
Or perhaps the word is "seamlessness."
Clothing that change in width and porosity to reflect weather conditions and surgical enhancements- plastic surgery- that respond better to the environment than ordinary skin tissue; in each case the essence being that adaptation becomes an effortless continuum that eliminates all the pain of change and transformation.
But look closely at what I have done. I have fallen victim to the classic science fiction trap: an assumption that scientific progress belongs in autonomous packages of self-regulating trends. That is that economic considerations, political competition at state and international levels, and cultural restraints do not at all matter in how quickly technologies are adopted and allowed to grow.
Scientific interests must succumb to the overall pressures prevailing in any society. Scientists must jostle for funds and access to resources just like all other stakeholders. They must justify the costs of technology adoption and assure the holders of the public purse and the custodians of private chests that consumer behavior, influenced as it is by both the rational and the irrational, will develop in sync with the technology under discussion and therefore that sustainable deployment is at least likely.
Already, some commentators are forecasting doom rather than utopia as the consequence of rapid progress in nanotechnology.
Michael Crichton's book "Prey" is one of the more readable alarmist commentaries. In the novel swarms of nanoparticles developed to operate at the macro-level acquire a consciousness of their own, the ability to self-generate and mass-replicate, and much more frighteningly a taste for human flesh. Even worse they develop the ability to colonise the minds and bodies of their victims as well, using these as mere shells to enhance their hunting expeditions.
Far-fetched it may be, but even the most temperate minds do not dismiss concerns about nanotechnology out of hand.
In 2002, the Center for Global Dialogue based in the quiet Swiss town of Ruschlikon assembled a highly diverse gathering of high-powered stakeholders in the Global nanotechnology industry for, perhaps, the first major conference tasked with developing a "strategic risk framework" for nanotechnology. The Center for Global Dialogue is financed by the Swiss insurance giant Swiss Re.
Quite appropriately too. For if nanotechnology is going to benefit from extensive adoption across diverse settings, entrepreneurs will need to convince investors that someone is willing to share the burden of risk. And nobody qualifies more to be that "somebody" than the insurance industry.
As the Director of the CGD, Walter Anderau, explained to myself and a group of visitors a few weeks ago, insurance is about "risk" and not simply hazard. There is a need for extensive information to be collected about the potential harmful effects of nanotechnology if insurers are to be able to build the models of "uncertainty" that underpin insurance practice.
For instance, one has to be able to determine what probabilities exist for nano-components in say cosmetics to penetrate into undesired corners of the human body and pose a danger to the consumer. Having both absolute "uncertainty" and absolute "certainty" about such matters precludes "insurability." If the event is definitely going to happen, then the "exposure" of the insurer to risk is infinite and therefore there is no point in getting involved. However, if you have no idea whatsoever whether an event could even happen, then-- voila-- how do you decide what premiums to charge?
Thus, as was hinted earlier, it is not simply a question of developing and deploying ever more powerful nanotechnological systems. There are investors to woo, insurers to convince and of course public opinion to be prepared. Perhaps, it is the last challenge that may ultimately prove the most decisive influence on all the rest.
Not many people are aware that nanoparticles are already all around us in the form of so-called "ultrafine particles" from the byproducts of combustible materials, mainly petroleum derivatives. Research on how these substances as well as others such as coal dust and ashes from various industrial processes impact on our general health will be instrumental in helping shape public perceptions about nanotechnology.
But, even so, there remains the issue of so called "inherently less predictable" risks. Think of the "weaponisation" of nanoparticles by warring states; their potential adoption by terrorists as substitutes for chemical and biological agents made scarcer by tighter security and protective measures; or their accidental release into the environment and their subsequent interaction with organic forms of matter. (See a brief assessment of disquiet about nanotechnology here.
You know, estimates by the Progressive Policy Institue suggest that the global market for counterfeit goods is valued at over 600 billion dollars, which includes more than a tenth -- and in some regions a quarter-- of all medicine sales and a third of all software sales. That volume of sales equals half of all US exports of goods and services. Invariably, the incentive for terrorists to dope counterfeited consumables with harmful substances and then release them into the marketplace remains a potential threat of a seriousness that varies according to varying levels of paranoia.
The thing though is that, at least, such substances will be detectible using routine methods. Dangerous or rogue nanoparticles may prove a much more daunting challenge both to detection and to remedial systems.
Regardless how far-fetched such fears may be, in an increasingly risk-averse world, they are but just one reason why one needn't hold one's breath about the prospect of nanobots delivering us any soon from the drudgery of having to make do with clothes and kitchenware which require washing after every use.
Or, on the other hand, worry about hairs that pull out and splinter into pieces on their own when we fly into rage, prompting that dreaded visit by the men in the white overcoats.