"Sabrina is no-longer merely Sabrina"

This is a video linking nanotechnology and "synthetic human evolution." According to the video, were are already at this point now.

As discussed in my previous NanoFutures posts, this raises an awful lot of philosophical questions about where we actually want science to lead us.

To me, the biggest problem with educational videos, such as this one, is that it really tells the viewer nothing about what existing nanotechnology is; at the same time, it links the term to a grab-bag of future technologies that the public may or may not be in favor of. Meanwhile, there ARE nanotechnologies already here. However, they're not being discussed.

Great Expectations and Science

Without any doubt, Barack Obama is an outstanding public speaker, and his speechwriters are equally gifted. . . . Here is a link to his inaugural address: Obama Transcript

One particular passage to pay attention to is this:

"We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do."

A tall order for science. . . . Not only is it going to invent new ways to power our automobiles and industries, but it must return to it's "rightful place." This, to me, seems like an obvious endorsement of science as a form of power or authority. It must, apparently, be elevated beyond its competitors in the creation of knowledge.

Can we really expect so much of science? Should we endow it with so much power?

Compare this vision of science with the one portrayed by John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address:
Kennedy Transcript

"Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction. . . . Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors."

Obviously, he is referencing nuclear weapons as the terror of science. . . . It seems odd that today, when we're likely to rely on science more than ever to address emerging problems, that this level of caution is almost completely absent. We still possess the power to destroy everything that sustains us. And yet, fear of this power has abated after just 45 years.

Inactivity to Inspiration

This blog has been inactive for a solid six months, though I can’t say that I have been. . . . And neither has the world.

As I write this, just moments ago, a new president ascended to what is still the most powerful, influential and public office on Earth. Whether any of the serious problems facing our planet can be addressed with a mere administrative change in our government remains unclear to me – if not wholly doubtful. However, it is clear that we are standing at the brink of major changes. Not only is there a fever pitch of human voices calling for change, but the sheer force of history is bringing changes upon us – whether we want them or not.

To me, there is no greater challenge than the energy crisis. Energy, simply, is what feeds and clothes the world. And we are running out of it. . . . At least, we are running out of the easiest sources of it.

Of course, this blog is about nanotechnology. But from here on, there will be a far broader focus. I hope to discuss science policy and philosophy of science here as well. And I hope you will join the discussion.

Once change that seems imminent – stemming almost purely from this administrative change – is that science will receive more funding than in the past. Furthermore, science will be charged with the task of feeding, watering and clothing the world. This is a big task for science. Perhaps the biggest task imaginable. . . . Will the Western world’s faith in science withstand the perils ahead? I cannot say. And will science be able to find new ways to feed, water and clothe the world? I believe so, but probably not to the current extent, or to the extent that most people would want.

The earlier focus of the blog was, basically, that nanotechnology is huge. Certainly, nanotechnology will play a serious role in addressing the problems of this new age. . . . And I hope to document this here.

And as I sit here at the Memorial Center at the University of Colorado, easily 1,000 students have crammed into this room to watch Barack Obama make his inaugural address to the American people. To them. To you. To me.

I’m not completely sure how to feel. But I can say this: As the “Star Spangled Banner” was sung, for perhaps the first time in my life I felt true pride in being an American. Not, necessarily, because of the historic implications of who our new president is – a black American and a left-winger – but because, like it or not, we remain one of the most advanced and most powerful nations on Earth; and as humanity races headlong into the age of these new problems, we will be taking the lead. There is some pride to be taken in that knowledge. But with this pride in our global responsibilities should also come caution. This will be a chaotic age.

Change is coming for me, as well. I am just a few short months away from completing my graduate studies and entering what I believe will be the Wild West era of science writing. More than ever, we will need informed writers and communicators to sift through the bull, and help educate the public. More than ever, science will be at the forefront of policy. And, because of this, people will need to understand science as something more than just a philosophical substitution for faith. Science must be looked at critically. And recognizing that nanotechnology will, indeed, be huge, I hope this can be a bastion of knowledge for everyone interested.

Thank you.

Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) Techniques Finding New Applications in Nanotech

[For background on ALD check out this How Stuff Works video: http://videos.howstuffworks.com/multi-media-productions/1159-the-future-of-semiconductors-video.htm

Overall, atomic layer deposition -- or ALD -- is a technique that could be used to develop literally hundreds of products or devices. Yet perhaps the most exciting application is in the development of electrical systems that use mechanical parts, rather than solid-state properties.

