Question 1: Tell us about yourself. What is your background, and what projects are you currently involved in?

I’ve been a journalist for several years, covering scientific and medical topics—basically translating geekspeak into English and making complex topics easier to understand for a general audience that isn’t going to read scientific papers, but might be interested in or could benefit from the things contained in those papers. I’ve also done a lot of writing on law enforcement topics for publications serving the trade, usually focusing on tactical and counterterrorist topics. Though I wasn’t thinking this at the time, it really was the ideal preparation for writing a Nano [purchase], which is a nanotech action thriller.

I did a 12,000-word article called Nanosecurity and the Future (if Any) for the April issue of NanoNews Now Monthly Report, which will appear on my website around May 10th. Something happening right now that excites me is a new column I’m doing called Nanoveau. The first column, Nanoveau #001: Digital Matter—Understanding Nanotechnology, covers the basics—what nanotech is, how it began, what it can do. The next, The Sound of Inevitability, explains why nanotech is going to happen and can’t be stopped. I interviewed filmmaker James Cameron for that column—which will include his thoughts on nanotechnology. Future Nanoveau columns will explore the science, the implications, and occasionally the politics of nanotech.

I think it’s a good way to spread the word about nanotech in a way that’s fun and easy to understand for people not already familiar with some of the concepts involved. Future columns will also contain thought-provoking for those already interested in the field. Nanoveau appears simultaneously on http://nanoveau.com, and the Nanotechnology Now website. The first column went live on May 1st. Columns can also be accessed through http://johnrobertmarlow.com. In the interests of getting as many people as possible interested in and learning about nanotech, the Nanoveau column is free and the first column can be reproduced by almost anyone. I’m hoping to have an RSS feed up in time for the second column.

Question 2: How long have you been interested in nanotechnology? How did you first find out about it?

I’ve always been interested in new and pending technologies. Nanotech appeared on my radar quite a while back. I’m not sure where I first saw the term. I am sure the first significant thing I read on the topic was Eric Drexler’s nonfiction book in Engines of Creation [purchase]. After learning about the tech, I remember thinking it would make a fascinating topic to wrap a novel around, because here you have this radical new technology with absolutely staggering potential—and it needs to be presented in an exciting and emotionally involving way in order to get people to connect with the technology.

Question 3: Tell us about your book, NANO.

Well, here’s the short-and-snappy version I memorized when pitching the book to publishers and the screenplay to Hollywood (they like things short and snappy): ‘Nanotechnology promises all things: immortality, invincibility, wealth beyond imagination—and the utter destruction of Mankind. One man has it—and no one knows who...’ The story takes place at the dawn of nanotech, with people of noble and less-than-noble intentions locked in a struggle for control of the emerging technology. Some of the elements present in the novel are nanotech, AI, ECHELON, nonvisible hypersonic strike aircraft, transhumanism, the Cheyenne Mountain complex, and a bit of religious speculation. Rather than being just another tech thriller, Nano is a nanotech-thriller—or nanothriller.

Because nanotechnology is going to affect the lives of everyone on earth, I thought everyone should know about it. I also felt there should be an informed public debate—because the more people we have thinking about this technology, the better off we’ll be when it gets here. Being a writer, I thought the best way to get the word out would be to write a novel that explains nanotechnology and shows people the possibilities—good and bad—in a way that’s fun to read about, exciting, and scary all at the same time. Hopefully, Nano succeeds in doing that.

For those who become interested and want to learn more, the Nano novel sends readers to my website, which contains a nanofaq, links to nanotechnology sites, and other resources, including the Nanoveau column. The whole idea is to get people interested and then provide the means for them to explore the subject in whatever depth they like.

Question 4: Scientists at the recent National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) conference in Washington dismissed the concept of molecular assemblers as unfeasible and unrealistic. In particular, Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley has claimed that molecular assemblers are intrinsically unworkable. Are you surprised or concerned that the mainstream scientific community dismisses the concept of molecular assemblers?

My own impression is that Smalley is embarked upon some kind of crusade the purpose of which is known only to Smalley. That could be the promotion of a particular industrial agenda. It could be a way of yelling “Hey, look over here!” while the military establishment quietly pursues molecular nanotech over there. Or it could be something as simple as fear that public or Congressional concern over the potential downside of molecular nanotech is going to put the squeeze on federal funding for nanotech research—funding which Smalley himself depends upon, or did the last time I checked.

If you look at the published debate between Smalley and Drexler—Point/Counterpoint—Nanotechnology: Drexler and Smalley Make the Case For and Against Molecular Assemblers—you’ll see that the guy doesn’t say anything. Drexler is trying to keep the debate focused on scientific arguments, while Smalley is waving his arms around and tossing out terms like “fat fingers,” “pretend world,” “scared our children,” and “monster.” It’s a spectacle—the Smalley Spectacle, I called it in Nanosecurity and the Future (If Any). Smalley fails to present a shred of scientific evidence to support his position—because there is no position to support.

