sci.nanotech: Re: Nanobots Not Needed
Re: Nanobots Not Needed
Source: http://sci.tech−archive.net/Archive/sci.nanotech/2005−03/0030.html
From: John S. Novak, III (jsn_at_panix.com)
Date: 03/18/05
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:22:25 −0000
In article , Chris Phoenix wrote:
>> Um. One hates to come off sounding rude or snarky, but... is this the
>> whole document?
> Yes, it's the whole document.
> You do come off sounding rude and snarky. Let's see if I can answer
> without sounding defensive.
Having so recently chastened John Larkin for attacking a press release
rather than the actual article under consideration, I had no wish to
make the same mistake. I had to ask.
>> I will accept the assertion that most people do not, in fact, know the
>> difference between those terms. However, a footnote to the studies
>> referenced would make this rather more persuasive.
> I was thinking of two general nanotech studies, one in the US and one in
> Britain, showing that many people still have never heard of nanotech,
> and many of those who have can't give any kind of definition. I don't
> have the references handy, but they've been in the news.
That's, uh, not what I would consider a sufficient or a reasurring
answer. A footnote is a pretty simple thing to add.
>> More importantly than either of those two criticisms, is the final
>> assertion−− that this confusion somehow might hinder research. There's
>> a clever shift of the pen there from (explicitly) "most people" to
>> (implicitly) people doing actual research. I'm pretty sure that the
>> researchers and the layer or two of pocketbook holders are a little
>> more clued in on those terms than the average everyman on the street.
>> Very few people write seven or eight digit checks on a whim.
> I was not saying that researchers might be confused, but that popular
> confusiong might do political damage that could hurt research.
I'm curious as to the mechanism you see for this damage.
Re: Nanobots Not Needed 1
sci.nanotech: Re: Nanobots Not Needed
> I'm not so sure that funders aren't confused. Some of them don't know
> what molecular manufacturing is about−−they just know that they're
> opposed to Drexler.
I think most funders are smart enough to consult with experts (if they
don't keep them on staff as a matter of course) before writing very
large checks. Most big dollar funders are not fools.
Who is your intended audience for this piece?
>> Instead, what we get is a footnote with boilerplate about
>> nanotechnology and millionths of meters, without any support for the
>> claims being made. What this does, in effect, is presumptively−− even
>> presumptuously−− define everyone working on something other than this
>> paper's preferred course of research to be something other than the
>> actual goal of advanced nano.
> Well, from one point of view, everyone doing scientific research into
> nanotech is doing "advanced" work.
That's sort of my point.
> That's not how I meant it. I think
> a reasonable definition for advanced nanotech (in the absence of any
> formal definition for a non−technical phrase) is the ability to build
> precise molecular structures incorporating terabytes of blueprints. I
> don't see any way to do that other than molecular manufacturing. This
> is going out on a limb a bit, so feel free to suggest technical
> alternatives.
This is still a "No True Scotsman" type of argument.
You could counter this with an argument from authority, but since this
entire discussion (and I don't mean this Usenet thread, I mean this
larger discussion in the field) turns on which authority you happen to
believe, that course is not available to you.
The hard truth here is that there are multiple authorities, and they
disagree with each other. The No True Scotsman approach, where you
assert that only your definition of nanotechnology is advanced, is
a classic fallacy. Even if I agreed with you, I would be morally
obliged to point this fallacy out, and penalize you fifteen yards for
unfair rhetoric.
My definition is not at issue. Yours−− and your support for it−− is.
>> Again, cite the studies. If there's anything that gets up my nose,
>> it's unsubstantiated claims which are repeated like sledgehammer
>> blows. What studies? Cite them. How were they conducted? Who
>> conducted them? You are dedicating an entire essay to the refutation
>> of these claims−− the reader deserves the opportunity to see them.
Re: Nanobots Not Needed 2
sci.nanotech: Re: Nanobots Not Needed
> It was not written as an academic paper, and I tried to avoid dull
> phrasing; if you were expecting academic work with footnotes, then you
> may have seen the style as "sledgehammer blows." Sorry.
But you did give me a work with footnotes.
You just didnt' give me a work with useful footnotes.
>> And yet, I am presently reading a book chapter (found online at:
>> http://www.bionano.neu.edu/Nanorobotics.pdf ) which very clearly
>> outlines their desire to develop nanobots capable of self−replication
>> when required.
> This chapter certainly includes uncautious language. I'm surprised it
> didn't get up your nose as well: "This programming capability would form
> the core essence of a bionano robotics system and hence enables them
> with immense power." (p. 23) And their illustration 15A (p. 22) is only
> an artist's conception−−the protein helices are smaller than atoms, and
> it includes a propeller for motility−−but it's described as though it
> were an actual proposal.
But I'm not critiquing that chapter, right now. I'm critiquing your
article. There's really only one fundamental question to be answered,
which got posed later on.
