Nanotechnology myths
Earth & Sky’s Abby Frank looks at nanotechnology’s ubiquitous grey goo and other nano–myths.
With new science comes new science fiction.
Scientific interest in space exploration inspired tales of encounters with malevolent aliens. The advent of computer technology brought stories of intelligent machines with the ability to conquer humanity.
Nanotechnology is no different. It has inspired wild tales of fearful consequences to life on Earth. But, while nanotechnology involves some possible safety risks, there are also a few clear myths. And, because nanotechnology is so new, it is sometimes difficult to separate nano fact from nano fiction.
So what is a nano myth? I asked Héctor Abruña, a chemist at Cornell University, who spoke on nanotech and the environment at a nanotechnology workshop for journalists in late 2004.
“Perhaps the biggest example, or the example that’s mostly in people’s minds, is the novel by Michael Crichton called Prey, where supposedly there are these devices, or these little bugs, that have been engineered to basically take over the world,” said Abruña.
“And that simply violates too many game rules as we know them in terms of energy balances and thermodynamics–all sorts of things,” he said. “To think that one could engineer something at that level, with that level of sophistication, that is self–propagating, self–replicating … is just not going to happen as far as I know.”
The concept of self–replicating nanomachines, also known as grey goo, was created by a visionary scientist named Eric Drexler. Founder of the Foresight Institute, a nonprofit organization to educate about nanotechnology, Drexler also introduced the term “nanotechnology” in his 1986 book Engines of Creation. Drexler intended his description of grey goo to serve as a cautionary tale about the potential dangers of the emerging field.
But in June of 2004, Drexler published a paper showing that fears about grey goo were probably unwarranted. With Chris Phoenix, Drexler co–authored the article titled Safe Exponential Manufacturing in the Institute of Physics’s journal Nanotechnology. In the article, he said that “runaway replication” of grey goo was unlikely and that using nanotechnology as a means of production can be “thoroughly non–biological and inherently safe.”
Drexler told Earth &Sky that he failed to anticipate the extent to which his grey goo scenario would capture the public’s imagination.
“I expected the contemplation of the broad societal impacts of nanotechnology to cause some discomfort, but did not expect that depictions of swarms of self–replicating nanobugs would dominate popular perceptions of advanced nanotechnology,” he said. “Nor did I envision that the term ‘nanotechnology’ would come to describe a wide range of almost unrelated research fields, and that efforts to disassociate those fields from concerns about ‘grey goo’ would spur false scientific denials of the original concepts.”
Christine Peterson, Vice President of Public Policy at the Foresight Institute, added, “Eric wanted to point out this theoretical possibility, to ensure that designers took it into account when the time came, to prevent it.”
She continued, “He now thinks it is an unlikely scenario because we can gain the benefits of molecular manufacturing without making any systems able to self–replicate (make copies of themselves). It’s not necessary, and it’s hard to do, so it seems unlikely.”
Peterson noted that the name grey goo, which sounds as though it were invented for use in science fiction stories, is perhaps partly to blame for the public’s fear. She said, “This idea has gotten more than its share of attention due to the catchy name, which was unfortunate.”
In spite of the attention given to the idea of grey goo, Peterson maintains that “So far, the American public has been remarkably sensible about nanotechnology, despite various scare stories that have shown up.” She thinks that attention should be focused on other, more realistic concerns about nanotechnology.
“Aside from possible nanoparticle toxicity, the public’s greatest concerns are potential loss of privacy and, longer–term, some kind of nanotech–related arms race. I have to say that I agree with these concerns–both are serious issues that we will need to address.”
Héctor Abruña believes that unfounded fears about nanotechnology only distract people from real biological dangers unrelated to the nano realm. He gave the following example: “Something that would be much more of a concern are biological entities that we know exist today–that can be incredibly harmful to us as a society. Things like ebola or smallpox–we know how harmful they can be.”
Nanotechnology has dramatic potential to change the way goods are produced in ways that scientists are just beginning to understand. One of the reasons why it is not easy to differentiate fact from fiction in nanotechnology is that some of the most fantastic claims about its possible applications might turn out to be true.
For example, Christine Peterson said, “Many of the more dramatic scenarios, such as nanorobotic medical devices cleaning out arteries, will someday be shown to be correct, I believe. Just not soon; it will take decades.”
In spite of the enthusiasm of scientists and investors, nanotechnology is still in the early stages of its development. Another myth about nanotechnology is that it will change the world overnight. Like Peterson, Abruña cautions that amidst speculation about the amazing applications in nanotechnology, most of these developments are still many years away.
“I think that there’s an enormous promise here, but one has to taint that with a realistic view of how long it will take to have deliverables, if you will,” Abruña said. “This is still very early on. The promise is enormous and I think some of these things have been a bit oversold, but nevertheless the promises are really breathtaking.”
