The Tiny Revolution

A young doctor walks in and delivers the news, “You have bone cancer.” With a smile, you think to yourself, “At least it’s nothing serious.” The doctor hands you a tiny paper cup filled with a translucent liquid, which you quickly swallow. You thank the doctor, and while walking out of the hospital, you feel confident all traces of the cancer will be gone by morning. That night, as you sleep, a great war is waged inside your body. In the morning, science emerges victorious.

It seems like science fiction, but this scenario, along with even more amazing visions of medical practices, promises to soon become science fact. The technology that will bring about revolutions in medicine, along with many other fields, is nanotechnology. Nanotechnology involves building devices at the atomic or molecular scale by controlling individual or small groups of atoms from 1 to 100 nanometers* across. In comparison, a single human hair is approximately 100,000 nanometers thick (“Small is Beautiful”). A single red blood cell is approximately 7,000 nanometers in diameter (Hoch, xiv). Three or four atoms are about 1 nanometer wide (“What is?”).

The control of atoms will give scientists and engineers the ability to control the environment around them at the atomic level. Because human bodies are collections of atoms, and because problems in our bodies arise because certain atoms are “out of place,” nanotechnology will bring about revolutionary changes to modern medical practices. Contrary to the ideas of many people, nanotechnology is not only possible, it is a beneficial path science will inevitably take. With it, science will be able to control health and disease at its most fundamental level. There are, of course, limits to what this technology can do.

The standard vision of the “breakthrough” needed in nanotechnology is the invention of a “general,” or “universal” assembler. Eric Drexler, considered by many to be the father of nanotechnology, defines the universal assembler as a device that will let us control the position of individual atoms. This capability gives rise to the ability to “let us build almost anything that the laws of nature allow to exist” (“Engines,” 14). Because these machines will be able to create other tiny devices, they will be able to “self-replicate.” This means that they would be able to create copies of themselves. Like viruses, bacterium, and cells, these machines would be able to reproduce.

When confronted with an idea that is likely to bring such dramatic change to all aspects of life, many people quickly dismiss it with pseudo-arguments. It is important to spend time refuting these kinds of arguments, not because they bear any scientific or rational argument against nanotechnology, but because they are such persistent arguments. John Quel, chairman of the Nanocon Proceedings on nanotechnology relates the largest reaction he encountered as being pseudo-arguments (2). For example, many people exclaim, “but this just seems too incredible!” at the idea of eradicating disease by using machinery. However, we have already seen dramatic changes in many fields of technology within the past 100 years. Lewis Thomas, a distinguished medical doctor and writer discusses dramatic changes we have recently undergone within the past century such as gaining the ability to control bacterial infection, to perform open heart-surgery and organ transplants, to cure some kinds of cancer, and to understand many diseases’ cause through an understanding of genetics. What makes it even harder for people to digest is that there hasn’t been any kind of huge publicity surrounding the technology. Drexler presented the possibilities of nanotechnology to Congress, but “there were no cover stories in Time or Newsweek. …none of Drexler’s testimony was printed in the New York Times. He didn’t even make it to ‘All Things Considered.’” However, this is easily explained. According to a Time magazine editor, magazines, “only cover things that actually happen, not things that are just supposed to happen” (Regis, “Nano” 9). Thus, the primary reason something as incredible as nanotechnology isn’t forced upon the public is because the visions of the future it paints do sound like science fiction, and it is hard for non-scientific publications to present the vision to the public without inundating them with an information overload.

Another common pseudo-argument posed is that the implications of nanotechnology are too good to be true. Drexler dismisses this argument in his book Engines of Creation by pointing out that, “nature cares nothing for our sense of good and bad and nothing for our sense of balance” (143). In effect, as long as it is physically possible, it doesn’t matter whether it seems “too good to be true.” However, nanotechnology, like many other technologies, does pose serious threats that must be dealt with. Just as nuclear power produces, along with its benefits, nuclear waste that is difficult to dispose of and nuclear meltdowns that endanger people’s lives, nanotechnology is especially dangerous as scientists begin to experiment with it. For example, one issue involves keeping robots programmed to self-replicate from reproducing indefinitely. However, there are many ways to deal with this problem including slightly altered methods currently employed by mother nature that keep animals from constantly growing larger forever (Regis, “Great” 139; Debicki).

Other people ask, “How can you predict the future?” but again, this pseudo-argument is riddled with holes. This argument was discussed in the Nanocon Proceedings, which explained that the reason this argument comes up is because of a lack of recognizing the difference between scientists and engineers. It is impossible for a scientist to claim to know what he will discover, but it is realistic for an engineer to explain what it is possible to do, understanding the limitations of science. Because engineers “understand fundamental scientific principles well enough”, we can now claim that the nanotechnology revolution is possible (7).

