Regulating Nanotechnology and Designing the NGOs of the Future

Now, the Council has announced two fully-funded studies that it believes will blaze that path -- studies our friends at the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology believe are breakthroughs.

The first is to create a sort of artificial ribosome -- a mechanical DNA, if you will -- that can "synthesize linear chains of nanoscale building blocks in programmed sequence." In essence, the ability to forge synthetic chains of materials could soon (the team aims to complete the work in a few years for about $3 million) provide the fundamental spare parts for creating nano-scale machines.

If mechanical DNA can create the parts, though, an "actuator" will still be needed to serve as the conveyer belt through which a computer can assemble those parts into a working and useful whole. The Ideas Factory's second proposal is for the creation of exactly such an actuator.

As always the fear:

We need, as well, to start taking seriously the need for national regulations and international agreements on the use of nanotechnology. If nanotechnology proves less impressive than its proponents insist it will be, no harm will have been done, but if it in fact bears both the importance and the dangers many claim, we will need effective, enforceable treaties and laws to stave off disaster. ...

As Stewart Brand says about biotechnology, "The best way for doubters to control a questionable new technology is to embrace it, lest it remain wholly in the hands of enthusiasts who think there is nothing questionable about it."

That's very astute, and no doubt the paradigm applies to the prior paragraph in terms of government regulation and treaties. We cannot be at a technological disadvantage to those who cheat. I think the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty exemplifies this well. Imagine the NPT if we didn't have nuclear weapons and therefor the safety net of mutually assured destruction. I'm not saying MAD applies to nanotech. Bans and treaties are helpful but won't stop everyone.

More extensive thoughts here:

Our view is that advanced nanotechnology—molecular manufacturing—should be developed as fast as it can be done safely and responsibly. We’re promoting responsible rapid development of the technology—not because we believe it is safe, but because we believe it is risky—and because the only realistic alternative to responsible development is irresponsible development.

Sounds right to me.