Otávio Bueno The Drexler-Smalley Debate on Nanotechnology: Incommensurability at Work?

Sarah Petzold

The entire debate is an interesting phenomena. Drexler seems to dream and think of a future possibility and say that nanotechnology could one day happen. Smalley is trying to put down that idea and say it could never happen. I think that some form of nanotechnology is bound to happen, when is the only question. Smalley raises very good points, but manipulation of DNA, even the existance of DNA was unknown 40 years ago. Nanotechnology isn't that far flung of a concept. The manipulation will be the challenge as Smalley continued to state.

Matt Naples

The central problem I see with the nanobot self-assembler then is primarily chemistry. If the nanobot is restricted to be a water-based life-form, since this is the only way its molecular assembly tools will work, then there is a long list of vulnerabilities and limitations to what it can do. If it is a non-water-based life-form, then there is a vast area of chemistry that has eluded us for centuries. [Smalley 2003a, p. 40].
Water based artifacts may be limited, but this should not limit the concept and testing of the process.

Rachel Ferebee

“This is perhaps the position Drexler wants to be in. Presumably, he sees it as a safe place from which to disarm Smalley’s dilemma…”

At first it seems as though Drexler is will to be on the same level as Smalley, adhering to the same rules and guidelines. However, he then realizes the ‘infeasibility’ of chemical control and backs away. Why doesn’t he instead attempt to find this knowledge of chemistry that has eluded scientists, rather than retreat to a foggy vision of the mechanical sense?

Mike Pennisi

The author employs a terse explanation of the reticulated model, followed by a hasty modification, to eventually claim that "the overall proposal Smalley advocates seems more adequate". Is his assertion of scientific instrumentation as the "fourth level" of fundamental scientific practice valid?

Ishan Gaur

I personally feel that Smalley is a bit too critical of Drexler's visions and tries to analyze everything a bit too scientifically. The difference is that modern day technology will not allow us to reach Drexler's visions in the near future, but eventually, there will be a breakthrough which should open the nanotech floodgates.

Charlie Senness

I think the author is spot on from the very beginning with his title:

The Drexler-Smalley Debate on Nanotechnology: Incommensurability at Work?

I agree that this problem of incommensurability is the main disfunction of the debate in general. With Drexler opperating primarily on a theoretical leval, and refusing to look into the exact details that would make molecular assemblers possible, Smalley might as well give up. Smalley seems to be willing to look into the feasability of the design by establishing potential means of implemenation, however Drexler wants non of that as he is content with just talking about the fact that it might be possible one day. Well yes, you could say that anything might be possible someday, but if there is good reason to believe that it isn't then why continue your efforts. Is it then Drexler who should give up?

Joyce Chow

Drexler continues to juggle between mechanical or chemistry based molecular assemblers but seems to favor the mechanical concept because of his engineering background. Smalley is more focused on the chemistry of the assemblers. Both agree that the necessary instrumentation has not yet been created to carry out either cases. What other things need to be done in order to "settle this debate?" Perhaps both concepts are correct and are two different paths towards developing assemblers.

Adam Neisius

The article analyzed the debate, attempted to convert both sides' arguments into a directly comparable form, and attempted to settle the "debate" by iewing the argument in the comparable form. It seems like it would be of greater overall benefit to not just determine the "winner" from the statements of the figureheads but to analyze the points directly and research further into the validity of each side's points. Why are people not trying to keep both sides honest and dig deeper?

Sarah Kaplan and Joanna Rardin. "Bounding Nanotechnology: Deconstructing the Drexler-Smalley Debate.”

Andrew Starr

"The quotation marks around the words “molecular assemblers” are meant to denote the
provisional and tentative nature of the idea; through their use, Baum is tacitly communicating that part of what is at stake is whether or not those quotation marks will remain in future discussions about nanotechnology." Pg 16.
Does using the quotes marginalize Drexler's viewpoint. Notice in the letter correspondence Smalley uses quotation marks

Molly Danskin

(pg31, 32) The authors point out that the procedures of the magazine influenced what Drexler and Smalley could say, and even quote the editor Baum as saying “We set guidelines, edited responses to C&EN standards.” What sorts of edits were made? How were the language choice/tones of the responses manipulated by the magazine?

Andrew Cunningham

“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that

something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible,

he is very probably wrong”.....I find this interesting that how scientists can consider each others work/ideas highly, but if it goes against their own futurist ideas they totally discredit them.

