Nano Flaws?

A couple of days ago, a UI alumnus named Addison Killean Stark who has degrees in chemistry and mathematics wrote the following letter to the editor, criticizing a column I wrote about the future of molecular manufacturing:

In his Aug. 1 column, "Ending scarcity," Daily Iowan columnist Christopher Patton argues that nanotechnology, and particularly molecular manufacturing, could spell the end of economic scarcity. However I contest that Patton's argument is flawed on a number of levels.

First, and perhaps most importantly, Patton assumes that the raw materials for such a process would be "abundant" and "cheap." However, if we as a society were to build the majority of our consumer products from the atomic level up, an incredibly large source of ultra-pure atoms would be needed. Additional mining and industrial chemical processing would be required to supply the market for these chemical feedstocks. Hence, we would still be dependent on scarce resources that, under these new market pressures, would become more expensive and scarce.

Additionally, Patton does not consider the energetic costs of manipulating systems at the molecular level due to entropic limitations and system inefficiencies. As we have learned from recent global developments, energy is neither an abundant nor cheap resource.

I do believe that molecular manufacturing may play an important role in high-tech manufacturing (such as for the development of ever faster and smaller microelectronics) where material scarcity and cost is less of a concern than the performance of the end product. Patton's overly optimistic argument lacks any firm scientific, technological, or economic reasoning, and it should be taken with the largest grain of salt that you can molecularly manufacture.

This video provides a thorough refutation of all of Stark's points:



Yep. Plants. The very existence of life is the proof of concept for robust molecular manufacturing.

Plants synthesize large-scale structures from individual molecular components all the time--it's called "growing." They don't need a clean room to accomplish this; any dirty old field will do just fine. And they don't need to be hooked into the power grid either, as the sun provides them with all the energy they need.

If one were to compare the quantity of biomass assembled by plants each year with the quantity of the output of all of humanity's factories, it's pretty obvious which would be greater. Yes, we obviously don't yet have the technological know-how needed to mimic life's intricate molecular machinery. But when we reverse engineer it, making most of what we need will get a lot easier.

Regarding Stark's criticism of my lack of scientific citations, I'd like to point out that I only get just over 700 words for my columns. Also, I write for a popular audience and try not to bore them. However, I did toss out MIT researcher Neil Gershenfeld's name at the end. Anyone with an Internet connection can easily Google him and learn more about his work, which is fascinating.

There are also plenty of other great nanotechnology websites to explore. I particularly recommend checking out the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. Of course it's possible all these people are overly optimistic about the promise of molecular manufacturing. But it's not as though I'm just making this stuff up. No one who had really looked into the matter would suggest that I am.