Electromechanical systems are all around us, from your standard wristwatch to a remote control car. In the modern world, we are virtually surrounded by machines that convert electrical energy into mechanical energy – the energy of motion.

But until the evolution of nanotechnology brought the world increasingly effective techniques for constructing materials on the nanoscale, all of these machines were relatively large and could not compete with other techniques that did not use moving parts, for certain applications – such as in computer processors.

Now, the evolution of ALD is allowing researchers to build mechanical parts so small that, in theory, they could one day be part of a mechanically-powered computer – a computer relying on minute levers, gears and switches, rather than unmoving, solid-state inductors, capacitors and resistors.

“Mechanical structures have less loss than solid-state materials,” said Yuan-Jen Chang, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

Chang works in Professor Victor M. Bright’s lab at CU, and is using ALD to construct electromechanical devices on the scale of just a few nanometers. These devices are known as nanoelectromechanical systems, or NEMs.

“The idea of mechanical computers were suggested 100 years ago,” Chang said. “But the techniques are more mature now.”

Two of Chang’s projects involve depositing a layer – one atom or molecule thick – of material onto a substrate, and then shaping this material into certain mechanical structures.

After depositing layers of gold and then nickel to a silicon substrate, Chang applies an ALD layer of tungsten on top of these. Next, using a technique known as electron-beam discography, Chang carves a portion of the nickel layer – about 100 nanometers thick – out from in-between the ALD tungsten and the gold electrodes. The result is a single-atom-thick tungsten lever, held at one end by a bit of nickel, and free to move at the other end up and down on the gold electrode.

“This ALD tungsten works as a switch,” he said. “Since ALD tungsten actuates at a lower voltage than sold state computers, we could reduce the heat in these and still keep the performance.”

Chang’s ALD tungsten switch has been shown to maintain its properties at around 2,000 cycles. Although other groups are working on similar projects, no one has published their findings yet, Chang said.

“We suspect they have only achieved five to ten cycles before failure,” he said. “So this is a very big achievement.”

Using a similar approach, Chang has also managed to develop a nanoelectromechanical resonator that is capable of sensing masses of a bout one-quadrillionth of a gram – only a few times larger than the mass of a single DNA molecule.

“I believe we are the first group to use ALD for this purpose,” he said. “This could have many applications in the bio-field.”

The Nano Risk Framework

According to Environmental Defense – a national organization funded to conduct environmental research and aid in developing environmental policy – the possible hazards of nanotechnology are only magnified by the tiny amount of research that has been conducted to assess these hazards.

“The few data now available give cause for concern: Some nanomaterials appear to have the potential to damage skin, brain, and lung tissue, to be mobile or persistent in the environment, or to kill microorganisms (potentially including ones that constitute the base of the food web),” according to Environmental Defense.

The organization calls for the direct partnership between industry leaders in nanotechnology and public advocacy groups to aid in developing comprehensive strategies to maximize the benefits of nanotechnology while minimizing the risks.

In June of 2007, a major step forward was made in this aim with the partnership of Environmental Defense and DuPont. Building off of a co-authored article published in the Wall Street Journal in 2005, DuPont and Environmental Defense executives published a “Nano Risk Framework”: a “proposal for a comprehensive, practical, and flexible Nano Risk Framework – a systematic and disciplined process – to evaluate and address the potential risks of nanoscale materials.”

The proposal was not binding; nor did it establish any legislation regarding nanotechnology policy. Rather, it was a demonstration of what two organizations with seemingly opposing goals could agree upon and accomplish, according to Nigel Cameron, director of the Institute of Nanotechnology and Society at Chicago’s Kent College..

“Both organizations are still worried about what the federal government is going to think about it,” he said. “But, if it were me, if Environmental Defense and DuPont can agree on something, I’d just sign the check.”

The resulting proposal suggested a six-step process for bringing any nanomaterial to market: first, the material must be scientifically described and characterized; second, the material’s entire life-cycle must be analyzed and its reactivity with any other materials must be stated; third, the risks of these possible interactions must be evaluated; fourth, risk management procedures must be developed and assessed; fifth, a course of action must be decided upon and documented; and sixth, an evaluation procedure must be implemented for some point in the future.