>> They also specifically express the desire to develop a
>> toolkit of standard parts including rhodopsin, bacteriorhodopsin, and
>> artificial structures derived from those, to act as solar collectors
>> for on−site power gathering. If this is not metabolism as you
>> conceive it, I'm not sure what does. So I ask, does solar collection
>> match your definition of metabolism?
>
> Toolkits are good. I liked what they said about developing toolkits in
> the first part of the chapter.
>
> No, solar collection does not fit what I mean by metabolism. Metabolism
> requires at least the ability to arrange (e.g. break down) disordered
> chemicals into a more useful state. Solar collection is energy supply.
> An electric motor does not metabolize.
I could argue those semantics, but I don't need to; the ADP/ATP cycle
is very much a part of their scheme, and seems to fit your definition
as well.
>> I must also ask if the authors (Ummat, Dubey, Sharma, and Mavroidis)
>> are to be considered credible researchers, or not.
And here's the fundamental question.
> I don't know the researchers, though I recognize Mavroidis's name. But
> the quality of the chapter is inconsistent. Parts are, frankly,
Re: Nanobots Not Needed 3
sci.nanotech: Re: Nanobots Not Needed
> semi−literate. "This is a traditional method, which has been in use
> since quite sometime for designing bio molecules." This may be a
> second−language problem, but it should have been edited.
I'm pretty sure that was a draft, but, reading a number of IEEE
journals as part of my monthly diet has left me all but immune to the
butchery of my native language.
Yes, even IEEE articles should be editted for grammar. Sadly, they
aren't, and I am not in a position to reform the entire field. (I
will, however, copy edit any technical paper anyone sends me for a
nominal fee. I won't even ask for credit. And I'll spend more time
worrying about it than I do for a typical Usenet post.)
> I also note
> that the first reference gets Drexler's name in the wrong order.
A footnote quibble?
Gutsy move.
> Other parts of the chapter are over−ambitious and under−supported.
> Without knowing who wrote which part (and suspecting that some parts may
> have been written/compiled by anonymous grad students) I would hesitate
> to task the listed authors with the wilder projections.
>
> But perhaps you're right−−it appears possible that these researchers are
> actually proposing free−floating self−contained self−actuated
> self−controlled molecular manufacturing systems. It's certainly
> possible to get that idea from reading the less technical parts of the
> chapter. I wouldn't have expected this. Maybe I'll write Mavroidis and
> see whether he intended to give that impression.
>
> It's great to see ideas of engineered molecular robotic systems get
> published. But I wish they had not been published in a chapter that
> listed evolution as a desirable property of nanosystems, with no support
> or clarification.
Yes, well. To be perfectly blunt about this, I could shorten some of
my objections to your piece thus: "I wish you had not published a
paper asserting public ignorance and defining contentious terms, with
no support or clarification." (Well, you do footnote some other CRN
papers, but that's just setting up CRN as the authority on the term,
which I simply do not accept. I will not, in fact, accept any
authority on these terms until someone by God builds something and
becomes a real authority. I'm hardheaded that way. Those CRN papers
don't even have authors listed on their primary pages.)
So here we are, then.
> Note that in Figure 18, the machines are fastened down. That doesn't
> fit the popular conception of nanobots.
Re: Nanobots Not Needed 4
sci.nanotech: Re: Nanobots Not Needed
That is a diagram showing a nanobot assembly floor, e.g., a floor that
is assembling nanobots. The figure does not imply that they remain on
that floor while operating.
> The long−term projections and descriptive rhetoric in this chapter do
> appear to contradict what I wrote. The actual technology and plans
> appear far more sedate. In the end, I'm left unsure whether they're
> planning externally controlled, fastened−down, engineered machines and
> only mentioning the other stuff to be futuristic, or whether they
> actually think evolution and autonomy are desirable research goals.
>
>> There is a similar paper by a subset of those authors (found online here:
>> http://www.bionano.neu.edu/Bionanorobotics_Chapter%207_upload.pdf )
>> which I will admit I have not read (it's on my list after a paper on
>> artificial bacterial foraging strategies, and an application of same
>> to electrical design) which dedicates several pages to the topic of
>> self−replicating nanobots, with a call for more research on the topic
>> and a mention of ongoing research in the area.
>
> The paper has a lot of overlap with the previously cited one. (The
> English is better.) I note that their approach to self−replication
> appears to be limited to a self−templating self−assembly paradigm: "To
> create any system with self replicating mechanism we need to first find
> out its most stable state, then we need to calculate its behavior in the
> extrinsic gradients and then we need to excite it with energy and supply
> of intrinsic materials so that it replicates."
> Everyone, please copy me by email on any reply you want me to see; I
> don't usually have time to follow sci.nanotech discussions.
Gosh.
−−
John S. Novak, III jsn@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net
Re: Nanobots Not Needed 5