Am I concerned? You bet—for two reasons. First, he’s impeding real research into molecular nanotechnology and potentially handing the lead in that area to some foreign power, which could turn out to be China. Second, it’s going to catch up with him and, worse, with everyone else. When this happens—when the public learns that it has been the victim of, as Drexler has called it, disinformation—there’s very likely to be a backlash against all things nano. That could be extremely damaging. For those reasons, what he’s doing is, in my opinion, destructive.

Question 5: In NANO, you mention that molecular assemblers could potentially use any number of potential energy sources. But wouldn't a need for a particular energy source provide a natural limit for molecular reproduction? For instance, a molecular assembler that derives power from solar energy would have difficulty functioning at night, on a cloudy day, or in a poorly lit room.

Absolutely. This is why in the Nano novel, the weaponized nanites are programmed to monitor the environment and produce a mix of next-generation nanites slanted toward prevailing conditions. For example, let’s say the swarm is operating in sunlight. Something like eighty percent of the daughter nanites will be optimized to make use of that energy source—but the remainder will be optimized for other sources. Should conditions suddenly change in favor of an alternate energy source, the composition of the swarm changes accordingly, and the next generation of nanites—which appears very, very swiftly—switches to eighty percent something else. The effect on swarm expansion rate is minimal, as most of the expansion takes place at the swarm’s edges anyway. Basically, the swarm adapts itself to prevailing conditions on the fly.

Question 6: Disassembling a macroscale object would require breaking hundreds of quadrillions of molecular bonds. Has anyone done a study to indicate how much energy would be required to break that many molecular bonds? Is it possible that the energy required for disassembling a macro-scale object would be prohibitive for molecular assemblers?

I discussed this with Chris Phoenix of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology recently, and what it boils down is this: In many instances, forming new chemical bonds releases more energy than breaking old ones—-so once you get a series of reactions started, it becomes self-sustaining; you simply use the energy released in the formation of new bonds to break the next set of existing bonds. This is the way things are likely to work, because breaking an object down into individual atoms without letting them bond to something else is not energy-efficient. Also, some materials are very low energy; you might not be able to break down a rock without using an external energy source—which isn’t to say you can’t do it, just that it’s not as easy as it could be. Most organic materials, on the other hand, are fairly high-energy, assuming you have time to gather oxygen to burn.

Some biological processes—ATP synthase, for instance—approach 100% efficiency. Theoretically, mechanosynthesis can also approach 100% efficiency—so I don’t see a problem assembling or disassembling large objects. Chris’ knowledge in this area is quite extensive, and his paper Design of a Primitive Nanofactory deals with some of these issues in detail. Drexler’s book Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation [purchase] also goes into this.

Question 7: On his website, Lyle Burkhead argues that programming nanoassemblers will be a nontrivial task. He argues that

"Making things with atomic positioners will be at least as expensive as making them with biotechnology or bulk technology. There isn't going to be any such thing as "molecular manufacturing," if that expression is construed to mean using atomic positioners to make common objects and materials that can already be made in other ways. Atomic positioners will only be used to make things that could not be made in any other way."

Today, some software packages cost thousands of dollars. Won't the substantial costs of designing and programming these nanobots become a severe obstacle to the development of molecular nanotechnology?

I agree that programming nanoassemblers or disassemblers will be difficult, but we have achieved and continue to achieve progressively more difficult technological feats on a daily basis. It won’t easy, but it’s doable.

I think anyone who says “There isn’t going to be any such thing as…[fill in the blank]” is likely to be proven wrong in time. It’s happened many times to many fine minds—and will continue to happen for as long as people continue to make statements like that. Molecular manufacturing—another term for nanotechnology—will very likely be initially used only to accomplish things which can be accomplished in no other way. As the technology matures, however, costs will plunge and applications will expand—very likely until everything which can possibly be accomplished via nanotech will be, simply because it will be cheaper.

Yes, the first nanobots or nanites, themselves atomic positioning devices, will likely be ruinously expensive to create—but if properly designed, they will be capable of creating duplicates of themselves at near-zero cost. Thus, the initial expenditure will be very rapidly spread across an ever-increasing number of products. In this way, the cost-per-unit will swiftly become negligible. When one considers what each unit will be capable of accomplishing, the cost of development will in the end look like the best deal in the world.

And let’s not forget the containment problem—how do you retain control over something which can make a potentially unlimited number of copies of itself—when each copy is too small to see? True, today’s software companies do spend millions on development, and charge hundreds or thousands of dollars for the end products of that development. Even so—how difficult is it to find a free copy…?

Question 8: NANO deals with the emergence of genuine machine intelligence, essentially concurrent with nanotechnology development. Do you see the development of machine intelligence as a necessary precursor to molecular nanotechnology? Conversely, do you believe that molecular assemblers will be required to create truly sentient machine intelligence? Will a breakthrough in one field necessarily bring about a breakthrough in the other field as well?

I don’t think AI is strictly necessary to nanodevelopment. It would certainly help enormously, but I don’t believe it’s a prerequisite. Feynman was talking about nanotech in 1959—no AI, no protein-folding; purely mechanistic. I’m less certain that MNT—molecular nanotechnology—will be unnecessary to the development of AI. Again, it would at the very least be of tremendous assistance. AI, if it comes first, will certainly be applied to nanodevelopment and could well result in overnight breakthroughs; MNT, should it arrive first, will doubtless speed the creation of AI, though to what extant I don’t think anyone can really say. The two are mutually complementary, synergistic—which is the situation presented in the Nano novel.