According to the framework, its most effective application as a tool for policy would be in a setting in which its execution would be ensured – such as under federal law.

Yet, the 2003 Nano Act is the only federal legislation dealing directly with the matter of nanotechnology’s environmental, social and ethical impacts. And, according to the act, all that is required of any federally funded nanotechnology research and development project is that it includes “activities that address societal, ethical, and environmental concerns.”

The nature of these activities remains implicit, and it is not designed to be quantitatively assessed.

Religious Fears and Nanotech

To many people in the U.S. and Europe, “nanotechnology” is understood in rather abstract or loosely defined terms – if the word is known at all.

About 30-percent of people in the developed world have at least a passing familiarity with the term, according to a study conducted by researchers at the University of Wisconsin, in collaboration with Pennsylvania State University and Cornell University. To about two-thirds of these people, however, nanotechnology is only recognized as a vague symbol for looming technological innovations, possessing new – and perhaps even bizarre – consequences.

Given the explosive impact nanotechnology promises to have on industry and society, it’s shocking how unaware people are,” said Nigel Cameron, director of the Center of Nanotechnology and Society at Chicago’s Kent College. “And many who are aware, are afraid.”

Although the relatively low awareness of nanotechnology is fairly consistent across the U.S. and Europe, there is one striking difference between these two regions, said Dietram Scheufele, principle investigator of the study and University of Wisconsin professor of life sciences, communication and journalism.

“More Americans fear the consequences of nanotechnology,” he said.

The survey, which is currently under peer review, shows that only 29-percent of Americans believe nanotechnology is morally acceptable. In the United Kingdom, this number is 54 percent; while in Germany and France, 62 and 72-percent of the survey’s respondents had no moral objections to nanotechnology, respectively. All of the survey’s respondents either already considered themselves informed regarding nanotechnology or were educated through a series of 10 telephone calls.

With a margin of error at only 3 percent, this drastic disparity requires some sort of explanation, Scheufele said.

“We found that people in the U.S. have attitudes about nanotechnology similar to other countries with high levels of religiosity,” he said.

Scheufele’s survey charted people’s relative levels of religious faith and their moral beliefs regarding nanotechnology. It revealed an inverse relationship between a self-assessed importance of God in the respondent’s lives and their belief in the moral acceptability of nanotechnology.

“More aware people tended to be the ones who possessed less fear of nanotechnology,” he said. “But the key to how the public at large will understand nanotechnology has to do with what the first big applications are.”

To this point, many of the public’s first impressions of nanotechnology have been bundled with other contentious moral issues, such as stem cell research and transhumanism, Cameron said.

Since 2001, hundreds of scientific papers have been published regarding the issue of enhancing human performance through nanotechnology, ranging from new nanotechnology-based drugs to actual brain implants.

“This has created a lot of sci-fi, sort of naive talk,” he said. “But it’s terrifying if you’re an investor.”

The fears surrounding nanotechnology have played a role in a general lack of public involvement in the issue, said Julia Moore, deputy director for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. But educating people is going to take a lot of time and the government is wary of what the public will think, she said.

“Most nanomaterials will be proven to be safe,” she said. “But there are still lots of environmental and human health risks that need to be assessed. And they demand public policies now not in existence.”

Since the definition of nanotechnology is so general – potentially including virtually all fields of applied science – it has evaded federal policy as well as accurate public understanding, Cameron said.

“What we need is a far more coherent discussion on the federal level,” he said. “People want to fund the science and move forward. But until we know how the public is going to react, people are reluctant.”

More information: The Nanomaterials Characterization Facility
Dietram Scheufele

Nanotech Luxuries soon to Hit the Market

Most often, the research dollars pouring into the development of nanotechnology and nanoscience are justified by underscoring the likely social benefits the final outcomes of research are aimed at producing – whether they relate to public health, better living, safety or whatever. But, not surprisingly, nanotechnology is already beginning to produce luxuries, which possess little or no social benefits and exist purely as a useless means toward reaping corporate profits.

Researchers at Victoria University in Wellington unveiled a tremendous technological advancement to the world last week at the Nano Science and Technology Institute convention: gold nanoparticles clothing dyes.

Yes, you heard me right, clothing dyes with no advantage over existing dyes other than intense brightness, possible health hazards, exponentially higher prices and, of course, the ability of the consumer to say, “I am wearing a sweater of gold.”

