Nano Inc. vs. Nano Think

Nanotechnology, long a favorite of science fiction writers, is now real enough for government money. So let the squabbling begin!

By Jack Mason

Sep 2, 2003 | On April 20, K. Eric Drexler, the futurist who coined the term "nanotechnology," published an open letter to Richard E. Smalley, a Nobel laureate working to translate nanoscience into a sustainable business. In the letter, Drexler accused Smalley of attempting to "dismiss my work in this field by misrepresenting it" and charged that "your misdirected arguments have needlessly confused public discussion of genuine long-term security concerns."

In a followup published two months later, in the absence of any direct response from Smalley, Drexler continued to express his concerns: "I would not ordinarily raise an issue so persistently. But the question of what nanotechnology can ultimately achieve is perhaps the most fundamental issue in the field today. And your words have been remarkably effective in changing how this issue is perceived."

Both letters took as their base text an essay by Smalley in the September 2001 issue of Scientific American titled "Of Chemistry, Love and Nanobots." In the essay, Smalley directly dismissed Drexler's ambitious definition of nanotechnology: molecular manufacturing via robots made up of a few million atoms.

Smalley, a Rice University chemistry professor who co-founded Carbon Nanotechnologies Inc. in 2000 to make tiny tubes of carbon molecules that look like rolled-up chicken wire, argued that the kind of miniscule robots Drexler had envisioned "will never become more than a futurist's daydream."

Drexler's "daydream" postulated a future, many decades hence, in which things would be built from their atoms up by theoretical nano-bots called "universal assemblers." Millions of such Drexlerian assemblers working in parallel would build structures as large and complex as a car or spaceship. They would start by fabricating building-block molecules of a few thousand atoms, organizing these blocks into larger units, and continuing on exponentially until the desired object was assembled a few hours or days later.

In such an unbounded Drexlerian world, everything from furniture to freeways would no longer be manufactured or built with bulk materials and toxic chemicals. Instead, they would essentially be grown out of feedstocks of carbon, oxygen, silicon and all other atomic elements. Industrial-era activities such as oil drilling, mining, paper mills, and shipping of raw materials would be history.

Such a tantalizing scenario succeeded in introducing one vision of nanotech to the world. Yet what Drexler has been talking about for 15 years is not what frontline scientists like Smalley have been pursuing for at least as long.

The type of nanotech such scientists are developing today is still in its infancy, and is crude compared to Drexler's model. Some current commercial applications -- embedding DNA-sized carbon nanotubes in plastic car parts to make them easier to paint, or using nanoparticles to polish computer chips as part of the multi-layer process used to make them -- are about as sexy as an assisted-living facility.

There's a long way between Drexler's dreams and Smalley's reality. But the very fact that there is some friction between scientists on the ground and visionaries such as Drexler is proof that nanotechnology has made impressive strides over the past decade and a half. The battle over how to define the term is not merely rhetorical. Policy makers are beginning to look closely at a fast-growing industry and billions of dollars of government funding will soon be at stake. There are immense security and environmental concerns. Nanotechnology is no longer science fiction, and both Smalley and Drexler know it.

Next Page: Will fears of nano eco-disaster derail the growing gravy train?

• View blog reactions