To summarize that, I do believe the arrival of high-level AI would lead to MNT, simply by speeding up the development process. I’m not sure we know enough about the requirements of true AI to make a similar statement in that area.

Question 9: Many in the scientific community are excited about the concept of genetic engineering and biochemistry, and believe that true nanotechnology will be protein-based. Given the rapid progress that is being made in protein engineering, couldn't one argue that nanotechnology willinvolve RNA and ribosomes more than molecular bearings?

It’s quite possible, but I think that approach introduces variables—such as mutation—you really don’t want to be dealing with when developing a technology with such extreme capabilities. This is something that’s touched on in the Nano novel. Drexler has pointed out another problem with this approach in Engines of Creation: “Protein machines quit when dried, freeze when chilled, and cook when heated.” None of this is good.

Question 10: Tell us about your idea of superswarms. How feasible is this concept?

The Superswarm Option was first presented as a nonfiction appendix to the Nano novel. It picks up on Drexler’s idea of active shields—“a defensive system with built-in constraints to limit or prevent its offensive use,” as he explained the concept in Engines of Creation—and applies it to nanotechnology. The most obvious problem with a rogue nanoswarm—a group of out-of-control, microscopic nanodevices which destroy everything in their path to make more copies of themselves—is that, once the swarm reaches a critical threshold, it has the capability to expand faster than anything you can use to stop it. Once the swarm's expansion rate passes point x, it can't be stopped by any means.

Worse, your chances of getting a countermeasure on-target before point x is reached are, to put it mildly, not good. Unless you’re willing and able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the target area within minutes of the time the nanoevent begins, the result may be the destruction of the all living things in a matter of hours or days. The math behind this is presented in Robert A. Freitas, Jr.’s paper Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations. The bulk of the paper deals with much slower nanoswarms, but replication rates yielding 100% biospheric destruction in something less than 72 hours are mentioned with a recommendation for further study. As Chris Phoenix of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology has pointed out, humanity would be doomed by the time the biosphere was 2% destroyed—so we wouldn’t actually be around for the third-day finale.

What it boils down to is this: once a rogue swarm gets a running start, you can’t beat it—unless your countermeasure is already there when the event begins. The superswarm is a proposed way of doing this: an invisible carpet of nanites which would cover the entire earth. The superswarm’s only purpose would be to detect dangerous events like out-of-control nanoswarms—and destroy them immediately. Because the superswarm is everywhere at once, has superior numbers, and attacks any rogue swarm immediately from all directions—it is impossible to defeat. No rogue swarm can survive it.

The downside, of course, is that if the superswarm itself should somehow go rogue, we’ll all disappear in seconds. I’ve proposed a series of safeguards, and welcome additional suggestions and alternative solutions. Is the benefit worth the risk in the end? I don’t know; it’s just a proposal I’m floating for further discussion. The entire superswarm paper can be found on my website at http://johnrobertmarlow.com/sa__superswarm.html, which also links to a recent Nanotechnology Now interview on the topic.

Question 11: In NANO, the emergence of molecular nanotechnology becomes pervasive within days. When do you anticipate molecular assemblers arriving? How long do you think it will take for full-blown nanotechnology to become dominant?

Excellent question. I’ve heard estimates from NASA personnel ranging from 5 years to 50. The truth is that no one really knows because it depends on too many factors. Right now the funding apparatus in the U.S. has been largely co-opted by interests with little or no intention of pursuing molecular assemblers. Unfortunately, what that means in the real world is that someone else may well develop them first. The irony of this is that once that happens, the party will be over for those who tried to obstruct that path in the name of short-term profits.

On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine the U.S. military looking at this technology and not taking the assembler/disassembler path. It’s like the early forties all over again; if they don’t do it, someone else will, and we’ll wind up at that someone else’s mercy—assuming mercy is a quality they possess. So perhaps the U.S. military has its own NanoManhattan Project going somewhere, and is keeping its mouth shut about it. Who can say? If so, that doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll see nonmilitary benefits anytime soon.

Then you have the wildcard factor—some eccentric trillionaire who tires of waiting for Breakthrough and decides to fund an all-out effort himself, like Mitchell Swain in Nano.

How long it takes from Breakthrough to pervasiveness also depends on many factors. It could take years or decades, or it could happen literally overnight—particularly if AI is involved in the development process.

Question 12: What are your plans for the future?

I’m working on a few books and screenplays, a couple of articles. Right now I’m focused on getting the word out about the Nano novel and the Nanoveau column. Crucial decisions are being made about nanotech and how we’re going to pursue it while the majority of the population still has no clear concept of what the tech is or what it can do. I think that needs to change very quickly, for two reasons: so that more people will become involved in promoting the technology, and so the opinions of those people will provide a broader base for the decisions which need to be made if we’re going to come anywhere close to safely realizing nanotech’s fullest potential. By making the technology both exciting and understandable, I think both the Nano novel and the Nanoveau column can help with this.