What has made this possible? Corporate partnership with Victoria University research projects and, of course, New Zealand taxpayers have helped make this a reality, according to Stuff.co.nz: “The Wellington researchers are part of the university's MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials & Nanotechnology, which was last year given taxpayer funding over six years of $39.1 million for operational spending and $9.8 million for capital works.”

Is this really an appropriate use of taxpayer money? Is this really an appropriate avenue down which nanotechnology and nanoscience should be traveling?

Well, from the capitalistic perspective, this should be expected and not reviled. If this technology exists and consumers are situated such that they demand and can afford such luxuries, then perhaps there is no reason to object to such applications of nanotechnology.

There is, however, a disturbing alliance between the government and the clothing designers who are likely to profit from these developments, which, clearly, are a product of public investment.

Furthermore, there is the more broad concern that while our civilization is teetering on the brink of the catastrophe of not being able to supply enough energy to prevent collapse – once peak oil hits – that publicly-funded research is going into the production of luxuries rather than technological solutions to the crisis.

Please let them know what you think (especially if you live in New Zealand): http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4585439a28.html.

Also visit Victoria University’s Web site: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/default.aspx.

(For more about Peak Oil visit: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/industries/energy/stories/050508dnbusoilsidebar.3b519e7.html; the Saudis – who we should expect to be disingenuously optimistic – predict oil will reach its production peak in 2037, which is still dangerously close).

Nano Futures: Sewer Surveillance

The last of the Nano Futures scenarios compiled to date involves tracking the movements of individuals within a city through the application of nanotechnology to sewer systems.

The basic idea involves placing a DNA detection and coding system within the sewer system of a large metropolis – using nanopore technology. In theory, this system could be so advanced and work on such a short timescale that people in this city could be located by authorities within a matter of minutes.

A previous blogger objected to this scenario because he or she thought that it was a disgusting topic and that more interesting applications of nanotechnology could be discussed.

Objectively, it really does not matter whether topics relating to human waste are regarded as disgusting or not; this exists as, possibly, a real application of nanotechnology and, clearly, the point of including it in this discussion was not to disgust readers or to present them with what might be an amazing advance in technical science. Without a doubt, the significance of this subject is the extremely high level of surveillance that the full development of these nanotechnologies would allow for law enforcement or, say, anyone with the means to produce and install such a system.

So, we must ask ourselves, is it morally acceptable that the government – or really anyone – might possess such intimate knowledge of members of society? This is not merely a question of whether or not the location of different individuals will be known, but their DNA, presumably, will be known as well. This is because the process by which possibly fugitive individuals would be located would be based purely on their DNA sequence. Naturally, this would mean that the government – or who uses this technology – would be in possession of perhaps millions of people’s genetic codes, regardless of whether or not it knew whom these codes belonged to in particular.

Should this trouble us?

Personally, I am not sure. From a certain point of view, it is always a good idea to implement measures that should ensure the more rapid and accurate administration of justice to those who have broken the laws of society. Yet the cost of this particular technology, again, is the surrendering of a certain level of privacy for apparently law-abiding private citizens – by giving the government a copy of their DNA codes. There are also the further concerns that this technology might not only be used by law enforcement agencies, it could be misused by law enforcement agencies, or that it could start civilization down a slippery slope leading to the knowledge, by some agency, of the locations and doings of every member of society simultaneously.

I find the final outcome of such a scenario highly disturbing. This is because the question should not really just be, “Where are our citizens and are they abiding by the laws of society?” but also, “Who is our government and how can we justify giving those in power such supreme levels of control over the rest of us?”

Let them know what you think: http://cns.asu.edu/nanofutures/blog-sewersurveil.php

Nano Futures: Engineered Tissues

The technology to engineer human tissues and to eventually grow complex human organs is, clearly, one of the most significant goals of medical advancement and nanotechnology.

The Center for Nanotechnology in Society describes the fully-developed result of this technology with an illustration of how it could be used to build organs for the human cardiovascular system: “Cells are arranged by inserting them into a device analogous to an inkjet printer where cells are ink. The cells are then printed in a two dimensional pattern such as a circle. After a circle of cells is laid down on top of a sheet of scaffold, another layer of scaffold is placed on top, followed by yet another circle of cells and another sheet of scaffold. Several circles placed in this way will reorganize the scaffold to form a tubular tissue, thus creating a tissue with a vascular system.”

