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 we must 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 canand we mustbegin 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/.