There are also scientifically valid arguments being posed against nanotechnology. One concern Drexler discussed in Engines of Creation is that heat dissipation could pose a problem (59). Six years later, in Nanosystems, Drexler devoted an entire chapter to techniques that can be employed in dissipating heat (ch. 7). However, using cooling technology processes we have today, cooling problems only limit the capabilities of nanotechnology and are not show-stoppers (Freitas, 10.5.4).

Another argument, explained by Brad Cox in Wired’s “Brain Tennis” is that even if we develop the capability of manipulating atoms, we won’t know exactly which atoms to manipulate. Cox says that no matter how much information we glean about large-scale processes, they will never tell us exact information about specific atoms. Without this knowledge, control over atoms would be useless (3). Ed Regis responds, in the article, to this problem by describing a process already used by physicist Hans Dehmelt to work with precisely the atoms desired. He also says, “molecular mills, sorters, and other mechanisms can physically eliminate unwanted atoms and create ordered streams of feedstock molecules that can be presented to the manipulator arm one by one.” (8). Another possible solution to this problem is Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies. AI and nanotechnology will work together; nanotechnology will provide the computing power benefits needed for AI, and AI will allow billions of decisions to be made at the atomic level without requiring humans to make them (Toth-Fejel).

Another common argument from an economic perspective is that even if the technology is developed, it will be too expensive to either employ on a large scale or to benefit poorer countries. However, it is the distinguishing quality of general assemblers being able to reproduce that will make the technology “dirt cheap” once it is initially developed (Drexler, “Engines” 94). This is because creating more assemblers won’t cost any money or resources other than the dirt (raw materials) necessary to construct them because it will be the assemblers themselves who create more assemblers.

Robert Freitas Jr.’s book Nanomedicine, Freitas’ first volume in an anthology dedicated to the medical aspects of Nanotechnology, is the result of over 20,000 man-hours of work. It is currently the first and only book of its kind, and stands as the definitive answer on all things relating to nanomedicine. In it, Freitas states, “the bottom line is that molecular nanotechnology violates no physical laws and there exist many possible technical paths leading to useful results. … In 1998, it was generally accepted that molecular nanotechnology would be developed…” (1.3.1). In fact, without denying the existence of most of biology’s founding concepts as well as successful experimentation, it is hard to deny nanotechnology as being a plausible science. There are many examples of nanotechnology being used in our bodies even today. DNA and other proteins are complicated machines that operate on our bodies, providing us with form and function (Regis, “Great” 122). Viruses infect our bodies and through their “programming” replicate at the expense of our cells. Cells are complicated factories, operating on well-understood chemical processes. All are evolved machines, made out of organic material.

Further research in nanotechnology is only an improvement on techniques evolved in nature. We have reason to believe we can improve on nature because scientists who approach the problem of developing nanobots are approaching it with a conscious mind whereas evolution is an unconscious development process. There have been many examples of this being done in the past. For example, existing solar panels are already more effective at capturing sunlight than plants (Drexler, “Engines” 94) and there have been many breakthroughs in developing plants, through genetic engineering, that suit our needs better.

Devices are already routinely being built today with parts on the order of 0.5 micrometers, (Hoch, xiii) or about 125 atoms wide. In 1999, Intel manufactured processors with transistors that were about 63 atoms across (“Small is Beautiful”). A motor was recently developed with a diameter of less than 12 nanometers or fewer than 36 atoms across (Montemagno, 225). In 1985, Tom Newman “wrote out the first page of A Tale of Two Cities at…1/25,000 scale reduction.” This amounts to the lines of the characters being about one five-millionth of an inch thick (Regis, “Great” 126). In 1989, IBM spelled their logo out at the atomic level using 35 atoms (Regis, “Nano”, 11). Micrometer scale technology has also been used to guide and analyze neuron growth (Hoch, 258-262). Even in the 1980’s biologists were able to “…use antibodies to tag proteins, enzymes to cut and splice DNA, and viral syringes…to inject edited DNA into bacteria” (Drexler, “Engines” 104). Manipulation of material at the necessary level is therefore not only possible, but has been demonstrated countless times in many different fields of endeavor. The feats achieved here are actually on orders much smaller than the size of many cells in the human body including blood cells and neurons (Hoch, xiv, 259).

Research in nanotechnology is intimately involved with life processes because of the plethora of real-life examples we already have in the field. Much research is being done on proteins. Because of this, many of the first benefits of nanotechnology will involve medical health. One of the simplest uses, fighting infectious disease, has staggering implications. Drexler says that selective destruction, “the simplest medical [application] of nanomachines,” will be able to “recognize and destroy other dangerous replicators” (“Engines” 109). Basically, the machines will be improved versions of the body’s own white blood cells, a sort of artificial immune system, actively seeking out and destroying foreign and harmful material. This would mean an end to infectious diseases such as colds, flues, and venereal diseases, as well as more complicated problems such as cancers and parasitic organisms, and any future viral or bacterial mutation (“NanoTechnology Health”). Drexler gives the example of a disease such as herpes, “which…splices its genes onto the DNA of a host cell. A repair device will enter the cell, read its DNA, and remove the addition that spells ‘herpes’” (“Engines” 109). Cancerous cells are treated in a similar manner; any cells with abnormalities when compared to the rest of your body will be selectively destroyed or corrected.