Alex Lamparski

(pages 7-9) At first it seems surprising that media has such an influence on the outcome of scientific debates, however on second look it makes a lot of sense. If a scientist was not present at the debate they must rely on a second hand account of the debate or even at times a third account. Every person the story travels through (ie: the reporter than the editor than to the reader) provides a chance for the story to be changed to the editors own agenda.

Andrew Krushelnyski

"The debate between Drexler and Smalley had at its center different understandings of nanotechnology. Drexler promoted a more engineering-based view of the potential for molecular manufacturing. Smalley emphasized the chemistry-based opportunities associated with the production of nano-scale materials. Smalley’s core critique of molecular assembly centered around the idea that deliberately placing atoms was not possible because the “fingers” required to do so would be either too “fat” or too “sticky” to work." The idea that almost an engineer and chemist were butting heads about nanotechnolgy. Ironically here at rpi I feel that we are taught to work together, whether it be IED or pdi studio. I just feel that instead of arguing the two cases maybe finding the similarities would be more beneficial and letting it be.

Cynthia Selin. “Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechnology” Science Technology Human Values 2007; 32; 196.

Tracy Breslin

"One cannot just fortify a testament with enough resources to establish credibility. The strength of a claim is bound to how many people take up the claim, use the claim, and are convinced by the claim. (pg 15 (210))." It is hard to take Drexler's side in the debate when his arguments are continually changing or being augmented, it makes you think he doesn't have a clear concept on his goals for nanotechnology.

Heather Lautmanc

First, I thought that it was interesting that she titles the portion of her essay "Science Fiction" which goes on to explain some of Drexler's theories from his works. The next section she talks about how Drexler has been pushed out of the discussion of nanotechnology and how institutions do not even mention him in the development of nanotechnology. Her titling Drexler's work, 'Science Fiction,' seems unfair and helping to legitimize why people should also not site him.

Andrew Nelson

Technologies are not merely tools that are used or applications of science that are discovered, but rather are made through claims and counterclaims and constructed in one way rather than another, which is stabilized in social and material structures. (top of page 199). An interesting quote that I just wanted to talk about.

Grant Kovach

"Again the 'serious' scientists are hampered by the visions of Drexler" I found this statement ridiculous. If scientists were always told that their visions were too far "out there" there would be no new big inventions or discoveries in our world today.

James Johnston

"...the future is a rhetorical role and a symbolic space to work out "what is nanotechnology," but it also serves as a porductive roll that underlines decision making, alliance making, and resource allocation." Page 214-215

The Drexler Vs. Smalley debate has highlighted an important part of science one that shows confliction between hypothetical possibilities and practical current applications, where the practical current science has overidden possibilities of the future (at least in current scientific thought). The outcasting of Drexler's ideas has re-established and solidified the path for traditional science but funding often comes from short term speculation of future advances, ergo the question posed is: As Science and Technology continues to advance or if funding gets sufficiently low, will Drexler's ideas come around full circle and be accepted or completely rallied around?

Christine O'Rourke

"Drexler’s vision was longer term, such that his expectations were not easily taken up by his colleagues yet were embraced by the public." Could one of the reasons Drexler's ideas were not well accepted be that his colleagues because they wanted more of an immediate result from the term nanotechnology. Could it also be said that they were afraid of what Drexler had suggested could become possible with nanotechnology and wanted to reject his ideas so others would not want to do further research into them.

Daniel Schafferput

"If we take Drexler’s vision and look on what happened as a process of fact building, we ask: How was his representation of nanotechnology taken up by others? Why were his representations of the future of nanotechnology embraced or disparaged, and through what mechanisms? To have a claim accepted, one must convince others to take it up and be sure that once they do, the claim is not transformed into a different one." More and more as I read about Drexler's theories and how they are interpreted, I feel that he is like van gogh, a visionary. Its sad to think his ideas may never become accepted within his lifetime, but perhaps he will be looked upon at some point, as being far ahead of his time.

Jason Bernardo

Why does Drexler get put down so quickly by so many scientists when futurists are usually seen as visionaries whose ideas can not yet be fully realized due to a lack in technological advancement? Isn't it also reasonable for him to consider the risks and dangers in the same futuristic way?

Grant Boucher

Kurzweil urges scientists to be ethical in the research threads so that humanity can advance their values through technology. What are ethical practices of technology? Do we follow this today?