READING	NAME	AGENDA ITEM FOR DISCUSSION
Richard Smalley: “Of Chemistry, Love and Nanobots”	Andrew Nelson	He makes many good points about some issues that would be faced with nanobots. The one I want to talk about is how the nanobots fingers would be too fat and how it would control the other atoms around the one(s) being moved.
	Sarah Petzold	It was a rambling article about his thoughts on nanobots and how they would happen if the 'chemistry' was right. It was a basic 'what if' and curious train of thought. It was very interesting that Smalley had written an article on Drexler's nanobots. Even thought Smalley was trying to put down Drexler's nanobots as unrealistic, he made them sound almost plausible in the beginning and only in the last paragraph did he made any real claims against them.
	Grant Boucher	Smalley was able to use the idea of self-replicating nanobots to entice people to read and remember his article. He increased the length of his article from 2 paragraphs to 2 pages and increased the hype by usinga hot technological buzzword paired with a doomsday scenario.
	Molly Danskin	"It seems like Smalley's main objections come from the belief that a nanobot will never be able to place individual atoms in precise positions in order to build substances unit by unit (assemblers). I had thought that this was only part of Drexler's vision for nanotechnology, and that he had also mentioned having nanobots use traditional subtractive manufacturing processes to create specific forms of relatively uniform material (fabricators)? If this was not the intended idea and a result of my misunderstanding, what then is the accepted distinction between the terms fabrication, assembly, and manufacturing?"
Drexler-Smalley debate in Chemical and Engineering News	Galen Frechette	It seems as if Smalley does not fully understand where Drexler is coming from or is not fully aware of all of the science behind Drexlers ideas, and has taken a stance on the feasibility of those ideas he is willing to defend to any lengths. I wonder what motivates is denouncement of Drexler. How does he or any one else benefit from it?
	Charlie Senness	I feel like Smalley is asking very important and pertinent questions, while Dexler is just saying the same thing over and over again without providing any new info regarding Smalley's assersions. Also, Smalley talks in terms of laws and principles, while I feel Dexler speaks through theories and some principles hear and there.
	Tracy Breslin	"When a scientist says something is possible, they're probably underestimating how long it will take. But if they say it's impossible, they're probably wrong." I find this quote by Smalley (cited by Drexler) very interesting and I wonder if anything really is impossible? Does Smalley not understand Drexler, can both men be right?
	Heather Lautman	Smalley, initially inspired from Drexlers writings, completely turns around as shown in this reading. Is he trying to disprove and falsify nanotechnology too soon? Or rather even before it has been given a fair chance of being explored?
	Christine O'Rourke	“Of the essays I read, nearly half assumed that self-replicating nanobots were possible, and most were deeply worried about what would happen in their future as these nanobots spread around the world. I did what I could to allay their fears, but there is no question that many of these youngsters have been told a bedtime story that is deeply troubling.” It seems as though it is assumed that self replicating nanobots would be an automatic bad thing but why, couldn’t Drexler be right and there would be ways to control them ?
	Joyce Chow	"But where does the enzyme or ribosome entity come from in your vision of a self-replicating nanobot?" We still don't know whether nanotechnology is possible or not until to experiment, but this question does boggle my minneid, where does the actual life form come from? And what about the conditions needed to keep the assembler alive?
	Andrew Starr	"You apparently fear that my warnings of long-term dangers will hinder funding of current research, stating: "We should not let this fuzzy-minded nightmare dream scare us away from nanotechnology. ... NNI should go forward." However, I have from the beginning argued that the potential for abuse of advanced nanotechnologies makes vigorous research by the U.S. and its allies imperative. Many have found these arguments persuasive. In an open discussion, I believe they will prevail. In contrast, your attempt to calm the public through false claims of impossibility will inevitably fail, placing your colleagues at risk of a destructive backlash."
	Daniel Schaffer	"Biology is wonderous in the vast diversity of what it can build, but it can't make a crystal of silicon, or steel, or copper, or aluminum, or titanium, or virtually any of the key materials on which modern technology is built." This is an extremely interesting limitation, one which could change the direction of "Modern Technology" This implies that a possible future exists in biology instead of metals and plastics.
Ray Kurzweil’s defense of Drexler:	Grant Kovach	"when a scientist says something is possible, they're probably underestimating how long it will take. But if they say it's impossible, they're probably wrong."... I thought this was an interesting ending to drexler's statement.
	James Johnston	" Smalley's argument is of the form that "we don't have 'X' today, therefore 'X' is impossible." " Noting that we probably do not have the technology yet to create nanoscopic self-assembliers as proposed by Drexler's ideas. Would creating microscopic self-assemblers give Drexler a stronger point in the prediction of "molecular manufacturing" or are microscopic machines the limit of our technological advance. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/sci_nat_enl_1118586538/html/1.stm
	Rachel Ferebee	Does the forecasting of technology do more harm than good? Using 2020 as a goal can create a time line and keep people on track with progress. At the same time, if these traits are not realized or materialized by that year, will nanotechnology or a specific subset of it be deemed a failure?
	Andrew Krushelnyski	"Nature shows that molecules can serve as machines because living things work by means of such machinery. Enzymes are molecular machines that make, break, and rearrange the bonds holding other molecules together. Muscles are driven by molecular machines that haul fibers past one another. DNA serves as a data-storage system, transmitting digital instructions to molecular machines, the ribosomes, that manufacture protein molecules. And these protein molecules, in turn, make up most of the molecular machinery. " Nanotechnology described like that makes me believe than anything is possible. It literally may be possible to create a human being tiny nanobot by tiny nanobot. My question for discussion is that this idea seems just as plausible as stem cell research and surgery so what would seem more realistic and which would you prefer?
	Mike Pennisi	"The real cost, of course, would be the value of the information describing each type of product, that is the software that controls the assembly process. Thus everything of value in the world, including physical objects, would be comprised essentially of information." What about energy? Doesn't our increased reliance on chemical energy have major implications for our future?


Nanotech Now’s defense of Drexler: http://www.nanotech-now.com/Press_Kit/molecular-manufacturing-myths.htm	Alex Lamparski	This article and the one before both seem to defend the same arguments Smalley has presented in the past. I agree with the stance of both articles as they are fighting the same battle, but I enjoy the general set up for this article because it is very clean cut, each argument is answered individually. I believe in the argument because I believe that no science should ever be labeled 'impossible' nor should any science be approached with a belief that all the solutions have already been worked out.
	Adam Neisius	Why is “it’s too hard” or the lesser use “it’ll take too long” often used as an argument to not do something even when the benefits will outweigh the costs in the long term? (alternative energy, global warming, nanomachines, etc.) Is it just apathy and lazyness, a contentment with the status quo, a wish to not think about the future, or something else?
	Andrew Cunningham	The author states that "biology is better than anything we can build" is a myth and that technology/engineering has created better things like the computer. I strongly disagree. Has anyone ever created a "Frankenstein?" Have we ever created a cell on our own? Who created the computer....we did....and we are "biology." Our mind is a computer and has allowed us to create all this "technology" and keep up with the same brain and bodies.
	Ishan Gaur	The article gives a clear description of how

Richard Smalley: “Of Chemistry, Love and Nanobots”