In some ways, this technology represents the numerous proposed benefits of the end-goals of stem cell research, but without the associated controversy surrounding this somewhat misunderstood issue.

This is the general position of medicine today: extend human life or preserve it to every extent conceivably allowable. From this ethical standpoint, there is little to suggest that the development of nano-engineered tissues should have any detrimental effects on society.

Another blogger noted that this could eventually be extended to animals – creating nano-engineered foods without the necessity of breeding and slaughtering other animals. Doubtlessly, there will be many individuals and groups apprehensive about such an application – such as consumer groups against nanotechnology in food. However, there is the potential for nanotechnology to suddenly become attractive to numerous animal rights groups or organizations.

Still, as is the case with virtually every emerging medical treatments – particularly in the United States – there is the lingering concern of who will have this treatment made available to them.

Clearly, this is an aspect of the debate that is not simply limited to nano-engineered treatments but to the whole United States medical community; it raises the question as to whether or not a privatized medical treatment organization is ever morally justified. Ultimately, many believe, the potential advances that nanotechnology may facilitate will bring these expansive ethical issues to a head. Put differently, nanotech treatments could possibly deepen the social chasm between the rich and the poor and, therefore, pursuing them may be immoral.

Let them know what you think: http://cns.asu.edu/nanofutures/blog-tissues.php.

Nano Futures: Disease Detector

Of the Nano Futures currently discussed, the possibility of a nanotechnology-based disease detection system is perhaps the most attractive from a social standpoint.

Essentially, the Center for Nanotechnology in Society describes a scenario in which molecularly engineered proteins are injected into a patient, and the relative abundances of these proteins can be monitored on a daily basis. The proteins are constructed such that they react with different chemicals within the body and, therefore, act as an indicator of certain diseases or other health issues – like a nano-scale litmus test.

The authors write, “Since the Doc in a Box is detecting markers on the molecular level, users will be informed of a cold or flu before a sore throat or cough ever occur. With the ability of Doc in the Box to detect diseases pre-symptomatically, people will be able to get treatment before they feel the illness and far before it is too late to treat the disease. For cancer patients, there will be biological implications of cancer before a tumor develops and before the cancer has time to spread.”

Overall, there are very few reasons to be apprehensive about the development of this technology. Right now, early detection is the very best defense against cancer. So this, while perhaps not being a cure for cancer, may be the next best thing. And, naturally, cancer is just one of the potentially hundreds of diseases that these proteins could be tailored to detect.

Still, when developing policies regarding such accurate and early detection technologies, it must be ensured that it is being used in a responsible manner – one that does not interfere with personal privacy.

It is not difficult to imagine different corporations or companies screening their possible employee stock for genetic or other disorders with this technology.

Not surprisingly, although such practices are spreading worldwide, many employees and legal experts object to the role that health testing may play in the way the businesses operate; most are centrally concerned with the associated actions taken by employers based upon the results of such tests.

For instance, it is not straightforwardly clear whether terminating an employee based upon the results of their genetic tests is an ethically sound measure. Additionally, it may be a form of employment discrimination to eliminate one applicant based upon a genetic predisposition to some form of disease—after all, a predisposition fails to guarantee that the disease will ever manifest itself.

If such precedents can be found to be ethically sound, then other forms of discrimination may find their way into employer hiring practices. It is possible to imagine, for example, that one workplace environment might be more hazardous to people of African descent than people of European descent based upon their genetic make-ups. Would it therefore be justifiable to eliminate all African American applicants based merely upon their race?

We might further imagine that this position grows exponentially as an industrial super-employer in the United States; employing millions of workers and sustaining a substantial portion of the economy. So, could it ever be found to be ethical to categorically deny the African American’s entrance into this industry based purely upon genetic predisposition?

Some might contend that such circumstances are unlikely to ever arise, and they may be right. Yet, the notion that we should find one form of discrimination objectionable because it happens to be associated with race and another acceptable because it is more invisible in nature is a highly troubling position to take.

In order for the early disease detector to be utilized in a responsible manner, policies must be put in place that prohibit uses deemed by the public at large as unethical.

Let them know what you think: http://cns.asu.edu/nanofutures/blog.html