Nanotechnology will also enable medical technology to employ cellular repair. According to the Nanocon proceedings, computers powerful enough to address the wear and tear of an individual cell will be able to be inserted into each and every single cell in a human body, occupying less than one percent of the total volume of each cell. The computers, along with repair machines 100,000 repair devices under the control of each computer, would be able to “begin to repair tissue at a level that medicine cannot begin to deal with today.” This technique is in stark contrast to the method of medicine today. Traditional medicine involves helping the body repair itself. Nanomedicine involves actively repairing the body (13).

Another important fact that makes nanotechnology an easy solution against health issues is tissue can be ill in many more ways than it can be healthy. This allows for unintelligent sensors to detect unhealthy aspects of the body and correct them. Drexler gives an example of how this fact can be employed: “once researchers describe the range of structures that a healthy liver may have, repair machines exploring a malfunctioning liver need only look for differences and correct them” (“Engines” 113). Nanotechnology will be able to aid the researchers in describing the form of a healthy liver and then use this information to keep tissue healthy. In this light, machine operated medicine seems much more plausible.

Not only would cellular repair machines be able to repair tissue damage, but their benefits also offer the potential for long-term life extension. Because aging “is no magical effect of calendar dates on a mysterious life-force,” (Drexler, “Engines” 115) fixing the biological problems associated with aging become possible with nanotechnology. The lifespan of mice have been extended 25 to 45 percent using technology available in 1973 (Harman). Using nanotechnology, nanomachines would correct and prevent the natural degeneration of DNA and cells throughout the body, and thereby extend life indefinitely, barring any unforeseen accidents.

One of the limiting factors of nanotechnology includes the heat issues previously discussed. It is impossible to construct machines that would be able to hold together at extremely high or extremely low temperatures because molecular bonds break up more easily at higher temperatures and materials are extremely viscous at lower temperatures (Freitas, 10.5). Therefore, it would be impossible to construct any kind of protection against extreme temperatures in order to protect the body from them. Another limitation is that molecular machines will never be able to operate on the sub-atomic level. Also, there are a finite number of possible arrangements of atoms and therefore there are definite limits on the possibilities of things we will be able to construct. Drexler points out that because of this, there will be limits, that is, a maximum, for any given quality one chooses to concentrate on (“Engines” 156). For example, there is one material that is the strongest material, and another material best suited for insulating against heat.

In spite of these limits, nanotechnology will become a very powerful force in our near future. Because there are no scientific reasons why manipulation of structures on the scale needed for the development of general assemblers is impossible, with enough research, nanotechnology will be developed. The nature of the technology implies that the immediate benefits will pertain to health issues; the quality of life will be improved dramatically, and the length of life will be extended indefinitely.

Copyright © 2001 Charles M. Ellison III

Works Cited

Cox, Brad and Ed Regis. “Nanotechnology: Flawed by Design?” Wired. 4-13 Nov. 1996 . 14 Apr. 2001.

Debicki, Weronika. “Aging the Bitter Truth.” COSHE’s Reports on the NET. . 18 Apr. 2001.

Drexler, Eric. Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. Garden City: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1986.

—. Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1992.

Freitas, Robert A. Jr. Nanomedicine Volume I: Basic Capabilities. Georgetown: Landes Bioscience 1999: n. pag. Online. . 18 Apr. 2001.

Harman, D. “Free Radical Theory of Aging.” Triangle. 12.4 (1973): 153-58.

Hoch, Harvey C., Lynn Jelinski, and Harold Craighead eds. Nanofabrication and Biosystems. New York: Cambridge Press, 1996.

Lewis, Dr. James B. and John L. Quel eds. Nanocon Proceedings. Seattle Washington, Feb 17-19, 1989. Washington: Nanocon, 1989.

Montemagno, Carl and George Bachand. “Constructing Nanomechanical Devices Powered by Biomolecular Motors.” Nanotechnology. 10 (1999): 225-231.

“NanoTechnology Health” NanoTechnology Magazine. .

Regis, Ed. Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1990.

—. Nano: The Emerging Science of Nanotechnology: Remaking the world—Molecule by Molecule. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1995.

“Small is Beautiful.” CSL – Leaders in IT & Communications Research. . 16 Apr. 2001.

Thomas, Lewis. “Basic Medical Research: A Long-Term Investment.” Technology Review. May/June 1981. 46-47.

Toth-Fejel, Tihamer T. “Agents, Assemblers, and ANTS: Scheduling Assembly with Market and Biological Software Mechanisms.” Nanotechnology 11 (2000): 133-134.

“What is NanoTechnology?” NanoTechnology Magazine. . 18 Apr. 2001.

——————————————————————————–

* 1 nanometer is 1/1,000,000,000 of a meter.